User talk:Street20/2007Archive

Duplicate images uploaded[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Manglerreborn.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:59m.jpg. The copy called Image:59m.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You![edit]

You're so quick with your edits, I keep getting edit conflicts like on Mike Hessman, haha!►Chris Nelson 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw there was no article, I decided to make an article on him. Street20 19:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's cool, I'm not pissed or anything, haha. Thanks for helping out on the roster templates, you do a good job and know you're stuff, you're on top of things.►Chris Nelson 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know how things go around now. Been learning a lot since I joined. Street20 19:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! --Sanfranman59 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ankiel[edit]

I have provided six major league baseball players who changed position during their careers and have both positions listed. Three of them changed from pitchers to hitters and have both listed. You, as far as I can see, have no reason or basis to insist in omitting in Ankiel's box that he did in fact debut in the big leagues as a pitcher. Vidor 16:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. --Sanfranman59 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuld & Hart uniform numbers[edit]

Hi ... Do you have a source for Sam Fuld's and Kevin Hart's uniform numbers on the Cubs roster? mlb.com has Hart's number as 55 and Fuld's as 57. They're reversed on the WP roster page. It's crazy trying to stay on top of these rosters when mlb.com's not even always reliable with the uni numbers. --Sanfranman59 01:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an oversight of mine. --Street20 06:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP meetup[edit]

	In the area? You're invited to
	San Francisco Meetup 3
	Date: September 16th, 2007
	Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
	San Francisco Meetup 2

-- phoebe/(talk) 06:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries[edit]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|O sama K|O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please}}}|O sama K}} 16:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Driskill[edit]

Hi Street ... do you have a source for Travis Driskill being outrighted to the minors? Everything I could find indicates that he was optioned to Round Rock on 8/30. --Sanfranman59 06:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Driskill was still on the 40-man, the Astros would have 41 players on the 40-man roster. Here is my source: [1] Look at pg. 9 which is the list of Astros transactions for the year . It says that Travis Driskill was outrighted to Round Rock on August 31. --Street20 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. It's just odd that mlb.com, ESPN, FoxSports.com, Rotoworld.com and sportsline.com all say that he was optioned and he's still listed on the mlb.com roster page. But you're right that 41 players are listed there and that can't be correct. C'est la vie. We do the best we can. --Sanfranman59 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries... yet again[edit]

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -NatureBoyMD 04:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smoltz[edit]

Please stop re-doing your recent edit to John Smoltz. You are mistaken if you believe that is the way infoboxes are done. It doesn't matter if a guy didn't play because of injury; he was still under contract with a team and he was still in the dugout and in the clubhouse. See Mike Hampton for how it is traditionally done. I don't doubt you've seen it done your way on other articles, but I highly doubt that was is more frequent than the correct way, which is to list years WITH an organization.

Also, please stop calling it vandalism because it couldn't be farther from the truth. You know me, you know I've edited MLB roster templates and other things for a long time and I'm not vandal. Please stop making these edits, as they will not be left unaltered.►Chris Nelson 01:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we include when John Smoltz was on the 40-man roster when we don't even include it for every single player? -Street20 04:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to include it for every player. If it's not there, it's a mistake. This is how it's always done. The years are for years with an organization, not years in which they were healthy.►Chris Nelson 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about being healthy, it's about when they played. Can you please show me where it says we are supposed to include each team for every player as said in your above sentence? -Street20 05:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just common sense, and 99% of people will do it that way. Doing it your way implies two stints with the team, when it fact it's only been one long stint since 1988. He was still with the organization as much as ever. He still had his luxury box at games, he was still in the dugout, in the clubhouse, etc. He was a member of the Atlanta Braves and he made millions of dollars from them in 2000. The fact he wasn't healthy means nothing when it comes to him being on the team. It's astounding you actually think it should be any other way.►Chris Nelson 11:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Prodego ^talk 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you don't believe the year he was injured should be included? Was he employed by the team? I don't know baseball, but I know football. Willis McGahee, for example, was on the injured reserve all of 2003 and never played a game until the middle of 2004, but he is listed as being with the team in 2003. In college sports, most players redshirt their freshman year and even after their freshman year, plenty of them don't actually see the field their rs-freshman year. Even in pro football, a third string quarterback like A. J. Feeley will rarely ever set foot on the field, but they are a part of the team and have to be ready to play if need be. Feely played zero snaps for the Eagles in 2001 and 2003 and only played in 2002 because of injuries to the first two quarterbacks. But if he is under the employ of the team, practicing with the team, etc, he is a part of the team even if he never sees the field. Is there anything I've said here that doesn't sound reasonable? Is there anything I'm missing as to why you don't believe Smoltz was a part of his team in 2000? --B 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about when they were injured. I never said that. That wasn't my original problem. You guys are just making up stuff. My concern was never about his health or anything like that. -Street20 03:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is it? That's the only reason he didn't play. He was still a member of the organization.►Chris Nelson 03:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reason is, because he didn't play in 2000, why should we include that year? Pretty much all of the infoboxes I've seen only include the teams and years that they played in the majors. -Street20 03:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was with the team. Leaving it out will mislead people into thinking he had two separate stints with the Braves and was not with a team in 2000, which is not true. He was on the disabled list but he was still with the team as much as ever. It's not the minor leagues - he was in the dugout and getting paid millions by the Braves in 2000. Also, there is absolutely no way in hell other infoboxes do it this way - you are misreading them if you think that. Look man - 99% of people would disagree with you on this, so please just leave it alone. This edit is horribly wrong.►Chris Nelson 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at infoboxes where the player missed an entire year due to injury. Those years aren't included. -Street20 04:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Give me an example.

2. Nevertheless, it's a stupid way of doing things and makes zero sense. So we're not going to do it this way here.►Chris Nelson 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make up anything - I asked for an explanation. I gave you two examples of players who did not set foot on the football field one time during the course of a season - Willis McGahee for injury and A. J. Feeley because he was a backup that wasn't needed. But they still are a part of their respective organizations, they receive a paycheck, and they are considered to be on the team. Gary Roberts (ice hockey) did not play for the entire 96-97 season (injury) but his infobox states he was with the team 1986-present. In baseball, Mike Hampton missed all of 2006 and 2007 due to injury, but he is still considered to be a part of the Braves and his infobox reflects that. If you are under contract drawing a paycheck, you are a part of the team regardless of whether or not you ever set foot on the field during a game. --B 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Manglerreborn.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Manglerreborn.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Strong[edit]

I don't know how familiar you are with the workings of NFL rosters since you primarily edit baseball stuff, but Mack Strong is technically not retired. Retired players go on a list called "Reserve/Retired." Strong was placed on "Reserve/Injured" (more commonly known as Injured Reserve or I.R.) so he is actually still part of the Seahawks and could easily go to camp with them next year. While he may not do that, as far as his status is concerned he's not actually retired. See the Seahawks' roster and their transaction log.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Wright[edit]

Where did you see he was waived by Cincy?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site: [2] Street20 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Williams[edit]

Why would Travis Williams wear 52 for almost a month on the active roster, wear it during regular season NFL games, then all of a sudden be relegated to No. 45 after he's moved back to the practice squad. I have never in my life seen such a thing happen. That month he was on the active roster, he obviously had practice jerseys with his name on the back and 52 on them. He wore them during the week, practicing in between games. So you're telling me that even though 52 currently isn't in use, Williams is being forced to wear 45 when he was just wearing 52 a week ago?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well why can't a player change their number during during the season? It happens all the time. --Street20 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

45 is not a number that can be worn in a game by a linebacker. It has to be in the 50s or 90s. He wore 45 in camp when there were about 80+ players and he kept it on the practice squad because the number rules only apply to games. But once he was added to the active roster, he had to change. So he took 52. It makes no sense for him to go back to 45 once he wore 52 - he'd just keep it because if he's ever placed on the active roster again he can't wear 45.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Earl Everett is also a linebacker on the practice squad and he is wearing #47. --Street20 19:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because he wore it in camp when the 50s numbers were taken, and he doesn't have to change because he's not on the active roster. If he was promoted to the active roster, you'd see him change to a number in the 50s (or 90s). Be honest - you really don't know much about football, do you?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he is #52 then. Aren't there any other sites that have the practice squad roster? --Street20 21:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent NFL roster edits[edit]

I've undone your recent edits to the NFL roster templates for the Browns, Jets, Chiefs and Texans. You have misunderstood what the word "waived" means in this case, and you're also relying on some unreliable websites when it come to things like this. It's not your fault - the more you follow NFL transactions, the more you understand how things work and which sites are reliable or unreliable. So allow me to explain:

Regarding the removal of James Ihedigbo, Scott Jackson, Efrem Hill and Justin Sandy because you saw they were released, were actually "waived/injured." A player that is injured, a they all were, cannot be released outright, otherwise they can file a grievance with the team. So they are placed on Injured Reserve. But to go to IR, they must clear waivers, and that's called being "waived/injured." Since no one is going to claim a scrub player with a torn ACL, they almost always go unclaimed. After this, they revert to reserve/injured - more commonly referred to injured reserve. To verify each of these transactions, see here.

Regarding Hanoian and Hicks, they were released from injured reserve, which can also be verified at the PFW link above. Hanoian and Hicks have the right to file a grievance with the team, but that's their business.

Hope this helps.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Street, all of the players (Ihedigbo, Jackson, Hill, Sandy, IIRC) can all be found in The NFLPA's Active Player salary search feature (just change the year to 2007). This would not be true if the players were truly waived. Pats1 ^T/C 11:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. It's really hard to find a site or something that is 100% accurate and I assume the link that Pats just gave me is a fairly reliable source. -Street20 22:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NFLPA site doesn't list transactions, but it seems almost perfect when determining if a guy is under contract. I don't know how long it takes for a transaction be reflected in the search, but it's very reliable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think another thing you'll learn is that there aren't nearly as many mistakes on the templates as you think you find. Pats1 and I have closely monitored NFL transactions for months now, and while one may occasionally slip past us, they are very, very solid.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only mistakes I really find are position ones and I have found number mistakes. -Street20 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I mean I wasn't saying that in a mean way, I was just letting you know. As for the positions, they aren't so much mistakes as they are changes. If we ever put a guy's position as a certain thing, he had to have been playing it at the time or had played it previously. We're not just guessing. Any inconsistencies are just the result of changes with the teams as time passes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rookies[edit]

To avoid confusion, Pats1 and I have not been italicizing all first-year players on the rosters, but rather just true rookies. By that, I mean a rookie as in a guy in his first pro year out of college, and a first-year guy as in a guy's first active roster year or whatever. In this sense, Kurt Warner was a rookie in 1994 but a first-year player in 1998. So basically, we're just italicizing the true rookies to avoid getting into the complexities of guys without accrued seasons.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But all rookies that I've seen listed on roster sites are 'true' rookies. Harris is denoted a with a 'R' for his years pro. -Street20 06:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose in the sense he sat out 2006 makes him a rookie in their eyes. But again, we're going by the year they exited college football, as oppose to their first year in the NFL.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry I forgot to reply to your baseball template suggestion regarding non-roster invitees, but I like it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troupe[edit]

My bad on Troupe, I got it from Rotoworld and they have year-old transactiosn on each day's page, which can be confusing.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball rosters[edit]

I do feel that if you are changing it to reflect the non-roster invitees.. it should be "40 man roster" rather than "active roster". No one is active right now and these lists include minor leaguers who will definitely not be on the major league roster in the spring. Spanneraol (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active is how they are listed on the official site, if I'm not mistaken. The 40-roster is purely for inactive players, which no one is right now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Chrisjnelson is correct, the 40-man roster is used during the regular season for inactive players. -Street20 00:1*, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The 40 Man roster actually contains all the players on the roster.. not just the inactive ones. Spanneraol (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

please do not remove the categories of teams as you did with Torii Hunter, I know he hasnt played a game with the Angels, but I seriousley doubt the Angels will trade him or release him before he does play a game with them, and if they do, we will just remove that category when it happens--Yankees10 (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Palko[edit]

I have corrected your edits to Tyler Palko's page. Your edits removed the proper links to the team, messed with the wording of his present status and were grammatically incorrect. Do not further disrupt the page with such edits as seems to be a pattern. As it is still the 2007 season, you do not put "- present" either. Your changes disrupted the infobox. Your previous edit of stating he was on the team was incorrect and factually a lie. Continued edits in this manner will be noted. KellyAna (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing flags from MLB rosters[edit]

Since you're probably the main editor of those 30 templates, will you help me remove the flags from NFL rosters but using the method I've already implemented at Template:Baltimore Orioles roster? I hope you will agree with my edits. First of all, I'm sure you're aware there are endless mini-edit wars regarding players born in one country but being a current citizen of another. Secondly, and more importantly, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) makes it very clear that flag icons are not to be used to imply nationality or birth places. Do you agree, and if so will you help me implement this?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that they should be removed. I am getting tired of the edit wars because there seemed to be a dispute over whether or not it the flag icon should represent their nationality or their birth place. I will do them right now.

Cool. I'll help out, but I'm not really up to it tonight. I'll do some tomorrow.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the two recent changes that you made to the rosters, but not because I don't agree that the flags should be removed per the style guide. Instead, my concern is that switching to a pile of HTML code makes the roster harder to maintain and more error prone when changes are made. Instead, I noticed that Rabbethan just created the template {{MLBplayer}} that is the same as {{Player}} without the flag. Might I suggest that you use this instead? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source info in articles[edit]

Your edits to Tyler Palko were reverted because you did not source your changes. The constant changes of the New Orleans Saints must be referenced when you make major changes. KellyAna (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]