Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:37, 20 September 2007

User talk:64.131.205.111 is sometimes used by YoSoyGuapo

June 11, 2006 I made a checkip on a user and it was Declined checkip reason being obvious... . A checkip was done by a vandal and it was allowed allowed checkuser . Can you help to explain to me why this was done. thanks YoSoyGuapo 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You can just ask the person declining on their talk page, I can only see the same as you. It would seem however that they are saying there is no need to run the check as it is obvious they are the same "person". --pgk 20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

E-mail one of these users as to your block. Right now, you are blocked indef. Miranda 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the page: Misplaced Pages:Five pillars.--Commander Keane 20:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, YoSoyGuapo, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --T_{Talk to me} 21:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

Thank you for making a report on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, personal attacks are not vandalism, and should be reported to the Administrators' noticeboard. Thank you!--T_{Talk to me} 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

pretty interesting. YoSoyGuapo 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV Request

Thank you for making a report about 24.199.88.22 (talk · contribs · block log) on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Edits by User:24.199.88.22 seem more like an edit war than vandalism -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Platanogenius

As you have added several suspects to the casefile, I encourage you to post in the evidence section of the casefile if you want them investigated. I have only provided evidence for the original three I posted, so it may weaken the case if we have that many suspects with no additional evidence. If we're going to do this, we should make sure we get it right so the article can continue in peace.--Rosicrucian 23:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also as a reminder, if you add users to the case, you have to notify them on their talkpage as I've done so far, so they know about the case and can defend themselves if they want.--Rosicrucian 00:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Check user procedure

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr 07:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Reporting sockpuppets

I removed your report for blocking sock puppets from WP:AIV. For future references, please report all sock puppets at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. Thanks. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the block report, I noticed that the user was already reported as a sock but persisted on vandalizing. Sorry about that. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no probs. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your RFCU request

Hi! I wanted to let you know that I've moved your Checkuser request from Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jimmyjones1122 to an existing request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Memeco. Your request had these 4 users:

• Jimmyjones1122 -- added to the request
• Memeco -- already confirmed
• Jonathanmbaez -- already confirmed
• EdwinCasadoBaez -- added to the request

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me, and you also may want to watchlist the new request. Thanks! --ST47Talk 00:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

you dont understand

is not that i go against the block...is more than that!i wanted to tell you that they are other users doing reverts and things that are no good at all and that they dont get blocked..but the ones that actually want to do something in this articles and they have done a lot in other articles, they are the ones that get blocked...If you see my contributions and then you see the annonymous IP's contributions you will notice that i have done lot more than other people here!and then i get blocked!this is What gets me angry..please try to realise the situation the Dominican Article is going by right now!You'll understand!Hopefully you do!69.119.127.181 07:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I'm trying so hard not to be desruptive!!!i havent done one disruptive comment!!!i'm discussing different topics!see the talk page!!c'mon...why are you doing this?Dont you see what i'm writing right now!I am discussing a sub-heading of the dominican article called dominican-hatian wars...i havent written anything distuptive!I am just stating my views!!i havent written any personal attacks as i promised and i havent written nothing against my fellow wikipedians!!Read over and you'll see it!!!Check it again bro!....is to hard for me not to edit!!!i love wikipedia and i cant stop discussing topics!!is a great way for me to discuss an idea!but the problem is that when i get acussed of something i have to react...and sometimes i react negatively!69.119.127.181 06:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Topics Needed To Understand Issues on DR Page

Page Dominican Republic history

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dominican_Republic&limit=500&action=history

Dominican republic talk page and history

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dominican_Republic

"Weeeeeeepaaaa!!! 64.131.205.111 16:30, 24 May 2007 - Wepa means cool to which he replied "Actually if you going use Dominican slang use it right...mira te di lu, tamo cloro...oh what should I use your slang okay pai. Avfnx 22:40, 24 May 2007" - which means more or less "look here, what you do in the dark, you take it in the dark" referring to "getting F**** by another male in the dark"
i replied "thats dirty but cute. do you want milk" -- meaning what he said was dirty, do you want milk -- because kids with dirty mouths talk like that
his reply " dejame dalte lu de nuevo, pork parace k te k daste en lo oscuro. ------ en tu cara? tamo cloro or is to much for you. Avfnx 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)" meaning "listen here you dickhead, you freakin take it in the darkness in your face. take it now..is that too much for you"
my reply "Avfnx no eso fue porque tu tio te lo dijo oh cuando tu eras mas joven i despues que tu abuelo te toco el pene" which was "avfnx that wasn't me that was you and your uncle. you learned that after your grandfather touched you."
I never reported these attacks b/c they went both ways and were in spanish.
User:avfnx says I'm calling people mono which he says means monkey, but if you look it up. it means cute. As in, real cute, using sarcasm. He is manipulating and translating words into slang that isn't used by everyone. The arguement in spanish occured over 2 weeks ago my last reply was 3 days ago. Nothing was done about his filthy words which was just as bad even worse. User:Avfnx has stated things in english such as "full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are", "This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR." and more.. he is utilizing multiple IP's to leave wild opinions.

look at contributions and edit summary it gets ridiculous

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dominican_Republic&limit=500&action=history

Avfnx (Talk | contribs) (200,881 bytes) (Calling all Dominican) (cur) (last) 22:37, 31 May 2007 24.199.88.22 (Talk) (163,737 bytes) (explain to me like if I were a 4 year old what was it that sounded antihatian?)
01:41, 31 May 2007 24.199.88.22 (Talk) (158,204 bytes) (Is this an article about the Dominican Republiic or Haiti?)
23:30, 30 May 2007 EdwinCasadoBaez (Talk | contribs) (155,705 bytes) (→Immigration - Emmigration - Trying to fix this place...it looks like some crazy war happened here!)
01:29, 30 May 2007 70.177.181.129 (Talk) (152,934 bytes) (TACKLING THE ABUSES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.)
(cur) (last) 01:52, 29 May 2007 70.177.181.129 (Talk) (146,727 bytes) (SMELLING CENSORSHIP HERE.)
04:32, 28 May 2007 70.177.181.129 (Talk) (133,294 bytes) (WHY THE HAITIAN IS GETTING AWAY WITH THIS?)
21:35, 25 May 2007 70.177.181.129 (Talk) (117,630 bytes) (AN ARRAYANO HIJACKING THE DR ARTICLE.)

Declined checkip reason being obvious... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Platanogenius

allowed checkuser http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/64.131.205.111

both were IP address based.

Responses

I have reverted Bugs' edit and left a complete explanation on my edit summary, I'm not sure what the situation with the King's Daughters is but my guess is that its somehow related to this edit , add a more detailed explanation over it and if he reverts I will talk to him and see what his reasons and point of view are. About the infobox I would change "Up to" to "aproximately" but it seems well constructed, of course the golf information has to be replaced. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Gibson

I'm going on the soapbox for awhile, an uncomfortable position in a baseball game (sliding runners tend to knock it out from under you). I want to explain my position without us getting personal. If you take offense, apologies in advance. And apologies for being so wordy. Genetic defect.

I am a baseball researcher by hobby (computer programmer by trade), and I take everything about baseball's history seriously, especially the Negro Leagues, which have become my area of expertise. Segregation in Baseball remains the absolute worst scar on its face.

In my opinion (emphasis on it being my opinion), Josh Gibson, Pete Hill, Satchel Paige, Bullet Rogan, Oscar Charleston, Andy Cooper, José Méndez, Cristobal Torrienté, and many others men would have easily been Hall of Famers long, long ago had it not been for segregation. It's my belief that given current evidence Gibson wouldn't have hit much more than 500 or so home runs playing a full schedule, given the HR rates of the 30s and 40s (not nearly as high as today), given his truncated career (he died after his 17th season), and given the position he played (catchers just don't play full schedules because of the extreme wear and tear; on the other hand, he might have been converted into an outfielder or first baseman in an integrated Majors, and 600+ would have been a possibility.

Babe Ruth hit 714 Major League HRs; had he had to face Bullet Rogan, Andy Cooper, Satchel Paige, and other pitchers of color, his totals might have tailed down toward 650 or so, and that in a 22-year career compared to Gibson's 17.

What we know is that Gibson is credited with 115 verifiable HR in Negro League play, plus 44 in Mexican League play, which was a bit lower level competition than MLB. Gibson hit .359 against Negro League competition, which would be second highest of all time (behind Cobb) had he done so in an integrated majors, and Cobb's .366 might have lost a few points as well had he had to face Negro pitchers like Lefty Cooper and Willie Foster.

The raw numbers are still small. We can't do anything about that. 115 compares very badly to 714, much less 762. But it's still important to know those numbers, because it's what he did against major league-level competition. What he did against amateur and semi-pro competition in exhibition games is fun to know (if we truly did know), but it is not the true measure of his worth, and (IMO) it insults the man's memory to artificially pad his numbers. Understanding that Babe Ruth hit HIS home runs in a league that played 154 games per season, that homers were easier to hit in Ruth's league than Gibson's (livelier baseballs in the AL), the relative numbers make Gibson look like Ruth's peer.

With few exceptions, there are no researchers who do not believe that Josh Gibson was one of the two or three best pure power hitters in the game, and no exceptions among serious Negro League researchers. We can (and in fact should) report that there have been various reports of his accomplishments in earlier days, but these numbers, taken without any context present a superman as unbelievable as that X-Files episode ("The Unnatural").

You have to trust that the reason for putting up Gibson's reduced stats has a noble purpose. Telling people that Gibson hit 800+ HR and batted .384 against all levels of competition tells nothing really, because he could have in reality hit .200 with no HR against top-level Negro League teams, but fattened up by counting 1,000 games against Little League comptetition. Telling them he hit .359 and had a home run every sixteen at bats in a career that included many games in Griffith Stadium tells them something of importance -- it gives us an excellent clue as to how he would have hit in the Majors, had he been allowed to play.

The "nearly 800" and "962" numbers give us no way of being able to separate them and understand their meaning. An official scorer counted every one of Babe Ruth's HR in his major league career, and we can go back to sources from that day and find it. In Gibson's case, someone reported (sometimes months later) numbers that no one even at that time could verify, because a lot of the numbers were based on hearsay, and some were just plain made-up. We can't tell how many he hit over a 150-foot fence against a 17-year-old kid with a 60 MPH fastball, because we can't separate them.

There's plenty of space on the internet for repeating urban legend as fact. Misplaced Pages should not be one of them.

My proposal is that we rewrite the article to include the latest official numbers, and make sure it is understood why Gibson only managed to play 510 Negro League games in his career. It will include some the most oft-repeated stats that have been used over time, though will also mention that they cannot be verified. We can try to quote some of the speculation by experts about what his career might have been like:

A catcher normally missed 10-20 games per season, so figuring Gibson as playing 2380 games in his career (140 * 17), he could be projected to 536 HR (which would have been second-best at the time). Assuming he go switched to the outfield and played 150 games per season (2550 game career), that puts him up to 575. Adjusting for the fact that he played in a league with fewer HR than the white majors, we can add another 5-10%, jumping that to about 620 HR with a career shortened by early death.

That's what I come up with, and I'm not an expert.

Let's compromise on this, what say?

--- Couillaud 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I'd really like to help on that one (I think it's a good idea for the Negro Leagues to have their own infobox), but I have no idea how to do so. I tried. I failed. Someone with more knowledge of how to manipulate them needs to step in.

--- Couillaud 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

King's Daughters

This one I am very serious about. I have eight ancestors on that list of fille du roi, and I'm very proud of them. Some anonymous jackass kept trolling and leaving racist remarks about French in general and about the fille du roi specifically. He was reverted, but kept putting it back. I finally got Wknight94 to put up the warning you see on that page. Then you came along and keep putting links to those deleted racist remarks, calling them "humorous". You demanded more references without knowing that the three books listed under sources are basically the "encyclopedias" of the subject, and nearly all facts stated (with the exception of those that already have separate sources) come directly from those books (I have two of the books in my personal collection). At least one of the two links you just listed on the Talk page is already on the article page under "External links"; if the other is not, that's where to put it, not the talk page.

I know you were doing this during the lull in the Josh Gibson Edit War (TM) just to hassle me. I'm sure it was fun, but it's time for it to stop. Please stop it. Now.

The talk page is for discussion of the article, as in whether or not to include information from certain sources, whether certain edits violate policy, etc. It is not a place to carry on a private war, ok? I really don't want to have a war over it, even though I believe I'd prevail, and I'd rather settle it peaceably, here and now.

--- Couillaud 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)