User talk:Tecmobowl

Archives

Pre-10.06 10.06-12.06

Please be careful when reverting

Hi, you made changes to Babe Ruth and cited legitimate concerns (which I will discuss later when I get a chance), but a few of your edits I just don't understand. Why break the link to Loss (baseball)? Why did you change Ruth's induction year to 1935 from the correct year of 1936? Why remove my citations for Ruth's accolades? I understand if you disagree about how information is presented, but it doesn't help anyone to make blanket reverts that reintroduce many of the past errors. Please return these to their corrected versions if you agree with me. Also, in your edit summary, you say 'i would suggest adjusting the information, not the info'. Can you explain what this means? Thanks, - Mattingly23 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse of the black sox

Hello, you added a {{db-blanked}} template to Curse of the black sox. When I check the history, it was created by Amchow78 (talk • contribs). Are you sure that was the right template because it doesn't seem like it. Please check. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy Koufax

I noticed you added the {{Not verified}} tag to the Sandy Koufax article. I don't necessarily disagree with you, and in fact I haven't read the whole article, but I'm disturbed by a featured article having that tag. If you think it's only in a few spots you might want just user {{fact}} instead (although you can always add that to specific spots anyway). If you think it's a large portion of the article you might want to list it on Wikipedia:Featured article review so the issue can be addressed and if not addressed, the article can have its featured status removed. Vicarious 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Koufax Card -- Reply

Hi; belongs to a friend and so I will have to ask her to scan it and give me the pic. :-) Thanks for your interest tho; I know she'll be grateful as well. Rivka 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ken griffey rookie.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ken griffey rookie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit(s) to List of social networking websites

Your addition to List of social networking websites has been reverted. In the future, please only place entries there that are internal links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or things that are not social networking sites will be removed. Please see WP:WEB for information on notability for websites on Wikipedia; Wakoopa was launched May 2 2007 and is not yet notable. If you have questions, use the talk page. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Jim Morrison

Hello Tecmobowl. I have reverted your recent edits to Jim Morrison. You seem to believe that "being encyclopedic" means reading like a police report. And you also have deleted valuable information about the early years of JM - which could be seen as a form of "soft vandalism". These issues have been adressed in the talk page of the article (see section "Style and tone"). Please discuss any future changes of this nature (ie arbitrarily removing text that you deem "non encyclopedic") on the talk page first. Thanks. - Fils du Soleil 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That article is a mess...if you want the statements to stay, then cite sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a literary document. The fact that it reads "like a police report" is irrelevant. Tecmobowl 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your answer here for clarity of reading. For the rest of the discussion, see the article talk page. Please do not make further changes of this nature before a consensus is reached. Thanks. - Fils du Soleil 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fils--I have just run into the same problem wiht Tecmobowl making changes without discussion in the face of contrary opinion. Despite attempts to have him desist and discuss on a talk page. See [1]--Epeefleche 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit(s) to List of social networking websites

Your addition to List of social networking websites has been reverted. In the future, please only place entries there that are internal links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or things that are not social networking sites will be removed. Please see WP:WEB for information on notability for websites on Wikipedia; As previously stated above, Wakoopa was launched May 2 2007 and is not yet notable. Please do not re-add the site until it becomes notable. The talk page is a better place to ask questions, rather than an edit summary. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your revert of the above and your comment in the edit summary, "see (what post) on (what) discussion page"? There's nothing in the discussion page for the article, nor the list, nor this user talk page - where is it? Until you enter proper discussion on the matter, I will return the list to its correct state. Any further reverting may be taken to admin intervention. Thanks. Please disregard the above as you have now entered into discussion about Wakoopa. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chief yellow horse.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chief yellow horse.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked an admin...

...to look into this ongoing debate we seem to be having. My greatest beef with your editing at the moment is the reversion of the Ty Cobb stats back to those of the researchers, which are both inconsistent with each other and with the official MLB stats. To pretend that one research group's stats are the "correct" stats is blatant POV-pushing, which you claim to be opposed to. Baseball Bugs 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to your inconsistencies on POV issues, I have also reported your blind deletions of trivia sections on many articles, which is not what WP:TRIVIA says to do; and your deletion of fair comments from your talk page, which is also against the rules. Baseball Bugs 13:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA

Hello Tecmobowl. I see you are having a dispute with another user over content. Using article talk pages and your own talk page is a good way to build consensus. Shutting down communications or simply reverting edits that you don't like will not help to build good articles in the long run. Check out this page for more info.

As far as the policy regarding trivia please not that the policy states that trivia sections do not need to be deleted on sight (unless they contain speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts", or libel) but need to be incorporated into the article. If you are unwilling to do that please place a {{trivia}} tag at the appropriate place in the article. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Cheers. -- No Guru 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the reply. I would just really encourage you to read the policy links above and to make sure that you fully understand that trivia sections do not need to be deleted on sight (unless they contain speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts", or libel) -- No Guru 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which specific version of Ty Cobb did you revert back to?

That info will make it easier to restore just the stats that you deleted and hopefully leave your own edits intact. Baseball Bugs 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind, I've tried to fix it as per your recommendations. Baseball Bugs 05:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer watching any article that you've touched. You win. Go get yourself a brew in downtown Normal somewhere. Baseball Bugs 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of urls with unique information/edit warring

I asked you politely not to edit war after you removed a url with unique information from the Sandy Koufax external links section. See [2]. Instead, you continued to RV.

I asked you to move discussion of the issue to the talk page, instead of RVing and edit warring. Instead, you have now RV'd that page [3].

In addition, you responded not by talking on a talk page as I had suggested, buty by going to a number of additional pages that I had edited, in short order, deleting urls that similarly have unique information, such as ESPN, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library, from the external links. See diffs at John Grabow, Jason Marquis, andBrad Ausmus. And even as I have been writing this I see that you have made similar innapropriate deletions to Moe Berg, Bo Belinsky, José Bautista, Morrie Arnovich, Cal Abrams, Ben Zeskind, Josh Appell, Ryan Braun, John Grabow, Sam Fuld, Brian Horwitz, and Aaron Rifkin so far.

You have done this in short order, suggesting that you are going into my history page to delete urls on changes that I have worked on.

I must ask you again to desist. Kindly RV the changes you made yourself. Both to the Koufax article and the other articles. Then, as I suggested before, explain your position here. I have indicated that the url that started this has unique data -- that is clear from looking at it. You have clearly not looked at it, but instead looked at what articles interest me and without discussion made the same innapropriate changes. I am dismayed. I would appreciate it if you would right the matter.

If need be, let's bring in a third party to look at this. I think that your approach -- edit warring, not agreeing to my suggestion to discuss on the talk page, looking at my history to make the same mistaken changes on other articles -- is highly disruptive and innapropriate.

Thanks.--Epeefleche 08:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website. There is a bit of an excess of ELs at Sandy Koufax, so I have removed some unnecessary links. Also, don't edit war; please discuss on the talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I asumed good faith and, before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to fee if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique. I also ask you to stop. Wikipedia's not a link farm, but it is somewhere where people go to also look for information from other sites.--Wizardman 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl, I removed some of the links not to engage in the edit war, but to see if the current version would act as a compromise between you and Epeefleche. Also, the links I removed were not similar to others at the article, so I removed those. I don't believe they were really necessary for the section. As I said, I only made the changes to see if there can be a consensus on the current version. You removed the ELs, and continued to do so despite attempts at discussion by Epeefleche. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have centralized this and related discussion by moving it to [4].

Please leave the above existing discussion here, however.--Epeefleche 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I wanted to discuss an issue that you raised, but as it is a point of procedure and there is enough writing going on on the above page, I thought we might chat about it here.

You assserted as follows: "As a follow up, my talk page is NOT the place to discuss this matter. This is certainly an acceptable venue. The issue is not about me, it is about the content. People who want to know about this will see it here. // Tecmobowl 08:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)" Can you point me to support in Wiki policy in that regard? To facilitate discussion, I did move discussion elsewhere, as a courtesy, but I would be interested in seeing your support for that view.

First, I would like to see the Wiki rule. Second, while I don't know that this is necessary, for me to discuss the issue on your talk page, in fact the above discussion is in large part about your behavior.

Thanks much.--Epeefleche 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

I just hope we can get the discussion oriented more toward building consensus. It's much more difficult to do than I would have thought before becoming actively involved in WP. --Sanfranman59 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on Ty Cobb page

Hey - I think there's some confusion about NPOV. Take a look under the A simple forumation section of the WP:NPOV page, and I think you'll see that the following statement fits the NPOV policy perfectly.

Cobb is widely considered one of the greatest players ever.

Thanks! Guanxi 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the feelings of the editors should not be part of the article, but Cobb's status as one of the greatest ever is not feelings of the editors, but something on which almost every baseball historian and fan agrees; it's the primary reason for his notability, and thus important to tell a reader learning about Cobb for the first time. You say, There are a number of people who think Cobb is one of the greatest players, there are a number that don't. Do you really dispute that, Cobb is widely considered one of the greatest players ever.? In 25+ years of being a baseball geek, reading pretty widely, I don't recall anyone seriously suggesting otherwise. The HoF and other stats won't mean much to someone who isn't a baseball fan -- if you have another way to say it in plain English, I'm all for it. Guanxi 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Cobb is widely considered one of the greatest players ever" is an absolutely true and verifiable statement. As noted in The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, and countless times prior, Ruth displaced Cobb as the guy who was considered the greatest player in the game. Baseball Bugs 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the above, I'm going to restore the statement. If you want to change it, please improve it in a way that addresses everyone's concerns and I doubt you'll have any objections. Thanks. Guanxi 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• That statement is NOT true. I'm not going to let that piece of information remain nor am i going to engage BaseballBugs in a conversation about it. Conversations with him are futile. Stick to the facts, let a person make their own interpretations. I believe personally that Cobb is the greatest player of the deadball era. That being said, it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. //Tecmobowl 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• You say "there are a number who don't think Cobb is one of the greatest players". Who? Name a few. Or one, even. Baseball Bugs 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to continue this discussion to the Cobb talk page, where it belongs. Guanxi 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more thoughts

I know at the hockey project that I am a member of, we have a list of articles we have created in the last month or so. So as someone writes a basic stub, someone else will come along and add to it. However, this list only stays around for a month or two. If there were a list of articles that need improvement (probably best to break it down at the project of each sport instead of sports in general), then others can add to articles on that list. As an article gets better, it can come off the list. It could still be a good stub at that point, but at least it has been expanded. The only problem with this is some people who are unaware of the project won't add their articles to the list. But eventually someone on the project will see it and add it.

The other suggestion is to sub-categorize the expand command. Right now, it is broken down by date someone wanted the article expanded. It might be possible to direct those to the appropriate sport. I wouldn't know where to even start with this idea. Let me know your thoughts. Patken4 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced confessions

So, you're wanting a chapter-and-verse citation from Eight Men Out about the lost confessions, in the Shoeless Joe article, but you're letting the exact same comment stand uncited in the Black Sox page??? Baseball Bugs 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On both articles, I have now pointed out that it's discussed on p.257 of Eight Men Out. Baseball Bugs 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Stenberg

Information about him is definitely not easy to come by. He's referenced in several articles on the site already, so you might be able to get something from there. EXPN bio looks like it hasn't been updated since 2002, but there's some stuff there. There's also an AOL Video thing about him. Otherwise, all I see around is just the occasional race summaries and discussion forums, which is I'm sure what you've seen as well. His not having his own website is terribly inconvenient, isn't it? matt91486 05:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This and this could also be some useful. matt91486 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

CJ

No, thank you – that article desperately needed detrivialization. Cleduc 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On June 4, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chief Yellow Horse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Tecmobowl for the great article, kindly nominated by Bbik. Do feel free to self-nom in future. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)