User talk:Tecmobowl/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [1] 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 [2]. 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 [3], 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)

Names of articles on baseball records

I saw that you moved the article; I'm fine with the new name. I'm going to be out of town for a few days, so I can't help with others. If you want to go ahead and move other articles, my suggestion is that you post a comment on the talk page first saying what your proposed name is; then if there aren't comments in 24/48 hours, go ahead and move it. I think that's a reasonable courtesy to whoever created and edited the article. BRMo 06:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference template

See [4]. I hope to hear your opinion on the matter again. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ichiro calbee.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ichiro calbee.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 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Article ideas for Tecmobowl

It would be sweet if the following were better sourced:

• Adrian Newey
• Aguri Suzuki
• Antônio Pizzonia

"These three are well written articles, but they need references to get above Start class," I was told when I requested assessment from WP:Biography.

For your consideration. Guroadrunner 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you're on EL patrol, it would be nice to change the links that go to ManipeF1.com and make them instead go to Formula1.com .

P.S. -- you need not feel like you are on the defensive. Not sure how much your experience at WP:Baseball scarred you, but as long as things go well, nobody's going to attack you. Guroadrunner 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

MedCab Case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Shoeless Joe Jackson

I have taken the medcab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Shoeless Joe Jackson wich is about a dispute you are in. I would just like to let you know, I am not here to help any side get there way, I am just here to help you all reach some sort of agreement. I look forward to working with you:) Have a nice week and God bless:)--†Sir James Paul† 10:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I am wondering if you would please tell me how you would like the Shoeless Joe Jackson article to read. By telling me I will be able to understand this dispute better and it will assist me in helping you come up with a compromise. I am also asking the other people involved in the dispute this question. Thanks for your time and I would appreciate it if you would answer me on my talk page.--†Sir James Paul† 08:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have come up with a comepromise on the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. Please consider it, you do not have to accept it though. Feel free to give your oppinion of it on the talk page and if you have any other ideas for compromises please bring it up. The more compromises the better. Thanks for your time:)--†Sir James Paul† 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Hi, I just wanted to say that I really like what you did with the succession boxes for Babe Ruth. I think that keeps the information there for people that want to see it, but the boxes to initially take up too much space. Thanks again. - Masonpatriot 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cy Young

There's a question on that talk page you need to answer before you think about reverting it again. Baseball Bugs 16:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you revert the Cy Young page again, I'm going to take you to an admin. You are POV-pushing an irrelevancy, and you refuse to answer the question no matter where I pose it. Baseball Bugs

Colors

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

Following?

I have the right to read any article I chose to, and add text to any article I choose to. Baseball Bugs 14:10, 25 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)

top 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)

}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. Otherwise, your account WILL BE BLOCKED!!!Jickytoto 02:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop harrasing me. I have not engaged you in any way since you returned from your block. YOU are the one who continues to insult me all over wikipedia. YOU are the one who comes to my talk page to try and pick a fight. YOU are the one who is running here and there in a futile attempt to get me punished for blocking you. Let it go. IrishGuy ^talk 20:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. GrooveDog 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting ELs from the baseball bios while there is an ongoing discussion on this on the baseball talk page. --Epeefleche 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fangraphs

Please do not delete any more links to fangraphs. What you are doing is disruptive. There is a clear consensus that fangraphs meets the conditions set out in WP:EL. Ignoring this consensus will result in a block. -- No Guru 18:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. This is your last warning. -- No Guru 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Impending WP:3RR violation at Brad Ausmus

The sequence of edits and reversions of the Brad Ausmus article are placing you at the cusp of violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. Please read the WP:3RR article and be forewarned. --Epeefleche 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Impending WP:3RR violation at John Grabow

The sequence of edits and reversions of the John Grabow article are placing you at the cusp of violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. Please read the WP:3RR article and be forewarned. --Epeefleche 20:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)