User talk:Killervogel5

Userpage Talkpage Contributions Awards Autographs Been there Workspace

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at SteveRwanda's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Paul Krichell

Hey, just checking to see if you'll be able to finish the GA review. If not that's fine, just let me know. Since there's a GA drive going it'll be picked up quickly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I will, I've just been swamped because of Holy Week. I didn't see any response from the nominator on my opening comments either, so I wasn't sure what had been looked at. I should have some time the next few evenings. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, just checking. Looks like Secret disappeared again, so I can try and work on the article on his behalf. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a plan. Look forward to working with you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• On the subject, check out my sexy new GAN. Trying to set a style guideline (1995 American League West tie-breaker game is pretty old, needs fixing) for these games using World Series game summary and background information style. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• As a follow up, if you can, finish the final tranche over the weekend, and I'll do the third/fourth ones in one fell swoop early next week (have a major school project so I probably won't touch Krichell until that's done). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is a very busy weekend for me too, so no telling if I'll be able to finish it up. I'll try to get another group done, but I can't do a lot at once. Tonight is the only free time I have, and I'm trying to catch a game for the first time all season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ready for the final slew of comments. Btw, you guys want Lou Marson back? Granted, I guess the batting average can't go that much further down. We'll just take back Ben Francisco to make it even. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I did the DYK for that article... I'd guess it's probably not working out at the moment for you guys. He wasn't ready to be an everyday major league player yet. He got rushed up. It's not like Francisco is getting any playing time, which is a real shame because Werth is the only Phillies outfielder doing anything to speak of so far this season. As to Krichell, I'll be home this evening to do some more reviewing. My schedule has been ridiculously full. Sorry about the delay. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, I finally got around to fixing everything, and am awaiting final comments. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Got it; I will try to get it finished up for you ASAP. I can probably do the last run-over during my lunch break today (in about 1-2 hours). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• All done at long last. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Fun fact (which may end up being the DYK hook)

This is funny, as it merges 2 things I'm working on. Matt Holliday won the 2007 RBI title over Ryan Howard by 1 thanks to his play in the 2007 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game. Had Howard won in that season then his shared title in 2009 would have been a record-breaking fourth consecutive season in which he led the league in RBI, a record held by quite a few notable players. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a great hook (and the Phillies still got to the playoffs!). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Woot, nominated! Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'll try to review it tonight (A LOT on my plate right now). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• No rush, no rush. We just entered a new Wikicup round so I've got 2 months to work up content. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Poke. :) Also, check out 2008 American League Central tie-breaker game (up at GAN). Now I'm through with the easy modern ones, time to Lexis Nexis and such for the older ones. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Yadayadayada I'm back yadayada this is back yadayada hai :) ResMar 00:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

Zomg, haxxor. Also damn, you're on list #3 and I'm only halfway through #2!! Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm thinking I may take a flier at a Supreme Court case GA over the summer, maybe Arizona v. Gant which I've written a tiny bit on off Wiki. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm still gonna do 99% baseball, I just meant for an outside-baseball article. Still have the draft pick lists (which I'm using for the Wikicup, something with a format I know I can work through), 2 Triple Crown lists, and tie-breakers. Wizardman and I have a loose idea for a long-term topic on tie-breaker games. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• What do you think a 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season topic would have? Would it need every player on the roster? Trying to think how we could use 2009 World Series. Maybe an 09 World Series topic with the Phillies and Yankees season articles, the CSes and DSes, and the tie-breaker? Just throwing ideas out there. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I figured using the WS as the controller would be better since we don't have a postseason article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• That being said, we should. I created a dabpage before the 09 postseason with the hope of later expanding it into a summary article, but it was turned into a redirect without much discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• For the 2009 season, since I'm here, to get a featured topic I'd say you would need all the players, season, WS, and NLC/DS, and probably the manager too. Needless to say, a hell of a lot (I have a similar thing planned and it came up to 45 articles), so a 2009 World Series topic would be much more feasible. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for David Montgomery (baseball)

Materialscientist (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:EGG

Thanks for the definition in the Nationals correction at Chase Utley. I knew there was a general awareness of intuitiveness but didnt know it was codified. Cheers. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was surprised I hadn't fixed that missing link myself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FLC - List of Athletic Bilbao players at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 appearances/archive1

Hi K5, cd you revisit above FLC to see if your concerns have been addressed? Sandman888 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi KV5, you opposed the above list. The main concern was an arbitrary cut-off, which is traditionally done on football player lists. I took your concern to the wp:footy project here. Could you indicate whether your concerns has been met on the FLC, or if you have more, reg. the arbitrary cut-off, please indicate those at the footy talk page please. Sandman888 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Roster project

I think it would be ballsy, and would set a standard for modern, long-term franchises (as opposed to the various short-term dead franchise rosters we have now). Assuming you went letter by letter to break up the work that looks like about 20 full lists (discounting the few letters with only a handful of guys) worth of work. Doable, but big. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, it should stay one list, when I say letter by letter I mean sit down and do the As, the Bs, etc, etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe end up breaking it apart like List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients, but that depends on what you find. As for the stats, Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame says 20 would be the 2nd biggest. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Heh, that's why I referred to the Civil War page, which uses reasonable letter ranges. BTW, mind giving my DYK hook a look-see? I'm putting the finishing touches on an FP-hopeful of Johnny Evers (labeled by Bill James, I believe correctly, as one of the worst Hall of Famers ever, in thanks to a poem). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! Here's the link. Here's a fun idea for the future, how about a Baseball's Sad Lexicon FT (or maybe GT) with that article, Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, Frank Chance, and maybe Franklin Pierce Adams (the author). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Working on another fun hook, I noticed a notable author for one of the sources so: Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• ...that Jayson Stark called the 1999 New York Mets a "sinking ship" four days before they won the Wild Card in a tie-breaker game?

• Is it nominated, or just still a really great proposal at the moment? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Polishing off the article before I nom it in an hour or two. Thanks for the compliment! :) I like when I can work an interesting hook rather than some of those duller draft pick hooks I've had. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. Sometimes I wish I could get more interesting hooks. The Jocko Thompson one was probably the best so far, but I don't even remember some of my older ones. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back; Mike Cervenak was the best one. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I see you keep some DYK infoboxes on your contribution page, but you should keep a hook list like I do for easy reading. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• All nom'd now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers FLC

Hello, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers/archive1 was listed 20 days ago, and is now also listed as one of the "nominations urgently needing reviews." So far four reviewers have weighed in. All objections have been met. There are two votes of support, and none opposed. As per The Rambling Man, "typically, although not prescriptively, Dabomb or I will look for around four votes of support." He also suggested that I contact "regular reviewers" such as yourself to see if you would be willing to comment. I'm happy to address constructive criticism. Hopefully upon resolving critiques, if you believe that the list is worthy, you will also grant support. Thanks, NYCRuss ☎ 16:59, 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#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

for the barnstar. -- Why Not A Duck 19:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment - Thunder userbox

Just wanted to let you know that we are surveying wiki Thunder fans and experts on sports userbox formats to determine whether they want User:BillTunell's style incorporated into the userbox ({{User:UBX/NBA-Thunder}}), or want to use the standard version. If you you want to comment, hit the RFC discussion page here. Thanks. Tom Danson (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Albert Pujols

Not sure why my Pujols edits keep disappearing, but Albert is very active in the KFUO controversy and is THE major sponsor of the drive to eliminate the station's classical music format. So my edits have less to do with the radio station and more to do with Pujols' involvement in the community, which is why the controversy is noted on his page. Please let me know if this explanation works for you so that I may place the edits back on his Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndcat (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No references that you have provided support your assertions above. That is why it doesn't belong on his page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball tie-breakers

Finally split it off. Up at DYK also. Yay! Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Also (sorry to be pestering you so much lately), mind taking a look at this FPC? They only last 7 days(ish), and you need 4 votes for consensus. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Blahblah32blahblah

Hey, I know you probably have a lot on your plate but since we're familiar, I thought it would be wise to bring it to you. I have "warned" Blahblah32blahblah (talk · contribs) about his actions on the Chase Headley article. I really don't want to create a big to-do about it, but it seems to be disruptive and I have informed him that if it continues then I would take this to WP:ANI. Maybe some advise from a third party would help. Any thoughts? I really don't want to create an issue. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. He did the same thing at Roy Halladay too. He seems to be attempting to participate in the discussion at WT:MLB, but I don't know how productive it is for him at the moment. Lots of mudslinging and yelling, mostly. Hopefully a strong consensus can be established one way or the other and then we shouldn't have this fight anymore. As to advice, I was the second person he was fighting with over the issue (at Halladay, and after someone else whose conversations he blanked off his talk page), so I'm probably not the best person to talk to him. Perhaps Wizardman or Staxringold might be better since they're uninvolved. I'll keep an eye on the sistuation, though, and thanks again. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I should point out that the user you guys are refering to has pledged after his most recent warning to continue to edit war and go against consensus unless changes are made to every MLB related article. The user is doing good work in articles reverting vandalism, but there is no way that his actions and his pledge to continue edit warring in articles like Chase Headley can be seen as anything other than being unconstructive.142.68.225.6 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Team colors

This could open a can of worms (or maybe beans), but a spot check of the NFL teams indicates all color names capitalized. I would guess that was done because it looks better that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And it was all done by one user, who was a single-purpose account. The fact remains that they are not proper nouns. I just don't have time to go back and fix them all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I think this was discussed at great length at some point (as with many trivial things in wikipedia). It certainly looks better with all of them capitalized, since it's a list rather than a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you there, as lists don't inherently have to be capitalized; regardless, the color name was changed incorrectly too, and even if we do capitalize them, it should be "Navy blue", not "Navy Blue", which is patently wrong. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had them in bullet points, one on top of the other, wouldn't they all be capitalized? Oh, and you don't need to post the "talkback", as I'm watching your page. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had them in bullet points, yes, they probably would be capitalized. But they're not; they're a series. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was discussed at some length awhile back, but I don't recall what the decision was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked in the WT:MLB archives and didn't see anything. If it was an NFL discussion, then it doesn't really apply here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's a manual-of-style issue, shouldn't all the sports be consistent? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as the MOS is open for interpretation on some issues and no one really knows what it says half the time. However, if we are going to use MOS as a basis for discussion, MOS:CAP says that "Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms", which these are not. MOS:PN clarifies what is and is not a proper noun, and colors aren't. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe all of them should be uncapitalized? It's not a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with that than with capitalizing them all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Strikeouts

Awesome! I haven't even started on batting average, been putting it off dreading writing a note to explain the 1910 AL race. :p Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that fiasco... never would have dumped batting on you if I'd remembered (well, maybe I would, I'm kind of a jerk like that :-D). I'm going to take a break from numbers and focus on the Phillies roster for a little bit before moving on to the main Triple Crown list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds good. It'll be a while before we should bear down on that one anyways. If you get the chance, could you review one of (or both... ;) ) my GANs? I think I'll get by in this round of the Wikicup, but it's nervous making seeing such a low score currently. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I got one at least. Starting it now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• <3 Thanks so much. If you need me on anything, LMK, you do so much for me whenever asked. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not a lot to do on that one, I was able to get it in one fell swoop. When it's done, it passes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I just hope my UConn library ID works over the summer (I don't think they deactivate graduates until some time in the next year) so I can Lexis Nexis up some of the older tie-breakers like I did with 99. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/1991 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1

Could you please reconsider Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1991 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1 and offer further guidance. Please strike where appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What are your current thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget about this one. I need some feedback on if this is the right direction to go.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi KV, can you revisit this when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

1991 College Baseball All-America Team is approaching its 10th day at WP:FLC. Could you please revisit your comments.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Major League Baseball strikeout champions

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Rosters

Not sure I'm in love with splitting position players/pitchers within letters. First off there's the Babe Ruth style question. Beyond that though, why not just format like other featured list rosters like Worcester Worcesters all-time roster? Can always still just list Triple Crown stats as the note if nothing else, but allows more specificity for players. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to do something different because this format allows sorting by statistics as well. You can't sort who's got the best earned run average if it's in a bulleted note column or something. I guess knowing which pitcher whose name starts with J has the best ERA doesn't have a lot of utility though. Let me make some changes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

How about now? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, looks good (though obviously make Notes unsortable). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Callsigns

Sorry to have shouted at you. I get very passionate about radio & I want things to be as accurate as possible. When I was creating a few of the other radio network pages, I checked the F.C.C. database to see what the actual callsigns were and their actual communities of license instead of what the page for the team said. A lot of times, they're listed in a "market" instead of the actual community. So I listed the actual community of license & then in parentheses put the larger metro market. It was a pain (Braves network with about 140 stations!) but in the long run I think it's worth it. As for the edit summary comment, I've found that most people won't revert a callsign back to having the inaccurate call afterwards so it's a preventative measure too as I've had drawn-out arguments with people over stupid things before & I just get aggravated. So, if you've managed not to fall asleep reading this, sorry about the screaming & I hope you like where I put the band. I think it's easier for a casual reader to understand too. "Oh, A.M. 790!"Stereorock (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Something else that might be beneficial: some of the stations transmit A.M. Stereo or A.M. HD Radio. There's a template that adds the HD Radio notation. I'll try to get it for you. Congrats on 2008 & I was pulling for your team to win the World Series last year. Growing up & living in New England, you develop a feeling one way or the other about the Yanks. Whilst I am not a Red Sox fan per se, I like seeing teams other than the Yanks win. So, Do It Again in '10!Stereorock (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All-America Lists

I am wondering if it would be better to have the list in two formats on a page like in the Individual All-America teams section at 2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

1/1024

Much appreciated. It's been a while, even if it was less than 0.1% of a barnstar! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize

I really didn't mean anything by it. It is simply that you probably don't understand about the subject...that is all I wanted to point out. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Roster

Its fine. It'll be long, but just follow those Civil War MoH lists. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Something like it. For now just get the content done, tho. Worry about formatting come FLC time. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1966 NBA Expansion Draft/archive1

Needs a revisit. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. I don't need to be reminded. — KV5 • Talk • 13:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies; it's a bit hectic on my end, so I'm just trying to keep track of everything. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem. I understand. I'm busy too. I'll see if maybe I can get to a re-review before I leave for the soccer match today. — KV5 • Talk • 13:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown split?

Once I finish up the average list (hopefully tommorrow), mind if I show some boldness and split the Triple Crown list per TRM's request? Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, but does that mean we have two topics now? Or are we going to have nine articles in a single topic? — KV5 • Talk • 12:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• A fair question. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• If there's a split, I think that two topics is the only possibility, because there's no reason to have a Triple Crown, batting Triple Crown, and pitching Triple Crown article. Personally, I think we could probably pursue some serious improvement to the main article and it would be a great central article to the topic. I don't know that the pitching triple crown is really covered well enough to have its own article, as the batting triple crown is much more readily recognized. I personally think they are better off merged. I'm certainly able to be swayed one way or the other, though. — KV5 • Talk • 16:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm happy with them together as well. Want to push them as one topic, and worst case the split wouldn't be hard if needed? WP:FTQ agrees with you, BTW, if we split 2 topics is the only way. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say that's best. I'm going to start working on a new format for the lead article in the next few days. I don't think it's a problem to have that article be in two sections; that's why we have level-2 headers after all. Lol. — KV5 • Talk • 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly. Batting average is done, BTW. Yay! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, I'm reviewing it as we write. — KV5 • Talk • 20:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh

So now telling the truth is impolite? If that is your definition of impolite, then I don't want to see how you react when someone is being rude... Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow...thanks for the laugh! Good luck in finding other "puppets" seeing as this is MY ONLY ACCOUNT! I really hope you are not serious since this is showing me more of what little you understand about certain things. BTW, stating that someone doesn't understand about an issue i.e. saying my 2 year old niece can't understand algebra, is far from being an offense...she doesn't understand. There is no other way around it. Just like you people don't understand that not everything in the world can be categorized and structured the same. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This must be April fools...because the link you put up goes directly into Sockpuppet investigations. Seriously, now... Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! That is the problem with you and your "friend": you keep insisting you are right no matter what, regardless of what anyone shows you. Anyone could go on and on about a subject, trying to tell why certain things are the way they are and you keep insisting that "the Earth is flat" because that is the general standard/thinking. And only when someone has to point out how things really are do you get it (and even that doesn't work all the time). And you still have the balls to say that being blunt and honest is an insult when that is probably the only way you might, and that is a big might, understand? Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! Don't comment on my page either. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Stat updates

So, just a policy question. But my understanding is that we update stats twice a year. Is this correct? Once at the all-star break, and the other at the end of the season. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That was the proposal that I put forth at the project talk page, which met with little opposition. — KV5 • Talk • 22:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• So, given that you used Baez as the example, you're only listing stats w/ the Phillies (not overall #s)? I'd either show previous stats, or just say "Joined team XXXX" Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am only listing Phillies stats, yes. The "joined team 2010" proposal is similar to what I did, so that's what I'll keep doing. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 18:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, replied to your FLC comments. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding information removed

here - it was added by one of my students as part of the assignment (they are supposed to add a constructive edit to a page of their choice). I support your removal, of course, but I have a favor to ask - could you explain to the student why the information was removed (and why some of it was kept), so they can learn from their mistakes? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I responded by leaving a message at your student's talk page. While I'm not particularly a fan of using Wikipedia as a social experiment, regardless of the outcome, I was a teacher myself and I know how important it is for both teachers and students to have feedback. Cheers! — KV5 • Talk • 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, I am not using Wikipedia as a social experiment - I am using it as part of the well estabilished WP:SUP WikiProject (and as for WP:SUP being an experiment, speaking only for my classes, the students contributed ~10 Good Articles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the project. I still think it's a form of social experimentation. But that's just my personal opinion. Good luck with your class! — KV5 • Talk • 02:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with you to the extent that Jimbo said himself [Wikipedia is] "a grand social experiment" :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

KV5 - Thank you for your edit. I will attempt in the future to keep my edits a bit more objective. I attempted yet again to bring light of the mascot issue on the Warwick High School page. I think it is much more objective - check it out and see to it that it is to your liking. As far as this mumbo jumbo about the "social experiment," what do you disagree with?AngGor (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)