User talk:Killervogel5/Archive 14

Hey hey hey

What's going on? Been a little while, I know. Just to ensure maximum classiness in my first post on your talk page in a while, how would you like to review my DYK nom? Heh. Law school is still a time-suck, but I had a brief period to finally finish that thing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. I've been very sporadic lately myself. Still pushing through the Phillies roster FLCs. Reviewed your DYK nom, but they changed the requirements for nominating, so you'll want to review a hook yourself before that goes to the Main Page. I think it's a bit asinine, but it's gotta be done I suppose. — KV5 • Talk • 12:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Whoops, fixed Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PHILLIES

What do you do from WP:PHILLIES and are you a Phillies fan? WAYNESLAM 01:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a Phillies fan, yes, and I coordinate the WikiProject. Basically, I've made myself available for those Phillies fans and editors who work on Phillies articles as a central person so that those with questions can ask, or to mediate disputes if necessary. — KV5 • Talk • 02:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for George Durning

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dave Downs

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the DYK medal.Ekem (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. — KV5 • Talk • 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ed Freed

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Harman

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:SNIyer12 and the Curse of the Bambino. Again.

Hi KV5, can you possibly lend some support? SNIyer12 is back on a kick of adding information about the 2004 World Series being the "death of the curse" on plenty of articles again, this time all over a number of player articles, in what I regard as an WP:UNDUE weight problem. If you can take a look, I'd be most appreciate. umrguy42 21:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with it being a problem, but I've reviewed his recent contributions and don't see any reference to the issue you mentioned. If you could provide diffs, it would be helpful. — KV5 • Talk • 14:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a little stale now (sorry, was busy with real life the last few days), but I noticed for sure his addition of it to Albert Pujols (two sequential edits here) and Scott Rolen (diff 1, diff 2). Didn't see any others (IIRC) recently, but there are 25+ player articles, plus a number on coaches, that s/he could go around and add them to. I'm concerned that they add this stuff, get reverted, and then come back a few months later and do it again in the same place, or in new places... umrguy42 16:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand (and share) your concerns. He does have a pattern of poor editing habits from time to time, and I do my best to make sure that he understands what he's doing that's improper. His talk page archives prove that. That being said, if I see a problem, I'll address it as appropriately as I can. — KV5 • Talk • 01:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed Freed

Hi! I noticed the cup of coffee reference in the lead paragraph and almost deleted it as vandalism. Fortunately a) checking the history I saw that it was in the article from when you created it and b)I followed the link and discovered what it meant.

I'm wondering if its worth putting the phrase in quotation marks? Those of who are not baseball fans won't recognise the phrase at all.

VinculumMan (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

ACCESS again

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at RexxS's talk page.
Message added 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

second reply:

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at RexxS's talk page.
Message added 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Are you Serious?

It took me hours to do all of that. If there is a consensus and a discussion on this please link it because I am crazy not happy right now.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am serious. You can continue to be "crazy not happy" if you like, but the fact remains. Appropriate reads for this matter include the MOS guide to linking, particularly the section on Easter egg links, the principle of least astonishment, and this consensus from the Baseball WikiProject. — KV5 • Talk • 17:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

1. How do you infer from that discussion that linking should not take place? It seems as if a few editors are having a difference in opinion and came to no positive conclusion.

2. You should re-read WP:OWN, as members of a wiki-project do not own articles, as articles are for everyone to edit.

3. As WP:Egg points out, the reader should know what to expect. In the context of these lists, the reader should expect to read about the actual team during that season. Eggs are very useful in articles, especially lists such as this. You seem to be suggesting that no link on wikipedia should ever be linked this way, and thats just not so.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I never said that the Baseball WikiProject owns those articles; however, they are under the project's bailiwick and we are, in part, focused on and responsible for their maintenance. What you claim is "no positive conclusion" has been an issue that has been completed and accepted for some time. "A few editors... having a difference in opinion" is how consensus is established. There certainly was a conclusion, and that is that team seasons should not be linked from team names. The team name should direct to the team article, unless within the context of a game log where it is established beyond doubt that it is linked by season. When a reader clicks on a team, that is where they expect to go. Your claim that they should expect to go to a team-season article is spurious. "When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, the information is understood by the reader without struggle", meaning that the link should go where it says. As I said before, if you disagree with prior consensus, since you've been reverted, it would be most prudent to discuss at the WikiProject talk page (WT:MLB), and you are more than welcome to do so. Yes, consensus can change, but I see no evidence that it has, other than your edits. — KV5 • Talk • 18:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw no evidence that there was "ever" any conclusion as you allege. Obviously you disagree with my links, but as decisions at wikiprojects cannot override other policies, I don't see how EGG says that these links should not be created. If that was the case, you would have a lot of work trying to undue every single "EGG" on wikipedia. The discussion that you allegedly say concludes that these team season links should not be created seems to also be refering to prose, as in normal sentences and sentence structure. These are lists that are refering to specific teams in specific years. How is it then, helpful to not employ actual season links? How else could the reader find this information?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you view every baseball featured list on Wikipedia, you'll see that the teams are linked to the teams where they belong, not to the seasons where they don't. If you'd like some examples to follow, WP:MLB has tons of featured lists. And no, I'm not saying every Easter egg link on Wikipedia is inappropriate. What I am saying is that it has been determined that those types of Easter egg links are inappropriate. The WikiProject consensus in no way overrides WP:EGG; rather, it supplements it by providing a guideline for a specific type of instance. — KV5 • Talk • 23:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course they all don't have them if you keep reverting them. Its also time consuming and takes a lot of hard work. Also the spirit of EGG seems to never have been intended not to ever have these types of links, but only not to create malicious or misleading links. These links are hardly misleading and point to the exact information any reasonable person may be looking for.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll overlook the fact that you seem to be casting blame on me for this issue. I'm not going to continue letting you argue this on my talk page because obviously it's fruitless: we both disagree and neither of us is going to change our minds. Therefore, if you want to discuss this issue further, you'll have to take it up with the WikiProject at WT:MLB. I'm not commenting further here, but if you're able to have a discussion there without arguing and casting aspersions, I'm willing to contribute my viewpoint as per this now-tabled discussion. — KV5 • Talk • 00:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My recent edits

There's only one reason why I make such edits like I did here. I've realized that the same reference is there twice and I feel that it's necessary to have one reference tag for the reference. I'm sorry if I made such edits, but that's how I feel. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, the same reference was there twice? The references were not duplicated. If they had been, you would certainly have been in the right. You don't need to apologize for your edits; I just don't understand why you feel the need simply to re-link them all to the same articles at different URLs. — KV5 • Talk • 23:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What I meant is that the same reference was there twice. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 23:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific as to which example was there twice? I wrote the article from a redlink and I don't recall duplicating any references. — KV5 • Talk • 00:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The references from The New York Times and The Wharton Journal. I check the references and see if they are duplicated, and if they are, I add a reference tag to one of them and replace the duplicate with the reference tag. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But they were not duplicated! The links you removed were to different pages of the same online articles. — KV5 • Talk • 00:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP

Meh. I have it watchlisted but only check from time to time. Just keep the old head down and edit, who cares about anything else. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. I'm still pounding out articles but I ran into a roadblock on what has the potential to be the best player article I've written in a while, unfortunately. I can't find the motivation to finish it. So I get stuck link-farming from the Phillie roster instead while I try to get myself back together enough to work on it. — KV5 • Talk • 01:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hey you're still writing player articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Trying. Poor Andy Hansen is dying on the vine, though, lol. — KV5 • Talk • 02:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Andy Hansen

Yeah, I've been creating a lot of player stubs lately. Don't worry, you've done a nice job and none of your work was wasted :) - PM800 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I was actually going to ask if you wanted to chip in and help me finish it. I've kind of stalled out. — KV5 • Talk • 01:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can find about 1953 and 1954. - PM800 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 World Series/archive3

Say, look what's at FAC again. *poke poke*. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd have nominated 2008 too had it not been for the ministrations of the same user responsible for that Pirates-Phillies rivalry junk. — KV5 • Talk • 02:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• That's a worthwhile GA project if you're ever looking for something to do, it's already pretty solid. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's because Blackngold29 and I worked really hard on it. He disappeared and I didn't want to do anything without his cooperation, and since then, the user has been chipping away in his own way, and I've just been too busy with other projects to keep up with policing him. — KV5 • Talk • 02:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph LaPointe

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

William Martin

Hi KV5, you kindly reviewed the above and left a comment on the suggestions page. I have made changes to the article and the ref, would you care to return and resolve this? Thanks if you have the time. Victuallers (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Twins and John Gordon

The citation that editor provided, connecting to the Star-Tribune, confirms everything the editor wrote, so I've restored the edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Obviously the editor doesn't know better than to change the edit summary when reverting and adding sources. — KV5 • Talk • 12:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops here as well. :) He used the "undo" but he added a source, hence the byte count was larger. It's worth pointing out that John Gordon will be missed. He probably doesn't want to go the way of his late broadcasting partner Herb Carneal, who hung around until he died. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

True. — KV5 • Talk • 16:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:EGG links

I reverted those changes for now, check out the straw poll I started] for the Project to try and get a standard set. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I read the remainder of the discussion, and there truly was no consensus, but Jojhutton doesn't really care, he just wants what he wants. So I'll leave my Nay and that'll be it for now. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 23:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Phillies–Pirates rivalry

Can you please help me on the Phillies–Pirates rivalry article? I'll be working on the sections pertaining from the 1970s (1970s, 1980s and 1990s, end of the rivalry and recent developments), as I don't know much about the rivalry before 1970. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 21:24 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this really a notable rivalry? Seriously? According to this article they were rivals for about 20 years... mainly cause they were fighting for the division lead... but using that logic any two teams in the same division would be rivals... I just dont see this one as worthy of an article... Spanneraol (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I don't think it's separate-article-worthy. I think the sources would be better used incorporated into the respective team articles. That said, it's probably well sourced enough to stand up to an AfD, and since notability isn't temporary, there's really no argument for deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — KV5 • Talk • 01:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

After the Phillies won the Series in 2008, Sarah Palin semi-famously commented on it while speaking in western Pennsylvania. Some said that was a gaffe. But how bad a gaffe was it? Was it comparable to going to the north side of Chicago in 2005 and talking about the White Sox? Or going to New York in 2004 and talking about the Red Sox? I doubt it. But I figure you would know, far better than I would. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Haven't heard a thing about it. — KV5 • Talk • 12:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Palin was somewhere in western Pennsylvania, and made a comment like "How about those Philadelphia Phillies!" after they had won the Series. A pretty minor gaffe, apparently. I just wonder whether the cities of Philly and Pittsburgh tend to be "rivals" in a sense beyond merely sports, or if they are in sufficiently different worlds that there really is no inter-city rivalry as such? In the NFL, for example, the rivalries are within their respective divisions: Steelers vs. Browns, Eagles vs. Giants. The Steelers and Eagles probably don't square off often enough to make much of a thing of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Right off the bat that lead is mega-iffy. "was one of the best rivalries in the National League"? Really? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Certainly sounds like over-hype, although the operative word is "was". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • For someone in the area, Pittsburgh-Philadelphia is actually a big deal. The Susquehanna River is the traditional dividing line; for example, Harrisburg is Eagles country, and the West Shore (Cumberland County) is Steelers country. But the baseball rivalry is pretty well dormant. — KV5 • Talk • 00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with calling it big, I have a problem with "best", an almost entirely meaningless/definitionless word with regards to a baseball rivalry. What makes it "better" (let alone the superlative best) than another rivalry? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• As I read articles on the rivalry that is lost, I read that it was one of the best rivalries in the National League. When the two-division era came to an end, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said that during the two division era, the rivalry featured something that the rivalry between the Boston Celtics and the Los Angeles Lakers featured: the Pirates and the Phillies won the two highest numbers of NL East division championships during the two-division era, the Pirates, 9 the Phillies, 6; their 15 total championships saccounted for more than half of the 25 championships during the two-division era. The two teams also did something that the Celtics and the Lakers did from 1980 to 1988 as NBA champions: reign exclusively as NL East champions from 1970 to 1980. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

List of highest paid Major League Baseball players

Random list that needed cleaning up that I've polished into my next FLC project once the A's list gets a bit further. Any ideas on things I should/could add? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Only thing I could see is a potential discussion of players on the career earnings list who got all that dough from one team. Also, should clarify what the cutoff is for that list. Is it top-15? top-20? 125-million-plus? Besides copyediting stuff, that's the only addition I could see. And if you want me to c/e before FLC, let me know and I will. Otherwise I'll just hit it all in the review, lol. — KV5 • Talk • 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a top-20 cutoff. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Mets–Phillies rivalry: 2011 Season

As the 2011 season fast approaches, I just would like your input on this. I won't put the details in the rivalry page at this time, without your approval. I know that during the offseason, Cliff Lee signed with the Phillies and there were comments from the Mets on it, and yes, I do have the sources on it. Can I add the info in? Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 17:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Do the comments directly pertain to the rivalry, or just to the Lee signing? If it's about the rivalry, it's fine. If it's just about the signing and has no bearing on the rivalry, then no. And by the way, you don't need my approval. I don't own that article. But I don't mind answering questions. — KV5 • Talk • 20:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

With Chase Utley being injured, former Met Luis Castillo signed with the Phillies and there were comments by Mets' general manager Sandy Alderson. Let's wait until Opening Day to add the information, as I would like to wait if Castillo makes the opening day roster to add the information and the reaction by Alderson. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 00:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Castillo was released by the Phillies, no information about Castillo signing with the Phillies and about Alderson's comments will be added. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that the only new information I added was about the first meeting between the two teams during the 2011 season, April 5–7 in Philadelphia on the page. I will not add that the first meeting between the two teams is part of a week of teams from New York and Philadelphia facing off against each other in Philadelphia. The rest of the section on the 2011 season, it's all yours. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 15:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I had been putting the image of Mets' general manager Sandy Alderson on the section which discusses the 2010–2011 offseason, and then removing it. It had been going through section headers and dividers. It was just a test, and I was hoping that it would not go through section headers. There's only one reason why I was trying to add the image of Alderson: his comments about Cliff Lee signing with the Phillies, as they were there in the page. Other than that, the only other information I've added is the section on the 2011 season and the first meeting between the two teams during the season. As I've said, the rest of the section on the 2011 season is all yours. After it gets expanded, we can think about adding the image of Alderson, as it would not go through section headers. Cheers. SNIyer12, (talk), 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've been saying, the section on the 2011 season is all yours. I don't intend to add the information to preserve the GA status, but I will collaborate and discuss. You can use this link, if you prefer, [1] given that Mets' manager Terry Collins said that the Mets would "rise up" to the Phillies, given the Phillies' rotation. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 17:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the two teams played their first game against each other yesterday, let's wait until the series is over to add any info. I will just provide input, including what Terry Collins said before the series. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 11:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You do not need to use the source I gave. There's already a source quoting Collins as having said that the Mets would "rise up" to the Phillies, which is right here. [2] Whatever it is, I'll be checking periodically. I'll only provide the input and sources to you and you can add it so that the GA status can be preserved. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 21:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the Philadelphia Phillies: Info I feel should be added

I know that I don't need your approval. However, it's always better to discuss before making significant changes. I just want your approval if I can details that the Phillies rivalry with the Pittsburgh Pirates was heated and intense during the 1970s, as the two teams reigned exclusively as National League East champions during that decade and that during the period of two-division play, from 1969 to 1993, the two teams had the two highest numbers of NL East championships, and accounting for more than half the total number of NL East championships during that span at the page about the History of the Philadelphia Phillies. Cheers. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 14:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:DragoLink08's edits

Back in January you gave ample warning to User:DragoLink08 (talk) about the possibility of being blocked if he kept ignoring messages about his editing patterns. Specifically, not reaching consensus on his habitual navbox color schemes changes. All he's done since those warnings is plow along as if nobody said anything to him, and he never responds to anyone, either. Is there any course of action you can take about this? Jrcla2 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please indefinitely block him. He's gone on a spree since the warnings. He's been incessantly warned for years about it, has always ignored the warnings, and just doesn't get it. Period. I'm personally fed up, and I know there are others who'd back me in a heartbeat if I asked them for their opinion on this. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I will not indefinitely block him because there's not cause for such a severe move. I gave him a short block with a warning. If he comes back and persists, I will not block him again - it will be your responsibility to start an WP:RFC on his conduct. — KV5 • Talk • 11:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bragging

Who got a World Series article promoted to FA and has two thumbs? THIS GUY. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. I'm starting to get featured-frustrated. Have you seen what's going on with the Phillies list? — KV5 • Talk • 23:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yaya, I've been meaning to weigh in, I'll do dat now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge is already done... I'm not happy, obviously, but I know the nominator's opinion is discounted. — KV5 • Talk • 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim Devlin vs Harry Lyons

Just thought I'd throw this out: the photo used for the Harry Lyons article might not actually be him. I know that the Spalding Collection is a great resource, but I have caught errors in their label of players and dates before. I believe that the player in the photo is actually Jim Devlin. Note the cut off sleeves and likeness in the 1887 Quakers team photo, as opposed to the likeness of Harry Lyons in the the same team photo along with the Rochester Broncos team photo. In the interest of accuracy, if you are seeing what I'm seeing, then photo label may need to be changed to reflect this. I came to you because you are using the photo in your Phillies all-time roster.Neonblak ^talk - 06:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to examine in detail, but I trust you over anyone else when it comes to old-time baseball concerns, so I'll trust your judgment. I appreciate the heads-up. Hopefully the issue is resolved before I get to nominating the "L" list for featured, and in that case, you can certainly feel free to remove it if you think it's wrong. — KV5 • Talk • 11:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Phillies

I was thinking of taking a crack at creating the game-by-game table for the 2011 Phillies season article this weekend if you aren't already working on it. Are you? --Coemgenus 13:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Haven't started it yet. I don't have a lot of interest in maintaining a game log this year, but I'm still willing to do the summaries. — KV5 • Talk • 13:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't mind keeping up with the log. I'll be glad to leave the summaries to you. The ones you wrote in previous seasons were always good. --Coemgenus 14:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do my best. — KV5 • Talk • 14:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a sign of relief for me. I didn't add any information about the recent series between the Mets and the Phillies at the rivalry page. I had been waiting for a reply. As I've said, the section on the 2011 season is all yours, as I had no plans to add any information, but the fact that the two teams had just played their first series. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk),

Peer review of 1982 Asian Games medal table

Hi. I've created a new article, 1982 Asian Games medal table and nominated it for peer review, I would appreciate any feedback. If you have any time, could you take a look at it Wikipedia:Peer review/1982 Asian Games medal table/archive1..thanks Bill william compton^Talk 05:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy Hansen

There you go, I did the move for you. The 3 edit history of the old stub is in there, tho given the length of time the article was in your sandbox it looks kinda funky. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, let me know if you list it at DYK, I'll review/approve just in case someone messes up by not realizing the move from sandbox to live. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No no no! It wasn't ready to move yet! I'm not done writing it, and I don't know if I can finish the necessary work in 5 days. — KV5 • Talk • 10:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• DOH, sorry. Though it definitely meets the expansion requirements even if it's not perfect yet. I'd nom it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's all good. I've got an unexpected half-day this afternoon so I'm gonna try to bang out some more of 1953. That's all that needs to be finished yet, and I'll nominate it now since it probably won't go through until I finish anyway. — KV5 • Talk • 17:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Don't be so sure. ;) Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Rockin'. At least I got the lead done before you got the review pen on it. :-p. — KV5 • Talk • 19:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Whatever. As long as he's consistent with it... *shrug* Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• K. No dramaz. — KV5 • Talk • 19:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fo sho. I really wish I had the time/commitment to write some of these bios, they always come out great. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I try. I'm hoping to someday get to that next triple crown... — KV5 • Talk • 17:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Heck yeah. My only current "award" style goal is to hit 50 DYKs (finally) and get the 62 tiebreaker to FA and get a WP:FOUR award which would be cool. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"NEVER EVER EVER EVER"

I apologize. I saw it in a GA+ article somewhere many months ago, and did it because someone on an edit-war crusade in other baseball articles complained that the article was "too big and too long" despite half the KB coming from the sourcing alone. It took a long time to expand that article to its current state, but I knew going into this that expanding articles instead of deleting and reverting all day long is a thankless job that'll usually just get me completely shit on. I'll try to "NEVER EVER EVER EVER" do it again. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is certainly not too big and too long. You did a great job expanding it. I didn't even remember that it was an article that you had worked on. I'm having a temper issue, I suppose, and I need to get away from the Wiki. MOS just happens to be a hot button for me. Sorry. — KV5 • Talk • 21:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reported

I feel it is only fair to notify you that I have reported our discussion for the lack of civility. If I was out of line I will surely be corrected.Ultimahero (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. — KV5 • Talk • 02:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dash

How can I use that script you used to fix the dashes? --Coemgenus 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Coemgenus 19:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Philadelphia Phillies team records

On List of Philadelphia Phillies team records, where did you find the Team season records from (i.e where did you find that the Phillies hold the AL record for most hits and runs allowed in a game)? Referencing an article and would like to know. Albacore (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I doubt that the Phillies hold any AL records. That sounds like the game the Athletics played against the Tigers in 1912, when the Tigers' regulars went on a one-day strike and a bunch of replacements were used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• The last time The Sporting News published their annual record book, 2007, it lists the 1929 game against the Cardinals as the modern NL record of 28 runs. The AL record was 29, but I think someone scored 30 against the Orioles a couple of years ago. The all-time record is 36, scored by Chicago NL against Louisville in 1897. The all-time record for hits as of 2007 was 36, set by the Phillies in an 1894 game, against Louisville (do I detect a trend here?) It's possible that game from a couple of years ago might have surpassed it. I'll look for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• The Rangers scored 30 runs on Aug 22, 2007, on "only" 29 hits: [3]17:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Here's the box score of the 1929 game[4] and the line score of the 1894 game[5]. Note that they ALLOWED the runs in 1929 and MADE the hits in 1894. Note that the 1894 game was the last in a group of 6 played at Penn's athletic field[6] following the temporary closure of Baker Bowl due to a fire. It must have been a field that was conducive to offense, as every one of those games feature one team or the other in double-digits. Another interesting point is that in those days, the home team sometimes batted first. I forget if it was their choice or if it was decided by coin toss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's Retrosheet's records page, which appears to be strictly 20th and 21st century through 2010:[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a reference list anywhere for the Team season records section (i.e MLB team records per team per season)? IE where are they finding at List of Philadelphia Phillies team records#Season pitching the Phillies hold the NL records for most runs and hits allowed. That's what I meant originally, not single game, my apologies. Albacore (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference used in that section appears to be Baseball-Reference.com. MLB.com also has historical stats by team and year, in case cross-referencing is needed. I would think that the original source of both would be the Elias Sports Bureau, which keeps the MLB stats and publishes a baseball records book annually. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:WQA

You are correct that admin's have no special privileges. However all editors are expected to follow our policies including WP:CIVIL. It is a good idea for admin's to do so with particular caution because otherwise it will be difficult for them to enforce that particular policy against other editors without sounding hypocritical. There is of course no basis for removing your admin tools for lack of etiquette, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider adopting a more forthcoming tone with other users. A wikiquette alert is basically someone telling you that they think you haven't treated them well - I think it would be good idea to take such criticism to heart and see if there are ways you mihgt improve your communication with others rather than to interpret it as a personal attack.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Or I can just do as I planned and continue to do the work of building an encyclopedia and stay away from the unnecessary drama. This lawyering is totally pointless. — KV5 • Talk • 19:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You are a free individual among other free individuals working together to build the encyclopedia. That does require communication - the point of WP:CIVIL is exactly to avoid drama. I don't know exactly who you are accusing of lawyering, if you mean the persons who filed the wikiquette alert I think that assuming that they actually felt that you had treated them badly would be the most productive approach, and indeed the one suggest by policy. If you were referring to me, I am merely offering you a piece of advice which you are free to take or leave as you wish.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The conventional way to arrange lists like this is to sort them initially in order by column. Hence, with the first column being number of wins (descending), and the second column being franchise name, franchise name should be the second sorted item (ascending); not the year, which is the last column. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have just kept my mouth shut and let people lie about me. I honestly don't give two shakes about their opinions. I care about facts, and that's why I'm here. So whatever. — KV5 • Talk • 19:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to argue...

I don't want to argue, but since you went to the other talk page and specifically addressed me, then stated you would not return (and thus not view any response) I wanted you to hear what I think of you answer:

With all due respect you ARE accountable to a higher standard. Or, at the very least, more is to be expected out of you than the average editor. You have the ability to block people, and thus when you warn people it carries weight. For you to accuse me of an edit-war, despite the fact that I only made 2 reverts in a day (thus not violating any policy) and gave good reasons for them, all the while not warning the person who changed my edits without explanation, is inappropriate. If you had been anyone other than an admin I would have ignored such a silly accusation because it's obviously false. But, since you are an admin I had to pay attention because I don't wish to be blocked. As for the discussion we had it was only unproductive because you refused to contribute. You boldly involved yourself and then simply walked away when I asked you for an answer. I simply asking other admins, who carry more weight than myself, to explain that such actions BY AN ADMIN are not okay.Ultimahero (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Administrators there is a list of expectations for admins, which proves that indeed admins are held to a higher standard. Most notably for our purposes is this line: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others".Ultimahero (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Phillies roster

What duplication are you referring to? A user made a change that caused about 7,000 disam links to RnB and I have been working to get them fixed. He already accidentally reverted a change of mine on a double redirect. 2 people working at the same time causes that. So I may have made an edit that looked OK when I made it but has been changed since. I haven't been following RnB's edits. Looking at the edits i made to the D Phillies article, I don't see any duplication. But again, I could be missing something. ----User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example. If there's duplication there, I'm not seeing it. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You had changed links from both "Win (baseball)" and "Loss (baseball)" to "win-loss record (pitching)", and sometimes these are repeated in the same article within that series. I fixed the redirects to go to the appropriate sections now, so just changing the links back to the originals should remove the duplication. Many thanks, though, for fixing all of the links in the table. I understand projects like that are tedious work, and I appreciate your help. — KV5 • Talk • 00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Yeah its a function of many changes made at once. And is one thats easy to confuse. win-loss record (pitching) and Win–loss record (pitching) are pretty similar. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. It's no problem at all. It's working now! — KV5 • Talk • 11:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Mets–Phillies rivalry

I don't feel any bad that you have not updated the page on the Mets–Phillies rivalry to include the summary of the first series of the 2011 season. Just remember that I have no intent on adding any information to the section on the 2011 season, leaving it to you. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 15:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of highest paid Major League Baseball players/archive1

Ditto to the above, could you weigh in here? Oldest FLC, really needs reviews. Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Andy Hansen

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MLB Year

Template:MLB Year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award Killervogel5 with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you! — KV5 • Talk • 11:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Chicago White Sox first-round draft picks

Would you be able to give a comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago White Sox first-round draft picks/archive1? I think it needs one more pair of eyes before a promotion, so that would be great if you could. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed your concerns. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Loan

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons category

There's no policy. But the fact is, there's no category on Wikimedia commons which makes it really pointless. – Michael (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not it. – Michael (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No no, there's no commons category on wikimedia commons. So there's really no point in having the template. – Michael (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK#GJ 3634 b

Hi, Killervogel.

I just wrote the star article counterpart to GJ 3634 b and I'm hoping to add it to the DYK hook. Could you take another look at it? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 15:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mets–Phillies rivalry

As I've been saying, the reason why I've done any edits on the meetings between the two teams in the 2011 season is because I want to preserve the GA status. I've been checking the page for the updates, but I know the situation with you at this time. Whatever it is, I don't feel too badly that you haven't been updating the page on the meetings, as we agreed upon. Once you're able to, could we add information that the game on May 1 was a moment of peace in the rivalry when news of the Death of Osama bin Laden spread? Once you get back to normal, we can discuss further. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 11:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The only things I've added are that the Phillies took two of three games in each of the series and the moment of peace in the rivalry due to the news of bin Laden's death and the reaction to it. The rest of the section is all yours. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is how I put the moment of peace in the rivalry because of bin Laden's death. I just want your input and necessary edits so that the GA can be preserved: The Mets' 2–1, 14-inning win on May 1 became a moment of peace in the rivalry during the top of the ninth inning. Mets' Daniel Murphy was batting as a pinch-hitter against Phillies' reliever Ryan Madson when the fans started chanting "U-S-A!" Shane Victorino later told the Phillies, who were on the field during the chants, that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, had been killed by United States special operations forces in Abbottabad, Pakistan. By the end of the game, even the players and coaches on both teams cheered the news. Phillies' Ryan Howard called the news "an uplifting moment," while Victorino said it was "a special moment for us." On the Mets' side, Chris Young, who started the game, said that "it's probably a night I'll never forget...You could hear the crowd chanting, 'U-S-A.'...It's...a great victory for the United States and the war on terrorism." David Wright called it "just an incredible moment and...you kind of come together. You've got the New Yorkers,...the Philadelphians, the city, you kind of come together for a common cause," while Terry Collins said the news made the Mets' win "a good win for us, and obviously a huge win for America tonight," but felt they "could have finished the game two hours ago and celebrated a little bit of it."

I had to do extensive editing to put it the way it can preserve the GA and got the necessary sources. I also want your input if information about the Mets' win amidst the news brought back the memories of September 21, 2001, when they won the first professional sporting event held in New York City after the attacks. Cheers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 03:23, 4 May, 2011

List of France international footballers

Hey dude, any chance you can revisit your comments at the above FLC? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Same for the Chi White Sox list. SFG got promoted, so once you find your comments resolved it'll be FTC time. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Major League Baseball Draft first-round picks/archive1

That project you helped start long ago with the Phillies' list is all wrapped up! Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Greg Legg

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jesse Levan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jesse Levan.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for copyediting the Grammy Award for Best Long Form Music Video list. This is random but... would you mind leaving some comments over at its FLC page (I'm nominating it for FL). Thanks! Crystal Clear x3 22:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Mike Pasquella at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

2010–11 Australian Baseball League season

I'm guessing it's on your watchlist so you'd probably be aware of this anyway, but just in case I've responded to your GAN review. There's a couple of points I've tried to clarify, so it might not be a straight pass/fail thing. Thanks for taking a look.  Afaber012  (talk)  06:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded to most of your queries; I think there are just two more things to address before it's a straight pass. — KV5 • Talk • 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP 69.140.52.24 still vandalised some Taiwanese baseball players' article.

Like This

• 00:00, 17 May 2011 (diff | hist) Chien-Ming Wang ‎
• 23:59, 16 May 2011 (diff | hist) Chien-Ming Wang ‎
• 21:28, 1 May 2011 (diff | hist) Che-Hsuan Lin ‎

--SiaoRong (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jesse Levan

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It pertains to User:DragoLink08. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Pasquella

Materialscientist (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Phillies

Fair enough on Dodgers, though I did think it was worth a footnote.

However, I disagree on the Pirates rivalry. Historical rivalries are often cited on franchise pages. See for instance, the Dodgers-Yankees rivalry, which is featured prominently on the pages for both teams but hasn't been active since 1981. Similarly, the Yankees-Giants rivalry is featured on both teams' pages despite having been irrelevant for over half a century. Likewise, the Mets haven't had a significant rivalry with the Braves since 2006, but that rivalry is mentioned on both teams' pages. Therefore, I think the very important and historic rivalry between the Phillies-Pirates should be mentioned in the article.

You do make a good point, though. I think that perhaps such rivalries should be under a sub-heading entitled "Historical Rivalries" so that readers know they are not currently active. I will try that on the other pages. In the meantime, I'll add this to the Phillies talk page for discussion. TempDog123 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with it as long as it's noted specifically that it's historical. — KV5 • Talk • 19:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will do that then. By the way, I think you have a good idea and I think historical rivalries should be noted as such on other pages too, and I am actually going to do this with respect to the Yankees' rivalries with the Giants and Dodgers. I imagine it might be met with some resistance, so if you feel like watching those pages maybe you can chime in. TempDog123 (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not planning on watchlisting them, but if there's a talk page discussion that gets started, I'll say my piece. You've really got a good case, because it's most accurate to say that they are historical. — KV5 • Talk • 19:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lou Raymond

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Clarence Pickrel

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Guillermo Mota

I have addressed the comments. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Further comments have been addressed. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Chuck Ricci

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Jim Woods (baseball)

I just moved that over since there was already an article there. I don't think it's a major concern personally, though if others disagree then it could be moved. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. — KV5 • Talk • 18:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Randy Johnson

If the person you are referring to has the initials JS, then yes it is.--Yankees10 00:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Shibe Park

You being a Phillies Phan, have you noticed the recent changes and additions to the article about Shibe Park / Connie Mack Stadium? The user Delaywaves has been enhancing a number of articles by adding public-domain photos, and recent photos he's taken. A user named Harrington has been working on the text, as have I. Please give it a look when you get a chance. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's... awesome. I'm speechless. Good work! — KV5 • Talk • 11:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! I'll pass that along. Do you think it's got potential for a featured article at some point? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Eventually, sure. I fear FA, but if you go through GA to get there, drop me a note. — KV5 • Talk • 01:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, first things first. I'll see how it evolves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Major League Baseball Draft

Hey, you're an admin, and one I trust to be impartial. Can you please take a look into the issue going on at that page? One editor is trying to boldly add all 50 rounds of results. After I revert this massive non-consensus change, the editor simply ignores me rather than talking it out in good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Guillermo Mota

I was wondering if you forgot about your GA review for this article. It's been 9 days since I addressed the comments. If you haven't, then I'm extremely sorry I brought this up. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have linked Retrosheet and Fangraphs. Please finish the review soon, and thank you for the review. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this list know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on July 11, 2011. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/July 11, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 01:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Gold Glove award

In Major League Baseball, the Rawlings Gold Glove Awards are presented annually to the players at each position judged to have shown superior individual fielding performances throughout the season. Since awards are presented in both the National and American Leagues, 18 Gold Gloves (pictured) have been given each year since 1958, after nine awards were presented in the inaugural 1957 season. Because ties in the voting are permissible, 19 awards have been presented twice, when four outfielders won, in 1985 and 2007. The Gold Glove is presented to outfielders irrespective of their specific position. Critics have argued that the three outfield positions are not equivalent defensively, supporting other defensive recognition such as the Fielding Bible Awards. Pitcher Greg Maddux has won the most Gold Gloves of any player, capturing 18 from 1990 to 2002 and 2004 to 2008. The only player ever to win Gold Gloves as an infielder and outfielder is Darin Erstad, who won as an outfielder in 2000 and 2002, and as a first baseman in 2004.

Minnesota Twins

IP address 76.17.234.11 keeps on deleting the nickname for the team. The number of reverts for this article is starting to pile up because of this person. I've already issued Levels 1 and 2 vandalism templates for this IP address. Kingjeff (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP[8] geolocates to a Minneapolis suburb. Its only edits have been to this article. It has not edited since the last warning. If it does, then report it to either WP:AIV or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If they don't start playing like a major league team, "Twinkies" will be one of the nicer things the fans call them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think next time an automatic ban should be enforced. He's been going at this a good week or so at least. Kingjeff (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Roy Halladay

Yeah, i'm with you on that. Only official MLB awards, All-stars etc.--Yankees10 16:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was him, its possible, but I think its somebody else.--Yankees10 18:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but when you block Johnny Spasm (talk · contribs) IPs, you probably shouldn't use the "ban evasion" reason. The block on that account expired long ago and he hasn't been banned to my knowledge (although he was on that track, no doubt). Unless there was a specific behavior ban that I'm not aware of? Wknight94 ^talk 10:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hes back at it again.....--Yankees10 15:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Brad Lidge

I didn't really see a reason to have a couple small things in its own archive section, since it fit on one page without any trouble. I probably could have left it but figured it'd be easier with it all on one page. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

K. — KV5 • Talk • 15:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harmon Killebrew/archive1

Hey. Would you be able to give this a prose review if you have some free time? I know your reviews are generally good and the article is still waiting on a couple more reviews, so hopefully you're able to. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Review request List of table tennis players

Hello, I'm one of the major contributors of List of table tennis players. Since you are a list expert, I guess your opinion could be useful to the ariticle. --Cialo (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A community sanction finally in order?

KV5 - I've warned DragoLink08 a handful of times, as have you and other concerned editors, about his edits to templates and the color-changing/modifying tendencies he has. I brought it to an ANI a while back, of which there was swift and decisive inaction by anyone to offer a solution. He's never replied to anyone, and he has continued to modify templates as his primary modus operandi. As evidenced by many templates' histories (this, for example), DragoLink08 has no intentions at all of stopping. In fact, he'll keep going until every single editor gives up on trying to stop him. It's wasted a hell of a lot of my own time and energy reverting his nonsense, and it can be tough to keep up sometimes.

He's been given ample opportunities to defend himself, and ample warnings to stop his behavior, none of which he's done or responded to. You even gave him a final warning a while back. I see where you've now warned him again that a block will occur if he makes another template color change, but I don't think that's enough. Some editors, unfortunately, need community sanctions to get the message heard (e.g. User:Levineps). I think it may be time we took DragoLink08 to a community hearing. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Added - I'm not sure if "hearing" is the right expression, since I've never had to bring someone to one before. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We're not nearly at the point of ArbCom yet. WP:RFC/U is probably the way to go. Keep in mind WP:DEW (admittedly an essay). Although the templates are the vehicle, focus on the primary issue that the user is refusing to respond to concerns about his tendentious editing raised on his talk page (see also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). I won't file the RfC/U, but if you do, I will certify willingly as a second party. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 11:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I may or may not do that, we'll see. But, check out his edit history. An extended block is now warranted. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake

I apologize. Good grammar eye! Againme (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

List of stutterers

Good review here. Thanks. I left you a few questions and will finish later today.PumpkinSky talk 10:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Worked all. Pls review again. PumpkinSky talk 23:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor copy edit to Randy Johnson page

Hi. I somehow lost the ability to describe my work on the Randy Johnson page. (It was, I believe, minor copy editing.) Thanks for your time. Rkeller4 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

List of people from Montana

This is the list I'm working on now. Something is wrong with refs 65 and 66 but I cannot figure it out. Can you help? TksPumpkinSky talk 01:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Got your back. There were hidden rogue line breaks. Usually works best if URL is the first parameter in {{cite web}} because line breaks sometimes pop up otherwise. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 01:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Very kind of you. PumpkinSky talk 01:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

FT list

Things are good, just busy really. :( I'd say Box 1, personally. It's more uniform, plus it's timeless (where if someone named Aziz or whatever joins it'll need changing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 Asian Para Games medal table/archive1.
Message added 16:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Bill william compton^Talk 16:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

List of people from Montana (football) and other stuff

Hi KV. Thanks so much for your kind and thorough help in FL-land. I just set a watch on your talk page. I feel like every opinion I've had at FLC lately is a minority one. Ugh. If I may, can I ask a few questions. Three of us are working on List of of people from Montana. It's not ready for FLC yet. But a sublist List of people from Montana (football) is getting close (the first split off from the main list). I've vacillated between putting in and not putting in what teams they were on. Some have several teams in their history and it may look cluttery. What do you think. Any other quick observations on the Montana football list would be appreciated. Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 01:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. First, let me say that I remember and understand the frustrations of being new at FLC. Stick with it. You're a great reviewer and a good list builder. You will learn and grow with time and it will get easier. Knowing that you have minority opinions is important; being able to articulately outline, unequivocally state, and strenuously (and civilly) debate them is even more so. You have encountered resistance, but no more than the average user.

As to the list. Is this gridiron football only, or does it cover all codes (soccer, rugby, etc.)? I think the list looks great as is without the teams. If a reader is truly that interested in a player that he wants to know the team, he will go to the article. You've connected every player to Montana very well, and since there are no pro football teams in Montana (at least not top-level league teams), I think the team wouldn't be helpful due to the list entries' current size. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. — KV5 • Talk • 02:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. It's gridiron only, which they also play in Canada and NFL Europe. No soccer, rugby, etc. Are you hinting I should change the title? In Montana, that's what "football" means ;-) PumpkinSky talk 02:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying you "should" change it, but that it might be worth discussing. Is there going to be a list for soccer and other football codes? If so, then a hatnote dablink would be plenty and a name change definitely wouldn't be needed. But because this is an article on an American state and it's not only American football, that makes it possibly more ambiguous. That's just my input. I'm all about title precision when it comes to article names (as you saw at the hurricane FLC). — KV5 • Talk • 02:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There aren't enough people notable in the other types to warrant a separate list, they'd go into the main list. I'll think over the name change. PumpkinSky talk 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Added "gridiron" to the name and moved the article. I also agree about leaving the teams out.PumpkinSky talk 02:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Listed at FLC. PumpkinSky talk 02:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

See the related List of people from Montana and look at the military, pioneers, and recreationalists sections. Mike Cline thinks we working on the Montana lists should have these narratives in each section. To me that has the danger of making them more articles. see one of the related threads wherein we've talked about this at Talk:List_of_people_from_Montana#List_of_people_from_Montana_.28gridiron_football.29. He thinks we should move the football article 2nd para to the main article. I simply don't know about this point myself. How much narrative at the top of a section would be considered "too" much? With the goal of making an informative main list that could also become a FL, how should this be done? I'd also appreciate one of your good thorough reviews of the football article that is at FLC right now. Tks. I am copying this to the list talk page linked above. Pls respond there so we can all read it there. Tks. PumpkinSky talk 20:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

One followup question on the Montana page if you don't mind. PumpkinSky talk 11:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Very kind of you for your help. PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 Asian Para Games medal table/archive1.
Message added 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Bill william compton^Talk 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 Asian Para Games medal table/archive1.
Message added 00:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Bill william compton^Talk 00:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: FLC review

Hi KV5, would you mind revisiting [Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Male/archive1|this review]. I was unable to address the sorting concern you mentioned. If you are able to provide instructions, it would be appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to work out a different solution on my own, but unfortunately, I have been very busy the past few days. I will try to re-visit as soon as I can. — KV5 • Talk • 03:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Montana athletes

Pls see FLC talk page about what I did with the Montana lists. Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 13:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes

Please be advised of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Guidance Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		A gratitude for telling me those WP:ACCESS requirements related to tables during 2010 Asian Para Games medal table FLC. — Bill william comptonTalk 16:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Any time you need guidance, ask away. — KV5 • Talk • 20:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page.
Message added 16:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Row and column spans

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm stuck. See List of Governors of Montana and in the Governors section, see the last three columns of the old list. They have several row/column spans. I can't figure out how to get them to work in the new list (which I've made four entries in). Can you do a line or two so I can see how to get this to work? Hope I'm not being a bother and I really appreciate all your help. PumpkinSky talk 21:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The headers will not work with those row and colspans. You will have to find another format. While you're at it, you can't use color alone to indicate party affiliation. It's a helpful visual guide for sighted readers, but does not help sight-impaired readers at all. — KV5 • Talk • 01:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What works with rows/colspans and is sortable and meets WP:ACCESS? Is there a sample FL I can use? Don't modern FLs all have to meet ACCESS and be sortable? PumpkinSky talk 01:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to be able to use row spans with row headers; I don't believe they are compatible. "Modern" FLs do have to meet ACCESS requirements and should "[include], where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities". If you would like to bend an more ACCESS-experienced ear, User:RexxS knows much more than I about the guidelines. And you are not being a bother, BTW; I never mind helping. — KV5 • Talk • 01:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask Rexx. Hmm, I may have to rethink how to lay out the table from what it was before. PumpkinSky talk 01:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If I can help, let me know. — KV5 • Talk • 01:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@PumpkinSky: Ok - first of all the colours. I'd suggest another column for party so that blind readers can distinguish the affiliation:

Dem Democrat Rep Republican

Governors of Montana Territory

#	Governor	Party	Term start	Term end	Appointed by	Notes
1	Sidney Edgerton	Rep	June 22, 1864	July 12, 1866	Abraham Lincoln	Did not find out he had been appointed right away; left the state in September 1865 and did not return for 25 years
—	Thomas Francis Meagher (acting)	Dem	September 1865	October 3, 1866	—	Also filled in for Smith as Smith had gone back to the east coast

etc.

Now, the tricky part. I have to confess I don't understand the column labelled 'Term' in the Governors of Montana section. If you want to have a fully sortable table, then simply repeat the cell, rather than spanning it, so change this:

Lt. Governor	Term
Frank Henry Cooney	12
Tom Kane
Ernest T. Eaton
Elmer Holt
William P. Pilgeram

into this:

Lt. Governor	Term
Frank Henry Cooney	12
Tom Kane	12
Ernest T. Eaton	12
Elmer Holt	12
William P. Pilgeram	12

But that won't solve the real problem, which is that you're trying to associate a single Governor with up to three Lt Govs in the same row. In fact, that's really an intractable problem if you want to sort on both of them. If you're prepared to abandon sorting on Lt Governor, then using a list (preferably an unbulleted list {{ubl}}) will allow sorting on the other fields, like this:

#	Governor	Took office	Left office	Party	Lt. Governor and Term	Notes
4	Joseph K. Toole	January 7, 1901	April 1, 1908	Dem	Frank G. Higgins (Dem) – 4 Edwin L. Norris (Dem) – 5
5	Edwin L. Norris	April 1, 1908	January 5, 1913	Dem	Benjamin F. White (Rep) – 5 William R. Allen (Rep) - 6

This doesn't have the party colours for the Lt Governor, but if you felt it was desirable, you could colour the text of the parenthetical Dem/Rep that I placed after the names, like this:

• Frank G. Higgins (Dem) – 4
• Benjamin F. White (Rep) – 5

or maybe even colour the background if you prefer:

• Frank G. Higgins (Dem) – 4
• Benjamin F. White (Rep) – 5

By the way, {{party color|Democratic Party (United States)}} can be replaced by #33F and {{party color|Republican Party (United States)}} by #F33 throughout, since I rather doubt they will change their colours anytime soon.

Have a think about what you want to do and try it out. If you get stuck, just ping me, and I'll see if I can sort any specific problems for you. I'm sure KV5 will help if you ask as well. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant Rex! Many thanks! I'll be working on this through the weekend. PumpkinSky talk 10:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Copying to talk page of the list. PumpkinSky talk 23:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The dates are sorting alphabetically on the month. Is there a way to display them as May, 16, 2011 but sort on the year? PumpkinSky talk 11:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

{{dts}}. — KV5 • Talk • 12:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arizona hurricanes/archive1

Hi, can you revisit the above FLC? Specifically, can you address the WP:COMMONNAME argument made by Juliancolton? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I won't. I've made my point, and I've noted why I continue to oppose the promotion due to the incorrectness of the name. If you're going to promote over my opposition, so be it, but it's obvious to me that the Hurricane WikiProject is just going to shout down any opposition that disagrees with them. My opinion has been expressed under the cap, and I believe that COMMONNAME is being misinterpreted. — KV5 • Talk • 21:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Jamie Moyer

On Jamie Moyer's article, it says that he joined ESPN to recover from his Tommy John surgery, but should the List of Baseball Tonight personalities say on the Jamie Moyer part of the template (2011-present) or 2011? WayneSlam 18:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Moyer has stated that he does plan to come back next year, but since he is currently employed by ESPN, "present" is currently valid. It can always change. — KV5 • Talk • 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if he likes his job at ESPN then he may stay and may not comeback back. We'll find out at the end of the season and spring training for his official word. WayneSlam 22:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Special:Contributions/Strawberry_on_Vanilla. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It looked like it was going to come to that, as the stick was still in hand. — KV5 • Talk • 20:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I was notifying you that Strawberry on Vanilla had created the removal nomination pages for all 40 of the featured lists in a matter of minutes, but since it appeared you were not online, I went ahead and blocked him/her myself and nuked the pages. The stick was very pointy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I was actually here. I rolled back the tagging but I was in the other room when all of the pages were actually created. Your work, as always, is appreciated. — KV5 • Talk • 20:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks KV5. This editor clearly has something to say, blocked for 31 hours earlier, so I expect to hear back from them in due course. Worth keeping your eyes peeled! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I always feel bad when I see a promising new editor going off the rails, so I've asked him to reflect on this specific behaviour and request an unblock if he can promise no repetition. Of course, he's accurate in that we have numerous older FLs that wouldn't pass today, so I'll put aside some time and try to spruce up the accessibility on some of them, as that's probably the biggest change we've made of late. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You're a gem, RexxS. — KV5 • Talk • 10:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

<blushing> Thank you for the kind words. I made a start at List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons and left a note at Talk:List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons. No real problems except that I don't know how a screen reader speaks ↑ and ↓ - so I'll drop a note to Graham87 and ask him if ↑ and ↓ are read properly by JAWS. The non-issues I've found seem to be common to the older FLs that Strawberry on Vanilla mentioned, so perhaps the size of the task isn't as big as we thought. Fingers crossed. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

how to cite

See [9]. It's part of a series from a newspaper, Great Falls Tribune, on 125 Montanans. It has great info and is accurate. I want to display "125 Montana Newsmakers" if I use cite news it doesn't appear and if I use cite web the name of the paper doesn't appear. How to best cite this? I thought of "newspaper=Great Falls Tribune (125 Montana Newsmakers". But I'm not sure if that's good/best. PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(TPW) Normally, {{cite news}} is the best template to use for newspapers, but the page you link starts with "This is the online presentation of a 125-day series ...", so you would be justified in using {{cite web}}. As it happens all these sort of templates use the same core, but allow different aliases for the parameters.

• Tribune Staff (30 November 2010). "Benny Reynolds". 125 Montana Newsmakers. Great Falls Tribune. Retrieved 23 August 2011.

If you try to use cite news, you have to make the newspaper = "125 Montana Newsmakers" - which is a bit of a kludge - and put in a publisher field (documented in the template doc, but not shown in the javascript popup that is used when inserting a cite via the edit box):

• Tribune Staff (30 November 2010). "Benny Reynolds". 125 Montana Newsmakers. Great Falls Tribune. Retrieved 23 August 2011.

Note these are not quite identical, but either would be acceptable. I'd have a slight preference for cite web for a special online version, and reserve cite news for a newspaper article archived onto the web. But don't take my preferences as Gospel! --RexxS (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Either of RexxS's suggestions look serviceable to me, but "technically", the newspaper name is supposed to be in italics, so that may throw some people. I'll see if I can come up with a different suggestion this afternoon when I get home. — KV5 • Talk • 10:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right, KV, but I'd urge everyone to refrain from passing formatting through parameters in templates (like |publisher=''Great Falls Tribune''). Anyway, in this particular case, you could look at it as a web page, rather from a cite from newspaper, with the newspaper as a company that publishes the web page (we don't italicise company names). Nevertheless, there's always a problem when we try to cite something that has a main title and a subtitle like "125 Montana Newsmakers: Benny Reynolds". You could do that:

• Tribune Staff (30 November 2010). "125 Montana Newsmakers: Benny Reynolds". Great Falls Tribune. Retrieved 23 August 2011.

Neither cite web nor cite news recognises a |series=Montana Newsmakers parameter, otherwise that would be an obvious choice for a page which is one of a series. Oh well. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I like

• Tribune Staff (November 30, 2010). "125 Montana Newsmakers: Benny Reynolds". Great Falls Tribune. Retrieved August 23, 2011.
• the best. I'll use that one. Many thanks to you both kind and helpful guys. This is the way wiki should be, helpful and constructive--too bad that all too often isn't the case--I try to avoid those scenes. PumpkinSky talk 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

FLCs and WP:ACCESS

I think a lot of FLC's get to FL still as a lot of reviewers simply aren't aware of the standard. Look at some FLCs at the bottom of the nom's list. PumpkinSky talk 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't get to every one. I don' have the time or the energy. I've got a lot of commitments with both of my jobs right now. If you have time to review them, please do. — KV5 • Talk • 22:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Column size

See how I did col size in List of stutterers and they all look the same. I did them the same way in List of athletes from Montana yet they appear different widths. Then see this diff re the FLC. What gives here? Can you help? PumpkinSky talk 20:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It is the images making some widths different. In my eyes, it doesn't aesthetically harm the list, but you can fix the width of the whole table as a percentage if someone is saying that all have to be the same. — KV5 • Talk • 20:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

See the FLC page. TRM is complaining about it. I think it's kinda bogus, but eh. How do I fix this? Can you show here or edit one section of the list as an example? And why on the stutterers list do they display the same but not on the athletes list?PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On the stutterers, you have an image next to every list. Athletes, not so much. Fixing the width of a table isn't that complicated, most of my FLs have a fixed width. You can check any of the Phillies roster lists, feel free to swipe the code. — KV5 • Talk • 21:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by Spinerod

Hi, you left me a message on Commons about images by User:Spinerod on my user talk page on Commons. I'v tagged the obvious Getty Images photos and listed the rest for deletion, in case you want to chime in. I believe the user has one image left on this Wikipedia, so I'll go ahead and list that as well. --Mosmof (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 21:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

National Film Award for Best Actor

Hi KV5, would you please comment in the peer review of this article, especially the table. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiki pipe symbol problem

See [10] and note after the 9 it has "|" (pipe) symbol. Since this is in that URL wiki markup doesn't read anything after it and it shows as an invalid link. Any ideas? PumpkinSky talk 00:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Use the hard html entity for the pipe: "&#124;" generates |. — KV5 • Talk • 00:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it works, thanks. PumpkinSky talk 00:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Berlin Wall deaths

This list is really interesting and shouldn't be too hard to get to FL. I reviewed it and thought you may want to at least look over the list and maybe even review it. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the list earlier tonight but I don't have time to do an in-depth review this evening. — KV5 • Talk • 00:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No responses

I've got no responses at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Actor_ref_quality. Do you know the answer or know someone who does? PumpkinSky talk 14:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I know very little about film sourcing. My recommendation, when reviewing a source, is always the same: check the source itself against the guidelines laid out in WP:RS, and see if it meets those criteria. If you are unsure on one or two criteria, it is much easier to ask (and to answer) that much more specific question than the very broad query "Is it reliable?". Keep in mind that in an FL or FA setting, you will be responsible for proving that sources are reliable if questioned, so learning how to prove that is a skill valuable to any editor, and one that you should continue to hone. — KV5 • Talk • 14:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this list know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on September 26, 2011. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/September 26, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame is a collection of plaques (pictured), mounted on a brick wall in the Ashburn Alley section of Citizens Bank Park, the ballpark of the Philadelphia Phillies. From 1978 to 2003, the Phillies inducted one figure from their franchise history and one notable person from the Philadelphia Athletics (A's) organization each year—with the exception of 1983, when the Phillies inducted their Centennial Team. Since 2004, only Phillies are inducted; the team no longer inducts notable Athletics. The original goal of the Wall of Fame was to induct the greatest players in Phillies and Athletics history, but exceptions have been made for non-players who have made significant contributions to the organizations. The first figures to be inducted into the Wall of Fame were Robin Roberts, who was inducted for the Phillies; and Connie Mack, inducted for the A's. The Wall's most recent inductee is John Kruk.

What a wonderful early birthday present! Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 20:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OMG

The Montana athletes FLC is now in the "older noms" section. It has support and all comments from TRM and Giants2008 are resolved and capped. What happens if no one else supports it?PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If it has two supports and nothing unresolved, it will probably sit for a while. After some time, you will probably garner another support or two or maybe get some additional comments. It's just a matter of patience. — KV5 • Talk • 23:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just one support, from Albacore. I've some like this get disapproved for lack of support, that's what really worries me. This takes so darn long.PumpkinSky talk 00:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:TIND. Patience. — KV5 • Talk • 00:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There may be no deadline, but Grasshopper has other lists ready to nom but Grasshopper can't because of that stupid one at a time rule. PumpkinSky talk 00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "one at a time" isn't a hard and fast rule. Look at the WP:FLC header: "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". If you've got a second nom ready to go, and your first meets those criteria, then go ahead. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've had multiple noms running at once recently which were approved before I started with any of the Phillies roster lists. It happens, just gotta roll with it. — KV5 • Talk • 00:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Very disenchanted

See this PumpkinSky talk 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a thread on Dabomb's page too and TRM responded at the FLC. PumpkinSky talk 18:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

More BS PumpkinSky talk 11:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I know why so many people avoid featured processes and/or leave wiki in droves. My list is up for over a month and now Reywas and Violet (who hasn't said squat for weeks) come out of nowhere and raise a ruckus over stuff everyone else was fine. This is bunk. I'm about to withdraw this nom. I had several Montana FLs planned but it's not worth the crap. No wonder wiki has the horrible reputation it does on there among non-editors. When I told people I know I decided to give editing a try they were like "Are you joking?". Now I know why. My stutterers FL only took 2.5 weeks and was smooth. What's going on in this one is ridiculous.PumpkinSky talk 19:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, truly, for all your help on lists, but...Some people can put up with all the crap on wiki, many seem to outright enjoy it, but I'm not one of them. I deeply appreciate your kindness. Too bad there aren't more like you, then this place might be bearable. PumpkinSky talk 19:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't enjoy the crap much either (trust me, I've had my fair share of buckets dropped on my head - check out Talk:Pretzel for just one instance), but the goal of the project is noble and that's why I stay. Chin up. Things get better, even if they seem to get worse first. I think withdrawing the list was premature, and I made some more comments there. If I can help any more, let me know. — KV5 • Talk • 21:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In recognition of your efforts...

		The Multiple Barnstar
		For your efforts in assessing the condition of List of Major League Baseball players from Australia and providing constructive and ultimately necessary criticism thereof, I hereby award you the Reviewer Barnstar. That your efforts resulted in the promotion of the first Australian- and baseball-specific content to Featured status, I hereby award you one of the first three Australian Baseball Barnstars.  Afaber012  (talk)  21:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wow! Cheers and thank you very much. — KV5 • Talk • 21:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

NPB Cycles

Finding great sourced info on the NPB online is surprisingly hard. I was able to find a list here, but it really isn't a reliable source. I could easily make an English list from that though as it gives all the necessary information. Maybe we could find a reliable source later? That's generally how I go about doing NPB articles, sadly. Let me know what you want the table to look like and I can get started. Shouldn't be too hard as there's only 66 in NPB history. --Torsodog^Talk 00:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't really looking to make a list for NPB at this time, although that would probably be a great project for someone who speaks Japanese (you) after the new articles are created. What I really need to know is if there is a more recent cycle in NPB, who hit it, and when, and if there is a source for that. — KV5 • Talk • 00:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, I see what you are doing. Sorry, I should have looked at your draft. Ya, there was one more recent. Michihiro Ogasawara hit one on 9/3/08 source. Let me know if you need anything else. Also, I think I might start on the list of NPB players to hit for the cycle tonight. I'll probably have you put your eyes on it sometime soon to get some opinions. --Torsodog^Talk 01:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I poked around a little after work and was able to find a reliable source in Japanese that states that Ogasawara was the 62nd person to hit for the cycle in the NPB. http://www.47news.jp/CN/200809/CN2008090301000934.html --Torsodog^Talk 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. Any chance I can get a translation of the necessaries for the reference (title, publisher)? — KV5 • Talk • 00:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your translation of the title is pretty spot on. As far as the publisher info, I don't know much about 47News, but I know that its a news organization owned by Press Net Japan Co.,Ltd. Also, I can try to flesh out the NPB section in Hitting for the cycle soon. I didn't have a great handle on the cycle situation in the NPB before this, so I think I'm going to finish my list first to give me a better idea of what I'm looking at and I'll go from there. (By the way, I reformatted my list to look more like your MLB list. Hope you don't mind!) --Torsodog^Talk 18:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at Afaber012's talk page.
Message added 23:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Afaber012  (talk)  23:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nom

I've added a Did You Know? Nomination, and I'm not sure I entered all the information or did everything else correctly. I see that you have been active in DYK?, so I thought you might be able to help. I'm not asking you to act one way or another on the nominations approval, just to see if I listed the nomination itself correctly. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bergmann_Hotel AlaskaMike (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the minor issue with the nomination template and listed it on T:TDYK. Hope that helps. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 22:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cycle stuff

Dude, I just have to say, excellent stuff on the Hitting for the cycle and MLB players to hit for the cycle articles. Very fun read, and much prettier looking now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 00:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hitting for the cycle

The DYK project (nominate) 12:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle

The DYK project (nominate) 12:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting my edit and correcting the above article. Much appreciated, 99.168.81.210 (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: GAN

I appreciate the request, but I am taking a break from Wikipedia. A disruptive user has given me too much of a headache to deal with any further for now. I can't keep putting out the fires he creates. Maybe we can go for it in January or so. Feel free to nominate the article and make any fixes as needed, though. Thanks Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I know Alex can be frustrating. Keep the faith. — KV5 • Talk • 23:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

FLC

Hey. Fixed the Marlins list when you have a minute to get back to it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool thanks. I'll get there. — KV5 • Talk • 15:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alexautographs

Good morning. Let's act on this issue today. RfC is the way to go? I will gladly follow your lead as you're better at this sort of thing than I am. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Morning. I'm not as well versed as it might seem; I've only been involved with one RfC/U. I don't believe I should be the one to take the lead because I'm not deeply involved but I have seen enough to certify. If you are involved, it would be best if you wrote the opening statement; following the directions at WP:RfC/U is the quickest and most painless way. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 22:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alexsautographs

I'm setting this up, but not sure I'm doing it right. Please help point out anything I'm leaving out, not including, or anything else I'm not doing well, then please sign on. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine, you've got your co-certifier and all of the necessary diffs. I'll make the edit to send it live on the main RfC/U page and add my summary, since I've already endorsed what you wrote. — KV5 • Talk • 00:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Got your note. I'm not familiar with Rfc protocol and apologize if I put my comment in the wrong place. I've corrected that by converting my comment into a separate view. If you believe this is still incorrect, let me know. Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, that's more than sufficient. It confused me my first time round too. — KV5 • Talk • 21:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Phillies 2010 season page

I am confused on your comment about my changes. I simply am trying to eliminate the overwhelming nature of the big block of text by organizing it into smaller blocks of text. Can you explain it and please provide links so that I may be better informed? Thank you, 198.137.20.192 (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be unnecessary to further divide the 2008 article by series. However, the 2008 article is quite different than the 2010 article. In the 2010 article the monthly subsections are substantially larger and either should be greatly reduced to match the format of the 2008 article or further divided for easier reading. The current state of the 2010 article is extremely overwhelming to the casual reader. 198.137.20.192 (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

From WP:BODY: "Sections and subsections are introduced by headings. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." I understand that dividing by series may be excessive; however, the subsections need to either be reduced in length or further divided. As it stands the article certainly seems cluttered and the flow of prose clearly is inhibited. 198.137.20.192 (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have brought this dispute to a wider audience here. 198.137.20.192 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hitting for the cycle

When one of the Fox announcers said last night (Buck or McCarver, I forget which) that the Tigers had combined to produce a "cycle", I just knew there was going to be trouble in that article. It was kind of neat, though. It's not often that you see four consecutive batters produce a single, double, triple and homer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was one of those assholes. How else can they cause me trouble, besides sucking harder than an Electrolux? — KV5 • Talk • 21:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111013&content_id=25641334&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Major League Baseball itself called the event a cycle even if such is an error. It is obviously not the sort of cycle that is discussed in the article, I would be tempted to call it a "consecutive-hitter cycle" for all four hits on some sequence by four consecutive hitters, and a "natural consecutive-hitter cycle" for the sequence of hits as in Game 5 -- except that such would be a neologism, evidence of the much frowned-upon "original research".

No out was made within the cycle... or whatever it is called. Sure, it is a freakish event, but it is no banality. It has become part of the legend of the game, something statistically unlikely, and not only because Victor Martinez hit the triple. Major League Baseball has obvious control of what terminology it uses to describe any unusual circumstance. Nobody could ever confuse this cycle with a cycle hit by one player in a game. I am sure that if someone ever hits four home runs, one a solo shot, one a two-run homer, one a three-run homer, and one a grand slam within one game (which has never been done), then someone will need to find a name for it; it may include the word "cycle".

Likelihood? Every game has nine batters who can hit for a cycle (at least on paper) on both teams, and every team has at least 27 chances in a nine-inning game in which to hit for a cycle of the type that the Tigers hit on October 13, 2011.

To be sure, McCarver or Buck may have been wrong to call it a cycle. It would not have been so remarkable if there had been a non-hit (even the rare catcher's interference) or another hit of the same kind in the series (let us say, single, double, single, triple, home run).Pbrower2a (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Nobody could ever confuse this cycle with a cycle hit by one player in a game." - Not true; they could if you keep insisting on inserting it in an article that is clearly about one-player cycles. So, because of the original research prohibition and because of the scope of that article, I'm asking again that it be kept out. Discuss within the appropriate LCS and team season articles, but otherwise it's unnecessary. — KV5 • Talk • 11:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I google [natural cycle baseball] and what turns up, as expected, has to do with individual players, not teams. It seems like McCarver, Buck, and the MLB writer decided to invent something new. But unless it gains broader traction, it's not appropriate for wikipedia to perpetuate it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I had added this as a "related event," which implies it's not exactly what the topic states but is closely related. I'm not sure where it is written that only an individual can hit for the cycle and a team can't hit for the cycle. Sure an individual hitting for the cycle is a great individual accomplishment, but as comments above note a team hitting for the cycle is not a common event and is a novel and interesting occurrence. Jeisenberg (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead now states that it is about single-player cycles. Team cycles are specifically excluded from the scope. — KV5 • Talk • 10:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just circular reasoning - it's only about A because it says it's only about A. When people are talking openly about a team "hitting for the cycle," it doesn't advance the subject to say it can't involve (or even mention as a related event) a team hitting for the cycle because we say it can only refer to an individual.Jeisenberg (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that hitting for the cycle is an individual event. If you and Joe Buck want to push the POV that these random coincidences are cycles, do it somewhere else. — KV5 • Talk • 20:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Key to table; discussion as to whether a key should follow or precede the table

Hi Killer. I think we usually agree on editing, so I'm a bit surprised at your latest post at Silver Slugger Award. Moving the key (to a table) to precede the table in the article, rather than follow it. The key there is essentially a series of footnotes. I can't think of anywhere, off-hand, where footnotes precede the text that they relate to. If you like, I'll search around for you for refs, but I would have thought you (and others) would have found that self-evident. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A key is not footnotes, it is a guide to the table. Therefore it comes before the table. All lists follow this format. I "thought you (and others) would have found that self-evident" by looking at the 180+ baseball FLs. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 22:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad day today? You seem to be in an annoyed mood.  ;) --Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad five weeks or so. A bit peeved after that amount of time without a day off. The snow weekend didn't help much. — KV5 • Talk • 22:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Understood. That can happen. Feel better. As to the substantive issue, I've taken a quick look at the wp MOS discussions, and find the following refers to the key following the table: see here. Where we use a key; apparently, to my surprise, keys are deprecated ... the MOS says "Table captions and column/row headings should be ... self-explanatory." --Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The pages to which you directed me refer to tables in general, and then only to road junction lists. I see nothing that says that keys are deprecated. Just because the roads articles put their keys below the table does not mean that all keys go below tables. To me, and to most casual readers, I have no idea what an entry with a denotation means, and I don't feel that I should have to go all the way to the end to find out what it means. I should know what it means before I get to it. All 52 FLs that I've written have the key before the table, and all of the ones that have passed since the ACCESS guidelines went into effect at WP:FL do have appropriate row and column headers and self-explanatory table captions, but it just so happens I haven't gotten to updating every single one yet. It happens.

Tables are listed as "appropriate" for sporting results and for awards (this is the result of a sporting award vote, so it's both) but the examples listed at the link here don't have any key that shows what their colors mean, so I don't have any clue. If there was a key before it, I could tell. — KV5 • Talk • 23:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether tables are appropriate -- I agree they make good sense.

Every style guide I can find off-line (let me know if you want urls) has explanatory information like this -- whether the guides call them notes, or footnotes, or anything else ... but in all cases explanatory material that serves the same function as here, of defining what the not self-explanatory headers mean) -- below, rather than before, the table. That comports with the one example I could find on wp of MOS vis-a-vis a key; it relates to a different table (not one used for baseball awards), but the logic should be no different.

The Table MOS language I was pointing to, in addition, obviates the need for keys if it is followed. The wp MOS says headers should be self-explanatory; here, a key is only needed to the extent that the header does not comport with the MOS, because is not self-explanatory.

In short, I'm not suggesting that the key be deleted (though one could argue that per MOS it should be, and the headers expanded). Just that the key be moved below the table, comporting with how we handle key location in other tables on wp where we use a key, and comporting with what style guides seem to suggest.

For most readers, the key here just takes up space, explaining what is completely self-explanatory, IMHO. And we shouldn't "hide the story". Readers shouldn't have to wade through the key to get to the meat of the matter. That comports, I think, with why, if you were to footnote each header (essentially, that is what is being done by the key) the footnotes would follow the table, not precede it.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would respond that my user talk page isn't really the best place for this discussion, considering that you know my position and that I'm of the diametrically opposite opinion. Since this relates to a featured list, you should broach the topic at WT:FLC. Reference this discussion if you'd like. Unfortunately, I haven't the wherewithal to continue on this issue tonight, but that wider forum is my recommendation. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll leave word there, and at the relevant MOS page(s).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In the case of junction/exit list tables (what MOS:RJL covers), the key is for the color coding, which per the MOS, isn't to be the only indicator of the information; the concurrency termini, incomplete/close/unbuilt junctions are supposed to have notes in the notes column that are specific to the situation. Since a screen reader would read these notes, moving the key to the end keeps things uncluttered without loss of meaning. Imzadi 1979 → 23:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, and none of these have uncoded indicators, so the ACCESS concerns aren't an issue. The key is not only to help unsighted readers; it's there for the assistance of sighted readers too, who don't have something telling them what those indicators mean. — KV5 • Talk • 10:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The key includes footnotes. Specifically:

*Winner of the most Silver Slugger Awards at his position

**indicates tie

†Member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.

Per our MOS, footnotes certainly belong after the material that they relate to. Not before. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. And any style guide you can google (such as MLA Style, or APA Style, or Chicago Citation Style).

Who ever heard of listing footnotes before the material it relates to? I've never seen that supported by any style guide -- yet that is what is being done here. This is pretty basic stuff, IMHO.

This all accords with style guides directives that such explanatory information should follow -- not precede -- a table. This is addressed quite directly by the APA Style Guide on tables, which is directly on point as well w/regard to what is at issue here in the material other than the footnots ... definitions of column headings -- "Each column should be identified using a descriptive heading. ... Abbreviations for standard terms ... can be used without explanation. Uncommon definitions should be explained in a note below the table.". See also the Oxford Journals Style Guide ("include explanatory material as footnotes immediately below the table, these should include definitions of all ... abbreviations"), the Nature style guide ("Symbols and abbreviations are defined immediately below the table, followed by essential descriptive material as briefly as possible") --Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos of plaques

I am about to support your FLC, but I did want to check one thing. Are you sure that the photo of a plaque of John Vukovich (or any such plaque) is a free image? I had always though those were derivative works. But I am no expert on copyright law. Rlendog (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also no expert, but I was under the impression that they are ok. — KV5 • Talk • 00:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

reply

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at Eagle4000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eagle4000 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)