This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [or] 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	One less sockpuppet in the world today. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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)

Alright, how does it look? I changed the page based on consensus. Automatic Strikeout 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. Automatic Strikeout 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? Automatic Strikeout 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? Automatic Strikeout 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! Automatic Strikeout 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 02:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. ^[1] 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)

	Hello, Zepppep. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members.

 Happy editing! Automatic Strikeout 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. Automatic Strikeout 18:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry to bother you. I put a rfc for [Celtic F.C. Supporters]] 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)

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

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

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)

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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 03:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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)

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

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia: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)

Is it April 1st? Zepppep ( talk) 08:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it's the same way for these articles at it is for tennis. The symbol itself is ideal, I just write out ndash since i don't have a key for that on my computer, would have to copypaste anytime i wanted one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here: When you reply to RfCs, you should leave the RfC tag in place. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs states:

The default duration of a RfC is 30 days, but there is no minimum or maximum length. The RfC bot will automatically remove a RfC from the list of active RfCs after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section. If a RfC discussion concludes before 30 days, and there is no objection to closing the RfC, you can manually close the RfC by deleting the RfC template, {{ rfc}}, from the talk page RfC section (the RfC bot will remove the RfC from the active RfC list on its next run). If more than 30 days are required, change the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section to a more recent date.

...

If you believe an RfC is over (i.e. 30 days have passed or there has been no discussion for several days), please consider adding the RfC to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure rather than removing the RfC tag. Thank you for your good work in responding to RfCs. Best, Cunard ( talk) 06:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest you or any other editors involved with the wording of these instructions make a note of it in the appropriate section (that is, the one linked and used by the bot when notifying editors about a new RfC), as within the section proscribing response instructions, the only thing mentioned about removing/not removing a tag is Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. This seems to suggest: "If you do decide to provide RfC...". It's interesting how different terms are also thrown around, such as "closing," "ending," "removing." Only the editors involved in the discussion would agree on when it was time to move on (i.e., agree to closure), or from the counseling of an admin. Yes, I removed the tag which I now realize should be removed by someone involved with the article (or the result of another decision stemming from yet another solicitation), not the editor fulfilling the editor request. Feeling a bit patronized by your last comment, but I digress. Have a good one. Zepppep ( talk) 07:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My last sentence was not meant as patronizing; your substantial RfC contributions are detailed and well-worded. In no way was I trying to patronize you and I apologize that it came off that way.

I've reworded Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding per your suggestion. Feel free to reword or revert. Cunard ( talk) 07:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I think the added details are good and with a little polishing, will likely not be changed or reverted by others who help on that page. Have a good one. Zepppep ( talk) 07:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you closed a discussion at #Closing discussion. Would you consider closing RfCs at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Although the page is titled the "Administrators' noticeboard", discussions can be closed by admins or non-admins. Your willingness to provide detailed explanations of your RfC comments is an excellent skill for a closer to have. If you're not interested, then no worries. Cunard ( talk) 07:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so I'm understanding you...are you saying you want me to start helping with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If so, then I would be happy to help out. As for the discussion which you refer to in your first sentence was simply a talk page discussion (one that I was involved in), and not one which solicited RfC. I closed it (i.e., employed use of Template:Archive top) because consensus had been reached. I don't think the same Wikimarkup should be applied to the Requests for closure page, but after removing a RfC tag from an article's talk page, I would be a proponent of inserting the template so as to help editors know the discussion has finished and if an editor thinks consensus has changed, they'd need to open a new thread. (Again, I'm not 100% sure I know what you're asking so fill me in if I responded incorrecly.) Zepppep ( talk) 07:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be very grateful if you'd help out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure by assessing the consensus at RfCs. There are many examples of RfC closes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 3. Some examples are Talk:H. G. Wells#Possessive with an s ending, Talk:Great consonant shift#Redirect discussions, Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC - Handling promotional usernames, and Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing#RfC: Should this be a guideline ?.

For the RfCs at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, closers review the discussion and then summarize the discussion's findings. Would that be something you're interested in doing? Cunard ( talk) 08:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I would have no issue with helping out there if you feel I can be of any help. I'll take a look at your links before heading into the lion's den... Zepppep ( talk) 08:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Non-admins can close most of the discussions listed there. The discussions usually left for administrators to close are site ban or topic ban discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia:Requested moves discussions. Content RfCs can be closed by either admins or non-admins. Best, Cunard ( talk) 23:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the newspapers should be wikilinked, at least on the first mention. In terms of getting free use on a non-free image, unless it's a personal photo on flickr it's essentially impossible to get the license changed, so photos on older players can be hard to come by as a result. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Where in the world did editors get images for, say, Christy Matthewson?

For images that are free, there are plenty of archives where images can be found. Library of Congress is the best bet, and the Chicago Daily News archives tend to have a lot as well. For players outside of the dead-ball era, the best bet is publications like Baseball Digest or baseball cards that have fallen into the public domain, like Bowman. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, for Lemon your best bet would be to search for different years of Bowman baseball cards, since I know those are free. If there are any years you find that are solid images (1953 is the best for article but that's the one already up) then I can get them uploaded; have the templates to use down by heart for the cards. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Go Phightins! ( talk) 16:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Go Phightins! ( talk) 01:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Go Phightins! ( talk) 02:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your help on the Cole Hamels repertoire section, I award you this barnstar. Go Phightins! ( talk) 03:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Control (2007 film). 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 04:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

An awards section is fine, whether it is honors or highlights. I removed the one on Feller since there were two sections for that, and the three no-hitters is in the infobox. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You signed up to be a helper at the Highbeam project page. As The Wikipedia Library expands, I am seeking some assistants who can collaborate on project administration by spending a few hours now and then working on a variety of tasks.

Right now I am looking for help on the Questia round 1 signups, reviewing editors' applications to check for edit count (1000), account history (1 year), and current blocks. Note, there is no subjective judgment required, just a factual criteria-check. Here's what you can do:

1. Sign up for a section of 50 applications at this page
2. The first check involves using Popups (enabled in Special:Preferences -> click "Gadgets", check the box to enable Popups, then click save).
3. By hovering over a username on the applications list, Popups will show the edit count, age of account, and whether the editor is blocked on English Wikipedia
4. If an editor is blocked, list their name at this page
5. If an editor does not meet the 1-year/1000 editor check using Popups, open their user talk page in a new tab in your browser.
6. Then, you then need to check if the editor meets the criteria on another Wikipedia language project.
7. To check global contributions use the Global Contributions surveyor] on toolserver.
8. Toolserver is a bit slow so I find it helpful to have 3 tabs running simultaneously.
9. Scroll down to the bottom of the toolserver results to see if 1000 edits or 1-year age of accounted are met at another project. You can also see if the editor is blocked on another project.
10. If neither Popups nor the Global Contribution Surveyor met the criteria, then list their name at [ less than 1000 edits, or less than 1 year old account|this page
11. Mark your section {{done}} at this page

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks so much! -- User:Ocaasi 19:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Zepppep ( talk) 01:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! I really appreciate it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Public Advocate of the United States. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 05:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Heath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jimmy Phelan ( 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) 11:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you've recently nominated Bob Lemon and Bob Feller for GA. Nice work on them. We've been keeping an accounting of some of our most important articles at User:Muboshgu/Baseball Mountain, feel free to edit updates to that page. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

	Hello, Zepppep/Archive 2. Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Baseball's Hall of Fame task force. We are dedicated to improving articles relating to baseball Halls of Fame around the world, including their inductees. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to our members page. Happy editing! –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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, Wikipedia's community aspect makes me proud to be a part of it. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zep. I've been away from Wikipedia for quite a few days, but I haven't forgotten I've promised to help. Still catching up with work but I wanted to take a second to say hi. Other than making some edits to Minka Kelly just now (since I'm writing something about her and was looking something up and saw some uncited material and a [[WP:DATED] vio, etc.), I haven't checked my watchlist or any talk pages other than my own. I promise I'll come back to help. Regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. It's good to get away for a bit so no worries! I have been working on helping some other articles achieve GA so you can complete a review when you'd like. The nice thing is that the article is now a GA and I am perfectly content to wait a bit for peer reviews. I am more concerned with the quality of the review (hence why I went after you!) than the speed at which one is obtained. I'm sure you'll do a bang up job! Zepppep ( talk) 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's very flattering, and I appreciate the kind words very much.

It looks like an admin closed the wrestling RfC, and an another editor trimmed the pro wrestling firsts in response. So I guess we can move to the next area. Offhand, I can't remember if you wanted academia or sports as the next RfC. I'm happy to let you chose. Either you or I could then post the RfC officially on the talk page.

It is very good to work with you. Out of heat, light, as they say. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcoming. How nice to come to my talk page and see such nice comments left. I would go for the sports listings to be tackled next, as more edits to the article seem to be made from that category than academia, but I'm also cool either way. Cheers! Zepppep ( talk) 19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw his three edits and thought I reverted all of them. Czolgolz ( talk) 04:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of God of War characters. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 15:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Jeff Heath ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hank Thompson

Nap Lajoie ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rutland, Vermont

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Zepppep, I noticed you removed "non-notables" from Jim Thome's infobox such as the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award and several AL player of the week awards. Out of curiosity is there established precedent for what awards go in players' infoboxes. Thanks-- Go Phightins! ( talk) 01:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Check out this consensus reached. There is some support for a few of the awards he's won so I left those ones, but the ones that I removed are definitely in agreement with the project members' consensus. I should've probably also removed "7th on all-time HR list" as his hitting 600 HRs is mentioned in the lead. Zepppep ( talk) 01:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, took me a few minutes to read...that was a long thread! OK, I was just curious because I wasn't aware of any consensus, but I'll bookmark that and keep that in mind. Thanks again-- Go Phightins! ( talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No prob. And yes, it was a lengthy discussion but hopefully it'll serve a purpose rather than just Internet fluff. Zepppep ( talk) 02:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I nom'd Larry Doby for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Larry Doby/archive1. With that and another look through by you, combined with the review you got from another editor, it should be ready to go to FAC soon enough. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nap Lajoie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Leagues ( 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) 12:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Given the situation that happened with his article earlier, I have a sandbox where I'm working on his article at User:Wizardman/Bearden. I'd prefer working on it there, though It's not too big a deal. Got a bunch of sources ready for him, though I feel like my writing backlog is somehow growing even though I'm not adding any articles to it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries! Feel free to take anything I've changed or added to the article and paste it to your sandbox. I didn't view the article history so I wasn't aware of what has happened to it in the past (copyvio, perhaps)? Also, I'm sure you're already aware, but I submitted the Garcia article for GAN a few days ago. Zepppep ( talk) 15:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup; the article was in that bad of shape because I had to delete the whole thing three weeks ago due to copyvio :/ Granted, that does mean any changes are an automatic improvement, couldn't have been worse than an eight-year old obit serving as the article. Wizardman 15:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, an obit? I know the type of article. Sad, considering the article subject. While I have your eye, are you a reviewer that favors, for example, for example, "Indians president Mark Shapiro" (via Larry Doby article) or "Indians President Mark Shapiro"? Zepppep ( talk) 15:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the former, since the title isn't "Indians President" but rather simply president. Wizardman 02:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike Garcia (AL pitcher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ERA ( 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) 11:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, Zepppep Thanks so much 4 the ongoing help; it's refreshing to deal w/ someone sane, respectful, and genuinely focused on improving WP's content... and happy 2 collaborate 2 that end (never fear; u won't find me using such shorthand in any of my Wiki edits). Of course those very qualities should be the rule, and perhaps they r, but the bizarre personality I've been dealing with lately has made me despair of ever getting anything useful done on WP again (2 whatever small extent I've done so thus far).

So sorry 2 keep u hanging over the past couple of weeks; I'm afraid the aforementioned health emergency is neither going away nor getting better, on top of which my Wiki-focused moments have necessarily centered on a fledgling article I'd recently - & perhaps unwisely - expanded from a stub (B4 having a plan nor sufficient biographical leads with which 2 proceed) which was soon thereafter nominated for deletion; which is something I could've dealt with, until the aforementioned bizaarre character decided the subject DID have merit, and proceeded 2 commandeer the article and 2 'improve' it to a very thin gruel, indeed. Anyway, not your problem. Well, actually, it could be your problem, or this article's problem... or any other article I've worked on, 4 that matter, since this character has taken to stalking me (or my edits, 2B precise),

Speaking of which, one of this person's major goals in life appears 2B the elimination - w/ extreme prejudice - of any trace of quotes within references. Since my first Wiki experience doing any serious editing was on this page, I assumed that including quotes within references was an accepted practice (and a sensible & desirable one, especially when the source is not online, or a subscriber-only service), but this person, Author Author by name (or Wiki handle, rather; I seem 2B the only one around here foolish enough 2 go by my real name), made it his first order of business when editing the aforementioned ex-stub, to delete all said quotes, saying they were unnecessary and that he had never seen them on WP (never mind that I gathered together 10 very polished & thoroughly vetted articles which contained one or more such examples).

In any case, on to your specific points:

1) 'most often cited and rarely disputed' Well, as far as the wording, I would change it to 'most often cited, most rarely disputed' for clarity. But I'm not sure what's puffy or peacock-y about that? It's just an accurate assessment of the almost universal acclaim accorded RC's arm, as opposed to his other four tools (the power, which flies totally under the radar / the speed which is often doubted thanks to his lack of stolen bases / the defense cause of his his less than stellar fielding percentage / even the hitting: just a singles hitter) Of course having the extended quote from Bill James, of all people, longtime Clemente detractor, absolutely raving about RC's arm in the first edition of the Bill James Baseball Abstract, among the sources for that phrase is so perfect, and of course it's one of the first things AA deleted the other day.

2) Citations. Re both the matters of country vs. city and simple misspellings. Both of these were present, ad infinitum long B4 I got here. Every one of the Robert Paul Walker citations featured both 'United States' as the location and universal misspelling of the author's first name (spelling it sometimes as 'Rober' & sometimes as either Roberto' or Roberta.' ) As 4 the former, this being the first Wiki article I ever did any serious editing on, I guess just assumed, given the 'good article' status especially, that this was just the Wiki way, that, at least in terms of format, they'd crossed their Ts and dotted their Is. So I definitely replicated the 'country' usage quite a few times in my own citations B4 I'd started to working a bit on other pages and saw the light; tho I'm sorry 2 say I didn't then do the requisite corrections here. OTOH, the misspelled names I did correct, at least RPW. As for the rest, I couldn't say. As 4 my own book citations, I simply used the template which was consistently used here. And again, I'm assuming the quotes within references is not a problem.

3) On 5/17/59: I hope by 'quote' u simply meant the TSN article excerpt which I'd been including w/i the citation, because there is no direct Hornsby or Scheffing quote, merely the Les Biederman paraphrase. Hope that gets it done.

Also, about Sosa; If not he, then why Nicholson? They're both peripheral to the story. Tho I was kind of fond of having the 495-foot estimate on hand for a HR which didn't even have the distance to reach the scoreboard, if only to give some added credence to the longer estimates for RC's shot.

Also, noticed Mogoshbu added metric conversions for all the HR estimates, actually other estimates too. So is this some standard practice now? Among other things, I ask because I had to throw out those conversions since that template was not really functional: giving a higher conversion for 495 feet than 500. Then I tried 510 feet and got a conversion 10 meters higher than for 500. So I used online converters & filled in the figures manually. Again, I'm not sure why the need 2 go metric, but I f it's inserted in something I've put this much work into, I do like it 2B accurate.

Oh Boy (he says a couple of hours later). I'm sorry, my helpful friend. I guess I'm not gonna be able 2 do this. I was just doing real life and now I'm back and that guy's here & he's working on this article with a vengeance; There's no point in even doing any of the little touch-ups I was discussing. Anything he sees me working on he'll chop down 2 one of his patented one-or-two-sentence packages. U might want 2 look into this. I don't know if this is exactly going to help this article, aside from what it does to my edits. He's already deleted a couple of the quotes within references that weren't even mine. Anyway, u deal w/ this as UC fit. I don't have time 2 do the pissing contest thing w/ this cretin. Wow; I DO tho like this one in particular, tho; perhaps U remember my problematic paragraph on the 5/6/60 Candlestick monster shot into the wind. Well, my good friend Author Author (Aught 4 short) has come up w/a particularly elegant solution, a veritable Haiku:

On May 6, Clemente hit a 360-foot homerun beyond the left-centerfield fence at Candlestick Park and the Giants one the game.

Wow, that is impressive; only my man RC could hit a 360-footer over a fence 397 feet away (perhaps that's the 6th tool at work) and convince even the most recalcitrant reporter that it had traveled at least 410 feet. Oh, well. At least we can all agree: the Giants one the game.

Anyway, I'm sorry 2 have visited this ... whatever it is, upon u.

I have confidence that u will be able 2 make lemonade from the lemons bestowed you.

Anyway, thanks again. I hope 2 contribute 2 this project again somewhere down the line, but now perhaps a brief sabbatical is in order. Feel free 2 message me any time.

Later DavidESpeed ( talk) 22:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Seems like you're dealing with a lot. Taking a step back from WP for a while might be a good thing. I don't know the history between you and the editor to whom you referred, but if you feel you are being followed, you may wish to take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That being said, an editor may feel that the edits you make to articles make the articles weaker, not stronger, and thus might be "following you" to limit "damage" he/she might think you're making to other articles. What I do know regarding the Clemente article is this: 1) it was a Wikipedia:Good articles but no longer is due to edits made after it became a GA, 2) no one owns any of these articles around here and with that being said, the edits you make to an article are as eligible as any editor's to be changed or reverted as any other editor's. What increases the likelihood, however, is if the edits are in violation of a rule (no wiggle room), guideline (some wiggle room) or consensus (lots of wiggle room but typically only after using rules/guidelines as rationale as typically WP:IDONTLIKEIT does win the day). What I do see from you is a sincere desire to help add to the article. This is a good thing, because even GAs can and should still have improvement (maybe one day reaching WP:FA). New information and perspectives are always coming out; someone will one day think they should write a bio, just as Maraniss, and just as those before Maraniss. More columns and articles and research will be carried out, and some of that might very well end up in a WP article.

But, I would agree with others' assertions that a bit of bias comes through in your writing (and thus violates WP:NPOV, one of WP:Five pillars). I have read the Maraniss biography on Clemente, as well, perhaps 3–4 summers ago. But I know if I want to use information from that book, it must adhere to a certain standard (and be cited). The edits you make to other pages (which may not have GA status) might be less likely to be reverted/changed because of lack of editor involvement to the articles you've worked on, or because those other articles may not have reached GA status and thus, editors care less about the quality of the edit because they're not trying to adhere to GA standards (precise & well-written prose, NPOV, well-cited, etc.). I think what one editor already told you still applies: the anecdotes you're adding to the article are good, but the way in which you are adding them leaves something to be desired. From what I've gathered by looking at edit summaries and pre-existing conversations on the article's talk page, the NPOV issue has been presented to you before. If that's the case, an editor is trying to make you aware of how your edits are in violation of a WP rule, guideline, or consensus and it's up to you to inform yourself about what NPOV is all about, and if you have questions, ask (either to that editor or any other (there are some editors who serve WP solely by answering questions from editors and pointing to specific policies). In this instance, NPOV is a rule, meaning it's one of those things WP takes very seriously and there is little wiggle room. Contractions, on the other hand, while not desirable, are not as large of an issue, even though they too are clearly mentioned (prohibited). The editor with whom I refer to tried to enlighten/encourage you a bit, rather than simply reverting. I think this was a good decision on their part. On the other hand, what you add to an article which has already achieved GA status is likely going to be more scrutinized by editors who've worked on the article, or any passing editor (such as myself) wanting to make sure an article advertised as GA doesn't have any issues which would prevent it from keeping its GA status. Again, the standards for a GA are higher than an article without any such status (namely because GAs are well-advertised around WP, and serve as a guide for those wanting some advice on what to follow – while rarely is a GA perfect, GA articles can not have significant weaknesses (see quick fail criteria) and still have the GA tag (see WP:Good article criteria)). Any article that has achieved GA status has considerable involvement from at least 2 editors: one (and in almost all situations, far greater than one) who crafted the article and one who reviewed the article. Just as you feel your edits to the article and how they are changed/reverted might be disheartening, so probably was the delisting of the article as a GA. Getting an article to GA typically requires a considerable amount of effort invested by one or team of editors – thus you may be encountering editors who've significantly contributed to the article and are less-than-pleased to see edits you've made to the article. The correct way to respond is by making sure your edits meet all policies/guidelines and that they are well-written. The correct way for them to respond is to point out issues (whilst not biting off your hand), point out guidelines/rules to which your edits violate, and make themselves available for any further questions that you may have. Reverting is also tolerable although typically the reason for a revert has to be stronger than the reason for altering an edit, otherwise other editors might start to question the motives of an editor (like I said, no one owns the articles, not even the editors chiefly involved in getting the article to GA status, or the "top" contributor, or the one with the most edits, or the one who's been on WP the longest, or the one with the most barnstars, etc.).

To some of your specific points:

• I would encourage you not to use other articles perhaps as your guide to go off of, but rather, look for rules/guidelines (simply click on "help" on the left side of any WP page to start the process of looking through various rules/guideline pages). See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. By using the former, you're trusting someone else's judgment; the latter, you're trusting a well-established norm which would be difficult, perhaps even impossible, for others to take issue with. If I mistakenly associated incorrect reference details to you, I do apologize.
• "Most often cited and rarely disputed..." My reasoning for taking issue with this is because 1) it's wordy (cut to the chase), 2) it may give undue weight to critics who state RC had a weak arm, which I don't know if there is any reputable baseball historian, former player or manager or teammate who would state otherwise and 3) even if there was 1 person in 100 who thought he did not have a great arm, the opinion should be presented to the reader with an overwhelming of statements from the other 99, otherwise the reader might be left to think that the 1 in 100 is right. Again, I don't know of any baseball historians who think RC's arm could in anyway be disputed. (See WP:Fringe theories)
• Rather than stating "it was the furthest home run either of them had seen, ever, period," perhaps a direct quote would be better as that sounds awfully peacocky. If you can't find a direct quote, that is OK, just be sure to cite the source or paraphrase the author who paraphrased the two coaches. If you wish to quote a paraphrase from an author, then quotations should be used to make it clear to the reader it's an authors words, not an editor's. Otherwise you're going to get editors like me questioning the NPOV of such wording. :)
• The Nicholson mention didn't catch my eye and perhaps it too should be removed. The Sosa mention is something I would classify as not germane, wordy, and trivial. If you feel it's important to mention the other long HRs hit in Wrigley Field, I would attempt to be more concise. The wording used was just too Sosa-centric for an article about Clemente (it's another reason why we make names linkable, so that the reader can easily click to another article if they want more details...otherwise we just let the reader continue reading the article they're currently with content focused on the subject as much as possible).
• Massive deletions of quotes within your referencing mark-up: I will let you find the guideline which discusses this on your own. Once you've read the guideline, you can perhaps use it to either a) clarify your understanding or b) use it defend your desire for inclusion, say, perhaps in a discussion on the talk page or the talk page of the editor you're questioning. By letting you search for the guideline, you might run into some other guidelines which could prove useful for you.
• Metric conversions should indeed be included in an article. We should not assume the reader comes from any one country, and should instead make efforts to make the article as easy to understand as possible (it's another reason why acronyms need to be explained upon first mention, articles should avoid jargon or at the very least explain it, etc.). If you're having issues with the template, I wonder which template you're using?
• Lastly, I too don't like it when editors use WP jargon or don't provide links to back up what they're saying (to avoid making it appear like they're pulling out arguments from their not-so-clean parts). But there is nothing wrong with pointing to specific WP articles/guidelines/rules, and one reason why you might see other editors using a lot of jargon is because the acronyms might in fact be linkable (thus, they're hoping if you don't know what the acronym points to, you will simply click on the link that they've gone through the trouble of making linkable for you). I appreciate your receptiveness to my advice, and I'm happy to point out any guidelines which I think you may not be aware of, or at least might be aware of but are choosing not to utilize in your writing. To me, and just from your actions to this article (I'm not going to go through your WP contributions), you simply appear to be an editor who is making edits in good faith but getting yourself in the wringer by not making yourself aware of certain rules/policies/guidelines. Knowledge is power, my friend, so I would take some time to educate yourself so that you don't have to constantly feel like your edits aren't being appreciated around here. Not only will it help you avoid entering disputes with other editors, it will also undoubtedly make your edits more constructive and for your efforts to be more appreciated, and thus, likely making you feel you want to contribute more, not less. Otherwise, ignoring guidelines/advice/rules, etc. and continuing to make edits, particularly to article which have an active editor base, is just going to make more work for others—and as you'd probably agree, you can appreciate folks doing it correctly the first time around so you don' need to clean up someone else's "mess." It can indeed be more difficult to edit an editor's contributions than simply revert it. r

Feel free to shoot me any questions, and don't forget to let me know which metric template your'e using. Zepppep ( talk) 03:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As you will have noticed by now, the editor with whom you expressed some frustration to me has provided you with an apology. I think this shows the editor is not after you, the editor, but more so simply focused on content and wanting to see the article improved. Don't be too disheartened. When you submit work to a public space such as WP, you're accepting the possibility that others might check for holes and look under the bed for any dirty clothes. The best way is to try and assume the editor is questioning the content, not the person who posted the content. For instances where you feel you are being harassed/attacked, not your contributions, there are avenues open to you should you feel further action might be necessary. In this instance, I don't see text from the editor that would cause alarm for their motives or hidden agenda. Zepppep ( talk) 04:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Z. Thanks, as always, 4 taking the time; so much covered, don't think I can really do this justice now, so I'll just touch on a few things:

Actually, right off the bat, let me say I don't feel unappreciated here at all; nor do I have any problem being edited. U & M have both expressed your appreciation 4 the content; U just don't necessarily appreciate having to clean up after my rhetorical excesses. Perfectly understandable. Sorry again; hopefully, whatever I do find time to contribute, going forward, will help rather than hinder.

AA, however, is in another class, entirely, his own unique blend ... ah, well, the less said, the better... as for that 'apology,' well, perhaps you'll forgive me if an 'apology' which acknowledges nothing ("I'm sorry you feel that way") doesn't really get it done.

Now, on to your points:

1st of all, the template of which I spoke was simply the one Muboshgu used in his revision as of 21:21, 11 September 2012 on the 5/17/59/ HR. The first time I tried to use it was when adding the Sosa reference, and the problem became apparent immediately, w/ the 495 ft yielding a higher conversion that that for 500. Tried a few more values & the problems only became more glaring. As I said, I ended up replacing all the values by using an online converter (actually 2, to be safe) and filling them in manually. Speaking of which, since I'm doing the same right now for the 5/6/60 and 8/5/60 material I added yesterday (so much 4 the sabbatical), how precise should the figures be (that is, to the nearest 10th, 100th etc.)?

Also, while I deeply appreciate the info - including links - you've already given me, the ONE issue I would beg u NOT to make into some kind of test, is the "quotes-within-references' matter." I mean, if there is a prohibition, please enlighten me. The only reason AA gave me for his across-the-board excisions was that he'd (supposedly) never seen such a thing B4 on Wiki. As I already told u, I then carefully assembled a set of links directly to such refs on several thoroughly vetted pages. The other person debating me on this directed to an article that really had nothing 2 do with it ('Other Crap Exists"), just an obvious rhetorical point that could easily be absorbed without reading the thing. I looked 4 articles that did deal with it, but to no avail.

Curiously, one article I DID find - despite AA's consistent description of the bizarre formats to which he was converting almost every one of my links as 'Wiki-style'- points out that WP, in fact, HAS no house-style citation, but that the important thing is that an article's style be consistent, and, moreover, that an editor should never unilaterally change pre-existing formats without first gaining a consensus (as per your suggestion, would that I had become well-versed in this beforehand; then I might not have so easily deferred). In any event, I only started engaging in this practice (quotes within refs) while following the lead of this article (tho I obviously can't deny I took it to another level); every one of the Robert Paul Walker refs which seem 2 form its basis contain at least a sentence or two from the book (then paraphrased in the article). Even Muboshgu, as I recall, didn't dispute the propriety of the practice; simply my excesses.

Well, if that's the problem, I can certainly curb those. In fact, if I can take your specific request re 5/17/59 (i.e. to incorporate a quote within the text) as a general guideline, that would the best news I could envision, since the more I'm able to incorporate first-hand quotes (of which I've got a boatload):

1) the less I'd feel compelled to offer large quotes, if any, within the refs.

2) more important, the specific anecdotes which I have in great supply - i.e. specific examples of those many moments on a baseball field of which even his rival and sometime detractor Frank Robinson, speaking with Tim Wendel nine years ago, would say, "You'd watch him and say to the guy next to you, 'Did you see that?'" - would become so much more credible and real and compelling. In fact, that's what I hate - or hate most - about Maraniss' book; tho the RC material is predominantly interview-based, u NEVER get to hear the people's voices, hardly ever get a direct quote, rarely even a paraphrase, really. U just read things reported as fact, all within this homogenized Maraniss-speak, only 2B sent scampering to the back of the book & those vague, page-based references, 2C if u can figure who's the source of what. Wagenheim's book, by contrast, is a veritable oral history treasure trove which I highly recommend. l So again, aside from the answer re quotes-within-refs, any feedback on quotes-within-text, specifically as manifested in my 5/6/60 & 8/5/60 resurrections, would be more than welcome.

Thanks again. DavidESpeed ( talk) 19:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include under "Additional annotation." There have been at least 2 editors who have reverted edits of yours after you've included quotes in the reference. You are always free to take matters to an the article's talk page. Zepppep ( talk) 02:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Wow; thanks so much 4 that response. This is perfect. I only wish I'd seen it. Should that have triggered a notification on my talk page? And here I was thinking I'd somehow insulted you or otherwise put you off. Anyhoo, the crowning irony is not that I missed your message but rather, missing the relevant info in the first place; the relevant instruction, which, it seems, bears out my (common sense) position - "A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source, if this may be of interest (this is particularly useful if the source is not easily accessible) - is about half an inch above the stuff I'd been reciting 2U about there being no WP house style and the prohibition against unilaterally changing existing styles. Oh well.

BTW, regarding this dubious Clemente citation of disputed neutrality, my bad; it wasn't supposed to be objective. I'm afraid I didn't make it clear that it was Roberto Marin, being quoted by the author. I hope the clarification I made takes care of your concerns. Thanks again DavidESpeed ( talk) 14:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You can either choose to watch my talk page for a bit or I can use the talkback template (which I'm going to do since you're not aware of replies I make to you on my talk page). Regarding the footnotes and long quotes you cite in the references, probably best to discuss this issue on the article's talk page in order to explain your position and gain WP:Consensus. Zepppep ( talk) 04:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)