User talk:Baseball Bugs/Snapshot100130

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = => CAUTION: This page may contain SATIRE posing as data. <= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Your proposition may be good But let's have one thing understood Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it or condensed it I'm against it! --Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers

Ark-Hives

User talk:Wahkeenah User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive001 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive002 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive003 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive004 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive005 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive006 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive007 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive008 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive009 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive010 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive011 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive012

Infaliable

Now, I don't want to get a swelled head er nothin', but I have been declared "Infaliable" by an admirer: [1]

Why, ain't that the very kind of folks we want for admisistrators—the infaliable kind? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Transients welcome

File:CarryNation.jpeg

Our Complaints Department eagerly awaits your input.

IMPORTANT NOTICE to would-be harassers

An admin has stated the following for the record:

"Wikipedia doesn't need any new volunteers for the job of harassing User:Baseball Bugs at this time." [2]

But if anything turns up, we'll get back to you. 0:)

Excuse me

Don't remove cited summaries from the Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9) page. Thanks. Oh and don't put false information on other people's page either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandnewfanx (talk • contribs) 06:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this (hey, it's kind of boring in town right now). It looks like Baseball Bugs' removal of the poorly sourced material was mostly within reason and in accordance with the state of consensus on the talk page. However, the one plot summary Brandnewfanx just restored is well sourced, so restoring it was reasonable. The unregistered (IP) editor who just restored the information before Baseball Bugs deleted it was just blocked for one week for vandalism. I can't tell what you're talking about regarding "false information" but please assume good faith here. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That unregistered person removed that Marc Minardi was engaged, which he is NOT engaged. Baseball Bugs restored it and there is no source that he is engaged, so that's adding unsourced information. User talk:Brandnewfanx 07:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Brandnewfanx, before you start running around chastising experienced editors, it might be best if you learned proper procedure yourself first. With 5 warnings in less than 100 edits, I'm not sure you're quite in a position to be lecturing others. Perhaps a first step might be to learn how to sign your signature. You simply type the 4 tilde characters " ~~~~ " at the end of your post. A full explanation can be found at WP:SIG. I wish you the best, and please do try to find a way to work in a collaborative manner in the future. Thank you — Ched :  ?  07:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet much? Also I was correcting so chill and stop stalking my wiki loser. (honestly does anyone on this site have a life? they're constantly on it 24/7 erasing and reverting edits within seconds after they're edited) If I can't correct someone for my warnings, than he can't either considering he is a vandal himself. User talk:Brandnewfanx 08:15, 5 September 2009

Much to learn, you still have; my young padawan. The path you seek, is not filled with light. — Ched :  ?  08:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Powerful you have become, the dark side I sense in you. Wikidemon (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the assumption that since the IP's recent edits were vandalism, that all of them were vandalism. If I was wrong, feel free to revert my reversions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really up for going through it all myself. I was simply attempting to offer some advice to our young friend in his approach. Unfortunately, he chose not to take it. I'm not sure if it was the "Sock puppet", the "wiki loser", the "vandal" comments, or the BB >> AIV report - but at this point he's on the outside looking in. Not by my hand mind you, but the force has many 'masters' who frown on such behavior. It's not really a subject that I'm all that familiar with, so I'll leave the article details to those more educated in such matters. Sorry for the disruption to your talk page Bugs, Cheers and best ;) — Ched :  ?  11:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I took the IP to AIV and then went through his "contrib" list and reverted 2 or 3 things. I can put them back if his newly-registered user (technically a sock account) hasn't already done so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I see that the sock is now blocked also. Whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we work on making articles better. I'm not going to lose sleep over folks that can't communicate in a respectful manner. You can look at my logs Bugs, you can see after 2 months of having the ability, I've only used the "block" thingie 6, maybe 10 times. I try to help folks, and when someone gets snotty with established editors, I try to redirect them in more positive directions. All we can do is lead by example, and try to show these kids the best way to approach things. We're not here to babysit, we just try to help those that are interested in learning. I don't always agree with you, but I know that I can always come to you and ask for advice. You've always been willing to help me, and to share your experience with me - and I appreciate that. Onward and upward buddy! ;) — Ched :  ?  13:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, as always. I might be off base concluding it's a sock, but the behavior is similar. I left a message on the blocking admin's page about this little fiasco. Some users come in with guns blazing, and they usually get shot down. A somewhat more sophisticated approach to interaction is required. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello Baseball Bugs. I have a question to ask of you. According to Spring (season), Spring is September to November in the Southern Hemisphere, which is fine (I think), but then it says that it is March to June in the Northen Hemisphere. I disagree because that would make Spring four months and summer only two months. I am prepred to change the months from March to June to March to May, but I just thought I would get a second opinion first. Your thoughts? Thanks.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 09:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Yes, I knew that all along. I knew that June was a summer month. I just wanted to be sure that I wasn't missing something before went ahead and fixed it. Thanks for your co-operation.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 09:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it with that guy?

The one who has the obsession with homeless people being killers? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

Could I ask why you removed the sourced edits that I made to the page titled "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor"? Thanks. 70.50.195.156 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it looked like vandalism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to have a big section for Nixon.

You know, Water(melon)gate and all... HalfShadow 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would maybe represent Tricky Dicky with a king piece, as he resigned before he was check(ers)mated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hola

Hi Bugs, got another question you might enjoy. Staxringold and I are working on this old pic of the Boston Red Sox. By player trades it's been dated as 1915-1917. Any chance that uniform changes or other verifiable details could nail it down to a specific year? Durova³¹² 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wikicommons file, it's 1915. HalfShadow 00:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the photo's title, but the description says 1915-1917 and indicates it came from this same LoC source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just from the photo, 1915-1917 is the best I can do.

Babe Ruth 1915-1919 [3]

Ernie Shore 1914-1917 [4]

Rube Foster (AL pitcher) (not to be confused with the Rube Foster) 1913-1917 [5]

Del Gainer 1914-1917,1919 [6]

To get all four of them in Sox uniforms requires that the photo be during 1915-1917. The uniforms are a plain (red) block "RED SOX" on a lightly pin-striped shirt with a wide (red) stripe on the socks. Unfortunately, that was the style of the Sox road uniforms for all three of those seasons, in fact for most of the 1910s, as per Okkonen's book, so I can't get any closer to the date than the LoC can. Nor can I tell what ballpark it's in, not that that would really help as all the ballparks were concrete by 1915.

What I find most interesting is that three of them are watching the field, whereas Shore is eyeing (if not glaring at) the camera. He later became a sheriff in North Carolina. Being a good law enforcement officer means keeping your eyes on the suspect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This photo File:George Rube Foster.jpg or LoC [7] shows Foster warming up front of a dugout that looks a lot like the one in the photo in question. This one is labeled 1916. The photographer (G.G. Bain) is the same guy, the dugout looks very similar, and the numbers etched on the upper right of each photo are just a couple different in sequence, but I don't know what scheme they were using so I don't know if it proves anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One is tempted to think this could be from the 1916 World Series and that this would be Ebbets Field, but I don't think it quite matches. It suggests more like the old League Park in Cleveland, although it could also be Griffith Stadium in D.C., which would make more sense for that collection to end up in the LoC. Maybe someone could see what city that Bain guy worked out of. For example, Conlon's photos, including the famous Ty Cobb sliding into third, were mostly all taken in New York. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

George Grantham Bain was based in New York, so maybe it is Ebbets Field, although it doesn't seem correct, because the upper deck sat up much higher, with open structural work. It's certainly not the Polo Grounds, the home of both the Giants and the Yankees at the time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Staxringold had already confirmed the 1915-1917 window per signings and trades. Was wondering whether it's possible to narrow down a bit more by uniform changes or something like that. If any of the editors here can provide referenced/confirmable information about the exact year or the location, we could forward that to the Library of Congress reference department. Earlier this year they updated a bibliographic record and credited me by name for the update. So here's your chance to become an official footnote to baseball history. ;) Cheers, Durova³¹⁴ 18:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

...and for what it's worth, this Cy Young photo would probably be identifiable by location. It was taken on August 26, 1905. Durova³¹⁴ 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to look closer at the 1905 photo when I get home. As to the 4 Red Sox, they wore those same road uniforms for about 10 years, so that's insufficient. The standalone photo of Foster might give a better clue (see my comments above). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The photo says "c1905 Aug 26". I don't know how you can do an "about" on a specific date. Anyway, retrosheet would indicate Chicago [8] but it doesn't look right for South Side Park, which had a somewhat elevated grandstand. Complicating matters is that the not-yet-Red-Sox wore "BOSTON" on both home and road uniforms that year, and this one looks like a home uniform. Note the white inner sleaves. That was a home uniform feature. The road uniforms had blue inner sleaves. The uniform fits the Boston home uniform for 1905-1907. But it doesn't really look right for Huntington Avenue Grounds. So it's got me baffled. Striking out again. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's in Cleveland. The photographer, Louis Van Oeyen, was Cleveland-based. The other photo in his small LOC set is of Lajoie with his leg in a cast, dated in July of 1905, which certainly could be, as Lajoie only played 65 games that year. The ballpark looks like it could be Cleveland of that era. In fact, looking at a photo of League Park from around that time, it looks a lot like it. That doesn't explain the apparent Boston home uniform, but it's possible Okkonen didn't have all the facts on this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ankiel

Eh? Did I miss something? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

...I didn't even notice any of those things; I've just been removing these extraneous giant stats tables. I was very confused! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Thanks for the warning, Doc. I must admit thinking this categorization was rather strange, but it seems to work well on the Montreal Expos page, and I believe it's important to maintain consistency, even if what's being consistently maintained may need re-wording. Cheers - Badger Drink (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RD/Humanities#Damages wrongfully won in libel court

Perhaps you don't intend your current comments to appear to be flip, and the man is dead, so this is not a true BLP concern, but unless you are an expert in English jurisprudence, libel law, and the transmission of AIDS, I suggest that your opinion of the likely outcome of a different libel suit, of Liberace's sexual orientation, and your evidence for either or both are not confirmed by the WP article. Perhaps such views ought not to be on the Ref Desk without considerable documentation that would allow the inclusion of your views into the article. // BL \\ (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

Thanks for catching my mistake. I took out the wrong number.

Anyways, I've been checking some refs, and (trying) to fix some stats, and I've found a problem. This source says "First Baseman Gil Hodges, Second Baseman Jackie Robinson and third baseman Billy Cox all led the National League in fielding percentage in 1950." And this page says "For the 2nd year in-a-row he captured the NL's fielding honors. His .992 is a new National League record and he also broke the league's double play record (his own) by taking part in 137 last season."

The site is not considered a reliable source, but it sounded reasonable. So I'm trying to say the same thing using accepted sources, and have looked at two baseball-reference.com pages. 1950 2nd base fielding and 1951. Should I say he lead the league among players with over 31 and 22 games played? Is there a standard number of games needed to be a leader, like 1/2? Plus there's the National vs. American League thing. Thanks for your time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine about the .78 percentage, but that's what this source says. Any idea what they mean? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting there. I'll definitely leave out the fielding percentage. What should I say about the fielding? Maybe "JR led the national league among 2nd basemen who played more than half (or 2/3?, or 50) of the season in 1950 and 1951."? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL ...

I was just getting ready to drop you a line. I figure if there's anyone here that's knowledgeable about Axman, it would be you. Glad you are following along, and seeing all this. Do you think I should indef that account? are there any AN/ANI threads going on about it? — Ched :  ?  02:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Great minds think alike ;-) — Ched :  ?  02:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL .. yep .. I'm familiar with that one .. the way I've said it is: "What mean 'we' kimosobie?" I think I'll block and post a notice to ANI — Ched :  ?  02:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

JD got to it before I could .. damn young whippersnappers.  ;) — Ched :  ?  02:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk

Hi Baseball Bugs. We have recently been discussing the signal to noise ratio on the Reference Desk talk page. I think you might want to take a look at that discussion, on the talk page. A lot of your recent commentary, including the one I'm linking below, are off-topic and distract the OP from getting a helpful answer. Can you lay off the joking until at least the question has been suitably answered? Thanks.

Hi Baseball Bugs/Snapshot100130, the Reference Desk has been struggling with its signal-to-noise ratio lately, with lots of off-topic jokes and chattiness reducing the value of the Desk. I think your post here falls into a category other than "signal" and thought I'd mention it in hopes of improving the Desks in the future.

Nimur (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I've already asked you twice to take the reference desks more seriously. Edits such as these are the same as vandalism [9]

The reference desk is not a talk page, it is not a forum or chat room either. Please cease from doing this ie do something constructive please.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I'm going to bring this up on the talk page of the reference desk. Please comment if you want.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk - Science

I have removed an edit concerning Eskimos and Polar Bears at the above page. I can't fathom how your edit could possibly help answer the question. Possibly there is somewhere less disruptive that you could attempt to interact with others. More honestly (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)