Talk:Fuzzy Zoeller

IP vandalism

I've reverted back to the last good version I could verify and I've temporarily protected the page whilst I sort this out.--Isotope23 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Heh someone beat me to removing the penis joke in the version you reverted to :-) Anyway I think something should be mentioned about the lawsuit, since the media is apparently reporting on it. --W.marsh 14:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16752834.htm - For at least some information about the lawsuit. SleepyAE 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

____________________

When was Wikipedia changed to Wipipedia?

• Spell check disasters? --W.marsh 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a version that isn't as ridiculously self-referential as the one that was there.--Isotope23 14:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, but I've left it semi-protected to keep this from being vandalized further.--Isotope23 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. --W.marsh 15:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit reference

Is there any reason why reference to the lawsuit involving Wikipedia was removed? [1] - Denny 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So long as the reference to the lawsuit itself is written by an editor who is not on the Wikipedia payroll, I think it is good to mention the lawsuit here. It's significant enoough to make it into every major newspaper in the US, therefore it belongs here. If Jimmy Wales wrote it, you could say it was POV. If I write it, so long as I keep the tone of it neutral, you can't. As far as the article referring to itself, remember that Wikipedia articles are not cut from the whole cloth, but are a patchwork consisting of many pieces from many authors written over different periods of time tied together into a cohesive mass. Therefore, it is not one article referring to itself, but a subsection of an article referring to the other subsections. It would be no different than having two different articles dealing with similar overall material referring to each other, which is both common and permissible. Wandering Star 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a compelling reason that an article should refer to itself in the body of information. Gus 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's notable. Doesn't Wikipedia refer to itself? - Denny 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Daniel Brandt is a better example. - Denny 17:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh this is one situation. We update biographical articles when the subject does something newsworthy (for a semi-retired golfer, 8 Google News hits in one day qualifies as newsworthy). We don't not mention something newsworthy in the highly rare situations where the newsworthy event somehow involves a Wikipedia article. It's still apparently something that was newsworthy. --W.marsh 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Zoeller is suing based on something said about him on Wikipedia. It's about Zoeller, not merely about his article, and warrants being mentioned (especially as it's being carried by major publications such as USA Today). Avoiding self-references has to do with not saying, "as stated in the next paragraph of this article," or "... which Wikipedia also has an article about here." But when Wikipedia has to do with noteworthy events, and they're covered by reliable secondary sources, yeah, we mention them. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It was also a topic on Pardon the Interruption which is a highly rated cable program, by that I mean highly rated for cable let alone sports. Quadzilla99 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It documents major events, of long term impacts. A live encyclopedia may have live updates, but any update must still hold value for long term. Not something like prince harry had a shooting class today. --Atif.hussain 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. The vandalism was supposed to be back in December, yet I've gone back through the page history clear through June 2006 and no sign of the vandalism Zoeller alleges was on Wikipedia. What happened to it?--H-ko (Talk) 00:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oversight probably removed it correctly so it's not in the database anymore. - Denny 00:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been deleted from the history (25 revisions have been deleted). I don't think it's been oversighted (yet). By the way, the incident is on CNN/Sports Illustrated now. Antandrus (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This gets mentioned every time something like this happens, but I'll be That Guy who has to say it again: I love how the end result of incidents like this is the marked and rapid improvement of the article(s) in question, far beyond simply removing the offending content. It almost makes me wish this sort of thing happened more often. Almost. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Slashdotted. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/02/23/003258.shtml24.14.244.91 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The offending material

It is in the best interest of the Wiki community to show what kind of material deserves to be deleted even from the revision history. Personally, I believe that nothing should ever be deleted from the history without a discussion over deleting it, and that obviously has not occurred here.

If anyone has the revisions saved somewhere let's get them back into the history. 204.52.215.80 08:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• It makes no sense to make these revision available. Maintaining them would be asking for Wikipedia to be sued. The libel text can be viewed in the lawsuit. A copy of which is available here: [2].
• Note that the revisions are still in the database, just not accessible to toughs without WP:OVERSIGHT. Oversighted revisions can be restored if the oversight was a mistake.
• The only reason a discussion should take place is if the revision is valid (which I sure you will agree is not the case here.) Even if that is the case, that discussion would have taken place when the revision was first reverted. Hence there is no need for another opportunity for a discussion.

Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 11:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC) (Editor without oversight)

• They are still in the database, but they have not been oversighted, only deleted. Any administrator can access them. Prodego ^talk 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are that libellous, then I think we should get them hidden by someone with oversight access. Why do people continue to do this sort of thing on Wikipedia? Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit: Time for a new article?

Should a new article be created to address the lawsuit, if understand it correctly, seeking to uncover the anonymous person behind a series of edits to this article? -204.42.25.83 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to say about it that the article doesn't already cover. It's not notable outside the context of Zoeller's biography. JDoorjam JDiscourse 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The addresses involved will most likely appear in Wikipedia Signpost. That's what happened with the Skutt Catholic High School lawsuit. Tuxide 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe later? Seems too new, and no hurry to make another stub on it. If this article eventually gets too big, it can fork... what is the recommended size, 40-50k? - Denny 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; this is a pretty minor case as far as legal cases go. Most such libel suits get a one- or two-sentence mention in the bio, and this shouldn't be different just because it happens to be related to Wikipedia. --Delirium 06:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed footnote

"In the United States, fried chicken and collard greens are associated with offensive racial stereotypes." was listed as a footnote for Zoeller's suggestion about what Tiger Woods should avoid serving, as it lacked a source, and would be more appropriate as article content with its own reference, rather than as a ref-tagged footnote itself. JDoorjam JDiscourse 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

small=yes

For this page, I support having small=yes rather than having all the talk page banner templates stuffed away in a hidden area. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I put the off-topic warning back... I'm not going to revert war with Raul about his stuffing the project banners into hiding, even though he changed stuff around without any comment, but I think that warning needs visibility. Comments welcomed. ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I switched to using {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} so that the project names and assessments won't be hidden. Certainly, this takes a lot less vertical space than if we showed all the project banners in full. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Users behind the edit

An anonymous IP has been claiming above that User:Damien Lynch and User:208.204.187.19 were behind the libellous edits. I've had a look at their edit histories, and while they seem to be the same user, all of their non-Zoeller edits seem to be legitimate (any libellous edits would be hidden though). By contrast, the IP that has been naming these two seems to find lawsuits funny. Would a person with appropriate permissions be able to confirm or deny the claims that Damien and 208 edited the article? Andjam 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you even talking about .froth. (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Page History

Was a piece of the edit history removed? Sept.-Dec. 2006 seems to be gone. I'm assuming maybe this was done because of the lawsuit? If so it is somewhat silly, the objectionable part of the edit can be found in the lawsuit papers which are in the public domain and it would be interesting to see it here on Wiki. 216.64.125.78 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is to remove libelous edits from the edit history. See WP:OVERSIGHT for details. No, we're not going to put it back. FCYTravis 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving the "Controversy Section"

I've moved the "controversy" section to AFTER the section on Fuzzy's life and career. To me, the life and career info is more relavent and should appear first, then any controversies that Zoeller was embroiled in. The same format is on Tiger Wood's page, with his career and achievements first, then the controversial things last. This pattern seems to repeat itself across Wikipedia, so I'm just making Fuzzy's article conform to that pattern. The guy won 3 majors, so he did a lot more than just make a dumb joke about Tiger (a joke that Tiger himself wasn't even offended by). I haven't changed a word of the section, just moved it. Myrrander 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

White Towel Incident

I put info about the "White Towel Incident" from the 84 US Open in the article. I put it under "controversies" even though there was nothing controversial about it. It just illustrated his joking nature on the golf course. Also, as I mentioned in the article, before the imfamous Tiger Woods quote, this is what he was probably most famous for, outside of his victories, and perhaps even more than the victories themselves.John ISEM (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, WHY would you put that under "controversies" when it isn't controversial at all, as you admit?Vonbontee (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

German ancestry

Zöller is a German name...91.9.216.40 (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)