User talk:WilliamJE: Difference between revisions

Archives

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

Though if it takes too long to get a response, I will take you to arbitration. Reversions are incredibly rude, and unless they're done for a fantastic reason, I don't take to them well. Earflaps (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You take it to WP:GOLF's talk page. That's where relevant golf article discussions take place, not the portal....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, WilliamJE, that reverting another editor three times is cause for banning. I highly recommend you make more of an effort to engage in discussion before blindly reverting, as don't forget, removing sourced, on-topic additions is easily seen as vandalism, irregardless of how right you think you are. Here are the points I will be disagreeing on.

• Constantly committing WP:OVERCITE. In one case like 5 IC from the same source for one paragraph that is all from the same article.
  • This is called minor sloppiness left over from an intense round of editing. Frankly, getting picky about this is like reading your student's thesis that took them five months to write, and then failing them because they used a single word too often, or had a few typos. I will re-add these sections and be pickier with citation, but remember, any wiki gnome can fix this. Earflaps (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing what Dave Hill said in his book. Do you have a copy of Teed Off? I do. The word innocence is not used.
  • I do believe we're allowed to paraphrase. All I did was re-word your own sloppy paragraph, I didn't "change" what he said by adding a specific quote.
• Sandra Palmer was never suspended but you created a section header saying just that.
  • Oh goodness, you're right, it was "probation" for a year, not suspension. Really, you could have changed the name of the subsection instead of removing an entire sourced, relevant, and very well-written section. You baffle me.
• Your removals in the aftermath section
  • The aftermath section was filled with random bio facts that were not deleted, but simply moved to her biography, where they belong. I also added a lovely little summary of her 'recent' awards - or did you not notice that the 'aftermath' section was four years old? It was going on about her writing an article about sexuality in LPGA propaganda, how is this related to the ongoing cheating case? It also went on about how she didn't qualify for the hall of fame. If you'd read the recent info I'd added, it makes all that bla bla about not qualifying moot, because she was given the award in 2014. Anyways, this is the final time I try and pander to your weird reversions before I take you arbitration over it. One little thing you don't like in a large bold addition is not reason to revert 'all' of it. It is, in fact, a bit ridiculous. Earflaps (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I'm not quite sure why you're so adamant about keeping all this Bob Toski stuff on the page, though I don't care enough on that point to fight much. I just feel qoutes from people more involved in the whole thing, like lawyers and committee members, would add more and be more relevant than a coach who admitted he'd never seen anything. As far as making that quote that blatantly insinuates he thinks Blalock is insane, I don't remember finding any other evidence in all the articles you found that he was involved in the legal fracas in any way. But again, whatever. I think actually building the Bob Toskii#Golf scandal page into something might be a more productive use of your interest in his narrative. The Toski page is measly as is, and doesn't mention these things at all. Earflaps (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The re-writing of any golf article here at Wikipedia doesn't bother me except when one of two things occur-

1- Factual mistakes are inserted into articles.

2- Reliably sourced content is taken out of them.

I could form a long list of the factual mistakes I've found and corrected in golf articles. Like Calvin Peete being a migrant farm worker to Dave Stockton making birdie on the 72nd hole of the 1976 PGA Championship to many more. I have worked with the pro golf tours when I have found mistakes in their records. My user page says WP has the best golf recordkeeping anywhere. It is not all my work or close to it*, Tewapack* has done great service around here as have others. So I don't like mistakes in articles and you've done it more than once. The attitude you show above in pooh pahing the Palmer mistake you made isn't helpful if you want to work with me.

As for reliably sourced content, there is too little around Wikipedia on anything golf related prior to the Tiger Woods era. Recentism has alot to do with it, as does that finding the history golf tours can be a very trying task*. Kathy Whitworth has won 88 LPGA tournaments more than any other player on that tour but the narrative record of it in her article is so thin it is sad. Why is it thin? There just isn't much written on Whitworth and or it is just very hard to find. Facts about Blalock before or after her LPGA troubles makes her career more detailed whether it is 100% directly related to the controversy or not. The article is partly a biography on her.

My user page says I'm particular about making sure an article is reliably sourced and I am but WP:OVERCITE is something I have long taken seriously too. You kept committing OVERCITE while I keep saying in my edit summaries that was why I was changing your work. The edit summaries I do is a message.

Your adding of detail is great and please add more if you find it, just be careful with the facts (If unsure you can always pop me a message here. I am online as long as I'm home), don't overclutter the article with ICs, and think some more on sourced content in golf articles before removing any of it.

• - Around four years ago, I did the work to create Whitworth's win and playoff boxes. She won 88 times and took part in 28 playoffs. To get those records compiled was incredibly hard. The LPGA Tour by its own admission in the tour's early days used to keep their record keeping in the trunk of somebody's car.

• - I try to limit my hornblowing or at least try to. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• - Tewapack has had next to nothing to do with the article. Before I created it, I asked for his help on naming it, he didn't give it. Tewapack didn't feel it was worthy of an article. No article on a sports #1 player being suspended for a year which caused a three-year legal battle? Lets say Tewapack and I don't always see eye to eye.
  • • Note: moving to Talk:Jane_Blalock_cheating_controversy#Request_for_your_input_here so other people can find it. If you have questions unrelated to the page, happy to continue talking on those topics here if you prefer.Earflaps (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WilliamJE! I noticed WP:OVERSIGHT is one of your pet peeves, which is fine. However, you're the only person I've ever seen revert changes on that ground alone. Are you sure you want to continue standing firm on that? Seems to me, accuracy and allowing readers to do proper research on the claims we make is more prevalent, in most cases, than saving people the hassle of looking at too many tiny numbers. Earflaps (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-the Tennessee General Assembly has a database for their members and found the information about J. Fred Johnson, Jr. and added this to the article-thanks-RFD (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know WilliamJE, I have sorted out the user 79.74.58.104, who kept posting a personal attack. Completely unacceptable. If he does it again, the personal attack will be reported.

Good morning! When you have a moment, I wanted to ask your opinion. While accurate, the current "Jane Blalock cheating controversy" title is maybe at odds with Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles (which recommends avoiding titles that hint at the editors' opinions about the event), and definitely at odds with WP:CRITS (which reads "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy.") I couldn't find an consistent title that the newspapers use to refer to the events, which would simplify things, unfortunately. The first alternatives that popped into my head were "Jane Blalock golf card violation conflict," "1972 LPGA scorecard conflict," and "LPGA vs. Jane Blalock," though I suppose the latter two only refer to part of the article's scope :/ . But wanted to see if you had better luck brainstorming. I assume Tewapack might have input too, though I think you mentioned earlier they weren't interested in picking a name. Earflaps (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any suggestions. The title was the best I could come up. If someone could come up with something better, @Tewapack:, I don't have a problem. Your couple of ideas don't sound any better than the present title, but keep trying. There are other articles with controversy in the title but if we can find a way to remove it and give the article a better name it is fine with me. Would scandal be any better? There has been no worse golf cheating episode, true or false, so far as I know. What happened is just little remembered though I think the wikipedia article may have caused more people to remember it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THere are indeed other titles with controversy, though I think that's mainly because most people are completely unaware of wp:crits, or the media already gave the event a commonly accepted name. That's my guess at least. I don't think my current ideas are great, but I do think they are better than the current because they fit the guidelines better. Also, I try and avoid scandal, I can loo around but I've run into guidelines that find the word too loaded with connotation. Though I won't move the page until I get at least one other person who concurs on a title. Earflaps (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Blalock vs LPGA Tour might be an idea....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wouldn't have a problem with your idea. It actually would fit the guideline I was just looking through (found diddly squat on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople), but Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events) has some nice tips), which lays out a sort of "when, where, what" structure for an events title that is easily recognized by readers (and the when and where aren't really as relevant with these events as the what, I'd say, so just leaving the "what" descriptor aligns with some of the examples they use). Wonder if it would be weird to use the "vs." if that wasn't how the lawsuit was referred to on the docket, but then it probably was referred to that way. I'll look up some case proceedings, because why not. Earflaps (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you were basically right, except they left the tour part out and spelled out LPGA. Do you think the acronym would be enough for readers? The other seems so long. Earflaps (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked out Category:Lawsuits, naming convention seems to be to just use the full docket title. Will move on that grounds, feel free to move to something else if you have inspiration. Earflaps (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I'm working really hard on my next ebook (My last one was set in the world of the LPGA Tour) and only editing around here during times of writer's block....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at your own edit, before I ever touched the page. There is no inline reference. Please revert your reversions, or I really have no choice but to take you to arbitration for disruptive editing. Reversions are not a game, if either of us goes up to three, we could both be banned. Earflaps (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, is that no? To arbitration we go. Oh fun. Earflaps (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like this goes straight to Arbcom which tells me how little you know. Two- Do you really want to go that way when I can point somewhere 10 factual errors you have inserted into the two Blalock articles and instances of taking out referenced information. I can name two golf editors who got blocked for WP:DISRUPT after I reported them. One of whom is serving the last days of a two-week block for disruptive editng and personal attacks, something you just did before semi-reverting it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never add in facts without a reference, so you'd need to list those "factual errors," if they even are errors. I also never removed relevant sourced information on the page, not once, we just disagree on the definition of "trivial" in some cases. Also, you never responded to my statement above. And no, I'm not considering arbcom if you don't modify your edit, I'm looking at the edit warring dispute page. There are enough incidents over the past month to paint a pretty obvious picture, that you habitually edit war and misuse the revert function. Earflaps (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things you have done

Change Blalock's win total from 27 to 29.

the sources backed me up, as you well know.

Changed her place of residence from Cambridge to Boston even though Cambridge was and is referenced.

Boston was referenced as well in a good source, and I believe was the more recent residence.

Said money she won at a tournament was unofficial when it was official.

Oops. a mistake. I apologize.

Misstated the years she won tournaments in Japan.

I assume the source I used was inaccurate. So blame the newspaper.

Misstated the year she retired from the LPGA.

Again, this means the source I used was incorrect. Blame the newspaper.

Putting in the wrong hall of Fame she was inducted into.

A mistake, I was confused. You'll noticed I haven't reverted your correction.

There's more. That is just what I can think of off the top of my head....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Repeated_reversions_on_Jane_Blalock_v._LPGA. Thank you. Earflaps (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those red links help readers find the way that the articles haven't been created, removing them will confuse readers:

Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.

— WP:RED

333-blue 22:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're very conveniently forgetting WP:REDNOT which is a part of that same page you're linking. To quote-

Red links generally are not included in See also sections, nor are they linked to through templates such as Main or Further, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles.

An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.

Certain types of redlinks aren't allow. Ones to categories, Main and Further templates, and See also links. There was a talk page discussion[1] on some of that late last year....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we always use them on tennis articles, same as before, and nobody except you say that is not OK. 333-blue 23:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument used in that talk page discussion too except it was for law articles. It didn't pass muster if you would bother to read it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all tennis editors accept them. 333-blue 23:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read Argumentum ad populum....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't what did you mean "the roof". The article says: three men make a tiger. 333-blue 23:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to remove all red links in those tennis articles. 333-blue 00:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pang other editors to discuss with them. 333-blue 10:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You pang what you think will be a friendly audience. This is wikipedia policy. Go to WP:RED's talk page. That is where a community discussion should take place. Also remember what it reads about category redlinks. It says they should never be made. I warn you- I will take you to ANI if re-add one again. You re-added two last night....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have moved the discussion to WT:RED. 333-blue 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —S Marshall T/C 23:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate you so much WilliamJE! You love to 'REVERT' edits and 'NOT' help at all. Your word 'UNREFERENCED' annoys me!! You are the worst editor ever. I wish you retire!! Another thing, why the Jedward are you called WilliamJE?! I guess the Jedward word means JEdward, Jedward. You are such a Jedward editor, meaning Jedward bad Jedward editor, Jedward! Your word 'unreferenced', WilliamJEdward means Jedward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.58.179 (talk)