User talk:SS451

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

====Regarding reversions[1] made on March 31 2006 (UTC)==== Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3RR violation[edit]

First, please do not remove warnings from your talk page. We use them to make sure we aren't giving you any redundant information, and removing them can be considered vandalism.

As far as how to better handle the situation in the future, I would suggest that you try to discuss on the talk page after your first revert. If this is a low-traffic page, you might also look at some of our other dispute resolution options such as third opinion and requests for comment. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was ongoing, but the other user involved was reverting my reversions as supposed vandalism (and violating the 3RR himself, although he doesn't appear to have been warned). This is my question: should I have left the poor-quality POV material in the article while discussion was ongoing? SS451 18:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Antony Beevor[edit]

Guess who's at it again? --Calton | Talk 01:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Discussion Page of Jim Joyce[edit]

Yes you misinterpreted Wiki's "No Original Research" policy which states, ""Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research." No one knowledgeable of the Jim Joyce call would object to the call being called missed or incorrect. Sources could easily be found proving the call was missed in videos, pictures and published articles at the time of your post. Unfortunately, you and several wiki editors fascists were unwilling to take the time to verify the statements of everyone else. You decided to jump behind a policy without any critical thinking on your part. Fortunately, more knowledgeable heads have prevailed, and the page currently, accurately states that the call was incorrect. Thank you for doing your part IMO in ruining wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.48.139 (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you for your vituperative hostility. In any event, I didn't misinterpret the NOR policy. Paris's relationship to France is a matter of common, almost universal knowledge, as is the fact that humans breathe air, and that IP address users are prone to hit-and-run personal attacks. That Joyce missed the safe/out call at first base became a matter of common knowledge, although certainly not so common as the other facts just cited, but it is not now and probably never will be either well enough known or obvious enough on the face of it to omit a reference to a reliable, secondary source in place of an unadorned link to a picture or video. Essentially, when an interpretation of raw data is required, NOR forbids editors from doing that interpretation themselves and then adding it to an article, and forces us to rely on secondary sources in order to assure the quality of the project. It may seem a meaningless formality in a case like this, where the truth is relatively easy to ascertain with a working knowledge of the rules of baseball and adequate vision, but the policy applies regardless.
I'm sorry you don't understand NOR; it can be tricky to grasp when a person is very used to employing their personal knowledge or "common sense" to reason and report on events in the world. For this project, however, that instinct isn't appropriate. Stick around a while, and I'm sure you'll get the hang of it.
Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! SS451 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yawn, I have edited several pages in the past with citations where appropiate. Perhaps you missed the 4 articles I posted in the discussion page on the night of the incident that sourced the call and the picture of the call that I sourced as well? I can forgive you for that. My problem is that certain editors were refusing to change/arguing that the wording should match exactly the phrase featured in the first few articles available of the incident which stated that Joyce "appeared to miss the call" instead of it being labeled as an "incorrect or missed call". Several TV broadcasts (MLB network and Fox Sports Detroit to name two) at that point were unequivocally stating that the call was missed whereas the slower print media was going with the appeared stating. At that point, it became common knowledge and no person with knowledge of the incident would argue against labeling the call as completely missed. Merely turning on Fox Sports Detroit or MLB network or getting a transcript of their broadcast would be required to obtain a source. A source existed, had already done your definition of OR, and was easily findable stating that the call was incorrect, much like what would be required in our Paris analogy. Unfortunately, you and perhaps several other editors seemed to be unwilling acknowledge this outside world. If you consider my proposed change OR with this set of facts, I believe that you are misinterpreting the guidelines. I can understand the confusion on your part if you lived in cave and only had internet access to Jim Joyce's wikipedia page. In that instance, you would not have knowledge of other sources not explicitly cited in my discussion. I also pray that you were not the [expletive deleted] who suggested that using a reputable newspaper from Detroit was a biased or impartial source. My only problem on the night of the game was that I was not familiar enough with the NOR policy to unequivocally prove you wrong.
On a second topic, you state that "probably never will be either well enough known or obvious enough on the face of it to omit a reference". Obviously this does not matter in this case since I had already posted references, but at what point do enough people have to know something for it to lack an immediate reference. Can you name the capital of the Mexican state of Aguascalientes? How many people in the world actually know the answer. The answer is Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes. Yet, this information is not sourced on Wikipedia. Food for thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.48.139 (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You'll note that throughout the discussion in the minutes immediately following the end of the game, I was advocating a cautious stance on our wording for the time being, while acknowledging the likelihood that as more secondary sources checked in, we would probably see a reliable consensus emerging that the call was in fact incorrect, and not merely that it appeared so. I never suggested that the wording be permanently fixed in any one form; that would have been foolish, given how close in time we were to the events described.
But that's really tangential to the NOR issue. Some users (I don't know if you were one of them) were advocating an out-and-out statement that the call was incorrect on the basis of pictures and video alone. They were explicitly making the argument that it was obvious from the images that the call had been blown. And my point then, which I am still completely confident in, is that that kind of judgment call isn't permitted under the NOR policy, and that we have to leave the interpretation of visual information like that to secondary sources. TV and radio broadcasts could have been fine sources for such interpretation, the only problem being that they are usually difficult to cite in an acceptable form so soon after they occur. Written articles were, at that point, the most practical way we had of confirming the call's incorrectness in a manner which conformed to Wikipedia policies, and that's what I advocated.
So, on review, I was completely correct. Caution was warranted in the immediate aftermath of the game, and the cautious wording I suggested closely tracked the earliest written reports coming out of the game and did no harm whatsoever to the article's accuracy, either short- or long-term. And those advocating the use of raw data were wrong. I'm willing to accept that they (you) were innocently wrong--NOR really can be difficult to understand when one first learns about it. But wrong is what you were. The mistake was of little consequence in this case, given the abundance of reliable secondary sources which followed the primary sources originally used. But in other articles, you will find that using primary sources where secondary sources are missing or contradictory just will not fly. SS451 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
At this point I am not arguing this "Some users were advocating an out-and-out statement that the call was incorrect on the basis of pictures and video alone." And obviously none of this matters; it is academic at this point. I obviously disagree with your interpretation of the policy, because secondary and primary sources existed stating the call was incorrect. If there more information on the policy other than located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research#Reliable_sources leave it here for me to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.48.139 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fielding Bible Award[edit]

Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball start a discussion and ask whether or not that award should go in the infobox. Because based on past discussions only awards on this page go in the infobox.--Yankees10 16:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If so, that is not reflected on the project's style guide for player pages, which mentions as additional awards appropriate for the infobox "The Sporting News annual awards." Can you point me to the past discussions that you claim establish that only awards on your linked page should be placed in a player's infobox? SS451 (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Re-read the style guideline as the section you refer to is not part of the info box discussion, but refers to a separate table at the end of the article. The awards notable for the infobox are listed under infobox highlights. (repeating what i said on my talk page). Spanneraol (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)