User talk:BrianY/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hey man, I'm editing the Marlins 2007 season so I'd appreciate if you didn't change my format. Thanks. Bumppoman 21:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, then, if you're going to do it then go ahead. Take my name off and put yours on the management list. Bumppoman 21:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I live in New York, and I'm a big Marlins fan. It's not that I don't want to do it, it's that I don't want to constantly have my work reverted by you and others. Bumppoman 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think organizing players alphabetically is a more efficient means of sorting. As long as users can choose to sort them however they want by clicking the buttons, there's nothing wrong with that. Also, what's wrong with having all batters listed? Bumppoman 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Baseball[edit]

Hi, and welcome to the Baseball Wikiproject! We are a group of editors who love the sport of baseball and work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this sport.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow baseball editors can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page.

--Borgardetalk 11:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Wild Card[edit]

Yeah, I know. However, it would be a TFD, as it is a template. But it should still be deleted for now, nonetheless. I had an exhausting day today, being a linesman for two games today, and when I came home and saw that on 2007 Milwaukee Brewers season, I seriously felt I was gonna die. This is just horrible. It was super long and has no importance now. Can you do something about this? --Ksy92003 01:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't Worry About It[edit]

Don't worry about it Hornberry, I enjoy updating these stats. To me it isn't boring doing all that. 55555five55555 04:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to let you know that I am going to change my username. Editing those pages were very fun. Do you think we should make the statistics more detailed? We can split the work up doing that together. Hope you answer these questions on Friday when you get back from your vacation. 55555five55555 07:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Season Statistics[edit]

I didn't really mean to split up the statistics, I meant to added detailed things like stolen bases, on base percentage, runs scored etc. With two people doing this it won't be that hard updating these things. Also for the pitchers we can add things like innings pitched, runs given up etc. And by the way my username will probably be LADodgersAngels fan. Dodgers and Angels are the two teams I like the most, but I put Dodgers first because I liked that team first. I don't really like one team more than the other. I like whichever team that plays better. I hope you would upgrade these statistics soon. 55555five55555 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way we also should put a summary of all the scoring plays if you like to. It would probably be hard, but one of us could update the statistics and the other one put the scoring plays of the game which makes this much easier. 55555five55555 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

When you said about the season summaries, I think that is a good idea, but wouldn't it be better if we also put game summaries. We can start doing that when you get back from your vacation on Friday. 55555five55555 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I added some extra statistics. It is your choice to keep them or not. Try to think of some new ways to make the 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season article to become better. LADodgersAngelsfan 08:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am deciding to put the game summaries starting tommorrow not May 1st. LADodgersAngelsfan 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season[edit]

Oh my gosh, are you freaking blind? I don't mean to be mean to you, but what the hell is wrong with you? You reverted me for no reason. My edit was improving the article. I think the only reason you're doing this is because you for whatever reason hate me. Why else would you revert perfectly good edits? Here's your answer: THERE IS NO OTHER REASON !!! My edits are improving the article, and your hatred towards me is damaging it for no reason. So it is you who needs to stop. Please stop reverting my edits and please stop damaging the article and my reputation. --Ksy92003 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Let's begin my explaination[edit]

Alright. First thing I noticed was that you said "You also removed nessecary info for me to complete Mark Hendrickson's starting games stats." This, itself, violates WP:OWN. First of all, that info isn't necessary to complete the stats if you can get them from the site. Second, that hidden comment isn't necessary at all.

Next, what do you mean "Why can't we have updated standings?" We don't have any disputes about the standings, so I don't know where you got that from.

Third, I don't member ever saying that I approve of "expanded" stats. I approved of the re-inclusion of stats in the articles, but not for people to add whatever statistical categories they want. So I don't know where you got that from, either. And either way, Runs and Innings Pitched aren't important statistics for the relievers. Those two categories don't separate the good relievers from the spectacular relievers.

So next time, don't leave a comment on my talk page without a case. You don't have one. And stop wasting my time by having me reply back to your comments. Thank you. --Ksy92003 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh-uh-uh I never approved expansion of the categories of the stats. I said he could add the stats whenever he wants, not that we could add whatever stats he wants. There's a huge difference. So again, you're wrong. Look carefully at his talk page. --Ksy92003 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine with me, but 92003 recently alphabetized the names and I'm not sure if you like it that way even though I think it is okay. By the way, I didn't have much time editing Wikipedia during the CST testing. I pretty sure you have it too. I'm sorry that I didn't have time.

RE: Stats[edit]

Sort them by player name. If you wouldn't mind, could you go into the article and edit the hidden comment, changing it to "Player Name" instead of "ERA"/"Batting Average"? And make sure it's by their surnames, also. --Ksy92003 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Hey. I was looking at your recent edit summaries and noticed something. When writing your edit summaries for the edits you made to 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season today, the edit summaries are "Batting - update," "Starting pitchers - update," "Relief pitchers - update," "Batting - update," and "Pitching - update." The problem with this is that when someone clicks on that directly from your edit summary, as I have done, it doesn't take you to the section because there is no section titled "Batting - update." Hopefully, you know what I mean.

Could you please, in the future, when writing your edit summaries, not put the word "update" within the automatic section link? In other words, don't put the word "update" between the /* */ . Do you understand what I'm asking? --Ksy92003 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was afraid that I didn't explain it clearly enough. Okay, you know when you click on an article to edit a particular section? Well, that automatically generates an edit summary. For example, for me, it auto-generated "/* Edit summaries */ " as the edit summary. Now, based on actually looking at the edit summaries, for some of your edits to the Dodgers article, you clicked to edit a particular section, but when you added in your edit summary that you updated the section, it appears that you added the "update" within the /* */, so it looks like "/* Batting - update */ ". For that to automatically take someone who clicks on that to the Batting section, the edit summary should read "/* Batting */ update". This will take a user to the "Batting" section on the page, but the edit summary that you made would take you to the "Batting - update" section, which of course doesn't exist.
This isn't really that crucial, but to be honest it's bothered me for a while now. Since I'm constantly checking the updates on all 30 articles, as well as game logs, standings templates, etc., being able to go directly to the section directly from the "recent changes" page preserves a couple seconds of time every time I click to go there. Now, does what I'm saying make sense to you? What I'm asking is just for a simpler way of getting to the section that has been edited. As it is an edit summary, it isn't that important. But it shouldn't be that hard to correct. I know I'm gonna sound redundant, but I've got to ask one more time (to make sure that you remember to answer this question when you reply back): Is what I just said understandable to you now? --Ksy92003 05:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
For example, see my edit summary at Talk:2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season. What I typed was,

The way that you have done your recent edit summaries, this would be typed in as

I underlined the differences in this, which is just the location of the */, and in the second one, the inclusion of a hyphen. First, I hope that I have accurately figured out how you are writing your edit summaries. If not, then I'm sorry. But second, I hope that (if I did guess right) that you can try to correct this so that the format matches the first example. Thanks. --Ksy92003 05:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what I did when I posted on your talkpage. I'll try to change this in the future. Just to make sure I get it, could you check up on it on Tuesday morning when I update the stats from Monday's game? Hornberry 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary that you left at my talk page does work. I'll continue to check and if anything wrong occurs, I'll alert you. Sorry for being so critical about this, but as this is such a minor detail I thought that it would be fairly easy to correct. --Ksy92003 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


But what I don't understand is why does that have to be there? You can just as easily manually edit it to make it alphabetized. Why does that need to be there to alphabetize it? I don't get it. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then... why did you revert me? My bad, I assumed that you reverted me. Never mind. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Updating stats[edit]

Don't worry about it. Thanks for alerting me, however. If somebody else does remove it, I'll add it again and tell them that you'll be right on it when you get the chance. --Ksy92003 (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't Worry I'm Editing It[edit]

I have time to update the stats. I didn't have a lot of time a couple of weeks ago, but I have time the next two days. LADodgersAngelsfan 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Are all of your stats updated? LADodgersAngelsfan 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Before I meant today's game. Sorry for not telling you. LADodgersAngelsfan 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You said you are going to become a politician in my talk page, right? Since you are studying to be a politician, are you in college?

Thanks for tell me that. By the way I'm only 12 (7th grade). It was kind of hard for me at first when it came to the stats, but it is very easy for me now. LADodgersAngelsfan 02:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is responsible for Wikiproject Baseball? If User:Ksy92003 is can you tell him/her that you want to sign up for the Dodgers page next season. If you have time, I hope you would still be able to edit the Dodgers page next season. LADodgersAngelsfan 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just asked Ksy92003 if we can edit the stats for the 2007 All Star game less than ten minutes ago. LADodgersAngelsfan 02:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Were you talking about the California Standard Tests I also take in mid May? The tests only go up to eleventh grade and when you go to twelveth grade, I heard that you would take the college tests. LADodgersAngelsfan 02:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the stats are almost updated. LADodgersAngelsfan 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's already updated in It takes a while for it to be updated in LADodgersAngelsfan 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put each person that leads a category (only Dodgers) in the Dodgers page LADodgersAngelsfan 03:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have time to edit the Dodgers page. I already told Ksy92003 that. I hope I would be able to finish my homework in a short amount of time. LADodgersAngelsfan 03:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On the edit summary it said welcome, but I meant to put 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season. I also welcome users so and it also remembers evertything I put as an edit summary. I just hit the wrong button. LADodgersAngelsfan 03:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pitching Stats[edit]

I'm very confused on the Mark Hendrickson problem you and Ksy92003 discussed once. I know that one is for Mark Hendrickson as a starting pitcher and one is for Mark Hendrickson as a relief pitcher. I did not edit the pitcher stats. I tried to contact Ksy92003, but he didn't tell me anything about it. LADodgersAngelsfan 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


First, thank you for all your help in backing me up in the articles. As [I believe] you are the same age as me (correct me if I'm wrong; I'm 16), surely you can understand all the work I have that prevents me from editing.

One more thing... why exactly don't you have a userpage? --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For your userpage, just put stuff about you. Stuff like your hobbies, interesting stuff about you, like where you've traveled. Wikipedia:Userboxes is a great way to display this kind of stuff. You can also look at other user's user page to get more examples. --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Did like the idea of the leaders? I thought of it a couple of days ago. Also thank Ksy92003 because he helped me make them in a table. I don't think I would have a lot of time starting on Monday because I have a bunch of homework and projects. LADodgersAngelsfan 07:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Ksy92003 told you to add userboxes in you userpage. You can add the template saying that you are part of WikiProject Baseball like the one in Ksy92003 and my userpage. You can also put the amount of edits you made on the Dodgers page and the amount of edits you made on the game log. Here is a device you can use to find out the amount of edits you made on the Dodgers page, the game log, and the amount of edits you made in Wikipedia:

Small scream.png This user wastes far too much time editing Wikipedia.

LADodgersAngelsfan 08:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Do you enjoy putting information for the Dodgers games everyday? You can add news in WikinewsLADodgersAngelsfan 01:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't finish up my thought I was trying to tell you that you can make a page in Wikinews on only a single game. Instead of just stats, we can do single game summaries and box scores. I would give you an example of a news page about a baseball game. LADodgersAngelsfan 03:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is web site is an example of a Wikinews article. LADodgersAngelsfan 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will still use Hornberry as your username in Wikinews. LADodgersAngelsfan 03:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Based on your statistics it says you made 170 edits on the Dodgers page and 35 edits on the Dodgers game log.

I don't hvae much time recently like you. I have the end of the year activities next week like you are having it. Even though I have a lot the end of the year activities, I had a lot of hard end of the year projects to do. This is the first time I had that much within five school days. In December, right before winter uebreak I had 3 projects due. From the Wednesday which is two days ago till next Tuesday, I have five projects due. One on Wednesday, two yesterday, one tommorrow, and one on Tuesday. I also have my last and final assignment due on Wednesday I think. I hope I would have time soon. LADodgersAngelsfan 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


I posted the box scores in your talk page in Wikinews. LADodgersAngelsfan 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah !!![edit]

Honestly, that's how I reacted when I checked my watchlist and saw that you had finally created a userpage. To be honest, it kinda depressed me to always see your name in red letters... you finally have one. Congratulations. If I could give you a barnstar simply for creating a userpage, I probably would. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I got the layout for the userboxes from another user. I can't recall whom I got them from, however, but you can do whatever you want. And even if I didn't grant you permission, you still could because of the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that a user's contributions may be copied/edit by another user. --Ksy92003 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


You have 400 edits now. I don't have a lot of time like you. I probably would have time on Wednesday and Thursday but I would be rather playing video games so I agree with you about Wikinews. Have you planned how we're going to make a page. We definitly should put the box scores. Should we also add the stats of the game? I planning to add the scoring plays too. Tell me if you think of anything special to add in it. Congratulations on making your userpage.

Time for Wikipedia/Wikinews[edit]

I have a project due tommorow and I think that is the last assignment of the school year. You said we're doing it on July 1, but I get out of summer school on July 27. I would try not to waste anytime when I work on my homework. LADodgersAngelsfan 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Under Renovation

Hello, Hornberry, and thank you for signing up to participate in the trading spaces program. As you requested to have your user page renovated by another user, Themcman1 will be renovating your userpage. Please contact Themcman1 on their talk page about the renovating. The renovating will be listed at Trading Spaces: Undergoing Renovation, please feel free to update the status as it changes. Enjoy! --~~~~

Hey, I was completing the process of moving some of my template when I saw that you subst: the user page wrapper I created. the template is not designed to be subst: and it looks like the code is screwed up. I would recommend that you use the template without subst: it. You can find it at this page. Thank you. --Andrew Hampe Talk 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I comment I left above was for the person renovating your page. I'll fix the issue for you though, one sec. --Andrew Hampe Talk 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage/Dodgers page[edit]

You did a wonderful job on your user page. The roster thing is fine with me. The last edit I made was like a week ago. I don't have much time. LADodgersAngelsfan 05:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Objective Eye on Chris Young[edit]

I appreciate your objective eye on Chris Young (pitcher). I was clearly suffering from WP:PROSELINE. Many of the games were unnecessary. However, I added back half of the text. I hope you can see where I am coming from on the readded text. I also wanted your opinion on the pics that were removed in the edit before yours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion that you like the pictures at Chris Young (pitcher) is vague. Do you like the 10 or so that were removed yesterday? All of them? If not say which ones. I am asking for some assistance on which ones should be added back. I have added significance to the ERA lead para. Please check that out too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, that comment you left me on my talk page last night, was that directed towards me or TonyTheTiger? Because... well, you say you agree with part of the edit, then you say it doesn't look that good. Who was that directed to and which versions were you talking about? ––Ksy92003(talk) 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Please come discuss here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you are supporting readding some of the pictures. I need your opinion in the discussion here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I corrected your misleading edit. He has not been at the top of the charts all season. Please see new para.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You are making a very misleading edit to the ERA section. [1] shows his ERA was over 4 in April and still over 3 at the midpoint of May. You ruin take away from the story with your edit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: lauren shotton[edit]

Lauren Shotton is somebody claimed to have played Pansy Parkinson in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, but there's no reliable source to verify that, so in essence she's nobody right now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Shotton[edit]

This is Lauren Shotton,

And she appeared as an extra in OOTP, both Genevieve Gaunt and Lauren herself confirmed this through myspace, as for why it's not on IMDB, I've no clue, here's trying to find a reliable source.


She's in the potions class scene as a Slytherin girl, she has shortish dark hair, at least I once saw a pic of that, google Lauren Shotton + Pansy Parkinson, sorry I can't find any reliable sources.

Here's the pic:

Hardly reliable I know, but it's from hyah:

Re: Lauren Shotton[edit]

Look up "dransy + lauren shotton" on google, that's where I got it, trust me that isn't Cho, wut would Cho be doing sitting with Slytherins?

P.S. sorry 2 give trouble, just trying to cite my information and not look like I'm bsing everyone.

WikiProject Harry Potter roll-call[edit]

Hi there. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Harry Potter participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. Your name has therefore been moved to a "potentially inactive" list. If you still consider yourself an active WikiProject Harry Potter editor, please move your name from the Potentially inactive list to the Active Contributors list. You may also wish to add {{User WP Harry Potter}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Contributors section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the Known to have left section. Many thanks.
Hi there. I assume from your question that you added your name fairly recently, in which case you may safely assume that you're still active!! If you check my contributions, you'll realise that I am currently auditing the entire participants list. As it is sorted alphabetically, not chronologically, this is the only way to do it. I am therefore in the process of sending everyone the same message as above (minus a very few users that I've been in personal correspondance/collaboration with literally today. Please don't feel offended in any way - your contributions are valuable to the project, of course, it's simply that this is the only way to check who's active and who's not. Hope this clears everything up. Happy-melon 16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Back from Long Break[edit]

I am back from the long break I had. I started editing again yesterday, but I didn't make any contributions to the 2007 MLB season pages. Can I still call you Hornberry because I'm used to calling you that? LADodgersAngelsfan 09:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User Statistics[edit]

Currently you have over 500 edits in Wikipedia and you already have over 200 edits on the 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season page! LADodgersAngelsfan 09:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

2008 Already?[edit]

I think it's to early to start the 2008 info. We still haven't started the playoffs info. It's still six months from the next season and I don't have much time doing the catch up work. You deleted the stats, but at the end of the season should we put it back on? LADodgersAngelsfan 04:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


You think Dodgers will make it to the playoffs? I don't think they will. They just lost a game to the D Backs and the Padres won too. Have you ever went to a Dodgers game? It looks like you live pretty far from LA. The city you live in is pretty small right. You're one of the couple thousand people. Ksy92003 lives in Long Beach. How far is that from LA and Anaheim. I don't want to mention the city I live in, but I can tell you that I'm a little more than 20 miles away from LA. The city I live in has a little over 100,000 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LADodgersAngelsfan (talkcontribs) 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet Connection[edit]

Is internet connection at the new place you live in? Why did you get tired of it? Angels and Dodgers Stadium should be very close. I think it takes less than twenty minutes to get from Angels to Dodgers Stadium so I don't think it would have a difference of 1.5 hours. LADodgersAngelsfan 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Time to Edit Wikipedia[edit]

How much time do you have to edit Wikipedia? You're in twelth grade right? I'm pretty sure you have a lot of homework. Next year you should be in college and who would do all the stuff. You know if Ksy92003 is online recently. I don't think he made a lot of edits recently. I would have a lot of homework next year I guess. Who would edit the Angels/Dodgers pages. LADodgersAngelsfan 03:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Are you online? Reply to me when you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LADodgersAngelsfan (talkcontribs) 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't Have Much Time[edit]

I don't have much time editing Wikpedia too. I would readd the statistics when I have time. Planning to create 2008 Los Angeles Dodgers season yet? LADodgersAngelsfan 07:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


2008 Los Angeles Dodgers season page is already created? How did the schedule come out so fast. LADodgersAngelsfan 07:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Devil Rays[edit]

Thanks, but I already know they are meeting in Straub Park to talk about what they plan on doing. However, as the front office also said, seen here, they ask everyone one to wait until the Nov. 8 unveiling, so I ask that you do that as well. Until that point, it's merely speculation. EaglesFanInTampa 23:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dodgers and KFWB[edit]

A couple of sources for the Dodgers contract with KFWB expiring.

They may sign a new deal but a few different stations are bidding so its best to leave it as TBA for now. Spanneraol 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

2008 MLB Season/Edits[edit]

You have exactly 600 edits right now. I think we should do what Ksy92003 did last year. LADodgersAngelsfan 03:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


What did you mean about the Dodgers season page. LADodgersAngelsfan 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

2008 MLB season[edit]

Are you sort of panicing on the 2008 MLB season? Guess what, we're way ahead of schedule! He started the Wikiproject thing for the 2007 season in mid-January and you already started it in October. I got all the standings templates done which is another good thing. I'm going to sign up for all six categories for the standings. LADodgersAngelsfan 08:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a lot of homwork too. Try editing in the summer (from June to August) which is school is over. LADodgersAngelsfan 05:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it okay if I help with 2008 season articles? New York Dreams —Preceding comment was added at 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to the project. By the way, the Angels actually play in Anaheim. LA belongs to the Dodgers. Although the Angels originally played in LA, the fact that they play in Anaheim makes their current name is way too confusing. Many fans would agree. New York Dreams (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WT:MLB concerning how to treat the game logs for the 2008 season articles. Check it out, and comment as appropriate. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter[edit]

--  jj137 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  22:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the return smile. It made my day, since I miss Ikariam3944 (previously LADodgersAngelsfan). NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  18:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day[edit]

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

October Baseball WikiProject Newsletter[edit]

--  jj137 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

2010 Governor election[edit]

Please explain the following statement you made on my talk page:

Don't add random candidates to the races, we don't know, and it's considered WP:CRYSTAL unless a source comes up. BrianY (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All the potential candidates for the 2010 Michigan governor's race are backed by bonafide journalistic sources if you read the citations. The two latest changes made were that George Perles is considering running on the Democratic side and 2006 candidate Dick DeVos announcing that he will not run in 2010. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the GOP list based on today's news story about a candidate who is not running who was the 2006 GOP candidate which opens up the Republican race for the other candidates I just listed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I should mentioned that your edit removing Lt. Gov. John D. Cherry from the list when the statement that "Cherry" (no first name) is mentioned as possibly getting a head start if Gov. Granholm joins the Obama administration was kept in was obviously sloppy. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Hodes[edit]

Hey. To respond to your comment here [4], I don't know what to make of it. I saw it and just thought it was newsworthy. Again, I don't know where this gentleman who wrote the article got his infomation. Hope that helps. If you want to remove that, fine by me. Thanks, America69 (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

District Results[edit]

Only a few states actually compile their data and have it available right now for 2008. Around March, Polidata will release the numbers for each district. Until then, (except in the few states where we know the results by district), we should just use the 2004 numbers. They are out of date, but its better than giving claims about a districts leanings without any numbers. ---CylonCAG (talk) 18:32, 09 December 2008 (CST)

Your rollback request[edit]

Hello BrianY, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Acalamari 00:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Campaign Websites[edit]

For NE-03 on the 2010 House Page, the only source you included is the Dems website. I'm not sure we should have point only to the candidates website: if this person is truly competitive, they'll probably get covered in the local/ national press. If we just include every incumbent who may be vulnerable, and link just to their challengers website, we may have a pretty long list. I'll admit I've included some seats that may not be competitive at all (RI-01), but I've included a link from a news site saying it may be competitive. Basically what I'm saying is that I think that in order to include a a seat, we should have a source from a news service. What do you think? CylonCAG (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just found a site for NE-03. But still, I think the above should be true with other races. CylonCAG (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok. The one thing I'm concerned about is including candidates in uncompetitive districts. For instance, if some Dem runs against Mike Simpson in ID-02, we shouldn't include him/ her unless we have an article saying Simpson is somehow vulnerable. But that's the only real objection I have. CylonCAG (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If that happened, definitly. However, we'd probably have a good source from a place other than his website announcing he's running. CylonCAG (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think so. We should have room there to list any candidates for particular seats. Also: do you think we should deleate NE-3 for now? The Dem running does qualify as a lesser-known candidate, and the seat is unlikely to be competitive (Smith's lukewarm 55% in 2006 aside). CylonCAG (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Smith (R) was reelected with 76.7% of the vote in a district McCain won with 69% of the vote. I'll deleate it and move it to the other page in a little while. CylonCAG (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

2010 House Talk[edit]


The main reason I'm against including TX-14 (at least for now) is the source isn't really a news site its a Ron Paul fan site. If Paul had just won a close primary in 2008 we may have been justified to put any challenger down, but since he wins easily he shouldn't automatically be included. If a site like Politico or CQ talks about Paul's challenge we should include it, but this source seems more devoted to Ron Paul news than analysis of whether Paul is vulnerable or not. As for Israel, since reports seem to be conflicting on whether he's definitely running, forming an exploratory committee, or still considering, we should leave him off. Maybe we should adopt a policy where we need to get an official announcement before including them (or at least a "highly placed source" telling a news site that someone is retiring). CylonCAG (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for the message. I completely get your point. The one thing that got to me in the article is that it makes it look like Sean Parnell is the Governor. He isn't and although safe bet he will be, she is still Governor. Do you think we should just wait until July 26 when Sean Parnell is officially Governor and then switch it back to your version? I mean Bill Richardson was a good example. Common wisdom a few months ago was he was resiging but he is still there and his Lt. Gov. is still running in 2010. As somebody who did a lot of work of the Bonnie Newman article, I've learned that plans to resign and resigning are quite the same thing. So on July 26, switch it back to your version? Cladeal832 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

could i get you opinion[edit]

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


I have reviewed you here, just to let you know. --AtheWeatherman 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi BrianY... you may want to check out User:BrianY/history Looks like someone either doesn't like you, or you have some strange friends. Frmatt (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When you use the CSD template, it automatically gets added to a list of articles tagged for speedy deletion which the admins patrol and take care of as they have an opportunity to. Just out of curiosity, what are you using to tag articles? Frmatt (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You should check out Twinkle and Friendly. Go into your preferences and under "Gadgets" turn on "Twinkle" and "Friendly" and it'll automate a lot of the process. Frmatt (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


I don't want to badger you into changing your vote, but I don't think I have ever seen you before, so I was just wondering if there was a specific thing I have/had/am doing that made you oppose me. Thanks, J.delanoygabsadds 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally, from what I see, users are not notified that they are going to be, or have been checkusered. If a user is formally accused of sockpuppetry, then they could find out whether they were/could be checked or not by looking at the SPI page, but checkusers are not required to tell people when they run checks on them (see Wikipedia:CHECK#Notifying_the_account_that_is_checked), and they seldom, if ever, do so directly. Likewise, many checks are run outside of a formal sockpuppet investigation at the checkuser's discretion (if he thinks people are socking), and in these cases, it is highly unlikely that the users being checked would know that they had a check ran on them if the check returned negative. (I can provide examples where there is no way that a user could have known the check was going to be run on them, if desired)
Based on usage statistics for the checkuser tool (can't remember exact link, will dig if you want), even accounting for the fact that most CU cases require more than one use of the tool, the vast majority of people being checked are not being notified that they were checked. I suspect this is largely due to the fact that checkusers are expected to maintain the privacy of users except when the user's actions leave no choice but to reveal info about, say, the IP address, so that blocks may be targeted.
To actually answer your question: If elected, I would suspect that the vast majority of the times I used the checkuser tool, I would not directly notify the users (before or after the fact) that I had done so. From what I have seen, this is generally how things have been done, so I would not deviate from this. Every time the checkuser tool is used, the person using the tool is supposed to enter a reason for why the check is being run. This reason, along with the user who was checked, and other information, is placed in a log that all local checkusers, all stewards, and the ombudsmen can see. If anyone was running checks on established users, especially without giving a very good reason for doing so, I cannot imagine that they would not be challenged by someone. That is why no project is allowed to have only one checkuser. J.delanoygabsadds 05:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If I was checking a new user for sockpuppetry, and the check came back positive, I would just block them.
If I had reason to believe that an established user was socking, and I found that they were, my response would depend on what the edits made with the sock were, and what the track record of the "main" account was. If the user had had a long track record of good edits, I would be more inclined to be lenient than if, say, they had been blocked a few times recently for edit warring. To give an example, if a (normally) good user created a sock to, in a single instance, make uncivil-but-not-blatantly-horrible comments to another user, I would probably block the sockpuppet, and send them an email to tell them I know about the sock, and that they had better cut it out. If the sock was being used routinely to attack other users, or to double-vote in RfAs or something, my response would (probably obviously) be far more harsh. If I was reasonably sure that a user was socking, but not certain, I would probably still email them and neutrally say that I had thought that they were socking, but I wasn't positive. Hopefully, if they actually were socking, the knowledge that someone has an eye on them would get them to stop.
With regard to accuracy, I can't really answer this fully, since I am not a checkuser, but I'll do my best. First, the CheckUser tool deletes all info after three months. If you notice something more than three months after the event occurs, Special:CheckUser is useless. From a technical aspect, CheckUser allows you to see the any IP addresses that an account has edited from. It also allows you to see any accounts that have edited from a particular IP or IP range. You can also see the user agent string that was left behind by the user. A combination of those determines the accuracy. For example, not too many people living in the United States frequently edit from a mobile phone, but some vandals take advantage of the high rate of IP turnover on such browsers to bypass blocks. So if, for example, I saw that four accounts with similar editing patterns had all edited from an IP range registered to Sprint, and they all had the same browser, I would probably say that they were the same user. Again, I can't really say with absolute certainty how you determine the accuracy of the tool, because I have never actually used it in a "live" environment. J.delanoygabsadds 17:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :D J.delanoygabsadds 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)