Kelapstick (talk | contribs) |
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
:::I respect DGG immensely, but sometimes he needs to lighten up. :) --[[User:Fabrictramp|<font color="#228b22" face="comic sans ms">Fabrictramp</font>]] | [[User talk:Fabrictramp|<font color="#960018" face="Papyrus">talk to me</font>]] 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
:::I respect DGG immensely, but sometimes he needs to lighten up. :) --[[User:Fabrictramp|<font color="#228b22" face="comic sans ms">Fabrictramp</font>]] | [[User talk:Fabrictramp|<font color="#960018" face="Papyrus">talk to me</font>]] 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::Agreed, and I think they were snowballable, even if it wasn't said in the closing.--[[User:Kelapstick|kelapstick]] ([[User talk:Kelapstick|talk]]) 05:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
::::Agreed, and I think they were snowballable, even if it wasn't said in the closing.--[[User:Kelapstick|kelapstick]] ([[User talk:Kelapstick|talk]]) 05:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::I don't like to say "snow" for AFDs with unwithdrawn "delete" !votes (even "drive by per noms") or for AFDs that are being closed anywhere within the neighborhood of of 7 days. Also, "snow" is overused in AFD, especially by non admins. It's only appropriate for articles where it's obvious to any reasonable person that the article is not going to be deleted (ie [[George W Bush]]) or articles that fall under [[WP:OUTCOMES]] if there are no arguments for deletion besides the nominator. --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 11:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:41, 24 April 2009
Index to archived discussions |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Micro-script
Dear Fabrictramp--
Thanks for your note. Being new to the wiki protocol, didn't realize the rule on inventors submitting their own stuff. Although the word is legit and becoming more so. Is there a difference between submitting to Wiktionary which what I originally was trying to do but couldn't figure out how? Wasn't intending Micro-script to be an "article." Just a definition. Thanks R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket501 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I rarely edit at Wiktionary, but the rules may well vary a bit over there. This link at Wiktionary sounds promising, especially the part about "Criteria for inclusion". HTH--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- License update: Licensing vote begins
- News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
- Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Help!
We just had an edit conflict on the ANI board; I'm glad you're here. Did you happen to notice the message I left above the one you just answered? I am very suspicious of a returning vandal, but I can't for the life of me remember who this character is. Take a look at the new user log to see what I mean. If you think I should be blocking any suspect accounts, now might be a good time to start. :) Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, real life called for about 15 minutes. (Damn this whole making a living thing!) The editor you mentioned does sound strangely familiar, but my "Danger Will Robinson" alarm isn't going off. I'll look around for a few and see if any bells chime.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
LOL! You too, eh? Gotta head over to that place of emplyment m'self in a few moments. It wasn't exactly alarm bells for me, but rather a sense of deja vu. Take care and thanks for the help. It's a great relief. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll spend a few minutes snooping around and adding things to my watchlist. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And the light just came on when I saw User:Baseball Beetles. It's a bunch of Ron Liebman socks, I'd wager. No edits yet, but it's his MO. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- It does seem odd that someone would create an account and not edit with it right away. Most users create an account in order to edit. Unless they're getting them established early for autoconfirmation... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle (aunt?) Now that I've snooped through the user creation log a bit, I see a lot of accounts created in this same time frame that haven't editing yet. Must ponder this over another cup of tea.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Chris. Hayes
Wow, that was fast! Thanks for getting in touch and the clarification is appreciated. While I'm here, you seem to have taken some interest in this row over these minor league player articles (I daren't speculate how many there are, but quite a few!) and I was wondering what on Earth is going on? A good number of them seem to have been deleted and while I, quite frankly, have better things to do than weigh into such a heated debate, some of them- as you've pointed out to others- are salvageable and notable, but the author seems unwilling to cooperate with people who want to help him. I know nothing about minor league baseball, but I hate to see a potentially decent article scrapped so I'd be willing to help with the better ones where I can. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Regards HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think you hit the problem squarely on the head -- our friend isn't much into cooperating or change. I and others have tried explaining to him the value of sourcing the articles with reliable sources that show notability, but he insists that all minor leaguers are inherently notable no matter what the consensus is. I had thought about making a list of all his articles and working through them one by one, sourcing and improving where I can, but I got discouraged when he was creating dozens of new pages every day. He hasn't edited since his block, so when I might get back to slogging through the list. Any of the articles you want to add reliable sources to, be my guest! :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I still have the list that I was working on (updated last on 07 April, or maybe on 03 April) that was all of the articles that he had created up until that day (got side tracked with other things, ooh look something shiny...), feel free to use that space if (either of) you want/need.--kelapstick (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not the only one who gets distracted by shiny objects! LOL
- I still have the list that I was working on (updated last on 07 April, or maybe on 03 April) that was all of the articles that he had created up until that day (got side tracked with other things, ooh look something shiny...), feel free to use that space if (either of) you want/need.--kelapstick (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I just made a list of all the articles he worked on (through today) at User:Fabrictramp/MiLB. Should I integrate my list into yours?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Either/or, I don't mind hosting it, but you appear to have more of an interest in baseball than I do (being a member of WP:baseball) so you may want to keep it on yours. Also you have more players on your list. I can work on it on either page (whatever work needs to be done), so it is your call, also don't worry about the {{tb}} template, I have your talk page on my watch list.--kelapstick (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- You may want to section them off like I have them too
- Passing GNG
- Passed AfD
- Unchecked etc.
- --kelapstick (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- You may want to section them off like I have them too
- Either/or, I don't mind hosting it, but you appear to have more of an interest in baseball than I do (being a member of WP:baseball) so you may want to keep it on yours. Also you have more players on your list. I can work on it on either page (whatever work needs to be done), so it is your call, also don't worry about the {{tb}} template, I have your talk page on my watch list.--kelapstick (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I just made a list of all the articles he worked on (through today) at User:Fabrictramp/MiLB. Should I integrate my list into yours?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- edit conflict -- great minds think alike -- see my last paragraph. :)
- No problem with the talkback - I'm not used to having my very own talk page stalker. *grin*
- I like the format of your list better than mine. (I'm good at acquiring data, not so good at presenting it). I can integrate mine into yours pretty quickly, so I'll work on that next, subject to real world interruptions.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me.--kelapstick (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Done Probably needs some formatting work, but see my comments above about acquiring data vs. presenting it. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)What is with the : before the name, what does that do? I know what it does for categories. I can take a look and sort through some of it later, or tomorrow.--kelapstick (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- And what is the deal with the stats tables (showing the stats each year), I am sure that a statistics site is something Wikipedia is not.--kelapstick (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't actually do anything here, it's just an artifact from how AWB makes the list. I don't bother removing it, since it doesn't hurt anything, either.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- As to the stat tables, I also have some concerns about copyvio issues, since they are pretty much a cut and paste job. I've been removing them and just adding a link to the source.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good idea, especially since realistically every table would have to be edited every year, and that, times how many players have articles (or would have articles under Gjr's interpretation) would be a lot of updating.
- As to the stat tables, I also have some concerns about copyvio issues, since they are pretty much a cut and paste job. I've been removing them and just adding a link to the source.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, I have a bad feeling about redirecting players to their team though, since they move around a lot, and what team would you redirect a retired player to? The last one? The one he played the longest for? The one he is most remembered for? Plus all think about the upkeep with that, every time there was a (minor league) trade you have to change the redirect (assuming the decision was to redirect to the current team), keeping tabs on minor league players will/would require a whole slew of dedicated editors (not dedicated in their principles, but dedicated to those jobs) to maintain it, think about what happens at the trade deadline :O (I'm not saying WP:Baseball doesn't have a whole slew of dedicated editors, but those resources could be put to better use elsewhere).
- Also Wilmington Blue Rocks was on your list, there is a section called "not to be forgotten" under players of note, that just seems like an odd section name to me, more fitting for a war memorial than a list of MiLB baseball players. Anyway I have sectioned it off, I think that covers most basis, I will go through and do some sorting when I get a minute. Cheers --kelapstick (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also conflicted on the redirects. While I love to help the reader who is searching for that non-notable player, I'm not comfortable with the idea of updating all those redirects one or more times per year. But I can't think of a logical place to redirect. (I certainly hope no one gets it in their head to start an article titled Every MiLB player evah. *snort*)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- That is why I liked (and suggested at WP:BB) the idea of creating pages like 2008 Corpus Christi Hooks season (as they do for MLB), that would include the roster for that year, so if someone were doing a search for Brad James (baseball) he would come up on
- It's not total exclusion, but it's not total inclusion either. And the detailed stats can be left to the baseball-specific wikis. IMO the teams season is more notable than the individual players.--kelapstick (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also conflicted on the redirects. While I love to help the reader who is searching for that non-notable player, I'm not comfortable with the idea of updating all those redirects one or more times per year. But I can't think of a logical place to redirect. (I certainly hope no one gets it in their head to start an article titled Every MiLB player evah. *snort*)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, MiLB, while they do an incredible number of things right, hasn't gotten into their heads that baseball fans adore history. Trying to dredge up info on MiLB seasons will be a monumental task. I hope someone takes it on, but it sure won't be me. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, I've had a response at User talk:Gjr rodriguez. I think he's willing to cooperate, which is certainly progress. Perhaps if he's cut some slack, we might be able to recruit his help in doing what we can (I say we, though I've not done much but a little diplomacy!) for the articles. If I may, respectfully, suggest that you extend (another) olive branch to our friend, maybe this will resolve itself? Regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea, although I'll probably wait a couple of days because I'm in a bit of a bad mood about the whole thing right now. He's made over 200 articles, and each of the first half dozen I've worked on cleaning up and sourcing has had factual errors (wrong year of birth, wrong draft info, bad external links, etc.) The olive branch will be much better if I wait until I can do it with a genuine smile on my face. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- There are also spelling errors on some of the names too (see Matt Kniginyzky). I think he would be a great resource to WP:Baseball, however one of his key arguments was wanting the statistics tables (Quote:"I am a baseball stats fan"), which could be (as you pointed out) a copyvio, and is not a common practice for inclusion on Wikipedia (plus the updating issues). A standardized template for the pages would be necessary, and he would have to be on board with it (both the process and the lack of statistics). I don't think it's impossible, just something that would have to be done.--kelapstick (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- TWO HUNDRED?!?! I didn't realise there were that many! I gathered there were a good few but that's just insane! Have you made any progress sorting the good from the bad? Do you have a list of them that still need attention? If you'd provide me with it, I'll see what I can do. I don't have much knowledge of the subject, but, of the ones I've seen, most look as if a trawl through google would dredge up enough for a few citations. Regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- kelapstick and I have a list at User:Kelapstick/Sandbox, sorted by whether it passes WP:GNG, if it's at AfD, or if it still needs clean up and review. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
yeah
there are like 2 atomic facts at nicole steinwedell. <correct spelling> what is disputable? HeadsCanBeLargelyAkin2Wholes 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- ok, also- can you tell me more about this commitment to your real-life identity thing? I looked at the SHA-512 link and the commitment scheme. but I'm still wondering- how's it work? 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headlikeawhole (talk • contribs)
- just giving you a heads up cuz you placed the tag.
- As to the committed identity, Template:User committed identity has a good explanation. Basically it gives you a way to prove you are the real owner of the account if someone ever hacks into your Wikipedia account.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- ok cool. has anyone ever had thier reputation badly burned by someone hacking thier 'paedia acct? have you had any hacker problems? do you like the phrase real-life to exclude online interactions/online "life"? k, later. HeadsCanBeLargelyAkin2Wholes 00:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Check-Double-Check-Triple-Check
This is starting to make my brain hurt. There are a lot of articles left to go (99 in unsorted, which I guess is half done), any thoughts on what the next move forward should be? Seems like a waste of time/effort taking everything to AfD individually and getting the same responses from the same people. Since some players are coming up with RSs, and some aren't here is my thought:
- Check for sources for all unchecked articles and merge/redirect those that don't have them into the team they play for (a decent compromise for those who don't want the articles all together and those who do)
- Add found sources to the talk page for integration into the article
- Once all articles are checked revisit the articles with sources and integrate them
Seems like a quick way to get through a lot of articles, a lot of them were already redirected but Gjr reverted the change. Not sure if this is the best course of action but it is a course of action. Thoughts? Anyway on the bright side I got some tickets to a Reno Aces game in May so at least that shows I am not anti-MiLB :D. Cheers --kelapstick (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Today (and possible tomorrow, depending on how long it takes) I was planning on working through all the currently AfD'd articles and adding what sources I can find. After that, I was planning on working though the rest of the list. I like your idea of redirecting the ones that aren't passing notability. If the redirect gets reverted, they can always go to AfD at that time.
- Enjoy the Aces game! Despite what some editors call a MLB bias at WP:Baseball, I go to way more triple-A games than MLB games. The price is right, the park is closer (and cleaner!), and the play is very high level. I'm hoping to make the 51s at River Cats game next Saturday.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't realize this was their first year, and a new stadium to boot. Looks like the Aces are doing alright this year (although .500, and first in the division...all relative I suppose). I used to see a lot of Jays games when I lived in Toronto, and Sky Dome had just been built. Filed level on the third base line tickets were $14.50 (compared to $44 now), but the minor league games are just as good of action and at a much better price, also since the stadiums hold less capacity you get a much better view of the game (ditto goes with minor hockey vs. NHL, although I have never seen a game outside Toronto either). I'm 14 rows up behind the catcher, so that should be a good spot.
- If it's anything like the River Cats park, it will be a great spot. I either try to get there or right behind first base (because I can often get tickets in the first couple of rows, next to the visitor's dug out.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I've finished with the ones at AfD (including the new one), but I need a break before moving to the rest. My eyes are crossing and the real world needs some of my attention. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
- Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
- News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
- Dispatches: Valued pictures
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is an excellent reason for my actions...
... I completely screwed up! I completely forgot dead end was for outgoing links. I was cursing and muttering to myself about "stupid people using non standard orphan templates" that have completely bamboozled orphanbot and carefully replacing each tag (even making sure to keep the date). Damn, I'm sorry. Thank you for noticing my misguided rampage and for fixing some of them. How many did you catch? I must have tagged a couple of hundred over the weekend. I'll try to go through and self revert. DAMN! So where's my trout? That's gotta be a trout worthy stuff up! Cheers, Paxse (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Make sure you have that trout with a little herb butter and a nice salad. Sounds like a glass of your favorite beverage might be in order, too. :)
- I only saw the two I mentioned, and then only because I went to this toolserver page to update the list of pages needing deadend tags and saw two had been visited by me before. Seemed odd, so I checked it out.
- Don't stress too much about any you didn't catch, as they're somewhere in the toolserver list and will get retagged eventually. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Coincidently, I was working from this very similar toolserver page when I began to mass revert your tagging - doh! The herb butter sounds damn fine, I think I'll just go and get the G&T now. :) Paxse (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've closed 3 AFDs on minor league players thanks to you
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collin DeLome
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trey Hearne
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek McDaid
I've heard you say in the past that you're not a big fan of NACS but due to your sourcing these articles, I felt it ok to close these despite a few "drive by vague wave" delete !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- As the originator of the AfDs (I was wasn't I?) I just want to say that I think that is the right thing to do (admin or not), and I appreciate all the work that Fabrictramp put into these articles, all 22ish. kelapstick (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- No problem on these Ron. You're the exception to my "not a fan" rule, because I've never seen you close an AfD without putting thought into it. And thanks for the appreciation Kelapstick. I wouldn't have gotten off the stick (pun intended) to work on this (insert some Daily Show type phrase here that alludes to the overwhelming number of articles that needed evaluation) without your great work on sorting the 200 articles in question.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- And to think I just got (figuratively) yelled at on my talk page for closing Trey Hearn early. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I respect DGG immensely, but sometimes he needs to lighten up. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I think they were snowballable, even if it wasn't said in the closing.--kelapstick (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like to say "snow" for AFDs with unwithdrawn "delete" !votes (even "drive by per noms") or for AFDs that are being closed anywhere within the neighborhood of of 7 days. Also, "snow" is overused in AFD, especially by non admins. It's only appropriate for articles where it's obvious to any reasonable person that the article is not going to be deleted (ie George W Bush) or articles that fall under WP:OUTCOMES if there are no arguments for deletion besides the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I think they were snowballable, even if it wasn't said in the closing.--kelapstick (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I respect DGG immensely, but sometimes he needs to lighten up. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)