Thanks for your proofing of the Oscar Robertson article. Your efforts there were noticed and much appreciated. In case you didn't know, there are a number of NBA-related articles currently being pushed for GA or FA status at this time that could use a similar scrubbing. If you have the time, interest, and motivation, the articles George Mikan, Wilt Chamberlain, and Bill Russell (which already has FA status) could use some of your editorial scrutiny. Myasuda 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you be interested in helping on my project? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 34#Request for help!. --CPAScott 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this when this is just a copy and paste from the main site? HouAstros1989 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I goofed. Thanks for cleaning up my mess at Template:St. Louis Cardinals roster! --Sanfranman59 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. At various times I've added what I know about the Cardinals to the main article. I don't know enough about them in the kind of detail needed for in-depth year-by-year pages, nor do I have the time to research it, to be of much further help. d:) Wahkeenah 11:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respond to your inquiries there. Quadzilla99 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand more (on the Pardon the Interruption talk page) on your comment about the failed GA nomination, like what places in the article need more/better citations, if it wouldn't be too much trouble? bmitchelf•T•F 04:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been attempting to reach a consensus regarding retroactively awarded championships on the Gophers' talk page. It would be helpful if you could contribute to that discussion. matt91486 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Would you have any interest in contributing a suggestion or adding your support to the nomination of Derry City F.C. for featured article status? Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 02:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim! I don't mean to sound rude, but the recent author requested deletions you put up at CSD, caused a severe backlog. Just try and space it out, for e.g request one be deleted every one 10 minutes or so. Thanks! Regards, Rudget. 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your kind comments. It's nice to have all that hard work recognized and appreciated. As to your 7 points:

1. Separation of footnotes and citations This was copied from a featured list candidate in WikiProject Basketball, and I think it works really well. You can drop me a line if you have any questions about it, but I think it's pretty simple.
2. The inclusion of the current season This was actually part of the peer review and candidacy for this list, because originally the lead of this article said seasons completed. However, the problem that we have had is that there are a lot of zealous Phillies fans who want to update the record, and if I take off the current season, I'm afraid it will cause a lot MORE edits to the list because people want to see it updated. In addition, that bottom part of the list gets a lot more exposure than the full body because it's transcluded into the article Philadelphia Phillies, so it offers a lot more opportunity for people to see it and try to make an edit that they may not know how to undertake. I really don't have any moral/ethical problem removing it or anything like that, but for simplicity's sake and to save my own sanity, I thought that it might be better to leave it.
3. Column headers I did notice that in your list, and I understand the reasoning behind it, but I thought that it was not as aesthetically pleasing as I might have liked. I've been investigating if there is a different way to put the table together so that the column headers wouldn't have to be repeated all the time, but so far I haven't come up with anything; if I do, I will let you know.
4. Championship highlighting style I was actually surprised that this didn't come up in the candidacy review, because your list was the only FL in baseball for comparison. I thought about changing it several times, but no one mentioned anything. I will fix that as soon as I have a chance.

Y Championship highlighting has been standardized. KV5 (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Totals at the end of the list This code was copied directly from New York Yankees seasons.
6. Seasons columns wikilinks I will go back through and check out those links so we can get standardized.
7. Did You Know-style footnotes This is a great idea; I will go through and see what interesting facts I can find to add to the table so it isn't so dry. Thanks!

That's all for now. Let me know if you have any questions about anything I wrote. Thanks again! KV5 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the CNN/SI article ([1]) about Ozzie's rank among shortstops for different fielding stats. Unfortunately, I do think it is too outdated to be of much help. As you can see my by last edit to Ozzie's stats, Vizquel now has the lead the in games played at shortstop, and the reference I found here ([2]) says Vizquel now has the top spot in most career double plays at short. I've found a source that confirms Ozzie is now second in career double plays, so I'll add that in soon.

Thanks again for your help, and definitely feel free to add in anything to the stats section if you find a good reference for it. Monowi (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Tennisball, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tennisball. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--  jj137 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to write you a quick thanks for taking the initiative to found Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals. Getting the chance to combine my thirst for knowledge & my love of the Cards via the WikiProject is something I enjoy day in and day out, and I'm not so sure I would've have contributed to Wikipedia as much had I not found the project. I would like to award you our project's award, but the template or something seems to be screwed up. Anyway, if it really is the thought that counts, I wanted you to know my appreciation. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your changes to this page, as they returned empty, incomplete, and approximated columns to the stat tables, as well as undid some of the the work that was done to standardize their layout. -Dewelar (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's "standardizing" in that it is how all other team-season pages are laid out on Wikipedia. Starting pitchers and relief pitchers are as verifiable as calling someone a second baseman, in that that is the role in which they were used the most of the time. If it's not easily ascertainable, that's the purpose of the "other pitchers" section. If you'd like to discuss the issue, please feel free to bring your concerns to the project talk page. -Dewelar (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The starting position players are drawn from Baseball Reference, which is noted on each team page as one of the references/external links. Not original research at all.

As far as what I'm adding, you are correct that much of what I'm doing is adding empty stat blocks where there are either older ones or none at all. However, my eventual intention is to fill those, although that will take me a long time. I have completed the stat entry for all teams for 1876 through 1882, and am working on 1883. These tables are not as extensive as yours, but they are a start. However, since I am doing this as a tertiary project in addition to creating the tables for List of Major League Baseball players subpages, and creating pages for players who have none, it will likely be years before the work is complete. Since, as you note, I'm pretty much the only one doing it (although Spanneraol is doing rosters), I'd welcome some assistance. -Dewelar (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to answer your other question. The format was decided, I believe, back in 2007 (or perhaps earlier), when Soxrock created a huge batch of team-season pages. I made some tweaks to it, which I noted at the project talk page, as well as the standardization task force page (which I think is pretty much defunct), in September of last year. -Dewelar (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a reference that Deasley was born in Ireland. Baseballreference has him listed as born in Philadelphia, PA. Can you find anything? Flibirigit (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Over the last week or so I took the stub article Lew Carpenter up to or close to B class. It needs to be re-rated from stub. Would you be so kind to take a look at it? Because of his recent death, the article has been getting a number of hits. Please let me know if there is any portion holding it back from B class. I will fix as needed.

Thank you in advance. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Indiana Daily Student letterhead.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. MGA73 (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]