User talk:Soxrock/Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Soxrock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey number in infobox

Distracting? Give me a fucking break.Chris Nelson 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus christ, stop removing the numbers from the templates. All we have to do is change the template so that the number appears in a different place (like inside, as you voted) and it'll show up there. The field can stay the same, so you're only creating more work by removing it completely. I'll undo all of them you change like this, so please stop.Chris Nelson 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standings

Please remember to do PCT points, GB, and place value instead of just the record when updating the standings. Hornberry 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Storm

Please do not make certain style edits to Tampa Bay Storm page or the 2007 standings page that do not match the standard format and usage for all the team pages, as this is a formal WikiProject, and we are wroking to build consistent team pages accross the project. If you wish to suggest making changes what is currently done that could be used for all teams in the league, please start a discussion on the matter at the AFL WikiProject Talk Page

I noticed that you made 25 individual edits to add one game log to the 2007 Tampa Bay Storm season article. Editing articles in this fashion causes unnecessary stress on the database. I would strongly suggest you begin making use of the "Show preview" button below to check your work prior to submitting your contributions. Instead of 25 small edits, previewing your work will enable you to accomplish the same changes with only a few edits. In the recent past, you have been advised that multiple minor edits to articles is frowned upon because of both server load and data storage issues. I encourage you to continue contributing, but please consider doing so in the way that will best benefit the project. Cheers, Caknuck 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MLB season game logs

Hi, great job updating these pages. I spent one weekend catching these up and I know what goes into it. Anyway, I noticed on the Detroit Tigers season game log many of the player links were linked either to the redirect, disambiguation pages or sometimes even the wrong person's page. A few examples would be Todd Jones instead of Todd Jones (baseball), Joe Borowski (which links to a different Joe Borowski) instead of Joe Borowski (baseball) or Roberto Hernández instead of Roberto Hernández (baseball).

Normally, I would just go ahead and fix these without a mention. But lately you've been editting most of the season game logs which could end up resulting in quite a few more bad links if I didn't give you the heads up on this. These links have to be repaired sooner or later and can be quite time consuming (here's a current list of disambiguation pages to give you an idea of how the pile up). I didn't want to discourage you from further edits, just make you aware of the links. I usually do a test page and click the links in my edit to test them (even then a bad link occasionally slips through). Thanks, sorry this was so long. RobDe68 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion

We need to decide on the format for the individual team season pages. --ROASTYTOAST 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should we use for the tables. A regular wikitable, sortable wikitable, or the table with the beveled edges.--ROASTYTOAST 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't ask me, but I personally think the beveled edge tables look terrible. Nolesrule 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Opinion

Um... that's a very difficult decision to make. While they are Sports-themed shows, they, themselves, aren't sports. But that does seem to be the most reasonable choice... Although they are a television show, since they are Sports-themed, I would consider them to be sports-related. And even if they were "television-related," they are still 100% based on sports, and your edits would still be considered sports-related. There's my $.02. --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Storm roster

I was looking over the roster and some of the player names link to a page of another person by the same name. Those will need to be differentiated somehow. One example is Kevin House. Nolesrule 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:PhiladelphiaSoul.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:PhiladelphiaSoul.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ARI 1998-2006.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:ARI 1998-2006.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Tacoma Dome

You had listed as a designer of the stadium Buckminster Fuller, when he clearly didn't design the stadium. Fuller IS credited for creating the geodesic dome, though and I thought someone was fooling around when the design credit went to Fuller. Elwin Blaine Coldiron 21:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Smith (journalist)

A tag has been placed on George Smith (journalist), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

so he's a reporter. No assertion here that he's a good one or famous for it. A7

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ga rr ie 23:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Baltimore Orioles season

Please stop editing this article in 35 freaking edits. I've been trying to edit it and there's always an edit conflict because you're making so many edits to the article. It's really hard to do everything and completely clutters the page history. I've told you several times already. I can't do anything legally because of this, but you've been told to avoid this several times by me and a couple other users. It's really hard for all users who want to try to edit an article. Please, one more time, stop. If you won't listen to me, I'll find somebody who I know you will listen to. Please stop this; one edit is much better than 20,000. --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Football League Project

DEFINITELY include me in this project. Let me know what I can do. A major area of interest of mine is correcting articles that erroneously refer to "NFL Records" or activity, when it actually is in whole or in part AFL information. SugnuSicilianu 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Tampa Bay Storm season

You did the same thing to this article. I don't think there were any edit conflicts, but in a span of more than 20 minutes, you made 37 edits. 37 edits in 20 minutes? How about only 1 edit?

And I see you're also starting to do this to 1902 Baltimore Orioles season. Please stop cluttering up every single pages' edit history and do everything in only one edit.

Please leave me a notice on my talk page so I know that you read this message and are aware of it. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you prefer it?Chris Nelson 23:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left this comment at Chrisjnelson's talk page:

“

So, Soxrock, you're saying that you'd rather try to avoid getting in an edit conflict yourself, even though it means forcing other people to get involved in edit conflicts? In my opinion, you're just selfish and self-centered.

”

It seems that you don't seem to think about the problems that you cause other people because you're too concerned about trying to avoid problems for yourself. You don't think nor care at all about all the edit conflicts you cause for other people. Don't you understand that doing so many frequent edits causes an edit conflict for anybody else who tries to edit it? Somebody might be trying to add a couple entire sections. But because you are always trying to "avoid edit conflicts," you create them and prevent other users from adding helpful information so you can add a very tiny bit, sometimes even just changing a single number some 27 different times. I have personally experienced an edit conflict created by you taking very simple edits that can be made all in one edit to avoid an edit conflict. For 2007 Baltimore Orioles season, I couldn't make my edit because you were making 40 individual edits in a span of 45 minutes. I received the notice that I was involved in an edit conflict with another user 5 different times because of this. I couldn't make my edit until you were finally done. And the other thing that pisses me off even more was that the edit I was going to make... I was trying to help you out by re-ordering the sections so they would be in the right order. So because you were being so selfish and self-centered to try to avoid an edit conflict for yourself, not even thinking that you could create one for another user. But in the end, you created five edit conflicts for another user who was trying to help you. That really pisses me off and frustrated me so much. --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Football League Project

I have a list of all AFL players on my page at http://www.remembertheafl.com/AFLPlayers.htm I am transposing them to List of American Football League players, which I started, and as I can, I'm adding bios to those players. I've created the template "Infobox Pro Football Players", which allows input on a player's CFL, AFL and NFL experience without having to call the AFL All-Star Game the "Pro Bowl", etc. I created a template "Infobox merged sports league" whch shows that the AFL did not "fold", it merged. I corrected the Chiefs page which said they won two AFL championships in 1962 and 1966, and an NFL championship in 1969. They NEVER won an NFL championship, they won another AFL championship in 1969, and the World Championship. I am uploading images of Topps and Fleer AFL football cards for use on AFL player bios, etc. etc. Can you e-mail me? I find this mode of correspondence very unwieldy. RememberhteAFL@aol.com SugnuSicilianu 13:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small Edits on ATH Stats

Just curious why you're doing such quick, small edits on the Around the Horn stats? From looking at your talk page, I see i'm not the only person who has questioned why you do numerous sequential small edits on an article (see the Storm discussion). I'm not sure why updating 4 numbers (the appearance totals for today's 4 panelists) necessitates 4 seperate edits, which certainly takes longer than 1 edit updating all 4 appearance totals at once. Bjewiki 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that can be done?

Obviously not. I've had to come here to your talk page at least 10 times it seems like. And how many times have you stopped making frequent edits? Hmm... let me count them all. Okay, I'm done. You haven't stopped even once.

It's become very unbearable. I think it would be best for you to take a break for a while so you won't bother as many users as you have. Another user has talked to you about it and another has come to talk to me about it. In the past couple hours, you've annoyed 2 more users.

And did you read the comment I left last night about 2007 Baltimore Orioles season? The one I left under the section labeled 2007 Tampa Bay Storm season? Please leave me another comment on my talk page in response to that comment I left you last night and this one.

Again, I really think it would be best for you to take a break from editing for now. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that you have made all your edits to the game logs in one edit. I applaud you for that, and that's good because some people have stopped editing them as frequently, me in particular. I really don't know where we would be without you.

On the contrary, because you've done that to the game logs, I know that you are capable of shrinking the amount of edits you make at a time to one article. If I may suggest something, I suggest that you at first start on the articles that nobody else really edits, like 1961 American Football League draft, and try to make those changes in as few edits as possible. Since nobody else edits it besides you, you won't have to worry about edit conflicts. Then, I would gradually work my way up to slightly busier articles and make some edits to those articles in as few edits as possible.

If you're really trying to make fewer edits in the same article at one time, and I know you're perfectly capable of that, I think it would be helpful for you to start with edits that you're the only one who edits and make those edits all in one. Since you're the only one working on that article, you won't have any edit conflicts at all to worry about. Then, gradually work your way up. Again, I know you're capable. --Ksy92003(talk) 02:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a severe case of Editcountitis.Chris Nelson 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College Baseball Project

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College baseball related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college baseball WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you!

Orphaned non-free image (Image:San Diego Chargers helmet new.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:San Diego Chargers helmet new.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1907.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1907.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1908.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:NYYLogos PrintNY1908.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hamiltontigerslogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hamiltontigerslogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Pistons 1997-2001.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pistons 1997-2001.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TampaBayDevilRays 1001.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:TampaBayDevilRays 1001.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Nl 1900 stlouis 01.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nl 1900 stlouis 01.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the deal with removing the HOF template from so many pages?

Hi - why are you removing the HOF template from all of those baseball pages. It is a perfectly good, carefully crafted and small template that denotes the central honor in the sport. It belongs on the HOF's member's pages. Please put them all back. Thanks, Brholden 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, I had not seen this discussion. The normal form for deletions as a result of a discussion is something like "deleted per discussion at link_x". It would have been easy for you to just ctrl V this into the edit summary for each page as you did it to avoid confusion and reverts. I notice that others have had the same response on various of the pages that you edited. Thanks, Brholden 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask the same question. Please use an edit summary at least that says "Removing template per deletion discussion" or something. Otherwise it appears to be vandalism. --AW 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to third the suggestion that you really should at least use an edit summary referring to the discussion in doing such a thing. But I'd add the suggestion that you actually not act at all while the discussion is still on-going. I do note in your defense that at the time you acted, the opinion that had been expressed in the discussion was strongly for deletion. So perhaps that's reason to have believed there was consenus at that time. But still, there is no rush. Since that time, a number of folks have shown up to advocate keep. They're still outnumbered, but the point is that given the way things can sometimes wax and wane in deletion discussions, it's probably best to let the discussion play out and be closed before acting on it. Mwelch 00:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAKE Hamilton Tigers logos

Please stop posting up fake logos of the Hamilton Tigers. I've removed the fake Hamilton Tigers logos from the article. Please visit the 3 links below for the authentic logo designs that were used on the Hamilton Tigers jerseys of the 1920s:

Thanks Nhl4hamilton 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Why are you not responding to this request??? Nhl4hamilton 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Good, we're finally having a discussion. In addition you will notice the first link I gave you was a scanned image I supplied from a book titled, Hamilton's Hockey Tigers, by: Sam and David Wesley. In this book there are plenty of other photos of Tigers players from the 1920s wearing the jerseys and none of them are wearing jerseys with logos the version you've been posting up on the article. They are all wearing logos just like in the image I scanned and uploaded to the photobucket web site and supplied to you. It use to be the case that the version you've been posting up on the article was floating around all over the place on the Internet but slowly and surely I've been removing all those fake versions from the Internet myself with the help of some others. Thanks Nhl4hamilton 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

This is in response to your edit summary for this edit; the edit summary reads as follows:

“

This is my own damn userpage

”

Now, here is a sentence I've taken directly from WP:USER:

“

Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.

”

However, it does later say:

“

In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons.

”

In other words, if you are against another user, like aviper2k7, editing content in your userpage, all you have to do is simply reguest on his talk page that he refrain from editing your user page. But remember that it's not your userpage; it, as well as every other page, belongs to Wikipedia. You don't own your userpage and it can legally be edited by anybody else.

This may be slightly immaterial, but I do agree with aviper2k7. As you have made a bulk of edits unnecessarily splitting them up into a large amount of edits, I believe that including that userbox is misleading for other users. Technically, you haven't made as many edits as that userbox claims, as you in the past have had a tendency to take a huge edit and split it up byte by byte. That's only my opinion, but I myself won't do anything in the matter. I will leave a comment to aviper on his talk page to tell him of this comment, but if you don't want him to edit your userpage then you will have to ask him. --Ksy92003(talk) 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals Colors

the colors on the Cardinals players infoboxes (Bob Gibson, Bruce Sutter,etc.) for retired players are way to similar to Red Sox players colors--Yankees10 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]

NHL articles

I have noticed that you have placed notices on all 30 NHL articles about "current topic / 2007-08 xxx season." Please revert all your edits in which you have done this, as the season hasn't begun. You did this, you fix it. You make the mess, you clean it up. The only reason I'm asking you to do it, when I would normally do it myself, is that my computer can't handle reverting 30 edits all at a time. Please revert them. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I beg to differ. For example, when does a hockey game start? Is it when the players get to the arena? Is it when they take the ice for warmup? No, it's when the puck is first officially dropped for the first time. The season doesn't begin until the first game begins and ends when they last game ends.

And in your example, the draft isn't a part of the season. It's a part of the offseason. Similarly, the offseason isn't a part of the season. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Around the Horn

Again, please don't edit the columnist's records mid-show. This makes their records inaccurate. Adjusting the appearance total and percentage before the episode ends makes it inaccurate because any of the columnists could still win.

Please don't adjust their records because their records don't change unless they win or lose. They don't win or lost until after the show is over. Please get out of these bad habits. I've already come to you about this once, and it doesn't seem like you've made hardly any effort to do this. Why do you always ignore everything freakin' little thing I tell you? --Ksy92003(talk) 22:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, see this edit. You changed the appearances which are in the records. Changing the appearances changes the percentages. Changing the percentages adjusts the record, which you can't do until the end of the show. I say the end of the show, not until they are eliminated, because there was one episode where Paige and Mariotti were in the Showdown, but Reali gave Adande the win because he wanted to visit the lounge. He was credited with the win, despite the fact that he was already eliminated.

Also, for the record, I've looked at Around The Horn's edit history, and I've calculated that, since April 30, you have (obviously) made a majority of the edits to that article. You've made somewhere around 88% of the edits to that article since then. The even worst part is that you've made, on average, 13 edits per day. Excluding weekends, when the show doesn't air, that's 19 edits per day. On average, every day that airs a new episode of Around the Horn you have made close to 19 edits each day. Hmm... let's see. 19 edits that causes the servers to lag, extends the page history, and causes edit conflicts and stress to other users... or, 1 edit that doesn't cause edit conflicts, nor extends the edit summary. Look at the edit history. This is the last 5,000 edits to Around the Horn. Because of your tendency to clutter up the servers and make all these edits, every other users' edits, edits that may greatly contribute to the article, are virtually lost because all it says is "Soxrock," "Soxrock," "Soxrock," "Soxrock," "Soxrock," "Soxrock," "Soxrock," "Soxrock," "Soxrock," "Soxrock," and "Soxrock." It says your name all over and everybody else's edits are lost because they can't find their edits anywhere.

All you do in all these edits is change one digit. You'd rather make 20 edits where you change one digit than change 20 digits in one edit. You've really got to change your habits. And you ignore my suggestion, as well. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't change the percentages because the denominator of the fraction (amount of appearances) is so great that changing it by one doesn't change the percentages necessarily. And anyway, you did change the percentages. You need to understand that changing any information, such as a columnists' total appearances or their percentages (no matter how slightly) before a final verdict has been given, meaning when the episode ends, also adjusts their overall record. Adjusting a columnists' overall record before it has been determined makes it inaccurate. It's as if a baseball team were up 10-0 in the bottom of the 9th inning. The team can still score 11 runs to win the game. You can't say that the game is over until the final out has been made and the game ends. Similarly to Around the Horn, you can't change somebody's record until the winner is stated and the episode ends. You really need to understand that, and I don't think you do. --Ksy92003(talk) 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been beaten to death, but it shouldn't take 6 edits to update the ATH stats, like it did today. As was pointed out eariler, you should NOT be updating the appearances untill after the show isfinished. I'm actually a little curious as to why/how you updated the panelist appearances 10 minutes before the show started (according to the history log). It actually looks like you had to go back and change one of the panelists (from Cowlishaw to Smith) after the fact. Bjewiki 21:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stats shouldn't be in at all. They are original research and are unofficial. The fact that an editor is drawing information straight from a TV show is absolutely wrong. Information needs to come from published sources.++aviper2k7++ 22:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just thought of that. The records aren't official and aren't kept track of with the exception of Woody Paige approaching his 300th career victory. The records, even if they were official, would need to come from an official source, otherwise they are, as aviper2k7 pointed out earlier, original research. When I first saw that their overall records were on the article, I did think to myself, How did you get these stats in the first place? I didn't think anybody kept track of it. I'm sure somebody has kept track of the records in some way, otherwise they wouldn't know that Paige is approaching 300 career victories on the program. But I don't think that it is an ATH staff person or anybody related to the show who keeps track of it. And as ATH doesn't officially keep track of the stats, nor does anybody else official keep track of them, they would be original research and can't be attributed to an official, published source.

Secondly, to build on aviper2k7's point, I don't believe you can cite the television program if the television program itself doesn't recognize the stats to be official. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Tampa Bay Storm season/2007 Los Angeles Avengers season

Hey. Obviously, you've done a lot of work on the Storm's season article. I was wondering if you could possibly tell me which websites you use to get the information to include in the article? I want to work on the Avengers' article because they are my home team and because they're in the playoffs this year. Thanks. --Ksy92003(talk) 14:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll get on that later tonight. Most likely it will be near midnight. I'm going to the Los Angeles Avengers/Utah Blaze AFL game. Probably be back sometime around 11:30. Cheer on the Angels for me please =) --Ksy92003(talk) 16:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rick Porcello

I've nominated Rick Porcello, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Rick Porcello satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Porcello and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Rick Porcello during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. fuzzy510 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tim Alderson

I've nominated Tim Alderson, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Tim Alderson satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Alderson and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Tim Alderson during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. fuzzy510 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chris Withrow

I've nominated Chris Withrow, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Chris Withrow satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Withrow and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Chris Withrow during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Peter Kozma

I've nominated Peter Kozma, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Peter Kozma satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Kozma and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Peter Kozma during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kevin Ahrens

I've nominated Kevin Ahrens, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Kevin Ahrens satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Ahrens and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Kevin Ahrens during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. fuzzy510 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Matt Dominguez (baseball player)

I've nominated Matt Dominguez (baseball player), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Matt Dominguez (baseball player) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Dominguez (baseball player) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Matt Dominguez (baseball player) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. fuzzy510 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angels' game log

Alright. I wasn't gonna say anything at first, but I think I should tell you. Back in December when I first created this little project, I thought it would be fun to update the game logs and all that stuff. However, ever since you came, you've always been doing it, taking that away from me. Some people like me actually like doing this. But since you got here, I haven't been able to update the game log for the one team that I really want to, the Angels. Could you at least leave the Angels' log (and the log of whichever team the Angels play) blank so I can do it? I really like updating the game logs and you've taken that away from me. The last several times I've tried to do it over the past several months, you've always just beaten me. I spend a lot of my time watching games on MLB.com and getting the information for the game logs so I can edit them. But whenever I try, you always beat me to it.

I really enjoy updating the game logs, and I wish that you could at least back off from doing the Angels' game log so I can have that opportunity. In fact, judging by how many edits you've made to all the game logs, it looks like you've kinda stolen the entire project for yourself, not letting anybody else making any edits to the game logs. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way, but could you please at least let me do the game logs for the Angels and their opponents? --Ksy92003(talk) 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know about you updating at that early time. I applaud you for that. I didn't mean that you steal the project per se, only that you do every single game, and sometimes, like these afternoon games, you've done all of them. To be honest, I was just a little frustrated because the Angels won. It makes me feel good to have the Angels, my team, win and be able to update their log. Because of that, I could care less if you update the logs if the Angels lose. I don't particularly care about the other articles because I don't particularly care about any other team (sorry for whichever team you are a fan for). My main point is that I would like to have a chance to update the Angels' game log after they win. I will not have a problem with you updating it if the game has been over for a reasonable amount of time and I haven't updated it yet. I will say that tomorrow, the Angels are playing the Royals and I am not sure if I will be able to update the game log tomorrow night, win or loss. So could you back me up on that?

Another point: surely, you've noticed that I'm rather despised around the project. Is it alright if I work with you? And by that, I mean if you need help with anything, can I help you do it? And vice versa? For instance, how do I upload an image and give it the "fair use" thing so it can be used on Wikipedia? How do I do all the copyright stuff?

And ONE more question: Which Sox do you like; White Sox or Red Sox? I'll assume White Sox because you were the one involved in that "History of the Chicago White Sox" cutting-and-pasting debate we had some months ago. --Ksy92003(talk) 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I uploaded this image: [[Image:Gretzkystatue.jpg]]. I hope I did this right and aren't violating any rules.

Second, if you need any sort of help at all with anything, sports or not, if you have a big job that you would like to split up with me, then I'm available.

Third, no disrespect to the White Sox, but despite them being one of the worst teams this year (again, it pains me to say that to a Sox fan... unless you're a Red Sox fan. If you were, then I'd be all over your case right now saying "RED SOX SUCK!!! RED SOX SUCK!!! RED SOX SUCK... even though they're just as good as the Angels), but despite the White Sox having a lower record than the past, I doubt the Angels would be able to sweep them in Chicago. Do they go back there? You know, it was a series in Chicago that the Angels lost before dominating the rest of the league. They just swept the Pirates, but that doesn't hold much weight, does it?

Interesting how you're a fan of the White Sox but are fans of 3 Tampa Bay teams. Do you live in Tampa and are simply ashamed of being a D-Rays fan?

Anyway, the main reason why I'm replying back: please check this image, [[Image:Gretzkystatue.jpg]], and see if I did it right or if I have to change anything. And let me know if you need any help with any sort of big jobs. --Ksy92003(talk) 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did something that I never thought I would do... answered my own question in the most obvious way. The Angels and White Sox meet in the Windy City September 14-16.

For the D-Rays, it's hard to imagine that in the past decade they had Jose Canseco, Wade Boggs, Fred McGriff, and this season is the one where they're on pace to set a franchise record for wins in a season with 72, which is still 18 games below .500. No offense again, but they are one of the sadder franchises and I can't help but be sympathetic for them.

Anyway, thanks for your help, mate. I'll be cheering on the Angels the rest of the season =) And good luck with your Sox.

For the record, I'm almost always on Wikipedia, and when I'm not, I usually check back and look at my watchlist every 30 minutes. So if you need my help, unless I'm out of the house, within 5-30 minutes I will reply back and be of assistance. I'll let you know if I've got any sports things going on. Tomorrow, I already told you I'll be gone. I'm leaving at 1:00 at the latest and don't plan on being back until the evening, maybe 8:30ish. The next monday, I've got the Avengers game (I'm a season seat holder by the way). And my only other thing in the next three weeks is an Angels game July 13. --Ksy92003(talk) 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colors

I dont know if you care about this but, Can you go to Reggie Jacksons and Jeff Nelson (baseball player) talk pages and vote for what colors they should have in there infoboxes, thanks--Yankees10 23:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]

Disambiguation links

Hello again. I'm now leaving this comment because I recall a couple days ago another user came here to alert you that, when you're updating the game logs not to forget such links. Well, that comment inspired me to make a list of all pitchers whom this applies to. I got all these names from scrolling through the player rosters from the articles of all 30 MLB teams. The list can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles/Special pitchers. That page also contains my new template, 2007 MLB season game log by team:{{2007 MLB season game log by team}}I created this template to be used for easier navagation from game log to game log. All the information you would need can be found on that page. Hopefully you use this list to prevent making disambiguous links or re-directs. --Ksy92003(talk) 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D-backs uniforms

These Dbacks template is grossly inaccurate. The script is not in white, but sand. JaMikePA 15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Veterans_Stadium.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Veterans_Stadium.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Please stop redirecting articles that are currently under AfD. Allow the AfD to close. IrishGuy ^talk 21:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PittsburghGladiators.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PittsburghGladiators.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

It really took me a long time before I figured out that you had left that comment on my talk page. Um... where should I begin? Well, all I know is when I went to Talk:Reggie Jackson I saw that one of the users (I believe Yankees10) had called the other user (Chris Nelson a moron (which, might I add, was spelled incorrectly). I went to Yankees10's talk page and warned him not to make any personal attacks, which he promptly replied by telling me that Chris had made personal attacks towards them. That's how I got involved in the discussion.

Chris was telling me the things that Yankees10 and said to him, and... oy... it just escalated from there. As you are aware of, there was the discussion on Yankees10's user subpage, and... wow. I honestly don't know what's up with those two, but this has been going on for a while, at least since April, and it shows no signs of stopping any time soon. I'm really trying my hardest to get them to work together and not remain uncivil towards each other, but I don't know what else to do. I've had several disputes with users in the past months as well, but nothing like this.

I also think that these two are ignoring my warnings. However, Chrisjnelson hasn't done anything since the time I warned him last week, and Yankees10 has gotten into a dispute today with an anon. Chrisjnelson doesn't seem to be a problem anymore as far as making personal attacks and uncivil comments, but Yankees10 doesn't seem to be letting up. I'm gonna keep trying until they both relax and can eventually work together.

Also, if you remember the comments I left earlier about 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season, I would also like to edit 2007-08 Los Angeles Kings season when that season begins, if you don't mind. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it would only be 29 articles. There are 30 NHL teams.

Anyway, we've had some disputes in the past. What's going on between them is much worse because that actually is disrupting Wikipedia. It does seem like Yankees10 cares more about changing the colors based on his own personal preferences. But I'm trying not to concern myself with the infobox colors unless absolutely necessary. But I also think that some sort of block is necessary for Yankees10 to stop these disruptive edits and harsh actions towards other users. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never met anybody as stubborn as them. And the worst part is I have yet to find any real reason behind their hatred towards each other. I think that they both need to be blocked for uncivil behavior and disrupting the editing process. But I'm not an admin, so I can't implement any sort of block. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will possibly bring this to his/her attention later. Anyway, no problem and thank you for helping me with this problem. I couldn't do it alone. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees10

Discussion

Yankees10 was blocked yesterday evening. BrendelSignature blocked him for a period of 24 hours for violating Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on Dave Winfield. He reverted several users changing the colors of player infoboxes.

Interestingly enough, this block is completely unrelated to the dispute between him and Chrisjnelson, although my first warning to him was because of a comment on Talk:Reggie Jackson in a discussion about which colors Jackson's infobox should be, and then he exploded and began doing it to all other articles. Yankees10's argument is that the infobox colors should be the current Padres colors because he still works with the team, while originally the colors reflected his playing days with the Padres, and the infobox was the old gold/brown colors.

The user who blocked him, BrendelSignature, I don't think had any knowledge of the dispute between Yankees10 and Chrisjnelson, so if Yankees10 remains uncivil after this block, he can still be blocked as a result of making personal attacks and being uncivil. --Ksy92003(talk) 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just kinda weird because this whole time we've been worrying about him being uncivil and making personal attacks and we've been completely ignoring his reverting. But now, since he's already been blocked once recently, I think that it's possible that if he gets blocked for another reason, his block may be longer, maybe a couple days or so. --Ksy92003(talk) 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Well, good thing I'm not an admin. We'll just have to see what develops after his block expires and he returns. Hopefully he will change his ways, but we'll see.

And by the way, this monday, well... since you are a Tampa Bay Storm fan, I'm sure you know about the AFL playoffs this year. So you would know that the Los Angeles Avengers are playing a home playoff game this Monday. Since I'm a season-ticket holder, I'll obviously be at that game, so I won't be able to help you nor monitor the situation between Yankees10 or Chrisjnelson. Just to let you know. Now I know you're not an Avengers fan, but can you root for them for me? Haha --Ksy92003(talk) 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a huge fan for the Storm because a game at Staples this year I went to LA had a lead late and blew it. Tampa Bay won and I've disliked them ever since. And I hope LA gets revenge on Utah also. That was an embarrassing loss last week; 6 interceptions in the game, all in the 2nd half, 4 in the third quarter... wow, I'm still in shock. But because of the revenge factor from last week, this game is gonna be awesome... hopefully I'll leave happy. The game, just so you know, is 10:00 ET on ESPN2. GO AVENGERS!!!

And who would you prefer to lose? --Ksy92003(talk) 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got my sports mixed up. When you said "Predators," I instantly thought of the Nashville Predators instead of the Orlando Predators. That confused me because the Nashville Kats aren't in the playoffs, so yeah. But I can see why you want the Predators to lose. They're over in the East, so I think they won't be able to get past Dallas. You know who I want to see lose, being an Avenger fan: the Sabercats. --Ksy92003(talk) 15:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want San Jose to win the Arena Bowl. But of course I want LA to win the LA/UTAH game. Again, 10:00 ET on ESPN2. --Ksy92003(talk) 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'll be watching your game, also. Fortunately, LA beat Georgia when they played at Staples, so I know that they can be beaten by less-than-superb teams. And isn't Georgia's QB and ex-Avengers? Or am I thinking of the Philadelphia Soul QB? I hope your team does well, but hopefully they don't beat my Avengers in the Arena Bowl!!! I love these friendly competitions. --Ksy92003(talk) 15:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this all year: the Avengers main weakness is their kickoff defense and kickoff return. All season, the Avengers have been poor when it comes to returning kickoffs, and have been equally poor at defending against the other team when they return a kickoff. But last week, Kevin Ingram pulled off the best touchdown reception I've seen in a long time; he deked a couple guys and broke a couple tackles. That was all in a losing effort, nonetheless, but it was still, in my opinion, an incredible play. Sonny Cumbie also needs to find the open man because, as I alluded to earlier, he threw 5 interceptions (the backup QB threw the 6th). Not to mention the Avengers are amazing at home. The atmosphere is just dynamic. --Ksy92003(talk) 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Kaleo is on your team? He's the former Avengers QB I was referring to earlier. I like that guy. At a game a couple years ago, he game me two footballs when he threw them into my section in the final seconds of a game against the Sabercats. The Avengers were up by a lot and he threw them into my section as souveneirs. Fortunately, I caught both of them. I didn't know he plays with Tampa now.

Now, I'm a first-year season ticket holder, so I'm still trying to get used to the players. But I know their number-1 strength is me, the home crowd. They're 5-3 at home (that doesn't look that strong) but the first game was against San Jose, who is always good. And the Avengers had it close but couldn't score late. The second loss was against your team, Tampa Bay, and we just gave it away to you guys. And third, last saturday, because the game meant nothing to us not many of the extremely energetic fans were at the game. Seriously, there are like 15 super energetic, hyper fans that are season ticket holders, and they all sit in section 205, the section I sit in. So that makes the games even more fun for me because I have those people cheering and after good plays happen we all high-five each other, and it's really fun. But I really hope your team does well. But if it's LA and Tampa in the Arena Bowl, then I've gotta root against them because... well, I'm an LA fan and I have a never-ending vengeance towards Tampa after that game this year. --Ksy92003(talk) 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did get kinda annoyed where at every game I went to the PA announcer said "This week's Russell Athletics Game of the Week: Chicago/Philadelphia/Colorado/Dallas against Chicago/Philadelphia/Colorado/Dallas." Another piece of evidence to prove that professional sports are biased. It's all because of those owners you mentioned, especially Elway, Bon Jovi, and Ditka. They need to give those guys coverage. But what about Las Vegas? Los Angeles? I mean those are two of the largest markets in the country. What about New York? Granted they aren't a great team, but c'mon!!!

In fact, even here in Los Angeles, in the LA Times I noticed that the Dodgers were getting too much coverage and the Angels were barely mentioned, even when they have the best record overall. During the NHL season, the Kings were doing crappy but the Anaheim Ducks had the best record overall and were getting so much more mention in the paper. I was so fed up about this that I e-mailed the Sports Department and the representative actually told the Sports editors and me that they were gonna try to have more equal coverage for both teams, who are doing terrific this season. So that goes to show that one person can make a difference. If you want me to I can show you a copy of the e-mail I sent and the response I received. --Ksy92003(talk) 17:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in the long run, that can eventually help the team. If ESPN or NBC gives a team more nationally-televised games, then more people in that team's local area are gonna watch the game. If more people watch the games, more people are gonna go to more games. Like for the Avengers, more people at games means better success at home. Also, more tickets sold means more people giving money to the team to go to the games. Then, that team can afford better players, and then even more people are going to go to the games to see such players. ESPN is unintentionally, indirectly helping east-coast teams and big-market cities.

The AFL is trying to be a fan-friendly league, but they can't do that if people aren't able to see their teams playing on TV. Now, during the regular season, the Avengers had two nationally-televised games (won both). But both were on the road. One of them, mind, was played in nearby Phoenix, so that doesn't affect this argument: the Avengers games start at 7:30 here in California, which is 10:30 over on the east coast. ESPN doesn't want to televise games that start at 10:30 because nobody is going to watch them. Nobody is gonna stay up until 1:30 in the morning to watch a football game over in Los Angeles. But a couple years back, the long game between the Red Sox and Yankees. It ended at like 1:30 in the morning. So what, you're gonna show a game between the big-market cities that already get so much coverage and have a huge fan base that ends at 1:30 AM but you're not going to show an important game between two west-coast teams? Now, I know that was a playoff game, but that's beside the point

Also, as an Avenger fan, last Monday I wanted to watch the Chicago/Colorado game because that could've determined who the Avengers would face in the playoffs. That game was very important, but it didn't even start airing until after 9:30 PT, which is 12:30 on the east. And why was it delayed? Because of a College Baseball game. I stayed up until midnight so I could watch that entire game, and I didn't want to watch a CWS game that was 12-1 in the 7th inning. ESPN does it only for the money, not thinking about fans of the AFL or MLB, NBA, or anybody. They don't care that other people want to watch the other games because it affects their team because they don't care about San Jose's AFL team who is like 13-3, they don't care about Tampa Bay, who is 9-7 and the 3rd seed I think. They want to talk about Elway, Bon Jovi, and Ditka. They don't even want to show LA, who doesn't even have an NFL team, so that's as close as we can get to professional football. They don't care about the non-major cities and non-celebrity owners at all.

Anyway, here's my e-mail to LATimes, followed by the response I received. It is super long, so be aware of that:

“

Readers Rep <Readers.Rep@latimes.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. -----,

Thanks very much for writing. You raise an interesting issue and I'm passing it along to editors in Sports (sports@latimes.com).

One thing I thought I should mention, though, is that since the news changes from day-to-day, one day's coverage may not be reflective of an entire season.

(For instance, I notice that T.J. Simers had a piece on Garret Anderson yesterday.)

Of course, when there's a tight race or big news or controversy about a

team or player (the ongoing drama involving Kobe and the Lakers, for instance) that's going to get more coverage because there may simply be more--and more interesting--news to report.

(Speaking of Simers, maybe you saw his recent, tongue-in-cheek column interviewing Angels and Dodgers about Kobe?)

I get your point, though, that if all things seem to be pretty equal in terms of how the teams are performing, that you feel that the teams should be getting equal coverage.

And I'm forwarding your thoughts about that.

Thank you again.

---- -----
Asst. Readers' Rep.

”

“

Hello. I am a 16-year old male in Long Beach, California. This is a comment about the Los Angeles Times' June 14, 2007 edition. My comment is about the inequality of coverage of the Angels and Dodgers baseball teams.

*This e-mail was written on June 14, 2007, and e-mailed that day. I am not sure if that e-mail has been read or anything, nor do I know if it was sent to the correct address. Therefore, I am trying again.

I read the LA Times' Sports section every day and get all my sports information about local teams from your newspaper. It truly is one of the most detailed I've seen, comparing to the local newspapers in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. However, it appears to me that the Dodgers are favored more by your newspaper than the Angels. This contrasts the Anaheim Ducks being covered a lot more than the Los Angeles Kings hockey teams during the 2006-07 National Hockey League season, in which the Ducks were the best team and were covered more than Los Angeles' own team.

First, on page D2. (In the Los Angeles Times, D is the Sports page.) The article written by T.J. Simers is almost entirely about the Dodgers. There is a short mention of Gary Matthews, Jr. of the Angels, but he is only referred to as "Mr. HGH."

Second, on page D3. The short section underneath "Today on the Air" is a "Now You Know" section about who else but the Dodgers, mainly catcher Russell Martin.

Pages D4 and D5 are equally divided into the "Angels report" and "Dodgers report," but it usually isn't like that. It seems that the Angels always get the short end of the wishbone in the LA Times.

On a related note, during the 2006-07 National Hockey League season, the Kings were behind and out of the playoff picture and the Ducks were the best team in the league. The Ducks got a lot more coverage in your newspaper. Because of this, I know that the reason for the Dodgers getting more attention in your paper isn't because of home-team bias; otherwise, you would've talked about the Kings a lot more than the Ducks.

Another reason I mention the Ducks and Kings is because the Ducks were doing really well and the Kings weren't. Let me give you a couple statistics.

The Angels have the 2nd best record in the MLB. The Dodgers are 6th. The Angels have the best home record in the MLB. The Dodgers are 5th. The Angels have scored the 5th most runs in the MLB. The Dodgers are 17th. The Angels have allowed the 5th fewest runs in the MLB.

The Angels are 24-9 since May 9. The Dodgers are 18-15. The Angels haven't been swept since April. The Dodgers have been swept three times since then. The Angels are 15-7 against the AL West. The Dodgers are 14-11 against the NL West.

The Angels won their 40th game on June 9. The Dodgers were 35-27 then.

John Lackey became the first pitcher to win 10 games this season. Brad Penny only has 8 wins.

Francisco Rodriguez became the first pitcher in the American League to get their 20th save. Takashi Saito only has 18.

The Angels lead the AL West by 4 games over Seattle. The Dodgers are tied in the NL West with San Diego.

The Angels were the only team this season to start 5-0 in interleague play. The Dodgers were 1-4 at that time.

Since 2000, the Angels have won a World Series, had an MVP (Vladimir Guerrero), a Cy Young Award winner (Bartolo Colon), a "Relief Man of the Year" winner (Francisco Rodriguez), a Stolen Base leader (Chone Figgins), and Jered Weaver tied a record for most consecutive wins to start a career. All the Dodgers had was Eric Gagne getting 80-something consecutive saves.

I'm not trying to say that the Angels are better than the Dodgers. But I really feel that the Angels should be more represented in a newspaper that favors another hockey team over its own, local team. The reason why the Ducks were more favored in your newspaper was [most likely] because they were doing so well and led the league. The Angels are close to leading the league and have better records than the Dodgers in several categories. They should be represented a lot better in the Los Angeles Times newspaper. I'm not asking for the Angels to be talked about more than the Dodgers, but as the newspaper serves both teams, they should both be equally represented in the LA Times.

Your newspaper is one of the most popular in the country and the most popular in California. The best newspaper shouldn't be biased towards a non-local city because its better than another city in one sport and then favor its local city over the same non-local city when the non-local city has better records in several categories.

Respectfully,
----- -----

”

“

Readers Rep <Readers.Rep@latimes.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. -----,

Thanks very much for writing. You raise an interesting issue and I'm assing it along to editors in Sports (sports@latimes.com).

One thing I thought I should mention, though, is that since the news changes from day-to-day, one day's coverage may not be reflective of an entire season.

(For instance, I notice that T.J. Simers had a piece on Garret Anderson yesterday.)

Of course, when there's a tight race or big news or controversy about a

team or player (the ongoing drama involving Kobe and the Lakers, for instance) that's going to get more coverage because there may simply be more--and more interesting--news to report.

(Speaking of Simers, maybe you saw his recent, tongue-in-cheek column interviewing Angels and Dodgers about Kobe?)

I get your point, though, that if all things seem to be pretty equal in terms of how the teams are performing, that you feel that the teams should be getting equal coverage.

And I'm forwarding your thoughts about that.

Thank you again.

---- -----
Asst. Readers' Rep.

”

This e-mail actually made a change, so I'm also thinking about sending a similar e-mail to ESPN. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that commercial with David Ortiz is quite funny, aside from the bias. But remember, ESPN's studios are in Bristol, Connecticut, and the closest team to there is the Boston Red Sox, so that might have a bit to do with it. And I do like it how every now and then, especially in the past week, the Dodgers/Diamondbacks series has gotten a lot of coverage by ESPN, and I didn't mind it when they talked about Bonds and A-Rod in the Giants/Yankees series. But when you have a three-game series between Boston and Atlanta, who are over 1200 miles away from each other, and ESPN televises two of those games, then that's where they cross the line. And it's the same thing with NBC and NHL. They think that we want to see Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin play against the Devils or the Senators every freaking week. Hello? What about us over here in Los Angeles, Arizona, Colorado, etc.? Do you think we want to see Crosby showboat every week? Do you think we want to see Brodeur shut out the Flyers every week? The Kings only had two NBC games last year I believe. One of them was against the Blues. I don't want to go to NBC to watch a game against St. Louis, even if it's my home team playing.

Back to ESPN and the CWS/AFL games. Would I rather watch a 12-1 college baseball game or a professional football game that has playoff implications on 4 teams? Apparently, ESPN has a different opinion than the rest of us. But if I can make a difference in a huge newspaper, then it's worth a try.

And what about the Angels? If they win tonight, they'll become the first team this year to 50 wins. They're setting franchise records for best record to start the season, Escobar and Lackey both could compete for the Cy Young, Reggie Willits is amazing this month, Orlando Cabrera should be an All-Star, and they had an 8-game lead over Seattle and Oakland last week. But what do they talk about? The Red Sox losing Curt Schilling. Shawn Green hitting a walk-off HR against the lowly Cardinals. Barry Bonds still being 6 HR away from the record. They've set franchise records, season records, and MLB records. In a span of a week, the Angels had 3 games where they scored 5 or more runs in the 7th innings. They didn't even notice that, and I did. They won 9 consecutive series, and that wasn't even mentioned once. John Lackey: first pitcher to 10 wins. But they talked about Josh Beckett being the second pitcher to get his 10th even more than they did about Lackey being the first. The best record in June, the best record since May 9, tied with Boston for best overall record, were 22 games above .500, and they talk about Boston, New York, San Francisco, all the teams they always talk about. I know San Francisco is in California, but they're only being mentioned because of Barry Bonds. What about the Angels, Dodgers, Padres, Diamondbacks? 4 of the best 5 teams in MLB are over here in this area, and they barely get mentioned at all. Something needs to be done about this. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wanting to do that for a long time. I read the sports page every day. In fact, that's the only reason why I read the LA Times. That e-mail wasn't so much for equality as it was for the fact that the Ducks were doing so much better than the Kings that it got to the point that they talked about the Ducks a lot more, and the Kings were barely talked about. The Angels, who play in a building just across the street from the Ducks, are the best team in MLB this year, and the Dodgers were still mentioned more in the paper. Now, I'm a Kings fan, so I understand why the Ducks were mentioned more. But being an Angels fan, it made no sense to me for the Angels to not be mentioned when they are one of the best. In fact, the day I sent the e-mail, the cover story on the Sports page was JD Drew. Um... last time I checked, he played for the Red Sox, not the Dodgers anymore. Why does an ex-Dodger get the cover story? He only played for one season, isn't on the team anymore, and he gets the cover story? Even when the Angels had a 7 game lead and the Dodgers were in a three-way tie. It's just completely frustrating as a Kings and Angels fan.

I will certainly enjoy tonight's football game. And I promise, I'll hope that Orlando loses, just for you :)

And once I have enough hard evidence to prove a bias of east coast teams by ESPN, I will email them, as well. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do the Lakers page entirely. I am a Laker fan, true, but basketball isn't a sport that I follow rather closely. I will be around, looking for errors and whatnot, but you may do the Lakers page if you want, entirely.

And for the record, I actually did chuckle a bit when I read your "joke." Haha :) --Ksy92003(talk) 19:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But I hope you don't end up overworking yourself by trying to do so many articles. Again, if you need help with basketball, baseball, hockey, or AFL, then just ask me and I'll try to help. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've done the same for me. Before you came along, I was updating all game logs every night. Now, I barely have to do any of them, so that's really helpful. Thanks. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images of living persons

Hi, if you could please read up on our fair use image policies: WP:FU. We do not allow fair use images of living persons. Please make sure you to put them back in the article, as here; it would be appreciated. Thanks. 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reggie Jackson

Why did you send me a random message about Reggie Jackson? Anyway, I think of him as an Oakland A. He played more almost twice as many years in Oakland, put up better stats in Oakland, and won more championships in Oakland. To me, it is a no-brainer.

Congratulations

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I, Ksy92003, award you this barnstar for your countless edits on articles. I've never seen somebody do so many edits in such a short time, and you've truly contributed to the progression of countless articles. Congratulations; you've truly deserved this. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I wasn't expecting you to be that hyped up about getting one, but you've earned it, and you're very welcome. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just waiting for the perfect time, the one time that you wouldn't expect anybody to give you one. It appears that I did pick the right time. I remember how happy I was when I received my first (and so far only) barnstar by LADodgersAngelsfan. I was not expecting to receive one at all. And I was so happy, also. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you give some, you get some. Thanks also. I'm going to move the barnstar to my barnstar page, User:Ksy92003/Barnstars. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject American Football League

I was looking through it and saw a shortcut link WP:AFL, the link goes to the australian football wikiproject and not the american football league wikiproject. You should get that fixed. --ROASTYTOAST 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]