User talk:Couillaud

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

Federal League[edit]

In my view, the categories "[year] establishments" is one of the dumber categories on this site. Unless or EVEN IF someone is planning to spin through EVERY LAST ARTICLE and mark them. What, pray tell, is the point of such a category? It makes about as much sense as the "living people" category. Wahkeenah 21:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I have no idea. Someone just added the category and showed the Federal League established in 1912, which I corrected to 1913 (its 1912 predecessor was not really the same league). As an ordinary user (as opposed to admin) here, I usually don't judge the sensibility of categories; if they appear in an article on which I work, I just try to make sure they're correct. I added the category to the Negro National League (the first) and the Eastern Colored League, but I wouldn't be at all upset if such additions were removed from all three entries.Couillaud 14:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Technically, you should change it to 1914, since that's the first year they claimed major status. That would be consistent with the American League page, which says 1901, even though it was named the A.L. in 1900, and dates back to the Western League of 1893 or some such. Basically I avoid this category stuff like the plague. People are constantly messing with them, so I leave that obsession up to them. It's obsessive enough just to be watching pages. :) Wahkeenah 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm going to remove those categories from the three articles, since (as you point out) there's frequently a dispute over when anything was "established".Couillaud 13:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Someone's trying to pull a fast one. That picture labeled "baseball" is actually a COOPER 511T 11-INCH SOFTBALL. Wahkeenah 20:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC) For an actual baseball (an over-the-counter kid's ball, not a major league ball, but still an actual baseball) see Image:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg Wahkeenah 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your note. I am not an admin. I don't know too much about the case in question. One thing you have to be wary of, though, as a practical matter in an obviously contentious article, is drawing conclusions. For example, if there is some question as to the robo-calling legality, it would be fair to quote both parties, since the question seems to be in dispute. It's like I can claim that something is illegal based on the law, but unless charges are filed, an argument can be made that no crime was committed. The arguments made by the parties sounds like typical "look what they did" and "we only did what you did" kind of stuff that we get from both parties all the time. Meanwhile, if you want to get better advice, from an actual admin, you could try User:Wknight94, with whom I've worked on various things. P.S. I'm a Democrat, in general, but I'm not blindly allegiant. Wahkeenah 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the material on the Robo-calling in the Illinois 6th congressional district election, 2006 article. I wrote the original material, and your replacement was a great improvement. I originally wrote the material for the Peter Roskam article, where it was attacked by Conservative contributors, and finally banished to a different article. Th Roskam article now has a lock on it. I admit I have a bone to pick- I live in the district in question and received these unwelcome calls over a period of a month before the election just about every day. This is no theoretically legal matter for me. I and my family were harassed and no legal mumbo jumbo from lawyers or Wikipedia can change that. This is what happened- I leave it to others to find a balance because quite frankly I have no desire for balance. Had I been for Roskam before the calls I would have dropped him like a hot potato. Sorry for the anger. I leave it to you and others to fight for truth, justice and the American Way because I think I have had it. Thanks for your help. Sorry for remaining anonymous but I can't take anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Jonatha Brooke[edit]

Thanks for uploading that picture! Something we can cross off the to-do list on that page. Cheers pinotgris 00:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Tecmobowl and I seem to mix like fire and gasoline. Sorry to drag you into this. I thought it best to give the full citation from Paige's autobiography rather than piecemealing it. The previous wording "estimated" was fair, if in fact there is some question about it, although I'd like to see more info on that. "Unknown" is unreasonable, as you noted. Baseball Bugs 04:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (formerly Wahkeenah)

Awesome. That was a rare treat you experienced. There is no question Paige messed with reporters' heads about his birth year. My feeling about the book as that he told it straight. I've seen other interviews from way back where he affirmed that he was satisfied with the 7-7-06 date and that Veeck was also messing with people's heads. In Veeck as in Wreck, Veeck made the "Page" argument, almost certainly knowing full well that he was blowing smoke with that argument. I also saw Veeck speak once, and re-asserted that Paige was born before 1900, so he stuck by his story, anyway. The joker side of Paige was heard on the Baseball Centennial record album from 1969, where there was a little audio clip with Paige talking briefly about how he tried to keep his age secret. In the next breath, he talked about how he used to practice pitching by using the cap of a "Coke-Cola" bottle as a target. Baseball Bugs 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Paige could be compared with Dizzy Dean in a sense, and not just in the general sense of self-promotion. There is this old story that three reporters talked to Dean one day, and he gave them conflicting info on his name and birth info. He later said, "I wanted to give each of them guys an exclusive story!" Baseball Bugs 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Paige was famous for his "hesitation pitch", among others, that he probably couldn't have got away with in the big leagues. I recall Jack Brickhouse talking about Paige once, about how he had a number of pitches that were "not quite legal and not quite illegal". It's also fair to say that these kinds of legends grew in part because the Negro Leagues were pretty much "under the radar". One of my favorites, and I wish I could recall who told it, was about Josh Gibson hitting one deep into the sky and it being caught the next day in another city. Back to Paige, I recall him (or someone quoting him) talking about having men on first and third with no outs and two strikes on the batter. Somehow he got an extra ball in his hand, and as he delivered, one went to first, one went to third, for two pickoffs... and his motion was so good the batter swung for strike three. Triple play! Baseball Bugs 05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more about the debunking of the walking-the-bases-full legend. As you appear to be a specialist or expert in the area of Negro Leagues, I'm also curious as to whether you've read The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs. The author points out that Ruth hit as well against Negro League pitchers in exhibitions as he did anybody else, and he cites evidence that at least some of the pitchers were bearing down and not just "serving them up" for the fun of the paying crowd. I've also read in various places that Ruth was held in high esteem by black fans, as he was unprejudiced (contrast with Cobb, for example) and probably just because he put on a great show. That author cites at least one instance, maybe more, of when Ruth was taken to task by some bigots just for playing in exhibitions against black players. I'm guessing that made him all the more determined to keep doing so. Baseball Bugs 05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It's heartening to read about the efforts of yourself and others to bring the facts about "shadow ball" out into the sunlight. As Jenkinson said in his book about Ruth, it is much more difficult to research black baseball fully, due to the relative lack of coverage in many of the papers. But since the 1960s, following the Peterson book and some inductions into the Hall of Fame (following a little prodding and shaming by Teddy Ballgame), the process has accellerated, and the more eyes studying the matter the more information can come out. In the Ruth book, Jenkinson makes the interesting argument that the greater impact of integration in baseball has been in batting and fielding rather than in pitching, i.e. that Ruth might have been impacted somewhat if baseball were integrated then, but probably not all that much. Speaking of Ruth, I was watching the 100 Years of the World Series DVD, which shows his "called shot" in 1932, and it was fascinating. He crowded the plate (sound like anyone else we know with over 700 homers?), stood forward in the batter's box (nearly stepping out of it), put his weight into it and basically golfed it, nearly 500 feet straightaway. If that's how he hit, it's no wonder so many of his really long home runs were toward center field. The author gushes about Ruth a bit, but he's studied the matter a great deal. I recommend that you read his assessment of Ruth's Negro League exhibition games and see if it squares with your own research. Baseball Bugs 02:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

José Méndez[edit]

Hi, Couillaud. I notice that your recent edit said José Méndez managed (and pitched for) the 1923–24 Santa Clara Leopards. Do you have a source for him managing? Figueredo lists Agustín Molina as the team's manager.

BTW, in recent weeks I created stubs for All Cubans, Cuban Stars (East), Cuban Stars (West), and Philadelphia Giants. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and correct any mistakes I may have made. Thanks. BRMo 13:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I guess it's pretty easy to confuse a business/general manager with a field manager. I'm fairly new to studying the Negro leagues, and I'm always amazed at how much contradictory information is out there. Thankfully, there are good researchers like you who are working at getting things straight. Your information on the 1923 season has been put to good use at the BTF hall of merit, where I also post. Thanks again. BRMo 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Babe Ruth etc.[edit]

I never take any book totally at face value. I don't recall what it was, but I think I ran into some small but obvious factual error in the book, and that kind of thing always makes you wonder about its credibility. I think the author spent most of his time researching Ruth's individual verifiable home runs, and may have filled in a few gaps, especially in the Negro Leagues info, which seems to be very hard to come by. He was trying to make the case that Ruth could have hit anybody's pitching, which is probably true, and also pointing out that Ruth had fans of all races. Near as I can tell, Ruth was unprejudiced, which is remarkable for his era, and not necessarily typical of the big stars (Cobb and Hornsby come to mind). I don't think he said anything about the legend that some blacks liked him because they assumed (mistakenly) that his somewhat darker complexion and facial features suggested some black ancestry. It's hard to tell whether Paige was telling the truth about never facing Ruth. It might well be so. But if Ruth hit a rocket off him, he might not have wanted to bring that up. One interesting thing about the Negro Leagues is that the very thing that works against them, to "figger filberts", also works in their favor. The lack of documentation allows legends to grow. For example, there is the conventional wisdom that Josh Gibson hit about 800 homers in his career. Maybe he did, but the stats don't support it. That alone doesn't prove it wasn't the case, though. In any event, there has always been hype surrounding sports, and there are plenty of stories that don't stand up to scrutiny. And Paige was a master of spinning yarns. Some of them were obviously preposterous, but some were plausable enough to be taken as fact, and some of them were fact, just with a different spin (such as the one about how Cool Papa Bell was seemingly "faster than light"). Legends abound in both white and black baseball (Babe Ruth's called shot is one of the most obvious), but I would expect they were especially notable in black baseball, which had to find as many ways as possible to generate interest, by adding a "carnival" aspect to their games. Bill Veeck used to say, "If you had to depend on the 'true fan' for your livelihood, you'd be out of business by Mother's Day." Meanwhile, I wouldn't entirely write off Buck O'Neil's recollections. He was pretty old, and unfortunately he's gone now, but he might have remembered something, just from a different year. It could even have been a different hitter... or pitcher. Forgetting hype, people just forget stuff and combine events in their memories over time. I think the bottom line, though, is that where Jenkinson sticks with verifiable info, he comes across pretty well. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder how many homers Ruth would have hit in integrated baseball. Jenkinson argues it would have been about the same. He crowded the plate, he swung at "bad" pitches, he obviously had a keen eye and great reflexes. But there is just no way to resolve all the "what ifs" of sports. What if Lou Gehrig had remained healthy through the rest of his career? I'm thinking he would have hit at least 600. What if Ted Williams (another good man on the subject of race relations) had not had to go to war? Twice, yet? 600, for sure. Maybe 700. What if Mays could have played his career in a place more conducive to home runs? What if the Braves had not moved to the relatively high altitude of Atlanta? We might then be talking about Bonds breaking his own godfather's home run record, which I'm sure Mays would have been a little more cordial about than Aaron was. (I may have said before, people forget that Aaron was not Mr. Warmth as a player, which is not a knock, it's just his way. He was a quiet guy. Mays was a little more "out there". It's a poor comparison, but Mays and Mantle in a sense were more like Ruth, and Aaron was more like Gehrig, "the quiet hero" type.) Jenkinson's points are, what if Ruth hadn't had 50 homers taken away by the fair-when-last-seen rule? What if Yankee Stadium's death valley had been 50 feet closer? What if he had used a lighter bat? Meanwhile, what if Bonds had had to play his entire career at Candlestick? No way to know any of this stuff. The numbers that we have are all we can say for sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All this does point out one of the advantages of something like wikipedia: Questionable facts don't necessarily stick in print forever. Anytime I see an error in a printed book, I want to hit the "edit" tab. But there isn't one! :) It's there in print forever. And 100 years from now, someone might read something and assume it's the unvarnished truth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson[edit]

Is it really true that Jackie retired rather than play for the rival Giants? Or did he retire because he felt he was too old to play effectively any more, being 38 at the time? Also, the article says his last game was 9/30/56, as I gather someone blindly copied it from somewhere. That was his last regular season game, but his last game occurred during the 1956 World Series. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought so. The idea that a player wouldn't go to a different team due to it being a rival team is a fan's fantasy. I recall reading about how the Dodgers fans were "shocked" when Durocher went to the Giants. Well, he had to work somewhere. These are professionals, and they go where the money is, then and now, other factors permitting. Bavasi's patronizing comment was rather telling. The Dodgers were run the old-school way, with tight budgets, but so was every other team. Even the Yankees never paid anybody more than they thought they had to, thanks to the reserve clause that kept players from jumping ship. I have The Boys of Summer, and read it when it first came out, long ago. Sounds like I need to re-read it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In regard to the other question, being at home now I was in position to look it up. Jackie played in all 7 games of the 1956 Series, so his last game was 10-10-56, and I have adjusted the box accordingly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The World Series is not part of the "regular season", but it's not an "exhibition" either, because exhibition games are literally "for show". They don't count for anything and thus don't count as the "first game" and/or "last game" of either a player or a ballpark. Spring training games are exhibition games. Post-season trips to Japan or whatever are exhibition games. The All-Star Game is still mostly an exhibition game, except for the twist on its winner defining the home field advantage in the Series. The Series itself is baseball's championship, the most important series of the year. Its stats are kept separately from the regular season's stats, of course. The infobox should maybe be changed to show "last regular season game" and "last meaningful game", i.e World Series game, where applicable (three of the prominent figures in the 1947 Series, for example, played their final games in that Series). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Josh Gibson homers[edit]

  • I added by thoughts on the subject. The arguments made by the IP address amount to wishful thinking and trying to rewrite history. That doesn't take anything away form Gibson's greatness as a player, but the wikipedia rules are to stick with verifiable facts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Josh Gibson seasonal stats[edit]

I'm sorry for taking a while to respond -- I was out of town. Yes, of course BR Bullpen is welcome to use the statistics that I transcribed and formatted. BRMo 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


I hate to bring up this subject - but have you been making or approving some of the "Ron Liebman sockpuppet edits?" Many of these edits (which we think are made or supervised by Ron Liebman) seem to reflect a similar style or personality to that shown by Ron. Please clear this up. This is a source of some concern to us at Wikipedia. --Wknightt94 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! I can't imagine what that is supposed to be. I can't say if it's Ron liebman or not but the account is blocked all the same. Bizarre. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

talk page reversions[edit]

There is no rule against clearing your own talk page, as others (including admins such as yourself) have told me many times. Clearing other talk pages is limited, of course, to removing obvious vandalism, incivility, or irrelevancies. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Josh Gibson[edit]

Thanks for the comment on Churches of Baseball. Obviously, I got that title from Bull Durham, and it also dovetails nicely with Phil Lowry's work, one of the most comprehensive studies on ballpark history that's been done. Regarding the Gibson article, I'll see if I can add something to that RFC on YoSoyGuano. Even if all his facts were correct, his writing and structure are so poor that he's really trashed the article and likely won't let anyone change it. In the area of facts, I would put him below Liebman. In the area of attitude, it's a tossup. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Range blocked[edit]

I've blocked the range for 48 hours for returning to troll at Talk:King's Daughters. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Negro league baseball[edit]

Thanks. I assumed it was a hoax, but because I'm not very knowledgeable about the late (1950s) era Negro leagues I wasn't 100 percent sure. I agree, all of the major Negro league articles get a lot of vandalism, and it wouldn't hurt to have this one semi-protected. It's a sad comment that racism continues to be alive and well. BRMo (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your user name[edit]

Where did you get your user name from? This is a very serious question, I assure you :) Take a look at Larocque (surname), and you'll see why I ask! Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then cousin, there is another Couillaud genealogist on Wikipedia! You are the direct ancestor of Jean Baptiste and I am the direct ancestor of Antoine. To think we owe our shared existence today to Philibert Couillaud!
My site for Québecois starts here with my father- my father's side is heavily Québecois as both my grandfather and grandmother were. It seems that by chance two Couillaud/Larocque/Rock genealogists have met!
My great great great grandfather and the family actually lived in St-Charles-sur-Richelieu and was forced to leave after the failed Patriote movement. I only wish there was a clear record as to what happened. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

13:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am related through many, many more branches- for instance, most of Marin Boucher's children- Pierre, Madeleine, Francois and Francoise- are all direct relations to me. I spent a long time looking through University of Montreal PRDH records to finally connect them all. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination[edit]

The article George Richardson (Negro League officer) has been nominated for deletion. I'm not aware of any information about him other than a one sentence entry in Riley's, but since you have expertise on the 1920s Negro leagues I wondered if you might know whether any other information is available. Please feel free to comment on the AfD page. BRMo (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

NY Lincoln Giants[edit]

Hello, Couillaud! The Complete Book of Baseball's Negro Leagues by John B. Holway lists the NY Lincoln Giants as a member of the ECL in 1927 going 21-22 in league play. Is this source wrong? Please respond here on your talk page. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lincoln Giants scheduled and played games against various teams still in the ECL (hence Holway's listing them in the league), but they dropped out of the league before the 1927 season. Writing from memory, as I'm not near my resources. IIRC, Robert Peterson's Only the Ball Was White shows league standings for the 1927 ECL sans the Lincoln Giants. I know that SABR's The Negro Leagues Book shows that. Holway may have given them credit for games played against ECL teams without concern for whether they were a member of the league proper. You might also notice that in Holway's yearly standings, the totals of wins and losses almost never balances, so his standings are suspect if only for that reason.
As for the Homestead Grays/Philadelphia Tigers question, the Negro Leagues Book shows Homestead and Hilldale, but I saw no mention of Philadelphia. SABR researcher Gary Ashwill ({}) has researched the 1928 ECL, and would have the definitive answer on that.
--Couillaud (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response. I figured that the standings didn't balance because of the shoddy record keeping, and I would be skeptic if they did add up properly, truthfully - what with all of the non-league games they played and randomly counted in the standings; so I wouldn't necessarily hold that against a source. Admittedly, I am committing an inexcusable "don't" by using one source and one source only (Holway). Since there was such poor reporting on the NLs, I wonder if WP should mention the contradictions rather than take one side or the other, sort of like was done on the Western League (original), unless of course a source is just plain wrong.
I was going to start a stub on the Negro Southern League, but the WP references state it existed for 1932 only, but Holway shows the league was around for 2 seasons, 1931-1932. Do you know which is which? Rgrds.--Tombstone (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Here's where I'm going to betray some ignorance, despite my user ID. Has anyone determined why so many of the Negro League teams liked to incorporate "Giants" into their nicknames? Was it reflected glory from the New York Giants? Or was it something else? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No one really knows the answer to that for absolute certain, except that it became custom that nearly every touring team after 1900 named "Giants" (or some permutation, like "Cuban X-Giants") was almost certain to be black. Many newspapers of the 20s would refer to Negro League teams as "Giants" even if their true nickname was was known to be otherwise (this is true about the Milwaukee Bears and Toledo Tigers of the 1923 NNL).
The most commonly believed reason for this is that the New York Giants were one of the earliest big league teams to extensively play exhibitions against Cuban teams (on which many Negro Leaguers played), and John McGraw did try to sneak Negro Leaguer Charlie Grant onto the Giants by passing him an American Indian named Charlie Tokahoma. The ruse failed, but it is thought that McGraw's consistent praise for many black players, his willingness to play against them in exhibitions, and his actual attempt to integrate baseball (even if surreptitiously), caused many early teams to use the name "Giants" in homage, and the tradition continued well into the 20s and 30s.
"Stars" was the other common name for black teams. In 1923 (the season of my particular expertise), there were the Detroit Stars, St. Louis Stars, Cleveland Tate Stars, and two teams called the Cuban Stars (one in the mid-west, and one in the east); at the same time there were the (Atlantic City) Bacharach Giants, Brooklyn Royal Giants, Chicago Giants, Chicago American Giants, Harrisburg Giants, (New York) Lincoln Giants, and the Richmond (VA) Giants. It's almost a "Who's on First" routine all by itself.
-- Couillaud (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That general theory makes total sense. The Giants were famous, and a consistent contender anyway, and McGraw's visionary and unprejudiced approach might have endeared him to the black players for at least trying to break the color line, decades before Branch Rickey succeeded. That's why many black people apparently admired Babe Ruth, in that he was always willing to play in exhibitions against black players, despite sometimes getting in some hot water for it. Ruth was never an executive, though, so his influence was limited to merely "good will". That brings me to a couple of editorial points that I may have brought up before. One is that as much as Judge Landis did to purge the game of the cancer of gambling, he was also an impediment to integration. He did his job well at the time, but it would have been better for the game if he had left office sooner (one way or another) and if a more progressive leader (such as Happy Chandler) could have come along sooner. The other point is one you may have heard, lamenting the loss of the Negro Leagues on the grounds that it gave marginal players a chance which they might not have had otherwise. While that might be technically true, it's also true of the marginal white players in the big leagues. If the total number of professional players among black and white dropped, yes, the total opportunities dropped. That would be mathematically true. However, the notion that somehow black people were "better off" having their own leagues is on the same level of the similarly well-intentioned-but-ignorant argument that blacks were "better off" being slaves, in the sense of being economically "safer" as opposed to being out there on their own (i.e. free) - both of those views are highly patronizing, to say the least. OK, end of editorial. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your insightful comments from yesterday. I've heard the bunting story before, of course, and I've wondered if it's aprocyphal. If I hit a game-winning homer and got fined for not bunting, I'd tell the manager that if his primary goal is not winning, I'll go work somewhere else. That reminds me of a moment from the 1971 World Series that you might have seen in the World Series film. Game 3, 7th inning at Pittsburgh, Pirates already ahead 2-1, Willie Stargell on first, Roberto "Bob" Clemente on second (I wonder if anyone ever called the great Clemente "Bob" to his face), with Bob Robertson at bat. The bunt sign is on, but Robertson is obviously in a swing-away stance and has missed the sign. Clemente turns to the umpire to try to call time, but the pitcher is in his windup and time is not called. The right-hand batting Robertson smacks it over the right-center field fence at Three Rivers, putting the game on ice for the Pirates. I don't know if Robertson was fined, but I'm guessing he never heard the end of it. OK, back to the main editorial. It's probably unfair to characterize any historical figure as "unprejudiced", since we can't know what was in his heart and mind, we can only judge by his actions. I think of Branch Rickey and Bill Veeck that way, the two who were most interested, initially, in hiring black players. They were businessmen who saw this large, untapped talent pool, and wanted to use it. I would say the same was true of McGraw. I recall reading in Veeck's autobiography the statement that black athletes "can run faster and jump higher". Well, a comment like that nowadays would draw considerable ire. He's also the guy who said, "I'm not handicapped, I'm crippled." Political correctness was not his best feature. But he hired Larry Doby and kept him on the payroll, one way or another, as long as he owned a team. Personally, I think Doby got the short end of the Robinson hoopla, since he had to go through the same stuff but wasn't such a fiery personality, and wasn't in New York, so he didn't get the press. It's true other teams were reluctant to bring in black players, until they realized they had to in order to stay competitive. But that also explains why it has taken so long for blacks to penetrate the management side: They were seen as being "needed" on the field, but not necessarily "needed" as managers or in the front office. That's my take, anyway. Thankfully, progress has been made in those areas. Regarding Ruth, he was as politically incorrect as they come, and I wouldn't be surprised if he dropped the N-word from time to time, as was common in those days. The difference is that it wouldn't have meant anything - he was just naturally vulgar and profane. Actions speak louder than words. Your comments about Landis are interesting. It suggests that Landis might have been simply echoing the owners' desire to keep the game white. For the owners, he was the right guy, since he was unlikely to make any waves, whether he was prejudiced or not. Chandler saw the light, and of course his contract was not renewed, as with the case of other "maverick" Commissioners that I admire (Ueberroth and Vincent, in particular), who the owners replaced because they wouldn't kiss up. I do think Landis did a pretty good job of stopping the gambling problem, although the rise in player salaries that went along with the baseball boom might have had something to do with that too. And as you suggest, the Negro Leagues ended up being kind of an unofficial high minor league for the majors. Maybe something could have been done to align the Negro Leagues officially, and they might have had a more graceful denouement. So it goes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I appreciate the barnstar for José Méndez. Of course, putting together those statistics was only possible because of the extensive research into the records that's been done by the real experts, including you! BRMo (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your last message on my own talk page. BRMo (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Satchel Paige[edit]

As far as I know, he was considered a rookie in MLB despite the obvious level of experience he brought in. Just as with Japanese stars who come here and are considered rookies. Admittedly, that viewpoint kind of messes up the "rookie of the year" concept which is based on the conventional coming up through the minor league system. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. "Rookie" as a word implies someone who's inexperienced. Obviously, Paige did not fit that colloquial use of the term. But the term has been institutionalized in the "Rookie of the Year Award", which kind of complicates matters: A guy could theoretically get several small parts of years of major league experience and still technically be a "rookie" because he hadn't been on a major league roster for a minimum number of days yet or hadn't played a minimum number of games yet. With that definition, Paige technically qualifies. But this kind of dual-definition of "rookie" makes a claim about him being the "oldest rookie" factually questionable and a little bit POV-pushing. To keep it factual, you could say that Paige was the oldest player at his major league debut. That's not nearly as cute-sounding, but it's factual (unless there was an older one I don't know about). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"Record" in this sense is colloquial. I'm not seeing anything in the article about it at present, so I'll add your wording when I get the chance. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I added that datapoint along with the fact that he signed on his birthday (knowing Veeck, that was probably not a coincidence) and also specifically addressed the "Rookie of the Year" issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing the article, one thing I find interesting is that some allegedly "racist" men such as Hornsby and Stengel nonetheless used Paige in key situations, putting the needs of the game ahead of whatever their own views were. Those were blue collar guys. If I'm reading it right, the college-educated Eddie Collins, of the infamous race-baiting Phillies of that era, worked to prevent Paige from pitching in the minors later. I wonder what Collins would have thought of Paige having a Hall of Fame plaque just down the aisle from his. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
And the other obvious point of wonder is how effective Paige could be, over the age of 40. I vaguely recall that 1965 game with the A's, pitching 4 shutout innings at the age of 59. I'll concede the possibility that, it being late in the season, the Red Sox might have been advised to go easy on him. But just taking the hill at that age was amazing. George Blanda had nothing on Paige. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Subscript text

"Negro Leagues" vs. "Negro leagues"[edit]

This might be an old story for you, but we need your help on the question of capitalization. I wonder if you would mind going over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and straightening us out on the proper format. Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lineage from the filles du Roi[edit]

It's a great pity that France lost Canada to the British as that factor pretty much put a stop to subsequent French immigration to Canada, hence the shallow gene pool. The same happened in Louisiana when Napoleon sold it to the Americans. Most Franco-Americans have ancestors who immigratd to North America prior to 1800. The French were not part of the massive European immigrations in the 19th and 20th centuries. Hence our French ancestry is pretty much diluted by now. Even Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy had only 1/8th French ancestry from her paternal great-grandfather. I wonder why Madonna has never fully embraced her Quebecois maternal lineage? I recall when she first appeared on the music scene, she called herself Italian, and nothing else. Couillard, don't you agree that there's a lot of anti-French feeling in America? I noticed it when I renewed my passport last year and the Americn woman in the office reacted negatively when I gave her my name Jeanne. --jeanne (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Jud Wilson[edit]

Thank you for the correction on the Hilldales page. Good catch!

Wikiproject Kansas[edit]

Flag of Kansas

As a Wikipedian in Kansas, so full of pride that Burlington looks good, you're cordially invited to become a member of the WikiProject Kansas. If interested, simply add your name to the members list on the project page and add the template {{User WPKansas}} to your own user page.

Thanks --ilamb94 (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ron liebman is back[edit]

And this time he's impersonating you! See [1] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ron liebman. BRMo (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Bullet Rogan article[edit]

Do you happen to have Phil Dixon's book, The Monarchs 1920–1938? If so, would you mind checking up on a couple of citations? I nominated the article Bullet Rogan (which was mostly written by User:Satchel) as a good article, since I think it's one of the best Wikipedia articles on Negro league baseball. Another editor has reviewed the article and has a question about the citations. I was able to check many of the citations, but because I don't have Dixon's book I wasn't able to completely answer the reviewer's question. Could you just take a look at Talk:Bullet Rogan/GA1 and see if you can help answer the question? I appreciate any assistance you might be able to give. BRMo (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Great! At the page for the review of the good article nomination, Talk:Bullet Rogan/GA1, the reviewer (User:Wizardman) asks if the in-line citations that appear at the end of paragraphs cover all of the material in the paragraph. To be a good article, all of the information in the article needs to be cited to reliable sources via in-line citations. Most of the examples of one citation at the end of a paragraph in the Bullet Rogan article were citations of Dixon. Could you look up a couple of examples and and make sure the cited pages actually cover all the information covered in the paragraph? You can tell me or add the information directly to the review page. Thanks! BRMo (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that it probably isn't necessary to check every single citation. Spot checking a few of them for accuracy should be sufficient. I'll check with the article's reviewer. BRMo (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Wizardman (the reviewer) said spot checking a half dozen of the citations to make sure that they support everything since the previous in-line citation should be sufficient. The reason I didn't add his California Winter League statistics to the article is because I don't have them. (I assume McNeil is the source for the California statistics; that's the next purchase on my wish list--along with Gary's book as soon as it's published.) BRMo (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the California Winter statistics. BRMo (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
And thanks for looking up those references so the Bullet Rogan article could get promoted! Best-- BRMo (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Negro league baseball task force[edit]

As part of WikiProject Baseball, I've set up a new Negro league baseball task force page. I intend it to be a place where editors who are interested on these articles can communicate with each other and coordinate our work. I'd like to invite you to add your name to the task force here, or if you'd prefer not do that, at least invite you to add the page to your watch list. Thanks. BRMo (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

1942 Colored World Series[edit]

I'm working on the Satchel Paige article, and I asked a question on Talk:1942 Colored World Series that you might be able to answer. Thanks. BRMo (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Patty Larkin[edit]

We seem to be getting some engagement (at least) on the discussion page. I've put forward a proposal, please add your comments. --Simon Speed (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I responded to you on the 2 talk pages, but this isn't about the team name, it is about the c&p moves. An admin had to clean up the mess at the cat. and at Newark Peppers, see history. C&p moves violate WP copyright and forge page histories, which I'm sure was not your intent. Again, this isn't about the team name, which is plural, it's about the c&p moves. Sorry for the confusion, an admin will clean it up eventually. Please do not do c&p moves any more. Rgrds. (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


No need to apologize for length of your note to me, I often find it essential for clarity. Sorry for the delay in reply, I’ve been engrossed in several other matters. I too, avoid edit wars, similar to you, however, I will assert my argument (and engage in back and forth) with another reasonable person when I believe I am correct – so long as the discussion remains a rational exploration of our differences. If you had simply reverted my action without an inquiry, I would not have followed suit. Thanks for opening a dialogue.

I do not believe it is to the benefit of our readers (many of whom are not native speakers of English or who are reading translations of our works, but all of whom are seeking learning) to write our articles using "today’s reduced standard" (your term). That is the basis of my comment, "correct use of the language improves the encyclopedia and benefits our readers" and I will attempt to explain my reasoning.

The verb entitle dates from the fourteenth century as a verb meaning to give a title to, it is derived (ultimately) from a Latin verb that has the exact same meaning. Merriam Webster indicates - Origin of ENTITLE - Middle English, from Anglo-French entitler, from Late Latin intitulare, from Latin in- + titulus (title) and its first known use was in the fourteenth century so it is not of recent origin as you imply.

One should chose the best English word in writing. Used in our example, is entitled, is a form of that verb, meaning that its object is the title the author gave to a work (Twain gave the title to the work).

For clarity, one should use words that have as their first (primary) meaning that which is intended. That is the case with the verb entitled – it means to give a title to something (not a person) and usually by the person creating the work.

People who prefer to drop the first syllable derived from Latin. en or in, fall into the category that includes those who use flammable instead of inflammable because they fail to understand Latin and the root of the correct word, which means able to burst into flames – perhaps that came about through a failure in education and people whose limited understanding of in as meaning not.

Title, on the other hand, has three definitions, 1) noun 2) verb 3) adjective.

The noun title means, 1 a obsolete : inscription b : written material introduced into a motion picture or television program to give credits, explain an action, or represent dialogue —usually used in plural 2 a : all the elements constituting legal ownership b : a legally just cause of exclusive possession c : the instrument (as a deed) that is evidence of a right 3 a : something that justifies or substantiates a claim b : an alleged or recognized right 4 a : a descriptive or general heading (as of a chapter in a book) b : the heading which names an act or statute c : the heading of a legal action or proceeding 5 a : the distinguishing name of a written, printed, or filmed production b : a similar distinguishing name of a musical composition or a work of art 6 : a descriptive name : appellation 7 : a division of an instrument, book, or bill; especially : one larger than a section or article 8 a : an appellation of dignity, honor, distinction, or preeminence attached to a person or family by virtue of rank, office, precedent, privilege, attainment, or lands b : a person holding a title especially of nobility 9 : a usually published work as distinguished from a particular copy <published 25 new titles> 10 : championship.

The origin of title as a noun is Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin titulus meaning an inscription or title Its first known use was in the fourteenth century as well. It no longer has that singular meaning.

As a secondary meaning title is a verb that is derived from the noun, title. There is no verb root in another language as a precedent for this use, yet it is a common act to give a title to works. This is an important clue. This use as a verb resembles the contemporary creation of transitioning from the media-chop-speak eliminating a few words with a neologism instead of saying making a transition. Other contemporary examples of this process are phone (sound) rather telephone (transmits sound) or photo (light) rather than photograph (making an image through exposure to light) – the abbreviations of which leave off essential understanding of the meaning of the words.

I believe that the richness of our language is lost as we abandon our linguistic roots and believe that much of it occurring recently is the replacement of intelligible words with slang – because of the influence of mass media and advertising uses that arise from those lacking a proper education. Such declines in linguistic skills have led to widespread repetition that may be occurring frequently in "popular" use, but that does not mean that standards are abandoned among the better educated. I will remind you of your concession that correctness of earlier forms is not invalidated by contemporary changes in use. Furthermore, "popular" use does not necessarily persist. I believe that an encyclopedia is an appropriate place for standards to be maintained. Aren't we attempting to educate? Dictionaries establish meaning and often, do discuss use. Style manuals usually have a logic that is based upon data derived from just such sources.

This is why my change of is titled to is entitled is not merely a personal preference, as you suspect. I grant that the title of the work is—, is correct. I assert, however, that the work is entitled—, is a more correct verb form to chose than the one that existed in the article and, thereby, is a better use of the language. Not of great import, but one of those sticking points writers encounter when they are fond of language and its cultural origins. Although I won't "war" over it in writing that does not bear my name as author, I will continue to make it as a correction while editing here for public education and argue for its use, if necessary. Perhaps this gives you a better understanding of my edit summary. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe[edit]

Hi Couillaud, when you see a broken ref or something else that doesn't look quite right, please check the page history before trying to fix it. I'm specifically referring to your edit on the Jim Thorpe article. Graham87 03:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Who's that IP[edit]

I know I've interacted with you dozens of times, but on article talk pages so it's hard to keep track. But you may remember me from the above section Peppers. That's me, too. My IPs always start with 64.85 and always geolocate to central or eastern Missouri, although oddly usually hundreds of miles away from each other. Technology, gotta love it. I stopped using my account in 2008 because I am unable to control my obsession with my watch list and would spent countless hours worrying about my past edits, and also waste time watching useless discussions. So by using a dynamic IP, I am free of my chains and can have a real life. I interacted with you when I used an account, but if I start looking through my old contributions I end up obsessed with those same old demons, so I won't try to see when I interacted with you. I can't even mention the account, because then I might as well go back to it. Just consider me a rolling stone. --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas![edit]

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City
Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m.National Archives in Kansas City
  • This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons.

    Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!

Seal of the United States National Archives and Records Administration.svg

And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere:

Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park
  • Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge!
St. Louis
Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center
  • Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!
Wiknic logo.svg

Message delivered by Dominic·t 19:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Come to the First Topeka Meetup, January 15![edit]

Wikipedia Day 2013 Topeka.png

Come celebrate Wikipedia Day with other Kansas Wikipedians sponsored by Wikimedians Active in Local Regions in the United States (WALRUS) and hosted by the Topeka and Shawnee Public Library. Come chat, hang out and enjoy good company while find out more about Wikipedia in our regional community! RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Wikipedia_Day.

If you can't come, but still want to find out about events in the greater Topeka region sign up for future notifications at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Invite list.

Hope to see you there Sadads (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Negro World Series[edit]

It's nice to hear from you - I'd missed seeing your edits. Thanks for the offer. I'd like to eventually expand all of the articles on each of the individual series. Take care. BRMo (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Zacharie Cloutier - Ellen DeGeneres[edit]

Hello, how are you? Before you delete the addition of Ellen DeGeneres to Notable Descendents of Zacharie Cloutier, please note that during the episode with Madonna on the ELLEN was determined by them & their geneologist that they are related to each other through Mr.Cloutier.


Wikiproject Kansas[edit]

Hi there, writing to you because you are a member of the wikiproject kansas. created a GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) group for kansas, mailing list for topeka and a facebook page linked from here Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka. would like to organize some more meetups at different historic sites in topeka (and even other places if we can find someone with a car), go there and take photos, collect information and work on the articles. It could be a great group event. please let me know what you think, and sign up on the mailing list if you like. Also if you know of GLAM sites anywhere in kansas, please add them to the list. Also I would like to organize a photo contest for Kansas. you can send me a mail if you like as well, my mail is on my user page.

thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Patty larkin lawrenceks 2005.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Patty larkin lawrenceks 2005.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

How to revert King's Daughters article?[edit]

Couillaud, is it possible to revert King's Daughters to its state before this large change? 19:05, October 30, 2013‎ StephDragonas (talk | contribs)‎

Only after making several changes did I realized that someone changed the article greatly since I first read it, and changed it for the worse.

The sources added (a long list) are not mainly about the King's Daughters, but using them to make some other point. One article is from the Libertarian point of view. arguing that colonists make money for the government that is colonizing, so it is all slavery or some sort of servitude -- ignoring completely the people themselves and their free choice, the nations that grew up, and in general anything not libertarian. I think I took that reference out, once I found the article on line and read it all. Another article that itself had no references, concluded that the King's Daughters were not prostitutes, but was used to support a sentence to the opposite effect. There are other changes I made, trying to get the article back to what I first read, when it was clear, to one point, and well-referenced. I know how to revert changes just made, but I am not sure what would happen if I clicked undo to StephDragonas changes with many edits after it. Is there some simpler way to undo them, and everything afterward, including my own writing and moving of graphs? All the other changes were vandalism followed by undoing the vandalism. Then bots to add the dates to where I put citation(s) needed next to various unsubstantiated and extreme sentences.

Can you do it, or teach me how to do it?

I clicked to watch your talk page so I will see a reply you put here. I do see the changes to King's Daughters (how did I miss the big one?), or you could write on my talk page or the article's talk page, as you prefer.

Thank you for any help you can give. ---Prairieplant (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I see the only way to do it was manually, keeping the last good version open in one tab, while I restored the article and its references in another tab, using Edit. It is done. If you see any errors, do correct them. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Cleveland-Cincinnati Buckeyes[edit]

Hello, Couillaud! I'm the same 64.85 IP from up above on your talk page, even though right now my IP address looks like some binary secret code. Could you insert the source into the Cleveland Buckeyes article for the Cleveland home games in 1942? I know you have better sources than I, and I could not make the Cleveland connection until 1943. Thanks. Rgrds. --2002:4055:D7AF:0:0:0:4055:D7AF (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 64.85! It may take me a day or two to dig out the specific reference, but it is any number of articles from the Cleveland Call-Post from 1942, in which the team is identified as the Cleveland-Cincinnati Buckeyes (as opposed to Cincinnati-Cleveland, but I take that as hometown bias). It is clear that the team was a joint venture, as the team played about half its home games at Crosley Field and the other half at League Park. At the time of the September 1942 accident that killed two Buckeye players, most newspapers referred to the team as the Cleveland Buckeyes. Also, Baseball-Reference, which drew its information from SABR's Negro League Committee, lists the team as Cincinnati-Cleveland (, though I understand that Wikipedia may not consider it a proper source.
However, I can find one of the specific newspaper references as soon as I can. I'm currently doing research on the 1942 NNL and NAL seasons, and there is a whole backstory (or a whole set of backstories) to the Buckeyes' odyssey.--Couillaud 14:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Baseball-Reference is a legitimate reliable source, however the B-R Bullpen (an open wiki) is most definitely not. So for the time being, I'll stick the B-R reference in the article. I know Holway lists them as "CIN/CLE Ethiopian Buckeyes", but Green Cathedrals (2006) does not list any Cleveland (League Park) home games until '43. I'm going to add the ballparks per Cathedrals to the article and you can tweak them when you finish your research.
While I have your ear, I wanted some clarification. Some years in the NNLs and NAL there was a play-off between the first-half champ and the second-half champ, other years there was no play-off. In the years where there was no play-off, was it because the same team won both 1st & 2nd halves, or did they not play split seasons those years? Also, are the 1st & 2nd half standings ever published, or did they only publish overall standings? Much Rgrds. -- (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hard to say about split/non-split seasons, but what I know from my 1942 research is that they intended to have a split season (in fact, local newspapers made claims that the Buckeyes and Elite Giants each had won the first-half title in their respective leagues), there was a specific announcement in several Negro papers that the NNL had cancelled its split season and would play a full season. There was no explanation given, but I have two theories. The most likely is that the two leagues had decided in 1942 to meet in a World Series, and there really wasn't enough time (weather and fan interest) to have two rounds of playoffs; the next-most likely is that the leagues' record-keeping was so poor that they honestly couldn't say who had won the first half, and a split-season playoff would be fraught with claims and counter-claims as to who actually deserved to be in the playoff (my count shows both KC and Homestead winning both halves by slim margins, but that's subject to finding some 10 or so still-missing game scores).
Short answer is that the split season was an effort to inject extra interest in the season and provide a post-season; with the World Series being agreed upon in an ad hoc manner in '42, it probably was convenient to drop it. In earlier seasons it was the only post-season for both leagues; in later ones, they could at least plan to shorten the regular season by one week and have time for it. And because of the generally poor in-season record-keeping they did (NAL was much worse than NNL), they didn't always report whether there was a split season, and exactly who won. Clear as mud? :-)
Still looking for my Cincinnati/Cleveland ref. Those are in a manila folder somewhere. -- Couillaud 13:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting, Thank you. The parts that can be verified in the sources would be good to add to the respective league's article one of these days. Rgrds. -- (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your sig[edit]

Hello, Couillaud! I responded to you on the talk page re: Washington/Homestead. But that is neither here nor there, I was wondering if you knew your signature link has been broken for awhile? If I remember correctly, if you have an account, then if you click on "preferences" on the sidebar and go to the area for signatures, there is a box that you can check or uncheck that would turn on or off the link to your user page. I think you might have accidentally turned off that part of your signature. If you did it on purpose, then disregard this message. See Wikipedia:SIG#CustomSig if you want to fix it. Rgrds. -- (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Meetups in the Kansas City Area[edit]

Join us for the fight for free and equal knowledge!

I want to invite you to two upcoming Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism meetups in the Kansas City Area, as part of Women's History Month. The first event will be on March 7 in Lawrence from 10:00am to 5PM and the second on March 28, 2015 from 12:00 PM to 4:30 PM at the Kansas City Public Library. Join us either digitally or physically for these events! Of course, like other Wikipedia events, editors are more than welcome to edit about topics of their own interest, but our hope is to help close the gender gap on Wikipedia! Join us for both these welcoming events! Sadads (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because your username was listed at Wikipedia:Meetup/Kansas/Invite list or attended the the November 2014 WWI Museum Editathon. If you don't want to hear more about meetups in the region, please remove yourself from the Kansas Invite list.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Couillaud. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Couillaud. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)