Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 15 January 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Katydidit, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Rklawton 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC) == All Star game just so you know that wasn't a hit it was a errorCount druckula (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cardinals game log

Hi. Please try to be more careful when you edit Template:2007 St. Louis Cardinals season game log. The background color for wins, should be bgcolor="bbffbb"; for losses, use bgcolor="ffbbbb". The last couple of days you've changed the background color for their four most recent losses from ffbbbb to bbffbb. Thanks for your efforts at keeping the log up to date. --Sanfranman59 17:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

You gonna take the Yankees-Cleveland game tonight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madretsma (talk • contribs) 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Postseason

Hi, you might find me updating game also. Do you use gameday on MLB.com or do you actually watch? VoL†ro/\/Force 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Watch. Use GAMEDAY also for confirmation or when not watching at times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katydidit (talk • contribs)

All Star Game

Hello. I just want to let you know that you are doing a good job on my Sandbox page, and I really appreciate the help. I didn't think anyone would be helping me with this, so I really appreciate it. Thanks again. Shawn W 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how to make the 'All Star Template' appear only at the bottom, as well as the 'Confirmed future sites', so the actual table appears at the top of the page?? Shawn W 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome! Thanks for the thanks. It was just something I thought I could help with and I had some free time. As for your question, I'm not sure I understand it completely, but I think you just copy the " ===Header Name=== " you want on a page where you want it to go and that should include a Template name. --Katydidit 01:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have the table that lists the individual years (the one right in the middle of the page above the results table) listed on the bottom, like it is on the main Major League Baseball All Star Game page. Do you know how to do this? Shawn W 02:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

On the 'External links' section of that main page, below it is the little box with all the years listed. If that is what you want copied elsewhere, just click on 'edit' of that 'External links' section, and just copy-paste this:

where you want it to go. I believe that is what you want copied elsewhere. You have to identify the " ] " command (what I call it) that corresponds to the detail you want copied elsewhere, if not the entire section-header " ===Header Name " as I mentioned earlier. I'm a beginner on editing and just picking it up as I go along.

Now that the ASG table is finally finished (I added the missing Attendance figures earlier tonight), are you (or someone else you know) going to do all the individual detail years of all the other AS Games that aren't done yet? In that little box with all the years, these come up as needing editing: 1941-1944, 1946-1956, 1958, 1960-1976, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984-1985, and 1987. --Katydidit 02:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I put the years table explicitly on the page as you can see. What you do is put TWO BRACKETS MLBAllStarGame TWO BRACKETS before and after that middle section to make the table appear. A finished bracket are these symbols: { } and you just put 2 of them on each side of MLBAllStarGame to get it to appear where you want.

  --Katydidit 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question, I will work on the missing pages if I have time. Shawn W 01:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Milestone home runs

You may have an opinion on Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Milestone home runs by Barry Bonds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Eckstein/Taguchi

Eckstein has filed for free agency, meaning he has no contract with the Cardinals. As his former team, the Cardinals have sole negotiating rights until free agency begins, but that's only the power to negotiate. He is not a member of the team. As for Taguchi, his team option was declined on on November 6, making him a free agent.

All players that have filed for free agency, because they have no obligations to their former teams and can sign with whomever they choose when free agency begins, have been removed from the roster templates. Eckstein is no different.►Chris Nelson 15:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. Eckstein and Taguchi are not members of the Cardinals. They don't work for them. They don't have contracts with them. They are unemployed. So to have them on the template is 100% false. That's why you remove them now and then re-add them if they re-sign - because to have them there the entire time is totally inaccurate. Like I said, it's not my opinion, it's reality. So yes, I will undo your edit because I'm not going to ignore an edit I know to me factually incorrect.►Chris Nelson 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Nice job with the stats on 2007 Missouri Tigers football team.

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to University of Missouri articles or that you are in some way connected to the University of Missouri. I thought you might want to become a member of the Mizzou WikiProject. We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve Mizzou related articles. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 St. Louis Cardinals season

Good job placing the spring training log there. I haven't seen that on any other season pages.   jj137 ♠ Talk 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thanks--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject St. Louis

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to St. Louis articles or that you are in some way connected to metropolitan area. I thought you might want to become a member of the St. Louis WikiProject. We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve St. Louis related articles. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 St. Louis Cardinals

No other page for any of the other 29 teams has a spring training game log. Vidor (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But they could :) Kingturtle (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:2007-08 NHL Central Division standings

Greetings. I noticed that you updated the Central Division standings tonight to reflect St. Louis's result. It would be helpful that when you do update the standings in a particular division, that you also update any other completed games in that same division. At the time of your update, the Detroit game was final, as probably was the Blue Jacket game. Selective updating is one of the reasons why, that as a project, we do not do mid-season updates to statistical pages because many editors may focus on only their teams or players that they follow and not the rest of the league as a whole. Updating standings the same way brings up some of the same problems. Please take this into consideration when you update the standings. Thanks. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your 2008 primaries contributions

Hello Katydidit. Just wanted to send you a quick note to let you know that I appreciate all the work you've been doing to keep the various 2008 Primaries articles (such as Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries) up to date. Your edits are always accurrate and timely. I haven't seen any comments from you on the discussion pages of these articles, which is fine, it just doesn't give me the opportunity to thank you for your help on the articles themselves. So, I'm thanking you here. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to say that, Bryan. Appreciate it! I still can't stomach those 'big' numbers compared to the more elegant-looking normal-sized delegate numbers. Katydidit (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your queasiness with the 'big' numbers. Two other editors have expressed the same sentiment. Counting your opinion in with the folks discussing this on the article's talk page, we're 3 opposed vs. 3 supporting. Frankly, I'd prefer to use something other than 'big' if only I could figure out a way to do it without violating Misplaced Pages's "don't use color-coding only" guideline. The problem is figuring out how to display "1st, 2nd, 3rd, withdrawn" as different without using color alone. So the best I could come up with was "big, bold, italics, square brackets". If someone could come up with a better alternative, I'd be happy to use it. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just use the BOLD (html) option for the winner (leader), and be done with it and forget about using the 'big' (html) option? What's the matter with that? Katydidit (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean. If you mean drop 2nd/3rd and only highlight 1st, then yes I agree that's a good idea. In that case, we could use bold/blue alone. Another editor, Subver, suggested the same thing on the article's talk page. I've voiced my support of this idea and I'm waiting to see what the other editors think. If you think this is a good idea, I invite you to post your support for it on the article's talk page.

If you mean just use bold/blue for 1st place, normal/lightblue for 2nd, and normal/lightestblue for 3rd, then that won't work. In that case, people who are colorblind, who are using black & white displays (or printouts or cellphones or PDAs) wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 2nd and 3rd. That's the reason behind Misplaced Pages's "don't use color-coding only" guideline. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I notice you changed the formatting of the total rows on Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries to 1st=bold and 2nd=normal. Your change made it so those rows don't match the key at the top of the table or the rest of the rows in the table. I've changed those rows back to 1st=big and 2nd=bold. I understand you don't like the way the big text looks, but I'd appreciate it if you would leave it be until a consensus is reached on the article's discussion page. If we do decide to remove the big text, we should at least make sure the changes are consistent across the entire table and with its key. Again, I agree with you that using "big" might not be ideal in terms of appearance. I just don't think improving appearances is enough reason to exclude certain groups of users (i.e. the color blind) from enjoying the same access to information that the rest of us enjoy. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Here is my sandbox.

Delegates count at Democratic Convention

Hello Katydidit. If you're going to use 4047? please put a 'reliable source link' next to that numbers. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming delegates awarded

Hi. Please can you indicate the source of awarded delegates? --Subver (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! I just used the percentage received by 12 del. total. --Katydidit (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that this method is not fair. It's better to leave blank delegates for now. Also because the unification of the results in Primaries-Results-SingleStates pages. Please see also the Result Page Talk, regarding standardization of sources. --Subver (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi Democratic primary, 2008

Please make sure to include a reference, or change the existing one, if you add popular vote/delegate counts, or when you update either of these to not match the given source. In particular, the CBS source lists Clinton as having 14 delegates, not 11 as indicated by your recent edit. Andareed (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows

Thanks for your past comments and contributions at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail. I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New Mizzou-related articles

Hey Katydidit, I was sorting through some dead links and such and I ran across three articles (Missouri tigers under Bob Stull, 2007 Missouri vs. Kansas football game, Missouri Tigers men's basketball) that are fairly new and poorly organized/categorized. I've seen your edits on a lot of Missouri sports articles and thought that if you had the time you could take a look at them, I don't know where to begin. Thanks!-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please use descriptive edit summaries

...unlike the one you used here. This is especially important for articles that touch on sensitive topics and are the subject of intense discussion. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Barry Bonds

If the statement you tried to add to Barry Bonds is a fact please readd it with a proper citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a ref and he is the 5th not the 4th or the 3rd.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Primaries

Hi there. Thanks for all your work updating the Democratic primary totals. As I tried to point in the edit summary, your practice of changing the percentages goes against consensus here: Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 11#Proposal: Calculate percentages as a total of delegates TO DATE, not ALL delegates. Established practice when reporting about elections is to measure percentages in terms of votes tabulated up to that point, not the potential sum of all votes. It seems to me we should use the same practice in reporting delegate totals. If you'd like to revisit the issue, please do so on the talk page. Thanks for all your hard work!Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cardinals closers

Please do not add the closer notation beside Franklin's name until either La Russa announces him as such, or at least he gets a bunch of the opportunities in a row. The quote from La Russa reads: "We'll mix and match," La Russa said. "I think all things, everyone rested, Franklin and Springer are the guys that match up the best." Just because Franklin got the save today does not make him the official closer, even if he's the guy most likely to get more chances than anyone. The last word we have from La Russa is that it is not a one-man job, so until something changes on that front there should be no closer notation on the Cardinals' template. Thanks.►Chris Nelson 06:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOX invite

Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept!

If you gave any questions, just ask. I hope you join and start to contribute there. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

re:List of Major League Baseball hit records

Hellloooo Katydidit!

I wanted to offer an explanation for reverting your recent edit at this list.

There is a note wikilinked next to the 4,192. While it is certainly true that many baseball historians accept the 4,189, Major League Baseball has refused to accept this. Thus the official, accepted total by MLB is still the 4,192. I put in the note because people should be aware that there is a dispute, and that many historians accept the lower total. Given the nature of the list being records of MLB, I think we have to go with that number, until they change, though per WP:WEIGHT, the other story is certainly deserving of being explained (which it is).

I'm a White Sox fan, so please get those Cardinals into gear .... It will be difficult living up here if the Cubs actually win a World Series! :-)

Cardinals template

please do not put the St. Louis Cardinals template under the reference section, put it with the other templates on the bottom--Yankees10 15:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hart's Location, New Hampshire

Hello. I removed the link to Hart's Location, New Hampshire from the Ron Paul article because I understand how that is related to Ron Paul. If I am wrong, please feel free to let me know. Thanks! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

St. Louis private schools

Hey, well, while I was trying to find the correct links for Duchesne/Villa Duchesne (never knew there were two schools named Duchesne!), I wound up on the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis page, and just used the links from there for most of the schools (also why I don't have links for Lutheran North & South). Beyond that, I just type fast ;) As far as right now, I'm actually in Milwaukee, but I grew up in St. Louis (and pretty much lived there and in Rolla until the middle of this year). Best, umrguy42 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

St. Louis Blues 08-09 season

hey im in to editing that article from time to time as well...... since im losing interest in watching their games sometimes i dont edit the season summary which i started way back at the beginning of the season... and id be thankful if u could continue it, when any significant events occur, when im not able to... thank you --RICKY 09:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean Weatherspoon

Please stop adding that he is Jeremy Maclins roomate, this is trivia and according to WP:TRIVIA, it should be avoided.--Yankees10 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Date linking

Dates are not to be linked due to changes in WP:MOS. I noticed you linked the date at 57th National Hockey League All-Star Game. Thanks. – Nurmsook! 22:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Katie Stam has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4apyuwmjmk). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Misplaced Pages's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Katie Stam do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4apyuwmjmk). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Misplaced Pages's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Barack Obama, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Brothejr (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit: none of the references that you cite support what you are trying to insert. Please take it to the Talk:Barack Obama page before trying to re-insert it again. Brothejr (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Busch Stadium cost

Hi Katydidit: I removed your update to the construction cost of Busch Stadium because (a) the previous source was specific and from a reliable source, and (b) your link was generic and to a non-reliable source. Is there a specific link (i.e., an exact link, rather than 'ballparks.com')? It seems it would be hard to be more verifiable and reliable than costs posted at mlb.com. tedder (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I left your changes in, but re-added the MLB link. Reference links shouldn't be removed just because they are dead; see Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Dead_links. tedder (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardinals

In terms of "Most-Losing" season, in 1898 in baseball the Cardinals (then known as the Browns) went 39-111. That fact triggered the stripping of the Cleveland ball club and indirectly helped lead to the formation of the American League. Baseball Bugs 00:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new policy

As a recent contributor to Deaths in 2009, you may be able to help decide on a proposed new policy. It is proposed that:

A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in " page ONE WEEK after the month ends.

Please opine at Talk:Deaths_in_2009#Proposed new policy. Don't just say

• Support.

or

• Oppose.

Also state your reasons and participate in the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sportsman's Park

I contacted the guy who supplied the main photo for that article, and he expanded and cropped 3 photos from his website that show all the outfield dimensions. Whether you're old enough to remember the ballpark, or young enough only to have read about it, you might find it interesting. They don't make 'em that way anymore. Baseball Bugs 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Albert Pujols

I don't understand why you undid my cutting of excessive tables from the Albert Pujols article. Your edit summary says "for completeness", but there's really no need to document everything about a player's career; that kind of information is easy to look up through a link like Baseball Reference. "Tablecruft", as User:Wizardman called it in his GA review, doesn't help matters, and in fact it hurts by cluttering an article, avoiding real prose, and making the article so gigantic that it takes a long time to load changes. Anyway, I'd like to know your thoughts. I also replied to Wizardman's comments on the article talk page. Thanks. -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't replied to this yet, although you trimmed some other things from the article. Please explain what those extra tables (All-Star stats, fielding, postseason stats) add to the article. I don't see any other baseball articles that are GAs or FAs that include them. Thanks. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Katydidit, this edit is not vandalism, and does not warrant the heavy-handed undo function. By removing those three tables from the article, I am following the talk page's failed-GA suggestions, which I agree with, and I have been trying to engage you in discussion rather than get into a revert war. But you have repeatedly reverted without engaging in discussion. I am asking you one final time to explain your reasoning for including those tables. If you still won't respond, I guess I'll drop an inquiry at WP:BASEBALL. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Katydidit, I'd like to second the call to the talk page, where we can hopefully work some of this out to improve the article. I know the guy's "The Machine", but it almost feels like we're starting to border on what I can only call "Accomplishment-cruft" as well... umrguy42 21:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the version of the 2008 section that I put up on the talk page. I'd love to see if we could all come up with some consensus on level of detail and such on some of this stuff, and then re-insert it into the articles. Also, I made a comment on there that might've been missed, do we really need daily updates to his stats? Would weekly, or maybe twice weekly, be sufficient? I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, I just know I keep seeing your updates all the time. (On the plus side, it makes me assume you're keeping an eye on the whole article, so we can catch vandalism better. So, that part's good :p) umrguy42 01:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wordings

Hey, I don't know that they're all yours, but WP:NPOV and probably the Manual of Style and such guidelines advocate against using words like "coveted" (to describe the 1000 RBI plateau), "Cardinals... great Stan Musial" ("Hall of Famer" would suffice), etc. Again, this goes into the efforts to hopefully improve the article towards Good/Featured Article status. Best, umrguy42 02:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Katy, is there a reason that the talk page at Albert Pujols isn't being employed? People are not trying to "ruin" or "destroy" anything; we are all here to make an encyclopedia. Please consider discussing on that talk page regarding statistical tables. If you would prefer a larger forum, the discussion is ongoing at the WikiProject Baseball talk page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing the template that draws readers to a talk page discussion may be considered WP:CIVIL. Please stop removing the template until a consensus is reached. It has not yet been completed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have any further input on the talk page discussion regarding the statistics boxes on Albert Pujols, now is the time to give it. Otherwise, I will have to assume that we have reached a consensus to remove based on your silence. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the mediation case for this issue, breaking up comments regarding the dispute is not the proper way to handle a mediation case. Please read the information at WP:MEDCAB, and if you have comments, insert them under the "Discussion" section. Since the case is not currently "open", meaning that no mediator is currently looking at it, you can also make these comments on the article talk page, which is more appropriate. I have reverted the edits that broke up the information about the dispute itself, and you are free to re-insert them in the discussion section if you wish. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

1935 Labor Day hurricane

Hi... do you have a link so we can check that? Titoxd 20:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"However, recent reanalysis studies conducted by the NOAA Hurricane Research Division (HRD) suggest that the maximum sustained winds were more likely around 185mph (295 km/h) at landfall."

It's on Misplaced Pages itself: ref. 1 on 1935 Labor Day hurricane. --Katydidit (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're very quick!

Are you watching the baseball games or following on the net? Happy138 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's broadcast on the local television channel here. Katydidit (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! Happy138 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Cardinals related players

Hi, I've seen by your edits that you are a devoted Cardinals fan! You always beat me to editing Albert Pujols's home run total. Recently, I've seen you edit also John Smoltz, Chris Carpenter, Matt Holliday, and Carlos Lee. I wanted to let you know that the strikeout list also includes Chris Carpenter, and the hits list includes El Hombre. so I just wanted ask you if you can help me update those guys on the page too. Thanks. Jonathansuh (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I occasionally update the list of HR hitters from opposing batters who hit one against the Cardinals, ex. Lee. If you are able to watch the Cardinals' games (live on FSN on almost all their games) you will be able to update Pujols faster. I updated Smoltz just a few minutes ago on the lists he is on because he did so great today (5 IP for his 213th W, 9 K's for 3,053), for instance the Wins, and K's. And, of course I try to do Carpenter on the lists he is on: the ace and present NL ERA leader, who is also tied for NL Wins with teammate Adam Wainwright. I also update Pujols on the R and RBI lists, and he is approaching 400 Doubles, so he is also in that section. Katydidit (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to let you know that Carpenter and Pujols are in those pages and I haven't seen you updating them so I just wanted to let you know. Thanks again. Jonathansuh (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Albert Pujols

This has been the general rule for a while as far as I am aware, and you can see by the variety of editors (Y2Kcrazyjoker4, Tjrover, and myself) that have removed these statistics that more people are in favor of not having them in the infobox. So I wouldn't re-insert them without discussion first if I were you. I've just started a discussion on the WP:BASEBALL talk page about the stats, so you are welcome to contribute, but honestly, having them there adds nothing to the article because he has the stats table below. Doubles are not important at all in the grand scheme of things. You need to look at the big picture due to the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not a sports site.

As an aside, just because there is no specific rule prohibiting something doesn't mean it's automatically allowed. That's why we use WP:COMMONSENSE in these cases. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As we mentioned, re-inserting these statistics without discussion is a WP:BADIDEA. Ichiro's infobox is a completely different case from Pujols'. Ichiro holds the MLB single-season record for hits, which is why hits belong in his infobox. He also holds the Mariners franchise record for career stolen bases, so those definitely belong. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: you cannot use the existence of one thing to justify the existence of something else. We must consider each contribution on its own merit. We do not use the baseball biography box unless it's absolutely necessary, so that change is absolutely contrary to consensus. I do not know of any sources in English that can verify his Orix records, so I am going to ask Kanesue to take a look at it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Katydidit, I am concerned about your editing patterns on Albert Pujols. You seem to be interested in only pushing statistical tables. This is not a sports site, and the repeated addition of statistical tables that are clearly against consensus could be considered tendentious and disruptive. You are giving undue weight to Pujols' statistics by re-inserting these tables. Please stop. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting Misplaced Pages just to prove a point. You've moved your tendentious editing to a different article and are applying the rules in inappropriate ways. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have said again and again, not everything is written in stone. These things are established through consensus. For example, this particular interpretation was determined at the WikiProject Baseball talk page, wherein those users who took place in the discussion determined that it was best to include only Triple Crown stats in most cases, but that common sense should be used when other stats are to be included. For example, a player who is most notable for his stolen base ability, like Rickey Henderson, should obviously have stolen bases included in his statistics. In this case, Ichiro holds a franchise record for most career stolen bases, and this is an important element of his MLB career. Remember that the infobox is part of the lead, and the lead is a summary of the article. This does NOT mean that everything in the article belongs in the lead, but the most important points (like franchise records, MLB single-season records, and MLB all-time records).

Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that some "independent arbiter" is going to make the decision here. Jimbo Wales or members of the Arbitration Committee are not going to concern themselves with a disagreement like this (unless discussion as a means of resolution continues to be ignored or circumvented). If you don't agree with a specific edit, discuss it. This is what talk pages are for. Resorting to edit wars is unproductive. The page Albert Pujols has had to be protected (which could be seen by some as an embarrassment for the WikiProject), and that also killed the second Good Article nomination that it was awaiting. Along that lines, the article can't be considered for GA status if it's unstable, so everyday edits are hurting that. Regardless: Please discuss the issue on Talk:Albert Pujols with policy-based arguments and a cool head, and we will attempt to come to an agreement. The page won't be available for editing for another 10 days, so we have that as an absolute minimum to figure out a viable solution. That doesn't mean that this starts up again when the 10-day period is over, and that also doesn't mean go find other pages to prove your point with. WP:POINT is good reading; if you haven't seen it, I really suggest you take a look before coming back to the discussion.

On another note, I might consider finding several more articles to work on. Spread out, put down some roots, enjoy the scenery – there's a lot of stuff on Misplaced Pages worth looking at and working on. I used to have this same issue when I first started, though you've been here much longer than I had at the time. I worked on three or four articles and I just wanted them to do what I said. Then someone pointed me to WP:OWN, and it taught me a lot. I hope we can have some productive discussion about these issues; several members of WP:MLB have already chimed in on the new discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

nice job getting the pujols page locked up. seriously, well done, just couldn't let the little things go huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjrover (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Be civil. That comment goes beyond the pale. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on how that previous editor isn't nice. Somebody had to point out the blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy of the current state on how some player's pages are treated differently than other players. If it wasn't me, it would eventually be someone else. Katydidit (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That comment itself is also uncivil, Katydidit. Just because this is your talk page does not give you the right to make inappropriate comments about other editors. Comment on content. Regardless, Pujols' page is not being treated differently than other articles, and you are clouding the issue to say so. Indeed, you are treating his article differently from others by continuing to insert information, tables, and other article parts that are against consensus. Please discuss this issue before the page protection expires; otherwise, we will not get anything productive accomplished, which is obviously the goal here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, KV5. You've gone too far in your abuse of me, and I'm tired of it. I'm allowed to defend myself when unfairly attacked. Which I was by Tjrover, and I didn't use any bad words or "uncivil language," so if you don't like it, too bad. BTW, who made *you* the boss of Pujols' page (and others, maybe)? Do you have a boss on WP? Are you somehow one of those appointed super-editors that have special privileges us ordinary editors don't? And I have every right to express my personal view in believing Pujols' page *is* being treated differently than the other players' pages--whom I have already cited in explaining why I posted similar outlining information from those other pages, in the many reverts by you. I kindly suggest you *look* at all those other players' pages that I bet still have 'outlawed' sprawling tables, etc. you (and other editors) have conveniently ignored for months, if not years now--and stop concentrating/reverting only on updates to Albert Pujols if you don't have a genuine WP rule to cite that I have requested, but you have frequently ignored. And I agree with you when you said the same thing yourself in a previous post here: "I might consider finding several more articles to work on." Sounds like a good idea to me. Lay off Pujols only, already. Enough is enough. One more thing: I didn't go on *your* talk page and blast you. You posted your rant on my talk page first. Katydidit (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not "ranted" at you, as you so claim. I have merely pointed out the fact that calling other editors hypocrites is uncivil. No one is the boss of any page: not you, nor I, nor any administrators, nor any of the other users who have commented on the discussions. The main reason that we have not been able to remove tables from other articles (at least, why I haven't) is because we're hung up here trying to get past this issue on one page. I believe that any editor who reads my comments above would not consider them "blasting you", as you claim. I am trying to get you to participate in discussion, which is the foundation of Wikipedian consensus. Unfortunately, it seems that you either consider that unimportant or believe that it is beneath you. Regarding your comment on my talk page, your talk page, while under your name, does not belong to you. You are free to delete or archive comments, but they will always remain in the edit history. You also cannot stop other users, regardless of your feelings toward them, from posting on your talk page, because according to Misplaced Pages policy, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user". That is what I have done, and all that I have done here; to intimate otherwise is improper. My purpose in posting on your talk page is not to agitate or otherwise annoy you; whether that actually is the end result is not my doing. I am simply attempting to engage you in a discussion which proved, last time, to be fruitless. Without discussion, the page protection time is being wasted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I'm also trying to reach a compromise on the problems others said were improper, and have deleted-changed numerous items myself to reach that compromise. Unfortunately, even a compromise frequently doesn't appear to be possible since you (and some others) only want it your way. Now, you are engaging me in a different type of discussion over whether I had the right to defend myself against another editor who used improper language about me and I replied in a very civil manner by saying he wasn't nice. If you claim *that* is also improper, there is hardly anything anybody can say without someone taking offense or positing it to be 'uncivil', no matter how polite the wording is. Which defeats the purpose of trying to engage in constructive discussion without the ad hominem attacks. Since I made that one unfortunate comment to you which I later apologized for, I have tried to be as polite as possible in discussing our differences. It isn't beneath me to discuss the differences, but you and others need to cite actual rules in saying when something I post isn't allowed, instead of using a catch-all phrase that is too broad. You finally admitted when you said: "The main reason that we have not been able to remove tables from other articles (at least, why I haven't) is because we're hung up here trying to get past this issue on one page" proving my point you are determined to concentrate only on A.P.'s page to the exclusion of any other. You can speak only for yourself in showing you care solely on his page, for whatever reason only you know for sure and I can only guess why you continually do so. You could have been removing many tables from many other players in all this time you have been concentrating on only A.P.'s page and discussion. What stopped you from doing that, and what is so special about A.P. that you ignore other pages that could use a good editing scrubdown? I don't see anything preventing that in the meantime, and I wish you would stop making excuses for not doing it. I partially agree with you this page protection for 10 days is going to be wasted if you continue to not cite an exact rule because that makes it vague and unclear to editors. I'm hoping after September 17th we can find better common ground on how to edit/update A.P.'s page and without the spitefulness both myself and others have occasionally done, but the one thing I despise the most is the inconsistency and hypocriteness of this sole concentration on A.P. You are correct I have been feeling defensive about A.P., but only because I do sense this inconsistency and hypocrisy. If it wasn't for that, I'd feel a lot better that consistency and fairness was made to treat all players' pages equally, as best as possible. Can you agree with me on that as an ideal to shoot for? I hope so. Katydidit (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that consistency is an admirable, attainable, and necessary goal. It is, indeed, what we should strive for in every article. However, there is no need for us to wait until the September 18th expiry date for the full page protection. That is what this time is for. The talk page is not protected; it is to continue to be the locus for discussion of that page in particular. I understand your concern that Pujols' page is being focused on; let me give some examples to dispel your concerns, if I may.

• If you'll check my contributions since the original date of the discussion on WT:MLB (which is now in the talk archives), you will see that I have not removed statistical tables only from Albert Pujols' page. I have also removed them from other players on the Phillies', Cardinals', and Padres' rosters, among others, along with assorted managers and coaches, because their record tables were also considered to be under the bailiwick of the current consensus.
• My contributions will also show that I have not neglected my normal Misplaced Pages activities just to run a vigilante attack on the Albert Pujols article. Since the discussion began, I have created, nominated, and promoted various featured lists, nominated several articles for Did you know?, and continued to patrol my watchlist and the other pages on which I focus. I've recently become more active as a featured list reviewer as well, which is consuming more and more of my time here.
• I have not been focusing on Pujols' page as a matter of antagonism, as a matter of personal concern over the article, or as a matter of ego. This is not, at least for me, and I hope not for you, an argument about right and wrong. It's a debate – one about improving the quality of this encyclopedia article to its absolute best. I will explain more about this below.

You posed the question "What is so special about ?" above. I truly think that, as a Cardinal fan, you know the answer to this question, and herein lies my concern over the state of this article. As a follower of the Redbirds, surely you know how important Pujols is to your team. As a Phillies fan, I can only watch him from halfway across the country and pray that our first baseman was as consistent as he is. Albert Pujols is, without question, the best player in Major League Baseball right now; he is, for all intents and purposes, the league-wide MVP of the entire first decade of the 21st century, and will likely go down as one of the greatest players in history. We are blessed and honored to watch a competitor of this magnitude play the game; he is today's Bambino. He is respected league-wide for his accomplishments at such a young age: lauded by his peers yet reviled by his opponents. Players like this are good for the game of baseball. Because of these accomplishments, because he is such a special player, I do place a special concern on his page. It is this concern, my love for the game, my wish to represent it as best as possible, that leads me to make corrections to this page. I must pose a question: if I did not care, if my only goal was to vandalize, tear down, destroy a player that absolutely torches my beloved Fightin' Phils, would I have taken the time to turn the list of accomplishments on his page into true encyclopedic prose? Would I care enough to continue to work on this particular issue long after other brushfires have died down? I submit to you that I would not, and I know myself. I hold a grudge better than anyone and will be the first to admit it. However, my actions from the beginning of our discussions should, I hope, prove otherwise to you.

As to my comments above regarding civility, I certainly meant no offense. I understand that plain text can sometimes convey a tone to the reader that the writer does not intend. My only point that I was trying to make with my remarks regarding civility is best summarized in a quote from WP:EQ: "If other editors are not as civil as you would like them to be, be more civil than they are, not less." I fully agree with you that Tjrover's remarks were unwarranted, and I don't dispute your right to defend yourself by any means. However, Phoenixrod mentioned that his remark was uncivil, and sometimes it's better to, as I say at work, "be the duck". This, of course, has nothing to do with WP:DUCK; rather, it refers to the oil on the feathers of waterfowl which allows moisture to slide right off of their backs. I work in customer service, a difficult job; all day, I answer phones, deal with people's product problems, and handle customer concerns. It's taught me some valuable skills, however, in being able to simply distance myself from a problem. Consider this analogy: When you are debating a question with someone on Misplaced Pages, consider yourself and all related parties standing inside a circle with a campfire in the middle. As the debate heats up, so does the fire. If you find yourself burned, scorched, singed, or otherwise harmed by the flames, step out of the circle. This is not to say that you should leave the debate; rather, you should walk away from your own point of view, whatever it may be, and look at everything that everyone has said, and is saying, with fresh eyes. Then, when you are ready, if you have a calm mind and a ready view, then step back into the circle and continue. As the owner of a short temper, I find this technique to be effective. There are many times on Misplaced Pages where an editor has made a comment to me on an article talk and, rather than answer immediately, I have slept on it, or left the computer for an hour or two, and perhaps let other editors respond first before I get my fingers blistered on that fire.

Regarding the article itself, I understand that you, and many other editors, would like to see a hard-and-fast rule telling you exactly what can and cannot be done. Unfortunately, and I will readily admit this, that's not something I can give you. Why? Because Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. Sometimes you have to combine, read, and interpret many rules and discussions before you find a single unified solution. Even then, once a solution is found, it may not be codified in one single location or written down on any rule page. According to the WP:RULES, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are standards that all users should follow. They are often closely related to the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence." Following the established policy at WP:CONSENSUS, "consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense. Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views". In this case, the "specific point of article content" we are debating—not just you and I, but all of the editors who took part in the original archived discussion at WT:MLB, the original archived discussions at Talk:Albert Pujols, the first failed Good Article nomination, and those editors who have recently commented on my post-protection writings on the article talk—is the inclusion of the statistical tables. I hope that I have made my point clear on the matter of the statistics. I also hope that you understand my viewpoint. I have attempted to make the point even more clear at the article talk, and I have copied some of my comments below in hopes of clarifying if my point has still been hidden behind my own smokescreen of words.

"The third sentence ("In cases where this may be necessary... consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists") does not apply. This is not a list... Tables should only be used to enhance the readability of data lists when the article itself is a data list."

WP:NOT#STATS is part of a Misplaced Pages policy. These policies are the rules. They govern the guidelines between what should and should not be included within this encyclopedia. Many editors in all iterations of these discussions have expressed concern that these statistics qualify as "long and sprawling", and I agree. I am certainly not opposed to the appearance of career statistics in an article. However, those statistics should be stable, they should be limited, and they should be widely accepted. WP:EL allows external links specifically because it allows us to go to places like Baseball-Reference and Retrosheet, these wonderful resources on the Internet that are repositories for an unlimited wealth of baseball information, and since Misplaced Pages is not paper, we don't have to try to have every single thing in an article. That's the wonder of the Internet: it can take us anywhere!

I'm sorry to say that, although editors agreeing with each other is only the thinnest form of consensus, consensus does build support with more and more editors behind it. Unfortunately, sometimes I just have to accept that things are the way they are. I have gone through 27 featured list nominations. If you look through my major contribs subpage, and take a look at some of my featured list noms, you will find some really heated, contentious debate over simple things like formatting issues – all because I'm stubborn, I liked things the way they were, and I wanted them to be my way. Most of the time, I either argued my point, with reference to policy, until other editors saw my viewpoint, or I changed the article based on the requests of editors when they referenced policy. As with this article, I was loath to change something when one editor suggested it, but if more editors agreed, it made me think: "Maybe I really should change it". In this case, a large majority of editors who have commented on the issue have supported the removal of the tables, as well as the inclusion of only Triple Crown statistics in infoboxes unless common sense dictates otherwise. Each time the discussion has been opened, the same results have occurred. I am not trying to poke wounds or re-open old scars with these comments by any means; I'm simply stating the facts as I see them.

I have taken up enough space on your talk page with my comments for the moment; however, I'd like to close by saying that I hope we can get past these issues. Please don't take anything that I've said here as an attack or admonishment; it's not right to do the first and not my place to do the second. I have written everything here with a calm voice in my head speaking the words, and I hope that you can read them in the same manner. Please let me know if and when you respond here, either with a note on my talk page or using the {{talkback}} template. I'd also encourage you to visit the Pujols article talk page, because I would like your viewpoints, with the policies and guidelines that shape them included, to be disclosed to those members who have already participated in the discussion, as well as any interested eyes who may be watching. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN notice

Hi Katydidit, you currently have at least one article up a WP:GAN in the Sports and recreation section. In an attempt to clear out the backlog there, User:Wizardman asked all sports WikiProjects to review at least two articles from that section. I'm now going around and asking anybody with an article nominated under Sports and recreation to review at least one article in that section to help us clear the backlog out so your articles can finally be reviewed faster! iMatthew  at 15:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame at FLRC

I have nominated List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Cheetah (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Marx

He was definitely born in 1859, not 1861. Recent research has unearthed documents that prove it beyond a doubt. See for yourself: http://judaisme.sdv.fr/perso/marxbr/geneal.htm. There is even a reproduction of his birth certificate. Cheers, --RCS (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Don Yarborough

I reverted your recent edit to Don Yarborough. The reference you cite doesn't say anything to imply that Yarborough's challenge to Connally had anything to do with causing the Kennedy assassination, as your wording implies. Furthermore, even if the rest of your edit is factual, it is not backed by a reliable source. There are probably mainstream books and other reliable sources out there to support the statement that Yarborough's challenge in the primary was a reason for Kennedy's visit to Texas. When you find one, re-add that part of your edit, but please don't imply any causal relationship between Yarborough or Connally or their primary fight and the Kennedy assassination.

On re-reading, you may not have intended to come across as implying a cause-and-effect, but your phrasing can easily be read that way. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pujols' 2009 season

Hey Katydidit, on my talk page, can you leave me a list of Albert's final 2009 regular season stats, and everything you'd consider a highlight of the season? Later this week I intend to make a pass at cleaning up his 2009 season section, and it'd be great to have the information in a convenient place to look over. Thanks, umrguy42 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, if you could, I'd love to know his final stats with the bases loaded, esp. grand slams (how many he had, whose record it tied, etc), and can you highlight what his peak SLG(? the one that was 2.4+ at one point), as I think *that's* one of those exceptional things worth highlighting. umrguy42 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Norma Fox Mazer

Hi Katydidit; I just wanted to let you know that I reverted to the previous date of death for Norma Fox Mazer, because the 'last night' reference was, more accurately, 3:05 A.M. This was confirmed privately, and via, presumably, her daughter's corrective edit a few hours ago. By the way, from time to time I notice your good work in the sports sector. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work!

		The Missouri Barnstar of Merit
		I award this Missouri barnstar to Katydidit for their excellent work in always keeping Missouri sports pages up to date. Especially St. Louis Cardinals and Missouri Tigers related subjects. Thanks for all your work. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Misplaced Pages regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

People categories

Hi Kaydidit, you've noticed that your edits that added people categories to municipalities have been reverted by me or by other editors. Just wanted to write you in person and let you know. Most of the categories that start "______, Missouri people" should only have people in them. Oftentimes that category is a subcat of the "_______, Missouri" category. Also to limit clutter articles should be placed in the most specific category possible and not in all of the parent categories as well. Thanks and happy editing. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A question about current events

If i may, may i ask why you and other editors keep adding details about a "Mike Hunter" from Birmingham in the recent deaths section when there is no sourced informationabout him. I think this addition may be a prank Zobango (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ganymede Discovery Date Edits

I see you have changed the date on the Ganymede page once again to January 13, which is incorrect. Please see the talk page for the Ganymede article to discuss the discovery date of Ganymede. --Volcanopele (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit War on Ganymede

Thankfully, the issue seems to be resolved, but you were edit warring on what was at the time WP:TFA, with seven reverts, so I'm bringing this up at WP:AN3. I'm reporting User:Volcanopele as well.--Noren (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1. David A. Glenn (2005). "A Reanalysis of the 1916, 1918, 1927, 1928, and 1935 Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Basin". NOAA. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-05-20. Retrieved 2007-05-09. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

• WikiProject Mizzou Invitees
• WikiProject St. Louis Invitees