Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:22, 8 November 2023 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Larry Hockett/Archive 19) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Darryl Strawberry is a FOUR time WS Champion.

Hi, just trying to update a page where I know the information is correct - but it keeps reverting to incorrect information. It’s Darryl Strawberry’s information page. He is a four time World Series Champion. Not 3. While I understand he didn’t play in the ‘98 WS - he was on the active roster until a colon cancer diagnosis after the start of the 1998 playoffs, at which point he was moved to the disabled list and Ledee was call to the active roster. In MLB, the players who are awarded with a ring, and being considered a “World Series Champion” are anyone who stood in the batter’s box, or on the pitcher’s mound for the winning team during that season. Darryl Strawberry is a 4 time WS Champion. 1986 with the NY Mets and 1996, 1998, and 1999 with the NY Yankees. Please update. DennisR1283 (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dennis - Article content issues are not usually best discussed on user talk pages, because this may leave interested parties out of the discussion. For this issue, you might discuss at Talk:Darryl Strawberry or WT:BASEBALL. See Archive 46 at WT:BASEBALL for one recent discussion. Our common approach on Misplaced Pages, which mirrors the approach used at reliable sources like Baseball Reference, is usually to omit the WS as an infobox highlight if the player was not on the postseason roster. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Notebook reversion

Hi! I noticed your reversion of Bespi024's edit just now. Do you think that's AI-generated? They've made several similar rapid-fire edits to various articles and they all sound similar. Joyous! Noise! 03:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I don't think it changes our response. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. Joyous! Noise! 03:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Asking for help

Can you look at this link - I think the INVESTIGATIONS section is misnamed - I tried an edit -- it was reverted with alacrity - your thoughts would be helpful - if I change it - I get beaten on.

Anesthesiology#Investigations BeingObjective (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be an error or misunderstanding than a beating, unless I'm really missing something big here. Is there any talk page discussion of this? I would maybe start there. Maybe work to clarify the meaning of investigations. To me, in the context of a medical specialty, it would refer to something like lab tests or X-rays. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree - yes, there is a talk section - it really should read 'Knowledge Requirements' or some such.

As to the beating - I'd like to think you are correct - but I have my doubts, I do have a stalker - they may seriously not see it as such - but there is a fairly clear pattern -

Small detail - but it does make the article read badly. BeingObjective (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Something to consider: You may find that other editors are more receptive to your points in that discussion if you remove the extra question marks and the all-caps text. I know it must be stressful to be reverted frequently, particularly if there's an unsatisfactory edit summary with the revert, but I think this message may not have the intended effect. If it's a simple mistake, there's usually an editor who won't mind discussing or fixing the issue, but if it comes across as a situation involving unnecessary drama, people may hesitate to get involved. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is good feedback - I do have to work on the tendency to lean on professional experience - and developing digital consensus is a bit of an art form - a few articles I did manage to enhance IMHO - without any perceived conflict - I do find the minor edits - as in this section title - to be so obvious that I cannot understand why someone wants to be dramatic - thanks for the feedback. BeingObjective (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)