User talk:X96lee15/Archive 2009

Jason Grilli

Why are you deleting what I am putting in?Brfallon (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I figure you may not check the comment I left for you on my Talk page. Therefore, I pasted it below. I simply want to be able to link the interview to Wiki. Hopefully, that can be done without it being deleted. Alright. I see what you are saying. You took out the Jimmy Scott interview link because it doesn't support the statement. If you listen to the interview, and I am not trying to promote it, but if you do listen to it you will hear Jason Grilli himself talk about Perfect Pitch Marketing. Throwing SPAM around is not on my list of things to do, but I am trying to promote the interview site through Wikipedia just as it is being promoted through Facebook and Myspace. So, is there anyway of keeping these links up assuming I refer to Jimmy Scott's interview with the article's subject and mention pertinent information from said interview in the statement and link them? Brfallon (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Conf standings sorting

I noticed you sort teams alphabetically after conf standing, i've been sorting by overall record 2nd, and then alphabetically. Has any sort of standard been established that you know of? I always thought we went by overall record next, since that is what the major sites like ESPN, CNNSI, etc all do and also the football wiki project. It probably doesn't really matter, but I guess there should be probably be an agreement so that all the templates are the same. Thoughts? Ryan2845 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, I don't think a standard has been established. For more perspective into what I was doing, I was sorting alphabetically, but only because that was the last "tiebreaker". I think the teams should be ordered based on current conference tiebreakers (head-to-head, division record, record vs. first place team, etc.). I do realize that most of the time espn.com, yahoo.com, etc. won't match those tiebreakers, but I think the teams should be sorted by the tiebreakers outlined by the conference. I also realize this information isn't obvious since you have to go to each conference's website, but I think that order is the most "correct" thing to do. It's probably most inconsistent now since there are very few conference games. I think the problem will become less apparent the later the season goes. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

MAC Tournament page

Hi - you seem to be very active on the MAC pages. I noticed you separated out the venue and city info on the table on the Mid-American Conference Men's Basketball Tournament page. I had consolidated those to save "real estate" on the table to include scores, runners-up and MVPs. I'm not hard over about it, but most of the college basketball pages use a Venue (City) format, and it just feels like a disproportionate amount of space on the table goes to location if they are separated out - especially since there is unused space in the venue column. Just curious why you reverted it. Also, wondering if the 2008 seed info should be there since this is the overview page and there is a distinct entry for the '08 tournament. By the way - thanks for all the cleanup and edits on the table and links - you did really nice work cleaning up my entries! Take care. Rikster2 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rik, I didn't notice you had recently changed the Venue City to combine the columns. I just thought it had always been there and my database schoolings makes me think it's bad to have two different types of data in a single field. I don't really have a preference as to what way it goes. I also think the 2008 seeds/standings can be removed too. They were in that article before the 2008 article was created, so it made sense at some point in time. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Round Game

• NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Opening Round Game
• NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Play-In Game

I'm not sure the proper way to move and redirect pages, but it should be under Opening Round Game since it is not longer called the "Play-In Game" Can you move to Opening Round Game the correct way? Thanks. Moonraker0022 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the title should be changed. I think you have to go through the WP:RM procedure, since it can't be done without an admin (normally moves can be done by regular users. I'll start the procedure and let you know. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

About Don Gorske

Can you please respond and let me know when Don Gorske will be done eating all those Big Macs? Thank you. Bob.--76.224.126.22 (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Karmanos

X96lee15: Please stop removing my edits related to Peter Karmanos. As a Compuware employee, I have personal knowledge of the firings I described from 2002. If you are not a Compuware employee, you may not have that same knowledge. If you are an employee of Compuware from that era, you would have knowledge of what I am describing. Wikipedia is filled with information that is from unpublished sources, some reliable, and some not reliable. Deleting someone's edits because they come from unpublished sources means that no controversial information will ever be published within Wikipedia, even if it is completely true. If you have facts that contradict what I am claiming occurred in 2002 at Compuware, feel free to present them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.38 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't help there are unsourced statements on other Wikipedia pages. I just know that the information you're adding isn't sourced properly. With Karmanos being a Living Person, his article is held to "higher" standards than others per WP:BLP. It's quite clear that unsourced or poorly sourced statements should be removed immediately. Note that I left the portion of the paragraph about being criticized for running the Hurricanes because it was sourced. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

X96lee15: Please stop removing my edits related to Peter Karmanos. You now have clearly demonstrated that you are not interested in information about Karmanos, but rather you are a Karmanos "fan club" member. Your biograhical information shows you attended college in the area where Compuware is headquartered and you might be a Compuware employee. Please get over your bias toward positive news about Karmanos and leave my posts alone. Your statement about "higher" standards implies that you believe YOU are the arbiter of those "higher" standards. You are not. The information I have written about Karmanos is 100% factual, whether or not there are published sources that back up the information. Until you have proof that what I have written is not correct, LEAVE MY EDITS ALONE.

You are not the arbiter of correctness: if you have proof that my edits are wrong, fine. Until then, leave them alone. If you continue to remove my edits, I will recommend that your id be blocked from all further Wikipedia edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.38 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that back up the statements, then I will not remove them. I don't have any opinion of Karmanos or Compuware at all. I'm just following the policy outlined in WP:BLP. I don't want to, but I will have to report you to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you keep adding that unsourced infomation. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

X96lee15: As I previously stated, when you have ANY proof that what I've written is not factual, you may remove my comments, until then, leave them alone. Clearly, you weren't there, I was. It is extremely naive of you to believe that unsourced statements are not widely present on Wikipedia. The rapidity with which you deleted my original edit shows that you have a bias towards "happy" information on the Karmanos page; you were monitoring that page - you're not interested in your claimed "adherence to Wikipedia policy." Any impartial party would not have touched the edit that I originally added, but you did. If you remove my edits on the Karmanos topic again, you will have chosen to enter a battle that you cannot win. If you remove my edit again, I will then know that it's my obligation to ensure that your other edits on ALL of Wikipedia meet an additional level of scrutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.38 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I posted our disagreement here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peter Karmanos — X96lee15 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

X96lee15: FYI, that's pretty funny. You chose to ignore my request without offering any proof of my edit's incorrectness and you went ahead and deleted my Karmanos edit, yet again. How else can I say this, other than: big mistake. Your high horse is now taking a tumble down the hills of Wikipedia - who knows where it will land. I've been correcting some of your other unsourced edits on other topics.

I have removed the material. Blogs and messageboards are not acceptable sources for material on living people.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE reform

Inspired by your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Edward Miller, I've started Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ATHLETE revisited, again and I would appreciate your input. --Mosmof (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

RBIs; Jackal4

Thanks. I and some others have had numerous, repeated problems with Jackal4 reverting perfectly good edits, etc. Appreciate your help.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

He continues (see my comments to him on his home page). Pls help. He is ignoring us and Wikipedia, and running amok.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackal4

FYI, Jackal4 has been blocked for the second time this month -- this time for a 30-day period. See [1].--Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I've had my eye on the situation. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to not be civil. Glad he's blocked. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

At bats, RBIs, etc.

Hi ... can you please shed light on the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jackal4 ? This is an issue that you have addressed wisely in the past. And Jackal4 is running around reverting me wherever I use the "s" to denote a plural. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the conversation was removed. I'll keep my eye out though. Appears it's pretty clear that RBIs should be used, based on the WP:MOS — X96lee15 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He removes it, but you can easily read it, by going to history and looking at the last entry prior to his removal.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Breslow

Thanks for your edits .... they were helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

CIT

If you go look at the bracket structure it is formed similarly to the semifinals are in the CBI. The teams get reseeded (Bes2224 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, that's why I don't think we can fill in the bracket yet. Having the bracket insinuates that certain teams will be playing one another in the second round and that's not the case. I think we should wait until the end of the tournament to fill the bracket in. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What if we would break it down into different brackets per each round, to give the page a cleaner look (Bes2224 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)).

Sounds good. I agree it doesn't look good like it is now. Actually, it's probably not a big deal to just fill in the brackets the games go on. I don't think seeds should be added though. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)\

Of if you want I can re do the bracket and we can just put a note footnote that brackets are restructured each round (Bes2224 (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Division I-AAA

You wrote on your action log for your edit at Division I "none of those references say what Div IAAA is what what schools make it up. I had never heard of it, that's why I removed the statement originally". Could you clarify that statement, because I am not understanding what you are asking for. Are you asking for "Division I-AAA" to be defined somewhere? Since you removed it originally I thought maybe you thought it wasn't a term that was used or something. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind; You clarified on the Division I page. I was in the process of adding the above while you were editing. Disregard. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I had hastily reverted the change. Truthfully I had never heard of IAAA until I read that sentence today. I just thought it was some "slang" introduced by ESPN or something. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Its all good; I hadn't heard of it until I read it in that article (albeit before today). When I was searching for the term, the second result (next to the wikipedia article on Division I, haha) was the Division I-AAA Athletics Director Association site. I was going to include that link for a reference, but decided against it originally; Do you think that would be a better link to put in instead of (or in addition to) the other one? Cardsplayer4life (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Null edits

I noticed you reverted some of my "null edits" on the AAA roster templates. Null edits are to say something and all they change is the day it was updated so there is no need to revert those edits.--Giants27 ^T/C 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

But I don't think the "null edit" should change the information on the page to be incorrect. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Graham

What's the 2nd source (other than the tigers.com roster page) that he's suddenly on the 40-man roster? This says he was just brought is as one of many minor leagues to fill in a spot for the day. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The second source I'm referring to is the MiLB Toledo roster page. I find those to be even more up-to-date than tigers.com. That roster lists him as on the 40-man roster. Is it possible he's on the roster if just for the day? Just seems weird to me that the tigers.com roster would add him by mistake. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems even weirder that they would suddenly add a guy who wasn't even in camp to the 40-man roster..... but I guess there is more evidence for than against at the moment... odd that there is no article mentioning a roster move like this.... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember last year during spring training, some guys got added to the 40-man roster by mistake.--OaklandAthleticsfan (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Scorekeeping external links

I recently did a big revision of the Baseball Scorekeeping article, and added several external links which you removed. My opinion is that those external links are very relevant to the article. In my mind the article should not be a scorekeeping tutorial (which is what it was), but rather an introduction to the practice of scorekeeping and an overview of three major methods in use (I just added sections on the two other methods). To me it seems natural that someone interested in scorekeeping will want detailed instructions on one of the methods, so the external links I had posted were to the "official" (or closest to it) sites for each of the three methods, plus a fourth link which was to a gallery of non-mainstream methods.

I think these links are absolutely appropriate and add value to the article (by linking to relevant information outside the scope of the article), but I'm open to discussion. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Areisner (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Nit logo.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Nit logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kalel2007 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Detroit Tigers

Hi where do you get attendance figures? TomCat4680 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

From any of the box scores. I do notice that even if the game is final, the attendance figure doesn't get updated until about 30 minutes later. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't count ones given away free though btw. I was at the Tigers game on May 2 with a radio and they said official attendance was 35,000 something but actual was over 40K because some charity gave away 5,000 free tickets. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey I like your idea of the score linking to the box score. Like I said when I added the expand tag, I think we should go back and do it for every game since opening day. I'll help you work on it after the game (start of 5th no score BTW in case you're not watching / listening to it). Did you watch / listen to it last night? It was a real nailbitter! TomCat4680 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football players from small colleges

Got it, thanks. Must have missed it earlier. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Drew and Mike page

Do you feel people looking for information on the Drew and Mike show are better off with your deletes than my contributions?

I disagree with your removal of the CD Releases as your reference to WP:NOTDIR does not apply. Many articles on Wikipedia feature discographies and include track times, release dates, etc.

In addition, there is no way to 'source' the program highlights. Please reference the similar page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Howard_Stern_Show_games_and_bits and you will see there is no sourcing. Would you say that article should be marked for deletion as well? Letmecheck (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"th", "rd" and "st"...

Why stop adding them? It doesn't make sense when you read it the way that it is...

• Updated after August eight games?

OR

• Updated after August eighth games?

---

And another example:

Carlos Lee of the Houston Astros hits his 300th career home run in a game against the Milwaukee Brewers on August eight.

OR

Carlos Lee of the Houston Astros hits his 300th career home run in a game against the Milwaukee Brewers on August eighth.

---

It doesn't sound right at all without the "th", "rd" and "nd", thus that is why I put them there because it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.148.252 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because you are used to seeing "th, "rd", and "st" written doesn't make them right. Just gonig by your logic, "1st" becomes "onest", "2nd" is "twond", and "8th" is actually "eightth". When a number appears after a month, it is automatically supposed to be pronounced properly, without the additional two letters. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rick Porcello

I would like to applaud you for cleaning up and preventing vandalism on the Rick Porcello article. As you may have figured out, this type of activity is pernicious to the standing of Wikipedia. I have since gotten that article semi-protected. Job well done. Mgmvegas (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) — X96lee15 (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Michigan sports

I noticed you uncapitalized the navbox's title. While grammatically that may be correct, in this instance it is the title of the navbox and should be left alone. The coding for the view, discussion and edits were made for the capitalization so, unless you know how to fix the coding, leaving it capitalized will have to suffice. Besides, there are hundreds of these navboxes on here that are capitalized, so by changing the coding you would have to move all of them. If you wish to do so be my guest, but please remove all the redirects off all the teams pages if you do so. That way the standardization element of the navboxes remains. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I updated the name in the template so that the "vde" links now work. I should have done that at the time I renamed it, but I missed it. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Strasburg's number

Early this week you contributed to the Stephen Strasburg article with respect to his jersey number, making the point that the article ought to reflect the Washington Nationals' current roster. This was in response to an edit I had made indicating that he will wear #37 when he joins the team sometime in the future; you pointed out that the article should reflect the current situation, not a speculative future. I agree with your position, incidentally, and it occurs to me that of course it's always possible that (God forbid) he might never wear #37 if he were injured in the minors or something. Anyway, due to an edit war, the Strasburg article has been protected pending a resolution, so if you could chime in on the talk page, I for one would appreciate it. I've raised the same issue on Template talk:Washington Nationals roster navbox because the same issue arose there. Another user is contending that "consensus" is that Strasburg's jersey number is 37, but quite frankly I don't see how anyone can claim "consensus" for something that either is true or isn't true (and I contend that it's not true that his number is 37, for all the reasons noted on the two talk pages). I thought the position you took on Monday when you said that the "future" status of his number could be noted in the text, but not in the biographical infobox, was a reasonable take on the matter. 1995hoo (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sort on 1968 Detroit Tigers season

Is there some reason this page needs a DEFAULTSORT? According to WP:SORTKEY that you referenced, this is only necessary if there's some process that would use something PAGENAME as the sort key. Also, there's no capital "s" in "season" on this page. That will also throw off sorting under certain circumstances. -Dewelar (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This was the section I was referring to:

Sort keys are case sensitive, so care must be taken in specifying capitalisation. For example, do not begin a sort key with a lower case letter unless you want the article to appear on the category page separate from articles sorted with an upper case letter, under a lower case letter heading. A case-insensitive sort can be achieved by following the convention that initial letters of words are capitalized in the sort key, but other letters are lower case. For example, use "Dubois" in sort keys rather than "DuBois".

The only reason why I noticed that was AWB automatically added the key. I figured the maintainers of that only add rules like that if they're for the "good" of Wikipedia. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it's the capitalization of the "s" that you believe may be needed? I'm not sure you're reading that correctly, but you may be. My knowledge of the sorting mechanism is incomplete, and my knowledge of how AWB works is nearly nonexistent (which is one reason why I do all my editing directly). I've been so busy getting rid of the "Detroit Tigers season, 1968" structure that Ohms law added as the DEFAULTSORT key that I've taken to removing any sort key I see on these season pages. -Dewelar (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic

A tag has been placed on Rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.

I posted this notice since you're the main recent contributor to this article. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Champions Day

Thanks for your help on cleaning up my new page. Yes, it is supposed to be an upper case D on day. Didn't realize I made that mistake until I created the page and was unsure how to fix it. Rrbee (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Good work creating the article. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oakland University location

Hi. I saw your edit and just wanted to mention that the OU property straddles the line between Auburn Hills (originally Pontiac Township when it was first built) and Rochester Hills (originally Avon Township) with about half of the campus located in each city. You are correct that the mailing address has always been Rochester. I am an alumnus from 1978. When I started attending in 1974, Squirrel Road was gravel and Walton was only two lanes from OU into Rochester. Cheers. --Thomprod (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal at MLB season

I reported the IP to WP:AIV. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

MAC and/or Summit basketball pages for this season?

Hi Lee - I know that you work on a number of MAC and Summit pages - would you be interested in starting and maintaining pages for the 2009–10 MAC men's basketball season or the 2009–10 Summit League men's basketball season? There is a group of us hoping to get full coverage of all D1 conferences for the upcoming college baskatebll season. Let me know if you are interested. Rikster2 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'm willing to do my best to keep those pages up-to-date. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lee - wanted to see if you were still interested in doing the Summit page? If it would help, I'd be happy to create it for you if you'd be willing to update it. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

d2football.com

I see you nuked d2football.com. I believe that is a legitimate link and really the only central source devoted to Division II football. Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I agree. I was reverting linkspam from another user and decided to clean up the other links in that section. I should have kept d2football.com I think. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oakland University

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oakland_University&diff=316442652&oldid=316442124

The university touches the Rochester Hills city limits. Rochester and Rochester Hills are two different cities. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why is the mailing address Rochester? That needs to be explained in the intro I think. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The United States Postal Service's mailing address city designations do not necessarily reflect municipal location. Firstly, the university has one postal address, while the physical location straddles two places. Two, as far as I understand, "Rochester Hills" is not an actual postal designation. Anyway, yeah, the USPS mailing address system does not entirely coincide with municipal boundaries.

In Texas there are many unincorporated areas which are entirely governed by the county. The USPS does not indicate "unincorporated" in its addresses. If you want, you can state that the school's mailing address is "Rochester, MI" WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan/Detroit task force. If you want to, please join it. It covers Oakland County. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting attention

Hi; if you're trying to get the attention of User:Levineps, I have found that you need to go to his talk page, or no response is generally forthcoming. I've had a heck of a time to try to get him to talk about the issues a number of users have been raising about a lot of the different kinds of categories he has been creating (not just sports ones). I'm kind of wondering why he's not getting the messages that have been told to him several times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of information from Uniform number (Major League Baseball)

I don't see why the information you have been removing from Uniform number (Major League Baseball) should be removed. Regardless of what you say about sourcing, the site baseball-almanac.com lists all the uniform numbers all major league players held throughout baseball history, besides all the other sources available that list other related facts. Hellno2 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've responded here: Talk:Uniform number (Major League Baseball) — X96lee15 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reese/Jacoby Trophies

Just out of curiosity, how do you find the Reese/Jacoby points? I've been looking all over online for them and can't seem to find them anywhere.  –Nav  ^{talk to me or sign my guestbook} 21:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Shhhhh.... it's completely Original Research :) There was a source at one point that outlined all the points for all the sports for a given season. I reverse-engineered it to figure out how many points each position was worth, given the number of teams competing. I do know that it only accounts for regular season records (excepts sports like XC, where the MAC championship finishes determine the points) and divisions don't matter. For ties, you split the points available for the tied positions amongst the tied teams. I'll try to find that source again. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the Official MAC Results for 2007-08. There are a few different numbers than what is listed here: 2007–08 Mid-American Conference season, but I chalk that up to errors on the MAC's part. The MAC isn't the most professional conference in the world. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

'10 Tigers

Hi just to let you know I've started the 2010 Detroit Tigers season article. If you want to help expand it that'd be great. They've already decided the schedules. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Critical response

I realise you deleted a comment (from the How I Met Your Mother episode The Playbook) and comments can generally be deleted but episode articles should have "Critical response" sections so please do not remove the comment unless you are adding the section. Even if you do not think such sections are necessary (and I tend to agree) if they are added they make the articles better and some editors will delete anything that doesn't have a citation ("the sky is blue") and the reviews contained in a "Critical response" section are very useful to provide citations and help show other parts of the articles are in fact notable. So while you aren't breaking any rules please next time don't delete comments which help point editors towards sections that need to be added. Good television articles like South Park episodes have Reception/Critical response for each episode, the How I Met Your Mother episodes don't but I'm adding some myself and trying to encourage other editors to do so by starting the pages with the right headings until I have a chance to add them myself. Help appreciated. (Reply here if necessary to keep the conversation together.) -- Horkana (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted the comment to "clean up" the article. I didn't know it was part of a bigger goal to include the section on all television series articles. Feel free to add it back. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, seemed like a good faith edit, good to know it was. I've gotten better at not including comments, or figuring out ways to cleanup and include my comments or other editors comments (working comments into the text, providing formatted citations with lots of details, or using the quote box). Since seeing lots of good South Park episode articles I am trying to at least add a review from The AV Club which have good coverage of popular television and if I have time I add other sources too. As I said it is the easiest way to back up "Cultural references" and it does help improve the quality. It's just me working on it but I'm hoping others will think it is a good thing to have and notice the same way I noticed and start doing it too. -- Horkana (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates

I get what your saying with unlinking the dates, but when you unlink them you can no longer choose which way you want to personally to see them (i.e. under my preferences, date format). I like to see them December 10, 2009, not 2009-12-10. Ositadinma 19:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Mine always just showed up as 2009-12-10 (or whatever). I think that's part of the point of the MOS:UNLINKDATES: Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting. I'll go through and reformat the dates on each of the rosters to MM DD YYYY. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now why would you write out the dates like that??? That's ridiculous and unnecessary. The date in the infobox actually has a purpose and should be linked. You seem to have a tendency to misinterpret Wiki policy (i'll leave your dash changes on the Detroit templates for another discussion). The whole point of unlinking dates was for normal sentences that were overlinked for no reason. The 'date-stamp' in the box had a purpose and people should be able to see that formatted properly. Now you've just made it a pain in the ass to update. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I understand the purpose of the date, but why should it be linked? The month, date and year have no context to the template. All policy and guidelines point against linking the dates. I don't care if it's YY-MM-DD or MM, D, YYYY, but it definitely should not be linked. IMO, it's clearer to anyone reading the template what December 10, 2009 is than what 2009-12-10 is.

Just because things have been done one way for a long time doesn't mean that's the best way to do things. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Visitor Record (& Home Record)

The overall wins-losses (-ties if applicable) of the Visitor (or Home) team playing in the game, prior to the start of the game. Not the record after the game. Bband11th (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

But why? That doesn't make any sense to me. Any boxscore for the game will show the records after the game. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)