User talk:Ksy92003/Archive-May2007

What should I do then? Mark Hendrickson of the Dodgers was a reliver for three games and then started in place of Jason Schimdt. Should I just do what I did? Put what Hendrickson is starting? And reliving?

For example: He's pitched 5 and 2 thirds as a starter. So I put that as his innings for starter? Or do I tally reliver and starter and come up with that?

Hi ... I'm leaving you this note because you recently made edits to one of the Major League Baseball roster pages. I've made a proposal for standardizing the format, structure and content of these pages here and would appreciate your input so that we may reach a consensus. Thanks. --Sanfranman59 06:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response on my talk page. Just out of curiosity, what did you mean by "moving the pages to reflect the standard title format for the pages"? --Sanfranman59 06:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but FYI, one of the things I've proposed to do with the rosters is to make them all template pages rather than articles. This is the way the rosters for the other 3 major US professional sports leagues are set up and I think is more compliant with WP standards. The rosters by themselves really aren't articles. Thanks again for your feedback. --Sanfranman59 06:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember when you said the statistics were going to be out of date eventually? I can do it for the

Mine is better. Vidor 02:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"that the basic format is the following"--I think you have this urge to write all the articles yourself. Vidor 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both know it's not only about formats. You have made certain judgements about what will and will not be in these articles and you inflict them on everyone. This apparently includes a childish allergy to the word "die" and a freakish unwillingness to put STATISTICS into a BASEBALL article. Vidor 02:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Show me which other article has a format like "your" article."--Because goodness knows the most important thing is they all be exactly the same. Vidor 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll leave it as saying that if you continue to revert for no reason, you will be blocked and lose your editing privileges".--Before I thought you were just the format God. Apparently you rule the entire website. I'm looking through the other team sites and seeing that most of them have no one writing for them. Now I know why. (And, of course, many of those that people are writing in do indeed devote from the format that you have decreed and seek to impose). Vidor 03:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksy92003, please don't set unnecessary rules or instructions on articles that aren't in the Wikipedia policy or guidelines. This is instruction creep and should not be done.++aviper2k7++ 03:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Than get into arguments with a high school kid who's afraid of the word "die". You can go ahead and write the St. Louis Cardinals 2007 article yourself, since that's what you're going to do anyway. Vidor 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see, that's your problem, the belief that anyone who writes an article different from the way you would is making an error. God Of The Formats, indeed. Let me know when you aren't scared of the word "die" anymore. Vidor 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksy92003, again you are doing a poor job resolving an issue on Wikipedia. Arguing on each others talk pages won't do anything. Talk it over on the talk page of the article you are discussing. Explain your side and Vidor will explain his side. You know better and I am disappointed.++aviper2k7++ 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please come join the WikiProject Ice Hockey Notability standards for hockey players discussion. I'd like to see input from all our project members who have an opinion. Thanks! ColtsScore 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a bit careful on your editing as not to remove any previous content without giving a valid explanation, such as what you did here. Thanks. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize your concern, but removing material like that can be considered vandalism; work on improving its location instead. Look at other team pages with jersey illustrations -- they show all jerseys or none at all. It makes no sense to illustrate only the primary jerseys without providing illustrations for the third jerseys as well. I tried to follow your suggestion/method but unfortunately, it looks worse (in my opinion). The previous look might have been better. But please don't remove material from Wikipedia unless there's a consensus. Thanks. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you updated these templates, why did you undo all the hard work formatting I did? The links pointed to, for example, 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season, not just Los Angeles Dodgers, which is a better link. Also, I placed some information at the top of the article about when the page was last updated. If you're reverting back to an older version, please be more careful in the future not to undo other's hard work without a comment. The Evil Spartan 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you leaving wikipedia? I don't understand your change descriptions. Fbdave 02:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting all of my edits? Please explain. Fbdave 03:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you leave edit summarries of more detail thst just "Adios" in the future? In regrad to removing the 2007 wildcard template, something such as Removed template per discussion on "such-and-such talk page" would have been more productive. Please remember that Wiki articles, especially sports team pages, are often visited and edited by people who are not members of the page's project, but are still experienced editors who look for edit summaries when determining the validity of a edit. "Adios" certainly strike me as something a vandal would say, and I have seen pleanty of vandalism. Given that there was no explanation or discussion of the template on the talk pages of the Braves or NY Mets, nor the template's discussion page, some explanation by you would have prevented me reverting your deletions. In addition, if the template is to return later in the season, it might be better to comment-out the template rather than deleting it, making it easier to add back in when the time comes. -

Yes, space is limited, but please try to do better than "Adios" in the future. I know there's more space than that! The example I gave you would have no trouble fitting in the space at all. You don't have to describe in detail "what" you did, as that is usually obvious, but just give a reason "why". Otherwise you run the risk of being assumed to be a vandal, and I don't think you want that. -

BillCJ 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Expect for your edits to the top and to the Season Summary, you once again removed most of the stats, and all of the hard work by LosAngelesDodgersAngelFan. Please stop doing this.

Hornberry 15:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again, you removed part of the stats. I gave up on the game summaries but the other thing is useless. Don't revert me again.

Hornberry 20:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, let's see. I need Mark Hendrickson's stats because where I get the stats from, and ESPN have them included with starting and relief. I just need starting. So, when he comes up, it's a lot easier for me to check his game by game standings etc. And why do you have to approve everything that goes into a baseball article? Look at LADodgersAngelFan talkpage, and see he wanted to expand stats. You approved it on his page. But again, why do you have to approve it?

Hornberry 23:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

First of all, your comment on my talkpage was extremely incivil. I reverted it because Shadow asked me to. In the most recent run, it deleted the content, but didn't archive them to the archive page. It just deleted. You incivility was uncalled for. And you didn't have to change the timestamp and moved it. It would've archived it on the next run. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow, the bots operator, asked someone to undo all of the bots recent edits because the bot had messed up. I did it for him. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to leave an edit summary. I had to revert 50 edits of ShadowBot. I used a tool that gives a revert button in a user's contributions. I used it, and it makes an automatic summary. Shadow said himself to use a tool, and not to go through all 50 manually. Even if he didn't, I still would've. (Please reply below) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 10:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. First, why would you link Los Angeles Dodgers to 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season? It's stupid, first of all, as the standings are talking about the "Los Angeles Dodgers", not the season. And what's the point?

Second, the templates are updated almost as soon as the game is concluded. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to say "Updated as of May 4" for example. It doesn't add anything, as the templates for the standings are kept updated as much as possible. It only wastes space and doesn't add any information that is already assumed.

So, please don't revert this again, as I have given you a sufficient explanation for why I did what I did. Thank you. And I'm also sorry. From now on, whenever I revert something, I will try to give a reason in the edit summary (space pending) when I make the revert or the user's talk page before making the edit. Thanks for your cooperation. --Ksy92003 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I will be reverting it, because often times the stats are not up to date. Take, for example, Template:2007 NL Wild Card standings, which is now many days behind, or your very edit summary here.. Secondly, for navigation purposes, this page is only linked to from 2007 pages, so this is much better. From a perusal of your talk page, I suggest you better learn to cooperate with other users considering formatting, as you've now run into trouble several times. The Evil Spartan 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I don't think the note about when the standings are updated is necessary; I think they shouldn't be out of date in the first place.

But this is what I really don't like. Why did you just go and change the standings so that

2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season? This is just stupid. Los Angeles Angels should link to Los Angeles Angels. Los Angeles Dodgers should link to Los Angeles Dodgers, not 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season. What you did to that was just stupid and unnecessary. Unless you have a good reason, please don't revert this again. Tomorrow, I will go and change it unless you give a good reason. Please don't make any more unnecessary edits that don't improve the article at all. Thanks. --Ksy92003 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If I may inject my opinion, I like the wikilink that points to the 2007 season as opposed to the main team page. It's nice when looking at a team's 2007 article for their name to be bolded in the standings (such as here: 2007 Detroit Tigers season). It appears that the 2007 team articles are the only ones that include the 2007 standings (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:2007_AL_Central_standings). I can see both sides of the argument, but now since there's a disagreement, I'll throw my opinion into the ring. X96lee15 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X96 said it fairly well, but the point is that these templates are only linked to from 2007 baseball articles. If I'm looking at the 2007 Phillies baseball article, and I click on Atlanta Braves, it would be nice, and I would expect, to go to the 2007 Braves article. Also, it makes navigating team seasons and results much easier. The Evil Spartan 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side of the coin, if I'm looking for the Atlanta Braves on 2007 Philadelphia Phillies season, at the standings I'll click on "Atlanta Braves" thinking that that's where it's gonna take me. I'm not gonna click on "Atlanta Braves" thinking that it's going to take me to "2007 Atlanta Braves season". That's very confusing and very misleading.

And either way, that the very bottom of the page is {{2007 MLB season by team}} which links to all the season articles. It does the same job, but creates links to every single article. I really don't get why something should be linked to something else instead to what it says. I really don't get that. --Ksy92003 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing another opinion in, it seems like linking to the season pages in the template is a good idea. The nice bold black tells you where you are and it is easy to navigate around after that. If someone really wanted to look at the Atlanta Braves page, they would simply click on the link to the Atlanta Braves from the 2007 season page. It is a lot easier to navigate and it does make sense to link to other team's season pages.++aviper2k7++ 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because in this edit, you put 'June' twice as a month name. Also, why'd you de-hyperlink the redundant team names? I realize they're redundant, but hyperlinking them really makes them look nicer (I realize that's not our final goal, but it is one of the goals since we're a web encyclopedia, not a paper encyclopedia). One 06:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I signed up for many different pages to edit for the Wikiproject Baseball, but I don't have much time to do it now would it still be okay if we don't edit it for a while. My brother distracted me which caused me to stop editing Wikipedia for a while. He convinced me to play the game at www.pokemoncrater.com.

No, I don't. You mean when you click on edit, for example here I got /*Barnstar #1*/, Should I remove all of that and put update? Or Add Barnstar #1 - update or type in a new different thing? I am not excatly sure what you mean though I get there is nothing called Batting - update. Let me know.

When I visited

Do you have an article/discussion that says not to use accent marks on player names? It seems Ivan Rodriguez's name is Iván Rodríguez, more so than it is Ivan Rodriguez. Maybe it's easier to initially type, but I don't see how it makes any sense to remove the accent marks that are already there. X96lee15 00:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Excuse me, I apologize if my constructive edit offended you. As you probably can understand, many people update this template on a regular basis- many times they are unfamiliar with the Wiki format and hence add information in wrong places, or for that matter add information that is downright wrong. Having easy access to box-scores would make it easier for people to cross-reference statistics to make sure everything is in order. I am willing to prompt a vote for this, and unless there is a general consensus that this information is unworthy of appearing, consider this issue very much open. Rpgman456 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, but no rule is in place to prevent it, and if it really bothers you, i'll just do the <-- to hide it until it's conclusion. It's no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Soxrock 02:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go a day without starting an edit war? Seriously!++aviper2k7++ 03:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you left that message on my talk page, to be honest. I'm not involved in an edit war right now. I made one edit to 2007 Milwaukee Brewers season, which you reverted. I haven't re-reverted you. So I honestly don't see why you believe that I'm currently involved in an edit war. --Ksy92003 (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]