Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Epeefleche (talk | contribs) at 05:52, 22 July 2007 (→Tagging of Articles and your revert of []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notability of Anthony Claggett

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Anthony Claggett, by Tecmobowl, another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Anthony Claggett seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Anthony Claggett, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Anthony Claggett itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

== You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Viridae 04:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Didnt say you had done more, said you had done 3. And please leave me messages on my talk page, not my userpage. Viridae 05:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Whoops. Sorry bout that. OK ... just wondering which article you are referring to, so I can make sure not to edit war.--Epeefleche 05:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

something to do with baseball - just have a look at your recent horstoires. Viridae 06:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fangraphs

I have no strong opinions either way. The one time I saw that "secured site" message was from my office PC (gasp!) which suggests there might be something different going on with it which only my office PC's version of IE detected. If I were forced to cast a vote, I would probably vote Yes, just on the principle that the one guy who's so adamant against it also promotes his own pet spam site about Black Sox baseball cards. Baseball Bugs 08:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well now, I wouldn't want to force you of course. But I've never had anything like that show up when I access the site. And I'm not even sure what "secured site" means on your office's system. In any event, its not a site that's a sales site, or one that requires registration, which I think is what you are (rightfully) concerned about. Nothing spam about it at all. Feel free to check it from a non-office PC. (BTW, my office PC used to block all emails from a Monsieur Le Cock in France, until I had our techies address it). If you do believe that it is a helpful site to have, given that it has 69 unique categories of data and Tecmo was deleting it on the basis of it having no unique info, that would be great. But vote your heart. Tx. --Epeefleche 08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I now see that User talk:Tecmobowl has decided to stop editing for awhile, facing at least two 3RR threats, probably over this same issue. I'll take a further look at Fangraph when I get the chance. Baseball Bugs 09:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he was blocked for going over the line -- he violated the 3RR rule with regard to two baseball players (your guess was right), and is being punished. Tx for taking a look, as sanfranman is counting heads to see if we have a consensus on this or not.--Epeefleche 09:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It's ironic he was taken down over an argument over a minor leaguer. And the "speculation" complaint was a mis-read. The article didn't say such-and-such was going to happen, it said so-and-so announced it was going to happen, which is factual (if somewhat trivial). I can only assume the user was going through some of what I was going through about a month ago when I came close to throwing in the towel. I came back with a somewhat better attitude. One key is not to be watching too many pages, as it can drive you crazy. I was watching over 2,000. Now I'm watching a hundred or so. I hadn't expected to run into trouble so quickly, but after too many arguments with that guy I mostly backed off and let the others do battle with him, figuring he would eventually go over the line and pay for it. Baseball Bugs 09:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the way I read it, he has been suspended. For two violations. 48 hours.--Epeefleche 09:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Consecutive rather than concurrent terms. I posted an article on User talk:Tecmobowl that someone had posted on my old page User talk:Wahkeenah when I said "I quit" in exasperation in mid-May. It's a bit painful to read, but it's worthwhile. Too many pages watched... getting too close to it... losing self-control... and especially the part about the middle of the night (and probably the wrong end of it, i.e. not waking early like I did today, but being up too late). Baseball Bugs 10:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to the discussion that is taking place on whether Fangraph is appropriate for articles or not? I have reverted this a few times, but, I see it is being discussed. Neier 07:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On Ichiro Suzuki's page, I recently reverted one editor back to Tecmobowl's version here. That is not an endorsement of his view, but it happened to be the last good revision with the Japan team name in the box.

Since discovering this debate, I have refrained from removing or re-adding those links on articles, because, I'm still on the fence wrt this site. Some info is unique, but, if I make an alternative site that shows 1B/phase-of-moon stats or 3B/color-of-outfield-seats, the same argument would apply. It is verifiable, etc.

If this goes to arbitration, I would like to join as an interested party. Neier 06:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, and explanation. How about putting back in th Japan team name, which does belong, without deleting Fangraphs? I agree that the phase-of-moon stats would be of little interest. Same goes with color of seats. But Fangraphs is not adding information like that. Only information that interests baseball fans, and SABR statisticians, and people who like baseball stats. The point is actually made especially well with Ichiro. Today, in 2007 54.4% of his batted balls have been grounders; 8th in the league. Last year he was 10th with 50.7%. He has 20 infield hits; 1st in the AL. Last year he led the league with 41 infield hits. One more than Castillo. In 2005 he was 2nd to Damon, with 31. In 2004 he led the AL with a whopping 57; 21 more than the next best batter, Carl Crawford. He has a 16.1 infield hit percentage; 2nd in the AL behind Upton. Last year he led the league with a 13.0 percentage. Unlike your examples, this is pertinent information from the point of view of someone interested in baseball stats -- and interested in Ichiro. It is not present in the other sites. No worries -- if you are supportive of Fangraphs being included, that does not bind you to including sites with phase of moon stats. (Or even day game vs. night game stats). IMHO, though, it is a disservice to Ichiro fans to delete the url that puts at their fingertips these stats. Thoughts? --Epeefleche 07:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, AFAIK I never deleted Fangraphs from Ichiro's page. In all my recent edits, the status of the fangraphs link on the page was exactly the same as it was before I edited it. I think Matsui may be the only one I removed it from, and that was before I knew that the site was being actively discussed already. I'm not planning on adding or deleting that link; and if anyone adds it or deletes it, I won't revert it on any article. I'm glad you understand my other point wrt to types of stats, too. As long as you have other stuff to back up "unique", then I think you will be fine. Up until now, I had seen a lot of "it's unique, so it belongs according to WP:EL" without explaining the importance of the uniquity. Neier 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Tx. Yep, of course ridiculous stats, no matter how unique, wouldn't rate. But infield hits? To me, more important -- with someone like Ichiro especially -- than a day/night split. I had listed the stats that were unique in the discussion. Those familiar with baseball stats would recognize them from their names, and those unfamiliar with baseball would be able to go to the url and see the description of each category. Tx.--Epeefleche 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Midwood High School

Hey, Epeefleche! I was just wondering, your edit summary seemed a bit odd to me, "Contact admin re vandalism", yet the user has no warnings. Contact me back. Thanks! Cool Blue 21:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A flag to any admin looking at it, or others who wish to do so. It is blatant vandalism -- just take a look at it. Tx. --Epeefleche 21:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Attention to a conversation

If you would like to discuss the merits of FG for inclussion, please do so here. //Tecmobowl 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That would make no sense. There is an ongoing discussion of the subject, since May 31st, with 7 other editors, at . 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 17:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi. It seems that you and Tecmobowl are currently engaged in a dispute. I am sure that you want to resolve this amicably, so can I please suggest that you review Misplaced Pages: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 Tecmobowl. Cheers TigerShark 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiger Shark. Thanks much! I've tried Avoidance, Talk to the other parties involved, 3 Disengage for a while, Discuss with third parties, Informal mediation, and conducting a survey. Have also appealed to admins to mediate. Do you think that I should bring this to arbitration, and if so how do I do that? Tx. --Epeefleche 17:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And this might interest you. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#behavioral_problems_at_wikiproject_baseball:_Epeefleche.2C_Baseball_Bugs_and_Tecmobowl

So might this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tecmobowl_and_possible_sockpuppetry

Tecmobowl's an obsessive nut. Can they ban him? He degrades Misplaced Pages under some delusion of content ownership. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guilpert (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 June 2007.

I have opened a request that he be blocked indefinitely for persistent disruption at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard .--Epeefleche 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI notice

Just letting you know: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl Miss Mondegreen talk  13:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

EL question

You were, from what I saw, the main editor reverting Tecmo's changes to the EL's in other articles. I've looked at the discussion about the four statistics sites on WP baseball, and other than that I'd like to see a straw poll for each of them maybe, to try and get a large number of comments from editors, it looks great. My concern is that this was only part of the cleaning that Tecmo was doing, and that you weren't doing partial reverts to bring back in the statistics sites, you were doing full reverts, suggesting that you had an issue with the other cleaning he was doing. I asked about one revert war between you and Tecmo on the WikiProject baseball page and didn't get an answer because you maintained that I was off-topic. Obviously, a couple of the links removed are the statistics sites being discussed now, but what about the others? They seemed like standard WP:EL reversions to me, but since you reverted, and since you reverted other edits like these, could you provide an explanation of your revert? Miss Mondegreen talk  09:05, June 15 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your "I'd like to see" language suggests. Views were solicited. On the baseball project Wiki page. Which is more likely than most pages to attract contributors who understand baseball statistics; the main focuses of many of the deleted ELs. A number of editors indicated their views. Discussion there was extensive -- the most extensive of any issue on that page. As were the number of contributiors.

We are seeking, in part, to determine which ELs if any are unique, and which if any are redundant. To simplify that discussion, it appeared, as editor Sanfranman had approached it, best to start by collecting discussion of 4 urls. Summarizing the discussion. Inviting thereby more comment on those 4 urls. And achieving consensus on them.

Next step, as indicated, would be to seek to repeat the process with more of the urls. It only makes sense to move on to the next step in my view once we have achieved consensus on the first group of urls. This is because it will be easier to show redundancy (or not) once we have a base number of urls that are accepted. Also, the discussion is already wide-ranging, and difficult for some to follow. This focuses it. I am as I have said before supportive of the deletion of urls that are wholly duplicative in data and format.

Problematically, despite what IMHO is a consensus on Fangraphs, and despite prior comments by Tecmo evidencing that he agrees that the formatting there is unique (he had the peculiar request that we only include Fangraphs on the basis of that point), and despite the heavy evidence of unique data (Miss M, don't you want to be able to see how many IHs and BUHs Ichiro has each season?), Tecmo is filibustering. This is unhelpful.

Tecmo is also today on that page seeking to open up discussion of that issue, already discussed on one place, elsewhere. That only has the efrect of confusing people who try to follow the discussion and contribute. They are best served by it being in one place. But just now, when I sought to centralize it, he RVd my change. This is unhelpful.

Out of purgatory today, Tecmo is again deleting Fangraphs urls, as well as others -- see, for example, Hank Greenberg. And others. This is unhelpful.

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 Tecmo has deleted, and restore them? Will you? Will Tecmo? How will you easily find them? This is a highly labor intensive process. It is not the same the other way. If it is decided that retained ELs should be deleted, one need only search for the url -- if there is consensus to delete it. The bios with the ELs all then pop up quite readily. And one does not have to then search in the history of the bio for the EL, or perform an independent search to recreate it. As would be the case with an effort to find and restore deleted ELs. 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.

If you really are interested in finding a way forward, I would be interested in your helpful suggestions on these points. Thanks.--Epeefleche 09:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo has said that he's been trying to leave FG links alone and I advised him to leave issues of duplicate statistics ELs alone until the wikiproject discussion had finished. I also noticed that he seems to be in the middle of filing a request with the meditation cabal (taking a note from my filing on the Shoeless Joe page), which I think is a good idea. I also understand why you were refactoring, but it might perhaps have been a better idea to open a new section about the four sites and ask for comments there. Tecmo at least feels that the refactoring changed the meanings of some content, in some way, and the current discussion is difficult to follow. It states what other people think, which I wouldn't exactly trust there, and on a talk page where people go back and change comments and that's not easy to follow in the first place, this is making this near impossible to track things in the history and follow the flow.

But that's not what I'm asking you about here. I understand that Tecmo was moving very quickly through a lot of articles and you were just trying to undo what he did. But I also noticed places where you (and other editors reverting him) moved to fast. Sometimes articles were reverted back to page versions that contained vandalism. Or page versions where the EL list contained one link twice. Or the Hank Arron article you just referred to, you reverted back in a dead link.

In the case I referred to earlier at the wikiproject page, Tecmo removed 5 links. 2 are statistics sites that are currently being discussed by the wikiproject. I saw obvious reasons per WP:EL to remove the other three--was there a reason you reverted all five back in, instead of 2? Here's a link to the latter part of the revert war where Tecmo was removing 7 links, still only 2 statistics sites being discussed, and the two additional removals still both fairly straightforward, though I have question about one. (btw the link at the top of this discussion and one of the ones the wikiproject page is wrong--I linked to the latter part and not the earlier part of the revert war). Anyway, these other removals seem, for the most part fairly straightforward to me, and I don't see an issue, like the other of the statistics sites. If there a reason that you've been reverting these back, or did they get caught up in the whole other issue of the statistics sites? Miss Mondegreen talk  11:45, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its not true that Tecmo has been leaving the Fansgraphs ELs alone. Freshly released from his latest block, he has deleted more such ELs. That is disruptive.

Mediation or any advanced admin involvement is, I believe, helpful and likely necessary at this point.

As far as the refactoring is concerned, nearly 10 editors had commented, and/or their comments summarized, in one place. I can't imagine a good reason to fragment the discussion by opening it up elsewhere. The only reason that I can divine that Tecmo is seeking to fragment discussion is the same as the reasons that he constantly deletes his talk page. It makes it more difficult for people to follow the conversation. And it is his disruptive way of keeping editors from getting a clear view of the nature of his disruptive behavior. Neither reason is a good one. There is no basis in the charge that the refactoring changed the meaning of the discussion. Look at it yourself. And while you for example have time to spend on this, other editors and especially admins such as Nishkid and Wizardman can't be expected to repeat themselves. The quotes of what they say are in context. And they appear in the prior section, for those who wish to wade through them. We have had extensive discussion. You can't seriously believe that it would be more efficient to open up even new section headings to get them to repeat themselves?

Tecmo deleted 100s of ELs in a very short time. If any of the RVs included mistaken inclusion of vandalism or dead links, those are mistakes that should be fixed. If as I suggested the ELs are not deleted in the first place, we avoid this problem. The more time that goes by with any of these deletions not being RVd, the greater the number of these errors that we will likely suffer. Another reason why it is best to not delete any of these, pending consensus.

I find Tecmo's deletes of urls to generally be wrong-headed. The statistics ones are the easiest to address first. Inasmuch as an AB is an AB is an AB. If there are truly duplicative sites, it is easiest to find it there. Other sites, that are articles or bio material, involve greater discussion. To keep discussion focused, I think it best to address the easier ones first -- such as Fangraphs, Baseball Cube, etc. Once we have done so, we can move on to the others. But people are already finding the discussion to be dizzying. That impeded interest in commenting. Let's give people bite-sized amounts to chew on. You may have time and inclination to follow this very long discussion, but others whose input we would like may need out help in centralizing discussion and not providing a dizzying amount of info for them to address.

BTW, who will undo the deletes of url that do not have consensus approval? Will Tecmo? Will you? This will be a labor intensive effort. As distinct from deletion of any urls that consensus suggests should be deleted.--Epeefleche 12:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fresh off of his block, yes, I believe he did--this was before he agreed not to. He said he won't. Leave it at that.

Who will undo the deletes of URLs that have consensus approval? I don't know. Tecmo might, I can't speak for him.

I didn't entirely understand Tecmo's issue with the refactoring, but I had a couple. One was that the summarization section meant that I had to trust whomever was paraphrasing to get things right, and I couldn't often find those comments elsewhere. Moving comments I think is just a BAD IDEA on that wikiproject page. People go back and edit their comments, the discussion is so incredibly sprawled that people may want to look at the history. I do on a regular basis there, possibly more than anywhere else. Moving the comments makes looking through the history or looking for something in the history harder.

I also think that yes, the discussion should be started anew in a fresh section. You may have made it easier to read, but the whole thing is still impossible. Tecmo isn't editing those links at the moment, and I'll ask him not to until the discussion commences, but it should be done right. I have comments and questions and no where to put them on that mess of a page. The old discussion should be left for referencing, but a new section should be created with subsections for each of the four sites being discussed and people can give their opinions and real discussion can take place. The copy-pasted, refactored semi-discussion thing doesn't work. People can't even tell when the previous comments were voiced. There needs to be something clean, coherent and chronological.

You still haven't really addressed my questions. You said that you find the deletions to be generally wrong-headed, and that a few mistakes might be mixed in there. And yet you've commented on nothing but the statistics sites, and asking Tecmo to wait for an indefinite period, so that the statistics discussion can finish and you can then address the other ELs question is really ridiculous. Take the Hank Greenburg reverts. Two are statistics sites being discussed. What else do you find wrong-headed here? Miss Mondegreen talk  13:18, June 15 2007 (UTC)

I will, as I indicated, discuss the other sites once we have brought closure to the first 4. We have way too much disjointed discussion already. It has taken 3 weeks, and we still have not closed out the 4 sites. I don't think it will improve matters now to discuss 8 more concurrently. I will, however, once we have addressed those 4. That is one contribution I am making to focusing the conversation. Given the greater harm from deleting urls, rather than leaving them, pending consensus for deletion, I think we should leave them.

Will you undo the deletes of urls when consensus is reached that they should not have been deleted? I asked Tecmo if he would. He did not respond. If you and he do not do it, then the disruption to others is far greater than people may realize.

Unless you or Tecmo agree to RV unless there is a consensus for deletion, I would propose that the ELs be RVd now. For the reasons mentioned above. This will become more difficult as time passes.

The summary section (of previous material) was replete with quotes. And you didn't "have to" trust it. No one deleted the previous material. You could always double check it. As to Tecmo's opening up a new section, and me refactoring it, you could always compare to what was refactored. Check it. No issues there. This is a red herring.

Given your comments on your personal use of history, what do you think of Tecmo blanking his talk page? It interferes with people seeking to follow the conversation there, don't you think? I note that he deletes it, rather than archiving it -- which is preferable, and allows for one to follow the discussion in the archive. I can't imagine any goal on his part, btw, other than to impede the ability of others to follow the discussion.

The section http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Low-Hanging_Fruit:__MLB.2C_Baseball_Cube.2C_Baseball_Reference.2C_and_Fangraphs contained in part the following. The entries after it augment it. It is a centralized coherent cohesive discussion. Techmo followed by accusing me, curiously, of fragmenting the converstation. And then later proceeded to -- yes -- seek to fragment the conversation. This helps no one who is interested in considered consensus. It is disruptive. Below, the mentioned excerpt ....

<Exerpt removed by Miss Mondegreen>

Exerpt was Epeeflech's commenthere

--Epeefleche 13:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That exerpt was really too long for me. I've read it. And while I don't quite understand why Tecmo disliked the comment moving, I certainly did. It's not a discussion. It's your comments and paraphrasing of previous discussion. Comments are not chrological, and I cannot reply to users because they commented elsewhere. Replies to you are not even divided sectionally by site. It's a mess.

"Unless you or Tecmo agree to RV unless there is a consensus for deletion, I would propose that the ELs be RVd now."

Well that's interesting. Unless Tecmo agrees to revert himself unless there's consensus for deletion, or unless I agree to do the work for him (me? why me?) you propose that the ELs be RVd now. Well, I'm guessing that neither Tecmo nor I would be doing that now, so you'd be doing the work either way. So you're saying that unless Tecmo or I agree to do the work later, you want to do it now, and if there is consensus for deletion, who's going to do the work then? While a fasinating argument, it's again off-topic.

I do have an issue with you reverting now, because you can't seem to partially revert, and when asked why you reverted something, your answer is "let's focus on this now". That's fine, except that you reverted it then, and have continued to, and want to continue to. If you want to continue to revert Tecmo's EL edits, provide a reason. You've said that you think the edits are "wrong-headed", and yet you won't elaborate. These are not ELs that need to be discussed by the project. They generally differ from page to page, and most seem to be straightforward. Perhaps a few merit talk page discussion. But I've seen no evidence that you are even looking at the edits, clicking on the links, looking at WP:EL and seeing if they belong. Indeed, I see no evidence of even the first part, given the excess of mistakes like leaving dead links and duplicate links in.

Please, stop asking who's going to do what--stop focusing on who. I've been attempting to get an answer to this question for days, possibly even weeks now, and asking me what I think of Tecmo's blanking his talk page or who will do what, or copying a long section from the WikiProject page is not only not answering my question, it is looking like deliberate avoidance of the question, and frankely, it's rude. Please, just answer the question. Use the Hank Greenberg revert as an example. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:48, June 15 2007 (UTC)

As to why you, as another editor pointed out in the discussion that found Tecmo guilty of sockpuppetry, your defense of his actions, and mischaracterizations of his activities (he is a poor guy -- not a 4-time blocked in one week sock-puppeteer), and mischaracterizations of the writings and activities of others (your failure at the outset to see the heavy substantive discussion of others; your making it sound as though others are Wiki violators when he is the culprit), all suggest that you are more deeply in bed with him than an arm's length editor would be. Thus, you might want to fix his deletes. Plus, there is consensus as to 4 deleted urls. Are you suggesting that people should delete urls without consensus, and then when it is clarified to them that their delete is wrong-headed they leave it to others to clean up their mess? Doesn't sound quite right, for some reason. Every day that these url deletions are not addressed makes the clean-up more difficulty. I clarified why above. I provided the "reason" that you demand. It is easier to delete later than restore later. And no, the other ELs do in fact need to be discussed by the project. Look at how much you have written just today -- without substantive discussion of the ELs. Do you really think that it will clarify and streamline matters to engage in even greater discussion? When we can't even have Tecmo respect the consensus and the unique data presented? Unless you are seeking to confuse the discussion, I fail to see your interest in taking such a tack. As to the dead links, I think you exaggerate greatly. But of course any bad links should be replaced by good ones or else deleted. The number of those must be less than 1% of the ELs deleted by Tecmo, so again I find your focus to be curiously partial. The issue of who will fix the improperly deleted urls is an important one. It bears on whether we can tolerate their temporary deletion. And whether continued lack of focus on fixing them is causing others in the community more work every day -- or not. In a word, the level of "disruption." Your suggestion that I "stop asking who's going to do what" again suggest a partisanship on your part, or a lack of sensitivity to the level of disruption of this activity. If you are interested in helping, in reducing the disruption of these massive deletes, in consensus being followed, in evidence of uniqueness being acknowledged (when lack of uniqueness was the reason given for deletions), in the ability to see a players BUHs and IHs -- indeed, if you have interests other than seeking to defend the disruptive activities of this 4-times-in-a-week-blocked sock-puppeteer, I would be most interested.

Furthermore, on the page discussing Tecmo's sockpuppetry, SWATJester wrote: "Miss Mondegreen, your own link ... seems to be quite conclusive that Irishguy was in the right. In the words of Caeculus above "I'm amazed that User:IrishGuy actually has to justify his actions against a highly disruptive user". Why are you bringing this up a second time? More importantly why are you defending him against all evidence to the contrary, everywhere? I could understand devils advocate, but that's not the case here." I have the same questions.--Epeefleche 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

EL example

"making it sound as though others are Wiki violators"?? Yes, none of what you just wrote to me was a personal attack in any way, shape or form.

I have been attempting to get an answer from you about this question for days. Is it too much to ask for to answer it, without asking me what I think of Tecmo doing this, without accusing me of various things, without copying text from ANI that I have already replied to--if you have the same question and my answer there didn't answer it, presumably you could reply there.

"the other ELs do in fact need to be discussed by the project."

Please explain why. These are not ELs that are on every page the way the statistics ELs are--these are ELs that differ from page to page. Which ones need to be discussed by the project instead of on the talk page of the article, and why the project?

"Look at how much you have written just today -- without substantive discussion of the ELs."

I have previous gone through a line by line breakdown for you, which you subsequently ignored, but I'll do it again.

In addition to the two links being discussed, he removed:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Hank_Greenberg

• 12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
• 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/dimaggio3.html

• dead link

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=greenha01

• 5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/greenberg.html

• 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

http://jewishmajorleaguers.org/crrldrs/crrldrs.html

• 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

What, if were your/are your objections to these removals? And why would they be discussed at the project page and not the article talk page? Miss Mondegreen talk  16:31, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity...if those are valid reasons to remove those links, how exactly does Blacksoxfan.com meet those criteria? IrishGuy 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Join me over at Shoeless Joe? My answer(s) there is in pieces, so I'll post a nice succinct one. It's actually an interesting link per WP:EL standards and merits real discussion. Miss Mondegreen talk  18:06, June 15 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked over the length of the discourse that you have engaged me in above, even with me seeking to first close down the Fangraphs issue. It strikes me that it would not be fruitful for me to accept your invitation to engage in even more diluted discussion until we have reached consensus on the 4 urls in question. At that point, I will be pleased to do so.

As to personal attacks, no, I've simply pointed out behavior on your part that is unhelpful and puzzling. I'm sure that you are a fine person.--Epeefleche 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Epeefleche--I didn't contact you about the fangraph issue--I never have. I initially raised this issue on the second, and addressed you specifically about this, this article even on the fifth, and I've tried very hard to get a response. You haven't given one. In the meantime, without any explanation as to your objections to these removals, you've continued reverting them, even on this article where I step by step explained the other ELs.

I understand if you were just reverting Tecmo, trying to keep up with his speed, and not looking, or haven't had the time to look at the ELs. But you don't OWN the ELs or the articles in question. If you won't answer as to why you think these removals are an issue, then I expect that you won't be reverting them until you do. I see no reason to ask Tecmo to refrain from other EL cleaning because you have some unspecified objection to his application of the WP:EL guideline, but you won't explain it without first closing the fangraph discussion. That's not acceptable. They are completely seperate issues, and if you can't take issue with some edits Tecmo makes without hitting the undo button (occasionally actually editing to make sure vandalism he removed didn't get back in), perhaps you shouldn't be editing. I hope not. I hope that this is an aberrant behavior--that you generally do look through edits and don't just undo the whole thing. That you generally are willing to discuss your reverts. Maybe this is because it's Tecmo making the edit or because of the speed of the edits. But whatever it is, we're supposed to judge edits, not editors, when making changes to an article.

You have been reverting these edits without explanation for weeks now. You on the other hand have had explanations provided to you by both Tecmo, and myself. If you don't want to discuss the issue now, that's fine, but I expect that that means that you won't be reverting these ELs (not the statistics ones being discussed, these ones), or that when you do, you'll be prepared to explain. Miss Mondegreen talk  17:38, June 15 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of ELs being discussed. We are addressing them in an orderly fashion. I've explained ad nauseum why.

I've also explained ad nauseum why the disruption caused by deletion of an EL is far greater than disruption caused by retention (until and unless it is determined by consensus that deletion is appropriate).

And you 2 have yet to agree to restore those urls you delete without consensus.

You have been the 2 people, of all the editors who have commented, who have militated in favor of deletions generally. As to those 4 ELs we've all looked at so far, uniqueness has been clearly apparent. Tecmo's arguments on them -- that Fangraphs does not have unique data -- have been so dramatically false that one wonders why he made them. Certainly one can have little faith in his judgement on the issue as to other ELs.

For all and in fact for any of these reasons, it is appropriate that you and Tecmo refrain from other EL "cleansing." Pending consensus. It is disruptive.

Tecmo's behavior does color matters, btw. That's why he suffered 4 blocks from editing, when his behavior was especially bad. Sockpuppetry is no small matter.

--Epeefleche 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You 2? I haven't been removing ELs. I'm sorry if I'm in favor of removing links that no longer work, or that are not on the topic that the article is, or links to open wikis.

The ones I was referring to as not unique--they were biographies, and all of the information contained in them would have been contained in the article should it become featured.

WP:EL has consensus, and so therefore do the removal of those links. I understand that you don't like Tecmo or trust his judgement and that the same goes for me, but you cannot blindly revert him seeing that he has edited the ELs of an article, saying that you'll get around to discussing it later. You have yet to provide a reason why these need to be discussed, much less discussed by the wikiproject. Your issues with Tecmo are blinding you--I don't even think that you remember that I came to the wikiproject to mediate--I am now Tecmo to you, and that is sad.

It matters not. You do not have to trust Tecmo's judgement. But neither does anyone have to trust yours. You have been reverting for weeks without providing a reason why--Tecmo has. The fact that you don't trust him is irrelevant. You look at the EDITS when editings an article, not the EDITOR. Miss Mondegreen talk  19:07, June 15 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm in favor of deletion (with replacement, if possible) of links that don't work. That's a tiny fraction of what was deleted. I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Let's address the urls that were deleted in greater numbers first.

As you know, people are not uniformly in agreement of your reading of WP:EL. There is no consensus (yet) for deletion of those ELs.

I have never said I dislike Tecmo. True, he is a sockpuppet, a multiple 3RR offender, has failed to act in accordance with consensus, has been dishonest about facts, has been terribly disruptive on Wiki, and cause many people to waste time. But I'm sure he's a grand fellow personally.

The disruption caused by url deletion, by a person with a history of making such mass urls deletions claiming lack of uniqueness when that is not the case, is good cause for demanding that the urls not be deleted pending discussion. When we delete an article, we do so only after CONSENSUS TO DELETE. When we delete a category, we do so only after CONSENSUS TO DELETE. For the reasons given, the same should clearly hold for deletion of massive numbers of ELs.

Yes, it is sad that you have defended Tecmo when he was so clearly a sockpuppet and filibuterer and a warper of facts that some of us question your partiality.

In short, whether it is you, or me, or Tecmo, we should not be making mass deletes of ELs as he has. --Epeefleche 19:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet? WP:EL does not have consensus? I'm not talking about the links being discussed on the wikiproject page--I'm talking about the other ones.

Epeefleche--there is consensus that those links should not be on those articles, we don't need to get that consensus--the consensus exists at WP:EL. When it's about deleting an article or category, we get consensus beforehand--consensus that we are reading the policies and guidelines properly. And yet, many pages are simply speedily deleted, without need for that consensus. No one needs consensus to remove copyvio text or vandalism or to edit articles. The only pages that need talk page consensus before major changes are policies and guidelines. These are articles. He edits. You disagreed with his edits and revert him. He already provided an explanition in all of his edit summaries, so here's where you should have pointed out the ones you disagreed with or didn't understand or wanted more detail on.

At any rate, without doing that, he did ennumerate his reasonsings on more than one. And I've ennumerated reasonsings since. And still, you go on about other things. You've questioned Tecmo's judgement and my partiality and managed to bring up so many other topics. Could you just responde to my ennumeration above.

And to an additional question that this answer raised.

"As I've said, I'm in favor of deletion (with replacement, if possible) of links that don't work."

Why? What is the need for these ELs. If there was a biography linked that contained information that the article should have were it to become a featured article, why would you need to replace it with something? That's not the point of ELs. ELs serve to link the information that we can't put in articles. "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."

You also say that that's a "tiny fraction of what was deleted." Does that mean that you agree that the other deletions were good? Or that you think the point I'm raising now is the tiny fraction? On the Hank Greenburg EL reverts I listed above, he removed 7 ELs. 2 are in the wikiproject discussion. And those kinds of numbers are true on a lot of his edits. 5 of 7 a tiny fraction? Miss Mondegreen talk  19:45, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Given the circular and lengthy nature of this discussion -- despite my limiting it, I am going to disengage for a bit. I think that I have responded to you as much as anyone might legitimately consider reasonable. Cheers.--Epeefleche 19:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is circular because I asked you a question and you provide reasons not to answer it, and I attempt to respond to those. I started addressing this question to you specifically days ago, and you disenganged then too. Feel free to do so now, but I wil have a problem if you continue to revert these types of edits with no explanation at all after I have persued one for days. I'm not asking for an explanation for every revert on every article. I'm asking for an explanation about one article revert. Or for you to explain your edits in the future. That is all. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:09, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

From a request at WP:3O. Summary: this is a big mess.

• Revert war For the (technical) reasons listed by User:Epeefleche, URLs should be kept while consensus is being formed, though obvious violations (e.g.: clear spam-like URLs for which consensus is quickly formed) should be removed. Conversely, there is no reason to be hasty, and it damages the project. Unlike, for example, the lead section of George W. Bush there is no reason to revert changes. Though nothing prevents you from doing it, it does not help the discussion. Be aware that hasty actions like this can influence consensus - editors are less likely to support reckless changes. This applies to both sides in this conflict, those favouring removal, and those in favour of inclusion.

• Refactoring An equilibrium should be sought between preserving context, and preserving readability. Complaints about citing out of context are not a reason to do no refactoring at all. They are a reason to closely inspect the way the refactoring was done. Refactoring and complaining about of context citations are both powerful tools. I would suggest leaving both to uninvolved editors. Anyone can refactor a discussion, and anyone can recognise out of context citation, when provided with the original and the compiled discussion. I have yet to see a discussion in which the editor who complains about out of contex citations was right. On refactoring, copying and summarizing rather than moving is the standard on Misplaced Pages. Leave a link to the old location at the new location, and notify readers of the old comment that it was moved. I have not seen the actual summary, these are just general notes. That is why they are small.

• Other sites It does not aid your standing in a discussion to tell people that the pace and scope of the discussion will be dictated by you, and only you. Of course it is preferable to keep the scope as narrow as possible, but when asked numerous times to expand the discussion, there is no good reason not to do that. Please, don't be a dick. User:Epeefleche could have prevented twenty kilobytes of wasted discussion by writing "I agree with deleting those five links, please get to the disputed four now." Stubbornness to this level is annoying, and as the frequent use of caps lock below shows, enraging too.

• Specific links Just below the section header "EL example", User:Miss Mondegreen lists a multitude of external links together with some interpretations of WP:EL. I think that editor is correct in the reasoning accompanying those external links.

Feel free to copy and cite parts of the above - I do not mind out of context citation. I kindly request that my username is wikilinked and the {{divbox}} template is employed when citing. --User:Krator (t c) 22:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fangraphs

I hope to avoid having to come to your talk page any more but this is just wearing on me. If you want to continue this discussion, I will watch this page and we can do so. However, I am very hesitant to communicate with you beyond this because of recent activities.

First, you might want to spend some time at WP:TPG. It will give you a great deal of information on how to handle long discussions, when to break up comments and when not to, and how to handle your own talk page.

Second, the existing conversations regarding the varioius EL sites are there and available to anyone who wants to read them. This discussion is an attempt to remove all of the fluff and personal attacks and bad blood floating around the other discussion. Furthermore, the other discussion is exteremly difficult to follow for several reasons. Per TPG, please leave it alone.

Third, as an extension of the fangraphs/url inclusion argument, there are a number of things that have been "left" out of the conversation. Because it has been so hard to get peoples opinion on the content relevant to wiki guidelines, I have been unable to see a useful discussion. I believe that I mispoke when i said "There is a consensus on ...". I was speaking specifically to the group of people engaged in the discussion and NOT toward the concept as described at WP:CON. Please spend some time reviewing WP:CON. It will be very helpful.

Lastly, there are a number of things that will have to be considered regarding all the sites being discussed. In fact, a number of the 'questions' that must be answered are simple Yes/No questions. They include, but are not limited to: a) Does said site include any unique information? b) If there is any unique information, is it significant enough to necessitate its' inclusion in the EL section? c) Would said site's unique information be useful to the laymen? d) If the purposed site also contains a significant amount of information already contained in a site that is already accepted, should the new site simply replace the old site? Again, there are a number of other questions to be asked, but that should give you an idea. All of this is geared toward figuring out whether or not a site meets the criteria laid out in WP:EL.

Let's just keep the discussions focused on the topics at hand.//Tecmobowl 10:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 , focusing on today's revisions. This is disruptive.

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.

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)

I have read this on the other page, but will address it here. Again, there is a failure to read the various guide line pages. As you will see, supermajority is not the same as consensus. It is just one portion of the equation. I am not filibustering as you say, I am simply trying to get you and the other editors to pay close attention to the existing guidelines.

Also, you are very selective in what you do and do not point out. First and foremost, you are the one who has rearranged content (you did not merge the discussions, you dropped the content in around another comment). Sections have also been created out of order and content has been adjusted improperly. As I said before, the entire discussion has drifted toward discussions of behavior and not of content. The discussion, which was actually put in place a few days ago, is a discussion focused only on the content. Second, the site you are such a big supporter of is still available on over 100 articles. It has only been removed from articles of HOF players and those with a significant amount of notariety. Until it is established that the site is truly worthwhile, it should not be included on those pages. Although I think it should be completely stricken from all pages (based on what is said at WP:EL, I have left it on some of the "less notable" articles for exactly the reason you pointed out. That is nothing more than a favor to you, the primary inserter of the site. What is again, more frustrating, is that you continue to bring up my behavior. That's not the issue here...the content is the issue. The content dictates my behavior. Please stay focused. //Tecmobowl 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your characterization of the Fangraphs matter. The discussion there speaks for itself. Leaving you out of it, while there is extensive discussion, there is not considered analytic support for deleting Fangraphs despite 3 weeks of discussion. And your assertion that there was no unique data -- your assertion when you deleted 100s of urls, is demonstrably false. And you yourself conceded that format is unique.

I also disagree with your characterization as to whether or not I merged discussion. The discussion there speaks for itself as well. The indicated section is replete with discussion of content.

Fangraphs is an appropriate site. It should not be removed from any players. It has been established that there is a consensus supporting its inclusion. Even were we to be awaiting such a considered analysis, it should not be deleted, for the reasons I described above. That reasoning applies to all bios.

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. But you are correct, in that even if your behavior is addressed, either by you or by an admin, there is still the issue of addressing the content. Your actions that I refer to above have the effect of slowing down that process.

I, as others have said, expect that were you to put your mind towards postive additions to articles, rather than deletions of materials that most of us believe should not be deleted, you would be a helpful addition to Misplaced Pages editorial efforts. And given that you are interested in the same subjects as the rest of us, that would be appreciated by those who have expressed displeasure over your deletions. As it stands, however, you are un-doing the positive work that people have put into this effort. That troubles people, and disrupts forward movement.

Are you going to add back the urls that you have deleted as to which consensus exists, and will be established in the future?--Epeefleche 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am again forced to stop discussing this matter with you. I don't care who does and does not like my behavior. I don't care who does and does not like your behavior. I do not care who does and does not like IrishGuy's, Miss Mondegreen's, or Baseball Bugs behavior. All i care about is that content is well based and that the guide lines are followed. I have been banned once for knowingly reverting your edits more than 3 times because you have spammed that site to a ridiculous level. Go look at this] version of the Greenberg article. Go click on some of those links. See what happens. Then go and see how many of them fail WP:EL. I am not going to discuss my behavior anymore. I will unilaterally eliminate fangraphs in the EL section for significant articles and leave it in the insignificant articles. Unique presentation of the information IS NOT grounds for inclusion in an article. Sorry we could not have a better discussion on the matter. As another note, I love how you just reverted the edit on Chipper Jones article when it included a site YOU WANTED IN. You really are deserving of a personal attack. //Tecmobowl 10:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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; I don't see any support for your view, expressed for the first time above, that it is not grounds for inclusion. --Epeefleche 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yuri Foreman

Hey, hope you're doing good. About the edits I did in the Yuri Foreman article - yes, it might be considered a bit redundant to have his record listed in the article when it can be read in the infobox, moreover when it's such a small article. I did add a sentence about him still being undefeated (be sure to check it out and let me know how it reads!) Take care and let me know anything else I might help with. Thief12 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I think that it would be good to add to the box info as to what day it is accurate as of. I've seen that in other boxes. Is that something that you can add? See, for example, infobox at Shahar Pe'er. Tx. --Epeefleche 11:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL supersedes that discussion.

That's all there is to it. You and the other editors that have a problem with me (and you know who i'm talking about) - absolutely refuse to focus on the content of the discussion in a simple and focused matter. FG is fine for referencing, but it is not going in the EL section when B-R, ESPN, MLB, & The BaseballCube all do a better job of adhering to the EL standards. You can stop warning me. //Tecmobowl 17:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming consensus on the Baseball Talk page expressing a view that differs from yours. Kindly respect the consensus, and the possiblity that your interpretation may not be the correct one -- it is certainly not agreed to by the consensus of editors. Thanks. --Epeefleche 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is NOT an overwhelming consensus. Until you focus on content, I will not discuss this with you any further. Plastering this conversation in 50 different places, breaking up comments, moving content around at your discretion has rendered those conversations unusable. //Tecmobowl 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• To the contrary. The vote was 9-2 in favor of Fangraphs. Plus conditional support from Caknuck. There have been comments of support by Sanfranman59, Nishkid64, Wizardman, Alansohn, Baseball Bugs, No Guru, me (Epeefleche), ►ShadowJester07 , and Jackaroodave (whose analysis I found to be especially incisive). And of those 2 negative indications, only yours had any analysis (other than Howe's comment that FG is "essentially a blog," which is manifestly wrong). And your stated rationale for deleting Fangraphs -- your contention that it is not unique -- has been disproven.

The baseball talk page is replete with focus on content.

And, as I pointed out on the talk page when you opened up a new heading entitled "Fangraphs," you are the one fragmenting the discussion. As you are doing yet again here.--Epeefleche 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually

You are reverting my edits. not the other way around. //Tecmobowl 20:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

While formatting is, of course, permissible, but is this constructive? The page is supposed to be for discussion to reach a comprehensive solution, not for aesthetic effect. Perhaps if you look at the comments, some don't logically follow one another, and are not indented on purpose. Indenting for the author of these comments may obfuscate the author's intent or meaning, however unintentional it may be. As for more commentary, all I requested was a recent diff explicitly indicating the intent to disrupt, and the apparent manifestations of that intent, adding perhaps his/her recalcitrance and refusal to change his/her attitude towards Misplaced Pages. Such a report will be concise, succinct, and free of "filler" that admins tend to ignore. Of course, these are only guidelines for reports, but they seem to be work better, and admin response times tend to be faster with more concise reports. —Kurykh 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And I do apologize for any incivility that may have been present in that edit summary. It was unintentional. —Kurykh 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the apology. And for your comments as well. I had thought that formatting changes were not only permissible, but in fact constructive. That was the only reason I engaged in them. I cared about readablity when making the changes. Readability I thought can only assist us in our shared goal of reaching a comprehensive solution. I did not care about aesthetic effect. You appear to differ as to whether the changes were constructive. Its not important enough for me to improve the page's readability --IMHO--if you differ.

I had not thought that any of my changes impacted meaning, but if they did then I apologize and certainly they should have been RVd.

The same goes for the mispelling. I actually think it is constructive to correct the patent misspelling. I am puzzled as to how you might view it as constructive for you to RV that change, leaving the word spelled incorrectly. But this is not important enough of an issue for me to debate if, as appears to be the case, you differ. Thanks.--Epeefleche 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Originally posted by Epeefleche on my user talk page

Cool ... who were the other Jewish All Stars?

Right-handed pitcher: Ed Reulbach. Left-handed pitcher: Sandy Koufax. Relief pitcher; Larry Sherry. Catcher: Harry Danning (reader)/Johnny Kling (Stein). First base: Hank Greenberg. Second base: Rod Carew. Shortstop: Buddy Myer. Third base: Al Rosen. Center Field: Benny Kauff. Right Field: George Stone (Stein)/Shawn Green (SDMB). Manager: Lena Blackburne. (Explanations: Stein included Kling and Stone; but a reader of Esquire pointed out that Kliong's wife was Jewish, but he wasn't and suggested Danning instead. And someone posting on the Straight Dope Message Board suggested Green instead of George Stone.)

I confess to taking a long time before realizing that posting my reply on my own user page wouldn't get it to you. If there is a better way to reply, please apprise me; I'd prefer to do this in a less awkward manner. Dougie monty 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be the spot. I forgot what preceded it by now! But just glancing at the list ... not sure I am familiar with Kling and Blackburne ... and also must say that while Rod C's wife is Jewish and I believe his kids, I don't know that he ever converted (unlike Maddox and Yeager, for example). One day ... perhaps ... Ryan Braun.--Epeefleche 01:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

I have to say that I am not inclined to agree with you that any consensus was reached on those discussions. That really was not a well conducted conversation and most of the people involved acted very poorly and as others pointed out, the straw poll was faulty. I do not agree that a consensus was reached, nor do I think those discussions should supersede WP:EL if they do not address the circumstances. I am also not sure why you simply reverted the entire edit as the two biography sites can, and should be, used as references. I think you are very close to this topic and it might be best if you took some time off and let others get involved. I think it reflects poorly on you when you continually harp on someone that is not here anymore and you should leave their name out of the edit summaries. People will be more inclined to engage you if you keep to the content being discussed.  Long Levi  00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You said I do not agree that a consensus was reached, nor do I think those discussions should supersede WP:EL. That is pretty close to this edit summary wouldn't you say? IrishGuy 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the above Longlevi comment was a response to a comment that I had left on his page, I have moved it to that page to keep it in one place and avoid the fragmentation that affected conversations with Tecmobowl, along with the Irishguy response to him.--Epeefleche 01:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Thanks for the note about Tecomobowl's suspension; we'll see how that plays out. On an entirely different issue, could you please have a look at the discussion/argument I've been having over the Manzanar article? I've tried to explain that use of the term 'concentration camp' (and related terms) are unnecessarily incendiary, and that 'internment camp' is a decidedly less POV term. Gmatsuda insists that because those who were sent there believe that use of the term 'concentration camp' is important (which I can't personally verify), their first-hand experience should trump all other viewpoints on the matter. I've suggested that that is a decidedly subjective approach, and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. Gmatsuda has also repeatedly reverted my accompanying edits for grammar and style, saying that since the article has gone through a GA review in the past, such edits are no longer necessary; I've tried to explain that such copyediting can and must be ongoing. I've also suggested that his self-admitted personal affiliation with a Manzanar advocacy group makes his editing of the article rather biased toward a certain view, but he clearly disagrees (or believes that the bias is justified). I'm never eager to invite other editors into an argument like this, but I'm not making any headway on the issue. MisfitToys 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't look at your changes, but did a quick edit of my own. I think that relocation camp is actually the appropriate term, rather than either that you mentioned, so I made that edit. I attached a citation for that. I think that the best way to handle such disputes is to have a cite for one's language. If there is no cite on the other side, that should end the story IMHO. I agree that these articles are live, and that the fact that they have achieved GA status does not mean that they should not be improved. If that were the intent, they would be blocked from further revisions.--Epeefleche 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

striking out another user's comments

Not only is it very easy to find out that a user is indefinitely banned or a sockpuppet, but Tecmo's various bannings and offenses were catalogued on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page.

It is appropriate to strike out the occasional sockpuppet comment, but to go back and strike out two weeks of discussion by a now banned user is inappropriate, especially considering the actions of the user are still being discussed on the talk page. The strikeouts are misleading because with an initial glance one assumes that the user struck the comments themselves, and this makes the talk page, which is supposed to be a record of past discussion, very hard to read. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:49, July 16 2007 (UTC)

• Kindly point me to the Wiki policy that states as much.--Epeefleche 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• First off there doesn't need to be a policy for everything. Beans and common sense and all that. If I say that it's inappropriate to push someone off a bridge, I shouldn't need to link to Misplaced Pages policy. However, we do have talk page guidelines--archive don't delete, don't mess with other people's comments, etc. If you'd like to review them go ahead. Miss Mondegreen talk  04:29, July 17 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Among the items that I am allowed to delete per the guidelines that you refer to is "prohibited material." The material in question is that of an editor who is prohibited from making contributions to Misplaced Pages. Were I to wish to, I could by analogy support deletion of the material. For now, all I did was use strikethroughs. I didn't even archive the material, which is something else that you mention. I am quite comfortable that what I did is appropriate. Notwithstanding your above, bald and unsupported comment that it is "innappropriate." I'm not sure why you make these pronouncements from on high in such arrogant tones when they are unsupportable. This seems to be a pattern in your communications with me. Nor do I fathom why you continue to defend the writings of this sockpuppeteer who has been banned for disruptive editing. Perhaps there are better ways to use your ample skills. Just a thought.--Epeefleche 04:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're kidding right? Tecmo's comments aren't prohibited material. And sure, do some archiving. The page is long and the older comments on there old. But removing Tecmo's comments and archiving them elsewhere (if that's what you were referring to) isn't really archiving--it makes the discussion as it happened impossible to read--talk pages are a record of discussion that happened--so are archives. Going through every talk page Tecmo commented on in the last month or whatever and striking through paragraphs and paragraphs of text is messing with someone else's comments and it isn't an exception that provided for. In addition, I can't read the page and I'm not ok with that. The page is there for people to read it. Destroying the readability of it isn't ok.

"I could by analogy support deletion of the material"--you're by analogy supporting the strike throughs, aren't you?. "Editing others' comments is not allowed." By what exception did you edit his comments? Not formatting, not user talk page, not signature, not unsigned, not interruptions, not personal attacks (if you try that, that would require deleting practically the whole page). Which means that we're back to prohibited material and your analogy just to support the strike throughs (whatever your analogy is).

So please, stop asking me for references to policy. I refer you to something and you either ignore it or disagree or stretch it until you make it work--you only read policy the way it's written when it suits you. This is endless Epeefleche. Tecmo is gone, why are still obsessing? I said on the community sanction noticeboard that nothing would change with Tecmo's ban if other editors didn't change their behavior. All you had to do to prove me wrong, and to make it look like Tecmo was the big bad problem all along was to play by the book. But he's gone and nothing's changed, and you're still doing things for personal reasons even after Tecmo's ban, and you had, in effect won. What's the point? Miss Mondegreen talk  13:27, July 17 2007 (UTC)

The point is "to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits." A goal supported by Wiki policy. It is precisely because of that Wiki goal, for example, that Wiki supports the deletions of Tecmo's talk page, which another editor engaged in. And the reversion of all of his sockpuppet edits.--Epeefleche 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You've been asked to stop by multiple peaople and I'm adding my voice too. Misplaced Pages policy is made by the community. The community does not want you to do it. Accept that fact and stop arguing the point. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel your behaviour, Epeefleche, is not warranted by any kind of policy, is not improving wikipedia in any way, and is distruptive. You have been told several times that comments made a banned editor BEFORE he was banned are not subject to any required removal, not is it required to add to those edits that the user is banned, yet still you persist on modifying/removing those edits, editing even archives (which should not be modified, as they are archives). In short, you are distruptive, and if you keep up your behaviour you will have to face the consquences for distruption. So, for your and our sake, please stop! 84.145.211.239 13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I ignore complaints made by IP addresses. But I'll let Mr. Epeefleche give you his own opinion on that. 0:) Baseball Bugs 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop that

Cease modifying archives. Those pages exist for the record, not for editorializing. >Radiant< 08:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If I modified any archives that contained tabs requesting that they not to be modified, it was inadvertent. I will keep an eye out for those. Tx.--Epeefleche 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Articles and your revert of Lou Sockalexis

It seems you are upset, but please don't undo perfectly good edits. You tagged two Negro League teams for CSD and restored an older version of the Sockalexis article which was obviously weaker than the newer version. 75.203.180.191 08:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above is a Verizon Wireless user, which Tecmo/Levi made a point that he is. Baseball Bugs 09:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• My edits that you refer to were reverts of edits made by a banned user (Longlevi, a sock of Tecmobowl) after he was banned. And the application of a tag to articles he created after he was banned. My edits were made pursuant to WP:BAN, which provides as follows: Enforcement by reverting edits Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users....It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-ban}} to mark such a page." --Epeefleche 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: The above user 75.203.180.191|75.203.180.191 as found to be a sock of indef banned user Tecmobowl, and was banned himself per WP:BAN.--Epeefleche 05:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Links

Yesterday there was a massive dispute yesterday that ultimately got be blocked for 24-hours. Aviper2k7 gave me a link that said to not include links. Go to and open up the 2nd collapsible box. Soxrock 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. As to the substance, I find the position taken by others to be counterinuitive, and left a note to that effect.--Epeefleche 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the links also. But from what you, Chrisjnelson, Pats1, and Aviper2k7 are telling me, I'm stuck in the middle of this mess. I'm being left no freaking idea what to do because it'll spark a controversy either way. I'm sick of being in the middle of this. I think links are a good idea, but Aviper told me of the WP:MOS and highlighted a section on my talkpage. But then you come along and tell me what I want to hear, but what has also been defeated. There needs to be stability, consensus. Links are a great idea, it's just others don't agree. I've only done 4 teams, so I'm not even close to done. But stop the freakin madness! Thanks Soxrock 10:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to tell you. I guess the options are: 1) ignore it, and let a bad approach stand; 2) Discuss it further -- perhaps on a WP page on the subject such as the talk page for wp:date, and see if you can get support and consensus for your approach; or 3) (not what I would suggest) limit your conversation to those w whom you have discussed it, and try to convince them. I had a thought that I thought was very reasonable, and none of these approaches worked (tried them all), so there is no guarantee ... it's not as though people have to go through any sifting process in order to be able to state a position. They can even be 7 years old, or 107 and senile -- as long as them have a pc, they can state a point of view.--Epeefleche 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

One last thing, though. Given the lack of consensus on this, which you point to, my suggestion would be for now to just leave all the dates in the baseball bios however they are. I don't see a consensus to change them either way, given statements made on both sides. IMHO.--Epeefleche 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The opposite approach would be to not link dates at all. Since there are presumably pages about "the year in ", the place to link those would be from a select few articles about the sport. Baseball Bugs 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lieberthal

My problem with just saying "a veteran" is that not all veterans get paid more than second year guys... I prefer clarifying that he is a long-time veteran ... it was kinda clunky the way you had it.. Of course I have no problem with dumping the whole thing about his salary.. if thats preferable Spanneraol 00:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that not all vets get paid more than second years. That's my point as well. I'm not sure therefore that we can say that the reason that he is paid more is that he is a vet. Either of the following work for me ... we could take out the language that says that the reason he gets paid more is that he is a vet ... or as you suggest we could dump the whole thing. Your call.--Epeefleche 00:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)