User talk:Spanneraol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"proper grammar to put the comma"?[edit]

In this edit of yours you undid my edits to take out commas not normally used in baseball players' names. You might be right that it should not be a question of what they use or prefer. But Grammar Girl tells me that it is also not a question of proper grammar: [1]. Can you reconsider? I'm a newbie, and I don't see a section in the manual of style about this. Timmeredgar (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's actually an issue of wp:commonname, I would think. See this timely discussion here. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
After doing some research it seems like the rules are changing.. it used to be mandatory to use the comma, now it seems optional... but I see no reason to be changing the pages as the page name should match the name you are changing... Where are you getting the "they dont usually use the comma" stuff anyway? Jerry Hairston, Jr. uses the comma on his twitter page [2]. Spanneraol (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Neither one of us changed Hairston -- he was already consistently without comma except for the title, and you left it that way. I will fix and move. I agree that his preference is not the key issue, as Grammar Girl says in her section "Why Publications Follow Styles Instead of Doing What People Want." And I did some googling and found that there is a MOS page that talks about this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies which says "Do not place a comma before Jr...", but also says it is disputed. What to do? Timmeredgar (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Since its obviously disputed, why the desire to change things? It just looks wrong without the comma. Spanneraol (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the desire to change things came before, so unrelated. What is the disputed thing about? I tried following the talk link, but there is nothing there. Timmeredgar (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed the comment by Epeefleche above. Now I see the relevant discussion. Why isn't that linked from the MOS page? Timmeredgar (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
For baseball players, the comma seems to be unusual, in news, books, and such. So does wp:commonname say we should just omit it? That would agree with what the manual of style says. So it sounds like I am on an OK path here? There seem to be a lot of different ways of looking at this question. Maybe the manual will be changed? Timmeredgar (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are you going out of your way to change all these articles though? Whats the point other than annoying people? The discussions seemed to be saying not to change articles. Spanneraol (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Has somebody said they are annoyed? I'm not going out of my way, just looking around and working on things that don't seem right (like that Hairston article where his name did not have comma but other names did). Is that not what wikipedia editors do? I'm not sure, being a newbie, but I did get good encouragement and help at the help desk. You are the only one who has undone any of my work. Have I annoyed you? Please let me know. Timmeredgar (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
And what about the Railway articles that I edited and moved? Do you see any issue or annoyance there? What about the caps fixing that I suggested on the wikiproject trains page and have got no answer on yet? Would it annoy anyone if I go ahead and fix those to be more consistent? Timmeredgar (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well when you go and move articles around without discussion it can be annoying... especially when you listed them as "uncontroversial" move requests when they are at least somewhat controversial. I don't have any opinion on the other articles you've done cause i only work on baseball articles. It's always better to discuss first rather than making unilateral moves of longstanding articles. Spanneraol (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
As a note to those who are not aware, the above editor is a sockpuppet of Dicklyon, and has now been blocked. RGloucester 16:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

University of Hawaii at Manoa Level I and Level II NCAA Sanctions[edit]

May 16, 2015:

Noteworthy information about University of Hawaii at Manoa athletics "doesnt [sic] belong on" the University of Hawaii at Manoa Wikipedia page under the athletics section?

That sounds like classic Orwellian doublespeak to me!


--BengalCatHawaii (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That page just gives an overview, it doesnt touch on specifics.. the athletics page is more appropriate. Spanneraol (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

University of Hawaii at Manoa Level I and Level II NCAA Violations: Round II[edit]

Spanneraol stated: "That page just gives an overview, it doesnt touch on specifics.. the athletics page is more appropriate."

BengalCatHawaii's Rebuttal:

The University of Hawaii at Manoa Wikipedia article and the University of Hawaii at Manoa Athletics Wikipedia article are not mutually exclusive articles. In fact, the two articles overlap. Therefore, they are, by definition, mutually inclusive.

Critiquing your editing of the University of Hawaii at Manoa article, I would have to assess it as over zealous, controlling, biased, defensive, and reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth. Proof: If positive public relations news, such as a NCAA championship from a specific year, were included in the University of Hawaii at Manoa article, then it would remain and not be reverted. This is, in fact, the case, as specifics are indeed discussed under the Athletics section of the University of Hawaii at Manoa article. To the contrary, and in stark contrast to your heavy and uncompromising editing style, if negative public relations news, such as NCAA sanctions from a specific year, were included in the University of Hawaii at Manoa article, then it would be reverted, censored, and summarily suppressed. Case in point: It took you less than 24 hours to censor the negative news regarding the NCAA events. Therefore, in all fairness and balanced editing, you must either include the bad with the good, or not include either.

In conclusion, I sense some intellectual dishonesty on your part, namely, using your flawed reasoning explained above, to provide a pretext, or false reason, for suppressing the relevant and significant news.

--BengalCatHawaii (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment here... the section of that article simply provides an overview of the athletics program, describing the conferences they play in and the titles won... adding a long segment about the recent sanctions without any context is UNDUE WEIGHT and you also need to be aware of WP:RECENTISM. I dont know what you are getting at with the time frame.. I have the page on my watch list so when i saw the edit I reverted it for those reasons. The news is relevant to the athletics department so it should go on that page.. It isnt relevant to the school as a whole. Spanneraol (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

University of Hawaii at Manoa Level I and Level II NCAA Violations: Round III[edit]

Spanneraol stated: "I disagree with your assessment here... the section of that article simply provides an overview of the athletics program, describing the conferences they play in and the titles won... adding a long segment about the recent sanctions without any context is UNDUE WEIGHT and you also need to be aware of WP:RECENTISM. I dont know what you are getting at with the time frame.. I have the page on my watch list so when i saw the edit I reverted it for those reasons. The news is relevant to the athletics department so it should go on that page.. It isnt relevant to the school as a whole."


BengalCatHawaii's Rebuttal:

First, Wikipedia's policy on recentism has been implemented to lessen the overburdening of articles with news as it occurs, inter alia. The operative word is overburdening. The addition of three sentences does not constitute overburdening. Therefore, your argument is frivolous at best.

Second, the addition of three sentences does not violate Wikipedia's guidelines on "proportion, balance, and due weight." The addition of a paragraph or more may contravene those standards--the addition of three sentences does not. Therefore, your argument that three sentences constitutes "adding a long segment" that adds "UNDUE WEIGHT [sic]" to the article does not ring true and suggests unreasonable censorship.

(Incidentally, the "context" that you refer to is provided by the section of the article: "Athletics.")

Third, you stated that one of the rationales for reverting my edits was the "adding a long segment." By any reasonable interpretation of the phrase "long segment" three additional sentences would most probably not constitute a long segment as you misleadingly argue. Therefore, your proffered rationale is probably false.

Fourth, you stated that my edit "isnt [sic] relevant" to the school as a whole." To the contrary, the information I provided for the article is closely connected to the article, in general, and the athletics section specifically. Therefore, it is relevant, and to call it irrelevant is skewed analysis.

Fifth, and finally, you refer to "the school as a whole." This is factually an incorrect statement and speaks volumes about your misunderstanding. The school as a whole is the University of Hawaii System. The specific campus to which my edit related is the University of Hawaii at Manoa. I did not attempt to edit the University of Hawaii System Wikipedia article because there is not an athletics section and my edit would not be particularly relevant and would add undue weight to the school as a whole as you argue. However, I did attempt to edit the University of Hawaii at Manoa Wikipedia article because there is an athletics section and my edit is relevant to that specific campus. Therefore, your lack of knowledge on the fundamental infrastructure of the entity in question resulted in your erroneous reversion edit.

--BengalCatHawaii (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You dont need to add a new title each time.. and you can stop being insulting and rude in your comments. You have added the same section to several different articles. That is not necessary. If you consider what else is in that segment, three sentences about the basketball program would definitely be considered a long segment. There is no "censorship" involved. The point is to keep the article consistent and not place recent news above the historical context of the article. Also, the University of Hawaii system is a group of schools, not one school. Spanneraol (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

University of Hawaii at Manoa Level I and Level II NCAA Violations: Conclusion[edit]

Spanneraol stated: "You dont need to add a new title each time.. and you can stop being insulting and rude in your comments. You have added the same section to several different articles. That is not necessary. If you consider what else is in that segment, three sentences about the basketball program would definitely be considered a long segment. There is no "censorship" involved. The point is to keep the article consistent and not place recent news above the historical context of the article. Also, the University of Hawaii system is a group of schools, not one school."


BengalCatHawaii's Rebuttal:

You might be doing a disservice to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a beautiful thing when one editor makes a good-faith edit and supports it with a credible source, and the next editor does the same thing, and the next, and the next, and so on; and at the end of the day a nice body of information is created by this sort of citizen journalism-editing and collaboration.

With heavy-handed, overly controlling, and Procrustean-like gatekeepers, Wikipedia bureaucracy gets a bad name and turns off good editors.

It was not my intent to be "insulting and rude." I simply call it like I see it. As a self-castigating remark, I am prone to being too honest for my own good. The perceived insulting rudeness was merely forthrightness.

I must take issue with your above statement that it was "not necessary" to add the same section to different articles. Many articles overlap, so a fact or facts may pertain to multiple articles. By comparison, a baseball statistic may fit nicely into several separate Wikipedia articles.

Finally, the University of Hawaii system is the school, that is, what is known as the University of Hawaii. The University of Hawaii at Manoa is one campus of several under the umbrella of the University of Hawaii.

I thank you for your spirited debate. It was invigorating like jumping into an icy pool. Let's do it again sometime. Your friend, BengalCatHawaii.

--BengalCatHawaii (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the University of Hawaii system is not a "school" any more than all the University of California campuses are the same school.. each campus is a separate school that belongs to the same system.. all state schools under the state control but each campus is a separate school. Spanneraol (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


I understand what you are saying, and in a loose sense you are correct. However, to be strictly correct, the University of Hawaii is one university. Proof: There is only one president. The individual campuses are governed by chancellors. By analogy, one can look at the issue as the United States where there is also only one United States with only one president but with 50 semi-sovereign states each with their own governors falling under the umbrella of the United States as one country. E pluribus unum (of many, one) sums up nicely this sort of ambiguous concept. Best, BengalCatHawaii.


BengalCatHawaii (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Dan Jennings (baseball executive)[edit]

Now that Jennings has been named the Marlins manager (Facepalm3.svg Facepalm), do you think the article should be renamed? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Possibly. Not sure though... probably a discussion worth having on his talk page. Spanneraol (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jon Garcia (baseball) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jon Garcia (baseball) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Garcia (baseball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wizardman 02:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jake Lemmerman for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jake Lemmerman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Lemmerman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wizardman 02:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Interested in being nominated to become an admin?[edit]

Hey. So first of all, I have to say that I really admire you as a Wikipedia editor. You are an amazing contributor to WikiProject Baseball, especially as evidenced by the numerous baseball-related articles that you have helped promote to good article status. You do a great job of keeping player articles up to date and reverting incorrect/unsourced info on them. You also contribute a lot to AfD discussions. Most of all, though, you've been on Wikipedia for nearly ten years, and in that time, you've accumulated almost 80,000 edits (actually over 80,000 counting your deleted edits) and you've also never been blocked. All of this considered, I can't think of anyone else I know on Wikipedia who is more deserving of becoming an administrator. Therefore, I would like to nominate you. However, before I do, I wanted to first see if it's something you actually want. Please let me know. Thank you, and keep it up with the great contributions. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but i don't really want to be an administrator. I've seen too many editors that I admired on here that became admins and then quickly burned out from all the administrative tasks and either quit the project all together or drastically scale back the work they were doing. I like working on articles, but I'm not interested in the political stuff. Thanks again for the kind words though. Spanneraol (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. If you ever change your mind, though, I'd be honored to nominate you. And you're welcome. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)