User talk:Isaacl/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Proposed deletion of List of current WHL captains

List of current WHL captains has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this list might not be appropriate for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:List guideline for relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 7 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Pouliot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Adam Cuerden talk 09:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

your scarne edit

(Moved to Scarne talk page, as it belongs there. Thanks for joining in the chat) SpikeJones (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

wow, all that conversation based on my one innocent question yesterday. Glad it all worked out. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for locating a source

Thanks for locating a source for the fact template I placed on At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper concerning critic A.O. Scott's words about leaving the show. There was an IP user repeatedly removing the template without adding a source and I was unable to locate a source myself. Your help is much appreciated! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Isaacl. Why did you revert my correction? GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If I inadvertently reverted changes to Talk:Montreal Canadiens, I apologize; a lot of editing going on. However, based on the history, I believe my updates have only added my comments. Can you provide more information on what has been reverted? Isaac Lin (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies Isaacl; it was the IP who reverted my corrections. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You also removed an update filling in a 15 year hole on the Nortel page. Your reasons were wrong. There were 2 references included including the official Nortel History page (which is scrubbed to remove any commentary) and the Investor Central page of the history of Nortel which provides a far more detailed and accurate story. In addition, I was there and had been with BNR/Nortel for 12 years by then and another 12 following. Please do not remove updates unless you have justifiable reasons.

Doug Cottrell Senior International Advisor; developer; manager; senior manager BNR/Nortel Networks 1978-2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiablecdn (talkcontribs) 01:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits

Please do not remove licence tags from images, as you did to Image:Bell logo.svg. It does not matter whether the image is raster (bitmap) or vector (svg). It also does not matter if they use stylistic kerning or not, it is still just a font. Colours are not copyrightable, also. Thanks. Cavenba (talkcontribs) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

May I briefly ask what, in your opinion, makes Bell's new logo copyrightable? Cavenba (talkcontribs) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain (ice hockey)

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for adding references and improving the Captain (ice hockey) article. — MrDolomite • Talk 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed date link

  • Isaacl - I am trying to understand all the rules; you removed the date link, I looked through sever other pages and they link dates to the year. Could you please explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geek2003 (talkcontribs) 16:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The current guideline from the manual of style is to leave dates unlinked unless there is a specific greater understanding that can be achieved by linking the date. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Geek2003 (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#Category:Knuckleball pitchers, in which you participated, is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 April 28#Category:Knuckleball pitchers. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Acquisitions 2006 - 2008

Could you provide a recommendation of the best place to insert this table? I want to see if the Ref tags work correctly, and then we can add more to the table tonight and this weekend, to cover additional years. Geek2003 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Expand

Acquisition date Company Business Country Value (USD) References
August 19, 2008 Diaminware 3D-positional voice technology [1]
August 8, 2008 LG-Nortel Wireless Local Loop, fixed wireless terminals  South Korea [1]
August 8, 2008 Pingtel Corp from Bluesocket Inc. designer of software-based Unified communications solutions [1]
February 24, 2006 Tasman Networks secure, high performance, wide area network IP routers and converged service routers  United States 99.5 million [2]


BTW - Thanks for catching that vandalism!!! Geek2003 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As you are new to Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia consensus is not based on a vote. In this case, a key problem I have with adding a miscellaneous list of acquisitions to the Nortel article is that there are so many acquisitions that it would swamp the article and give most of them undue significance (a list containing the Pingtel purchase but not the Bay Networks one seems odd), as well as making the article sound promotional and therefore inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I still suggest at this point that purchases and sales be integrated within the history section, where the text can explain why the transaction is notable within the context of Nortel history. Please don't take my comments as discouragement from making changes to the article; I just think making the history section better is more important at this point.
On another note, using flags is not recommended generally without a very good reason, as Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just the Acquisitions that I have found for 2006 through 2008, I definatly will be adding BayNetworks shortly after I locate that data. If the list infact gets to large, it could be moved into a new page and referanced, like List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems or I like this better a very brief into on Junipers page and a link to the List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks; which are both Featured lists the best rating a page can get, and they also have flages on both of these pages. Geek2003 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Trust me - I am working the history page, I just get burned out after hours of reading books and compiling facts adn need to do something creative. I will be back on the History page soon. As sections are compiled on the WikiProject site, we could insert it into the history of the main page. When the page gets to big, we can move it to the History of Nortel page. Geek2003 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's guidelines on embedded lists for the general guideline that embedded lists are discouraged. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice columns!! Thanks Geek2003 (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


Appreciate your looking at History of the Montreal Canadiens. The more eyes on the prose the better! Resolute 00:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the great deal of effort you have spent adding more information to the article, complete with references. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Putting it up at FAC. Appreciate your assistance with the copyediting. Thanks, Resolute 17:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)`

MLB Awards inclusion

Hey, thanks for that long and carefully thought out suggestion! I've proposed 2 alternative options that I think have a clearly line for notability and inclusion (which will fit FT voter requests better). Staxringold talkcontribs 03:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


hi. shouldnt we use numerals for both under that, as the preference?--Numbersnow (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can you please sign your comments, and provide a more complete query? I'm not clear what scenario you are referring to. If you are asking about two comparable quantities being listed within a sentence, then typically with both numbers being on the small side, it would be more usual to write them out, rather than use digits. Isaac Lin (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I was referring to where you reversed me. I said "Selig followed this up by hosting nine White Sox regular-season games in 1968 and eleven in 1969." Under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which I was pointed to it appeared that the preference was to write twelve as a numeral, as it says "As a general rule, in the body of an article ... numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals." So I made that change. I now see that it also suggests that "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." But it doesn't seem to have a leaning to nine/twelve over 9/12.--Numbersnow (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, Numbersnow (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as being one of the nine socks of Epeefleche (talk · contribs) discovered via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Isaacl. We don't put 'no captain' on those lists 'until' a new captain is selected. See discussion at my talkpage, concerning this situation with the Toronto Maple Leafs current captain vacancy. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


The article for Foswiki was deleted via AFD because the software isn't notable. I don't think mentioning it or a year old dispute in the lead section of TWiki is an appropriate balance. The project and the dispute are mentioned further down alongside the other forks, which is clearly the correct place for it. Steven Walling 01:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

TWiki didn't change direction because of the fork. The fork was the result of a change in governance for TWiki. The important news for the software is that last year the founder's company took more control over the open source community, and that's already mentioned both in the lead and later on. The current consensus, per the AFD, is that Foswiki isn't itself notable. Steven Walling 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP: HOCKEY & Montreal Canadiens

Howdy Isaac. 'Tis great to see you youngsters taking on these 'accents/diacritics' stuff. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the note in your edit summary (re World Series), and the link to the policy on linking. I just read it and also its talk page. I guess I'm one of those editors who overlinks. I will try to reduce the amount of linking I do, in accord with Wiki policy. Thank you for your patience. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hockey Navbox policy

Since you spoke up in my recent thread, I ask that you please check User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue and make sure that I am representing WP:HOCKEY correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are attempting to achieve. The confrontational name of your page is sure to turn people off, and it seems like you are trying to build an "other stuff exists" argument, which doesn't work in face of those who are actively opposed to a proposal. I suggest you try to find a way to narrow your proposal to address specific advantages, to avoid people dragging in counter-examples of overly-expansive navigation boxes. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Right now I am trying to get a clear understanding of the various policies. Thus, I am asking that you and other projects confirm I am representing your respective projects' policy correctly. I may have missed some things and want to be sure. I apologize if you miss the humor in my page name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm unsure what policy you are trying to represent; you have a table with links to templates and pages, and some red X's, and I don't understand what it all means. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Coyotes bankruptcy

Thanks for rewording the first sentence. Much better. I was stumped for a while on how to insert the title, and as you pointed out, not a strict Wikipedia policy. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion

You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi. You deleted various items from an article at the very moment it is on the main page of wikipedia -- including the information supporting the very hook that is at this moment on the main page. Some thoughts. You can respond here; I will watch this page until our conversation has terminated.

  1. I thought you made some quite helpful revisions for conciseness and clarity.
  2. You deleted a number of RS-supported sentences and paragraphs without any explanation whatsoever.
  3. You wrote "remove info re: nth player in a given category (not notable)". I believe it is certainly notable. That, for example, is why it was reported in an RS. They are in the business of reporting notable things. And we, of course, measure notability by appearance in RSs. Rather than a POV view that any one of us may have. It is also consistent with what we have in FA and GA rated articles about athletes.
  4. You wrote "remove anecdote about playing time (undue weight)". Playing time, especially for a rookie just brought up, is of interest. It is not an "anecdote". This is not a tale. It is a relevant comment. Nor is it "undue weight". Playing time is important, and the mention is short.
  5. You deleted the fact that in NCAA Division I baseball, players can change schools without losing a year of eligibility as long as they are granted a release. This is key, and as you may know differentiates baseball from some other NCAA D I sports, and was obviously a key point in his transferring. The right comes from NCAA rules, not from the releasing school -- all the releasing school does is grant the release, not the right to play.
  6. You without explanation changed quotes so that they began with ellipses. They shouldn't. Ellipses are proper, but not at the beginning of the quote.
  7. You without explanation changed quotes to prose, without a change in conciseness or other noticeable improvement. In fact, the result was more akward.
  8. You took material that was properly presented in chronological order, and inverted the order so that it was not chronological.
  9. You took a quote and changed the meaning. The mother spoke of borrowing money for his first year. And what his per-year tuition was. But she didn't clarify what happened his second year, expense-wise. Leaving the quote is better than assuming and ourselves filling in the blanks. The same goes for other interpretations of the quote, that are less precise than the quote.
  10. The Braun connection is notable; no need to delete RS-supported mention of it.

--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Template discussion

I saw that you had participated in a previous discussion on NHL award templates. Just wanted to let you know that there is another discussion going on right now. - PM800 (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Lansdowne Park

Thank you for the constructive edits. The summary section was done quickly and you've improved the wording nicely. Thanks. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I had intended to try to clean up the redevelopment section as it was repetitive and jumped around chronologically, but with your work in spinning it out, you have done a good bit of cleanup. If I get a chance, I plan to try to smooth out the writing a bit in the redevelopment article. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
You might've noticed that there's been -issues- with the article, so it's just pleasant to just be doing editing and not having to arrange for protection, etc. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

World Series

Hi, I re-added the bit about Baseball being expected to become a worldwide sport back in 1886, according to the quote from - it is itself quoting the 'Spalding Guide' and I can't find a better sourced reason for the name which puzzles many outide (and in!) the States. thanks Jabberwock359 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Montreal Expos

Yeah, the drudge work would be slow, especially since it would be two articles at once - Expos and History of. There's no deadline, however, but yeah, once my current two projects wrap up, I will likely move to this article. With luck, we can put an end to this debate once and for all! Resolute 19:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I have my doubts if a Montreal Expos article could stand up on its own without a History section, as there is no current state of the team to be discussed. But regardless of the article's name, there is definite room for improvement. I had planned to create a sandbox subpage from the Expos article to track sources for the notable game information, and once all the info had been collected, to merge the contents into the History section. If you are amenable to this idea, whichever one of us has some time to start looking for sources can create this subpage. isaacl (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it would still have a history section, but would have to limit detail to allow for more room to cover social aspects, team records, etc. But we'll see how this debate turns out. It is silliness like this that really strains my interest in Wikipedia at times. I will never understand the desire to cheat the reader in favour of convenience. Resolute 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Following usual Wikipedia practice of integrating information within its historical context, I think social aspects would be better served within the History section. I don't think team records can be included, as the franchise records belong on the Washington Nationals page, and there is no official record of Expos-only records (MLB lumping them all together). When Washington failed to recognize the Montreal-retired numbers, number retirements might have been a possible topic, but now that Washington seems to have rediscovered its past, that too can be covered by the Washington page. Today, other than History, there is some notable event info (longest home runs and no-hitters), Hall of Famers, retired numbers, and broadcasters. If the History section just becomes a summary of a separate article, I'm not sure there's enough there to warrant a parent article plus a History article; I think the history plus non-history content can fit well into one. isaacl (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
People get too caught up on what MLB does, and I don't find it all that relevant. As a reader, I would like to know who hit the most home runs in an Expos uniform, etc. It would of course be necessary to put that in context, and to note that the full franchise records continued on with the Nats, but from an Expos fan perspective, I want to know who did what in the red, white and blue. Beyond that there are related discussion points that don't fit the concept of "history" but are relevant to the topic. Two that I can think of the top of my head are cultural importance and the impact of the demise of the team. Ideas that come to mind are the possibility that the downfall of the Expos and the rise of the Blue Jays could be an allegory of Toronto's gaining prominence as Montreal lost it. How did the arrival of the Expos impact baseball in Montreal, and Canada? How did the Blue Jays impact the Expos? How did the team's demise affect baseball in Canada, Montreal, and the Jays? What do people think about the Expos today? There is an entire legacy that needs consideration and which carries a context well beyond simple history. The Canadiens' adoption of Youpee!, for instance, is not a part of the Expos history as the team was already dead. That is legacy. A history article, in my view, is a glorified timeline of events. The parent article would be more significant. Anyway, just a few rambling thoughts before I head out to the Flames game.  ;) Resolute 23:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I noted what MLB does simply because I think it may be hard to find a reliable source that only documents records for players in Expos uniforms. Similarly, the cultural significance questions require some notable, reliable sources; there are of course opinion pieces, but I'm not sure how many objective studies have been done. Actually, with respect to the Blue Jays, I think it is better understood within the context of the historical timeline. The Expos ceding some of its territory to the Jays, its attempt to sell build its own broadcast network and sell its own advertising falling flat in face of the Jays, the team's neglect of the U.S. market—all of it makes more sense when tied together in the chronological timeline. Also, I don't see a history article as a glorified timeline of events, but as a separation of a topic's past from its present that can still be presented thematically as well as chronologically. Anyway, have fun at the game and if you haven't seen it already, here's a great post-mortem discussion of the Expos by a Concordia journalism discussion panel, "The Expos: Five Years Later" with Dave Van Horne, Serge Touchette, Elliott Price, and Michael Barrett. isaacl (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I will have to read that, thanks. There is a book out, Blue Jays 1, Expos 0, that I think would be interesting too. I'll have to look into getting a copy. Unfortunately, the Calgary Public Library doesn't seem to have cared much about the Expos, so I'll have to buy them online if this project goes forward. As far as stats go, just need to find a copy of the 2004 media guide and double check that no records changed in that last season, or pick up a 2005 Nationals media guide and hope they didn't axe the history too much. Resolute 05:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, Google News Archive added a ton of issues of the Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal and Vancouver Sun to its archives around Christmas, and already had an excellent collection of Montreal Gazette links, so there should be a ton of good newspaper cites available to us. Otherwise, I've no problem collecting a bunch of dates and trucking down to the library to go through microfilm archives. I'm only up to 4 2" binders full of old stories as it is! Resolute 05:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I have the 2004 media guide. My local public library has online access to a number of newspapers, which is what I usually use for research (unfortunately they only go back so far). I think I leafed through a copy of Blue Jays 1, Expos 0 at the library and didn't buy the premise, so didn't check it out. Last year I bought a copy of Il était une fois les Expos (Volume 1, covering 1969-1984), which is supposed to be a great history of the team, but I haven't started it yet (it weighs in at 600 pages). I remember Dan Turner's Expos Inside Out from 1983 being pretty interesting, but I don't have access to a copy now. Remembering the Montreal Expos by Danny Gallagher and Bill Young is a fun look back, though a bit heavy on its cheering for the team, making it feel a bit less strong as a citation. isaacl (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting: according to this Washington Post article, the 2006 Washington Nationals media guide had three sections: one for records across all teams in Washington, one for franchise history (Expos + Nationals), and one for Nationals only. isaacl (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at WP:EAR#Discussion on sentence about Canadian head of state on Australian head of state dispute page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Straw Poll

A straw poll has been asked for by User:Staxringold on whether or not season links should be added to lists of baseball teams. I noticed that you contributed to the previous discussion, but have not yet taken part in the straw poll. If you would like to do so, it can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Season wikilinks, under the sub section Straw Poll.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This FAQ was very well done. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I wanted first to avoid having arguments repeated over and over, and second to clearly state each case with all supporting points grouped together, so when (if?) discussion occurs to weigh the different considerations, all of them can be considered together. Third, I'd like as much common ground to be identified and agreed upon (for example, though there are a few who have stated contrary opinions, I think there is a general consensus that summary style is appropriate for the Nationals article, and as such, the Montreal Expos article should not be deleted via a merge). Unfortunately, the discussion never seems to reach the point where the participants acknowledge the shortcomings of their proposals and attempt to address them, which might help persuade others of the value of one approach versus another. isaacl (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It may never be resolved. I've been giving this some thought since the last discussion ended. The problem, as you very well know, is that those that come at it from the cultural/social/economic/local history angle (the so-called, and not entirely accurate, "Wikiproject Canada" viewpoint) believe the Nationals and the Expos to be two completely different entities (and thus a merge or rename make no sense). Those that approach the issue from the baseball history angle (the so-called "Wikiproject Baseball" viewpoint) see the Nationals and the Expos as the same franchise and the same corporate entity, with simply a new location and name (so two separate articles make no sense). I'm not sure how one would bridge those two diametrically opposed ways of looking at the issue. I am as much to blame, because I don't have much sympathy for the second viewpoint. But I'm trying. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi IsaacI, I think you and WBB were right to rv one of my edits to Gretsky--perhaps the additions were too journalistic. I have made a couple of further changes. Would appreciate your opinion on those, too. Thanks!Early morning person (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch re: spelling of Gretzky's name. Thanks! Early morning person (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Commissioner of Baseball

I understand the removal of the infobox on Commissioner of Baseball, but what would be a good infobox to use there? That's a page that could really use one. --Flyguy33 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


I haven't actually forgotten my promise to work on the Expos article, though in truth, I just haven't hit the point where I *want* to write on the team yet. I have been slowly compiling stuff at User:Resolute/Expos however, and picked up a couple books. In researching my current project (Lionel Conacher), I came across this. Thought you might appreciate the article. Imagine... MLB could have gone to Montreal 36 years before it actually did. I might write a bit on the team's founding at some point soon. Got a reasonable amount for a start there - that little tidbit, the Royals history, the possibility of the team being named Voyageurs, ballpark issues, etc. Lots of interesting stuff that predates the first game. Unfortunately for this project, Johah Keri's book on the team is still three years away. Ahh, well. Resolute 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers; you've done quite a bit of spade work already. I too look forward to Jonah's forthcoming book. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Height and weight in infobox

Hi ... I seem to have re-started a discussion that you took part in, on a different noticeboard, six months back on the possibility of adding height and weight to the baseball player infobox. Another editor helpfully pointed me to the old discussion. FYI, the current discussion is here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:

  1. Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
  2. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.

The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Talkback at wikiproject Nortel

Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Nortel#Why_is_there_no_involvement_by_the_members_of_this_project_with_the_main_article.3F.
Message added 14:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ottawahitech (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree but......

Don't let the Canada Project know you did this. They may start dictating to the baseball project again. LOL.--JOJ Hutton 00:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I just fixed the typo in the reference to the template name (someone else had already fixed the actual template name; if they hadn't, I might have just deleted the reference to the template). If it ever comes to a discussion, I may well support the deletion of the template. Not sure how this relates to the Canada project, though. isaacl (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
OMG, I can't believe I linked the wrong edit. It was this one. UGH!!! Sorry.--JOJ Hutton 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's hard to discuss a World Series pattern between two teams that never met in the World Series. Removing this information was discussed back in 2009. isaacl (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Major League Baseball

Hey Isaacl,

I'm happy to discuss the edit relating to relegation. No major North American professional sports leagues do relegation, so I think that should be spotlighted.

Also, I don't understand the "closed shop" comparison since

A. - The European soccer pyramids are fairly similar in reality -- most of those Level 13 teams on the English soccer pyramid are never going to be in the Premier League, so those "professional levels" are fairly closed.

B. - Many of the large European teams are owned by multimillionaires, similar to North American sports franchises (see Malcolm Glazer)

C. - In theory, it's very difficult to get a new professional major league team in North America, but expansion has occurred multiple times, and if someone had several hundred million dollars and wanted a new team, it's not impossible that the leagues would accomodate them. Beyond495 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi Isaacl,

Thanks for your kind words on the Major League Baseball article, I'm glad we could figure that out. I'm somewhat new here still, so I have a question for you.

I saw a few weeks ago that several of the Premier League articles that the teams were referred to as football rather than Association football while the National Football League was referred to as American football.

I assumed the standard on Wikipedia was to just refer to it by what it's called locally, but I was reverted from that for reasons that don't seem clear.

I just asked the person who reverted me for a bit more clarity, but I figured I'd ask you as well since you seem pretty knowledgable about this insider Wikipedia stuff. Beyond495 (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any diffs for the edits you made? It's hard to tell what was the reasoning without some context. isaacl (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Here's the one I made [1], and here was the change [2]. I'm talking to that other guy right now, but I'm not quite understanding why he made the change. Beyond495 (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Please note that in accordance with Wikipedia's bold, revert, discuss guideline, once you've made a change that was reverted, you should discuss it on the article's discussion page rather than making the edit again. Also note that raising what another article does is generally not a convincing argument on its own (see Wikipedia's "other stuff exists" guideline). As has been discussed on the discussion page from the National Football League article, the rough consensus that was previously reached was to use the more specific term for the sport in the first mention in the article, and just the more general "football" for all subsequent references, so anyone coming to the article who is unfamiliar with the subject will be able to find out immediately what version of football is applicable. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Top 300 MLB Home Run Hitters

Hey, Isaacl,

I am sort of wondering why we can't make the "Players to Watch" area on the Top 300 MLB Home Run Hitters page visible. It makes the page much more resourceful, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 5, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


Since GoodDay immediately removed a comment addressed to you I will put it on your page instead.

He has been here over 6 years. He knows how to look at and create a diff, you can't possibly not know how to when you use a watch list and I know he does. He has been known in the past to play dumb when someone calls him on something he is doing. This is really just an extension of that. Don't let him waste your time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

He likes to play innocent and dumb in order to have people take pity on him. He has done it on a few occasions when others have taken him to RfC and to other places such as ANI or just outright confronted him on his talk page. He is using you at the moment to further the cause in a hope that people will go easy on him in the arbitration. You and Resolute have shown him how to do it. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to cut and paste a URL so its quite clear he is playing a game. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am confident that GoodDay has the ability to reason and understand listed steps, as he has demonstrated this in the past when making an argument, or following instructions for other Wikipedia procedures. Assuming good faith, I'm offering possible choices to overcome any hindrances that may be an issue. It's up to him if he chooses to make use of them. Resolute and I as well as others have pointed the way towards minimizing any potential restriction; I hope that it will be followed.
The only reason I posted responses on the case request page is because I thought the jump to an arbitration case might be disproportionate compared with the extent of the disruption. (I understand, though, Steven's frustration in GoodDay ignoring his advice, which negated the very purpose of having a mentor with whom he was supposed to consult on avoiding controversy.) However, if the case can remain free of editors choosing to re-argue the diacritics issue (and given the specified case scope, I can only hope the clerk will remove any extraneous comments), the discussion might stay more cordial as an arbitration case than a thread on the administrators' noticeboard.
As has been noted many times in different venues, typical low-level, ongoing disruption might be galling but it can be ignored (as the editors of hockey-related topics generally do). However the recent re-revert and edits for the purpose of illustrating a point, knowing they will be reverted, do take up the time of other editors to deal with and so this behaviour may need addressing through a formal editing restriction. Unfortunately the restriction may have to cover more than the immediate area of concern, to avoid having to revisit the issue. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The big issue facing GoodDay and I am not sure he realizes it, is that ArbCom has ruled in the past that two topic bans = a site ban. He is already banned from one topic area. Should he be topic banned from diacritics as well, its very possible ArbCom will instead just siteban him. This is why it had to go to Arbcom. ANI would have resulted in a topic ban especially since he already has a topic ban and ANI loves to just pile on. This would have then likely been pushed to ArbCom to decide on if he should be sitebanned for having two topic bans. He is much better off going to ArbCom first instead of going to ANI as he has better odds there of avoiding a second topic ban through ArbCom than he would have at ANI. -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
If you know of any links to cases where this has happened, I'd be interested in reading them (don't bother spending too much time on it; it's just out of curiosity). However if this were an issue, I think that would have been fairly easy to get around; the nature of his current editing restriction would just have to be expanded in a way to cover his behaviour, rather than specific topic areas. But since it's a lot easier for a fixed-size committee to hammer out these kind of details than the community as a whole, it is probably better handled by the arbitration committee. (Steven I guess didn't want to follow up on my suggestion that he propose a remedy to be ratified at the arbitrators' noticeboard.) isaacl (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about you Isaacl, but getting site-banned over diacritics, when there's quite a lot of English sources to back non-diacritics usage, would be a darn good reason to retire. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll say it just one more time: you are able to contribute productively in various areas, and you are fully able to illustrate this to the arbitration committee and thus minimize any editing restrictions that may get imposed. It's up to you to follow through; no one else can do it for you. isaacl (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I've tried for years to understand 'cutting' & 'pasting', but to no avail. I don't know how to link archived diffs to the Arbcase. If the Arbitrators want to restrict me in any form, then that's their choice. If an editor's going to be site-banned for continually pointing out that places & people names of non-English areas have non-diacritics versions of those names, via English sources - then so be it. My getting site-banned would be one last proof to me, as to just how bleeped up English Wikipedia has become, with the take-over of the linguistic pride of non-English 'only' reading editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
In your evidence, you included a link to,9171,977802,00.htm, and you used the following markup:
[,9171,977802,00.htm non-diacritics source]
How did you copy the web page address to the Wikipedia edit box? isaacl (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I do understand how to make external links. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
You can follow the same procedure you follow to make an external link to link to a Wikipedia page that is displaying a specific diff. isaacl (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll give it a try, at my talkpage. PS: I don't have a sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Visit User:GoodDay/sandbox to create a sandbox page. If you want to have another sandbox page with a different name, just create a link on your sandbox page with the different name, in the same format:
[[User:GoodDay/other name]]
isaacl (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Jeepers, that's easy. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
And honestly, finding out yourself how to do it is easy too. Please bear this in mind whenever you think you don't know how to do some Wikipedia task: many of them are not hard to understand or follow; you may just need a little persistence. isaacl (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It's gonna take me awhile, as I've already had 3 failed links. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
You do realize that isn't the only point of this case right? One of the other major issues is one line comments without providing any support for your assertions. And inserting comments into unrelated discussions that amount to "down with diacritics"-type comments. As well as labelling other users as exerting mother-tongue pride and the like. This case is less about diacritics and more about your actions surrounding them. It is comments like "English Wikipedia has become, with the take-over of the linguistic pride of non-English 'only' reading editors." that are the problem people are having. If you were to stop with all of those sorts of accusations and commenting like that this would probably disappear. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
DJSasso, can you abstain from debating GoodDay directly on my talk page? I don't want to encourage yet another round of argument (there are already plenty of places where this has been discussed). isaacl (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
(In case it's not clear, GoodDay, can you also refrain from debating DJSasso directly on my talk page?) isaacl (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Gladly. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to Djsasso's biased observation, I'm not keen on all the techno tricks of Wikipedia - even though I've been around for 6+ years. You (of course) must decide for yourself, if Djsasso's observation is accurate or not. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It isn't a techno trick. You simply copy and paste the URL at the top of your browser when you are looking at the change which you have already said you know how to look at. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW Isaacl, I don't know how to cut & paste. That's why I got an editor to install a ArchiveBot at my talkpage, in 2007. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I am confident you will be able to learn to copy the appropriate URL for a diff. It's as straightforward as copying the URLs for the external article links you inserted in your evidence to date. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I've requested a demonstration at the instruction page, that you've pointed out. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can describe the steps you followed when you created the link to ? Then I might be able to see where you are going wrong. isaacl (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've found the solution, at WP:ANI. BTW: How can I get User:GoodDay/Sandbox deleted? now that I've also got User:GoodDay/sandbox (the correct one). GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
FINALLY, I've figured it out, thanks to you Isaacl. Now, to do some fixing up at the Arbcase. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I am grateful for your help Isaacl, honestly. I'm just disgusted with the way things have changed on English Wikipedia, these last few years. Even at WP:HOCKEY, the diacritics compromise has been tilted to favour diacritics. Resolute has turned towards favouring their usage. Ravenswing & Masterhatch, just don't give a sh-t anymore. It's no wonder I resigned my membership at WP:HOCKEY. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I can only echo what Jeanne, Resolute and others have said: we hope you will put aside the fact that current consensus does not align with some of your points of view, and continue to contribute productive edits as you have in the past in other areas. Gnoming is a noble task—there's no glory in it, but it makes it possible for Wikipedia to manage its numerous contributions from inexperienced editors still learning the ropes. isaacl (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll likey stick to gnoming, which I hope includes keeping diacritics hidden on the North American-based hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to comment that the right place for that bit of trivia would be in the Matt Cain article. And, lo and behold, it's already there. It could be relevant in the perfect game article, IF there were other commentaries about what might have come soon before and/or soon after these perfect games. Like in 1965, Koufax's perfecto was a highlight of a championship season for the Dodgers, when the great K-man was at his peak as a dominant pitcher. In contrast, Don Larsen was a journeyman who happened to strike gold at just the right time. (Some of that stuff may already be in the article.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving quote

I can move the first Verducci quote to the 1986 portion, and just take out the part which mentions Carter's death; what do you think? I think the both quotes I inserted are valid, one sort of sums up his career and it was good to put it in the personal subsection. The other is pretty pointedly placed near the '86 portion, IMO. Zepppep (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Responded on Talk:Gary Carter. isaacl (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


You seem knowledgable. How do I stop my talk page from Archiving? I've noticed that more and more users just let their page grow. I don't get that many visitors to worry about length. Can you assist? ```Buster Seven Talk 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to add your comment of this morning (re:new editors) to the Wikipedia:First contact essay that has just started. I may have to "noodle" it a bit which I hope is OK. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to have a focused checklist of tasks that a greeter can do to welcome a new editor, and make themselves available for questions to help acclimate the newcomer. Lower down on the page, there can be a background section to help remind editors of how they should tailor their expectations of new editors. I can see part of my comment fitting into this background section. However, also note that I intended my comment to be more than just part of an essay, but to potentially spur into action steps to continually recruit greeters or mentors, and perhaps revamp documentation to be better suited for new editors. isaacl (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Good ideas. The more places your comment exists the more likely it is that a light will go on. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the copyedits and review. I have nominated it at FAC, so any further improvements or suggestions you have would be most appreciated! Cheers! Resolute 01:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Isaacl. I've addressed the comment you made on this FLC. If you have any additional feedback you'd like to give, feel free to add more comments. If not, could you please return to the FLC page and place your position (i.e. whether you support or oppose this list becoming an FL). Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Perfect game

You edited Perfect game:
(Undid revision 507799235 by (talk) revert incorrect change)
I sure thought the number was 23; see, for example, NY Daily News. Can you explain why you think it is 21? Matchups 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question starts with "During baseball's modern era..." The article lists the number of perfect games during this period, as well as the two that occurred before the modern era. isaacl (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/30–30 club/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Placed the NTS template around every single HR and SB #, but it doesn't seem to be working. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that I have addressed all your comments in this discussion, would you care to take a stance on this FLC (i.e. whether you support or oppose this nomination)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I apologize, but I don't have any experience in evaluating featured articles or lists, and my interests don't currently lie in that direction. I was only trying to provide some assistance on technical matters (and unfortunately I misunderstood the original comment's concern; I'm sorry for the digression which didn't help with the raised issue). I wish your nomination well and hope that you are able to accomplish your goal! isaacl (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It's alright. I understand. But thank you for all your comments, as they in fact did help with the FLC process. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorting on a calculation

Hello Isaacl. Just a quick note to say thanks for your interactions so far on sorting. I have one example for you about sorting two columns combined where a "calculation" col would never be included. We have "best bowling" in cricket so someone may get 4 wickets and "concede" 50 runs. Then someone may get 4 wickets and do better, by conceding only 60 runs. In cricket we'd represent the first as 4/50 and the second as 4/60. When sorting by "best bowling" where we have individual columns for wickets and runs, we'd expect 4/50 to be "better" than 4/60 regardless of surname (or whatever primary sorting mechanism is somehow "intuitively expected" of our readers). What I think would be an abhorrence would be to mandate us to use a specific column to say "average for best bowling" which for 4/50 would be "=4/50" and for 4/60 would be "=4/60" (i.e. wickets/runs, a bowling average, but for one specific match). Right now, we use the cunning {{sort}} template to mix-and-match the two columns that most readers would understand, most certainly those who know cricket. Right now, the secondary sorting by the "primary column" is a complete joke and is of no use (and is not documented) to those readers who are interested in particular topics. Anyway, just a starter for ten, what do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If I understand Cricket statistics#Bowling statistics correctly, the ranking is based on using wickets as a primary sort key in descending order and then runs conceded as a secondary sort key in ascending order. Is this correct? isaacl (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
In that case, sorting can be done using the two columns; no special calculation is required. (I appreciate it requires someone to know how to use multiple keys to sort.) isaacl (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
But in this case I shouldn't have to sort the list twice to get the desired effect. To readers of cricket lists, it is simply sorting incorrectly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the advantages for someone who is expecting a certain effect by sorting on one column alone. I suggest that the effect of sorting on the wickets or runs column should be specified in a table legend, so that the behaviour will not be unexpected. Otherwise, those not well-versed in cricket will not understand how the table is being sorted. isaacl (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Presumably all tables across all of Wikipedia should have a legend to describe the existing behaviour because right now, that's not intuitve either. In the meantime, I think we'll just stick with using a {{sort}} template to get the correct sorting behaviour. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorting on a single column is straightforward enough; I think most people will expect that ties will be broken by the order of the rows prior to the sort. isaacl (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think so, not in this case at least. Otherwise the Olympic tables would follow your logic. Which they don't. Can you prove your statement? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe most people will expect that when they click on a column heading, the table will sort purely based on the contents of that column and not on others, because they didn't specify any other columns to sort upon, and they don't expect the table to decide for them how ties will be broken. isaacl (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, like I said, the Olympics tables don't follow your logic so I guess we have a precedent set that cricket tables (and others) should be able to follow. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you point to a specific example of an Olympic medal table that I can examine? I'm not quite clear on what your objective is with this conversation, though. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be trying to win an argument. I'm not very interested in arguing one side or another; I simply pointed out certain shortcomings in hardcoding the secondary sort keys into a column. isaacl (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Any Olympic medal table will do. It sorts first by golds, then silvers, then bronzes. Or if you sort by silvers, it then sorts by golds then bronze. Not by the initial sort order. I see no shortcomings with that, so I see no shortcomings with hardcoding the cricket lists similarly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, please give me an article link. I don't wish to beat a dead horse, so I won't go over the potential shortcomings again. Several times I've expressed an appreciation for the convenience of hardcoding other sort keys within a column, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning examples. isaacl (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking at 2012 Summer Olympics medal table and 2010 Winter Olympics medal table, if I first click on the country name column heading to sort by country name, then the Silver column heading, the rows with the same number of silvers are ordered by country name, following the pre-sort order. (And looking at the markup, there are no hidden sort keys in the table.) isaacl (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice template

Hi there. I fear your latest edit to the template may have made it too long. When I made the original template, I got feedback that it was perhaps too wordy. I concurred with that opinion and hence reduced the length, but I think the latest edits you've made have it back to perhaps being too wordy again. Also, because the template is up for discussion/input, I might recommend proposing any edits on the project talk page rather than making changes to the template itself. (I am OK with the first one edit you made.) If there are any other suggestions editors might have, I can go ahead and implement them into the template (or another editor may feel free to do so, but only after more widespread agreement has been rounded up). Zepppep (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe I actually shortened a lot of text and streamlined it. I can create a separate mockup on the project talk page, if you prefer. isaacl (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of dealing with everyone's concerns when that's possible, rather than just ignoring the minority. In the "support and discussion" section, did my "FWIW" and other people's comments address your point? Do you have a suggestion on reframing the question? - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I was glad to read that you have a similar view on holding off on a proposal for the use of pending changes level 2 protection until more input has been gathered on the goals for pending changes. Personally, I feel naming a "committee" to draw up a proposal is a bit overly bureaucratic; I think it is overkill to ask, after each RfC, if there shall be a committee to digest the input from the RfC and draw up a proposal. I believe this is what people expect: strawmen proposals will be made for each different aspect of the pending changes policy, people will comment, and the proposals will be refined, hopefully converging towards a consensus opinion.
The RfC has usefully identified some scenarios where pending changes level 2 protection may be beneficial. I think we need to determine how much importance does the community place on addressing these scenarios, versus the importance of keeping pending changes relatively simple to understand, and the public relations impact. Though I agree with those who argue that the alternative to pending changes level 2 is full protection, so PC/2 is actually less restrictive, I recognize there are others that feel differently. In addition, in terms of ensuring the long-term success of the new protection model, it may be more prudent to roll out new protection levels in phases, rather than all at once. If the community's views on these topics can be gauged, then the best way to employ pending changes level 2 will emerge. isaacl (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
You make a lot of sense. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I try my best, but count myself lucky if it comes out that way :-P isaacl (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout 20:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing a "what if" list from the Major League Baseball Wild Card Game article

How exactly is putting the actual two best non-divisional teams (most people likely don't know who were the runner ups in the Wild Card prior to 2012 and clearly only pertains to the 1995 onward era) in a one-game playoff prior to the implementation of the MLB Wild Card Game a true "what if" scenario!? You really seem to be thinking way beyond or ahead of another wise basic scenario (like thinking about how differently a manager would operate and what not). A what if scenario would be which team would have a better chance of winning, thus altering the playoff outlook (and possibly even further than that). Another actual what if scenario would be speculating how the cancelled 1994 season would've ended if it weren't for the strike. And using Lou Gerhig as an analogy doesn't make sense because that has nothing to due w/ using a final statistic (we can at that rate, go on all day about how much differently a player's career might have turned out had they not gotten injured), like end of season records as a main point of reference. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:09 p.m., 22 October 2012 (UTC)

New message

Leaving a talkback since this is time-sensitive

Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:PC2012/RfC_3#Compromise_hybrid_RfC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. I feel really bad for making this mess BTW. I hope we can salvage the situation. Gigs (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


Just thought I'd say, hello. GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! isaacl (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I & Pedro II of Brazil

Howdy Isaacl. I'm a tad annoyed with Lecen's posts & edit-summaries, as I find them to be signs of own & battle. But, I'm not the type to drag any editor to ANI, over a content dispute :) GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest remembering to look at the dispute from the other points of view: imagine yourself building a case for the opposing positions, and how you would counter your own arguments for the opinion you actually hold. It also might be wise to refrain from making additional edits when the area in question is being discussed, and instead make proposals as part of that discussion, referring to existing guidelines. If you end up on the opposite side of consensus, if you can accept it gracefully (and, as hard as I know it is, admit to any errors you may have made in judging existing practice or guidance), you will foster a greater collaborative spirit between all editors, which will be useful for future discussions. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I hope Christmas will usher in many new wondrous moments and fulfilling times for you! isaacl (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That was very well said. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk !6:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hope the holidays bring you much joy and delight! isaacl (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
A "Defender of the Wiki" Barnstar might not be what you would expect to get for WikiLove-related work, but I think it actually applies. Whether or not you realize it, you and the others are protecting Wikipedia by striving to keep our best editors motivated and encouraged. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 04:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your kindness! isaacl (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

Hello, Isaacl. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 02:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Project Editor Retention

This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
Good work on Editor of the Week.Amadscientist (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Project Editor Retention

This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
For taking the bull by the horns and getting this off the ground! A hearty "Hear, Hear!" and a great big thank you!. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much; the barnstars are greatly appreciated! isaacl (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Threes a charm. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Project Editor Retention

This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
For your efforts of getting "Editor of the Week" off the drawing board and onto the pages of our first recepient. Well done.
Thank you very much! isaacl (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at TheOriginalSoni's talk page.
Message added 16:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

P.S. Why dont you keep a user page? Red links look distracting. I would very much have wanted a brief description for you when I look at your talk page, trying to get an idea who you are TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Welcome!

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

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 Wikipedia: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!  Kingturtle 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving at EOTW

Can we change the archiving time? The sections pertaining to editors that have received awards are inactive and they clutter up the page. Also, would you be so kind as to list yourself under members? Thanks for all you do.```Buster Seven Talk 17:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the bot will only archive 2nd level headings, so I changed the talk page to promote each discussion up a level. I also changed the archiving time to 10 days, and enabled the bot to archive a single discussion at a time. isaacl (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool info box

Just curious--- That very cool and well designed infobox @ EotW Main page. Who created it and how do we get it onto Diiscools page.? I'm sure the recipients are proud to display it in their trophy case(s). ```Buster Seven Talk 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If you mean who updated it with the information for this week's recipient, I did. Amadscientist described on the WT:EotW page how to include it on the recipient's talk page: put {{subst:Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page}} on the user's talk page. The "subst:" prefix causes the whole string to be replaced with the output of the template, so its current appearance will be captured on the page and not change when the template is modified for future recipients. This also makes it possible to change the template without having to worry about affecting the places where it has been included. isaacl (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks ....I actually understood that. |:~) ```Buster Seven Talk 04:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Isaacl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

```Buster Seven Talk 19:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WER main page

@ "to do list". Ive tried to include something about membership nominating an EotW but I cant get it to work. Can you give it a shot? Thanks ```Buster Seven Talk 14:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you clarify your request a bit? Do you have a link to a diff for some edit that you can't get to work? isaacl (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/to do2...Just thought that the more we mention EotW, the more nominees we will get. I tried to add "nominate" to the list. No luck! ```Buster Seven Talk 16:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps. The {{tasks}} template is used for that list, and it defines a specific set of categories in which related tasks / links to appropriate articles requiring attention can be listed. As the categories are based on the type of work done by typical WikiProjects that are focused on improving a topic area, I don't see any specific category that is suitable for soliciting nominations. The best suggestion I have is to add it to the catchall "other" section. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


As I am sure you are much more versed in the graphics involved, I would appreciate it if yo would handle this. What would take me two hours you can probably accomplish in ten minutes. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The only graphics involved is for the infobox that Amadscientist created. If you want to do the presentation other than updating the infobox photo, please go ahead; I'm sure someone will find an appropriate photo for the infobox (with Diiscool, I lucked out as there was a gallery of favourite photos on the user's page, so I just grabbed one from there; with Wetman, a bit of searching for a suitable photo is required). isaacl (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not now going to have any time to deal with this and you have my apologoies. If you can't get it done, or only partially done, Buster indicated he would help. RL has intervened again. Sorry. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem; your contributions to date are appreciated! isaacl (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

EOTW - Reply

Hi there ISAAC, AL here,

moved by your kind words (and almost had a seizure of happiness when i saw the infobox :)), many thanks and keep up the good work yourself.

Cheers, from Portugal --AL (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The infobox was a collaborative effort with TheOriginalSoni; I'm glad you liked it! It's nice to have active contributors from all parts of the world who bring different viewpoints, so it's great that you've been able to help out at the English Wikipedia site. isaacl (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Baltic baloney

It looks like Resolute is starting to weaken. :( GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not an "us versus them" scenario; one key question that no one seems to be asking is what would be most useful for readers to put in the limited space available in the infobox? For the sake of building a solid consensus that won't get endlessly appealed in other forums (or a solid "no consensus", I suppose), I think it is best to skip the pointless local discussions and focus on one larger discussion. This one is better than the WT:HOCKEY thread but since this is a biography infobox issue, I think WikiProject Biography is a better place to reach a broad consensus (what is suitable for an article on a city, for example, may not be the best for a person's infobox). My suggestion is to just let others discuss the matter; I know you'll be disappointed if they agree on something that you don't prefer, but I don't think the personal aggravation is worth it. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Oddily, it's rather a win-win situation for me, when you consider who the editors are on both sides of the dispute. Atleast one of them will be disappointed. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, it shouldn't be approached as a personal dispute, but as a discussion to determine what would be in the best interests of the readers. I urge you not to seek solace in the disappointment of specific editors. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did you make a new template without attribution

This is not appropriate and is a copyright violation on Wikipedia. I do expect that you will correct this. I do not take kindly to my work being taken by another editor in this manner. Fix this with a Dummy edit stating where this content was merged from and where it was merged to. If this is not done I will be requesting speedy deletion of your template. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of this and past conflicts you are no longer welcome to make further changes to any project pages at either Wikipedia Editor Retention or Editor of the Week unless you become a member. Projects members are granted the right to maintain pages and edit templates. We have overlooked this issue in the past but it is clear we need to stick to consensus of involved members as other projects do. You are welcome to simply add your name to the projects but is probably best if you refrain from making bold, undiscussed edits to any of the main pages or templates. Should you decide not to join either projects please refrain from disruption by editing the pages and templates. Thank you and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for the oversight. I have made a dummy edit and added the appropriate template to the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Infobox to provide the required attribution. isaacl (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec)You do realize that per the WikiProject guidelines that editors are not required to put their names on a members list to be considered members of a particular WikiProject. All that is required is that they edit pages in the WikiProject's Scope. WikiProject's don't own their pages. Just thought you should be made aware of that, because the last editor I saw blow up at someone like this using similar language eventually had it end badly for them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm more amused at how many of that wikiproject's editing goals were broken by the tone of these posts. Resolute 17:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Can't say that I wasn't also amused by the irony. Part of why I had to comment. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
To Amadscientist: 1) Your 8:05 & 9:13 posts should be indented the same, as you're not responding to yourself & 2) WikiProject membership isn't mandatory. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Wikiprojects are the scope of members and members are indeed those that join the collaboration. Project members do not own the articles under their scope. Project pages are not articles. Project members are the editors that control the projects and editor retention efforts are being ignored by the editor that uses practices that are not withing the spirit or the policies of Wikipedia. If you want to take the work of others and attribute it to your self as you have done several times you are not setting an example of collaboration and not demonstrating the same efforts that are being recognised by EOTW. Join the project, but please attribute any work you merge to other articles per policy or you could be blocked from editing. This is very simple. Many editors are taking tome to collaborate and you do indeed need to join the project you wish to attempt to coordinate. I have been very patient over the last few months and not made any real issue but you are not able to follow attribution and copyright policy and that is not acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for failures in maintaining attribution, and I will ensure that it does not reoccur. I will also look for past newly-created pages and add attribution. isaacl (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
You contributions are a good addition. Just remeber that proper attribution requires links to the pages and not urls. The proper attribution when merging content (a minimal requirement) should be similar to: "Content from Article has been merged into New Article. I invite you to join the projects and help form consensus and continue your work in the spirit of our projects that encourage best practices. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Both of you have been very important and critical to the success of Editor of the Week. I'm glad you have resolved your issue and I look forward to Isaacl adding his name to the list of members. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at TheOriginalSoni's talk page.
Message added 05:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at TheOriginalSoni's talk page.
Message added 08:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions for a Signpost interview

Colour of weatherboxes

The vote on the colour schemes/styles to be used in the weather box is about to occur. Please vote by throwing your username under the options that you prefer the best.

Template talk:Weather box#RfC - Colours to be used in the weather box. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

EotW Infoboxes

We are dispensing the Infoboxes on Tuesday. With todays, I thought I would add it as a sub-thread to the Award. My question is how do I get it to "center" in the page. Ive tried what I know but it doesn't work. Thanks in advance, ```Buster Seven Talk 22:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame page does it by putting each infobox into a table cell, and centering the table. So you could put the infobox into a one-cell table like so:

{| style="margin:auto;"
|{{subst:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page}}

The output is as follows:

substituted infobox redacted in archived version of talk page

For what it's worth, personally I find it a bit intrusive to have a large infobox without any text flowing next to it; my personal preference is to add the infobox at the top of the section with the recognition notification banner, so the text of the notification and followup responses will appear next to the infobox. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your advice. Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at B2project's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 06:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


I appreciate the note on my talk page. Hope all is well and Happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! May the season bring you many festive celebrations! isaacl (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Editor Retention Main Page

Sorry to bother but could you check at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. The latest recipient, Neonblak, doesn't show up. Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To force the server to regenerate a given page, just add "?action=purge" to the end of the URL for the page. So in this case, visit to force the page to be regenerated (I have done so and so the page seems to appear correctly now). isaacl (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, several people from the baseball wikiproject are getting together after Wizardman's sudden retirement to figure out a better way to organize the Wikiproject. One of the ideas we came up with is having our own IRC channel to help each other, as well as new users with collaboration and content. If you need help connecting to IRC join #wikipedia-coffeehouse connect. The IRC channel for Wikiproject Baseball is #wiki-baseball connect. Thanks Secret account 23:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

module problems

so, I made this change which allowed {{Baseball navbox|child to work (the child is a positional arg, so ustring was throwing a script error). however, now it exposes a different problem, in that the inner navbox is being parsed twice in Template:Major League Baseball Delivery Man Award. it would be possible to fix this with a hack to try to detect and fix this, but I think there is probably a better solution. I will let you know if I have any ideas, and let me know if you have any ideas. Frietjes (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

inspired by your module, I created Module:Navbox with nowrap lists, which tries to add nowrap spans to all list items. there is a hack in there to prevent double processing of child navboxes. I am going to see if we can get this merged with module:navbox, and have it enabled if a flag is set. Frietjes (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
As I only took into account the needs of one specific template and not more general use cases, I hadn't tried any of these scenarios. Thanks for working on solutions. In the interim, either Module:Team roster navbox could just wrap a call to Module:Navbox with nowrap lists, or {{Baseball navbox}} could call your module directly. (As I mentioned on another talk page, in the longer term, I'd like to extend the team roster navbox module to support more customization.) I have limited free time at the moment, so I won't be able to look at it for a few days. (I'd also like to create some test cases to cover these situations.) isaacl (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Hey Isaac, when is the target for delivery? I am still planning to write a roundup of MLB in March or something to that effect ... Go Phightins! 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there wasn't any further comments in response to my suggestion of March 30, that's the target I put on the newsletter desk page. It would be nice if we could get someone with mass mailing permissions to deliver it by bot, though I suppose given the short timeframe for people to sign up, hand-delivery might suffice for the first issue. isaacl (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
So we're delivering it only to those who sign up? Why not the whole project with an opt-out notice for people to unsubscribe? Go Phightins! 21:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Generally, people don't like getting mass mailings they didn't sign up for. Opt-in is a more community-friendly approach. Relying on opt-out will unfortunately generate a lot of heat and use up goodwill. isaacl (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : March 30, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

Test transclusions

Include by transclusion:

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

Include by subst:

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

Washington Nationals

Thanks for keeping an eye on the article about the Nationals. The Atlanta fans are out of control today with the silliness. Do you think it's worth seeking short-term page protection for a couple of days to eliminate the need for constant reverting? By my count I've undone or reverted the same couple of things eight times so far today. Obviously at some point the doofuses will find some other way to get their jollies, of course. 1995hoo (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Following up to say never mind. Someone just protected it. 1995hoo (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I had requested semi-protection. Let's hope it is enough. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : March 30, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

version delivered as a trial

WER Administrative Procedures

Hey Isaac. I made some changes per our conversation with DB. Can you give them a proof-read? TKS! ```Buster Seven Talk 19:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Buster7. I noticed the link in the first bullet item doesn't work correctly; it should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#2014 Recipients of Editor of the Week aka The Eddy
Otherwise, the steps match my understanding of the current procedures. isaacl (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at Jorgath's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : April 27, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

Next inside corner

Hey Isaac, in case you remember and I don't, for the next Inside Corner, I would like to write a summary of Sportsguy17's and Northern Antarctica's contributions. Go Phightins! 01:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps this article. Go Phightins! 00:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Go Phightins!: though I appreciate what is bringing these two editors to mind, I feel we need to be careful not to make long-time contributors feel less valued if too much emphasis is placed on specific newer editors. Also, I think we should avoid memorializing editors who have stepped away: though we should be appreciative, and supportive of a future return, I don't think we should give it undue prominence, particularly compared to those who continue to toil diligently. My suggestion would be to find a way to highlight the contributions of a set of editors; maybe pick a different focus area to look at each issue and see who's been working on there (for example, team stats updates, new rookie articles, and so forth).
All that being said, having recognition of WikiProject Baseball participants is, generally speaking, a good idea, and we should encourage more of it! isaacl (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, good points. However, both Sportsguy17 and Northern Antarctica (formerly AutomaticStrikeout) are not exactly "new editors" – they are not you-tenured or Wizardman-tenured, but they are not new by our current standards. That said, what about an "editor spotlight" section, where we feature a WP:BASEBALLer each month, and talk about their work, what they enjoy/don't enjoy, where they could use help, etc.? And in that section, we could mention "editor news" (be it retirements, new administrators, etc.). I would be willing to write such a section. Go Phightins! 19:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
By "new" I meant relatively speaking; there are lots of editors that have a much longer tenure. I also meant to say (but forgot) that I think an editor spotlight feature in a question-and-answer format where the editor in question is interviewed could be a good way to engage potential new editors. I'm still a bit wary of making a big deal of retirements. Lots of editors stop editing for a period (and of course everyone will eventually stop editing, one way or another); I don't think we should draw a lot of attention to it by announcing their editing patterns. Plus I think the time to recognize editors is while they're still around, so they can appreciate it (it's sort of a disincentive to stick around if your accomplishments are only acknowledged when you leave). isaacl (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
True. All right, well, when we get closer to the next issue, I will draft a section on an editor spotlight. Any editor whom you think we should spotlight first? Go Phightins! 21:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

7th inning stretch

Hey isaacl, I have recently drafted a new 7th inning stretch in my sandbox. It is about Gaylord Perry's famous 1st home run. It would be great if it got published in this months newsletter. Thanks. Atomic XYC 10:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


For some reason I can't ping you to WT:COI Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I did receive your ping—echo notifications still work for editors without a user page, as is the case for me. Thanks for making the new proposal. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


Bloom's answers to my questions are on my talk page, but I don't have time to look at them right now, so if you still want to publish today, can you either look at them and do what you want with them, or we can wait until the next issue. Go Phightins! 10:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I can write up the responses. By the way, rather than putting discussion directly on the newsletter page itself, if you could use the talk page of the newsletter desk then it'll be easier to manage. Thanks for the interview! isaacl (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
All right, thanks. And I will try to remember to use the talk page next time; sorry about that. As for delivery, I will be gone from Friday evening until Sunday around noon, so I can deliver when I get back, or if something else works better, let me know. Go Phightins! 21:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll post a request as usual on the mass mailing page; if no one does it by Sunday then you can send it out. I was a bit uncertain initially about what discussion should go where—I'm thinking now that general discussion about the newsletter can go on the project discussion page, so everyone can see it and maybe become interested in contributing, but discussion on specific questions / co-ordination for preparing the current issue can go on the newsletter desk discussion page. I plan to ask all of the current contributors to put the newsletter desk page on their watchlists. isaacl (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : May 31, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:


Sorry if I was irritable. Your edits are highly valued, and thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


What's your level of interest? I think I remember that you said in the last COI RfC that you hadn't stated a position, and your comments generally seem intended to help people gain consensus. Would you like to be one of the closers? - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, would you be willing to run a straw poll? - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
My preference would be to help shape the discussion before any closure. My pie-in-the-sky ideal would be for everyone to reach a consensus agreement that everyone can agree with, so a separate closer/closing panel is unnecessary, but I realize that is a pretty tall order with contentious issues. If possible I would like something similar to the general problem resolution process to be followed, but I suspect in this case, there wouldn't be much patience for steps 1 and 2, as there are many who hold ideological positions in this matter. But the most important part in my mind is iterating through steps 3 to 5 to work towards a solution, and not get hung up in continuous cycles of duelling support/oppose votes. My suggestion is to have a curated pros and cons list, FAQ list, table of considerations, or whatever works as a summary statement, and it can be kept in one place and updated, so if someone starts repeating an argument, everyone can just point to the summary and say, oh, you mean this? and the repetition can be stopped. Getting an agreement within a large group is always a slow process; anything that can be done to cut out redundancies will encourage involvement.
I know my attempts to guide the conversation during the many RfCs last year on conflicts of interest were unsuccessful. Most participants (though not all) kept to their entrenched positions, and did not want to accept a middle ground stepping stone that addressed some but not all of their concerns. Although I have no way of knowing for sure, my guess is that many of the interested parties do not have extensive experience with decision-making by a large group, and so the advantages of an incremental approach to influencing policy may not be evident. Thus to be frank, I'm not certain I'm the right person to lead a discussion, as I haven't had much success in getting others to sign onto my approach.
As clear, concise writing is one of my strengths, I am interested in helping craft the wording of any question asked of the Wikipedia community. I think it is vital for the wording to be even-handed and offer clear options, as this leads to the best sampling of opinion. If the interested parties decide a straw poll should be held to gauge opinion on a specific matter and so someone is needed to run the poll, I am happy to help with this.
In the end, the willingness of the participants to work together towards finding a happy medium to satisfy the most persons is key. Unfortunately, one or more recalcitrant editors can derail the process. Repetitive discussion loops can be short-circuited if most editors agree to disengage, but it only takes two editors swamping discussion to bog matters down. I hope that laying out the arguments in a summary statement can reassure everyone that their points are understood and available for consideration, so they do not feel compelled to re-state their points. isaacl (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
"ideal would be for everyone to reach a consensus agreement that everyone can agree with, so a separate closer/closing panel is unnecessary": That's exactly my view of RfCs that are (in some sense) about the WP community. We can expect people to be less willing to take in new information during an RfC; what's more important is what happens between the RfCs. Still, if unstructured discussion isn't doing anything, sometimes an RfC can be helpful to prune out the least successful arguments, so that we don't keep arguing the same thing with no result.
"I'm not certain I'm the right person": You've got some aptitude for it, if you've got the time to invest. If you don't want to be a closer, would you be willing to ask the participants if they'd accept you as a closer-in-training, with the idea that you're helping to lead discussions, which gives them a chance to kick your tires to see if they'd like you as a future closer? - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think the concept of a closer-in-training is useful, as I think it would place the candidate in a lame-duck role. Time commitment is a problem, and so I would not want to be the sole person taking the lead in guiding conversation. I can work with others, though, in helping to move discussion forward rather than in the same loops. I can also help with keeping a summary of discussion up to date. I like the multi-dimensional model that Jytdog presented on the conflict of interest discussion page, and so perhaps as a first step, we can get an initial problem statement on which sector of the model is the focus. (However, I see that you've already asked for proposals on an RfC, and Smallbones has proposed one. I think this is premature, but seems like the horse is about to bolt from the barn already.) isaacl (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go correct that impression. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : June 27, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I wouldn't have thought of it myself. And even though it isn't a formal decision yet (and who knows? maybe never will be), I wanted to express my sense of "A ha!" to you. So there you have it: "A ha!" KDS4444Talk 23:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


I think we need to make the newsletter something that can be read on the talk page of the user (i.e. transclude it, at least in collapsed form). Hopefully then, it would have more visibility for other people who might happen to be viewing that talk page. By the way, I will not be able to contribute to this month's edition in all likelihood, as I will be without internet access for two weeks starting June 22. Go Phightins! 22:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is the newsletter is too long to include without collapsing sections, and my suspicion is if a casual passer-by isn't sufficiently intrigued by the section taglines to click on them, it won't matter if that click goes to another page or opens up a collapsed section. Based on the non-response it's received on the WikiProject Baseball discussion page, I suspect there aren't too many people interested in it. So we need to ask ourselves: what do we want to achieve with the newsletter? That's one of the reasons why I wrote the article on welcoming new editors: I wanted to go back to the newsletter's original suggested purpose as a tool to help draw in new editors. If we really want to use it for that, then I think the Outreach department needs reviving—some editors need to take on the job of seeking out and welcoming editors, and perhaps connecting them to mentors who can guide them. If people are just having a bit of fun putting out these reports, that's fine too, and then we can keep the newsletter relatively small and perhaps with a more ad hoc release schedule.
Thanks for letting me know you'll be less involved in this month's edition; I'll solicit others to work on the sections you normally contribute towards. I appreciate all the work you've done to-date on The Inside Corner! isaacl (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I think the newsletter may just be missed on talk pages, as it looks like the Signpost. Perhaps if we at least had the green border? (Just thinking aloud). Also, I know we get a lot of new users updating stats. Did you see EricEnfermero's suggestion about creating a WikiProject welcome? Perhaps we could integrate a collapsed version of the newsletter into that. Again, just thinking aloud. Go Phightins! 22:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I'd responded to Eric, but I guess I didn't... I enabled Twinkle to see if I could add a personal customization, as per Twinkle's documentation, to allow me to use the current WikiProject Baseball invitation template, but it didn't seem to work. I'll have to try again. I didn't see too many requests on the Twinkle support page to add new project-specific templates, so I'm not sure how the current ones got picked for inclusion. (One request I saw got a reply to just add it to your own custom list of welcomes.)
Being a bit uncertain of how regular the newsletter schedule will be, I'm a little wary of putting it into the invitation template. I think the bigger question is if the template is being used at all right now? As you may have noticed, each newsletter edition has instructions on how to include the summary on a user's talk page, and the article I wrote on welcoming new editors referred to them.
A bit of colour may be a good idea to make the summary stand out. When I get the chance I'll play around with it. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC proposal

Dear Isaacl: I followed your suggestion and posted at Gadgets/proposals, but as usual failed to attract even negative comment. It's frustrating to see other changes being implemented all around and see this one treated as if it didn't exist, but for my own peace of mind I think it would be best if I just let it go. Thanks anyway. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Rogers Centre

Would you have a moment to look at a comment I left at Talk:Rogers Centre. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : July 27, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

The Inside Corner

Isaac, I am very sorry I completely forgot to notify you that I would miss the last edition of TIC as well, and want to let you know that it looks great (I like the border and whatnot), and I will be more than happy to contribute to the next edition. Thanks for picking up the ball I dropped! Go Phightins! 17:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries—I believe you left a note on your user page that I saw. Others were away as well; I look forward to more contributors in August! isaacl (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost WikiProject report

The WikiProject Report of The Signpost would like to focus on WikiProject Baseball for a Signpost article on or around August 20. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. If you are willing to answer a few questions about WikiProject Baseball, just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. Thank you for your time; the visibility will allow other users to better engage with the project. (writing largely based on [3]). Seattle (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Can you take a look at Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page. I noticed that the archive box is falling behind. I created Archive 52 today, 51 last week and 50 and 49 the weeks before. But the box only displays up to Archive 48. Not a major problem and I might be the only one that needs to keep track of the most recent. Thanks and congrats on the article in the Signpost. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I changed a parameter to the template for the archive box, as the defaults do not support more than 48 archives. In future perhaps just a link to the most recent archive might suffice, as the list is getting unwieldy. Just an idea... isaacl (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : September 1, 2014

Editor retention- New page

Thanks for the discussion on my talk page. You made a good deal of sense in short order. I was hoping you might be interested in creating that new page as you had a previous interest in the original page.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can expand a bit on what you had in mind? WT:WER would probably be a good place to hold the discussion, so more editors can be involved. My personal suggestion would be to list initiatives that editors can get involved in to help encourage editors and foster a rewarding collaborative environment. The page would be a directory of sorts to help people find concrete things to do that can improve the editing experience. isaacl (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume the "Taking a break" section at talk:WER was an effort to get the discussion going at WER. Not surprisingly a "diffused discussion" was the result. I was about to "lift" Isaacl's bullet list and start a new thread just below but realized editors would quickly show up with axes that needed grinding and stories that needed to be told. WER is a good place to hold the discussion just maybe not in The Great Room where every Tom and Jerry wants input. Much gets said and positive suggestions are made (example) but eventually are lost to the archives. Should we, at least, start a page to collect ideas for future reference? I think WER can provide a work space for many varied solutions. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
For better or worse, the culture in Wikipedia is generally biased against trying to limit a discussion thread to specific topics. I was going to ask those debating the only response so far to my post to separate their discussion, but I realized I was, to some degree, also guilty of hijacking the thread—I was genuinely replying to original post where Mark seemed to rue the project's lack of initiatives beyond Editor of the Week, but then threw in a whole bunch of ideas and asked for further suggestions.
The WP:WER page is probably a good place to host a list of potential project initiatives. I think the whole page could use some cleanup, as there are a lot of stale pointers to inactive conversations there. I don't think I'm a good candidate to do any tidying, though, as my views seem to lack mainstream currency with respect to the rest of those who comment frequently on the project talk page.
I was trying to generate some ideas for simple initiatives that could be pursued by any editor, that either work well or don't, so there's no big harm in trying it out, seeing if it succeeds, and moving on if it doesn't. I think figuring out a good way to lobby the WMF for a landing page or for an advertising campaign to attract editors would be a good initiative, and I hope someone with a history of strong contributions to Wikipedia who can rally many supporters will take it on. isaacl (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and wanted to hear you input on the topic since you've helped me in the past with the MLB Standings template. B2Project(Talk) 16:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : September 28, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

Copyright rules

I have started the article Wrigley Field renovations which would be extremely enhanced with images. I found some fantastic images Here. How do I determine if they are freely licensed or within the public domain? If you notice, each photo has a link to a copy and paste page to send to a friend. Would that put them in the Public Domain? I asked for an answer at the help desk but afterward I thought of you. Thanks in advance, ```Buster Seven Talk 18:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I got an answer. Not the one I was hoping for, but answer nonetheless. Thanks anyway. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Note each of the images had an attribution in the caption text; it's unlikely the Chicago Tribune would make photos taken by its photographer freely licensed. I believe the renderings from the Cubs come from their web site. In practice, the Cubs aren't likely to mind people copying renderings they've released as press materials, but Wikipedia is quite strict about reusing material, in order to keep all content clearly re-usable by anyone. You could try asking the Cubs to explicitly grant permission to reuse images under a free and open source license; see Commons:OTRS for more details. Whether or not they'd agree is a bit of potluck; it depends if whomever you are able to reach in the PR department is willing to donate the images and understands the copyright licensing issues in question. isaacl (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. ^ "FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA" (PDF). Nortel. 2008-02-28. p. 124. Retrieved 2009-04-30.
  3. ^ "Press Release Nortel Acquires Tasman Networks". VoIP News. Retrieved 2009-04-30.