Talk:Josh Hancock

message: Where is a list of tags? I couldn't find the recently deceased one, so I added a current event one. I know this is wrong, so if someone can change it, I'd appreciate. Pgrote 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death tag? 

message: Someone is changing the text to refer to the death as a starting pitcher. The idea is to show he was going to start a game like Darryl Kile was. He wasn't. Kip Wells was the scheduled starter. Hackcock was a relief pitcher. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/preview;_ylt=Av4y3LQW9P_eFbMFA1g0i_oRvLYF?gid=270429124 Pgrote 15:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hancock was not scheduled to start 

message: Rather than edit war, we should talk about the MLB box colors here.  I think the background color #BC003A (a kind of a darker red) is appropriate because it's consistent with the rest of the team player's boxes for his last team.  Rklawton 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that there should be no colors.  The team he played for before dying has little or nothing to do with Josh Hancock as a dead person.  Also, there's the fact red is the color of blood, and a color that makes people angry.(sentence struck to avoid straw man arguments) I feel strongly that a lack of colors is respectful and neutral. Soldier's gravestones aren't painted with the colors of their country, why should a dead person's infobox colors have to go with their most recent team? -- KirinX 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you object to his teammates using this color scheme as well?  Rklawton 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not.  His teammates are not deceased.  Read what I wrote more carefully.  Your reply indicates you barely even skimmed it. -- KirinX 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, to reply to your "draft" text, he may not have been notable other than for having been a baseball player, but really, how are you to choose the colors?  What if he played his most productive years for a team whose colors are blue, even if he died playing for the Cards?  Obviously that's not the case, but which colors do you choose?  How do you argue which is more appropriate?  I'd like to think that setting a dead player's colors to a neutral or nonexistant background is best in the interests of not just this case, but as precedent for future cases similar to this. -- KirinX 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Assuming that that was my main point is comical if you ask me. -- KirinX 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not disrupt this article's editing to try and prove a point.  The questions you pose are interesting, however the precedent and the consensus are clear.  I recommend raising your concerns in the MLB project talk pages, not here.  Rklawton 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have already done so.  I intend to change the consensus, but I'm obviously not going to win against a bunch of Cards fans on a Cardinals player's page.  And I haven't made any further edits to the article lately, and have made no disruptive edits to begin with, so don't accuse me of doing so. -- KirinX 20:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa whoa whoa....hold the phone. I'm not a Cardinal fan. However, you are purposely going against consensus and precedent, and you really need to take this through proper channels. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, I have not been going against consensus, I'm trying to make some.  This wasn't an issue until I made it one, so therefore, there was no consensus before it was an issue.  There was certainly precedent, but I disagree with that.  Precedent never changes unless you try to change it. I do not feel this makes me disruptive in any way, nor am I vandalizing or wheeling with anyone.  I reverted it once when I disagreed with somebody's reverting the original edit by "Y", and then I reverted it again when somebody went ahead and reverted it back to the colors before ever having discussed it.  I have done nothing further, and I do not intend to. -- KirinX 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So after two reverts, your idea of building consensus is to add (incorrectly) you don't seem to understand. there is more consensus to remove them than to keep them. it is YOU who must discuss, give reason why they should stay. colors removed again. do not revert to your last edit summary and leave it to others to start this thread?  Your actions don't match your words here.  Rklawton 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  As a neutral observer here, I tend to agree with Rklawton and CFIF here. You're clearly engaging in revert-warring right now and, as the discussion progresses here, you're getting more and more strident, accusing other editors of bias, etc. Can you possibly state clearly below your rationale as to why the colours need to change, and to what? - Alison ☺ 21:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have already pointed out numerous times, I reverted twice, and not for the last few hours, and not at all during this debate, and somehow I am being accused of revert warring??  I do not see it.  I have already conceded this particular argument, just lay off already. -- KirinX 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I admit a failure in upholding policy there, I should have created the discussion FIRST.  But damn, I'm human. -- KirinX 21:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to review WP:NOT. You are clearly letting your personal opinions about respecting deceased players effect your editing practice. MLBretired infoboxes generally have the last team color or the color of the team they played with the longest. The "no color" infoboxes represent free agents, which he clearly isn't. I also love the way you revert and tell everybody else not to and discuss why the want to *keep it the way it's always been*. If you are so hell bent on changing standard then the burden is on you to tell us why it needs to change (per wiki guidelines). So far all I see is a bunch of opinion about respecting the dead, which doesn't hold water here. Oh, and I'm a Tigers fan. RobDe68 21:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with RobDe68. Hancock is going to be remembered as a Cardinal, and Cardinal colors would be the most appropriate. - Mattingly23 00:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: LISTEN.  I am trying my very best to remain civil and assume good faith here, but you are going to have to realize that I am not trying to force my opinions on anyone, I WAS TRYING TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS.  It is obvious that you few do not agree with me, it is no reason to completely attack me for trying to change something.  I am not "hell bent", and I am not letting my "respect [for] the dead" influence anything (note, that argument was STRUCK), and I am not trying to tell people that things are going to change.  Just back off already, the issue has been settled here, can you not see that?  At this point, I am leaving this conversation, don't bother replying to me here. -- KirinX 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dude, you're not remaining civil right now. Can we all just try to calm down, please and focus on the issues with the article and not other editors. And that doesn't apply to just you, either - Alison ☺ 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Box colors

message: Please don't add the Rick Dikeman pitcher's motion image. It is NOT Josh Hancock, (rather, it is Brandon Claussen), and was miscaptioned as such. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've downloaded and blown up the image.  I agree that it's clearly been reversed because the "REDS" is inverted - and the logo is on the wrong side.  Since the #4 isn't reversed, it's also clear the image has been edited.  Since the image is reversed, the pitcher must be throwing left handed.  If Josh never threw (or practiced) left handed, then it can't be him.  The open question, then, is whether or not he ever practiced throwing left handed.  I've left a message for the original uploader, so perhaps he can help shed some light on it.  Rklawton 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't ever throw left handed. The pitcher in the picture is most likely Brandon Claussen, based on the pitcher's face, the fact that Claussen is left handed, and he wore 34, which has the same numbers as 43 (which is what Hancock wore). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CFIF (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Is it necessary (or useful) rehash the deaths of other MLB players here in this article?  I suppose it's historical perspective, but it's not really historical perspective about the subject of this particular biography.  Thoughts?  Rklawton 19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rehash

message: What does ...and less desirable roles when the game was out of hand. mean?  Rklawton 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I removed the sentence "Hancock was the second Cardinals pitcher to die in the past five years. The other is Darryl Kile who died of a heart attack in his Chicago hotel room during a series against the Cubs in 2002" and replaced it with one that appeared just a paragraph or two later in the article which contained a similar statement. I felt two mentions of Darryl Kile was repetitive. I chose to use the second instance because I felt it was more thorough in explanation. Thoughts? Mrmb6b02 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Darryl Kile

message: Somebody please stop commandeering this article for your anti-alcohol campaign. This is not a forum for the expression of political/social/cultural/religious ideas. Besides, the details of the drunk driving incident given in the article should be sufficient warning for anyone who would do the same. Mrmb6b02 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Your drunk-driving cause

message: An anonymous editor would like to add the notion that wearing Hancock's number patch is "controversial."  It may well be.  However, the only citation he offers is an opinion piece.  Therefore, as far as we can verify, wearing this patch is only controversial with one person.  While I don't care one way or another if this patch is controversial, I do care that whatever we include is properly sourced.  Folks interested in this topic should either find additional sources (probably not too hard), or remove the "controversy" until it can be demonstrated to exist.  Rklawton 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw a black circle with a player's number in this.  If someone wants to interpret this as advocating drunk driving - then that's original research unless it's sourced.  A single person's opinion doesn't make it so.  Rklawton 21:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honoring a pothead who drives drunk is quite obviously the same as advocating drunk driving. 24.196.81.209 01:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got sources that say this is so, then let's use them.  Otherwise, it's just one person's opinion and a manner of original research not permitted in Wikipedia.  Rklawton 01:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know the contributer personally, and I'm pretty sure that he is insane (ha ha). No, really though, he is just trying to be difficult, and the edit should be reverted. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's your source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=honor&x=0&y=0   24.196.81.209 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you're making it rather obvious that you have no useful sources for this "controversy."  That's too bad, too.  At any rate, without sources, your edits regarding the team's patch won't stand.  Rklawton 05:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're right and the dictionary's wrong. Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. 24.196.81.209 05:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's clearly original research and POV to say the patch is controversial. Without a reliable source it has no reason for inclusion. AgneCheese/Wine 14:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since when does common sense have to be sourced? 24.196.81.209 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Common sense has two sources but it could actually use a few more especially in the epistemology area.AgneCheese/Wine 00:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arm patch

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Josh Hancock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609055307/http://www.stltoday.com:80/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/DA7217E8EB66DD11862572CD00151871?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/DA7217E8EB66DD11862572CD00151871?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Josh Hancock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbn_cardinals_hancock_lawsuit;_ylt=Au.QqlcutiYjBn4yWSLkZiQLMxIF
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012132219/http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/3532081B70FFCBF286257329000F8DA4?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/3532081B70FFCBF286257329000F8DA4?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Josh Hancock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614043414/http://www.kmov.com/news/070524_hancocklawsuit2.pdf to http://www.kmov.com/news/070524_hancocklawsuit2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified