Jump to content

Talk:Adam Dunn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 13 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject College football}}, {{WikiProject Baseball}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Chicago}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Dunn's 535 foot home run

[edit]

Dunn's 535-foot home run that landed in the Ohio River, on May 21/05 the announcers referred to that hit and said that its probably the only home run in history to get hit out of the state. Is this correct? Is the Ohio River technically Kentucky territory at that point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.42.175 (talk • contribs).

I know that Kentucky territory extends to the a certain point on the opposite bank of the Ohio River, and I've definently heard that said about Dunn's HR (that it's the only one that left a state). This would probably be an interesting thing to mention in the article, especially with a source. --[[User:W.marsh

|W.marsh]] 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC) The dispute between Ohio and Kentucky over its border actually ended up in the US Supreme Court. In a 1973 decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=641), the court stated that the Kentucky's northern border was the low-water mark of the Ohio River in 1792. Since their were no dams on the river back then, it would follow that the border would be closer to the middle of the river than to the edge of the river where the stadium is located. Dunn's ball actually bounced on Mehring Way, which runs between the stadium and the river and landed on a piece of driftwood in the river. Thus, I believe the ball did not actually leave the state since it would have had to travel almost to the middle of the river.

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC) ==New Image Copyright== I am new to this I really want my image to be kept. That image came from my blog at http://diamondhoggers.blogspot.com, and I uploaded it myself. I have tried to denote this in the copyright and it won't work. Can someone help me put it as free use or CopyrightedFreeUse-Link|Your website|blp=yes}}[reply]

Edit request from 68.62.24.120, 3 December 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} On December 2nd 2010 Dunn signed a 4 year deal with the Chicago White Sox believed to be worth 56 million.


68.62.24.120 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Next time, please provide a reliable source to verify claims of this type. I was able to find one on Google News, but we do need all info to be sourced, and it's generally up to the person who wants to add something (whether they're making a request like yourself or editing directly) to supply one. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your edit is premature. Dunn hasn't been signed, he has only come to an agreement. It is pending a physical. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deal is now official, according to MLB. Please correct this page.206.210.126.186 (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 99.127.50.237, 4 December 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} The terms of his most recent contract with the Chicago White Sox are $56 million over 4 years. Source: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20101203/sports/712049797/


99.127.50.237 (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Whoops! My mistake when I added that info previously--i just mistyped. Fixed now, thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Career stats

[edit]

If someone wants to update the statistics on a daily or near-daily basis, rather than weekly, monthly, or annually, go for it. If there's a policy that I'm missing that says "do not update career statistics too often," then feel free to point me in that direction. On the other hand, if someone has taken the time to update statistics, I don't see much of a point to revert those edits. The subject of the article is climbing towards the top of two significant statistical categories: HRs and SOs. If someone pulls up WP and see up-to-date info., I find that more valuable than someone pulling up an article that is out of date--whether well out of date or fairly current. Zepppep (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to update these stats daily or even weekly. If that is done than is should be done for every player in MLB. I update the stats for players about twice a month. That keeps the pages up to date. Carthage44 (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please show us the policy that states how often stats for sports articles should be updated; or more specially, MLB players. Point it out to us and look to build consensus before reverting edits that users have made. If users (such as myself) are not following a policy, feel free to fill us in. Do some checking around on MLB players and you'll see some articles have stats updated annually (typically less popular articles, players with few ABs) and some updated weekly, daily, or other frequencies. It really depends on the involvement from users on a particular page. Zepppep (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Users should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:I just don't like it, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Updating stats on one article at a particular frequency doesn't mean the same needs to be applied to all other player articles -- each article has a life of its own, a "look" of its own, and it's up to WP policy, user consensus, etc. to determine how a page looks and what info. it provides. Zepppep (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All sorts of articles are updated more frequently than you may decide to update articles you contributing to. The great thing about WP is no one particular person is "responsible" for updating an article as he/she sees fit; there's a whole community interested in contributing in their own way. Policies should guide us, and when clear policies aren't outlined yet users have contributed, there needs to be strong reasons for reverting edits which are not under dispute. Check out this and this, both of which are updated more than once every 2 weeks. Zepppep (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Carthage44 undid career stat updates on May 12, then updated the stats on May 15. The user appears to be violating his own 2 week rule. Enough with the tomfoolery. Zepppep (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carthage44, if, when you come around to update your stats, as you say you do, bi-weekly, and they need updating, that's great, thank you for helping make WP more accurate, and generally better. However, there is no need to revert other editors who want to do their part in the mean time, unless you have grounds to believe their edits are wrong. It seems like this has been explained already, you may want to read over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as well. One of the great things about WP is that no one has to do any more or less work than they want to (that's actually a policy!). If one editor wants to update this page's stats, there's no requirement that he then follows through and updates all MLB stats. That work is left to the editors of those articles. Yes, this leads to uneven articles when compared to each other, and that's ok too. If other players are equally notable, and they have equally conscientious editors working on their articles, they will also be updated quite frequently. Others, maybe less often. They're all treated separately here. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 07:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carthage44, you've made 2 confounding edits today, one which was reverted by Despayre and summary comments provided by him. Additionally, you changed the date for the stats to read thru May 15th; considering Dunn had ABs on the 15th, the stats need to be shown thru the 15th; hence why I put "May 16th" earlier in the day, which you later changed. You can check BR if you would like, who have also updated their stats thru the 15th. Most MLB games are played at night, hence the reason why stats are typically updated the next day. Your disregard for leaving summary comments, utilizing the talk page, or adhering to what has been pointed out and continued edits are nothing short of vandalism. It'd be great if your energy could be better spent to help improve WP.Zepppep (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carthage44, so what are you going to do when Adam Dunn has games in Mountain or Pacific time, and games easily go past midnight? Your dates are going to start getting confusing when that happens.Zepppep (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zepppep, do you have any idea how stats are updated? When you update stats it says stats are THROUGH a certin date. So therefore you update the stats from the last game. You do not put the date that you are updating the stats unless it is right after a game. So if it is 2am central time on the 17th, I am not going to put stats are updated THROUGH the 17th because that is incorrect. The stats will only be updated THROUGH the 16th because the games has not been played on the 17th yet. You might want to stick to updating other pages and stay away from the sports pages because you clearly do not know what you are doing. Leave the updating to me since I know how to update stats on sports pages. Carthage44 (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your attempt at explaining your position C44, but you may not be familiar with the policy, WP:OWN (in particular, sections 4.1 and 4.2), which applies no matter how right you feel you are, or how unskilled you consider other editors of this article. But again, thank you for using the talk page instead of just reverting, which just about always leads to escalation, I think that was a good choice. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 07:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stay calm. It's good to finally see the Talk page being utilized, Carthage44. Even if other positions were ignored, it was at least good to get the explanation of one (small) item. No one owns the article and I will not stoop down to deliver a type of response that has nothing to do with the goals of WP. I understand the meaning of the word "through" -- you need not repeat Webster. So let's plunge forward...I still believe games that end in the morning of the next day should reflect that date (not the date the game may have started on), but it's not a big deal (as opposed to the other issues raised (above)). I don't think most visitors to the article will expect the site to be updated immediately upon the conclusion of a game (in fact, I would be hesitant to do so, as at times the official score card changes). You, Carthage44, are desiring to display a date of when the game took place; I, on the other hand, am simply wanting to state when the stats have been solidified by the MLB, which will often times not be posted until the wee hours of the morning. To me, it's a non-issue; I'm not worried visitors to the site will be confused. Someone looking at the article at 10AM will not expect the stats of a yet-to-be-played game later that evening to be incorporated into the stats, which is I guess what you fear. I have a lot more faith in the reader. If a game ends at 2AM in whichever time zone the game is played, let's say on the 15th of the month, then the stats should read "through __ 15th, 20__" -- the date of the game's start time (which is what Carthage44 is wanting to use) which state "through ___ 14th, 20__" according to his logic. Again, this is a small thing compared to the other items this article has witnessed as of late. Zepppep (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I follow both lines of thought here, and I think I would probably go with the date when the game started for simplicity, since there is likely to be much less controversy over that. Although I do get Z's point. I think this way may avoid a problem where there are 2 games played back to back over 2 days (does that ever happen?), in which case we would have an article claiming stats already done for a game not played on the same date. (another hypothetical possibilty is a mid-season trade, where he plays 2 games in 2 days, in 2 timezones, purely hypothetical). -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Carthage44 wishes to claim that my stats update is incorrect, he needs to specify what is wrong and provide evidence. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely no call to revert my update because it was not completely up-to-date, especially considering that Carthage44 reverted it to something that was even less up-to-date. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume he's as embarrassed about that as I am for him. I'm sure he will attempt to be more accurate in the future, rather than less accurate by reverting to a time he already knows is incorrect. I've reverted his stats because they don't currently match up with baseball-reference.com and he has not supplied any source to check his stats with, unfortunately, I'm on my way out, so while I had time to remove his false information, I did not have time to update to the correct numbers, if someone has time before I get back here (probably early morning), please go ahead and update, thanks. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 04:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Within the past 10 days, he has reverted edits of mine, only to re-post the same edits I made within a span of minutes. This a game to him and it needs to stop. Additionally, several of his reverts lack any sort of edit summary, he has not attempted to build consensus on the talk page, and his reasons for reverting are pretty suspect. Zepppep (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[edit]

I just realized that if Carthage is the one that helps out by updating, he will actually be in 3RR violation, I'll leave a note on his talk page so we don't run into any problems there...-- Despayre  tête-à-tête 04:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left the following on Carthage44's talk page: "Check out Wikipedia:Reverting. You'll find "it is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion." Several of your reverts on the Adam Dunn article do not provide such, so it makes it even more "difficult to assume good faith." Zepppep (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)" Zepppep (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone out there wondering what an edit war is, check out this. You'll see it states "it is no defence to say 'but my edits were right.'" It also states discussion is key. Carthage44 has tossed the term out, but I'm not sure if the user understands what is and what is not edit warring. The user has not engaged on the talk page of this article and the user has chosen to ignore attempts at communication on their own talk page by quickly deleting any proactive attempts to resolve the issue. If a user is making a lot of changes within a short period of time to an article, reverting edits by other contributors without grounds or explanation, and claiming "I'm right, stop your edit wars" but does not wish to divulge their reasoning on the relevant spaces to do so, we can in fact have only one definition for said behavior. Some edits have been reverted, only to have the same edits posted by Carthage44 a literally a few minutes later. Aggressive display of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Additionally, whenever reverts occur, the one reverting needs to provide an edit summary but as you can see in the article's history, there are several instances of reverts by this one user without any edit summaries. The great thing about WP is that it provides a forum for interested contributors to engage, it sets a framework and allows further consensus-building when the framework may not cover all the bases, and also doesn't put the charge of updating/maintaining/editing an article to any one user. Zepppep (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a report on him last week at WP:EWN, he was warned. If he's doing it again, file it again, he's on the edge of getting smacked on the head by the broom as it is (but I don't see a current problem from him). -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 05:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link? It's been archived somewhere. Zepppep (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
link -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 07:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adam Dunn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adam Dunn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adam Dunn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Dunn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Dunn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Dunn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Dunn&oldid=1207059168"