User talk:Tecmobowl/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re; Baseball card

Do you understand what a commercial link is or not? Just becasuse it is a .com does not mean it is a commercial site! These are non-commercial links [1] [2] to card collecting clubs. TBTA 19:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Baseball card, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TBTA 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Please see WP:OWN re Baseball card. TBTA 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Baseball card, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TBTA 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Baseball: warning

Please see the message on my talk page addressed to you and TBTA [3]. You're both on the verge of earning blocks for edit-warring, so play nicely! -Splash - tk 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ivey wingo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ivey wingo.jpg. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 03:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Baseball Card

Why are you replacing things with things that do not sound like they are from an encylopedia? The intro that I just put back makes more sense from a someone who is not an American. Thanks from Holland!

Baseball card

Hello, I reverted your edits to an earlier version, since it seems to be better written, doesn't have the American Card Catalogue examples which are superfluous outside an article on the book, has a better linear progression, and is less biased towards American cards. There is no need to mention the The San Diego Chicken, who was in fact a radio station mascot. I have found no refrences to the 1948 Topps set you sepak of and you seem not to understand the concept of references, which actually have to reference another work. I do hate to say it, but given the edit history, you seem to hava an unhealthy attachemnt to the article. You should really take a look at WP:OWN and WP:NPOV especially the Anglo-American focus section of the FAQ. It appears that TBTA was following the idea of "rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them." You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. TV Newser 13:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Images in the Baseball card article

I see no problem with the images in the Baseball card article. They all seem to be good as of the 16:08, 19 September 2006 revision[4]. The image at the top of the page shows several modern types from all over the world. If this article was American baseball card I think I could see why you think that "foreign" cards would be inappropriate. Considering this is not the American Wikipeida, the foreign cards are needed and even better if they are used to illustrate the design of baseball cards. Delgado in Color 16:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Now look what you have done

It appears you incivility has driven TBTA from Wikipedia. I hope that this will in future lead you to consider others before you act. TV Newser 05:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:National-chicle-nagurski.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:National-chicle-nagurski.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hi, I wanted to ask you to be careful about adding links to cardpricer dot com. It appears to require registration for some or all of its content; please see Wikipedia:External links for why linking to such sites is generally discouraged. Wmahan. 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please answer the question I left on my talk page about whether you are in fact the owner of cardpricer dot com, aka [removed] aka Blacksoxfan (talk · contribs)? Thank you. Wmahan. 03:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd object to me posting a first name. I've put some evidence for what I said above on my talk page; I think it's pretty clear, but I'm open to your explanations otherwise. Wmahan. 04:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking a look now

Just stop reverting him for a moment, I'm taking a look at the situation.--Konst.able 10:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you and will do. I am glad to discuss this and try and figure out what i can do to solve the problem. People got mad at me for adding links, so then i removed them and i got accused of vandalism by a person who keeps changing my pages.Tecmobowl 10:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would suggest you stop calling him words like "moron" it will win you no favours. Would you happen to know why he thinks you are a sock?--Konst.able 10:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think i called him a moron (although anything is possible), i think it was someone else who rv my page. Do you want the long answer or the short answer :-)?Tecmobowl 10:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's try the short answer first just to see if we can stop this situation one way or another.--Konst.able 11:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Should i keep doing these star sections? Okay short answer, a person started editing Baseball card page with bad information and i would go in and remove it. Some how this guy got involved (recognize i don't know if it is a male or female). After having a long discussion with someone about how I believe CardPricer.com has a valuable place on certain link pages, i realized that it should be removed from other pages (where i put it). So in an attempt to get things going, i went to Trading card and removed the external links section which at the time included a link to cardpricer, a link to a magazine, and a link to a site promoted by [[5]] (who is employed by that site). TV Newser started calling me a vandal for removing the section (which i started btw). Then I attempted to point people to the talk page for Trading card to discuss it instead of adding the section back in/ He did not like this and essentially started calling me a sockpuppet by the name of scott.-- Tecmobowl 11:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(Yes the star sections are annoying). I am trying to find a reason why he would accuse you, so far unsuccessful, waiting for him to reply.--Konst.able 11:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Okay, I'm going to get breakfast in about 10 minutes or so. Let me know if there is anything else i can do. Really quickly, do you know if there is a piece of wiki code to direct people to discuss a specific section on the talk page ... and how do i point them to the specific section on the talk page? Thanks Tecmobowl 11:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Use [[Article name#Section name here]]--Konst.able 11:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

awesome, so I'll go put that on the external link section as: Please discuss here: [[Article name#Section name here]]-- Tecmobowl 11:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In case you check this again, i just want to clarify that i did not make any claims toward him as an anon. Tecmobowl 11:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok

I have asked him/her to stop the accusations without presenting evidence. But you too have made some nasty comments against him in retaliation as an anon (don't deny it please, it's rather obvious, and can be easily be proven indisputably if needed). Though it is not entirely unjustified, it does violate the No Personal Attacks policy, which could lead to blocks. The outbursts are understandable, but are unlikely to be tolerated if they repeat. So I urge you to stay cool and civil no matter what he throws at you. I will be heading off soon, so this may be resolved on WP:AN before I am back.--Konst.able 11:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

THanks for your help and i'm not arguing at all but for my own sake i'd like you to check the login and out times and also my ip address as you will see it is nowhere near that one. Again, i don't want to beat a dead horse, and i certainly thank you for your help. Thank you again for providing some level headed nature to this. I did tell him to learn to read and that was a violation. Thanks again and keep it real! Tecmobowl 11:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Now i'm realing going to breakfast

Let's please centralize this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please Help. There are at least five user talk pages being spammed with this. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Jay Lynch

Why do you say "spam"? http://www.wackypackages2005.com/lost-wackys/ This is not even a product but simply rough drawings that Topps never published! Pepso

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Dutch Leonard (left-handed pitcher) Mobile BayBears Buck Weaver Orval Overall Jim O'Toole Charlie Kerfeld Earle Combs On base percentage Peter Griesar Heinie Manush SkyBox International Charlie Root Lee MacPhail Fred McMullin Lefty Williams Chet Hoff Happy Felsch Bob Keegan Buddy Myer

Cleanup Joe Cunningham Alex Rodriguez Brian Daubach Merge ProQuest Race (United States Census) The Queen of the Damned Add Sources Steve Phillips Bo Jackson Tampa Bay Devil Rays Wikify Jim Gentile ComicBase Toulminville Expand American League Championship Series National League Championship Series Women's professional sports

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 13:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks!

Please look at WP:NPA. Thank you. OBILI ® ± 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page. If keep acting this way I am afraid I will have to report you. Calm down and stop attacking. OBILI ® ± 14:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ichiro calbee.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ichiro calbee.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. YellowDot 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Willie Mays

I am well aware of what a Wiki is (since I am an admin here), if you remove huge amount of content from an article as you did to Willie Mays you need to provide carful edit summaries so other editors understand what you have done. Once again you have removed the MLBHOF template form this article without explaining why. Please be careful in the future. -- No Guru 04:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. OBILI ® ± 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wr2 TV Newser Tipline 04:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are doing a good job

You are doing a good job. You really understand the concept of wiki and should not let trolls and vandals get you down. I support you 100%. Belly Flop Patrol 09:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• TV Newser is part of the CFIF/Splash cabal that sees socks everywhere. They think I am a sock and will claim that me defending Tecmobowl is more evidence that I am a sock and he is a sock. I am not a sock, he is not a sock and he as only made good edits and really understands the concept of wiki. TV Newser, CFIF, and Splash should all be banned forever! Belly Flop Patrol 09:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! I agree, onward and upward!!! --Tecmobowl 09:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

user:TV Newser

I've blocked this user for 24 hours for harassment. There's simply no reason to add a prod tag, which clearly states it can be removed "for any reason", and then call it "vandalism" when someone does. Thus, the vandalism warnings you received were also out of line, and you were justified to remove them. Since this user has still not made it clear why he considers you a sock of a previously permablocked user, and since you have never come near any article the blocked user has edited, the allegations appear baseless. I would advise you to try to tread carefully when dealing with this user, as there's no need to inflame the situation further. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help with this situation. I really don't mind if people want to give me legitimate warnings, but I still don't think I have done anything to warrant one yet. I have read your comments on my Talk page and thank you for your help. If you have any advice as to how I can quickly and easily deal with these types of incidents (other than what I am doing), it would be appreciated. Thanks for your time. --Tecmobowl 09:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You've opened a Mediation case, you've reported the incidents to WP:AN/I... That's all you can really do. Try not to refer to a user's contributions as "vandalism" as you did here and that may also help. Remember you can almost always de-escalate a situation by using a calm tone. Probably won't work for someone who thinks you're a sock, though. It may also help to not have inflammatory comments from a user calling for the banning of a well-respected admin (see above). Anyway, happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 10:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i have taken on your case at the Mediation Cabal. If you have have any issues please contact me on my talk page. This is my first mediation case. Jeffklib 08:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HankAaron.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HankAaron.jpg. The image description 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page headers

Thanks for editing the talk page headers at Talk:Babe Ruth - it's hard for us to keep up with articles getting delisted as GAs, so I appreciated you re-grading it as a B. Could I request, though, that you leave the headers on the page? Those headers will remain there whatever the article quality - Babe Ruth will remain a core biography even if it's a stub! For Version 0.5, we have the option of using an older version if the quality goes REALLY downhill. Thanks! Walkerma 15:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Please see The American Card Catalog [6] OBILI ® ± 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hank Aaron tag

Hi, I started a discussion section at Talk:Hank Aaron#Primarysources tag involving your {{primarysources}} tag. See you there. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Rookie Card picture

What do you mean there's no need to have Babe Ruth's rookie card on Babe Ruth's page? MikeBriggs 13:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson article cleanup

Thank you for your efforts in cleaning up this article. I'm semi-new to Wikipedia and not well versed in it's policies and procedures. But, wow, did I learn a lot by simply reviewing your edits! Once again, thank you. robertjohnsonrj 15:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson article: His first encounter with a MLB team, the Chicago White Sox

Reguarding this, do you feel that the removed statement reguarding his 1st encounter with the White Sox and with Luke Appling to be noteworthy enough for reinstatement into this article? Comment appreciated. robertjohnsonrj 16:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

Thanks again. The source does not say that it was his first time, I realized. robertjohnsonrj 14:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Trouble Brewing????

Just thought you should be aware of Tecmobowls. You will notice he/she has suddenly appeared and is only contributing on pages i have recently edited. Nothing outrageous or in violation of "wiki" has happened, but this might be another example of TV Newser trying to pick a fight. Any thoughts?Tecmobowl 20:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

He's banned now. The violation of wiki is being an imposter of another user, in this case you. BTW, TV Newser is simply a sock of Spotteddogsdotorg which is one of the larger sock rings going around. I've blocked over a dozen of them and Splash has blocked far more in over a year. If you refer to Spotteddogsdotorg, many will know who you're referring to. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson article (concerning POV & weasle words)

I'm not sure what to do to fix these problems. The confrontational elements that I've added to the article are from, I believe, reliable and neutral sources. I could be wrong about that, of course. Do you have any further suggestions to correct these problems? Thanks for your comments. robertjohnsonrj 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:JakeDaubert.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JakeDaubert.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jake Daubert

Just a suggestion...

Edit summary comments like "you are now being reported for the violation of the 3rv rule. I'm not taunting you, i'm getting sick of dealing with you." can be considered incivil or a light personal attack. I'd advise making comments towards the changes/edits and not the individual. --Madchester 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More hints

A couple hints after glancing over your user page. You can link correctly to a category by prefixing with a colon, [[:Category:Baseball cards]] → Category:Baseball cards (the same goes for templates and images). Another useful template to add is {{fact}} which tags a specific sentence as needing a reference. I prefer to use the {{unreferenced}} tag only when there are zero references in the entire article. Enjoy.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Template editing help

I was thinking that some adjustments could be made to the {{MLB HoF}}, {{Infobox Cooperstown}}, and the {{Infobox baseball player}} templates, but I don't know what the process for suggesting changes to templates is. Ithink the cooperstown box is somewhat unnecessary on pages where the baseball player box has been used. I think the MLB HoF box could be used a lot more, but think it lacks one piece of important information: induction year. Perhaps changing the display text to be: Player Name, inducted in YEAR, is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. What do you think and how do i go about asking for others for their input? I'd be happy to move this discussion to my talk page or some other page where it would be more appropriate. //Tecmobowl 14:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly hadn't looked too hard at those. I see {{Infobox baseball player}} already has an "inductiondate" parameter so I'm not sure why {{Infobox Cooperstown}} even exists. I've never been impressed with {{MLB HoF}}. As far as where to start a discussion, I'd think the best option would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. Unfortunately, it's questionable how many people have that on their watchlists (it was dormant for so long that I took it off my watchlist for quite a while). The best way to ensure a lot of participation for baseball discussion is probably to leave a short note on individual users' talk pages directing them to where the actual discussion will be. You could also leave a note on the templates' talk pages. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

HI: I don't have any experience with the templates, as I haven't used them in any articles. So...I don't feel I can really weigh in with any opinions on the subject. Thanks for asking, though. It looks like an interesting discussion, and I wish you luck in achieving any change(s) you hope to get made. BurmaShaver 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about CardPricer.com Image Library

Thanks for adding a link to the Resources section on Wikiprojects:Baseball Players. The question I had about CardPricer.com's image library is if there is a way to view the image without the cardpricer.com watermark placed on top. If there's not, I'm not sure there is much use in using any of them for an article. - Mattingly23 02:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Ruether...

...another nice article. Great job! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Beckett Media Company

I'm pretty sure there was a long article about the compnay, but i can't seem to figure out what happened. Does this mean that the article never existed? Thought you could help me on that one. //Tecmobowl 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a Beckett Media article that was created in late August and deleted on October 12 because it was a copyright violation from http://www.beckett.com/mediarelations/aboutbeckett.html. Does the text at that URL look familiar? I don't see a Beckett Media Company article by that exact name though. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I do a lot of new page patrol, and I hate to say it, but that James Beckett article is one of the nicer stubs I've seen in a while!  :) But, in general, I try to encourage people to watch others at first - figure out which users are well-respected and see how they edit (not necessarily how they behave but how they edit). Adam Carr (talk · contribs) jumps to mind as always being associated with well-written and extremely well-researched articles. Also, look through WP:FA to see articles that have been through a pretty rigorous process to become featured. I suggest people start out slowly since it worked fairly well for me - not too many take me up on the offer though!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe Gedeon

Returning your message: while I do agree with you on the larger point that many of the facts of the Black Sox scandal will never be known, such as just what did Shoeless Joe know and when did he know it, Gedeon's suspension is a matter of the public record. As he was the only active ballplayer to be suspended for the scandal other than the Eight Men Out, the page should mention him, in some manner. Thank you for responding personally. Vidor 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lee Smith

FYI, Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) is trying to get Lee Smith (baseball) to featured article status. I've dumped a lot of detail into that article (maybe too much). I like what you've been doing with large baseball bio articles - maybe you'd care to have a look at that one?

BTW, no need to put the note in User:Tecmobowl/notepad. Except for extreme cases, no one is going to want to delete pages in your user space. I probably have a dozen or more - some I've probably even forgotten about. You can use those however you see fit! If you feel like deleting one, just put a {{db-user}} on it and it will disappear eventually.

The only exceptions to keeping user space pages I've seen are 1.) people whose only edits are creating personal ad-space (for their band or company or some nonsense - I've had a few of those deleted) and 2.) blatant attack pages.

Hopefully I'll see you at the Lee Smith page!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like good suggestions at first glance. As far as the more important baseball bio pages you mentioned, I couldn't agree more. It seems like no one "babysits" them properly so people start hacking it up with no checks and balances. I also started some expansion to Fred Clarke since he's in the HOF and his article is practically a stub. But I've only gotten as far as web researching and piling a bunch of random facts in User:Wknight94/Stuff In Progress. I'm not real good at concentrating on single articles, esp. since the admin deal started. Thanks again for your help with Lee Smith! Hopefully someone can eventually find the time to actually implement the changes you've suggested... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Toppslogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Toppslogo.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see 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. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful when reverting

Hi, you made changes to Babe Ruth and cited legitimate concerns (which I will discuss later when I get a chance), but a few of your edits I just don't understand. Why break the link to Loss (baseball)? Why did you change Ruth's induction year to 1935 from the correct year of 1936? Why remove my citations for Ruth's accolades? I understand if you disagree about how information is presented, but it doesn't help anyone to make blanket reverts that reintroduce many of the past errors. Please return these to their corrected versions if you agree with me. Also, in your edit summary, you say 'i would suggest adjusting the information, not the info'. Can you explain what this means? Thanks, - Mattingly23 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse of the black sox

Hello, you added a {{db-blanked}} template to Curse of the black sox. When I check the history, it was created by Amchow78 (talk • contribs). Are you sure that was the right template because it doesn't seem like it. Please check. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, after trying before and you still erased it, I have reduced the so-called "curse" to two paragraphs which are factual and verifiable. I don't see that there is enough info to warrant a separate article about it at this time, but it would be misleading to ignore the impact the scandal had on the White Sox francise. When they won the pennant in 1959, that 40-year gap was the longest in history. Since surpassed by various teams, of course, including themselves. Baseball Bugs 19:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

When I say "The World Series DVD" I mean the official 2005 World Series DVD issued by Major League Baseball. Meanwhile, I don't understand why you have such an issue with this. Baseball Bugs 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's you that seems to have an issue with this, as you seem to be the only one that is unaware of this so-called "curse", and that's why I posted it on your page. You've also won the 3-revert rule for the day, so that's that for now. In effect, you want me to go back to the DVD and look for specific quotes about it. Fine. I'll do that when I get the chance. Baseball Bugs 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandy Koufax

I noticed you added the {{Not verified}} tag to the Sandy Koufax article. I don't necessarily disagree with you, and in fact I haven't read the whole article, but I'm disturbed by a featured article having that tag. If you think it's only in a few spots you might want just user {{fact}} instead (although you can always add that to specific spots anyway). If you think it's a large portion of the article you might want to list it on Wikipedia:Featured article review so the issue can be addressed and if not addressed, the article can have its featured status removed. Vicarious 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Koufax Card -- Reply

Hi; belongs to a friend and so I will have to ask her to scan it and give me the pic. :-) Thanks for your interest tho; I know she'll be grateful as well. Rivka 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ken griffey rookie.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ken griffey rookie.jpg. 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 under fair use (see 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit(s) to List of social networking websites

Your addition to List of social networking websites has been reverted. In the future, please only place entries there that are internal links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or things that are not social networking sites will be removed. Please see WP:WEB for information on notability for websites on Wikipedia; Wakoopa was launched May 2 2007 and is not yet notable. If you have questions, use the talk page. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Jim Morrison

Hello Tecmobowl. I have reverted your recent edits to Jim Morrison. You seem to believe that "being encyclopedic" means reading like a police report. And you also have deleted valuable information about the early years of JM - which could be seen as a form of "soft vandalism". These issues have been adressed in the talk page of the article (see section "Style and tone"). Please discuss any future changes of this nature (ie arbitrarily removing text that you deem "non encyclopedic") on the talk page first. Thanks. - Fils du Soleil 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That article is a mess...if you want the statements to stay, then cite sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a literary document. The fact that it reads "like a police report" is irrelevant. Tecmobowl 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your answer here for clarity of reading. For the rest of the discussion, see the article talk page. Please do not make further changes of this nature before a consensus is reached. Thanks. - Fils du Soleil 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Al pacino headshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Al pacino headshot.jpg. 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 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Koufax2.jpg

Hello, Tecmobowl. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Koufax2.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tecmobowl/Sandy. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit(s) to List of social networking websites

Your addition to List of social networking websites has been reverted. In the future, please only place entries there that are internal links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or things that are not social networking sites will be removed. Please see WP:WEB for information on notability for websites on Wikipedia; As previously stated above, Wakoopa was launched May 2 2007 and is not yet notable. Please do not re-add the site until it becomes notable. The talk page is a better place to ask questions, rather than an edit summary. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your revert of the above and your comment in the edit summary, "see (what post) on (what) discussion page"? There's nothing in the discussion page for the article, nor the list, nor this user talk page - where is it? Until you enter proper discussion on the matter, I will return the list to its correct state. Any further reverting may be taken to admin intervention. Thanks. Please disregard the above as you have now entered into discussion about Wakoopa. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

Since you've been on since last summer, surely you know that deleting fair comments and questions from any talk page, including your own, is against the rules. Meanwhile, I posted essentially the same comment on the Black Sox page - that if you're going to axe one curse you should axe them all. Baseball Bugs 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman

You have stumbled across one of the this guy's IP address sockpuppets. You reverted his change before I could. I think we can at least agree on this one. The guy may well be right factually, but he refuses to supply any documentation despite repeated requests to do so by many editors. Baseball Bugs 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you had reverted his changes to the Cicotte article, he added them back, and I reverted them again. The sockpuppet page shows that this guy has no regard at all for wikipedia rules, hence all of his entries are being treated as vandalism and the three-revert rule does not apply. Baseball Bugs 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles created

You need a separate category for existing articles that you've unilaterally imposed your unyielding point-of-view upon. Baseball Bugs 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• You have no right to unilaterally chop stuff, and as an editor it is your duty to "consider" other editors' viewpoints. Baseball Bugs 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Deleting fair comments from any talk page, including your own, is considered vandalism. You need to stop citing wikipedia rules to others and start reading them yourself. Baseball Bugs 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's you that's harassing me.

You refuse to discuss the questions I raise, except to inform me that you're going ahead and doing it your way. You continually impose your viewpoint on articles. It is you that "doesn't get it". Baseball Bugs 04:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chief yellow horse.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chief yellow horse.jpg. The image description 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked an admin...

...to look into this ongoing debate we seem to be having. My greatest beef with your editing at the moment is the reversion of the Ty Cobb stats back to those of the researchers, which are both inconsistent with each other and with the official MLB stats. To pretend that one research group's stats are the "correct" stats is blatant POV-pushing, which you claim to be opposed to. Baseball Bugs 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to your inconsistencies on POV issues, I have also reported your blind deletions of trivia sections on many articles, which is not what WP:TRIVIA says to do; and your deletion of fair comments from your talk page, which is also against the rules. Baseball Bugs 13:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA

Hello Tecmobowl. I see you are having a dispute with another user over content. Using article talk pages and your own talk page is a good way to build consensus. Shutting down communications or simply reverting edits that you don't like will not help to build good articles in the long run. Check out this page for more info.

As far as the policy regarding trivia please not that the policy states that trivia sections do not need to be deleted on sight (unless they contain speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts", or libel) but need to be incorporated into the article. If you are unwilling to do that please place a {{trivia}} tag at the appropriate place in the article. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Cheers. -- No Guru 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the reply. I would just really encourage you to read the policy links above and to make sure that you fully understand that trivia sections do not need to be deleted on sight (unless they contain speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts", or libel) -- No Guru 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Stub articles

The thing is, they are basic stub articles. They contain basic information about the subject matter. All the information is properly sourced. If the articles were to be expanded, they would currently have a decent introductory paragraph. I don't see anything in WP:STUB that would disqualify the articles. Patken4 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ty Cobb

I can understand your wanting to improve the article content, but until you stop deleting the OFFICIAL MLB.COM stats, and retaining only the stats from private research, I have no choice but to revert the article wholesale. It is fair to report both sets of stats with an explanation. It is POV-pushing to report only the privately researched (and inconsistent within different sites) stats while leaving out the only stats that MLB recognizes as valid. We've had this argument with that "Ron Liebman" character: MLB owns the stats, not you and me nor any other private research site. Baseball Bugs 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

Kindly explain what specific problems you have with the previous version of the article. Baseball Bugs 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoeless Joe Jackson

You managed to put back the "from" cite that you complained about, along with the spam cite. Baseball Bugs 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You won't post on the article talk pages

This is the only way I have to get your attention. You have NOT given any specifics, particularly for deleting the MLB.COM stats. Please explain to me, somewhere... here, or on my talk page, or on the Ty Cobb page (where there was already discussion about it) why you keep deleting those stats. Baseball Bugs 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ty Cobb

And if I do try, again, to fix your damage to the article, you'll slap me with a 3-revert violation. Nothing doing. I will let the admins weigh in on this one before making any more changes to articles that you seem to be taking ownership of. Baseball Bugs 04:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You tell me to fix it, but I already did that.

I did that several days ago, painstakingly added the MLB.COM stats. You rubbed them out with your re-edit, and now you tell me to do the same painstaking work again. That is unfair. Baseball Bugs 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me why I should have to do the same work twice

Your being unfair, you are being a bully, and you yourself need some lessons in wiki etiquette. Baseball Bugs 04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Which specific version of Ty Cobb did you revert back to?

That info will make it easier to restore just the stats that you deleted and hopefully leave your own edits intact. Baseball Bugs 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind, I've tried to fix it as per your recommendations. Baseball Bugs 05:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer watching any article that you've touched. You win. Go get yourself a brew in downtown Normal somewhere. Baseball Bugs 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of urls with unique information/edit warring

I asked you politely not to edit war after you removed a url with unique information from the Sandy Koufax external links section. See [7]. Instead, you continued to RV.

I asked you to move discussion of the issue to the talk page, instead of RVing and edit warring. Instead, you have now RV'd that page [8].

In addition, you responded not by talking on a talk page as I had suggested, buty by going to a number of additional pages that I had edited, in short order, deleting urls that similarly have unique information, such as ESPN, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library, from the external links. See diffs at John Grabow, Jason Marquis, andBrad Ausmus. And even as I have been writing this I see that you have made similar innapropriate deletions to Moe Berg, Bo Belinsky, José Bautista, Morrie Arnovich, Cal Abrams, Ben Zeskind, Josh Appell, Ryan Braun, John Grabow, Sam Fuld, Brian Horwitz, and Aaron Rifkin so far.

You have done this in short order, suggesting that you are going into my history page to delete urls on changes that I have worked on.

I must ask you again to desist. Kindly RV the changes you made yourself. Both to the Koufax article and the other articles. Then, as I suggested before, explain your position here. I have indicated that the url that started this has unique data -- that is clear from looking at it. You have clearly not looked at it, but instead looked at what articles interest me and without discussion made the same innapropriate changes. I am dismayed. I would appreciate it if you would right the matter.

If need be, let's bring in a third party to look at this. I think that your approach -- edit warring, not agreeing to my suggestion to discuss on the talk page, looking at my history to make the same mistaken changes on other articles -- is highly disruptive and innapropriate.

Thanks.--Epeefleche 08:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website. There is a bit of an excess of ELs at Sandy Koufax, so I have removed some unnecessary links. Also, don't edit war; please discuss on the talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I asumed good faith and, before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to fee if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique. I also ask you to stop. Wikipedia's not a link farm, but it is somewhere where people go to also look for information from other sites.--Wizardman 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl, I removed some of the links not to engage in the edit war, but to see if the current version would act as a compromise between you and Epeefleche. Also, the links I removed were not similar to others at the article, so I removed those. I don't believe they were really necessary for the section. As I said, I only made the changes to see if there can be a consensus on the current version. You removed the ELs, and continued to do so despite attempts at discussion by Epeefleche. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have centralized this and related discussion by moving it to [9].

Please leave the above existing discussion here, however.--Epeefleche 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I wanted to discuss an issue that you raised, but as it is a point of procedure and there is enough writing going on on the above page, I thought we might chat about it here.

You assserted as follows: "As a follow up, my talk page is NOT the place to discuss this matter. This is certainly an acceptable venue. The issue is not about me, it is about the content. People who want to know about this will see it here. // Tecmobowl 08:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)" Can you point me to support in Wiki policy in that regard? To facilitate discussion, I did move discussion elsewhere, as a courtesy, but I would be interested in seeing your support for that view.

First, I would like to see the Wiki rule. Second, while I don't know that this is necessary, for me to discuss the issue on your talk page, in fact the above discussion is in large part about your behavior.

Thanks much.--Epeefleche 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

I just hope we can get the discussion oriented more toward building consensus. It's much more difficult to do than I would have thought before becoming actively involved in WP. --Sanfranman59 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on Ty Cobb page

Hey - I think there's some confusion about NPOV. Take a look under the A simple forumation section of the WP:NPOV page, and I think you'll see that the following statement fits the NPOV policy perfectly.

Cobb is widely considered one of the greatest players ever.

Thanks! Guanxi 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the feelings of the editors should not be part of the article, but Cobb's status as one of the greatest ever is not feelings of the editors, but something on which almost every baseball historian and fan agrees; it's the primary reason for his notability, and thus important to tell a reader learning about Cobb for the first time. You say, There are a number of people who think Cobb is one of the greatest players, there are a number that don't. Do you really dispute that, Cobb is widely considered one of the greatest players ever.? In 25+ years of being a baseball geek, reading pretty widely, I don't recall anyone seriously suggesting otherwise. The HoF and other stats won't mean much to someone who isn't a baseball fan -- if you have another way to say it in plain English, I'm all for it. Guanxi 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Cobb is widely considered one of the greatest players ever" is an absolutely true and verifiable statement. As noted in The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, and countless times prior, Ruth displaced Cobb as the guy who was considered the greatest player in the game. Baseball Bugs 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the above, I'm going to restore the statement. If you want to change it, please improve it in a way that addresses everyone's concerns and I doubt you'll have any objections. Thanks. Guanxi 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• That statement is NOT true. I'm not going to let that piece of information remain nor am i going to engage BaseballBugs in a conversation about it. Conversations with him are futile. Stick to the facts, let a person make their own interpretations. I believe personally that Cobb is the greatest player of the deadball era. That being said, it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. //Tecmobowl 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• You say "there are a number who don't think Cobb is one of the greatest players". Who? Name a few. Or one, even. Baseball Bugs 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to continue this discussion to the Cobb talk page, where it belongs. Guanxi 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more thoughts

I know at the hockey project that I am a member of, we have a list of articles we have created in the last month or so. So as someone writes a basic stub, someone else will come along and add to it. However, this list only stays around for a month or two. If there were a list of articles that need improvement (probably best to break it down at the project of each sport instead of sports in general), then others can add to articles on that list. As an article gets better, it can come off the list. It could still be a good stub at that point, but at least it has been expanded. The only problem with this is some people who are unaware of the project won't add their articles to the list. But eventually someone on the project will see it and add it.

The other suggestion is to sub-categorize the expand command. Right now, it is broken down by date someone wanted the article expanded. It might be possible to direct those to the appropriate sport. I wouldn't know where to even start with this idea. Let me know your thoughts. Patken4 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced confessions

So, you're wanting a chapter-and-verse citation from Eight Men Out about the lost confessions, in the Shoeless Joe article, but you're letting the exact same comment stand uncited in the Black Sox page??? Baseball Bugs 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On both articles, I have now pointed out that it's discussed on p.257 of Eight Men Out. Baseball Bugs 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Stenberg

Information about him is definitely not easy to come by. He's referenced in several articles on the site already, so you might be able to get something from there. EXPN bio looks like it hasn't been updated since 2002, but there's some stuff there. There's also an AOL Video thing about him. Otherwise, all I see around is just the occasional race summaries and discussion forums, which is I'm sure what you've seen as well. His not having his own website is terribly inconvenient, isn't it? matt91486 05:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This and this could also be some useful. matt91486 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

CJ

No, thank you – that article desperately needed detrivialization. Cleduc 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On June 4, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chief Yellow Horse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Tecmobowl for the great article, kindly nominated by Bbik. Do feel free to self-nom in future. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Erskine Mayer and baseball links

My sincere compliments on your rewriting of the Erskine Mayer, which comes off now as an article, rather than a bland statement of facts about an individual. I will suggest that links not be removed while the matter is under discussion, especially given that consensus is that they be retained. Alansohn 14:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I do not want to engage in another argument over the links found on a number of baseball articles. That being said, the B-R bullpen is a wiki and not considered a reliable source. In WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, it clearly states: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." B-R bullpen seems to fail on both accounts. However, if you find some good information there, I would encourage you to include that information on the relevant wikipedia article and find the original source for that information. //Tecmobowl 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary, and despite your claim, the B-R bullpen satisfies WP:EL. You have not even bothered to provide an excuse for deletion of the fangraphs link. Unless you can demonstrate that you have convinced the relevant editors that these links should not be used, the status quo dictates that they remain as is. Your persistent insistence to impose you own arbitrary views, here and elsewhere, and to refuse to comply with efforts to reach consensus, are going to place you at substantial risk of Wikipedia sanctions. This is a collective effort, it's not your place to be dictating what stays or goes in the face of a clear consensus that disagrees with your actions. Alansohn 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cobb

Tecmobowl...in response to your message on my talk page...what examples are you referring to in the article that you want me to have a look at? -- transaspie 03:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• More on Cobb. In reviewing the restored Cobb article, I've discovered that the entire section on the Chalmers Award isn't GA quality. I've left it far too short...it needs more detail. As it is, the 1910 Chalmers Award article is too short as well. I want to try to adapt most of the version that I was on the much longer Ty Cobb page onto that one. Once I get that out of the way, I can fix the version on Cobb's page. -- transaspie 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (ignore the inaccurate message I originally left you...I misread the article.)

Tagging baseball players for speedy deletion

Stop it, right now, please. Your actions are disruptive. If you do not believe they are notable, take them to WP:AFD, but their notability is asserted. Neil ╦ 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment? I have asked you, civilly, to stop tagging articles that assert notability for speedy deletion. Please do not be so sensitive. Neil ╦ 10:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I reverted anything else - you had wrongly tagged so many articles for speedy deletion my primary concern was to remove these tags before they slipped through the cracks. If I have - unintentionally - removed or added any infoboxes, please feel free to reinstate them. But do not readd speedy deletion tags to articles that assert the notability of the subject; as I said, that is disruptive. Neil ╦ 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I described an action as lunatic. This is not the same as a personal attack. Your defensive and aggressive attitude ("Back the hell off") is not helping. Will you promise to tag articles that assert notability for AFD (or prod) in future, rather than speedy deletion? Neil ╦ 10:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, if describing my the action of tagging an article that clearly and blatantly asserted the notability of its subject as "lunatic" upset you, then I thoroughly apologise; I meant no offense. But I would urge you strongly to not ignore the community's rules around deletion, and follow them, rather than causing further disuption. Neil ╦ 10:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you're digging a hole for yourself here ... I would suggest you stop, you're not helping. I don't mind you describing me as "retarded and totally offensive", but others will. I am - again - sorry if one unfortunate choice turn of phrase upset you. Neil ╦ 10:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Being bold is fine. Being disruptive is another. I politely asked you to stop, rather than politely engaging you, because you wrongly tagged at least 40 or 50 articles for speedy deletion in a short space of time, and it was imperative you stopped. Now that you have stopped, I more than happy to engage you. Is there anything about the deletion process (speed, prod or AFD) that you don't understand? If I have removed any prod tags, it's because the articles do assert notability of the subject. The next step is the formal deletion process, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Neil ╦ 10:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If speedy deletion tags have been removed by anyone other than the pages creator you may consider the deletion contested and you must not re-add the speedy deletion tags. Viridae^Talk 10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, please communicate civilly with other users. Speedy deletion has very narrow crtieria - if a page ASSERTS notability, it is not a candidate for CSD A7. Viridae^Talk 10:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider this a formal warning. Please curb your language and behave civily. Viridae^Talk 10:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If I may, I would ask you to please familiarize yourself with WP:AFD, WP:DP and WP:BIO/WP:N (if you haven't already done so) before you submit an AfD. Mass nominations should only be used when the articles suffer from the same fundamental policy violation. Otherwise, it's better to file separate nominations or group nominations to make it easier to evaluate your proposal. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 10:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. :) Have a good week. Cheers Seed 2.0 11:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen

The sequence of edits and reversions of the Al Rosen article are placing you at the cusp of violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. I was penalized and given a block for a rather pedantic violation of the rule, and the admins who hand out the penalties are rather inflexible in their by-the-book interpretation of the policy. Please read the WP:3RR article and be forewarned. Alansohn 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey

The sequence of edits and reversions of the Homer Bailey article are placing you at the cusp of violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. I was penalized and given a block for a rather pedantic violation of the rule, and the admins who hand out the penalties are rather inflexible in their by-the-book interpretation of the policy. Please read the WP:3RR article and be forewarned. --E tac 04:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks? I was mereley stating the truth...not attacking. I am not abusing any system, when sports news websites all over the place are reporting the same info it belongs on wikipedia, so either you are either stupid or ignorant for continuously removing it.--E tac 04:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny removing my comments from here now, perhaps it is you who needs to read up on policy.--E tac 04:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been block for violating the Three revert rule on the page Al Rosen. Reverts:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Viridae^Talk 04:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Block extended to 48 hours for your 3rr violation on Homer Bailey. Viridae^Talk 04:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You broke the three revert rule on two seperate occasions despite warnings that you were about to. The block stands. Viridae^Talk 05:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Blank

peace out - this place sucks

• It seems like you're going through what I was going through about mid-May. At that time, someone suggested I read this article. I saw a lot of myself in it: [10] Baseball Bugs 09:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Blank #2

blanked

yeah matt garza never played in the majors....you sure know your baseball--E tac 06:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Blank #3

blanked

baseball bugs

Regarding this discussion thread, there are no policies against using Special:Contributions to see edits that a single editor has made. WP:STALK is much more specific "Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them." In other words, following around a user is not stalking in itself. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Blank #4

blanked

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. --Epeefleche 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

blanked

Fangraph deletion

Could you please halt the removal of the Fangraph links? From the Baseball WikiProject talk page, it seems that a clear-cut consensus was not reached. Please try to seek a consensus before going on a Fangraph-link removal rampage, since that's just not going to help the tensions that currently exist between you and a few other editors over the matter. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please avoid using the undo button so frequently. Those sort of edit summaries are never favorable, and usually lead to edit warring, and such. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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. --Epeefleche 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Blank #5

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Fangraphs Discussion

You have suggested that the fangraphs discussion be moved. That would make no sense. There is an ongoing discussion of the subject, since May 31st, with 7 other editors, at [11]. Opening up discussion elsehwere could only confuse and dilute it. I would suggest that if you have any comments you bring them to the existing discussion, which already contains I might point out quite a number of entries by you on the subject.--Epeefleche 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your only warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Epeefleche 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Impending WP:3RR violation at Hideki Matsui

The sequence of edits and reversions of the Hideki Matsui article are placing you at the cusp of violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. --Epeefleche 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Impending WP:3RR violation at Kevin Youkilis

The sequence of edits and reversions of the Kevin Youkilis article are placing you at the cusp of violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. --Epeefleche 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi. It seems that you and Epeefleche are currently engaged in a dispute. I am sure that you want to resolve this amicably, so can I please suggest that you review Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and have a go at following the process described. Leave me a note if I can be of further assistance, but hopefully you can sort it out yourselves. I have left exactly the same note for Epeefleche. Cheers TigerShark 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been talking to Epeeflechee via email about this whole situation. As for your accusations, read WP:AIV. It's for vandalism intervention, not dispute intervention. Also, the only reason why he's pursuing the matter is because you keep removing the link. Refrain from doing so for the time-being, and then discuss at the talk page. Like I told Epeeflechee, you are both guilty here, and if one of you guys keeps removing/adding the link, then there's going to be no end to this dispute. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your question at the DYK talk page, see [12]. You can't see directly how it was on the Main Page, but you can see it at the transcluded template. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

People provided their arguments for keeping/removing the link. The result was no consensus. That doesn't mean you should use that as an indication that people want the link to be removed, and continue removing the link from articles. Until there's a clear-cut consensus, being bold is not particularly helpful (and it's borderline reckless, which is what WP:BOLD tells you not to do). See WP:BRD. You were bold, people reverted you, and now you've opened up a discussion. By reverting again, you've simply gone back to where you started. I'll participate in the discussion later when I'm not so busy (I have a bunch of school projects due in the next few days). Nishkid64 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Hi

Thanks for the note. I m happy to help here, but I could really do with catching up on progress so far with the dispute resolution. I think that we should use the process described in WP:DR as a framework, so could you please look through that again and let me know what has/hasn't happened so far. Cheers TigerShark 18:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Stop deleting sourced information as you did here especially with the disingenuous edit summary of "rv see talk page". There is nothing on the talk page about your deletions. IrishGuy ^talk 19:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV

As you deleted this comment with a very incivil edit summary of how many idiots are there in one day? I will give you an official warning: should you continue to delete sourced material and be incivil to other editors you risk being blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 19:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Per your comment: Also, it is not advisable to post comments to a user talk page that are about an article I didn't post a comment about an article, I posted a comment about your behavior. And I gave you a warning...which you blanked and called me an idiot. How many editors do you plan to piss off this week? In case you didn't bother to look at my userpage, I am an admin. I know perfectly well the guidelines at WP:TALK. I would ask you again to read WP:CIV and take it to heart. IrishGuy ^talk 19:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI notice

Just letting you know: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl ~~

Page Blank

blanked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Kevin Youkilis. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Tecmobowl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have simply improved the content of the article (here) based on discussions (here)? Why is it that I am blocked but the other editors are not? And lastly, are you sure you are not confusing this with a previous incident? And did you actually look at those edits? They were not all reverts. The first was a shortening of text, the second was a rv in accordance with an ongoing discussion that the editor has refused to accept, as was the third. That places me at two reverts. The fourth edit as a revert of an addition an editor where the issue was discussed on the talk page AND one of the links this one doesn't exist! That content was posted by an ADMIN nonethless!

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have simply improved the content of the article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Youkilis&oldid=137312785 here]) based on discussions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevin_Youkilis#Statements_about_Youkilis_and_his_religion here])? Why is it that I am blocked but the other editors are not? And lastly, are you sure you are not confusing this with a previous incident? And did you actually look at those edits? They were not all reverts. The first was a shortening of text, the second was a rv in accordance with an ongoing discussion that the editor has refused to accept, as was the third. That places me at two reverts. The fourth edit as a revert of an addition an editor where the issue was discussed on the talk page AND one of the links [http://www.jewishsports.com/profiles/kevinyoukilis.htm this one] doesn't exist! That content was posted by an ADMIN nonethless! |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have simply improved the content of the article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Youkilis&oldid=137312785 here]) based on discussions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevin_Youkilis#Statements_about_Youkilis_and_his_religion here])? Why is it that I am blocked but the other editors are not? And lastly, are you sure you are not confusing this with a previous incident? And did you actually look at those edits? They were not all reverts. The first was a shortening of text, the second was a rv in accordance with an ongoing discussion that the editor has refused to accept, as was the third. That places me at two reverts. The fourth edit as a revert of an addition an editor where the issue was discussed on the talk page AND one of the links [http://www.jewishsports.com/profiles/kevinyoukilis.htm this one] doesn't exist! That content was posted by an ADMIN nonethless! |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have simply improved the content of the article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Youkilis&oldid=137312785 here]) based on discussions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevin_Youkilis#Statements_about_Youkilis_and_his_religion here])? Why is it that I am blocked but the other editors are not? And lastly, are you sure you are not confusing this with a previous incident? And did you actually look at those edits? They were not all reverts. The first was a shortening of text, the second was a rv in accordance with an ongoing discussion that the editor has refused to accept, as was the third. That places me at two reverts. The fourth edit as a revert of an addition an editor where the issue was discussed on the talk page AND one of the links [http://www.jewishsports.com/profiles/kevinyoukilis.htm this one] doesn't exist! That content was posted by an ADMIN nonethless! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Actually, the content was there previously. You removed it and I restored it with a cached link...which you removed again claiming the link didn't work even though it was a different link. It wasn't discussed on the talk page. None of your edits have been until after you removed content numerous times. IrishGuy ^talk 01:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well nice job IrishGuy, have a great time putting more crap out there. See you in two days!

Page Blank

blanked (get some sense and stop instigating things - your (IrishGuy) are the poorest admin i have ever come across - don't worry, I'll address your sockpuppetry bs soon enough.)

I reverted to your unblock request. If you don't want to be unblocked, so be it. The sockpuppetry evidence is hardly "BS" as you so put it. All the evidence is right there. You have been using multiple IPs and multiple accounts to promote your own websites and personal POV on articles. IrishGuy ^talk 03:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(just in case your watching IrishGuy - here's some info for you "sockpuppetry" claim - most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh.)

Well....you just got caught. El redactor showed up on my talk page. How would he know about that conversation? It isn't because you told him...you told the wrong guy but somehow El redactor knew anyway. Blocked as an obvious sock. Your block will be extended for using sockpuppets to evade your block. More evidence here. IrishGuy ^talk 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tecmobowl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is SUCH bullshit!!! YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE COI!!! Look at the edit history, he showed up on your talk page after you commented on the Jackson article. It doesn't take much to see that you have TOTALLY abused your rights as admin. I will be exploring ways to have you removed. Unbelievable...TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Decline reason:

I'm not even going to look at what you said. Come back when you have calmed down and are ready to discuss civilly. — Kurykh 23:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nope. The first edit today from El redactor was to that talk page and somehow he already knew about me and my edit history in removing that link from articles. Odd, no? Additionally, the only two days that editor has edited are when you are under a block. That's one hell of a coincidence. IrishGuy ^talk 23:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tecmobowl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am fully willing to be civil, but this abuse of power is ridiculous. Irish guy, the guy looked at a page you edited. I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are using a tremendous amount of supposition here. Get the information correct please before you go around and abuse your power.

Decline reason:

The unblock template is to be used to explain why you believe your block was invalid, not for soapboxing and general rantings. If you continue abusing the unblock template, we will protect this page. Please think carefully about your next unblock request. — Yamla 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please tell me how he knew to look exactly 100 edits deep into my contribution history to find evidence that I removed those links from other articles. You knew I removed them, but why would he have known to look for it if you are different people? Why does he only appear when you are blocked? Why are his first edits to add your spam link back? IrishGuy ^talk 23:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He didn't have to look 100 edits deep, he just had to look at the pages you removed it from. That post says he's doing a paper on Chicago Trials. Well, Eddie Cicotte and Abe Attell are probably on HIS watch list. It looks like he showed up last wed or thursday and edited a few topics. One of which was shoeless joe jackson and a few of which were film related. I have touched VERY FEW film articles. You have no substance to your arguments. Unblock me please. //Tecmobowl 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And another thing... if I were a sock, wouldn't I at least leave the notice message on the proper talk page? This is not a well based block. It turns out another person thinks the link is a legitimate addition and that the article is not as good because of it. //Tecmobowl 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Tecmobowl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• I have not violated any wikipedia policies that warrant long-term banning. I was banned last week for violations of the 3RR (which I feel were unjust) and then again two days ago by another admin who mistook ongoing discussion (with this very user) for reverting. The discussion took place at Talk:Kevin_Youkilis.
• The admin who has placed the block did so based on an ongoing incident with me. This is a blatant COI.
• Irishguy has banned me based on his conclusion that I am a sock. He raised the issue here. It is a false assumption and not well supported. Further, he failed to use WP:AGF and has made a number of false accusations. I simply want the opportunity to state my side of the story. I cannot do this without a ban. Seeing as he banned me, it seems he is trying to silence me.
• I have continued to better the information available on wikipedia based on the many policies already in place. As this very talk page displays, I am learning more and more about how things are done on here. //Tecmobowl

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= * I have not violated any wikipedia policies that warrant long-term banning. I was banned last week for violations of the 3RR (which I feel were unjust) and then again two days ago by another admin who mistook ongoing discussion (with this very user) for reverting. The discussion took place at [[Talk:Kevin_Youkilis]]. * The admin who has placed the block did so based on an ongoing incident with me. This is a blatant COI. * Irishguy has banned me based on his conclusion that I am a sock. He raised the issue [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl|here]]. It is a false assumption and not well supported. Further, he failed to use [[WP:AGF]] and has made a number of false accusations. I simply want the opportunity to state my side of the story. I cannot do this without a ban. Seeing as he banned me, it seems he is trying to silence me. * I have continued to better the information available on wikipedia based on the many policies already in place. As this very talk page displays, I am learning more and more about how things are done on here. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= * I have not violated any wikipedia policies that warrant long-term banning. I was banned last week for violations of the 3RR (which I feel were unjust) and then again two days ago by another admin who mistook ongoing discussion (with this very user) for reverting. The discussion took place at [[Talk:Kevin_Youkilis]]. * The admin who has placed the block did so based on an ongoing incident with me. This is a blatant COI. * Irishguy has banned me based on his conclusion that I am a sock. He raised the issue [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl|here]]. It is a false assumption and not well supported. Further, he failed to use [[WP:AGF]] and has made a number of false accusations. I simply want the opportunity to state my side of the story. I cannot do this without a ban. Seeing as he banned me, it seems he is trying to silence me. * I have continued to better the information available on wikipedia based on the many policies already in place. As this very talk page displays, I am learning more and more about how things are done on here. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= * I have not violated any wikipedia policies that warrant long-term banning. I was banned last week for violations of the 3RR (which I feel were unjust) and then again two days ago by another admin who mistook ongoing discussion (with this very user) for reverting. The discussion took place at [[Talk:Kevin_Youkilis]]. * The admin who has placed the block did so based on an ongoing incident with me. This is a blatant COI. * Irishguy has banned me based on his conclusion that I am a sock. He raised the issue [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl|here]]. It is a false assumption and not well supported. Further, he failed to use [[WP:AGF]] and has made a number of false accusations. I simply want the opportunity to state my side of the story. I cannot do this without a ban. Seeing as he banned me, it seems he is trying to silence me. * I have continued to better the information available on wikipedia based on the many policies already in place. As this very talk page displays, I am learning more and more about how things are done on here. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I didn't give you a "long term banning". Your existing block was extended for another 48 hours because you were using sockpuppets to evade your block. Your sock El redactor showed up on my talk page. How would he know about that conversation? It isn't because you told him...you told the wrong guy but somehow El redactor knew anyway. As such, that account was blocked as an obvious sock. More evidence here. IrishGuy ^talk 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to his above assertion, Tecmo has been ignoring Wiki policies in a recidivist obsessive manner while maintaining a non-apologetic air. He claims that the directive to be Bold allows him to do so. He within a 3-day period this month was blocked 3 times by admins for 3RR violations, and has generally refused to adhere to consensus or reason. For a number of editors, including me, his activities have proven to be a significant distraction from positive contributions to Wiki. Admittedly, it is difficult to follow his admonitions from admins (and others) --inasmuch as he blanks his talk page repeatedly, and asks people not to discuss their problems with his behavior on his talk page. But a review of the following [13] will give you some of the flavor:

• (cur) (last) 21:56, June 12, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) (3,745 bytes) (Decline unblock, continued ranting)
• (cur) (last) 19:26, June 12, 2007 Kurykh (Talk | contribs) (1,762 bytes) (decline unblock)
• (cur) (last) 22:56, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (7 bytes) (get some sense and stop instigating things - your are the poorest admin i have ever come across - don't worry, I'll address your sockpuppetry bs soon enough.)
• (cur) (last) 20:40, June 10, 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) (1,033 bytes) (You have been blocked)
• (cur) (last) 15:26, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,362 bytes) (warning)
• (cur) (last) 15:24, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (847 bytes) (→Stop - how many idiots are there in one day?)
• (cur) (last) 15:20, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,278 bytes) (warning)
• (cur) (last) 14:05, June 10, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) (1,539 bytes) (→Dispute - Add reply.)
• (cur) (last) 13:35, June 10, 2007 TigerShark (Talk | contribs) (468 bytes) (Dispute)
• (cur) (last) 13:17, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (261 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Kevin Youkilis)
• (cur) (last) 13:14, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (259 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Hideki Matsui)
• (cur) (last) 13:05, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (362 bytes) (User Warning -- Delete -- 4im)
• (cur) (last) 12:49, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (360 bytes) (User Warning Level 4 re continued deletions of baseball urls)
• (cur) (last) 12:39, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (1,303 bytes) (→Fangraph deletion - User Warning; Deletion; Level 3)
• (cur) (last) 11:41, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (23,228 bytes) (→Blocked)
• (cur) (last) 01:41, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,931 bytes) (→Blocked - reply)
• (cur) (last) 00:49, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,711 bytes) (→Blocked - block eextended)
• (cur) (last) 00:47, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) m (22,537 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - block notice)
• (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:43, June 7, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - removed a personal attack)
• (cur) (last) 00:39, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,829 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:31, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,512 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
• (cur) (last) 10:03, June 6, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
• (cur) (last) 23:13, June 5, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (25,791 bytes) (re persistent ignorance of consensus)
• (cur) (last) 14:48, June 1, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (21,923 bytes) (→Your removal of urls with unique information/edit warring - Why do you assert that your talk page is not an acceptable place to discuss this matter?)
• (cur) (last) 09:01, May 29, 2007 Baseball Bugs (Talk | contribs) (9,536 bytes) (I have asked an admin...)
• (cur) (last) 20:58, October 28, 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) (banned)
• (cur) (last) 11:13, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) m (→Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
• (cur) (last) 11:11, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
• (cur) (last) 04:38, October 21, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (reverted vandalism - User:Tecmobowl keeps blanking page to hide various warnings.)
• (cur) (last) 12:55, October 19, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Warning)
• (cur) (last) 06:09, September 29, 2006 MER-C (Talk | contribs) m (JS: Reverted edits by Tecmobowl to last version by TV Newser)
• (cur) (last) 06:08, September 29, 2006 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (LEAVE ME A LONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the hell do you keep messing with me for)
• (cur) (last) 06:07, September 29, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (rvv - I see you are trying to hide all the vandalism warnings.)
• (cur) (last) 20:18, September 11, 2006 Splash (Talk | contribs) (Baseball: warning)
• (cur) (last) 18:19, September 10, 2006 TBTA (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning)

--Epeefleche 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You and all these other people who insist on slapping me with vandalism warnings because I remove unsourced material and external links are off base. You fail to stay on topic in a number of discussions about it and insist that others are stonewalling you. Nobody is stonewalling you, I have tried to discuss the topic on hand several times. You continue to spam a site that many have a problem with. I refuse to engage in discussions with people who do not focus on the relevant topic. I am a bold editor and will remain so. Lastly, consensus has NOT been established just because you say it has. Bring up the fangraphs site on the WP:EL talk page and I bet they will tell you the same thing I am. First, establish that the content is significantly unique to warrant inclusion. Second, see if it offers information useful to people who are not experts on the given topic. Third, see if it should be considered an additional resource or a replacement for a pre-existing resource. //Tecmobowl 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of staying on topic, and keeping substantive discussion in one place, I would suggest that you make any appropriate comments on the subject of Fangraphs at [14]. The discussion there evidences a consensus, and even your comments suggest uniqueness of the url, as well as the uniqueness of the url ... I'm not going to open up discussion here. Your other points are questions you can raise there, and I will respond there, so people don't have to chase your comments all over Wikipedia. You can find it there, as you have. Yet you seem to believe that the directive to be bold overrides the interest in consensus. That is wrong-headed. --Epeefleche 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop breaking up short comments. If you want to break up long comments, you should review the editing comments section i previously pointed to. It shows you how to do it so that you do not cause problems for readers. With regards to my removing of your text, context makes a big difference. The policy on a user page is clear (WP:UP). I can remove content

"On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment."""

Now, i have not removed anything that would change your meaning. I have simply removed the content because it is nothing more than filler content. I am unable to comment on that discussion at this time due to my block. //Tecmobowl 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring my quote above from the policy that you quoted to me, and in so doing flouting the very policy that you refer to. --Epeefleche 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment."""

Now, i have not removed anything that would change your meaning. I have simply removed the content because it is nothing more than filler content. I am unable to comment on that discussion at this time due to my block. //Tecmobowl 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By what you have done you have changed and diluted the meaning of my comment as well. It is more than filler content. It evidences for the reader the series of blocks, warnings, and admonitions that you have received on your talk page, while sparing them the effort of culling that information from your history page.

As to your commenting on the discussion about Fangraphs, if and when you are unblocked the indicated page would be the appropriate page for you to get your thoughts across. Tx.--Epeefleche 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well I have "adjusted" the comment so that should make you happy. You have still abused your rights, that is not proof. I cannot speak for other people, but you have commented on pages that the user has also posted to, doesn't seem to hard to make that connection. You have also played judge and jury, ignored WP:AGF and refused to look at user records (or whatever it's called). I believe you have accused me of a WP:COI, but you are the one with the COI, not me. Sorry, but you have really dropped the ball here. //Tecmobowl 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have just read your latest comments here. Your continued reference to me blanking this page leaves me befuddled. It is a perfectly accepted course of action. Furthermore, I have removed the previous requests for an unblock for two reasons: a) They were at the top of the page and had been denied. The recent request is now in place at the top. b) I have never been "banned" for this type of activity, and have never looked into the appeals system. I did not understand how the process works and now that I am familiar with it, I will follow due course. I will agree, you don't require cooling off. You do however, deserve to have your actions reviewed by others with the power to revoke your admin status. // Tecmobowl 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wiki Talk Page comment deletion guidelines Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments state that: "deleting comments after someone replied is likely to cause problems, because it will put the reply in a different context. In that case you have several options:  :::::::*Ask the person who replied (on their talk page) if it's OK to delete or change your text :::::::*use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration."--Epeefleche 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have made many comments to this subject discussion, which Tecmo has deleted.--Epeefleche 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your unblock request, as your block should be expired now. Mangojuice^talk 20:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You probably don't want to thank me. I didn't remove the block, I just noticed it had already expired on its own and removed your request. Until I noticed that, I was going to deny the request. Whether or not the other account was you, or just someone you know, it's inappropriate behavior. But anyway, there's a thread on WP:ANI linked above that you can comment in, and if that isn't enough, there's always dispute resolution. Mangojuice^talk 20:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Tecmobowl, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Exarion 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop spamming your website into articles. IrishGuy ^talk 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

}Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Tecmobowl, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Jickytoto 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Please do not delete comments from your talk page. Thank you. Andrew_pmk | Talk 03:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your sock case

Hi Tecmobowl, you needn't find my comments unnerving, as long as you do not edit disruptively in the future. Please note that while you feel the accusations of sockpuppetry haven't gotten an impartial evaluation in the past, they have now, since I have not been involved in any of the disputes you're a party to. So, once again, I will caution you that further disruption on your part will result in a lengthy block. If there are any outstanding disputes about external links or other material, I suggest that you pursue mediation; if there are further disputes about user behavior, you may wish to start a user conduct RfC.

By the way, you are within your rights to blank messages from your talk page, so people should stop edit warring with you about it. However, as I'm sure you're well aware, when you blank your talk page it is viewed negatively by most editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Chipper Jones

In the future, if you would explain you edits in a little more detial, that would be helpful. Not all editors watch project pages. In addition, the Chipper Jones page attracts alot of strange vandalism, and without a more detailed explanation, it's hard to know why things are done, especially from an editor I haven't seen active on the page during my time watching it. Please keep this in mind for future edits. I apologize if you feel offended by my reversion, but I find on this page reversion is the better course of action. YOu may now blank your page again. - BillCJ 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your disruptive behavior

Your ongoing deletion of ELs as to which there is consensus to retain them. Released from your 3rd or 4th block of the month today, you are again deleting Fangraphs ELs, as well as others -- for example, Hank Greenberg and Ichiro Suzuki. This is disruptive.

Your assertion that there was no unique data in Fangraphs -- your avowed basis for deleting 100s of urls, is demonstrably false. As was already mentioned, Fangraphs, uniquely, has hitters' 1B, BB%, K%, BB/K, ISO, BABIP, RC, RC/27, GB/FB, GB%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, IFH%, BUH%, GB, FB, LD, IFFB, Balls, Strikes, Pitches, IFH, BU, BUH, WPA, -WPA, +WPA, BRAA, REW, pLI, phLI, PH, WPA.LI, and Clutch. Also uniquely, Fangraphs supplies the following for pitchers: BS, K/9, HR/9, BABIP, LOB%, FIP, GB/FB, LD%, GB%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, IFH%, BUH%, GB, FB, LD, IFFB, Balls, Strikes, RS, IFH, BU, and BUH, WPA, -WPA, +WPA, BRAA, REW, pLI, in LI, gmLI, exLI, and Pulls. It also has sorts for starters vs. relievers. Fangraphs also provides some spring training stats, and Bill James, CHONE, Marcel, and ZIPS projections. It has a game log, play log, compare players feature, news articles, and unique graphical presentations. Furthermore, the unique graphical presentation that other editors have found to be particularly helpful there is ground for inclusion in their views.

And you yourself conceded that format is unique.

Leaving you out of it, while there has been extensive discussion and support by various editors for retaining Fangraphs, there is not any considered analytic support for deleting Fangraphs despite 3 weeks of discussion.

Your filibuster re Fangraphs. Despite a consensus on including the Fangraphs url as an EL in baseball bios, and despite prior comments by you evidencing that you agree that the formatting there is unique, and despite the heavy evidence of unique data, you are filibustering. This is disruptive.

Your effort to fragement discussion. You also opened up discussion of that issue, already discussed on one place, elsewhere. That only has the effect of confusing people who try to follow the discussion, and contribute. They are best served by it being in one place. Just now, when I sought to centralize discussion, you RVd my change. The relevant revisions are on the history page at [15], focusing on today's revisions. This is disruptive.

Impact of your deletion of ELs. Deletion of urls, without consensus, causes more harm than retaining them. Let's assume there is a 50-50 chance that consensus will be reached either way, as to any of these urls. If it is decided that they should not have been deleted, who will go look for ELs that you have deleted, and restore the ELs? How will one easily find them? This is a highly labor intensive process. How does one find the ELs if people have deleted them from different user names? Even if one seeks to only restore the ELs that you have deleted that had, say, Fangraphs and url X, we would have to search your edit history. And then search in the history of each baseball bio for the EL. Or else, as to the second step, perform an independent search for the Fangraphs (and other) ELs to recreate them. Notably, the problem with finding the deleted EL in the history becomes greater as time passes, and there are more revisions on the history page.

It is not the same the other way. If it is decided by consensus that any retained ELs should be deleted, one need only search for the url. The bios, with the ELs, all then pop up quite readily, and the ELs can be readily deleted.

Given this, if nothing else, such ELs should be maintained, as consensus is sought, not deleted. Great disruptive damage has been done already. And even today, you have gone on to create even more disruption.--Epeefleche 10:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Content and your behavior. There are two issues here. One is the content. One is your behavior. Your behavior, such as your failure to follow consensus as to Fangraphs, interferes with our ability to address other urls, and impacts the content that appears on the bios. There is in fact a relationship between the two.

Will you put back ELs you deleted as to which there is consensus? Are you going to add back the urls that you have deleted as to which consensus exists, and will be established in the future?

While I have indicated this to you on my talk page, I am presenting it here so those watching your talk page can have the benefit of it.--Epeefleche 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Simple Explanation

I am just tired of this topic constantly popping up in my watchlist. As someone not being involved in the discussion, reading through I haven't seen any real progress. I don't have any real interest either way what external links are included. This is all trivial in my viewpoint and too much time has been wasted on it when that time could be used more constructively. --Holderca1 13:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

replied Miss Mondegreen talk  13:47, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Christy Mathewson photo

Someone posted a new photo and said they thought it was a better photo. To me, he looks like a hayseed, which he most definitely was not. The previous photo shows less facial detail but also shows him in uniform. I'm thinking of putting the old picture back. What do you think? P.S. I'm watching that page because it was a frequent target of the "Ron Liebman" sockpuppet. Baseball Bugs 02:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bring it up on the article talk page. //Tecmobowl 02:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)