This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Why are you deleting what I am putting in?Brfallon (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I figure you may not check the comment I left for you on my Talk page. Therefore, I pasted it below. I simply want to be able to link the interview to Wiki. Hopefully, that can be done without it being deleted.
Alright. I see what you are saying. You took out the Jimmy Scott interview link because it doesn't support the statement. If you listen to the interview, and I am not trying to promote it, but if you do listen to it you will hear Jason Grilli himself talk about Perfect Pitch Marketing. Throwing SPAM around is not on my list of things to do, but I am trying to promote the interview site through Wikipedia just as it is being promoted through Facebook and Myspace. So, is there anyway of keeping these links up assuming I refer to Jimmy Scott's interview with the article's subject and mention pertinent information from said interview in the statement and link them?
Brfallon (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Conf standings sorting
I noticed you sort teams alphabetically after conf standing, i've been sorting by overall record 2nd, and then alphabetically. Has any sort of standard been established that you know of? I always thought we went by overall record next, since that is what the major sites like ESPN, CNNSI, etc all do and also the football wiki project. It probably doesn't really matter, but I guess there should be probably be an agreement so that all the templates are the same. Thoughts? Ryan2845 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ryan, I don't think a standard has been established. For more perspective into what I was doing, I was sorting alphabetically, but only because that was the last "tiebreaker". I think the teams should be ordered based on current conference tiebreakers (head-to-head, division record, record vs. first place team, etc.). I do realize that most of the time espn.com, yahoo.com, etc. won't match those tiebreakers, but I think the teams should be sorted by the tiebreakers outlined by the conference. I also realize this information isn't obvious since you have to go to each conference's website, but I think that order is the most "correct" thing to do. It's probably most inconsistent now since there are very few conference games. I think the problem will become less apparent the later the season goes. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
MAC Tournament page
Hi - you seem to be very active on the MAC pages. I noticed you separated out the venue and city info on the table on the
Mid-American Conference Men's Basketball Tournament page. I had consolidated those to save "real estate" on the table to include scores, runners-up and MVPs. I'm not hard over about it, but most of the college basketball pages use a Venue (City) format, and it just feels like a disproportionate amount of space on the table goes to location if they are separated out - especially since there is unused space in the venue column. Just curious why you reverted it. Also, wondering if the 2008 seed info should be there since this is the overview page and there is a distinct entry for the '08 tournament. By the way - thanks for all the cleanup and edits on the table and links - you did really nice work cleaning up my entries! Take care. Rikster2 (talk
) 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Rik, I didn't notice you had recently changed the Venue City to combine the columns. I just thought it had always been there and my database schoolings makes me think it's bad to have two different types of data in a single field. I don't really have a preference as to what way it goes. I also think the 2008 seeds/standings can be removed too. They were in that article before the 2008 article was created, so it made sense at some point in time. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Opening Round Game
NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Opening Round Game
NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Play-In Game
I'm not sure the proper way to move and redirect pages, but it should be under Opening Round Game since it is not longer called the "Play-In Game" Can you move to Opening Round Game the correct way? Thanks. Moonraker0022 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the title should be changed. I think you have to go through the
WP:RM procedure, since it can't be done without an admin (normally moves can be done by regular users. I'll start the procedure and let you know. — X96lee15 (talk
) 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Can you please respond and let me know when Don Gorske will be done eating all those Big Macs? Thank you. Bob.--76.224.126.22 (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Peter Karmanos
X96lee15: Please stop removing my edits related to Peter Karmanos. As a Compuware employee, I have personal knowledge of the firings I described from 2002. If you are not a Compuware employee, you may not have that same knowledge. If you are an employee of Compuware from that era, you would have knowledge of what I am describing. Wikipedia is filled with information that is from unpublished sources, some reliable, and some not reliable. Deleting someone's edits because they come from unpublished sources means that no controversial information will ever be published within Wikipedia, even if it is completely true. If you have facts that contradict what I am claiming occurred in 2002 at Compuware, feel free to present them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.38 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't help there are unsourced statements on other Wikipedia pages. I just know that the information you're adding isn't sourced properly. With Karmanos being a Living Person, his article is held to "higher" standards than others per
WP:BLP. It's quite clear that unsourced or poorly sourced statements should be removed immediately. Note that I left the portion of the paragraph about being criticized for running the Hurricanes because it was sourced. — X96lee15 (talk
) 21:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
X96lee15: Please stop removing my edits related to Peter Karmanos. You now have clearly demonstrated that you are not interested in information about Karmanos, but rather you are a Karmanos "fan club" member. Your biograhical information shows you attended college in the area where Compuware is headquartered and you might be a Compuware employee. Please get over your bias toward positive news about Karmanos and leave my posts alone. Your statement about "higher" standards implies that you believe YOU are the arbiter of those "higher" standards. You are not. The information I have written about Karmanos is 100% factual, whether or not there are published sources that back up the information. Until you have proof that what I have written is not correct, LEAVE MY EDITS ALONE.
You are not the arbiter of correctness: if you have proof that my edits are wrong, fine. Until then, leave them alone. If you continue to remove my edits, I will recommend that your id be blocked from all further Wikipedia edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.38 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
X96lee15: As I previously stated, when you have ANY proof that what I've written is not factual, you may remove my comments, until then, leave them alone. Clearly, you weren't there, I was. It is extremely naive of you to believe that unsourced statements are not widely present on Wikipedia. The rapidity with which you deleted my original edit shows that you have a bias towards "happy" information on the Karmanos page; you were monitoring that page - you're not interested in your claimed "adherence to Wikipedia policy." Any impartial party would not have touched the edit that I originally added, but you did. If you remove my edits on the Karmanos topic again, you will have chosen to enter a battle that you cannot win. If you remove my edit again, I will then know that it's my obligation to ensure that your other edits on ALL of Wikipedia meet an additional level of scrutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.38 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
X96lee15: FYI, that's pretty funny. You chose to ignore my request without offering any proof of my edit's incorrectness and you went ahead and deleted my Karmanos edit, yet again. How else can I say this, other than: big mistake. Your high horse is now taking a tumble down the hills of Wikipedia - who knows where it will land. I've been correcting some of your other unsourced edits on other topics.
I have removed the material. Blogs and messageboards are not acceptable sources for material on living people.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I and some others have had numerous, repeated problems with Jackal4 reverting perfectly good edits, etc. Appreciate your help.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
He continues (see my comments to him on his home page). Pls help. He is ignoring us and Wikipedia, and running amok.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Jackal4
FYI, Jackal4 has been blocked for the second time this month -- this time for a 30-day period. See [1].--Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I've had my eye on the situation. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to not be civil. Glad he's blocked. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
At bats, RBIs, etc.
Hi ... can you please shed light on the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jackal4 ? This is an issue that you have addressed wisely in the past. And Jackal4 is running around reverting me wherever I use the "s" to denote a plural. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the conversation was removed. I'll keep my eye out though. Appears it's pretty clear that RBIs should be used, based on the
He removes it, but you can easily read it, by going to history and looking at the last entry prior to his removal.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Breslow
Thanks for your edits .... they were helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
CIT
If you go look at the bracket structure it is formed similarly to the semifinals are in the CBI. The teams get reseeded (Bes2224 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, that's why I don't think we can fill in the bracket yet. Having the bracket insinuates that certain teams will be playing one another in the second round and that's not the case. I think we should wait until the end of the tournament to fill the bracket in. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
What if we would break it down into different brackets per each round, to give the page a cleaner look (Bes2224 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)).
Sounds good. I agree it doesn't look good like it is now. Actually, it's probably not a big deal to just fill in the brackets the games go on. I don't think seeds should be added though. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)\
Of if you want I can re do the bracket and we can just put a note footnote that brackets are restructured each round (Bes2224 (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
Division I-AAA
You wrote on your action log for your edit at Division I "none of those references say what Div IAAA is what what schools make it up. I had never heard of it, that's why I removed the statement originally". Could you clarify that statement, because I am not understanding what you are asking for. Are you asking for "Division I-AAA" to be defined somewhere? Since you removed it originally I thought maybe you thought it wasn't a term that was used or something. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind; You clarified on the Division I page. I was in the process of adding the above while you were editing. Disregard. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I had hastily reverted the change. Truthfully I had never heard of IAAA until I read that sentence today. I just thought it was some "slang" introduced by ESPN or something. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Its all good; I hadn't heard of it until I read it in that article (albeit before today). When I was searching for the term, the second result (next to the wikipedia article on Division I, haha) was the Division I-AAA Athletics Director Association site. I was going to include that link for a reference, but decided against it originally; Do you think that would be a better link to put in instead of (or in addition to) the other one? Cardsplayer4life (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Null edits
I noticed you reverted some of my "null edits" on the AAA roster templates. Null edits are to say something and all they change is the day it was updated so there is no need to revert those edits.--Giants27T/C 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
But I don't think the "null edit" should change the information on the page to be incorrect. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the 2nd source (other than the tigers.com roster page) that he's suddenly on the 40-man roster? This says he was just brought is as one of many minor leagues to fill in a spot for the day. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The second source I'm referring to is the MiLB Toledo roster page. I find those to be even more up-to-date than tigers.com. That roster lists him as on the 40-man roster. Is it possible he's on the roster if just for the day? Just seems weird to me that the tigers.com roster would add him by mistake. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems even weirder that they would suddenly add a guy who wasn't even in camp to the 40-man roster..... but I guess there is more evidence for than against at the moment... odd that there is no article mentioning a roster move like this.... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I remember last year during spring training, some guys got added to the 40-man roster by mistake.--OaklandAthleticsfan (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Baseball Scorekeeping external links
I recently did a big revision of the Baseball Scorekeeping article, and added several external links which you removed. My opinion is that those external links are very relevant to the article. In my mind the article should not be a scorekeeping tutorial (which is what it was), but rather an introduction to the practice of scorekeeping and an overview of three major methods in use (I just added sections on the two other methods). To me it seems natural that someone interested in scorekeeping will want detailed instructions on one of the methods, so the external links I had posted were to the "official" (or closest to it) sites for each of the three methods, plus a fourth link which was to a gallery of non-mainstream methods.
I think these links are absolutely appropriate and add value to the article (by linking to relevant information outside the scope of the article), but I'm open to discussion. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Areisner (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)