User talk:Yankees10/Archive 8

Mark Murphy articles
In reverting my moves you stated "This is what has been agreed to". Please provide me a link to the discussion where this naming convention was agreed upon so that I can provide my input. Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @  23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've personally never seen articles named this way. Can you provide some examples of other football player articles named this way?  My concern is two-part: the article titles are not generally recognizable and they are ambiguous.  This goes against the naming conventions for people.  The only difference between the 2 articles are the dates, which are very close (1955 vs 1958).  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  23:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I guess I missed some things over this past year.  My apologies for the moves.  Thank you for your understanding in this matter.  Cheers!  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Seattle Mariners Hall of Fame
The reason I said "Member of" was the same reason you don't just put "Gold Glove Award" in the infobox, you put "Gold Glove Award winner." It describes what the player has to do with the Hall of Fame. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well no, it's a title but whatever. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly didn't mean any "attitude." Sorry if it came across that way. I was just dropping it. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Yankees10! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 13 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:


 * 1) Ryan Jensen (fighter) -
 * 2) Matt Shaughnessy -
 * 3) Jorge Diaz -
 * 4) Todd Perry (American football) -
 * 5) Gary Plummer (American football) -
 * 6) Lee Williams (American football) -
 * 7) Keenan Lewis -
 * 8) Carl Allen (American football) -
 * 9) Waverly Jackson -
 * 10) DeAndre Levy -

11. Brice McCain 12. DeAngelo Willingham 13. Jesús Guzmán

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Martínez
The infobox template states "the position primarily played by the player," that being DH. Mention in the article should, and is provided, but the infobox should be the position he played the most. 1412 games is a lot more than 563 games. I would call that a "primary position." --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is, the article mentions that. Martínez injured himself in '93 and spent the rest of his career as a DH. Most of his career was spent as a DH. He played that three times as much as he played third base. I'm not going to sit here and argue, but he third baseman isn't worthy a mention in the infobox because he was a career DH. Listing it confuses people. Though he played some time there it's not notable in the infobox. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You just like to argue. 563 games compared to 1412 is in no way notable. It is worthy of mention, and it does, but whatever. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, same for me. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rickey
I don't understand this edit. Why was the image removed? It looks like the image came from Commons, and ultimately from here; this seems like a legitimate photo that "anyone can use". What's wrong here?

Frankly I've never liked the mets coaching image. There must be a free alternative here or somewhere else. Timneu22 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Wolfgang Petersen‎
Thanks for your message. There has been a discussion on the talk page and at WP:FILM and consensus seems to be to include the television films. There are articles for some of these, so at least those with an article should be included, but then it would be awkward to randomly exclude those television films which do not yet have an article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel&#39;s Demons (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I brought up a debate concerning Jerry Grote and the Colt 45s at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. I figured you might care.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack Clark (baseball) image
Hey, I noticed where you kept removing the image from Jack Clark (baseball) several months back. Why was that? Did you find it on the internet somewhere? I was a bit suspicious of some of the uploader's images myself but could not find a definite violation. Wknight94 talk  16:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it's fine. All the images - young and old - from that uploader are from St. Louis.  It seems to add up.   Wknight94  talk  16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomar Garciaparra
Why are you deleting true information in Nomar Garciaparra? Woogee (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not start a discussion on the Talk page? Woogee (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TBH
Thanks for coming out of the bullpen on TBH disambi.... > Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Joe Torre
Wouldn't you consider the 1971 batting crown and MVP as two separate awards? It's my impression that the home run title and the batting title are the two main offensive categories that baseball fans follow. Not a major point of contention on my part, as I notice home run crowns aren't listed in info boxes. I was just wondering.Orsoni (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Gordon
Just wondering if you had a source that said that Gordon retired? KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Melancon
Note that your continued removal of the {:refimprove} tag from this article about a living person while not providing sources for the many many many currently unsourced claims and statements is disruptive behavior; and continuing in such a manner can lead to your account being blocked or banned. MM207.69.137.43 (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Mathews
Hello. I have never edited before on Wikipedia and was just trying to add some interesting information about Ryan. I thought I did everything correct and backed it up with a source. Please let me know if I did something in an incorrect way because I would like to help contribute to other pages as well and don't know what I did wrong. Thanks, Craig Cdub21 (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The source was correct. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page and look under "high school," it states he led California and the nation in rushing as a senior. Take a look. [] However, I found an even better source that I will use when I change his page back. Cdub21 (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes
Sorry, I rolled it back, made undone before I realized it was a talk page, my bad  Mlpearc   MESSAGE  16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:Rex Grossman
I appreciate your efforts and understand that your actions are aimed towards improving the NFL articles on this encyclopedia. However, I feel that there is no need for all of them to look exactly alike, especially with something that comes down to a creative difference pertaining to the lead paragraph of a section. I cited those articles because they were all Good Articles, meaning they represent some of the better articles on this encyclopedia - the later two articles were even part of the NFL project. The Grossman article was structured after the Brett Favre and Peyton Manning articles - all three of which have GA-status. I have only seen Chris, Giants27 and Eagles enforce standards on NFL articles pertaining to rosters speculation, MOS stuff, and infobox detail - especially since the latter two have  to be (and pretty much are) uniform.

Furthermore, I would like to add that there is no official documentation pertaining to shortening lead paragraphs on the NFL Project page, unlike how the template for the NFL infobox gives a clear documentation for its proper implementation. If you wish to continue this conversation elsewhere, please do so at the Rex Grossman or NFL Project's discussion page so we can get a larger input. Thank you for your time. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

MLB team categories
Yeah when they make an appearance. – Michael (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any new boys I missed yesterday who made their debut for their team? – Michael (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that!
Regarding the Steve Carlton article. Huggle bug. --Tommy (msg) 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for twice reverting the vandalism on my userpage.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

College links
Where, when and by whom was decided whether we link schools or football programs in players' infoboxes? --bender235 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Its done with every NFL player. Ask User:Giants27 or User:Eagles247 if you dont believe me--Yankees10 16:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So is this a god-given rule or what? Who decided that we link this way? —bender235 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont know. I do it this way because they do it this way.--Yankees10 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then do it where you want but don't change it on other articles, please. --bender235 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What? I dont even know what the hell that even means. If I do it on one i'm going to do it on every one.--Yankees10 17:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was refering to a Wikipedia rule called "stability of articles", that says: "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Therefore, please leave existing links to schools untouched. --bender235 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who exactly made you the "major contributor".--Yankees10 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On Russell Okung? Check the article history (e.g. my first series of edits). --bender235 (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So pretty much that means that you own the article. Nice.--Yankees10 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, just refered to the rule above. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah which means you own the article because you happen to edit more.--Yankees10 20:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever. --bender235 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to get the record straight, my main interest was to find out whether we link schools or football programs. I would actually be fine with either one, but it should be consistent in all NFL bio articles. --bender235 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well me, Giants27 and Eagles247 use the footbal program as the link.--Yankees10 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion on linking is that editor should try to anticipate what information the user is likely to be interested in learning in following the link. In the example of NFL infoboxes, I would suggest that the user is more likely to be interested in the player's college football career than his academic career, and thus I would choose to link to the page related to the school's football program (or even the page covering his last year in that program, if such a page exists) rather than to the university's main page.  The other advantage of this approach is that if the editor anticipates incorrectly and the user was actually looking for the institution's page, a link to that page generally is available in an easily discovered location very near the top of the football program or season article &mdash; in the counter-example, a link to the school's football program or season page is generally not found on the institution's main page and it may take another link or two to uncover the more specific information.  Because of this, I feel that the most specific link available is generally the best to use.  (See also Linking.) The easiest and most consistent way to generate the desired link in the given example for college football pages is by using Cfb link. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing my deletion
If you disagree, you are supposed to tag it with a 'hangon' at the top. You are not allowed to remove my deletion yourself. If you are adding to your article you give the reason with your 'hangon' notice. Thanks. Blindeffigy (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Intro information
Stop deleting sourced material from introductions. The CFPA program is endorsed by both political parties, and has over 1,000 articles written by D-I universities. Your censorship is not appropriate for the wikipedia readership. — [ Unsigned comment added by Obamafan70 (talk • contribs).]

Frivolous reversions
Think you know what I mean, since you repeatedly indulge in this mechanism when it comes to my edits on baseball topics. Do you recall the reversion based on the reasoning that 'it looks dumb'? Who appointed you supreme arbiter of taste here? Hushpuckena (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg Carr (American football)
I've declined your request for speedy deletion of this article. You used the G7 template, which indicates that you want the page deleted because you are the author of its contents. This doesn't work here because other editors (and anon IPs) have added material to the article, so their edits would also be deleted. G7 works only when it is your edits and no one elses' that are being deleted. If you still wish to have the article deleted, you'll need to nominate it at Articles for Deletion, since I do not see any Speedy Deletion criteria that would fit the article as it stands. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion
You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Input on 2010 NFL draft
You recently asked me a question on whether the recent changes wherein I consolidated the 2010 NFL Draft list into a single sortable table was going to be extended to all of the past draft lists. That is indeed the intention, but now some questions have been raised about the usability of the new format.

I'm not sure if you were asking in the interest of maintaining year-to-year consistency in the look and functionality of the draft articles or whether you felt that the new format delivered advantages over the old multi-table layout. Either way, it's apparent that you have a stake in this article, so I'd like to direct you to the discussion on the changes so that you can weigh in. Thanks! &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Carr
This guy's much more notable than Wiley. Being a 3rd-team All-American sounds pretty notable.. plus he's in the top 5 all time in certain categories at a major football powerhouse... Plus he's tied an ACC record. He was one of the final cuts for the Chargers- meaning he wasn't just some random guy who got cut in June or July. RF23 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
Please refrain from edit warring and stalking my edits or you will be blocked. Thank you!--NWA.Rep (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually there was a big controversy around the "retired" userbox. That's why we combined the userboxes. The 1 year thing is totally false. There was no consensus. Some people were pushing for 3 years or 5 years or whenever it is apparent that the career is over without a reasonable doubt. However, the categorization of "former" is inconsistent. Jermaine Dye, Wily Mo Pena, Jarrod Washburn, John Smoltz, Pedro Martinez haven't played all year, but they don't get the "former" tag or the last appearance date on their pages. Geoff Jenkins hasn't played since 2008 and he is considered active as well. There seems to be double standard in its enforcement.--NWA.Rep (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Geoff Jenkins hasn't played since 2008, yet his page doesn't show a "final appearance" date. Jim Edmonds and Mark Grudielanek all made comebacks. Wily Mo Pena got DFA-ed in 2008. There's gotta be consistency.--NWA.Rep (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So no one has edited the Geoff Jenkins page. Grudzielanek and Edmonds are not in there late 40's when they came back.--Yankees10 21:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your own speculation on each player's chance of coming back doesn't matter. There has to be consistency and a concrete policy.--NWA.Rep (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right there should be consistancy and that should be that after a year of being inactive the changes to the article and infobox should reflect that they are retired. It can always be changed back.--Yankees10 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stubbing
You seem like you might be someone to assist in stubbing out articles. Are you interested? I have delinked the AAA guys from the 1991 A-A team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FLC
Would you be interested in a co-nomination relationship where I create all the 1991-2009 College Baseball All-America Team pages and you stub out all the redlinks on the pages. I am participating in WP:CUP and this would allow me to nominate twice as many.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to commit to the 6 redlinks for 1991 and 1992 for now as a co-nom?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your note on my talk page
Read my response. RevanFan (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the jerk thing. I took your question a different way. I now know you didn't mean anything by it. RevanFan (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

John Mayberry
Any particular reason why you de-linked the debut teams on the above article? &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the link. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  18:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mike Leake
I don't understand why you feel the need to edit out correct information on the Mike Leake page. Could you explain why you think it's necessary?Jaguarswin09 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Manny Machado
A tag has been placed on Manny Machado requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --moreno oso (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Brady Anderson
Fine, report me. I'll report you, too... Because I never said that I didn't want to discuss this. We can discuss it.

But for right now... let's just keep the page the way it has been for the last five months. Sound fair to you? Good.

- PM800 (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not done anything wrong, either. Learn how to count. - PM800 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I quote:


 * The three-revert rule ("3RR") states:




 * "More than three reverts." That's interesting. Besides learning how to count, you should also learn how to read.


 * - PM800 (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yankees10, you need to retake first grade English and arithmetic. Maybe then, I'll start to take you seriously. -PM800 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You will also be reported for using profanity on my talk page. -PM800 (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

- PM800 (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fryman article
What seems to be the problem with having the info I put in the infobox? Is there some rule that I'm not aware of? I've not added false or uncited info. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sam Demel
Wow, I wrote a whole article about this guy, only to get an edit conflict upon trying to save it, and seeing that you had written one that was almost exactly the same as mine! Very strange. In any case, I'll add in what I can. Glass  Cobra  02:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No
No--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It made no sense because before redirecting it, you should have copied and pasted the article there. You lack common sense.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: both of you cut it out with the personal attacks before I have to start enforcing it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Shantz
You took out Bobby Shantz's participation on World Series teams. I referenced that he was on the teams from baseball reference.com so unless we find that he wasn't credited with a ring from a reliable source, I think it needs to stay in. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we though? After all, if a player is on a team for enough games he still gets credited with a ring. Nomar Garciaparra got his with the Red Sox in 2004 despite being traded mid-season. Xavier Nady and Chien-Ming Wang got theirs with the Yankees in 2009 despite not playing many games (none in Nady's case). 161.185.151.150 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)