Jump to content

Talk:Fuzzy Zoeller: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Removing everything that does not clearly help with "article improvement", per User:Mackensen. I'm not from Slashdot, either.
Line 18: Line 18:
____________________
____________________


When was Wikipedia changed to Wipipedia?
*Spell check disasters? --[[User:W.marsh|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.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 14:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::I'm working on a version that isn't as ridiculously self-referential as the one that was there.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 14:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::Done, but I've left it semi-protected to keep this from being vandalized further.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::Done, but I've left it semi-protected to keep this from being vandalized further.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks, looks good. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 15:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


== Lawsuit reference ==
== Lawsuit reference ==
Line 32: Line 29:
::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. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 18:36, 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. --[[User:W.marsh|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. '''[[User:JDoorjam|JDoorjam]]''' <small>[[User Talk:JDoorjam|JDiscourse]]</small> 23:01, 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. '''[[User:JDoorjam|JDoorjam]]''' <small>[[User Talk:JDoorjam|JDiscourse]]</small> 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. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 23:23, 22 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?--[[User:H-ko|<span style="color:green">'''H-ko'''</span>]] ([[User Talk:H-ko|Talk]]) 00:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:Oversight probably removed it correctly so it's not in the database anymore. - [[User_talk:DennyColt|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 [[WP:OVERSIGHT|oversighted]] (yet). By the way, the incident is on CNN/Sports Illustrated now. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk: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. '''[[User:JDoorjam|JDoorjam]]''' <small>[[User Talk:JDoorjam|JDiscourse]]</small> 01:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Slashdotted.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/02/23/003258.shtml[[User:24.14.244.91|24.14.244.91]] 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


== Are they suing the right entity? ==
== Are they suing the right entity? ==

Revision as of 04:17, 23 February 2007

WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
WikiProject iconGolf Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndiana Unassessed
WikiProject iconFuzzy Zoeller is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for, and sustain comprehensive coverage of the U.S. state of Indiana and related subjects on Wikipedia.
IndianaWikipedia:WikiProject IndianaTemplate:WikiProject IndianaIndiana articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Things you can do:
WikiProject Indiana alerts

Template:WikiProject Louisville

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)[reply]

____________________

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

Lawsuit reference

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

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)[reply]
Unless it's notable. Doesn't Wikipedia refer to itself? - Denny 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Daniel Brandt is a better example. - Denny 17:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Are they suing the right entity?

[Discussion redacted]

Hello Slashdot, thanks for showing up. Why you've come from a discussion forum to kick off debate in another place–a place specifically designated for article improvement, not general discussion–is quite beyond me. Please avail yourself of actual discussion forums–e.g. the mailing list, IRC, unless you're discussing specific changes to the article itself. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuzzy_Zoeller&oldid=110246162"