Misplaced Pages

Gabby Douglas

I just had an admin protect Gabrielle Douglas right before you started editing it. He did it so quickly, I didn't have time to revert some disruptive edits. Haha. Anyway, the bad edits have been ongoing for the past few hours (now that Douglas is worldwide superstar), many of them to the Flying Squirrel nickname. (It may be the same editors using multiple accounts because it's been changed to Flying Princess (NOT her nickname) many times.) Anyway, I noticed you changed Flying Squirrel (which is correct and fully sourced), back to Flying Princess in the infobox. Can you fix that? Also, you moved the sentence about how Martha Karolyi gave her the nickname from the lead to the middle of the 2012 section. That nickname is extremely prominent, and it's not known via the sources exactly which year it was given to her, so that's why it was in the lead as the second paragraph. I had thought perhaps to put it in the "Personal life" section as an alternative to the lead. It just seems very out of place sticking it in the middle of the 2012 section. Thanks. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Good eye. I didn't change Princess to Squirrel until after my initial big edit. I wasn't even aware that was her nickname but after seeing the sources was in fact made aware she had one and that it was Flying Squirrel. Regarding the info box, I didn't change anything there but I can change that if you like. Regarding her nickname in the lead, leaving it there is fine if it's something very prominent. I wouldn't worry about the exact year or date she was given the nickname. If there are sources that identify how/from whom she was given the nickname, that suffices. There doesn't need to be an overwhelming amount of info. regarding it -- just the fact that her coach gave her that nickname suffices. Three sources for one item seems to be overkill. Perhaps a footnote can be added explaining why there are three sources. I'm not sure how prominent her nickname is as there appears to be confusion as to what it actually is. I moved it from the lead to the 2012 section because all the sources were dated 2012, and I'm not sure how much interaction she would've had with Karolyi before 2012 (and hence, not likely Karolyi would've given her a nickname much before then). I wouldn't put her nickname in Personal life because if what you're saying is true, that her nickname is prominent, then that is not something that would only be known to a few people. Zepppep (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: I see Flying Squirrel was put back in the infobox. I saw your edit comment ("sources used in the article say "Flying Squirrel"). Wow, you must be one of the only people in the world who didn't know her nickname is the Flying Squirrel. Haha. I guess you're not following the Olympics. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am following the following the Olympics but not from a U.S.-based media company. Also, my viewing of the men's and women's gymnastics has been spottty. I saw absolutely zero of her London performances. Zepppep (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zep. Yes, her nickname is very prominent. It's been used at least a hundred times during the Olympic coverage and in many news articles. So much so that I'm getting tired of hearing it. Haha. The reason there are three sources for the nickname is because of prior debate about where the nickname originated. So we put three sources to put the debate to rest. Thanks. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My guess is her nickname has only become prominent very recently, and as is often the case, it wouldn't have become known to too many until she made the Olympic team and until she started coming under the spot light more. The sources are all from 2012, again, showing she was either recently given the nickname or it only became something the press thought was worthy of mentioning until she started to get a little more attention. The number of athletes that have a nickname given by a coach or teammate but not known in too many other circles is staggering. I'm glad I could help clean up the article. And as you've already mentioned, I did put it as "Flying Squirrel" in an edit made a few minutes after my initial (large) one. Zepppep (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zep, thanks for the note about the discussion on the Douglas talk page. I replied. Regarding one sentence you rewrote in the article, I really wish you would change it back to the original way I wrote it because you removed a lot of the key elements so it's now out of context and sounds odd. ;)

MY VERSION: "At age 14, Douglas moved from her home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to live with a host family in West Des Moines, Iowa, so she could train with Liang Chow, who was the coach of former world and Olympic champion Shawn Johnson."

YOUR VERSION: "When Douglas moved to Iowa to train under Liang Chow, Douglas and her sister again convinced their mother to let Douglas move, with Douglas staying with a host family in West Des Moines."

You took out the reference to age 14 which is important because it lets readers know when it happened (just like the prior two sentences). You removed the Virginia Beach, Virginia, reference, which is the only reference in the entire article about where her home is (not counting the infobox). Remember, that section's content used to be the first section below the lead. You also took out the names of her highly-regarded coach Chow (who led her to gold) and the name of the famous Olympian he coached, Johnson. Those names are important because it puts it in context that she moved to be with this top-notch coach who coached another Olympic champion. Also, the sentence now starts with "moved" and then mentions the "move" a second time. So it now essentially says... When Douglas moved their mother let her move. The part you added about the mother having to be convinced (again) is not important at all in this sentence. The original instance where they had to convince her just to let Gabby start taking gymnastics lessons is important because it's a well-documented story about how she got started in the sport. Her living situation with the host family is also notable and has been covered quite a bit by the media, and one of the sources I included is a feature story about life in that home and how she's like one of their children. One other issue: you used "Douglas" FOUR times in that one little sentence. Haha. Wow, that's a lot of issues with one sentence. You really gave it a major overhaul. ;) So anyway, there was a lot of thought put into the wording of the original sentence. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please put the original version back, along with the wikilinks for Chow and Johnson. You can leave out the wikilinks for Des Moines and Virginia Beach. They're linked in the infobox. Thanks a lot. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please look here for the items which you claim I "removed." If you click on the link or look at the article from top to bottom—or look at the edit summaries I've left after editing the article, you will see your concerns (above) are indeed .nothing to worry about as your understanding of the article is incorrect. I didn't see anything specifically mentioning her host family and didn't take anything away from them as far as how much weight they received in the article. And in regards to links, we treat links in a stat/bio box separate from links in the body of the article, so please note that I have left Virginia Beach and WDM linked in their first usage in the body. I did, however, change the wording of the sentence in regards to "move," because in fact the way the article reads, it states Gabby and her sister had to convince her mother to attend gymnastics lessons, not to move; so therefore, there is no second "move" and I did change it so "move" wasn't used twice in the same sentences. Zepppep (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comment to the number of times I used "Douglas" in the same sentence was added after my reply. Again, if you read the sentences found here here, you will see it has been re-worked. Zepppep (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read the edit summary after my latest edit, just fixed several of the reference markups. All 24 of the references used in the article are properly formatted now. Zepppep (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, sorry Zep. I'm so confused now. The article has been reworked so much since I asked an admin to protect it last night.

Look at the last sentence of the 2010 section, then look at the last sentence of the Personal life section. It's the one at the end of the 2010 section that I was referring to. It's basically the same content in both places, which isn't necessary. Things have changed so much since I wrote that sentence. Originally, there was an "Early life" section, which was the first section after the lead. That section was renamed to become the "Personal life" section, which you then moved from the top to the bottom of the article. But the sentence I wrote you about is now in the 2010 section.

This was the entire "Personal life" section content when I wrote it:

Douglas is the daughter of Timothy Douglas and Natalie Hawkins. She began training in gymnastics at age six when her older sister, Arielle, convinced their mother to enroll her in gymnastics classes. When she was eight years old, Douglas won an all-around gymnastics award for her level at the 2004 Virginia State Championships. At age 14, Douglas moved from her home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to live with a host family in West Des Moines, Iowa, so she could train with Liang Chow, who was the coach of former world and Olympic champion Shawn Johnson.

You can see how the host family is mentioned (with the Des Moines Register feature story about her life with the family cited. Anyway, the last sentence of the article (at the end of the Personal life section) can be removed. It's simply a repeat of the last sentence in the 2010 section. And the last sentence of the 2010 section can be changed back to my wording:

"At age 14, Douglas moved from her home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to live with a host family in West Des Moines, Iowa, so she could train with Liang Chow, who was the coach of former world and Olympic champion Shawn Johnson."

The current wording is:

"Douglas moved from Virginia Beach, Virginia to West Des Moines, Iowa in October at the age of 14 to train under Liang Chow, the former coach of 2008 Summer Olympics gold medal-winner Shawn Johnson."

I chose to use "former world and Olympic champion" because I wanted to point out that she was more than just an Olympic champ, she was both a world and Olympic champ.

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Her moving from Virginia was a professional decision -- hence my putting it in the 2010 subsection. Personal life details are very different from things related to what the article subject is known for. The only thing that would be considered "personal" about the paragraph would be the name of her parents -- everything else could be considered part of her career taking form, which is the reason why this individual has her own WP article and millions of 16 year olds do not. Usually "Early life" is for things which took place in a subjects life that led to their "path to becoming famous enough to have a WP article" so I am in support of an "Early life" subsection. I was not the one who changed "Early" to "Personal." But the Early life subsection for her is a bit different, 1) considering her age and 2) considering the lack of details about her formative years, so I guess it's another reason while I was working on the article that nothing jumped out to me as "oh, there's enough meat here to warrant another subsection." But if there's only a few sentences for a subsection a tag of "this section needs expansion" can be added, encouraging others to seek out sources to make the article better. A typical BLP "Early life" subsection, for example, a baseball player's introduction to the sport, his high school career, and if there isn't much to write on about his collegiate or semi-pro career, would constitute an Early life subsection. WP articles grow over time as different users become involved in the creation process and there are more stories and events that shape the article's life. By no means are articles concrete, especially BLps. The host family is mentioned in the Register article but don't believe mentioning anything about them specifically is of merit. There were lots of details in the story that would be irrelevant to the article; if you disagree, go forth! There are other parts to that source that would be more worthy, IMO, such as her difficult time adjusting to life in Iowa and her initial shock. But I didn't add that either. I think "moving from __ to __ at the age of 14" lets the reader know how difficult the move would have been. But it wasn't too severe -- she (reportedly) never developed any sort of disorder or significant amount of challenge because of the move, or almost gave up her career, etc., so that's why I kept the focus of what was written in that story on things related to her career. If there are personal details, such as her favorite color, rapper, subject, etc. then that would be good info. to add in the personal life subsection. Also, I hope by now you've also seen much of what you wrote earlier (above) was borderline baseless (such as the links, name of coach, etc.). Zepppep (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zep! I just got your message on my talk page. I apologize, I didn't mean to imply you did anything wrong at all. And even if you had changed any of my edits, I wasn't mad about it at all. I just wanted you to put back the edits I had made because you seem like a great editor, and right now I can't edit because I had an admin protect the page. Haha. I really want to get rid of that sentence in the "Peronal life" section about her moving to Des Moines removed. It's basically just saying exactly what's said in the 2010 section. And the two citations can just be moved up to the sentence in the 2010 section. Whoever added that must not have seen it was already addressed in the 2010 section. Have a great weekend! --76.189.114.163 (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I updated it about 20 min ago or so. You can check the article's talk page for an update as well. Zepppep (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, great. I'll go check it. One other issue. I noticed someone added lots of text (3 sentences) in the Personal life section about her relationship with God and it has all these unnecessary quotes. First, having all that text is overkill and not worthy of inclusion. The most it should mention, if anyting, is that she's a devout christain, or a christian, or something like that. Period. The 3 sentences (two which are totally unsourced) all basically say the same thing anyway. The only sourced info from those sentences is the part where she says she "gives all glory to God." I noticed on the talk page that a user named Ryan Vesey was pushing hard to have all that info in the article; he claims that "It is incredibly widely reported." But I checked and Google News returned only about 3 results. Haha. Anyway, when I saw all that religious content in the article, I immediately said to myself "what the heck is all that even in there for?" The one citation, by the way, is from a Christian website. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I just saw what you did with the host family sentence in the Personal life section. The sentence should just be completely removed. I believe what happened is that the editor who added it did not realize it was already included in the 2010 section. It doesn't make sense to say the same thing in two different sections. And you (and I agreed) already decided that it was a career decision (because she moved to train with coach Chow) and therefore it should go in the 2010 section, not the Personal life section. I liked your reasoning on that. So just get rid of the sentence at the end of the article, and merge in the reference to the "host family" in the sentence in the 2010 section. And relocate the 2 links from the deleted sentence to the remaining sentence. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You don't need to leave messages on my talk page. I'll keep an eye on yours. Thanks! --76.189.114.163 (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Very few IP users watch others' talk pages, hence my reasoning. But if you're on top of it, I'll gladly take a break from it. Zepppep (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

They read as following:

(2010 subsection): Douglas moved from Virginia Beach, Virginia to West Des Moines, Iowa in October at the age of 14 to train under Liang Chow, the former coach of 2008 Summer Olympics gold medal-winner Shawn Johnson.

(Personal life subsection): When Douglas left Virginia to live with a host family, she and older sister Arielle worked together to gain their mother's reluctant approval.

The 2 do not say the same thing. And the reader should be informed where Douglas lived when she departed VA -- a boarding school? family member? host family? By stating "host family" it informs the reader. Zepppep (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We are saying the exact same thing lmao. All I've been saying is that the whole issue of her moving to Des Moines is ONE event in her life, and so it should all be included ONE time, in ONE place in the article. And the reader IS informed where she moved to... to live with a host family. _I_ was the one who originally put it in the sentence (the sentence in that's now in the 2010 section), but then someone removed the "host family" part from that sentence. And then someone added the new sentence in the Personal life section and included the words "host family" in it. But they didn't realize the move to Des Moines event was already in the 2010 section. Now do you get what I'm saying? :P I just want the two separate sentences to be merged together into one sentence, and the sentence should be in the 2010 section only. And the part about convincing the mom is not that important because obviously the mom had to approve the move haha. But hey, if you think that little detail is important, then merge it into that one sentence, also. ; --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Did her dad approve of the move? Zepppep (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, that whole part about getting the mom to approve is just not important at all! It goes without saying that her parents approved of the move. She didn't sneak off to Iowa. Haha. Anyway, my original sentence had everything that was needed: "At age 14, Douglas moved from her home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to live with a host family in West Des Moines, Iowa, so she could train with Liang Chow, who was the coach of former world and Olympic champion Shawn Johnson." You can just add in "October" to the sentence, so it starts out "In October, at age 14,..." --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, did her dad approve of the move? Was everyone on board except her mother, or what? One could argue the part about the mother needing to be "convinced" is important, as some parents might be wholeheartedly behind such a move whereas Douglas's mother was not. I don't know how many parents of Olympic athletes would fall into the which side of the camp but there are those who have an agenda the first day the child is born, and those who feed their child's late and budding interest. Here's an athlete who had a mother that didn't want her to enter the sport. Here's an athlete that in 2010 had reached a level in the sport very few gymnasts in garages all over the world obtain, and yet her mother has to be convinced to let her daughter pursue something she obviously enjoys and is good at, knowing her daughter has a gift that if nurtured, could take her to levels she'd never imagined? Now obviously the mother had to be behind it at least to some degree, otherwise she wouldn't have agreed to it at all. That's why I put "reluctantly" agreed to it. It's kinda heartwarming to know this detail, IMO. Zepppep (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yes. Of course the father approved. He's been interviewed on TV. The only issue was that the mom obviously didn't have the money to move the whole family to Iowa, and obviously she would miss Gabby very much if she moved away. The only hesitation the mom had was when Gabby originally wanted to get into gymnastics, when Gabby was six. But the mom said fine, Gabby became great at it very quickly, and the mom was totally supportive the whole way. As I said, the only issue with the move to Iowa was that the mom would miss her a lot and was worried about sending Gabby off on her own like that. But Gabby made it clear to her mom that Chow was an incredible, legendary coach. Gabby insisted that she needed Chow in order to reach the highest levels of the sport. Again, most parents would have the same concerns about their minor child moving out of state on their own to live with another family for a long time. But it's common for world-class child athletes. So I'm just saying that I think this whole issue about convincing the mother or the parents approving is pretty insignificant. It goes without saying that when a young kid tells their parents they want to move away on their own that there would be a lot of questions and concerns. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

He was interviewed in 2010 on TV, or recently he mentioned this? I would need to do more research (than I care to do) to see just how supportive her mother was of the move. If the dad supported it the whole way, it's possible the move occurred more so because of his input. At any rate, a reporter with one of the citations thought the "hesitation" was large enough to warrant inclusion in a story of theirs. OK, I've had enough Miss Douglas for a day. Zepppep (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't seem to get away from WP today! OK, as you may have noticed an update to her talk page listing sources for re: her faith. I am checking them now. One of them I just got done reading states it took she and her sister two years to convince her mother to move from VA to train, and this is something you don't think is significant enough to warrant mention? The article is here. Zepppep (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're worrying WAY too much about the issue of the mom (or dad) approving the move. It is very well known that the idea to move to Iowa started when Gabby was 12, and then she made the move at 14. But my main concern is not at all about the issue of getting the mom to agree. That's just a small side issue. My biggest concern is that the whole event about the move to Iowa should be in ONE place in the article, not two. So whether convincing the mom is included or not, the whole issue should all be together in the 2010 section. Not part in the 2010 section, and another snippet in the Personal life section. I don't understand why you haven't just combined all that yet. I've asked like five times already to merge the text. If I was able to edit right now, I'd just take care of it myself in about 15 seconds. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"It is well known." So well known it (the duration of making the decision to move) doesn't deserve mention in the article? Maybe I'll feel better about merging them when I do some research on how long it take the family to agree on the move. I wasn't aware it took 2 years, so again, not sure how well known it was. Zepppep (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Your vote discussion

Hi Zep. I saw the Vote section you started on the A-A Firsts talk page. But you forgot to sign it. I think you're doing a great job of trying to get the page improved. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure you should be using the word "vote." I remember a discussion where polling was going on and some administrators admonished the people about using the term "vote" in the discussion. They talked about how vote-counting doesn't decide things; consensus does. So it's more like making recommendations, that acutally "voting." Haha. Those admins cited WP:!VOTE. Anyway, like I said, you're the kind of editor who would be great at guiding that article through the improvement process because you're logical, fair and, most importantly, neutral. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Zeppep. I know you're trying to be constructive and helpful, but putting "vote" on a page and giving a five-day deadline really isn't the way Misplaced Pages works. We do a Request for Comment that goes on a Misplaced Pages-wide noticeboard, is usually up for a minimum of 7 days and which an admin closes. I've left a note to this effect at Talk:List of African-American firsts. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, if you really think Zep is being "constructive and helpful" then why, two minutes earlier, did you call what he did "meaninglesss" on the A-A Firsts talk page? Give me a break.

Here's your full comment: "First, we don't decide things on Misplaced Pages by voting. Second, if you're going to do a Request for Comment, please go to that bluelink and do it the proper way. This is meaningless otherwise."

Do you see the words "helpful" or "constructive" in your comment? Didn't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said in response to you on the A-A Firsts talk page, "It's no surprise at all that you oppose Zep's excellent, appropriate and good faith efforts. First, you should educate yourself on WP:!VOTE. While using the term "vote" is definitely not preferred, it is also not prohibitied. Zep is conducting a poll, which is totally acceptable. And voting, as I'm sure Zep knows, is simply submitting a recommendation. Zep's purpose is to encourage feeback and to build consensus. And I'm also sure that Zep fully realizes that we don't count votes; we attempt to reach consensus. Second, Request for Comment does not apply here. This is a standard talk page discussion about improving the article, not an issue that requires outside dispute resolution. So, contrary to your baseless and unproductive statement that this is "meaningless," what is actually meaningless are your comments. You apparently need to be reminded again that you do not own this article. If you'd like to submit a Yes or No, or comment, on the issue at hand you are more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, perhaps you want to explain your glaring avoidance of the issue of professional wrestling firsts being included on the list. In any case, we will continue with this process of trying to improve the article."

And since Tenebrae was so uptight about the word "vote," I also posted this: "I have updated the section title to "!Vote" to clarify that this is not a vote-counting process, but rather a means to help determine consensus as part of the ongoing discussion. For clarification, see WP:!VOTE, WP:VOTE and !vote."

So Tenebrae, enough with your passive-aggressiveness... coming here and telling Zep you think his poll is helpful and constructive, but saying on the public talk page to everyone that it's meaningless. You have proven by your long-term words and actions, and avoidance of the issues, that you do not care about improving that article and that all you want to do is control it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that Tenebrae has yet again posted his "this is meaningless" comment on the poll thread. As if saying it the first time wasn't enough. Haha. Pathetic. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Make it THREE times he's call it meaningless on the talk page. He just did it again. But this time he also added that it's an "empty exercise." Haha. He's like a king who's worried that he's losing his throne. Has no interest in helping; only fighting the effort. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae, yes, I was and am trying to be constructive and helpful. I may not have used the correct wording (vote instead of straw poll) but action in and of itself is not prohibited. Some may question its validity but I think they can be useful in some situations. Trying to round up opinions so far on this talk page is like trying to round up a herd of cats. Furthermore, it is difficult because rather than responding to specifics, some users have said "I'm not responding because that's too much to wade thru" or ignored repeated invitations for reason for support. I would also question as to whether consensus has been reached on Gabby Douglas, as you reverted an edit Mcusa made on 3 August and told the user to revert to the talk page. In light of all that's going on, would you also try to do as I've done (constructive and helpful) by stating your reasons for including professional wrestlers? Leave your responses on the talk page. Of what has actually been posted to the talk page, a consensus is forming that would not have those individuals listed. Zepppep (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:VideoGamePhenom

I issued a final warning. In the future, if a registered user has been warned on a particular issue, you should issue a higher level warning message. If you aren't already, you might consider using a tool like Twinkle to make patrolling easier.

Per WP:DDE, the next step would to report to WP:ANI.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Tenebrae

Have you seen his talk page image? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(Gulp). Zepppep (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This was vandalism and has been reverted.TMCk (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wasn't the user at IP 211.26.243.21 given a strong warning or edit block then? Zepppep (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has one single edit, most likely a sock. Tenebrae might know who they are and act on it if s/he wishes. Although it's usually best to ignore the trolls. TMCk (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to hear that wasn't his image and the editor who did that should be blocked permanently. But it also sends a clear message about Tenebrae. He obviously did something to really anger someone. TMCk is no angel himself. He removed an entire paragraph of content I posted on the Firsts talk page. I warned him of the seriousness of that violation and instead of just apologizing, he got rude with me about it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Gabby Douglas added/removed again

Zep, another editor added Gabby Douglas on the Firsts list today, then Fat&Happy removed it, with the edit comment "rv not ground-breaking as explained at talk page, latest of a long line of gold medal winners." He falsely implies that "explained" means consenus was reached, which it of course was not. Those were just a few editors giving their opinions. It's not even close to consensus. There is currently no separate list for Olympians and having Don Barksdale on the list for "First African-American Olympic gold medal basketball winner" is a complete contradiction to the claim that gold medal winners for individual sports do not qualify. If Barksdale qualifies, why doesn't Douglas? Either they both go on or neither goes on. Your thoughts? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I know. I don't mind if that happens if consensus has in fact been reached. Unfortunately, it has not. I mentioned this in 2 different postings on the talk page that I thought it was suspect. Zepppep (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear that Tenebrae will continue to do nothing but avoid every direct question or contradiction regarding the two issues (Douglas and wrestling). If you browse the full discussion on both issues, you'll see how many points he has totally ignored... the Douglas-Barksdale contradiction, the fact that there are many individual firsts on the list within particular fields, all the fictional wrestling firsts, etc. He obviously has no defense for keeping them on the list, and never will. He's now said three time how he's "not wild" about including them and even said he "might" actually support removing them, yet will not simply state his opinion and provide solid reasons. This is the reason I think it's important to temporarily abandon the issue of creating a new lead. It gives him a very easy way to avoid talking about the wrestling issue and all the contradictions with the list. The lead issue just muddies the waters, which is exactly what he wants. He's using the issue of your lead proposal as a way to pretend he's being cooperative overall. You can see what he did with the comment that he sent us on a goose chase to find. He claimed that comment explained his reasons for validating the inclusion of wrestling people. But of course when I found it, it said absolutely nothing in that regard; just some general comments about past editors had a "point" about them being included. There is not one reason anywhere in those 50+ talk page discussions that alludes to why wrestling firsts are on the list. So, we are down to this: one guy fighting the removal of the wrestling firsts with zero reasons given vs. three editors strongly suppporting their removal, with many clear reasons and examples provided. It's time to end this issue since absolutely no counter-arguments have been given or will be given, and no proof whatsoever has been shown to back the claim that past editors reached a consensus on the wrestling issue. I can't imagine that any good reason exists for including fictional firsts on a very serious list like that. As you may have seen in my most recent comment, I said that if they want to have a list for wrestling, then they should create a "First AA Professional Wrestling Firsts" article. Why do you think he's fighting so hard to get fictional firsts removed? It's mind-boggling. This issue could have, and should have, been settled two days ago. All he had to say was, "You guys are right. Wrestling first shouldn't be on there. They're not real. So let's remove them." Then we could've moved on to creating good "rules" for deciding inclusion, and cleaned up your proposed lead. Dispute resolution on this wrestling issue would make no sense because not a single person has provided a reason why they should be included. Dispute resolution is when you have strong reasons and opinions on both sides of an issue. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We can still work on cleaning up the proposed lead. I do find myself scratching my head at times. There is currently discussion taking place on the article's talk page. I am trying to get folks to chime in on whether consensus has been reached re: Douglas or not. In the last few days, 2 IP users have tried to add her and at least 2 users (you and Mcusa) on the talk page vote for inclusion, while I see 3 users are not for inclusion. In regards to the wrestling, I do don't see support for inclusion, other than the the fact that items were added to the article. I do not see any users on the talk page in support of inclusion for pro wrestling. IMO, you are free to edit those with an edit summary, I'd reckon. Anyone who disagrees would need to support their reasons and a discussion could be hashed out at the talk page. Zepppep (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It would make much more sense for you to do the removal of the wrestling listings since Tenebrae considers you to be a serious editor. You can imagine what would happen if I did it. There are 10 of them, I believe... keywords to find them are: wrestling, WWE, NWA and Extreme. It still absolutely amazes me that they ever got on the list. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Evan voted for inclusion of Douglas, also. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2012

(UTC)

What one user thinks should not prevent you from making contributions. IP users are allowed to contribute to WP just as much as any registered user. Zepppep (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's yet another contradiction: "First African-American Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Roderick L. Ireland". So I guess that means we should have the first AA chief justice of every state in the country? ;) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

These are the 10 (all of them are characters portrayed by actors, with fictional accomplishments):

First African-American male professional wrestler to win a world heavyweight championship: Bobo Brazil (NWA)
First African-American wrestling manager: Slick
First African American General Manager for World Wrestling Entertainment: Theodore Long
First African-American Extreme Championship Wrestling champion: Bobby Lashley
First African-American female professional wrestler to win the NWA World Women's Championship: Amazing Kong
First African-American WWE Tag Team Champion: Tony Atlas (partnered with Rocky Johnson, a Black Nova Scotian)
First tag team made up of two African Americans to win the WWE Tag Team Championship: Men on a Mission (Nelson Frazier, Jr., aka Mabel, and Robert Horne, aka Mo)
First African American to win the WWE Championship: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
First African American to win the WWE Women's Championship: Jacqueline Moore
First African American to win the WWE Diva's Championship: Alicia Fox

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

30–30 club review

Thanks Zepppep for your review on Talk:30–30 club. Could you please transfer your comments to the FLC page, as only comments on that page are taken into consideration. I have to admit I only found your comments today on the 30–30 club talk page (as I only check the FLC page for feedback). Sorry about that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. I am not sure if the review comments are supposed to be showing on the FLC page, but I did transfer them. Let me know if I've done any of the transferring incorrectly and I'll get it righted. Zepppep (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they're showing. And I just fixed a few minor formatting errors (to save you the trouble). Once again, thank you for your feedback. I'll get right down to it. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zepppep. I've addressed the comments you made on this FLC. If you want to respond to what I've written or 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, cap our discussion as "Resolved comments" (since it's becoming quite lengthy) and place your position (i.e. whether you support or oppose this list becoming an FL). Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! I support the bid! (Wasn't sure how to cap but let me know if you need me to do anything else.) Zepppep (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! To cap, all you have to do is put back the text deleted from this edit and place }} at the very end of your comments (but before the support vote). The vote goes right underneath the resolved comments. I would have wanted to help cap it, but under written FLC rules, only the reviewer (not the nominator) caps comments. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the how-to's! Zepppep (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases

I know the point you are trying to make; however, it might be best to just wait for sources to materialize that support other editors' proposal for list criteria. In the absence of those criteria, their proposal would be simply rejected for lack of sources.—Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think I know which specific edit you're referring to and the lack of sources, precedent, etc. the editor has shown, but I thought maybe writing what I wrote -- and showing an example of a source -- might actually win the editor over. But I know what you mean. I probably devoted too much time to responding to fish that's dead in the water. Zepppep (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, was just a different perspective and commend your assumption of good faith.—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The issues displayed by the editor persist, despite attempts made in the past to confront the issue. Zepppep (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

He's at it again

Hey Zep. I thought we were finally getting somewhere with the Firsts article and that guy Tenebrae. Then I come back to the talk page after several hours off and find this comment:

"I don't even know where to begin. It doesn't mean anything that other editors with this page on their watchlists may not want to wade into what's been a fairly uncivil debate due to one taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP lowering the level of discourse. They tend to wait for something formal, where there's a modicum of oversight. Frankly, to start talking about wholesale changes to one aspect of this article without asking the editors who added that material to be involved in the discussion . . . well, that seems about par for 76, but I can't image that Mcusa or Zep feels that's right or proper." You've been leading this effort and he says he doesn't think you'd think the process is proper? Haha. And he praises Mcusa, the guy he kept insisting I was the sockpuppet of. ;)

And he posted this comment to Malik Shabazz: "Speaking of which, what's your take on the wholesale changes that, primarily, that anon IP and one other editors are trying to push through there without RfC or other wider discussion? Is it worth your time to comment or, as I suspect other editors are doing, you're looking at their walls and walls of text and saying, "I'm not wading into all that." It's been frustrating, especially with that taunting and extremely immature anon IP."

As I said, I thought we were making good progress thanks to your great leadership. But that guy is apparently back to his old ways. I KNEW it was fishy earlier today when he seemed to be starting to participate in a productive manner. And as is typical, what seems to be too good to be true, usually is. He was being totally disingenous and is now back to fighting our efforts. Now all he's saying should be done is to remove a couple listings.

I have no doubt he's still tracking every move I make on here and will be here to retort. ;)

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like you're doing? Geez.... --Tenebrae (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)""

As I said Zep, here he is. As scheduled. ;)

Zep, here's what he just wrote to an adminsitrator about the two of us: "it's getting tiresome since he and another editor want to completely overhaul the article in their vision without seeking broader consensus. They both make extremist "all or nothing" statements. And both of them, especially the other one (Zepppep), post walls and walls of words. You know the type and I'm sure you know the situation. Is there any way you could post a reminder about civility, and your thoughts on the best way to seek broader consensus? I'm concerned things are going to escalate and a long-stable article, which could certainly use some fixing and pruning, is going to get decimated by two editors who refused to seek out broader consensus for their major overhaul." Just as I told you. Anyway, I think you've done a wonderful job of helping to improve that article and it's very sad that this one guy is so threatened by our efforts that he resorts to completely misrepresenting to admins what's going on. But they can read the talk page to see for themselves. And look at the edit history of the article for the six years the article's been up. Again, you've done a really great job, Zep. I'm sorry this guy continues to think he owns the article. Unfortunately, I don't think he'll ever change. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Both of you guys, for the sake of the article, need to attempt to cool down a bit. As I stated on the article's talk page, whatever discussions you want to have on your own talk pages is completely up to you guys. I haven't followed other users around and don't really feel like doing it, but I don't know how my "walls and walls of words" could be lumped in with personal attacks, immature language, etc. The words I wrote are always about content. Zepppep (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong. Don't worry about it. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have left messages on both of your talk pages. While there have been periods of enjoyment in working with both of you, please consider this the last time you will use my talk page to trade barbs with one another. Zepppep (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why?

....you added more here after they're already blocked. Why? dangerouspanda 10:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the conversation was still open and thus, still accepting of issues. Cheers. Zepppep (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No: once the block has been made, piling on additional stuff is not appropriate. Just because it's not marked resolved, does not mean it's not resolved. It was not accepting of further issues dangerouspanda 11:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can appreciate it -- your tone is well taken. Unfortunately for me, I didn't see anything that stated additional comments were not allowed, such as what is on other threads: "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it...". The user had directed some of their vitriol towards my way and there were additional offenses committed since the time other editors had posted abuses, so I went ahead and followed their lead. I made the additions in good faith. I wasn't attempting to open a closed door -- I merely didn't know the door had been closed. I don't know what the criteria is for a closed discussion, apparently. I would be able to understand "the above discussion is closed" however. I am one of those editors who is not well-versed in the rules pertaining to that page -- please know I wasn't attempting to do anything in bad faith. Zepppep (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Message on my talk page

I appreciate your message, and while we may have areas in which we have reasonable disagreements, I find you a good-faith editor — though again, I wish you had broken up your post into three paragraphs since it's much easier to read that way. And it doesn't really take any effort other than hitting the return button a couple of times! : )

I agree with you, certainly, that like virtually any article on Misplaced Pages it needs improvement (though given the quality and copiousness of its footnoting, I think it's better than many list articles). The suggestions you make do seem to me to amount to a major overhaul of an active and long-stable article, and I've found that when editors advocate an all-or-nothing stance, there's often resistance since that goes against reasoned judgment — and since human accomplishment is so varied and the nature of firsts have so many qualifiers, it's rare that rigid rules can account for all of them, so reasoned judgment is needed.

It's far easier to build consensus by taking things one step at a time rather than suggesting that we have to institute new rules, now, right away, and the rules will be all-or-nothing. There's no rush, no deadline, and with a long-stable article it's important to get as many points of view as possible. I'm sure you wouldn't object to that.

The pro wrestling issue seems to be a hot-button item, so perhaps that should be the first to be addressed. Against my better judgment, I've volunteered to go through the trouble of initiating an RfC and alerting the article's editors to it. Let's tackle that, then tackle whatever you think should be next — academia, federal government, whatever. That's my suggestion, reached through years of experience here.

I look forward to settling in and working with you over the long haul to make this article the best it can be. I'm sure other editors will as well. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't feel you have crossed any lines with me or delivered any low blows, personal attacks, but rather just perhaps not been completely honest in expressing your frustrations to others. You may well remember I did use subsection headings as well as paragraph form when presenting a large addition] to the talk page, but I didn't see this mentioned by you yest. I have taken your advice into consideration and in almost every circumstance, implemented it. I allowed you to freely comment on the lead example I offered and did not retort in a way that was off-topic, let alone defensive, hostile, etc.

I am well versed in the consensus mantras. I know it is wise to work on items which folks agree with first, then perhaps tackle the others. I have also solicited opinions from many other WikiProjects, 7 in total, in hopes of showing you and any other reader of the talk page it is not merely an agenda I am trying to pursue, let alone a "personal" one, but championing ideas which can make the article stronger. As you mentioned yesterday, you would also concede the article is not necessarily the strongest. I would love to one day see this article as an FLC.

I have been an editor to WP about half the duration of you, roughly, and know you have experience which I am highly seeking for purposes of article improvement.

In fact, the pro wrestling listings are not my biggest issue with the article, but I would agree they certainly are a hot-button item. And as I've stated, I would not oppose Rfc at all, considering the opinions I sought have not come to fruition and it would also help generate consensus. I too look forward to working with you in the long haul. I may not have the years-long history of working with this article as you have, but I trust you have found all my comments to be on-topic, content-related, and always in good faith. Zepppep (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have, and I do. I'm sincere in saying you've spotted areas that clearly need improvement and focus, and as you can see from all the work I've done this morning — taking about an hour toset up an RfC and notifying every registered editor of the article for the past two years (whew!) — I'm ready to put the work in! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I hope we get some new eyeballs (or old ones returning). If not, with my posts to 7 different WikiProjects and your tags thus far today, we have gone well and above our call of duty as far as reaching out. ~That is one thing we can't be accused of. Zepppep (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

patience is a virtue?

See? Sometimes the stick just takes a little longer to swing, but sooner or later... -- Despayre   13:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm 90% positive I know to which you speak, and if it happens to be the 10% I don't know, I will take it anyways! I could use a positive flow of energy over here! Cheers! Zepppep (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Capping of comments on 30–30 club review

Hi Zepppep. I'm sorry if I have to trouble you (it's not my intention to do so), but our discussion on the FLC page is rather lengthy, so could you cap our commentary. All you have to do is place back the text deleted from this edit and place }} at the very end of your comments (but before the support vote). As always, I would have wanted to help you cap it, but it is strictly against FLC rules for me (the nominator) to "cap, alter strike...comments from other editors." As a result, you are the only one who can cap our discussion, and the absence of a "Resolved comments" cap will be interpreted by the FL directors as non-resolved commentary (which isn't the case). Once again, thank you for all the constructive and helpful feedback you have given. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Didn't get around to doing it within 24 hrs, but within 36 I believe. :) Zepppep (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a million :) —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Larry Doby

Hey. Just letting you know I started the GA review, would like the first comments fixed before I proceed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do! And thanks for getting it started! Will update you soon. Zepppep (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

20–20–20 club review

Hi there again Zepppep! Could you help review this FLC? Currently, it's deadlocked and no consensus seems within reach, so I'm in desperate need of reviews, specifically from WP's baseball community. Since you're one of the most active on the WikiProject, it would be great if you could take a quick look. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I will definitely take a look and leave some comments, once I have read up on what others have had to say and compared it with the FLC criteria! Zepppep (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I read thru the article and all the FLC comments last night. What I'm thinking through is why the title only reflects one of the clubs? Zepppep (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

On second thoughts, as the Ip is still editing (autoblock not working?), I'll give the IP another 30 minutes to react to the sock warning and then I'll block, and indef block Carthage44. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 2 weeks and reblocke Carthage indef for block evasion. There shouldn't be any comebacks on this as you and I apparently both filed similar reasons. Generally, if two editors pass the WP:DUCK test, or if one or the other has admitted to editing from the same computer, there is no need to ask for a CU request. Thank you for your vigilance - you can keep an occasional eye on these articles now in case a new account suddenly begins editing them - chances are it will be a new sock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

...and a quiet golf-clap too! -- Despayre   18:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the shenanigans apparently went too far, one too many times. AutomaticStrikeout 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: Jeff Heath

Cool. Regarding your question on protocol, so long as you are adding the template to an article that has a significant connection to the Greater Cleveland area, then by all means. Thanks for the heads up!Ryecatcher773 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases

Alright, how does it look? I changed the page based on consensus. AutomaticStrikeout 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

'Twas a fine job, chap! Zepppep (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. First discussion I've ever closed. AutomaticStrikeout 01:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's easier to open one & comment in one than close one, so it's good progress made today. That article has (might still have) two other names (list of players with 400 SBs and 300 SBs, I believe). Zepppep (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to what you are saying. Are there a couple of pages that need to be deleted? AutomaticStrikeout 01:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In the WP search bar, type 'List of Major League Baseball players with 400 stolen bases' (and also '500') and you'll see what I mean. There are currently some redirects that can be deleted, since the article no longer has 500 (let alone 400) members. Does that make sense? (I'm not saying it's something you have to do, it's just something we'll have to get straightened out one of these days.) Zepppep (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is no problem with the redirects. If it is the list is including players with 300 steals, it would also include those with 400 or 500. Or did you mean there are redirects for top 500 and top 400? AutomaticStrikeout 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm giving myself a minnow Zepppep (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Plip!

Haha. Oh well, and I was so looking forward to getting a couple of redirects blasted! AutomaticStrikeout 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Minor edit

Baseball 3O request

I've declined your WP:3O request about the List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits, as there is no discussion on talk page. To generate this discussion and (probably) resolve the issue, you might request page protection on WP:RPP, which is a common way to forse talk page discussion (see WP:PREFER). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted! Many thanks! Zepppep (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Request rejected. Zepppep (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I commented there. You might want to try WP:RFC, as it is the only content dispute resolution process that doesn't depend on prior discussion. If you decide to go this way, be sure to form your question the way that it would be (1) neutral, (2) succinct and (3) not requesting to dig the issue in order to form an opinion. RfC subscripts won't come to the non-neutrally worded question and won't think about the question more then a couple of minutes (at most). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Already solicited comments on the relevant WikiProject talk page, however. Zepppep (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I occasionally chime in at 3O as well. In this case, the relevant WikiPrpject, WP:BASEBALL, is active enough where opinions from the project will in most cases lead to consensus and solve any edit warring among a few editors. IMO, 3O is best when there are few people watching the article and related projects are not interested either.—Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I mentioned the IPs because there may be some socking involved too. You might have to dig deeper. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Jeff Heath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Jackson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Re: RfC

Thank you for asking me to weigh in. The definition of an active player had (as far as I know) never been addressed, so it is about time for WP:MLB to form a consensus over the term. And yes, it does make life easier, not just for me, but for the entire WikiProject Baseball.

As a sidenote, could you help review the Golden Spikes Award list I nominated five days ago when you have time? I tried asking for reviews on the WikiProject talk page but currently, there are no comments, so any kind of feedback is much appreciated. Thanks and cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I will certainly take a look at the items for that article. And thank you for your comments! (I was actually still working on supporting evidence for the 20-20-20 FLC but I can see it has been closed. Even though editors that had ruled "opposed" were asked to provide more explanation, examples of precedent, etc. and they could not, I see the process has since been halted (and perhaps their "side" won? I don't like it when WP:DONTLIKE seems to carry the day). Too bad...maybe it'll get there in the near future, however.) Zepppep (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed! Zepppep (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel/Wikivoyage/WMF Travel Guide

Assuming you're the same Zepppep that has an account on Wikitravel. Just checking to see if you're aware of the proposal to move Wikitravel content over to a new Wikimedia-run travel guide (see Meta:Travel Guide). There is currently an open RfC for people to state their support or opposition. Due to ongoing issues with the IB-run Wikitravel site (spambots, lack of patrolling, security bugs, etc) there is also a more immediate proposal to move Wikitravel content over to Wikivoyage as a precursor to the bigger move to WMF (Wikivoyage is also interested in joining the WMF). You may want to read the Migration FAQ on the Wikivoyage site that explains the whole situation in greater detail. Eco84 | Talk 21:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the RfC a while back. Pretty torn between the two sides. As good as a move might be, it's such a different writing style and way of editing compared to WP. I will probably hit up that RfC and will take a look at the links you've provided! Zepppep (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Strike2216

I've left an edit warring warning on User talk:Strike2216. I believe there is sufficient grounds to report at WP:AN3 if this continues.—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, have been dealing with (and noticing) such behavior from that user. The user has been warned for the last time. Zepppep (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The user is doing it here also. (This is one of the reasons I went to the project page and asked the group to agree on the definition of an active player, so the definition can be applied to all articles. I'm hoping in the end that's what will be reached.) Zepppep (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rugby league

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rugby league. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Golden Spikes Award review

Thank you for your review of the Golden Spikes Award. I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to respond to them. Could you return to the FLC page and cap the comments you feel that I've addressed satisfactorily? The code for the capping template can be found here in the previous review you did. Thanks and cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I was actually just looking at the comments page to see what other progress might've been made. I still see the Jennings and Posey portion is still mentioned only parenthetically. I believe it and the Horner mention it's currently paired with would not suffer from having their own sentences. The lead is not terribly long as it is so I feel there is more than ample room for it. Are you in agreement on this? What are your thoughts? Zepppep (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Zepppep (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Zepppep. Just one more thing; could you place your vote underneath your resolved comments please? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Placing a vote will help move the discussion along, rather than keeping it hanging in thin air (as it is at the present moment). Thanks! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Vogelsong / Madison Bumgarner

Hello, I will take this piece by piece,

Vogelsong: I am sorry if I did not seem neutral about my post, but I was trying to type fact he had a bad spell in an amazing two seasons that he preformed. I believe I was typing statistics about two bad starts out of two seasons. He did have two games only pitching 3 innings and 2 2/3 innings after have 16 quality starts, as well as documenting him coming back to form in a way that he did things that seemed also against his normal characteristics. If you explain what part seemed not neutral enough I will do what I can to make it seem as neutral as possible.

Bumgarner: I am sorry I did not post a citation, I was going to do it after I got back from work. This sentence is sited with the citation that I meant to place on the article you removed. The third paragraph down stats that he was the only pitcher in the modern era to only pitch 3 games with 10 strike-outs and three walks. Apologize, I was in a rush and thought it would last the night before I can properly cite the article.

Wavelink64 (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Vogelsong: "would hit a hard stretch": define this statistically instead (and let the reader determine how they would define such starts/streaks/etc). (Additionally, I'm guessing the placement of this was also incorrect, as going seven innings whilst surrendering three hits and no earned runs would hardly be considered a "hard stretch"). "Although it looked like...back on track": according to whom? Also, this assumes some sort of "norm" for him and that his norm is perhaps "better" than his actual career stats would show. "He gave up 3 solo home runs": although it's later stated he got a win in the decision, and allowed 3 ER (there are plenty of starting pitcher who would be thrilled with an ERA of 3.00 or less) so this seems to be painting one picture and then another, as does "going three innings...only three runs" (my guess is you'd want to insert "despite," as in "despite giving up 3 solo home runs, his highest since his return to the majors..."). There are also several typos in the change, which combined with the WP:NPOV concerns, led to the revert. Examples include: use of fractions for baseball stats, where decimal points shall be used; not writing out numbers less than 10 (for example, "7" instead of "seven") (see WP:MoS; "after going 7" could be confusing for someone who doesn't follow baseball too closely, so include "seven innings"; probably meant to include "his" before "highest total"; "quality start" should not be capitalized; "homeruns" should be "home runs"; even though "San Diego" is linkable, I would state "against the San Diego Padres" (otherwise to the reader it looks like he pitched against a city that day, not a team).

Bumgarner: I might suggest making an edit when you have time to add the citation as well, otherwise the article is in limbo until you (or another editor) comes along and either removes it or finds a source and cites it. Additionally, rather than stating "in over 100 years," I would be precise (as detailed in my comments to your talk page) unless what you're citing is a quote (in which case you'd need to denote that). Happy editing! Zepppep (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

 Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 20:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for the invitation. Daily? Project page states the frequency is up for discussion, I suppose. I will definitely consider it. Zepppep (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the wording in the invitation has since been changed. AutomaticStrikeout 18:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Polite request

Hi there. Sorry to bother you. I put a rfc for ] on the rfc board but no response yet, so if you have time I wondered if you could look at it? Thanks 220.255.1.37 (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You bet. There are some very lengthy posts on that talk page, so might take me a while but I would be happy to dive into it. Should have a reply from me within 24 hours or so. Zepppep (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the RfC post was only posted on 25 August. It may take up a day for the bot to carry out the subsequent actions after an editor has put up the RfC tag. However, I will carry out a RfC as randomly selecting an editor is OK. Zepppep (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that extensive and considered response. And sorry for disturbing you, as it were. I'm not that familiar with the rfc page and wasn't sure whether it woul dwork or not, so picked a few editors at random. 220.255.1.147 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You weren't disturbing me -- was just trying to let you know it will take a bit of time for editors who are listed on the RfC page to be notified by the bot (and of course, some who are don't reply). No worries. Zepppep (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Peer reviews

Hi, Zep. I've seen it done, and I I've participated in one or two. Another good arrow in our quiver. I can't offhand recall if I've personally called for one — I've been here seven years, so the ol' memory can get hazy!   : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, honestly, I'd be glad to help. I think I can offer some skills, and at the same time, it's wonderfully gracious of you to think of me. Times like this, Misplaced Pages's community aspect makes me proud to be a part of it. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my RfA. Keep up the bold work in WikiProject Baseball.—Bagumba (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing discussion

Thanks for closing the discussion at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_leaders_in_career_wins#List_entry_criteria. Nobody owns these articles, so you generally should not feel the need to ask for permission to do the right thing. The worst thing that can happen is you get reverted. In my real life, my motto is "Do the right think now, ask for forgiveness later." It's just too time-consuming to be constantly asking for permission, assuming one is competent (and I have seen no reason to believe you are not). If you truly did not know what to do, I would understand, but I did not see that in regards to this particular thread.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In talking about other requests for closure, I had asked another editor (who works on baseball articles a lot) to wrap it up and was told since they had not started the discussion, it might not be their place to close the discussion. So I guess I was thinking consensus would be "called" when the original editor who raised the issue thought it was time (within reason, of course), but thank you for correcting my understanding. Zepppep (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone has their own interpretation. If one really wanted to avoid any perception of impropriety, one would ask an uninvolved editor to close this out.—Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have also edited the article. Rather boldly... Zepppep (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of African-American firsts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of African-American firsts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited C. J. Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Class A (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bagumba for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 94.12.133.144 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Haft, Chris. "Bumgarner helps rewrite record books after duel". mlb.com. Major League Baseball. Retrieved 8/24/2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)