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
]
IF YOU CLICK ON ANY OF THE NUMBERS FROM 101-135, YOU WILL NOT GO ANYWHERE. CLICK ON LINK 100 AND OPEN THE COLLAPSIBLE BOX LABELED "2007 MLB DRAFT" TO CONTINUE ON!
I'm uploading a few images, but I still don't know exactly how to upload without problems.
Note, most images if not all are from sportslogos.net, so if I could get copyright info there I'd greatly appreciate it. Soxrock23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For logos of sports teams, select "logo" from the dropdown menu and put the name of the team it's for and where you got the logo from in the summary box. --Carnildo07:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cincinnati Reds logo
Soxrock -- I'm confused about the image of the 1961 logo you've reposted on the Cincinnati Reds article. The 1961 logo did not have a point on the back of the C -- the image you've posted has a point. And now there's a caption that calls it a "non-wishbone" logo, when clearly it's the same Wishbone C as in the other logos. Please discuss in the Cincinnati Reds discussion page before reposting. Acsenray14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image deletion warning
I am afraid I have nominated the files from your user page for
Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you've uploaded a number of images in the GIF format. In the future, please save GIF images in the PNG format before converting uploading (see Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload). PNG images almost always have a smaller file size, which decreases the amount of time they take to load. There are a bunch of other advantages to the PNG format such as lossless compression that you can read about on its Wikipedia article. ---Remember the dot03:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Darrent Williams memorial.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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. 15:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair use image above 500px
This is reminder that item #3 of
Fair use policy
states that:
The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy).
I have marked numerous images that are above 500px because that take up a majority of the screen on 800x600 monitors. Please do not remove the {{
Yes, but Chris will tell you that he does not own any of the sports logos on his site -- all of the teams and leagues do. Chris does not have the power to grant usage rights to you or Wikipedia. Thus, they still fall under the
fair use rules
.
If you have some sort of image program, I suggest you reduce the images before you upload them to Wikipedia.
I am writing to ask you if you would like someome to work with to keep the article on the 2007 Yankees season up to date. I am more than willing to help you, because I know it is a large article to keep up with. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand why you signed up to maintain that article. I was getting ready to sign up for it when I noticed that you had, and I wanted to ask if you would like some help maintaining it. Please let me knowin which ways you wuld like me to help out, becaue I would lie to make the Yankees artcle one of the best. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 14:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Green Bay Packers, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.++aviper2k7++ 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
This message delivered: 12:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Colts Logo.
Hi,
I reduced the size of your images to 100px, because it is too large for the format of the articles.
Your uploaded image is too large to begin with and should have been reduced offline. But in the meantime, it should be a smaller image to be in line with other logo images, the size of the text blocks in the articles and the fair use policy. I would appreciate it if you would give me a rationale for them remaining at 150px or reduce them yourself. No sense in us just swapping back and forth.
If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. This would be the case for the title of a work such as a novel. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name.
Thus, the article should be Kingdome not The Kingdome. If you feel strongly that this should not be the case, please let me know ASAP before I or someone else moves the article back. Thanks. Zzyzx11(Talk)02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I've never heard it of "The Netherlands" informally called "Netherlands", yet that is the example cited on the policy page I mentioned. Plus, throughout the article, there are numerous instances where "the Kingdome" is used. Zzyzx11(Talk)03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yankee Stadium, Shea Stadium, etc.
It is against wikipedia policy to state scheduled future events as if they had already happened. This policy is called "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball".
in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
Don't forget to use {{Replaceable fair use disputed|Your reason why a free replacement is not available}} so that the reviewing admin knows that you dispute the tagging. Thanks,
These images do not state their copyright holder. It is NOT copyright sportslogos.net and it came from sportslogos.net. They specifically state on their website that they are not the copyright holder and cannot grant permission for use.
Second, many of these images do not have fair use rationale, "why" they can be used as fair use. Please read the copyright notice on each of the images. It requires the Uploader to provide a rationale.
Third, please do not remove these tags without resolving the issues and communicating them on the talk page. Simply putting a comment in the edit summary is not adequate.
I see that you have started using the Fair Use Rationale statements which I sent to you. They were a talisman for me, so I hope that you will find them useful as well. If it is your intent to create a version for use on the LOGOs and apply it to those which I'd previously tagged, I will be pleased to leave them alone. Please let me know if that is your plan?
Of course, that still leaves the image size issue unresolved and I realize that is not as simple as a written statement. I do believe that it will continue to be an issue until resolved, as I saw that others have also mentioned it to you.
I have modified the Cleveland Browns helmet image with fair use rationale per our discussions:
Place a simple description at the beginning without any further copyright or location information:
Cleveland Browns helmet image (2006)
Then place the following statement (with modifications) as shown (remove the "nowiki" tags and leave the comments, if you want to make the rationale usable for others):
User:Soxrock asserts that the limited use of this copyrighted image in Wikipedia articles directly pertaining to it is a fair use of the image, for the following reasons:
It is of the logo, helmet or uniform of an NFL team <!-- Substitue other sport (i.e. NBA, MLB, etc.)-->which retains the copyright.
It was obtained from the Sportslogos.net website <!-- Substitute with actual website location name (not URL)--> which serves only to collect and archive these images.
No free-license alternatives are available that convey the same information.
The image is no larger, and of no higher quality, than required for its use in articles. <!-- To use this statement, you must downscale images which are significantly larger than that which will be placed in the article. -->
It is used in Wikipedia only for educational purposes and is not used for profit.
Its use on Wikipedia does not compete with the copyright holder.
Its use on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright to its holder.
Of course, you will still need to resolve the image size issue, as that puts WikiPedia in a difficult postion.
In future, just place all of the information in the box when you upload an image, along with the "logo" tag.
Hi there. I understand that you want to include as many of the old logos as possible, but the captions obviously do not match the logos. Half of them are mis-identified. I'm going to delete those bad ones again. If you want to put them back, please correct the images. Thanks! --Chancemichaels21:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]
Fair Use Rationale (cont'd)
Hi Soxrock,
I appreciate your attempt at putting copyright information on the Image:IndianapolisColts_1001.png, however it can be as simple as just saying that the Indinapolis Colts are the copyright holder...
On the other hand, you still have not addressed the Fair Use Rationale issue. Even something as simple as the bulleted list that I have provided for your use above would be adequate, but you must assert it there on the page, not on the Talk page or in the Edit Summary.
So, please do not remove the Fair Use Rationale tag until you have completed this step. You might also consider doing all of the others which you have uploaded under Soxrocks and any of your other aliases.
Fair use rationale for Image:IndianapolisColts 1000.png
Thanks for uploading
fair use
but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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.
Please go to
fair use rationale
.
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 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. Lmcelhiney00:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found the History page that you created, but I'm still wondering why you chose to delete the Seifert Era from the main page, while leaving Capers and Fox? JTRH20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: spliting content
As stated on Wikipedia:Summary style, what you should do when you move a large section into a separate article is that you must leave a several paragraph summary in its place -- summarizing all of the content you moved.
However, if you are lazy about writing such a summary, the only other option is to remove all of the content from the history section and place {{
details
}} does).
What you should not do, as you have done, is to remove selected sections, which leads to huge gaps. It is better to write a simple sentence like "The Bengals did not make the playoffs throughout almost all of the 1990s" instead of not mentioning what the team did during that decade at all.
Fair use rationale for Image:BearsNavyBlueOrange.png
Thanks for uploading
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.
Please go to
fair use rationale
.
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 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. ↔NMajdan•talk14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually multiple accounts don't always constitute violation of
WP:SOCK. This does raise questions, though, since that sort of practice is so often employed by problem editors. Soxrock, thank you for declaring that these accounts are all yours. You could help ease the worries of other Wikipedians by posting an explanation of each account's purpose. I've been asked to look into this and I'd appreciate your help. Regards, DurovaCharge!16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
I saw that you have reversed the colors of the Dallas Cowboys for Leonard Davis and you shouldn't do that because thats the Patriot's colors. --Phbasketball615:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Future Dolphins season pages
First of all, you probably should have made the 2008 and 2009 seasons at all. Secondly, you completely butchered them, by doing things like putting WRONG opponents on the schedule at times, talking about how they "look to do better" and assuming Cameron will still be there. I think it's a dumb idea to even have these pages at this point, but if you're going to do it then do it right.Chris Nelson02:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By incorrect schedules, I mean listing the Miami Dolphins as an opponent of the Miami Dolphins in 2009. Also, obviously you always look to do better, but to phrase it the way you did is to speak about it as if 2008 is in the past, and it's not. Plus for all you know, they could win the Super Bowl in 2008. Even though it's unlikely, if it happens no one would say they are "looking to do better" than they did in 2008. You don't know what will happen in 2008 and you don't know if Cameron will be there (even if it's probable) so there is no point in talking about those things as if it's already happened.Chris Nelson03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Giants_1950-1955.gif
Thanks for uploading
copyright tag
, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Sox - I see you've uploaded most of the Giants logos/unis that now reside at
Logos and Uniforms of the New York Giants, and even though it appears that you followed wiki rules about sourcing, copyright and fair use, etc., they are being deleted one by one. I have a vested interest in that page, and the Giants, and I'll see if I can get these images restored, if you don't have time. Thanks, 80813:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi 808,
If you want to help to keep the affected images at
Logos and Uniforms of the New York Giants
and get others restored, the path is simple:
Identify the copyright holder. It is not sportslogos.net as identified on this image page.
New York Giants primary logo 1950-1955, claiming fair use Copyright: Sportslogos.net
Add a detailed Fair Use Rationale Statement per the requirments:
User:Soxrock asserts that the limited use of this copyrighted image in Wikipedia articles directly pertaining to it is a fair use of the image, for the following reasons:
It is of the logo, helmet or uniform of an NFL team which retains the copyright.
It was obtained from the Sportslogos.net website which serves only to collect and archive these images.
No free-license alternatives are available that convey the same information.
The image is no larger, and of no higher quality, than required for its use in articles.
It is used in Wikipedia only for educational purposes and is not used for profit.
Its use on Wikipedia does not compete with the copyright holder.
Its use on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright to its holder.
That is really all that is necessary! Let me know if you have questions, please.
I understand that. But still, it causes confusion for people like me who expect to have some work to do on the articles and to see that somebody has already taken away their responsibilty. I admire your work ethic, but if it's possible, unless an article has fallen drastically behind, please try to limit the edits you make to the articles which other people have signed up to do. Ksy9200323:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I restored the red links you removed from the Carl Lewis article. Red links serve a valid purpose on Wikipedia as a guide for expansion of the encyclopedia's coverage. See
Hi ... I'm a relative newcomer to WP and an avid Cleveland Indians fan. As such, I have all of the Indians players' pages on my watchlist. I see that you updated the stats in the info box on Grady Sizemore's page today. Are you planning on keeping each player's statistics up to date (or is there some group of people who are doing this)? It's certainly a monumental task and seems to me to be unnecessary in an encyclopedia since there are ump-teen other more reliable sources for current statistics. The problem I have with it is that unless the statistics are updated for every player on a regular basis, the currency of the player pages will be uneven. Also, the info box on the Sizemore page is now inaccurate since it says "Selected MLB statistics (through 2006)".
Do you know if this topic has been discussed by the community anywhere ... perhaps at
I'd just like to add in on this topic, while I appreciate the enthusiasm it must take to update all sorts of player's stats, you should really just wait until each game is official, because technically, the stats aren't updated until the game is declared official (usually 30-60 minutes after the game).
Each of these articles contains speculation about where the teams will play (teams may move or change stadiums, disasters occur, etc), who will coach the teams, and how the league will be structured for home/away series. While some of these are more likely than others, I feel it is too soon to start speculating, and the AfD deletion of Green Bay's 2009 article and nomination of Pittsburg's seem to back that up. BigrTex21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of top 100 Major League Baseball home run hitters
I've requested that
List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters -- 500 should be able to cover anything you've put into 100. Jpers3613:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
Please don't edit the page to post selections that have not occurred yet. Brady Quinn has not been selected 3rd yet, so putting that information there is deliberatly trying to add misinformation to the article. Pepsidrinka16:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop putting rookies under the wrong positions on team rosters. If you don't know enough about the players being chosen, it's best to avoid editing things involving them altogether.Chris Nelson21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you're going to put drafted rookies on there, put the R notations!
Mistake
When you are creating new articles on players that are being drafted, when you add categories it says Brian Robison, for example this was on Dewayne Wrights page:
where is it on the NFL project page. In my opinion it really isnt neaded because you can only go to the rookie year and not any other year.--Yankees1021:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:San_Diego_Chargers_helmet_new.png)
Thanks for uploading
our fair use policy
).
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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gary_Anderson.jpg
I have tagged
orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. BigrTex14:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
The gray looks much better though, and every other team has 2 different colors on there infoboxes, and if you changed it then the Yankees would be the only team with one color--Yankees1001:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]
It was agreed at WPTP (months ago) to leave the diacriticals off NHL team pages 'current roster' sections. Please respect this gentlemen's agreement. Thank you. GoodDay22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Blazers 5.gif)
Thanks for uploading
our fair use policy
).
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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yankees Yearly
Hi, i saw the edits you made to the 1921 yankee season. i really liked the way you did the info box and the stats, and i need to add stats to the other pages (1903-1913) since thats on my job list for the WikiYank Group. wanna help? ThirdPoliceman16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. BetacommandBot03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J.R. Richard
Sorry, but I had originally thought you were adding some random colors to the infobox to make it more aesthetically pleasing. In any case, I personally think it would be better to use current team colors, so that it will be easier for people to identify past and current players from the same team by looking at the player's infoboxes. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)14:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Hey. I kindly ask that you please refrain from updating scores for several sporting games which are currently in progress. It isn't Wikipedia's responsibility to host up-to-the-second scores on games. This is too WikiNews-ish. We are an encyclopedia, not ESPN.com. Please stop. --Ksy92003 (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your comment on Ksy92003's talk page; Actually there is rule in place against what you are doing.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of news reports, (Number 6 in the linked section) which is an official policy of the English Wikipedia. Please stop. --Michael Greiner03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
And even if there weren't a rule, making constant edits like that clusters the server a lot. It makes it go a lot slower if you're making 5 edits per minute to a particular article. If there weren't a rule in place, I don't think that updating it that frequently would be worth jamming the "online traffic" so to speak.
Anyway, I was just checking out Michael Greiner's contributions and I saw this note at the top: "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 30 seconds may not be shown in this list." Wikipedia is a massive website and contains a bunch of articles and users. If you continue to make continuous edits, the server could fall behind. Only make the vast amount of edits you have if they're absolutely necessary (Wikipedia restrictions aside).
However, as Michael Greiner said, there is a rule against what you are doing. Wikipedia has a sister project for that,
WikiNews. Leave the up-to-the-moment stuff to that project and leave Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not another ESPN.com. --Ksy92003 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
Me too. Why even bother changing it while a game's in progress? It's not like someone's on Wikipedia specifically to get a score update. All we need is the final score anyway. Dknights41119:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't listen to Ksy92003, you didnt do anything wrong
There is no need for you to listen to
WP:CON indicates that every action here is based on consensus. Just because one user here dislike what you did, you can bring it up to the talk page. Hiding the score is like doing nothing. Remember, I support what you are doing right now. Chris01:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Never mind what I said. The above discussion shows that only you and I support the updating of score. Chris01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, it makes it extremley dificult to backtrack an article's edit history if there are hundreds of edits made within a very short period of time, as well as trying to make an edit while the game is in progress. I'm imploring you to please stop this practice. It may be conveniant to you, but it makes thing even more difficult for everyone else. Dknights41119:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL
You must be watching the hockey game as well; you got that 3-0 score up before the announcer at the Pond even said it! :) Keep up the great work! Jmlk1702:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs
Why did you keep making edits as if Anaheim had won the game while the game was still in progress? There was 10 minutes left in the game when you started making those edits. Wait until the game has completed. V-train03:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place for "crystal balling," as you called it. You can't presume one team will win and change factual info based on it. Detroit was inches from tying the game in the last few minutes. The game wasn't even close to over when you starting making presumptions. V-train20:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The game was not close at the end. Detroit had a legitimate chance to tie the game up at the last minutes. We are a "factual" site, and giving scores to games that are still in progress, treating them as if the game is over, isn't accurate. Please refrain from updating anything that is still in doubt. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh. That's all I have to say after I saw the edits you made to
rule (#6) against this. Please don't blatently ignore official Wikipedia policy because you want to. The policy prohibits editing in a news-like fashion, and you are ignoring that policy because you don't feel it does any harm to update them as constantly as you can. This is Wikinews' job, not your job. Wikipedia policy states that an encyclopedic article should be kept up-to-date as possible, but at the same time by not updating with something that is either unverifiable or incomplete. And a game-in-progress is considered "incomplete." Please refrain from doing this again. Please refrain from intentionally ignoring a Wikipedia policy. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I mean you no disrespect at all, but to me it simply appears that you're lazy. Don't you see how what you did is devoid of accuracy? Not to mention that you're violating
Sorry, that isn't good enough. Tell me something, Soxrock: why do you think that you can overrule an official Wikipedia policy? --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Just make sure that you don't change a person's or city's record until they have been eliminated. And try to get out of the habit of updating something as soon as possible, as there is a rule against that. --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Game logs
Hey again. I'm sorry if I'm butting in again. But I was just wondering why, when you update stuff like the game logs and division standings, why do you do it piece by piece? I see you update like one team's pitcher, then the other pitcher, then the attendance, then the record, then the bgcolor (or some other order). Why do you do this all in separate edits instead of simply doing it all in the same edit? --Ksy92003 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that creates more edit conflicts. If you do it piece by piece, then you have to click "edit this page" 5 separate times. This is more likely to cause an edit conflict than if you simply have to click "edit this page" once. For example, if you add one piece of info, like the winning pitcher, somebody looking at the "recent changes" might see that you only added a small piece of the whole data and attempt to edit the page to finish filling in the data. Then, you would click on "edit this page" to add the other pitcher, for example. The other user would already be trying to enter all the info in the template when you click to edit, thus causing an edit conflict. This can be extremely problematic, as I myself check the "recent changes" constantly simply to monitor the project. And if I see something that is incomplete, then I'll be tempted to finish what you started. Now, although I am aware that you take this method, another user checking the "recent changes" might not be aware, thus causing another edit conflict. --Ksy92003 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Players Infoboxs
Please stop removing players who have their current teams listed, please instead revert where it is formerteams to teams, as this removal of the current teams will create more work for the baseball players task force. Thanks. MetsFan15303:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2007 NBA Playoffs talk page, it has been decided that we will stop in-game score updates because of the strain it puts on the page's own history section. Since we have a big problem with vandalism on this and other NBA pages recently, we need to be able to monitor these articles as effeciently as possible. I hope this doesn't discourages you from editing in general. If you want, you can do a score update at the end of a quarter, instead of after every single score. If you have any concerns, please feel free to contact any one of us. Thank you for understanding. Dknights41120:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't get this...
Seriously, I ask one more time that you please stop making all these edits piece-by-piece. While there is no policy against this, you are actually making too many edits. I honestly don't understand why you can't simply make all the changes in the same edit. Here is a list of edits you made to {{2007 Detroit Tigers season game log}}:
Background color
Score
Winning pitcher
Losing pitcher
Attendance
Record
You took an easy job and split it up into 6 edits. The last five you made in a combined 3 minutes, for an average of :20 per edit. Now, here is a list of edits you made to {{2007 St. Louis Cardinals season game log}}:
Score
Background color
Winning pitcher
Losing pitcher
Saving pitcher
Attendance
Record
You took the same easy job and split it up into 7 edits. You made these edits in a combined 4 minutes, for an average of :34 per edit.
I ask you again PLEASE add all these in one edit instead of splitting them up piece by piece. It drastically extends the page histories, not to mention makes it harder to read the Recent changes page if all 50 edits shown are for only 6 or 7 pages. It makes it even more difficult for somebody like me who always monitor the articles. It's a lot easier to watch 30 articles one one page than it is to watch it on 7 pages.
I'm not banking on that, to be honest. I just want you to be aware that doing it with as many edits as you do makes it very hard to monitor the project for me (and probably for other users who check the recent changes).
I don't believe that this is a large amount of info to update, anyway. On average, it's around 100-120 characters, about 120 bytes of data. That's not really a lot, actually, considering how that's about .4% of the entire page's data. I understand that habits are hard to get out of. But I honestly think that if you can get out of this habit, it will be a lot better for everybody. For instance, if all the edits are made in one edit, then if you make any errors, there would be a better chance of me being able to see it and correct it. If you can, could you please try? --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ... if you're going to update the statistics in the infoboxes on MLB player pages, please be sure to change the statyear parameter to be the date of the stats. Otherwise, the infoboxes are inaccurate. Note that although the parameter is named statyear, you can enter a complete date. Frankly, with the possible exception of players approaching milestones, I'm not crazy about the practice of updating statistics for some players but not others. But I recognize that this is just my viewpoint. However, I think it's imperative that statyear is updated along with the statistics. Thanks. --Sanfranman5905:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
Once again, please STOP removing the former teams from the infobox, instead replace the former teams, with teams, this is the 2nd time I've had to tell you this, but you just don't seem to get it. MetsFan15313:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did I just click on a player before, his old formerteams box not there and you edited it to delete it, today. MetsFan15313:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop
Stop changing from 2003 in baseball|2003 in 2003 in MLB|2003, the edits you are making are wrong and are not policy and will be reverted. MetsFan15313:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your problem is but you are creating more work for everyone and revert these unauthorized changes.
Now please stop these edits, next time before you do any of this post on the baseball players task force talk page, so it can be discussed and decided as a whole if it is a good idea. MetsFan15313:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits to
Eric Gagné
Please be more careful when editing userbox data. Your recent edits to
Eric Gagné removed several important parameters from the infobox, leaving it broken (diff). I'd suggest using the Preview button to prevent this from happening in the future. Thanks, Caknuck14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Danny Kanell.jpg)
Thanks for uploading
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. Aksibot14:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Cell
I am trying to figure out why you readded an obviously outdated and poorer quality picture to the U.S. Cellular Field infobox and cannot come up with any reason why? I reverted the change as the stadium has been extensively remodeled since the picture you added to the article was taken, please discuss any further changes at
Why are you creating all of these "yyyy Major League Baseball season" articles that have the exact same information as the corresponding "yyyy in baseball" articles? It looks to me like you're just copying the information from the "yyyy in baseball" article, but presenting the information in a slightly different order. I suggest that you stop what you're doing since I'm guessing that all of these articles you're creating are just going to be deleted, given that they're completely redundant. Before you undertake major projects like this, you really should bring them to the community first (
All you did was add a few paragraphs of text summarizing the season. The rest of the page is identical to the 1995 in baseball article. Why not just add your written summary to that article? --Sanfranman5900:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only references to baseball GLOBALLY in the 1995 in baseball article is the small "Other Champions" section. I still think you could simply add whatever you have in mind to add to this article instead of creating new ones with so much overlap. --Sanfranman5901:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so if I'm interpreting your last message on my talk page correctly, you're going to do what you want to do and the hell with what anyone else thinks? Do I have the right? --Sanfranman5901:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that your definition of a "good opinion" is one that agrees with you. You have not yet made a case for why you can't simply add your text to the existing articles instead of copying 99% of what's in the existing article and adding your text in the new article. Why is this necessary? --Sanfranman5901:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should make your own Wikipedia-style website where you can put whatever you want on it. No one likes your edits from what I can tell.Chris Nelson01:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'll thank you not to yell at me anymore. It's rude and completely unnecessary. Secondly, the 1995 in baseball article has exactly 2 red links. Thirdly, if you simply add whatever it is you want to add to the existing articles, we can decide to branch them off to other articles if they become too big and unwieldy. As they currently stand (at least in my opinion), they are neither too big nor too unwieldy. --Sanfranman5901:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh. You know darn well that there is a rule against this. It has been brought to your attention NUMEROUS times. If you continue this... if you do this ONE MORE TIME, I WILL get an admin and bring this to their attention. There is a rule against this and you WILL be punished accordingly. One more time you do this... just one more time, and I will bring this to an admin's attention. --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What gave you the idea that that rule only applies to basketball? THERE IS A FREAKING RULE AGAINST IT!!! I am being serious here. Stop updating it the way you are or I will be forced to take action against you. I don't want to, but you may leave me no other choice. --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it ISN'T over yet. So you are violating it. Don't do anything until the race has been declared over and a winner has been named. --Ksy92003 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it isn't over yet. See? We both have different opinions. There hasn't been an official announcement saying that the race is over, so we can't put anything and pretend that it is. --Ksy92003 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what the above user is trying to say. Basically, there's no reason to post results of a match while it's happening, it's just as easy to wait until the end of it. There's a difference between throwing up draft picks every pick (since those aren't going to change), and posting every time someone shoots a basket in the playoffs, or there's a change in lap positioning. Just slow down a bit, you only stress yourself out by making all those edits.--Wizardman20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no it isn't. Turn to ESPNews (or whatever channel the race was on). The race is currently going on. So, my friend, you were wrong. Therefore, please apologize to all for saying that you were updating it because you thought the race would be ended. You were wrong; it's still going on.
I'll point out one more time that your edits violate the
WP:NOT#PUBLISHER policy, there's no reason to update every single score every time it changes one little bit. If I catch you again doing this I'll have no reservations about blocking you, it's starting to get distracting.--Wizardman12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
an additional point (and the one that lead me here to make a comment) when you edit someone like willy mo pena's career stats you actually provide incorrect information, on someone like david ortiz his selected career stats are listed as current, on willy mo those stats are listed AS OF 2006. changes you make to players listing the end of last year as the correct date for the stats listed is wrong unless you ALSO re formate the player id block to list a valid and accurate date. Childhoodtrauma00:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Tourney
I appreciate your help in updating the article, but why are you filling in the losers brackets? The games have not yet been played...we have no idea which teams will be in the losers brackets. Seancp17:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile
}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Response
To make a hidden comment, click on the button at the top after the "X-squared", or type <!-- your hidden comment --> like so. --Ksy92003 (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Aksibot04:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Aksibot05:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering that myself. I see you edit the Yankees articles a lot, I wouldn't think a Red Sox fan would do that? --rogerd20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. IrishGuytalk20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article isn't meant to be there. There is no reason to fork the bulk of the White Sox article. You have gained no consensus for such an overtaking. Stop. If you delete from Chicago White Sox again you will be blocked. IrishGuytalk21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing information until...
Even if you are creating a new article, please don’t remove content from another article. Even if you are going to move all that information to another article, please don’t remove the content until after the article has been created and the content has been added. From what I’ve seen, you haven’t created the other article yet. Please don’t remove information from Chicago White Sox until you have created History of the Chicago White Sox. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted his duplicate article because he was dismantling the bulk of the Chicago White Sox article without gaining any level of consensus for his activities. A move like this should be taken to the article talk page first before such a move. IrishGuytalk21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please stop anyway. Discuss the topic with Irishguy and find out why he is deleting the article after you create it. Then, if cooler heads prevail, re-create History of the Chicago White Sox and add the information there; then you can remove it from Chicago White Sox. But please don’t remove content from an article unless it will remain an article on a related topic. But please don’t get involved in an edit-create article-delete article war with Irishguy. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a bad idea, but I don't think that it should be done if only a select few of the teams can have it done. My lifelong philospohy is:
And I have taken that information and reported it to
WP:NOT#PUBLISHER.
You don't own Wikipedia. You can't do what you darn well please. There are rules and everybody, including you, must abide by those rules. Nobody is above the law. And nobody is above the rules, not admin nor anon. Everybody must follow the same rules; this includes you. So please don't violate this rules again because you think that you're above everybody else... or at least that's what it seems like:
The user was warned repeatedly to stop deleting content. He continued. He was warned he needed to discuss wide-scale changes...he ignored it and continued. Please read
Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves
and see that simply cut-and-paste moves screw up the page history which is bad. This particular user has a history of simply up and doing whatever he wants regardless of how many admins ask him not to.
Hi again, Sox ... before you update statistics for additional players, please go back and change the dates on the players you've already updated over the past several days. It's your mess. You should clean it up. Thanks. --Sanfranman5901:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject NASCAR
Why did you do it again?
Image:St_Louis_Cardinals_1967-1997_logo.png
Yankee Seasons
You can't do this, Soxrock. This violates
WP:OWN. Everybody has the right to edit whichever articles they want and no one user can say "I don't want anybody doing these pages for me." Anybody can edit whatever they want, and you can't get them. Please don't get in trouble... again. --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... very well. Just please try to avoid any confusion. You're walking on thin ice in my eyes now.
Also, why are you still making all of your edits to a single article in 25 separate edits? You did this with at least 1950 New York Yankees season and I know you did it to others, as well. Please, for the sake of the page history and monitoring your edits, as well as to avoid the database from locking for a continuous input of data into the server, make all your changes in a single edit instead of 25. Thanks. --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But I don't understand how this is a huge problem to correct. I would think that you wouldn't have any problems with stopping that, but as long as the edits are made and the info is added, then it doesn't make much a difference.
One thing that is kinda annoying is that you always get the game logs updated before I can. I have the stuff all ready short of attendance when the game ends, and you still manage to get it updated before me. Grr... keep it up. I'm glad that I do have somebody else to rely on for getting these all updated. Before, I was doing 10 logs a night. Since then, I can barely even do my teams. I kinda like that actually. Keep up the good work, mate =) --Ksy92003 (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Non-free use disputed for Image:St Louis Cardinals 1967-1997 logo.png
This file may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our
You're making so many articles for guys who just got drafted, calling them "Major League Baseball players", categorizing them with teams, and putting a lot of effort into nothing. Most of these guys do not meet notability standards. None of them are major league players. None have signed contracts yet so none are with any organization. You're creating a huge mess. Do you really not understand the process you are writing about? Ekillian05:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put them at AfD instead; CSD is only used for subjects which assert no notability, which all of the baseball players do.