I seen today on the OWGR site that they have updated the abbreviations for both PGA Tour and European Tour: PGAT and DPWT. Should these be amended in event winners tables etc? I would definitely say it should for PGAT, but not DPWT as EUR is more consistent with common-name/non-sponsored name approach. Any thoughts? Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PGAT is more natural than USA so I wouldn't be against changing to that – probably best to get wider input at WT:GOLF before making changes though – and like you I certainly wouldn't look to change from EUR. If I recall correctly, we only decided to use the owgr abbreviations for convenience and have already (necessarily) diverged in many cases, e.g. Asia Golf Circuit, Safari Circuit, etc. wjematherplease leave a message...17:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matteson (rower)
I am seeing things as very odd that a user tries to claim that your finding a picture of a local rowing crew in a local newspaper is enough to indicate we should keep that article. It amazes me the time and effort needed to remove articles on even the most truly non-notable sportspeople who competed in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
/* History */ Preston North End should be abbreiviated to PNE, using the tern Preston is incorrect.
Afternoon,
I am the former editor of Preston North End's match programme and a supporter for too many years.
The clubs name should be abbreviated to PNE, similar to Queens Park Rangers which is QPR.
The clubs official historian, is in agreement.
@G hodkinson: Wikipedia generally follows what is published in independent reliable sources, which neither you or the club's historian are, for our readership's ease of recognition and understanding. I am well aware that the club is referred to by many names, including PNE and Preston, but the latter is by far the most commonly used (and I have certainly never told anyone I supported PNE); unlike QPR, which is used exclusively when not using the full name. Anyhow, please feel free to contribute to the discussion on the article talk page as requested. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message...15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted again for the same reason – players' national representation is of no relevance in these tournaments. That is to say the consensus is against having the content, not just one specific way of displaying, i.e. it in a table. Best, wjematherplease leave a message...08:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Find it on some regular major Wikipedia article. Maybe not relevant for the outcome of the tournament, but an interesting part of the golfing history. However, understand that articles on each tournament can't be to long an include every fact on everything. Regards, EEJB (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many articles (especially on older tournaments) have yet to be cleaned-up following those discussions. I keep meaning to finish it (it's on my userpage to-do list), but always seem to find something else to do! I'll try to get on it this week. wjematherplease leave a message...11:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloom6132: I left messages for both of you. Please note, this is not a battleground. And, fwiw, telling someone they cannot ban you from their talk page immediately after being asked not to post there is not smart (perhaps you should read the guideline you were citing). wjematherplease leave a message...20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at old PGA Tour Media Guides and was thinking about adding some pro-ams, satellite events, and other "little" events to our PGA Tour calendar pages. (For example, events like the Little Crosby Pro-Am, Mini-Kemper Satellite event, and maybe even the Caribbean Tour events - see the link for more info.) This is similar to your recent additions of "special approved events" to the European Tour calendars. Let me know your thoughts.
I'm thinking they should be separate, either in their own article or in a section away from the main tournaments. The second tier tour is probably more comparable to the KF Tour now; and the Caribbean Tour was a distinct tour (possibly comparable to the Safari Circuit), although it had direct PGA Tour involvement for a number of years. Probably best to map them all out first! wjematherplease leave a message...10:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that these "little" events did sort of serve as an "informal," ancillary tour. But still, unlike the Korn Ferry Tour, this circuit remained informal (other than some Caribbean Tour stuff) and there is no other place to put up this stuff on WP. If the PGA Tour publicizes that these events were integrated into the schedule then I think that should be good enough.
Also, I referenced the "special approved events" earlier. You seem to be averse to integrating these "little" PGA Tour events into the calendars but were ok with ET's "special" events. What exactly is the distinction between them?
"Special approved event" was/is a specific designation given by the ET to certain tournaments – in most cases they were official tour events that simply didn't count for the OoM and weren't recognised (at the time) as official tour wins (some have retroactively been upgraded to official wins). As far as I can tell there is no clear correlation with how the PGA Tour classified/classify their peripheral tournaments, and we can't/shouldn't synthesize anything from a schedule – inclusion on the calendar was merely recognition of some level of PGA Tour involvement. At times some of the tournaments formed an official satellite-tour, e.g. TPS Tour (1983–1985). wjematherplease leave a message...15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification about the "special approved events." Nonetheless, I'm not sure if it matters that the PGA Tour didn't have a special category for its minor events. If they list all of these events on their schedule then that should be good enough. By omitting certain events I think we are, by implication, making subjective choices about what is valuable and what is not.
As stated on the general talk page, I will not be adding the minor events the calendar. I am adding a bit to the notes column though.
I specifically have a question about the British Open. I included the qualifier on some of the 1970s pages, "Major championship; not an official tour win at the time. Retroactively classified a PGA Tour win in 2002." (See 1974 PGA Tour or 1978 PGA Tour.) My main question is, were these British Opens merely retroactively classified as wins or was the event in general retroactively classified? (Inferring from the PGA Tour's website, it looks like wins count but other statistical information - runner-ups, thirds, other top tens - don't.) I know it is minor but it has been on my mind for a while. I suspect the former.
When I entered the winner, I was thinking the tournament was over. I did not know there were more players, I was spilt between watching the golf and the Olympics. By the time I realized there were more players, I had already entered the winner, so I left it there because I had already entered it. Since the entry ended up being correct, there was no reason to change it. And anyway, if anyone had wanted to turn it back, they could have. I was not trying to do a prediction, I thought the tournament was over as my attention was split with watching the Olympics. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation does not correlate with your edit history. You also predicted the runner-up, scores and margins at a time when Hossler could still have forced a playoff or finished solo-2nd. A little while later, you changed your prediction to add Hossler as joint runner-up; he ultimately finished 3rd. wjematherplease leave a message...11:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better not to believe what I said, you can have it. I told it to you for how it is. I did not even owe an explanation. As it is, you felt compelled to leave a message about something that wasn't even a matter any longer, some twenty minutes after the fact, when everything was fine by that time. The message you left appears to be more for self indulgence than anything constructive. You do not stand to gain from going around acting as though you are so much better than all other editors. And anyway, for anyone who has been paying attention to history, going on here and lecturing others, especially over something so petty, is not a good way to fit in with the community. I myself and others have seen particular message boards in social media, and sometimes certain people's name are brought up, often times in an unflattering way. ... Since you want to bring up the past, you'd do well not to cherry pick only the parts that suit you; in the past, when I wanted to get a start on loading the potential winner into Wikipedia (mainly to lighten the load when there are a number of pages to edit, when time was sensitive at that moment), I made sure to hide the entry so that it cannot be seen, knowing that, when the time came, either it could be unhidden if it turned out to be correct, or undone if it turned out to be incorrect. Either way, this particular thing is something I'd rarely done, and the only editor that ever wanted to make an issue of it is you. Studies show people tend to age faster when they worry about everything than people who don't. Picking one's battles has shown to be better for one's health and aesthetics than making an issue out of everything. I've seen a lot of questionable things in Wikipedia over the years, and I rarely say anything, because it's not worth the aggravation. If I said something every time I though something was a little odd, I'd probably look and feel ten years older than I am. ... Presumably we're all on the same side here, with the intention of adding to the articles. I'd rather get on well with people, so, I often find myself stifling saying things that will not be to the benefit of myself or others. The temptation is there, but I rarely do it, doing it only if it appears to be something that is seriously getting in the way of the quality of an article, such as vandalism. I don't even report account names that many might consider offensive. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've been editing like this, adding to win boxes, for a long time. It was one of the reasons behind you getting blocked[1] for a week....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?14:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tournament infoboxes
I understand your points about the most recent details of a defunct tournament being included in the infobox, I sort of agree that it can be unhelpful to the reader. However, it doesn't seem right to me that a current tournament can include these details irregardless of previous editions, surely applying the same logic then this would be unhelpful to the reader as well. Thoughts? Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that we should provide details a reader would expect to see. As such, current details are helpful for current tournaments, but final edition details are unhelpful for defunct tournaments (unless the tournament had a permanent home). wjematherplease leave a message...19:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flag counting
I had hidden the flags so that they did not show on the page. I left a note there saying that if anyone wanted to see it, they could unhide it. Therefore, it is not disruptive. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have three questions though. First, what about the "Past Champions" grid, should it be in the article at all, hidden or unhidden? Second, when creating a new page for an annual event, what about the issue of copying the text from a previous year to make a new page for this year, does it really need a note along with it now? For many years, we always used to to copy the text and no one ever had a problem with it. And third, is everyone who copies the text for a new page getting a warning these days, or are only a few people getting the warning? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was reached to remove the "Past Champions" (note: they are noted in the full result anyway) unless we have child articles on the field (we generally don't). As such, these should also not be in the article, whether hidden or not.
Yes, there has always been the requirement for attribution when copying content within Wikipedia, but it isn't always something that has been picked up on. There are many way to add attribution; the simplest being to simply use the edit summary. If you've forgotten to do that, you can make a dummy edit in order to add such an edit summary (best if there are not too many intervening edits). The alternative is to add the {{copied}} template to the talk page. And lastly, I generally add a note or template to the talk page of anyone I notice copy-pasting without attribution; I can't speak for what others do. wjematherplease leave a message...17:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template
I did not refuse to acknowledge a template. I've been busy for days and haven't been able to make time to edit in Wikipedia, and am still trying to catch up. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your message of User: Nigej's talk page. Yeah, you're probably right, the pages I have been creating have probably grown too long (and perhaps way too long).
I would just like to go over my line of thinking to clarify things. Basically, I find all this information on an individual golfer but in piecemeal fashion in daily newspaper reports. I usually find very little overarching information about the golfers in my research which would help narrow the search. So I end up creating a page in a piecemeal fashion as it can be sometimes difficult to determine what is important and what is not. (So I usually end up determining that everything is important...) I'm not sure if you're aware of a magazine search engine - something like that would help me. Magazine articles are more likely to go over a golfer's career and they would help me focus on important themes and synthesize material. If a search engine like this does not exist, I still need some method to help me focus and narrow the search. Please let me know what you think.
Anyway, I checked out WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It looks like the section "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is most applicable to me, specifically the "not a summary" subsection (as you seem to imply). I will look more into it later.
Also, I think you mentioned somewhere that regional and national newspapers were strongly preferred over local sources. If so, this might serve as a useful filter for me, especially regarding Israelson's early amateur career in high school.
Hey, I'm pretty much done revising Israelson's page. I strongly suspect the amount of edits I've done will not meet your expectations. Nonetheless, for the time being, that's the most I want to do. Please let me know your thoughts.
I'm thinking about tidying up the European Tour season pages regarding formatting as I have done with Aus Tour, Sunshine Tour, Asian Tour and Japan Tour so far. As these tables are fairly wide, do you think it would be acceptable to remove the "R2D points" column. This doesn't seem like necessary info to include in the winners table and would help with wrapping if removed. I think something similar to the PGA Tour articles regarding the FedEx Cup would work better, where points breakdown for R2D could be covered in the R2D section instead. We also don't include how many FedEx Cup points each event carries in the PGA Tour season pages. Thoughts? Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike earlier seasons (when points had a direct money equivalence) and the PGA Tour, since 2019 R2D points allocations have varied hugely for regular tournaments (i.e. except majors, wgcs, rolex series, etc.) which makes detailing them similar to FedEx points, where allocations are standard across all tournaments (alternate/team/regular/wgc/majors & players/playoffs), difficult; so I'd keep them. I've also never managed to find out how R2D points are broken down in recent years. wjematherplease leave a message...20:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I believe the R2D points are distributed in the same percentages as the prize funds are (correct me if I'm wrong). As broken down in this article [2]. Would this give any bearing to your breakdown table in User:Wjemather/European Tour? If so, maybe we would be able to complete this and may be worthy of inclusion in the R2D sections in the ET pages? Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt they are similar percentages, but it's clear that if they are the ones in use, there is also some rounding going on (e.g. a 2000 point event gives 335 to the winner, but 16.67% is 333.4). Plus we'd need a reliable source detailing an explicit breakdown. wjematherplease leave a message...18:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, acknowledging possible (or even probable) compliance with a guideline is not an implicit agreement that such additions should be made (I didn't think they should then, and still don't). You really aren't saving anyone (usually yourself) any time or effort; indeed, you are actually increasing your own effort most of the time (and that of anyone checking through the article history). Surely, it's better to just wait until the matches are finished. wjematherplease leave a message...19:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PGA Tour Qualifying School pages
Hey,
Last year I brought up the possibility of creating pre-All Exempt Era PGA Tour Qualifying Tournament pages on your talk page. I believe you stated we should include a list of graduates in the pages but nothing else. When I created these pages that's what I did. However, Wikipedia users created tags prompting that citations should be added to justify these pages. Other members followed suit by adding text with citations in an effort to save these pages. Eventually, even I created some text (with citations) in an effort to maintain these pages. (If you think these apprehensions are unwarranted please see my talk page. An administrator did not approve my draft of 1965 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates because it didn't include enough citations.)
So I know our intentions strayed from our original idea. Just wanted you to give you a narrative about how things have changed. I also wanted to know your thoughts.
Hey, I have a citation that states that the 1974 North Coast Open is one of the 13 events that make up the "Professional Golfers' Association Order of Merit circuit" in Australia. A few other events that are part of the OoM are mentioned. Here is the link: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/254803176/28335847#.
Can't find any MOS or WP guideline which suggests line breaking should be removed in tables due to wrapping, unless you do? Obviously, if line breaks can be avoided then great, but surely if a tournament name is so long that it causes the width of the table to be so wide that it increases the wrapping on all displays, not just smaller ones. Is this not what line breaks are for? Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it's better to just let browsers take care of the wrapping and just control where wrapping shouldn't happen. Forcing line breaks often results in a mess (because of extra line breaks) at some browser widths unless the additional browser added line breaks are prevented – but then we get a sea of code that becomes harder to edit. See H:LINEBREAK for more, and how to prevent line breaks in undesirable places. wjematherplease leave a message...17:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your helpful comments on the article on Bob Starkey (rower). It is incredibly frustrating how people keep on making arguments on GNG that basically boil down to a rejecting of the ruling that non-medaling Olympians are not notable. It is equally frustrating how I get attacked over and over on these discussion pages, while an editor who literally was creating articles at the rate of 5+ every ten minutes is treated as if he is an example of doing deep searches and finding as much information of possible. Equally frustrating is how I am attacked for posting the whole of a source to the page, to make it obvious how the source is not the high quality "biography" of the subject some others have claimed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is far too much battlegrounding around Lugnuts creations and a general refusal by some to accept community consensus; a small minority also seem intent on indulging in personal attacks and other incivility rather than making policy and guideline based arguments. Incidentally, I would probably say your quote of the source met WP:COPYQUOTE and there could be no reasonable doubting of the lack of substance in it. wjematherplease leave a message...10:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also starting to see a pattern of I mention in a deletion nomination exactly why an article is not a suitable candidate for rexdirect, becasue there are other people with more sourcing with the same name, and other editors call for a redirect without even acknowledging what I said about a redirect not being suitable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm not a fan of redirecting to event articles when there is almost no chance the reader would expect to arrive at that target (where the individual is barely mentioned); less so when it's patently obvious that that one event is way down the list of things they could possibly be known for; and even less so when other (equally non-notable or often more notable but without an all-inclusive sports database entry) people of the same name exist. wjematherplease leave a message...16:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? The golf project is irrelevant. I came across that article and fixed it. Whether or not others get fixed is not my problem. Please restore my edit. – PeeJay14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having been contested, the onus is now on you to discuss the change in chronological ordering if you wish to pursue it; per the MOS header, we should use common sense, and here it makes zero sense for one golf tournament article to be ordered differently from the rest. I'd suggest WT:GOLF as a good venue for discussion; however irrelevant your think the project may be, editors there are the ones likely to be making changes to all articles if that is the consensus reached. Note, the parts of your edit that replaced legacy code are not being disputed. Best, wjematherplease leave a message...15:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have to justify following the MOS. One project’s customs do not supersede the encyclopaedia’s global policies. – PeeJay20:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline is something that should be followed unless there is a very good reason not to do so. That is not the case here. Thanks. – PeeJay08:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are not that strong; guidelines' wording of "should attempt to follow" is much weaker than policies' "should normally follow" (which is the equivalent of "unless there is a very good reason not to") and it certainly isn't "must follow", which is never the case since there are no hard and fast rules here. It is clear that there is disagreement on several things here: whether the guideline even applies, (if it does) whether it needs to be followed, and whether it makes (common) sense to have one article out of step with hundreds of others. Therefore discussion was the appropriate course of action when your opinion was challenged; repeatedly reasserting your opinion doesn't make your case any stronger or justify your edit-warring. wjematherplease leave a message...09:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think wins on this tour are worthy of inclusion in player's articles and wins totals? The majority of these events are 36 holes with some 18 hole events as well. I would say probably not. Jimmymci234 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A win's a win. I'd say we'd have to have a good reason not to include any verifiable tournament wins, even down to the level of regional PGA circuits (although, I don't think we need to detail them all at that level). wjematherplease leave a message...10:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Olympics
Why are explicit explanations of why not to redirect ignored? Some days it feels like a general attempt to ignore my contributions to Wikipedia totally. Even my request that I be referred to in short form as Mr. Lambert, when I bring it up, is said to be so rude that it could lead to banning me from even more editing. I am really feeling frustated with how little my contributions are valued.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ANI wierdness
So first the ANI proposal was to essentially ban me from nominating articles creating by Lugnuts for deletion because he falsely accused me of targeting him with such nominations. That seems not to have been picked up by anyone but the person who made it. Now we have an even more odd proposal to ban taking any stubs to AfD, which would create a protection provision for poorly developed, poorly sourced, short articles for no good reason at all. I am trying to hope this change means the original proposal is dead. People seem to have also never really followed up on the one-way interaction proposal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am really frustrated that someone has joined in supporting Lugnuts false accusations against me. Even if no proposal to limit my actions is passed, the process at that page is rewarding Lugnuts for his false accusations against me because way more editors are standing behind him and his false accusations than are calling them out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse. Now Lugnuts is trying to broaden the scope of the ANI, to make it an even broader attack on my editing in general. I did not even start this ANI, I am not liking how it is being turned into a feeding freenzy of hate against me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1995 PGA Tour of Australasia
Would you be able to find anything giving a breakdown of the Final Order of Merit for the 1995 season? I know that Craig Parry won with A$334,804, can't find any breakdown of the top 5 however. Jimmymci234 (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So now an editor at ANI is essentially saying he supports indefenetely blocking me from editing Wikipedia at all because I dared nominate some of the 93,547 articles created by Lugnuts for deletion while we have an ANI open that was supposed to discuss the rude behavior Lugnuts is showing towards me and his constant attacking me for nominating articles he created for deletion. Evidently the new rule in Wikipedia is if someone accuses you of "harassing" them by nominating articles they created for deletion, you must stop nominating articles they created for deletion, even if the ANI on the subject runs for over 2 weeks. Basically it seems that Lugnuts can go around accusing any editor who nominates a large number, even if spread over a very long time, articles created by him of uncivil behavior, and if that editor does not give up and stop nominating articles created by Lugnuts for deletion no one has any protection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take heed of what neutral people, especially admins, are saying. Badgering everyone at every turn is not helping your cause (you need to just let comments go unanswered); and (while I do not agree that it is harassment, and feel it's unreasonable to label it as such) it would be wise to do as suggested by many and lay off working on Lugnuts authored stubs while the dispute is ongoing. At the moment persisting with these two things is just giving ammunition to those seeking sanctions against you. wjematherplease leave a message...15:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What especially feels wrong is that not abiding by a rule that has not even been passed in an ANI discussion, and does not have consensus to be imposed even after 2 weeks of discussion, is grounds to threaten to ban all editing on Wikipedia ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most frustrating thing is that any speaking out about the wrongness of the system is used as grounds to punish more. At least that is what it is starting to feel like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question
So I see this is what is listed as the scope of an interaction ban. Is there anything in here that would actually make it so someone banned from interacting with another editor could not nominate an article they created for deletion?
Interaction ban
Shortcut
WP:IBAN
The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user. A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other. Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.
Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
edit each other's user and user talk pages;
reply to each other in discussions;
make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.
Interaction bans are listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.
I think I see why I did not ask questions before. It is used as a way to expand the scope. Now someone is suggesting the interaction ban should extend to banning me from nominating for deletion any article Lugnuts has ever edited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick IBAN could well have been that way but, because of the way this has gone (not helped by the concurrent AFD conduct related ANI threads involving other parties, that probably accelerated the move to ARBCOM), any IBAN that achieves community consensus now could easily mean both of you not being able to nominate articles, or participate in active deletion discussions, that involve the other in any way. Because of how (seemingly) uninvolved parties have interpreted it, unfortunately that's just how bad the situation has got. wjematherplease leave a message...18:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to expand on what I said above (and what at least a couple of admins have said at ANI) continuing to respond to everything in a kneejerk fashion is doing you no favours, and is likely to result in stronger sanctions for you than would otherwise have been the case. wjematherplease leave a message...18:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What really galls me is that it feels like if I even mention anything that I think is Lugnuts doing something to me, it will be treated as grounds to attack me and ban me even further. I am not sure there is anywhere where I could bring such up. So I have to fear that I might be indefinately blocked, and no one seems to actually monitor how Lugnuts reverse edits I do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better if you left others to address Lugnuts' actions, since it's clear that anything you do will be viewed unfavourably by some and you really don't need any hounding/harassment claims to gain traction. If you feel you absolutely must raise an issue, I'd suggest doing so thoughtfully and directly to a trusted admin who is agreeable to such approaches. wjematherplease leave a message...11:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You removed this from the season's of the PGA Tour that I had added as an unofficial event. The Olympics was not a sanctioned PGA Tour event but you include that ??????????????. 178.167.165.75 (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have criticised your own edits here - "tone down" is being used with reference to material which you have added yourself. I was on a mission to largely remove the faff and have it more based on cited opinions and cited facts (which I have now largely done). Some of the material is moved from different parts of the article so that it more closely aligns with the format of other similar articles. I haven't been introducing significant amounts of new content.Financefactz (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Financefactz: Well, that's untrue. You added the phrases "The course is widely viewed as one of the top golf courses in the UK and Ireland and is usually included in lists of the top 100 golf courses in the world" (diff) and "...and widely viewed as one of the top links courses in the world" (diff). These are opinions that are not supported by the sources. I toned them down and removed the latter (diff, diff). wjematherplease leave a message...14:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just responded to some comments in the thread. The discussion has been going on for a month now and I think we should be able to wrap things up soon. Could you try to finalize things?
Thanks for the response but it seems like nothing new has been done. Can we get the guidelines finalized as soon as possible and then send away to administrators?
Hey I know there's technically no rush with this but I feel like if we don't do something relatively soon this will just linger and we'll forget about it. And in addition, shouldn't it be easy to finish this project? Like isn't it like a few clicks to administrators and that's it? From what I can tell we're done with establishing the WP:NGOLF criteria.
It's not quite that simple. It will require a bit of analysis to show these new guidelines meet the necessary targets before proposing them to the community (not admins) for them to accept (or not). That will take time. wjematherplease leave a message...09:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you've probably seen I created a scorecard for Shennecossett Golf Course. I used the scorecard you put up for Yale Golf Course as a template. There is a problem though as the yardage starts under the "Rating/Slope" column. I would like to just delete this column as I don't have rating/slope information anyway but I can't seem to. If you could help that would be great.
Hi there. I thought I'd just start a discussion about LIV. The aim of the introduction paragraph is to summarise the rest of the article – given half the LIV Golf article is noting the opposition to LIV (which is the main/only thing the news discusses as to LIV golf), I strongly believe a summary of the discussion surrounding LIV is needed in the intro section. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SerAntoniDeMiloni: The article is very unbalanced, which needs remediating (there is already a discussion about the bloated Mickelson section, for example). When looking at sources, it's important to note their POV and affiliations – for example, a large section of the golf media are closely associated with the PGA Tour – and recognise that (real or imagined) controversy always attracts the most coverage. While it could be included in the lead, it would need to be done in a neutral, balanced fashion, which your changes were not. wjematherplease leave a message...13:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of the issues: "Founded... with the aims of being a competing golf tour" – while no doubt some people view it this way, this does not appear to be a stated goal (some people have even claimed Norman wants to destroy the PGA Tour); emphasis of "criticism" by prefacing with "significant" and changing a section header; use of the word "opponents". wjematherplease leave a message...13:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjemather: I absolutely see this, and the need for a neutral POV throughout the article, but note that only a select group read golf media. Where LIV is being discussed is much more in mainstream reliable source media, noting the implications of a Saudi government with questions over its human rights pumping money into a popular sport. As someone who doesn't watch golf, I'm trying to balance the article as I see fit; if the majority of high level press discussion is regarding the Saudi connection, it (and the discussions around it) should be noted. Please let me know how you'd include the discussion around LIV in the heading. Would be good to figure this out. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SerAntoniDeMiloni: To be clear, I agree that an overview of the reaction should be in lead, just not how it was done. Perhaps it would be easier/best to start by balancing the article itself, which focuses almost entirely on this one aspect (i.e. PIF/Saudis)? wjematherplease leave a message...13:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've seen what has happened
Hi - this profile must have been conflated with another - I know I wouldn't have made that mistake myself. Let me check the diff history and get back to you. Bobo.08:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The Cricket Archive page is here, while the Archive.org version is here - 232662. Not sure what has happened there. Perhaps there has been some mis-attribution going on. Bobo.09:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has no relevance now, other than highlighting the need to scrutinise and verify all the articles that you created in a similar fashion. Anyhow, will you G7 this one (as requested) and save the need for AFD? wjematherplease leave a message...09:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abhishek Sinha - Current Wikipedia article for Abhishek Sinha under identity of Abheek Sinha - therefore under the wrong name, dated August 13, 2022, birthdate September 28, 1990, CA code 952348, no first-class appearances
Current CA page at Avichek Sinha, dated August 13, 2022, birthdate September 28, 1990, CA code 232662, many first-class appearances
At some point someone has changed Abhishek's name and identity to Akheeb, while the CA page is now at Avichek. The original article for Abhishek is perfectly valid and contains accurate information.. Bobo.11:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo192: The final CA profile you link here is Avishek Sinha, dob 18 October 1985 (note the slightly different spelling of his first name, and the date of birth is completely different (it also disagrees with Cricinfo, but that's another can of worms)). The person with the dob 28 September 1990 is Abheek Sinha (although the article was created as Abhishek Sinha, as per CA at the time, where it remains; I put a note on the talk page of this article to explain the changes when I did them earlier), who played U-15s for Tripura; he is not the same player who played many FC, LA & T20 matches for Services. One way or another, this article will be deleted – it would simply save all of us time is you tagged it for G7. wjematherplease leave a message...11:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to work out what I had done first before I tagged it. I don't like deleting my own articles when they are G7s. Someday when we've got the two articles untangled, and we find some more information, we can fix what was broken. Archive.org makes everything more confusing than it needs to be as it shows where the information became mixed up. Bobo.12:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should name the first emigrants from foo to boo. There was a discussion on this at one of the categorization talk pages. Well, me and one other editor posted some thoughts, but no one else seem to have responded. Let me explain. Currently we have Category:American emigrants to the United Kingdom and Category:British emigrants to the United States. The more I think about this the odder it gets. Clearly if someone left Great Britain for the Thirteen Colonies in 1764, they are not Category:British emigrants to the United States, even the reciprocal would not work at all. Do we even have Category:American emigrants to the Kingdom of Great Britain? Clearly saying someone was emigrating to the United Kingdom before it was formed in 1801 does not make sense. However it would seem we should distinguish those moving from the United States to the Kingdom of Great Britain from those moving from the Thirteen Colonies to the Kingdom of Great Britain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The UK/US issue sounds like a discussion for WP:CFD, but with respect to "from foo to boo" or "fooian/foo emigrants to boo", I think it simply depends on whether a fooian descriptive exists (incidentally, "Emigrants from former countries" seems rather inaccurate given the number of non-countries). wjematherplease leave a message...12:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere we use forms like "states and territories", but that is also used to include sub-national entities, which in general we do not want to cover. I was told that the ban on deletion discussions "broadly construed" extends to Categories for discussion. I am not sure exactly why, since the arbcom only talked about deletion of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is in some cases a problem with us thinking the descriptive form captures what we want it to. In the case of Category:Armenian emigrants we want this to mean Category:Emigrants from Armenia and to not include in it people who come from Lebanon, where they have lived all their lives, as have often their parents and further back, but self-describe as "Armenian". I knew several such people in Sterling Heights, Michigan while in high school in the 1990s.John Pack Lambert (talk)
The establishment cats would be a far less complicated case than emigration cats. In a lot of emigration cases people did not go directly from the starting to the ending point, and some of them may have had the country they left cease to exist in the interim. In some cases, such as maybe someone who fled the Russian Revolution and goes to Germany, and then decides it is best to leave Germany Hitler becomes the ruler, they may actually be both Category:White Russian emigrants to Germany and Category:Emigrants from Nazi Germany to the United States, but people who left Estonia and Latvia because they do not want to be under the Soviet Union, and then spent a few years in Displaced person camps in Germany before finally arriving in the United States, still I think count as Category:Estonian emigrants to the United States and Category:Latvian emigrants to the United States. They are not Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States because they are not nationals of the Soviet Union, and they are not Category:German emigrants to the United States, because they are not nationals of Germany, but displace persons. There may even be an argument for having Category:Stateless people who emigrated to the United States or some similar name, but I think for most people we just have to accept that you can be in Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to the United States if you say left the Russian Empire in 1915 to study at a university in Switzerland, and then at the end of your studies, which went on to graduate degrees, in 1925, never having left Switzerland but never having become a national of Switzerland either, you decide to take up a position at Columbia University in New York. So even though this case involves someone who comes to the US in 1925. The problem is that we often lack the specific detail. I guess a close correlary is one can be an expatriate of a nation that no longer exists. However if a student in Switzerland regularly goes back to Russian areas, then they become an expatriate of the new entity there. I think also we should not have anyone in both say Category:Soviet expatriates in Switzerland and Category:Russian expatriates in Switzerland, even if they were on and off in Switzerland from 1985-1995. However there may be some cases where some odd categorization makes sense. Such as what if someone lives in Switzerland while a child, and so belongs in Category:British expatriates in Switzerland. then after several years they back in Britain, they emigrate to Australia, where they have a long career, but then go to Switzerland again for a time, do we put them in Category:Australian expatriates in Switzerland. The part of me that says we have too many categories says no. Of course that part of me at some level wishes we would just ditch all the fooian expatriates in boo categories, and only have fooian expatriates in boo. I have to admit the most questionable are categories like Category:Swiss expatriate sportspeople in France. A lot of people are in a whole bunch of such categories, based on playing in multiple countries in leagues that are multi-national, sometimes for playing for less than a year with a team in a given country. This may be a case where the category makes sense, but we need to be a little more discerning in its application. We also have Category:American expatriate actresses in the United Kingdom and a whole related set of categories. These make sense if we have cases where a national of one place spent a large part of their acting career in another country. However Alec Guiness does not get into the hypothetical Category:British expatriate male actors in Tunisia just because he shot some of the seens of Star Wars in Tunisia. Down that road lies madness, but at least with the sports categories we may have already descended to madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say any form that we can easily put in a simple fooian form is going to work well, such as Category:Mexican emigrants to France. Although I would think we should limit Mexican to those who left Mexico since the establishment of the Mexican Empire, since it was named Mexican Empire on the model of the Roman Empire, it was the Empire with its capitol at the city of Mexico. Prior to that "Mexico" if used at all was a reference to the general area around Mexico City, not to New Spain or even a sub-set of New Spain anywhere close to the modern extent of Mexico. This is why having a place named "New Mexico" worked for the Spanish, because "Mexico" meant a very specific area. I would not be surprised if 0 people in Cateogry:Mexican emigrants to France left Mexico before 1840, let alone before the mid-1820s. Category:Turkish emigrants to Greece I think is straight forward, but it will be limited to migrations after 1922.John Pack Lambert (talk)
I found the venue for talking about limits of a topicban from the arbcom. I asked about CfD. Now that I asked about it, at least one person seems to say my very asking about CfD leads them to think imposing a siteban on me is a good idea. This is very, very, very, very frustrating. In the extreme. Very frustrating. I am very frustrated. This reaction to a sincere question with threats of total banning is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
August
Thank you for kind and timely message on my talk page. Please be assured that I do, can, and will look and keep looking for additional sources. There is an increasing access issue with on-line pay walls which we have to work around and I don’t know how we will solve, but please be reassured I do take that which you discuss seriously. Kind regards. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nathaniel Foote
Nathaniel Foote is a rare article. It pretends to be about a person who lived about 1600, but is mainly a listing of people who lived in the main after 1900 who happen to be descended from him. It seems an odd way to have an article. It is basically coatracking a the fact that several random people in the 20th-century (on in the case of Jeb Bush, mainly notable in the 21st-century) had a common ancestor born before 1600.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today may be the first day this year that I removed a Proposed Deletion from an article. I think they were all articles created by Lugnuts. James Wildman is one such case. I think he may meet the minimalistic (2=multiple) interpreation of GNG, although I am not sure how independent of each other the 2 sources are. He clearly meets NPOV with no questions at all (being in the National legislature of arguably the most powerful country in the world at his time, clearly one of the 4 most powerful, is going to get you a pass not only of NPOV as it exists now, but of any incaration of NPOV I can ever imagine existing). That article dates to December 16, 2021, which is not very old but not super new. It clearly could say something more than it does. The number of Lugnuts created articles that were nominated for Proposed deletion today seems to indicate Proposed deletion is about to be overwhelmed. We shall see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unwise moves
I seem to always make mistakes. I unwisely in trying to help an editor who was starting to do Prods pointed out a specific page he should have a look at. Now this is being interpreted as trying to violate my topic ban by proxy, and people are proposing I be banned from editing for a month. It seems I just constantly mess up everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions
I really need to find ways to stop participating in discussions in a way that goes too broadly. Some people have basically said that I should be banned from participating in sports discussions because I do not believe we should massively include articles on everyone who was ever involved in sports. It seems there is a goal to silence me more and more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edits
Hi!
I noted you reverted my edits to the Cheltenham Festival page back to this:
The earliest traceable reference to a "Festival" is in the Warwick Advertiser of 1907.[1]
I had done a great deal of research to determine that there are in fact various earlier tracable references to a 'Festival' and quoted where I located these. Did I do something wrong?
I saw your recent edit there. But the thing about full/associate membership is still confusing. I suggest to write in a simple way, so anyone can understand. It feeling like a puzzle. I couldn't figure out, how secretary get elected? Is BCCI have any 'chairman'? The board is infamous for tax avoiding, using excuse as they're a NGO, non profit body. I suggest you to write in neutral way after thorough research.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rock Stone Gold Castle: No doubt its all a bit of a mystery – I've simply tried to reduce it down to a brief summary without having too much confusing/random detail. As for the other stuff, everything needs reliable sources, of which there are few easily accessible. There are many sporting bodies globally (particularly in the US) that have questionable non-profit/charitable status! wjematherplease leave a message...12:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wjemather, I'll also not add. Is 'University association' field team in Dom cric? The org's name is in Aff members list. Need clarity on that, should write there. And many state asso articles don't have Logos, location maps (showing location of there headquarters), any pic of there office. I don't have that command on, how to add logos. You should add them. What is palet gr, in Ranji trophy?Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created a scorecard for Wampanoag Country Club. I used your template from Shennecossett Golf Course. I thought I did a good job but I need help with a couple of things. I need to add a row for the women's tees (red tees). I do not know how to do this. Also, using the template from Shennecossett, the third row of tees is categorized as "Green" however it needs to be changed to "Yellow." Sorry, but I do not know how to change this. Any help would be much appreciated.
Done. There are several different templates {{yellow18}}, {{red18}}, etc. that display different colours by default; and {{tee18}} can be used for anything non standard. The documentation gives full details of the how to use all the templates, including those for pars, SIs, top (hole numbers, title, etc.) and bottom. wjematherplease leave a message...20:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response but thanks for your improvements and the other advice. I had one more thing: in Wampanoag's infobox I included the tee information for all tees. However, I noticed that for most of our course pages we just include info from the lengthiest tees. What is the standard?
Thank you for the information and the edits to Wampanoag. Could we just delete these last three "tee" parameters to the infobox in general if they are superfluous?
I am an employee of the Wilson Sporting Goods Company, our Wilson Staff Advisory Staff should absolutely be included in the encyclopedic article on the company.
As for the (stylized as W/S) edit, if you would just please take a look at our logo and describe it to me.
@McDoub1e: Thanks for the disclosure. With regards to your conflict of interest, I recommend discussing any additions you wish to make on the relevant article talk page. By their nature, endorsements are promotional, so we only detail the most significant ones (i.e. those that are widely covered in independent reliable sources); we do not indiscriminately list them all. As for W/S, it's a logo not a stylisation of Wilson Staff (which is stylised as Wilson Staff). See MOS:TMSTYLE for info. wjematherplease leave a message...19:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
location of 1997 Long Island Open
Thanks for your edits to the Long Island Open page a couple of weeks ago. According to the Met PGA's website the 1997 tournament (like most years around that date) was held at Bethpage's red course. However, according to these two primary sources the event was held at Bethpage Black. The sources are from Newsday which is usually pretty good. In addition, they are rather specific as one mentions one player breaking the course record at the black course. So I think the Met PGA's website may be mistaken. What are your thoughts?
Thank you for your recent edits to the 1977 Thailand Open. However, I have noticed a contradiction between our sources. According to your McCormack source, Takahiro Takeyasu was eliminated on the second playoff hole. According to this Strait Timesarticle, he was not eliminated until the 7th hole (as was Bohen). The Straits Times article is pretty detailed and seems reliable. I think we should change the note at the bottom of the page.
I think you're right. First off, you have two sources and I have one. In addition, The Associated Press seems more reliable than these Singapore newspapers. And yeah, I have never heard of a three-man sudden-death playoff going on that long. So I think we should keep the note the way it is. Sorry for any confusion my comment may have caused.
The only thing I might change is the order. In the AP article it says that Takeyasu went on "finishing third." Perhaps we should put in parentheses that he finished in third place (we have this for the Masters Tournament - see the table for the 1960s events).
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Probably another mistake on the behalf of the reporter. I did just add the AP citation on the Thai Open page as I felt a web citation was valuable too. (With McCormack it is just a textual citaiton.)
Hello, I didn't add any promotional material..All I did was talked about where I was born, who my parents were etc..I see this people's pages all the time like this..I just just understand why I cannot set up a page that if I go to the box and type in " matthew Farage" my page comes up. It says it doesn't exist. Then I get blamed for all this self promotion. I am allowed to talk about a company I had, or me being adopted. It was a biography was all. Juli Inkster is something I did where I was telling the truth. I did have my product in the tournament. But it was just stating a putting aid they used..It was no self promotion. It seems Wiki does not want me to have a page. I am not smart enough to understand all the requirements needed to watch tutorials etc..Never could comprehend. I just didn't think I did wrong with my profile page of " Matthew Farage" why can't I get the original one I made so it shows up in a search? thank you. Matthew Farage (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew Farage: Your contributions have been, and continue to be, almost exclusively self-promotional. People, companies, products, etc. must have been subject to a substantial amount of independent coverage in reliable sources if they are to be included in any way on Wikipedia. You, your company and product, all fail these basic standards. wjematherplease leave a message...13:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
