en User talk:SERSeanCrane Archive 1

Quackery CFD

The discussion is here [1] --Lee Hunter 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SERSeanCrane 16:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Dr_earl_mindell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dr_earl_mindell.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcome and adoption enquiry.

Hello SERSeanCrane! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! (aeropagitica) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Adoption

Would you like to be adopted? Let me know which areas interest you here on WP and I might be able to help! A message on my Talk page is the best way to contact me. I am on UK time (GMT+0), if that is an issue. (aeropagitica) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption: Sounds good. I've been working on some random articles...I'll try to narrow an interest list at some point but for now I've been checking the recent changes area. SERSeanCrane 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Let me know if you have any questions about editing or participating in Wikipedia. There are many ways of contributing to this project and perhaps I can assist you in finding something that meets your needs and plays to your strengths as a researcher? Please don't feel afraid to ask a question. I'll do my best to find an answer for you. Half the fun of adopting people is discovering new information for myself with questions that I have not yet thought about asking! Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dealing With A Vandal

I'm dealing with a vandal from the Arizona Diamondbacks that's pretty relentless. I've warned and now reported the individual but the page is still being vandalized. I have no problem reverting it myself but just for reference, is there somewhere we can request anti-vandal editors for a page? SERSeanCrane 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you are dealing with a vandal and you have warned them up to {{test4}} without getting them to stop you can report them for administrator intervention. This allows an admin to assess the situation on the page and possibly block the editor if they persist. For IP editors use the code {{IPvandal|<IPaddress>}} and for logged-in editors use {{Vandal|<vandalname>}}. (aeropagitica) 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But in the mean time is there somewhere one can go to have a page watched by a task force or something along those lines? SERSeanCrane 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I looked into the issue a some more and you are correct that the editor is causing problems. I wasn't aware that the Diamondbacks changed their color and logo. Looks like the fan is very unhappy about the change. I would block him, but another admin issued him a "final warning" a few minutes ago and he has not done any edits since then. -- Gogo Dodo 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I reverted him again and temporarily blocked him. -- Gogo Dodo 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

Thanks for blocking 63.250.143.9. Was that the proper place to report repeat offenders? SERSeanCrane 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, WP:AIV is the correct place to report vandals who continue to do so past the {{test4}} warning. (aeropagitica) 21:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at the Tim McCarver article. I tagged the intro with 'fact' but I think it may just be vandalism. SERSeanCrane 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Mc McCarver is being attacked by someone with a grudge, from several IP addresses and a joke account. I removed the unsubstantiated POV comment - no point tagging something like that with {{fact}}. You either provide the proof at the time of the edit or you don't make the edit. If one editor makes the same edit three times in a 24-hour period then they are liable to break the three revert rule and can be reported to AIV for blocking. You should also look at WP:NPOV to see what Wikipedia policy is on point-of-view material. You're doing a good job with the vandals, well done! Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these vandals guilty of "3RR" at this point? Am I guilty of "3RR." (Tim McCarver) SERSeanCrane 14:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor may be guilty of breaking the three revert rule when they place or remove the same section of an article three times in one twenty-four hour period. The exception to this is the editor who reverts the first editors' efforts. Vandal fighting is not considered to be a violation of 3RR. You can confirm this with a check of the editor's contributions and looking at the diffs supplied. If you find someone who is guilty of doing this, you can report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for action. Don't worry, you are not at fault when you are fighting vandals in this manner! (aeropagitica) 15:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith

Hi, I noticed you've added assume good faith warnings to a couple of user pages, it's never a good idea to use the standard templates when dealing with experienced users (one of which, Eagle_101, is an sysop here). In future, you should take time to compose a more informal comment detailing why you think the user has not assumed good faith with their editing. --Kind Regards - Heligoland ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're in the same boat regarding MySpace -- director Jon Favreau wants to communicate with his fans for his film Iron Man using MySpace. While I understand the general concern of using blogs and Myspace, methods of usage like the ones we're addressing should be acceptable. I've tried to initiate discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Myspace. Feel free to add your $0.02. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why they're treating Myspace blogs like they're inherently inappropriate. I don't know if we're going to change any minds, despite the policies we've cited being purposely ambiguous for situations like these. Makes me wonder how many articles lost valid citation in the deletion spree. Hopefully we can stir up some discussion regarding this situation at the talk page for WP:RS. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's not going to listen. Don't worry about him; it's like talking to a brick wall if he can't even take your points into consideration. Let's let the issue go and see what can be discussed on the talk page for WP:RS. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a separate but similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Myspace. Feel free to check it out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Support and/or Clarification

I could use some help either through clarification or support. I having what is essentially turning into an editing war with two anti-spammers at the Darren Hayes article. The issue is what constitutes as an acceptable source. I listed my explanation at the Darren Hayes article discussion page as well as the its edit history. I've since pleaded my case at User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon (see Good Faith Explanation - I wrongly accused him of reverting my edits in bad faith) and Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/January_2007/SERSeanCrane. I know this is a lot to ask but I trust you'll be able look through this stuff and give me a NPOV on my actions. SERSeanCrane 04:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look through the links you have provided above today. Just for information, definitions of reliable sources are available from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. (aeropagitica) 07:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Myspace SERSeanCrane 07:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have read through the comments at User_talk:Eagle_101#Apology and User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon#Explanation_of_Good_Faith_Warning and I agree with the points that these editors raise. Myspace is about promotion of artistes over-and-above communication of their artistic endeavours. Linking to Darren Hayes' Myspace site is an endorsement of his interpretation of his career, which can be biased in his favour as he is the primary author, unlike a neutral third party reliable source. I would also say that characterising Eagle101 and Wizardry Dragon as 'anti-spammers' is a touch unfair, as they have good reasons for their decisions - that's just my opinion, though. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardry Dragon is being requested to become an admin. You can see the nomination here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wizardry Dragon. I've made my argument. If you have any of your own, feel free to present them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Members' Advocates

As part of the Association of Members' Advocates, I have recently taken your case with regards to the Darren Hayes article. This case was brought to the AMA's attention by you and it concerns Wizadry Dragon and Eagle 101. I have a minor request, please post all comments concerning this dispute on the case page, found here, I believe that given how isolated your case is now it will make everyone's life easier if we keep it in one place. I ask you to briefly and simply post his accusations under the Discussion section, and then I have asked Wizadry Dragon and Eagle 101 to each briefly respond once. This will give me enought time to read up on the case. I look foward to working with you to solve this dispute, and just so you know, I am always availible from 11p.m. US Eastern time to 4 or 5 a.m. --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 09:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added the page to my watchlist. A new development -- someone at Wizardry Dragon's RfA said that Raul654 had added blogs\.myspace\.com to the spam blacklist. Apparently, the "s" in blogs was a typo, so it's been corrected since. I contacted Raul on his talk page, and he said that the best course of action would be to add valid Myspace blogs to the spam whitelist, which overrides the blacklist. Since the blacklist request was by Jimbo himself, I don't know if it's worth pursuing to aggravate the powers that be. However, Wizardry Dragon never mentioned this when we discussed the issue with him, so he may not have been justified before, though he is now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I see that you want it to be resolved, and I'm glad you all could work that out - congrats! Now all you need to do is fill out the section at the bottom of the page (where you pretty much say if i was disrespectful or not, if you like the AMA ect.). If you need any help feel free to drop me a message on my talk page! --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 18:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AutoWikiBrowser

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. Regrettably, I have declined your request as you do not have 500 mainspace edits. You are welcome to apply again at a later time. Feel free to contact me with any questions, alphachimp 05:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for completing the stub

Thank's for completing the Vegard's Law stub. --LtlKty 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC) talk [reply]

Newhan

Anytime. You were correct. I googled the issue, and there was no support for it, really. --Epeefleche 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Baseball

File:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg

Hi, and welcome to the Baseball Wikiproject! We are a group of editors who love the sport of baseball and work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this sport.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Please add {{Baseball-WikiProject}} to the talk page of the article.
Looking for something to help with? Please see our article to do list or project to do list. You may also be interested in joining one of our task forces, we have task forces for baseball players, Old-time Base Ball, and Little League.

If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow baseball editors can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page.

--Borgarde 01:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question

It's been a while since I've had questions, how've you been? Hope is well in your neck of the woods. Things are just fine on this end. I've found a project to jump into, Project Baseball / Project Baseball-Players, and I've been keeping my pet-project "clean" - Earl Mindell.

In joining these projects, I recently started an article on a player that did not have one, Adam Bostick. There are a few other players I have interest in doing this for, and my question has to do with uploading pictures. As you can see here, I've supplied reasoning for fair use rationale but I was hoping you could elaborate on the process of determining if such rationale is proper. Any advice you can offer in this realm would be much appreciated, thanks! SERSeanCrane 16:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! This is a tricky one, with each side having merit in this debate. The rationale for Wikipedia is that the project cannot infringe copyright, which is outlined in Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Fair_use_considerations. The guidance at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images suggests that publicity photos - as your example appears to be - may be used for identification of the subject, with the corollary that the publicity photo could potentially be used for a limited time until a photo of the subject is taken and uploaded under the GFDL licence. This is always going to be an equivocal point on the project as actions taken with the best intentions don't allow for leniency in the eyes of the copyright holders if they choose to enforce their legal rights to their images. If you have searched high and low and asked for a photo taken by an amateur/fan that could be released under the GFDL licence and come up with nothing other than the uploaded image then that may be the best argument that you have. If it is deleted then it is with the best interests of the project at heart. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicommons

How does the commons work? I uploaded pictures (which I've taken myself) to the commons and I'd like to use them in place of the copies I currently have on wikipedia. How do I link to the ones in there? Do I need to? SERSeanCrane 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicommons is a media repository that can be accessed by the other Wikis in the Wikimedia Foundation Project. The advantage of uploading an image there is that it is a single upload for multiple accesses. If the image was uploaded to Wikipedia, it would then have to be uploaded to each additional WikiMedia Project for use on their pages. This places an unnecessary burden on the servers which use of the Wikicommons project attempts to resolve. Linking to an image on Wikicommons is simple, it is done in the same way that you would link to an image on the Wikipedia servers. The format [[Image:200508-DSCN0310.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Congratulations]] shows that no special pathway to Wikicommons is required to be made. The Wikipedia servers can locate the image in Wikicommons automagically. Regards, (aeropagitica) 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in

I may need you to weigh in on the ethnicity issue on another page, if you have the time and inclination. Tx.--Epeefleche 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just let me know. SERSeanCrane 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. --Epeefleche 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Edit Counters

SERSeanCrane 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Replaceable Fair Use

Thanks for uploading Image:Shawn Green.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in addition to the above, Image:J.Standridge.jpg has also been marked as fair use. The reason is that, while you may not have been able to find a copyright free alternative, it is not considered unreasonable under Wikipedia policies to create a free image showing what this person looks like, since he is a living person who makes regular public appearances. Mosmof 19:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hey, thanks for the barnstar of good humour. Great to see some people who actually realize that it was meant to be a joke. PopeofPeru 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Scientific Peer review

I'm not sure that SPR is the place to get a response on Earl Mindell, so I have also added it to WP:PR. I am experimenting putting them on there anyway in addition to SPR. --Bduke 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{scipeerreview}} tag on Talk:Earl Mindell. I see you are having a revert war. I tried to revert myself, but you got in just before me and did it. I'm not sure any peer review system is good for a content dispute. --Bduke 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:262218~Paris-Hilton-Posters.jpg

Well, the license used for the image is {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}, not fair use, though I think it's bs - nothing at the source says it's free use.

And I don't think it's fair use - Paris appears in public a LOT, so it's not impossible to get a free image of her. I'll list it as a copyvio since the license used is bogus. --Mosmof 07:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a screenshot of a player wouldn't be usable, since it's covered by Wikipedia's replaceable image policy - it's reasonably possible for someone to go to the ballpark and take pictures, so copyrighted images isn't considered necessary. Exceptions are cases like Bill Buckner's error, since it's a notable moment and it won't happen again.

With pictures of athletes, the big question is, is the picture itself notable, or is the person in the picture notable? If the picture itself is worth discussing, then it's probably okay, but if it's just a picture that shows a famous person, then it's not. Hope that helps. --Mosmof 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Netconcepts does not meet the meet the criteria for speedy deletion, as per policy and as per what the tag says, I have removed the tag. If you feel it should be deleted please take it to AfD Brian | (Talk) 04:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob :) Sorry for been abrupt in the edit summary as well Brian | (Talk) 04:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samwell

A page recently deleted (Samwell) was remade in protest. In needs re-deleted, but the editor has requested a copy of the old page. Is that a possibility? SERSeanCrane 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - just go in to the deleted edits, select the most recent version and place the text on to a user sub-page, such as User:(aeropagitica)/subpage, where 'subpage' is the article title. That should leave it free for the user to edit the text or copy it to their hard disk or other storage medium, if they prefer. (aeropagitica) 05:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste moves

Please do not move pages by cutting and pasting content from one page to another. This destroys the edit history which is required under the GFDL. I have undone your cut-and-paste move of Tsuchida Production. Please note that there is no "s" on the end of the company name. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evoken albums

You "prodded" all 3 Evoken albums, which is a notable band (has 3 full-lengths) per WP:BAND. And per WP:album their albums are notable. Being unsourced isn't a reason to delete. Spearhead 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AdamBostick.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AdamBostick.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 24.184.177.78 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bostick

What is your obsession with this guy, first you put up a copyrighted photo then you add a pic that you can barely make out a face from, which will be deleted in the next 7 days anyway because it's terrible quality. The guy has never thrown a Major League pitch, the guy doesn't even deserve to even have a picture on his page. At least when you start putting pictures up on player's pages at least try to make sure they have done something with their playing career instead of being a minor league nobody. Players like Glavine, El Duque, Delagdo, and Reyes have zero pictures on their pages but you are so obsessed to make sure a player with no major league experience gets a picture on his page. I don't get it. Why don't you try to enlighten me. 24.184.177.78 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to get broad coverage of Mets' players. Your take on such actions is irrelevant to me.

P.S. Why don't you go ahead and sign in, User:Em0909153. SERSeanCrane 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your taking for being a jackass are irrelevent to me. The idea is to have uniformity across the pages, that picture is ugly, hideous and your treating him as your lover. And broaden the coverage of Mets players? How about broaden the use of New Orleans Zephyr Players?

The Original Barnstar

Thank you. TerriersFan 01:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

(aeropagitica)'s userpage

Thanks for watching my back - good catch! (aeropagitica) 23:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I think the best thing is to leave a polite message asking them to be WP:CIVIL or use one of the templates at WP:UTM, and let it go. I think they'll get bored and go away, but if it continues, you can take it to te administrators. --Mosmof 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the user and if these attacks continue I will block them. Please keep me informed. TimVickers 17:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Good work fighting that vandal on the Moises Alou page. I have no idea for the life of me how that pic is "disgusting". Quadzilla99 17:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the whole thing was ridiculous and is a candidate for WP:LAME. Quadzilla99 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally do you see any reason to call the pic "disgusting"? Quadzilla99 22:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! Though it'll probably be deleted anyway - seems wikiVanity will remain in order after all. SERSeanCrane 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spaulding

Thank you so much for reverting the vandalism. I'll try to find out who did that when we get back from vacay. It had to be someone in the school. And thanks for having my back multiple times, especially about Saint Monica's Church Bmrbarre 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The 69 Eyes

I can't believe you tried to say they're a non-notable foreign band. I've removed the message. Nickoladze 12:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Re: Spaulding

No problem. Good to see you got adopted by Terrier. He does good work. SERSeanCrane 20:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Terrier is a great guy, and a good editor with good policies. Thank you for the suggestion, I can tell I'm going to need that mentor over my shoulder. Terrier certainly knows more about policy that I do. Bmrbarre 01:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

free image request

You might want to go for 150 px rather than 90 in order to make text more visible.Genisock2 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've posted a comment/question at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#No free image available. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point of these on the pages, they are big, look like a dead link, why are we putting them up on any pages. They are 1000% unncessary, it does not take brain surgery to add a picture to a players page. LetsGoMets11 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the image is to encourage readers/editors to add free pictures, should they have them. The how-to is merely a bonus for anyone that doesn't know the specifics of the procedure. SERSeanCrane 14:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making it your personal vendetta on putting these up, they should talked about before going up, there is NO policy that these should be on players pages, and as I said before it makes the pages uglier, looks like dead links and adding a picture is not brain surgery to add, all of these should be removed. LetsGoMets11 14:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal vendetta? Are you kidding me?

Look, as far as policy goes, while there may not be a policy FOR the images, there certainly isn't any policy AGAINST them. See Wikipedia:Finding_images_tutorial#Ask_other_Wikipedians if you don't believe me.

Second-ivly, ugly is rather objective and I really don't see your point in this regard.

(You wouldn't say this image looks ugly, would ya?) File:Bostick.jpg

Finally, technical things like wikipedia may feel like brain surgery to some. You shouldn't assume that everyone would easily figure it out on their own. It certainly doesn't hurt to add such a mini-tutorial. SERSeanCrane 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Point is this, these things should be talked about in discussion before you decide just to add hideous looking dead link photos to pages. I don't see your point in that picture, and how did that go into the fray, but in my opinion it looks like a random guy that no one would have any clue who it is. I don't even know who it is. But the point is to discuss these things before you do massive edits. 15:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Note that this has been discussed at length because Wikipedia:Finding_images_tutorial#Ask_other_Wikipedians recommends such images. So far you're the only editor who has had a problem with these images. I don't what to tell you except to find some support and centralize the discussion so that it can be decided, once and for all. SERSeanCrane 15:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color

If it's been talked over then no problem, the original didn't look even slightly orange to me at all. I really have no preference I'm not a Mets or Giants fan just saw those articles while browsing. Quadzilla99 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problem, I took them all out. Quadzilla99 19:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newhan - Are Spring Training Stats Trivial?

not for guys trying to make the team in spring training, they are not. more important than minor league stats, as the major league staff is watching. imho. --Epeefleche 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to post stats for Milledge, Ben Johnson, Anderson Hernandez etc?? The thing is, minor league stats are conserved and remembered years to come...they span a greater amount of time and show development. Spring training stats, more or less, are thrown out the window...it's a time for pitchers to try new things and it's more about getting into shape. We can discuss this further but it probably be best to refer it to wiki-project baseball. SERSeanCrane 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I followed them, yes, I would post their stats.

Spring training serves different purposes for different players. What you say as to spring training being about getting into shape is the case for players who have made the team, but that is not what it is about for Newhan. For Newhan, it is about impressing Willie and the coaching staff, so that they pick him for the team.

And as to spring training stats being thown out the window, the trend is the reverse. See, for example, http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/N/David-Newhan.shtml , in which you can see that Newhan didn't have very good springs hitting wise in 2005 and 2006.

As far as referring it to wiki-project baseball, that sounds fine to me if you are unwilling to undo your revert.

Might I prevail upon you to do it for me, as I am not sure how that is done.

Thanks. --Epeefleche 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See [here] and [here]. SERSeanCrane 03:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
Join our mailing list
Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 04:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please cite sources

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Mats Söderlund, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mindellcbc.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mindellcbc.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SERSeanCrane/Archive 1