User talk:Tecmobowl

Archives

Pre-10.06 10.06-12.06 12.06-6.07

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 [1]. 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 [2].

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 [3].

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)

Please respond. Thanks.--Epeefleche 23:43, 5 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)