User talk:Cpfan776

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


Hello, Cpfan776, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --CherryX

When to keep, when to remove[edit]

Hello there. I see you recently posed a question via edit summary on whether or not trade speculation could be kept on the Randy Wolf article. In short, no. See WP:Citing sources#When and why to cite sources for more details. But essentially the edit, made by a different editor, you were questioning failed for a few reasons, namely WP is not a crystal ball, the edit was uncited, and it was nothing more than a rumor being talked about on social media. Even if a credible source, such as this article would've been used, it still would not have made it an edit worthy of inclusion. Hope this helps! Zepppep (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. To my mind, credible sources (not just mindless social media as stated) are saying that Wolf will sign with the Orioles. Is that not a valid status of the player? I don't want to enter blatant rumours (eg John Farrell will manage Red Sox next year). When (if) Wolf signed with the Orioles, it would be changed to indicate the signing. [BTW as you may have noticed, I am new to Wiki editing. I'm not sure how (where) to ask q's like this, or how to have a dialogue with someone to learn. Hope this works.] Cpfan776 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you checked any of the links in your welcome? For example, utilizing the "help me" function? Here's a guide on user talk pages: Help:Using talk pages. You can also drop me a question at my talk page, by clicking on "talk" after my user name. Will sign is different from has signed. The number of contracts that have been on track, only to have a different team offer a "better" deal at the last second, a player fail a physical, etc. is staggering. Thefore, we wait. We are not trying to be first here at WP; we go once there are verifiable and reliable sources stating such. We let newspapers, social media followers, etc. write speculation; we are not a newspaper. (In case, you didn't know already, any word(s) that are blue are links; therefore, you can click on them to find out more information or perform a specific task, such as clicking on "talk" will take you to my user talk page, where you can leave me a message.) Zepppep (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The only reason I knew you had written a reply is because I am watching your page (you can find the "watch" button on the top right; it's a star). I will watch a user's page if I suspect them of being a newbie or if I converse with a user a lot; otherwise, most on WP will not watch a user's talk page. Generally users will not watch your user page, however, so it's best to go to their talk page to pose a question/make a comment, or as the talk page guideline I mentioned (above) states, utilizing the talkback feature. Zepppep (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI...[edit]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Homer Bailey: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. In this particular instance, I have warned the user (} but please consider placing such warning signs to an editor's talk page if you feel edits they have made are not constructive. After clicking on the link to the template of the different messages, you will see a whole host of warnings and messages you may feel free to utilize in certain situations. Happy editing! Zepppep (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I know about the templates but haven't used them yet. In this case, I think that this person is just being a jerk (see their edits to Vladimir Guerrero as well), so I doubt that anything we say or do will make any difference. Cpfan776 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of vandals out there doing no one any favors when they lash out. However, if an admin decides to block them, it's typically only if the editor has been warned a few different times. If an editor like you or me sees vandalism but doesn't warn the editor on their talk page, the admin won't be able to block the editor until (typically) more vandalism has occurred (it's also common for vandals to never come across an edit summary, or know where to read an edit summary, and thus edit summaries are often times not even seen by vandals; a warning, however to their talk page will likely be viewed as the bright orange banner will appear whenever there are new messages). I have warned many editors. A lot of those I've warned have continued to make vandalizing edits, yes, but then if continued abuse occurs, I subsequently report them to a patrolling admin and they have (9 times out of 10) been blocked (typically the only time when they're not blocked is if the editor hasn't yet made enough vandalizing edits, the editor hasn't made a vandalizing edit for a considerable period of time, or if they haven't been warned enough times (typically at least 3 warnings will be desired)). We should be quick to inform, a little less quick to warn, and a little less quick to block. Vandals may decide to disregard warnings (vandals often don't care about their reputation or that their edits are not helpful in any way, the definition of vandalism) but if they're blocked, they have had handcuffs applied. For egregious offenses the editor might even be blocked for a considerable period of time (year or more) which makes our job (and those who like helping around here) easier, not harder.
With this particular editor, I'm aware of their other instances of vandalism (such as the Vlad G article, ERA, etc.). I checked their contributions and found several of them to be vandalism; as you can see, I have applied a few other warnings. If editors in the past would've warned the editor at the time the editor made the vandalism, with this latest incident to the Homer Bailey article, I would be able to solicit a block and an admin would concur pretty easily. However, because editors have in the past reverted without warning the editor, and thus the editor didn't have many warnings before I viewed their history within the last hour, the editor may very well be able to vandalize again before being blocked. Additionally, if we're really interested in stopping the editor's disruptive behavior, we as a WP community should inform the editor, and later, warn, as pointed out above, lots of vandalizing editors don't even know where to find edit summaries and could care less in adhering to them even if they did know where to read them. A block is typically a last resort but is the only way some pick up the hint; others, they just stop because they're unable to edit the site (which hurts no one's feelings). But no warnings, no block. Zepppep (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The user made another vandalizing edit and was blocked, as seen here. Zepppep (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Service Award[edit]

You're welcome. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Offensive usernames[edit]

Hi. I saw your edit summary on Robinson Cano, which led me to look at the username you referenced. Then, I reported it straight to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. That's the venue for a username like that, FYI. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven't tried to understand the Wiki admin structure, so had no idea where to report it. I hoped somebody knowledgeable would spot my comment. Cpfan776 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dioner Navarro[edit]

The twin hyphens can be used when a player is on the 40-man roster but does not currently have a uniform number unlike the blank which is usually scene in players who are not on the roster and are in the minor leagues.Kingryan227 (DecreesActs) 21:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

and the way that I understood it was: hyphens in the roster templates (although &nbsp.&nbsp. seemed to be the standard when I started editing), and blanks in the player articles (regardless of which roster they were on). BTW, is there a place that defines the standards for baseball players, or do we just fight it out as we go? Cpfan776 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure on that one I haven't been an editor for that long so I don't want to give you false information by saying yes or no but you might want to ask a more experience member such as he would probably know the answer :)Kingryan227 (DecreesActs) 23:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Cpfan776. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing Teams[edit]

Please don't remove from a players bio. The standard on Wikipedia is to include a players new team even they don't have any stats with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellLunger (talkcontribs) 13:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Mitchell Lunger. The standard on baseball pages, is that the team is ***NOT*** listed until the player has participated in a regular-season game for that team.Cpfan776 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)