User talk:Caknuck/Archive 4

< Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  ... (up to 100)

thanks

thanks 4 clarifying that vandal stuff 4 me. I have seen that user or school/whatever, make at least a dozen harmful edits.

i didn't know i had 2 mention them doing it in the last 5 days. thanks a lot Caknuck.

Doctorrob1234 15:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

The user at [1] appears to have created an account in the name of a real person just so he/she can insult that person. I'm not sure what policy this violates, though, in order to say, "Hey, don't do that." Doczilla (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. The talk page has been removed. Doczilla (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've still blocked them. They came off a block 11 days ago and went right back to vandalism. Thanks for letting me know. Creating nonsense pages is considered vandalism, so you can report instances like these at WP:AIV. Other cases where users are attacking folks (whether or not the targets are editors here) should be brought up at WP:ANI. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you kindly for the lovely barnstar! ... discospinster _talk 23:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Page Protections

Hi. Regarding your recent protection of Nestor Aparicio and WNST - why did you fully protect them? Both had requests at WP:RFPP to semi-protect them, due to vandalism, but you fully protected them. WNST in particular, I felt, didn't require protection at all, so fully-protecting them seems a tad over the top. It's quite possible I'm missing something here, so let me know your reasoning. If I don't hear from you within 12 or so hours, I'll unprotect them, and re-evaluate their need for protection. Cheers, _TalkIslander 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but pages are not protected pre-emptively, as per the protection policy. Hmm. I dunno what's best here. Would you object if I took this to WP:ANI to gain a wider concensus from other sysops to decide what's best here, 'cause on the one hand I can see why you protected them, but on the other it seems to me a breach of the protection policy? _TalkIslander 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for pointing that thread out ;). _TalkIslander 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the background on the reason why the pages were being vandalized, I was wondering. I'm a frequent listener to WNST and didn't hear about this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

When radio drama goes bad...thanks for the laugh! Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone's been fucking with your userpage

I semi-protected it for a day to cut down on the whack-a-mole block's I've had to do to stop them. Hope you don't mind. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would I mind? Thanks for the reverts! Caknuck (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Hi, I saw that you had reverted some annonymous edits on my talk page. I didn't even realize they were there until just now when I logged in for the first time in a few days. I don't mind at all that you removed those comments, but I wanted to just get a better understanding on the policies for deleting from a person's talk page. Someone told me that talk pages should not have info removed but rather struck through, is that correct? Or is there some administration policy that you were following? Again, I want to reiterate though I have disagreed with some of Blaxthos' comments, edits and actions, I want to move beyond rhetoric now since it doesn't do anything good really. I would have preferred to have given a reply to those comments in my own way though. If you removed the comments only because of people making silly and pejorative remarks, others have already done that on my page so I am trying to better understand the policy of why one gets deleted and not the other? I appreciate your help and understanding for this matter. Arnabdas (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I replied on my talk page basically saying I appreciate the edit. If that anon wanted to disagree with Blaxthos' edits, he could state that he does and is frustrated that Blaxthos pushes an agenda (in his opinion). No need to call anyone that word here. Thanks for your quick response! Arnabdas (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feloni (2nd nomination)

You might want take another look at your closure of this AFD; the first one had been withdrawn by the nominator (note who closed it and when). It's at DRV now. --Coredesat 13:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I know... I'm the one who sent it to DRV. Caknuck (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bob Stinson

I'm new here, and I'm seeking edification. I understand the use of the {{by}} template; no problem there. But could you explain some of the other changes you made to the Bob Stinson article, especially why the "See also" section was deleted? Also curious about the {{Baseballstats}} template, its usage, and what you changed (I don't notice the change). Thanks. Jonneroo (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate your time, information, and kind words. Jonneroo (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Linking to all-time rosters from player bios

Yeah, I wasn't aware of those discussions. I noticed yesterday that you were doing that because all the pages I created are on my watchlist. I have to say now that it's a relief because, when I create articles, that's a bit less I have to worry about. Ksy92003(talk) 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Derek Bell (baseball)

Here's the link that I got the number off for reference, [2]. Maybe somehow the template needs to be changed to accomodate the retired players, MLB.com should be included for them. But that's my opinion.. --Borgarde^talk 13:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

See User_talk:GhostMask#Block_extended - with the nonsense he put on his talk page after the block, he gave me a bad impression of his intentions here. Friday (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. My suspicions are that GhostMask was a sock of one of the accounts that was causing all the problems at Super Smash Bros. Brawl (poss. User:Rikara), but I didn't have enough to go on to justify an indef at the time. I'll back your extension of the block in case anybody crows about it. Caknuck (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anson

I didn't know if you'd seen my note on the project page about the draft up at User:Fabrictramp/Cap Anson. Feel free to edit away. --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I created a page on Nov 16 2007 that you deleted. I understand why you deleted it and I'm learning more and more about Wikipedia every day. I would like to provide some more references and sources to that page. I thought I would be able to retrieve the information even though you deleted it, but see that I cannot. Would you mind to send it to me? If you cannot, I understand. Please let me know any other suggestions you have that will make my information more valuable to Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Kristahtq (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Like I said, I'm always learning more! I'm certainly new to this environment and it's policies and guidelines. I will have an improved page up soon...that should adhere to them. If not, I'll continue editing! :) Thanks again. --Kristahtq (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Simon message (reply)

Yup. I came across the page when I was doing something else. I have to admit that it looked (ummm....) fishy anyway; I think the David Beckham flatulence section might have caught my attention :O). But the details of Simon's mother being the costume designer on The Man Who Fell to Earth seemed a bit tooooo specific for the average run-of-the-mill hoax, so a quick Google sorted out the source. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFC Backlog Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation needs your help!

WikiProject Articles for creation has done a tremendous job in working at WP:AFC over the past 7½ months. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication! Together, we've made the submission process easier and more streamlined, developed tools to make the process go faster for reviewers, and cut the backlog down to a mere fraction of what it once was. Well done! As you all are aware, however, our work is not quite yet done. The project still has 10 archive pages left to complete, which include over half a month's worth of submissions, many of which have not been completely reviewed. We need your help to finish looking over these neglected submissions so that we can finally remove the backlog notice from the page, and put an end to the more than two year old backlog that has been a thorn in our side for ages! Participants will receive an AFC Barnstar, so hurry up and help out while there's still work to be done! Make sure to sign in on the WikiProject's talk page so we know who is involved in what promises to be our final effort to complete this goal. Thank you for all your help! - Happy editing as always, Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this letter because you are listed as a participant in the Articles for creation WikiProject at WP:WPAFC. To avoid receiving further notices, please remove your name from the list. Thanks!

Cap Anson

Just checking in -- where are we at with Cap Anson? Cheers!--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Baseball error

See my comment here: Template talk:WikiProject Baseball. Thanks if you are able to fix it. -- Mattingly23 (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Caknuck (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

DFW Newsletter

The Dallas-Fort Worth WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1 • March 9, 2008 • Written by Basketball110
News Project news: Thanks to a big effort by Basketball110 and A little mollusk, the project is up and running again. The project now has 29 members, listed here.	Features Featured Dallas-Fort Worth articles of the week: Dallas, Texas Fort Worth, Texas	Collaboration of the month The feature is coming soon. You will be notified when it is ready.
Archives • Project info

If you would not like to recieve this newsletter, please add your name here.

This newsletter was delivered by Basketball110.

Roll call

If you are actively involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, please add your name here. Basketball110 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question

I have replied to your question in my RfA. Aleta ^Sing 00:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Byung-Hyun Kim

Caknuck,

If you have good ideas on trimming the Kim bio, I am more than willing to cooperate. Several people including myself have trimmed and edited his bio here. But your earlier edits were bad and I thought someone has vandalized. One of the improvements you made was this under the 2002 season:

Out of all 36 games he saved in 2002, Kim struck out the highest number of hitters for this save. In no other games that he saved in 2002 - and also in 2003 - he struck out more than three hitters.

What game are you talking about?

And then, what was this?

Kim began the 2007 season with the Colorado Rockies as a reliever after he lost his starting rotation spot to Josh Fogg. The Rockies' decision to move Kim to the bullpen was controversial. Kim contended that changes mad eto his pitch selection impeded his ability to compete for a spot in the rotation.

First, you have a spelling error (mad eto). Second, the issue was more serious. This issue involves alleged deception on the part of the Rockies coaching staffs in selecting the fifth starter. And you deleted Clint Hurdle's response to Kim's charges, thereby just leaving a one-sided story. Your edit created a POV issue here.

I mean, this looked like a vandalism. Yes, different people have different opinions on how this bio should be written but not like this. At least my restorations did not look like a vandalism, even though it always has room for improvement. I mean, you should know why readers like myself would get upset at your edits. You do this and tell me that if I reverse your bad edits you will refer this matter to dispute resolution? That sounded unreasonable.

Let's discuss our concerns more peacefully. When you trim and edit an article, please proofread more than once. WestArmyComm (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)WestArmyComm

I took a look at the article because another editor at WP:WPBB expressed concerns that the article was far too long. I concurred, and our viewpoint has been echoed by yet a third member of the project. In its present form Byung-Hyun Kim is far too long. One of the other editors I mentioned said that I didn't trim enough of the trivial information of the article.

I'm not contending that every edit I make is perfect. If I make errors, especially obvious ones like the "mad eto", I'll own up to them. However, blindly reverting good faith edits a) when attempts to form consensus are actively being made and b) with unnecessarily nasty edit comments show that you are having trouble assuming good faith (see below). You'll have much more success getting your points across if you edit cooperatively instead of adversarially.

Regarding the edit to the 2002 section, I cut out one sentence too much. My bad.

As far as the Kim-Hurdle dispute goes, it should be sufficient that Kim was unhappy with the move to the bullpen. Manager-player disputes are commonplace, and do not need to be chronicled here (except in the rarest of exceptions, like the Reggie Jackson/Billy Martin squabble). Simply stating that Kim was upset with the changes is not adopting POV, it's a clear statement of fact. It would be POV to claim that the changes to his pitch selection were unmerited or unfair, or that Kim was overreacting -- my version does none of that. WP:NPOV means having a neutral point of view, not providing counterpoints to every single statement made in an article, especially when the supporting sources do a perfectly adequate job of covering every angle of a story.

With the mistakes that I made above, it is much more constructive to fix my errors than to do a wholesale reversion. All you wind up doing is upset other editors and put up roadblocks to the eventual goal here, which is to improve the article.

I'll write your vandalism claims off to your relative inexperience. Before you go throwing that word around, read WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF. Assuming good faith is critical to how WP works. Another thing to consider is "ownership" of articles. Make sure you do not take it personally when someone does not agree with you. This is a community of individuals, and people will tell you when they think you're wrong. If you react harshly and impetuously, people will have trouble taking you seriously.

Also, Please read my edit summary again, I said that if you reverted blindly without attempting to come to a consensus, I would refer it to WP:DR. That wasn't a threat nor was it unreasonable, it is exactly how edit conflicts are resolved -- discuss on the talk pages and escalate if you are unable to come to an agreement (or if one party refuses to try to do so).

I'm more than willing to work out the problems with the article. I can direct you to some of the best baseball bios out there to illustrate the ideal level of detail. Also, feel free to ask me any other questions you have about WP. I'm an admin here, and I've been around for a while, so I'll be able to answer almost any questions you have about policy/guidelines/decorum/etc...

Cheers, caknuck _° has a nasty slice in his golf swing 01:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

caknuck,

Thank you for your reply. I posted the similar message like my response to you at the discussion site. BaseballBug asked me what can be done to trim it down below the Christy Mathewson level. I said just revert to your original edits so people can see what you did. So someone reverted it back to your original edit.

It still looks like vandalism. I did not say it was valdalism. I said it looked like one or I thought someone has vandalized. The Wikipedia definition of vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include . . . page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." The 2002 season section still looks like vandalism. I did not say it was vandalism because I wasn't sure if there was a deliberate attempt.

I am sensitive to this cut-off paragraph because it was the one about Kim's shutout save at the Yankee Stadium. This was not a well-known game but a historical game in Kim's career. It was listed as one of many historical moments in Arizona Diamondbacks' team history page on its website. Unfortunately, there are people including some very prominent former Yankee players who blatantly ignore Kim's 2002 season and compare Kim to Brad Lidge, who blew some saves in the 2005 postseason and never recovered from it, and say Kim was never the same pitcher since the 2001 WS like Lidge was never the same pitcher since 2005. Among those who publicly agree on this false claim are former Yankee players David Cone and Paul O'Neill. I watched them saying it during the YES Network's broadcast of the Yankees-Pirates spring training game that had Billy Crystal lead off in the first inning on March 13, 2008. I was shocked because no matter how well Kim did in the 2002 season, there are people including very prominent Yankees who will completely bury Kim's 2002 season and say whatever they want to damage his reputation. And here, this paragraph on Kim's save at the Yankee Stadium was deleted by you, whether you did it intentionally or by mistake.

And the Kim-Hurdle dispute was different in nature from other players' dispute with positions. Your edit does not fully explain the alleged deception in the Kim-Hurdle dispute. I may have to add little more detail to it but I won't do it tonight.

For the next time, if you make such massive trims, please read them over and over so your edits have no clearly visible errors so someone like me don't get surprised. And thank you for your messages. I will keep your message as a reference guide on Wikipedia. Good night.

Cheers,

WestArmyComm (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)WestArmyComm

my RFA

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 18:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking in on Cap Anson

Checking in on Cap Anson (and Curt Flood) again. I haven't heard much from you, so I assume you're swamped. Any luck on reworking the prose on Anson? --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Caknuck/Naming conventions (baseball players)

I went and proposed this as a proposed policy, and I'd like us to try and get this made official (or something similar at least) asap. There are so many different disambiguations for baseball players floating around that centralization on this is sorely needed. Wizardman 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help move this forward. We've needed this for a long time. :)--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nov. 2007 deletion of Retarded Policeman

While I'm not nuts about the series myself (I don't find it terribly funny, and the concept bugs me a little, no matter how many disclaimers they put up that the starring actor is fine with it and enjoys doing the series), it is starting to get some press in outlets that would count as reliable sources. Is there a way to retrieve the original article to see if any of it is salvageable in the event that notability develops? Lawikitejana (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseball stats template

Hi, could you please see my comments on the Template:Baseballstats talk page? I was thinking of adding baseball-reference's minor league baseball statistics source to the template. Think that could be done? Is it a good idea? Let me know. Philatio (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)