User talk:Long levi

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(info: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Welcome!

Hello, Long levi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Pointe LaRoche 03:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Louis sockalexis portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Louis sockalexis portrait.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing the no source warning tag from the image until you provide a source. All images must have a source identified for them. This provides the means by which independent editors can confirm the copyright status of images. --Durin 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball

Thanks, welcome to the editing community. You did a really good job on your first two articles, especially handling the referencing and template syntaxes. I'm not sure what to do about fixing the baseball section of Wikipedia. Those arguments on the project page were rather over the top. The editor who came in and tried to act like a mediator and call for a straw poll did the right thing, so hopefully a consensus is reached and they can edit more important and more enjoyable things. Perhaps baseball, or sports in general, are a little special in that there are so many different ways to looks at records and positions that they lend themselves to an exorbitant amount of templates and lists that other parts of the encyclopedia do not. One way to handle it is to take a deletionist attitude and remove all but the most important things. I do not particularly favor that philosophy and would rather see standards brought forth which promote consistency and coherency between articles, so that editors know exactly what is needed and what is supposed to be included. That may, or may not, help reduce unnecessary templates and see also entries. Like on Frank Robinson, those larger managerial templates are probably redundant with the managerial succession box. Using that show/hide feature also helps. It would be nice if there was more content attention and discussion, but I'm not sure what can be done about that. The more you edit, the more comfortable and confident you'll become when faced with things like project pages and arguments. By the way, I think the last line you put in that image you uploaded should stop the bot, but saying how you got the image might be helpful too. Cheers. Basar 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Bill Burns

Thanks for the edits today. On the Sleepy Bill Burns article, in particular, thanks for re-inserting the information about his pitching record. User tecmobowl had deleted, and I was wary of reverting it, given the reputation he seems to have developed as reflected on his talk page. Cbl62 05:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tecmobowl has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No need to assume that his deletions were correct if they seem incorrect, and he is not around (at least today) to do more such damage.

Longlevi -- you are clearly an experienced editor. What was your prior name?--Epeefleche 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job...

...with the work on the Hall of Fame links, replacing the names with the player ID's, a tedious task. Baseball Bugs 05:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Fangraphs EL by Long levi

Hi Long levi. As we have discussed this on the Hank Aaron talk page, see [1], pls return the fangraphs EL on that page. This has been the subject of an extensive discussion on the baseball wikiproject baseball page. The consensus was to include it as an EL. The one vociferous disagreeing editor -- Tecmobowl -- has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. To abide by the consensus on that page, you should put back the EL that you deleted. While you write that the "site does not offer anything that warrants its inclusion over the other sites," that is completely at odds with the consensus regarding Fangraphs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Deletions_by_Tecmobowl_of_hundreds_of_baseball_urls_w.2Funique_information.3B_failure_to_discuss.3B_edit_warring and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#External_links. While there was one user, Tecmobowl, a sockpuppet and abuser of Wiki policy, who deleted many of these ELs without consensus, he has been banned indefinitely for such behavior. Thank you. --Epeefleche 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I moved your (Longlevi's) response to my comment (which you placed on my talk page, rather than here) above, to keep this conversation in one place. The same with the above response to you. That way, if people wish to follow our conversation, the conversation is not fragmented and difficult to follow. Tecmobowl had a habit of doing that, while discussing the same issue we are discussing here, and it only served to confuse the conversation. I would suggest we keep the conversation here.

The conversation on the Wikipedia baseball page speaks for itself. A consensus was reached. There was one editor it is true -- Tecmobowl -- who disagreed vociferously, and engaged in deletions of the Fangraphs EL much as you have just done. In addition, Tecmobowl engaged in sockpuppetry. The sockpuppetry finding held that: "It is ... clear that Tecmobowl has used sockpuppets disruptively ..." Tecmobowl also refused, as you are indicating you refuse, to abide by the consensus as to these very same Fangraphs ELs -- a consensus which was exhibited both in the straw poll and in the extraordinarily extensive conversation on the Wiki baseball talk page. The matter went to mediation. See [2]. The mediator wrote: "It has come to my attention that Tecmo has once again been deleting more ELs.... Telling by the behavior of Tecmobowl, it is virtually impossible to create a compromise." In the end, Tecmobowl was banned indefinitely. See [3]. Tecmobowl rejected community input, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and administrators. He violated Wikipedia:Verifiability in that he misrepresented reliable sources, such as Fangraphs. I must say, I see nothing in what you have written to distinguish your statements from the statements made by Tecmobowl. And, as that conversation has already been had, I am perplexed as to why you are making these same claims, with the same rationale, as to the Fangraphs ELs that Tecmo made ... and deleting them against consensus, much as he did. I am also confused as to why you are suggesting that I not mention Tecmobowl's name in edit summaries.--Epeefleche 01:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, it has been noted. I don't feel anything else needs to be said on this. Happy editing. Long Levi 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Long levi, welcome to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've made some important contributions to a number of baseball articles in a short time. Wikipedia can certainly benefit from additional knowledgeable, energetic editors. I hope you you won't mind, however, if I pass along some advice. I've found that there is generally little conflict in expanding or adding verified and neutral content to articles, or in making useful, neutral corrections. Many baseball articles are stubs, so there are certainly ample opportunities to improve many articles by expanding them. While there are also articles that can use some pruning back, I'd recommend caution on that part of the editing process. Other editors have devoted time to writing articles and adding content that they think is important, so you are finding that there can be resistance to deleting content. Excess or repetitive content can be deleted, but to avoid opposition I recommend first discussing any proposed deletions on the talk page and to back off if other editors object. There is certainly enough good work to be done here that I hate to see efforts being wasted in fighting over edits that are not supported by consensus. In such cases, it is better to just move on and find some non-controversial tasks that need doing.

I hope you that you are not offended by the fact that I am making these suggestions, but I would really like for your editing experience here to be a good one. BRMo 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have lurked here for a long time. I am not exactly sure what you are referencing as I have worked extensively on a couple of articles already to add verified information and sources. I am happy to discuss things that need to be discussed. Long Levi 00:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen a couple of articles that you worked on; I think you've done some fine work so far. I'm not trying to be critical, just encouraging you to continue making these type of valuable contributions to the project and to be cautious about plunging into some other issues (such as external links) that other editors are touchy about. BRMo 05:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i do think that the editors who have chimmed in above all have serious issues with WP:OWN and a true understanding of WP:CON. If you look at the Hank Aaron article, it seems they are trying to drag me in a fight. I appreciate your thoughts, but I would rather spend most of my time editing and addressing "issues" as they popup. I think that these guys are wikibullies and it is unfortunate, but not worth an argument. Long Levi 05:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know...

...just as a formality, that we are building a sockpuppet case against you. A formal sockpuppet complaint will be filed soon, after we gather some more facts. Baseball Bugs 07:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Nishkid64 - Care to explain exactly why I was blocked? I don't see any sockcase or checkuser or open incident. I tried to find a compromise on an issue, was bullyied, and moved on. Long Levi 19:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An off-wiki CheckUser request was made, and the result was that there was a likely connection between you and Tecmobowl. Your contributions, and your join date (which happened to come five days after Tecmobowl was banned) ultimately resulted in an indefinite block. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use verizon wirless to connect to the internet. That is not equivalent to a sock. I am not fully familiar with the "tecmobowl" case, but no case was filed against me and I was more than polite to everyone. I removed stats and links on the Hank Aaron article and then discussed that on the talk page. FG is fine as a link, but 3 stat sites is excessive, especially since their are largely repetative. I even used it as one of the two links and he still reverted the changes. When Epeefelche decided to overlook things like don't be a dick, I moved on. This is in very poor taste and pretty rude in my opinion. Long Levi 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job by Nishkid and IrishGuy. A shame that they have to waste time on this banned sock. As to TecmoLevi's above claim that he is not fully familiar with the tecmo case, that is directly at odds with his statement at [4], just 2 days ago, referring to that controversy: "I've read all of that stuff." I personally, having had many discussions with Tecmo, have no question that Long is the same person. This is not the first time that Tecmo has used a sock. Is there any "automatic delete of all edits ever made by person x" function? That would be a good feature for admins, to deter people like Tecmo whose personality traits make it difficult for them to control their sock behavior. I'm sure he is a fine person. But he clearly has an issue that is not being controlled, and which is inimical to the purposed of Wikipedia. Kudos to the admins who addressed this.--Epeefleche 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, he did fix all the Hall of Fame stuff that was screwed up earlier. So I wouldn't want to revert that. Let's not throw the bathwater out with the baby. Baseball Bugs 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would throw out the bathtub as well, if on balance we are better off.--Epeefleche 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

A preliminary checkuser came up as "possible" [5]

Complaining about the lack of focus on "content", and referring to other editors as "bullies" and use of the same misspelled expression about "chimming" in

Tecmobowl: [6] and [7]

Long levi: [8]

Dual obsession with deleting the "fangraphs" website and claiming there is no consensus:

Tecmobowl: Throughout Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball among others

Long levi: [9] and [10] for example

Resuming the complaint of 3 of us being enemies, trying to "draw him into a fight" over content, despite the fact that Baseball Bugs and I had said nearly nothing to him so far in his new guise except to raise one question.

Tecmobowl: User talk:Tecmobowl

Long levi: [11]

Accusing other of "following him around", as Tecmo and his sockpuppet El redactor also complained about.

Tecmobowl: [12]

Long levi: [13]

El redactor: [14]

Modifying the Sleepy Bill Burns article, which Tecmobowl wrote.

Long levi adjusted [15] and was thanked by another user [16] who may have missed the subtlety that Long levi only reverted part of what Tecmobowl had deleted [17] while continuing to leave out the "unnecessary reference" and the quotation that Tecmo had previously deleted [18] - Which Levi explained here by "guessing" what Tecmobowl had done by mistake: [19].

Talking about reluctance to talk on the project page due to the "spat" even though Long levi was not involved in it, and again making a point (as Tecmo's proven sockpuppet El redactor did) about being "new"

Tecmobowl: Throughout Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball for example

Long levi: [20] and [21]

El redactor: [22]

Talking about being "bold", which was a favorite defense of Tecmobowl's, and also talking specifically about the Brad Ausmus page and again expressing fears about being attacked

Tecmobowl: [23] for example and about Ausmus: [24]

Long levi: [25]

They both talk about the content being crappy and how nobody can concentrate on the content without bringing in other issues.

Long Levi even defends Tecmo a few times without overtly naming him [26] [27].

Tecmo put in a bunch of templates for the Baseball hall of fame...and then Long Levi arrived and updated all those templates. There is also the fangraphs issue noted above. IrishGuy ^talk 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Great job. A shame this fellow cannot control himself, and stay away. --Epeefleche 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is unbelievable. Irishguy - you apparently have some history with Tecmobowl. Perhaps you should rethink how you present information. With regards to Bbhof template, two people reported a problem with it ([28] and [29], How does fixing what was discussed equate me to a sock, regardless of who created the template. Why would someone who is so hell bent on destroying wikipedia be fixing problems that people bring up. With regards to Sleepy Bill Burns. I never had an issue with fangraphs. I had an issue with the discussion and an issue with having three stats sites. If you look at this edit, you will see that I even put fangraphs in place in an attempt to find a compromise. I seriously doubt that Tecmobowl would have done that. When Epeefleche asserted WP:OWN in a major way, I moved on as evident by this final edit to the talk page. Epeefleche has now stricken my comments as he wants here, here, and here. What exactly have i done that even began this? Epeefleche is the one that started the discussion, I never once said Fangraphs was a bad site? Where is the WP:AGF and where is the polite discussion? You will see that Epeefleche started a section on this page that borders on a WP:NPA, so what have I done to warrant this action? If i was Tecmobowl, then why did i put fangraphs back in? As another note, Epeefelche has taken it upon himself to announce to the world that I am a sock and have been banned. What good does that do and how is that fair? Long Levi 22:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me please

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

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

Request reason:

I have done nothing wrong and do not deserve to be blocked. I attempted to peacefully discuss a matter with someone who is very close to the issue on a personal level. When attempts failed, I moved on. How does that make me a sock?)

Decline reason:

Checkuser has indicated this account is possibly connected to a blocked editor and given the diffs that IrishGuy posted above, I'm disinclined to unblock you at this time. There are simply too many similarities between your edits and the edits of Tecmobowl.— Isotope23 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

Again, I have done nothing wrong. No sockpuppet case was ever raised with me, no checkuser was raised on the noticeboards, and no due process took place. My ip for this edit is 70.223.193.159. That is owned by verizon as i use vzwireless to connect, how does this prove I am a sock of someone? I tried to improve the Hank Aaron article and another user simply bullied me. So I left and went to Hank Greenberg. Pointing out that I have cited some of the same guidelines and policies as the other user only proves that we both reading guidelines and policies. There was no due process and nothing that warranted this reaction. NOTE: I am now editing this page from 75.202.53.176, I simply disconnected and reconnected my internet connection. How does this make me a sock?

Decline reason:

There is an old saying, "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck". As I said in the original decline, there is simply too much similarity here to unblock at this time. Wikipedia isn't a court of law so an argument based on due process doesn't carry much merit either. — Isotope23 23:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are you kidding me? If it looks like a duck it's a duck? So what you are saying is that while there are tools in place to allow people to evaluate these situations openly, you don't care because these guys said I am someone else. I put their link back in and they still bitched about it. I am shocked at this type of behavior and begining to see why Tecmobowl had such a problem with this place. Long Levi 00:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect page of sock from editing

Even under the name Tecmo, he complained of "bitching," as he does above. See [30]. Can someone please just protect this page from editing at this point, as was done on the aforementioned page? He is not worth our time or attention anymore. As the admin said in doing so there, "this isn't productive." Thanks.--Epeefleche 01:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tecmobowl's specific "B-word" entry (and a few other colorful metaphors) are in this diff: [31] Baseball Bugs 01:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]