Jump to content

Talk:Jane Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reverted cite formatting

[edit]

Just wondering why my edits expanding the citations into proper cite format were reverted here and on the Jane Blalock article? If concerned about how it looks on the page, we can change the number of columns or something, possibly. Yes, there is a lot of information there (And that is good. We need many more Wikipedia articles that well researched) but, leaving them as nearly bare links with only article titles (no indication of source) will make it harder for others to verify should those URLs ever change. Just thought I was correcting it. If I am wrong, please point out how. The edit summary reverting it provided no reason why. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your input here

[edit]

Sigh. So, my attempt to bring a cooler head into the mix has so far failed, but maybe someone will step up to bat. I would like to add this disclaimer ahead of time - I will seek to stay calm, friendly, and helpful, but repeated (and in my opinion, very poorly explained and/or justified) reversions to what I say as great edits have me very upset. (that's my hint, WilliamJE, to work with me instead of treating me as any enemy. I'm not one of those types who thrive on conflict, it messes with me, I've already wasted a lot of weed trying to keep calm). My attempt here to explain my pov on this issue is here. I'm also going to paste some of our discussions below. And I would also like to recommend, WilliamJE, that you work with me on building a draft, perhaps in your own sandbox. Saying "too much to clean up," frankly, makes it seem a bit like you either don't care about the improvements or are too lazy to help, and a one-click reversion seemed easiest. That easy dismissal is what mostly rankles in cases like this, not your explanations when you take the time to lay them out in detail. Earflaps (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Don't panic

Please remember, WilliamJE, that reverting another editor three times is cause for banning. I highly recommend you make more of an effort to engage in discussion before blindly reverting, as don't forget, removing sourced, on-topic additions is easily seen as vandalism, irregardless of how right you think you are. Here are the points I will be disagreeing on.

  • Constantly committing WP:OVERCITE. In one case like 5 IC from the same source for one paragraph that is all from the same article.
    • This is called minor sloppiness left over from an intense round of editing. Frankly, getting picky about this is like reading your student's thesis that took them five months to write, and then failing them because they used a single word too often, or had a few typos. I will re-add these sections and be pickier with citation, but remember, any wiki gnome can fix this. Earflaps (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing what Dave Hill said in his book. Do you have a copy of Teed Off? I do. The word innocence is not used.
    • I do believe we're allowed to paraphrase. All I did was re-word your own sloppy paragraph, I didn't "change" what he said by adding a specific quote.
  • Sandra Palmer was never suspended but you created a section header saying just that.
    • Oh goodness, you're right, it was "probation" for a year, not suspension. Really, you could have changed the name of the subsection instead of removing an entire sourced, relevant, and very well-written section. You baffle me.
  • Your removals in the aftermath section
    • The aftermath section was filled with random bio facts that were not deleted, but simply moved to her biography, where they belong. I also added a lovely little summary of her 'recent' awards - or did you not notice that the 'aftermath' section was four years old? It was going on about her writing an article about sexuality in LPGA propaganda, how is this related to the ongoing cheating case? It also went on about how she didn't qualify for the hall of fame. If you'd read the recent info I'd added, it makes all that bla bla about not qualifying moot, because she was given the award in 2014. Anyways, this is the final time I try and pander to your weird reversions before I take you arbitration over it. One little thing you don't like in a large bold addition is not reason to revert 'all' of it. It is, in fact, a bit ridiculous. Earflaps (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
btw, I'm not quite sure why you're so adamant about keeping all this Bob Toski stuff on the page, though I don't care enough on that point to fight much. I just feel qoutes from people more involved in the whole thing, like lawyers and committee members, would add more and be more relevant than a coach who admitted he'd never seen anything. As far as making that quote that blatantly insinuates he thinks Blalock is insane, I don't remember finding any other evidence in all the articles you found that he was involved in the legal fracas in any way. But again, whatever. I think actually building the Bob Toskii#Golf scandal page into something might be a more productive use of your interest in his narrative. The Toski page is measly as is, and doesn't mention these things at all. Earflaps (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The re-writing of any golf article here at Wikipedia doesn't bother me except when one of two things occur-
1- Factual mistakes are inserted into articles.
2- Reliably sourced content is taken out of them.
I could form a long list of the factual mistakes I've found and corrected in golf articles. Like Calvin Peete being a migrant farm worker to Dave Stockton making birdie on the 72nd hole of the 1976 PGA Championship to many more. I have worked with the pro golf tours when I have found mistakes in their records. My user page says WP has the best golf recordkeeping anywhere. It is not all my work or close to it*, Tewapack* has done great service around here as have others. So I don't like mistakes in articles and you've done it more than once. The attitude you show above in pooh pahing the Palmer mistake you made isn't helpful if you want to work with me.
With all due respect, the attitude you show in pooh pahing an entire sourced section because of one mistake isn't helpful if you want to work with me either. Just because you don't like mistakes, doesn't mean its productive for you to delete every full section you see with an inaccuracy. People don't add mistakes on purpose. Earflaps (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for reliably sourced content, there is too little around Wikipedia on anything golf related prior to the Tiger Woods era. Recentism has alot to do with it, as does that finding the history golf tours can be a very trying task*. Kathy Whitworth has won 88 LPGA tournaments more than any other player on that tour but the narrative record of it in her article is so thin it is sad. Why is it thin? There just isn't much written on Whitworth and or it is just very hard to find. Facts about Blalock before or after her LPGA troubles makes her career more detailed whether it is 100% directly related to the controversy or not. The article is partly a biography on her.
Take a peek at the Jane Blalock page. I've worked hard this weekend adding the information from her early history. So your argument "the article is partly on biography on her..." well, why? Can't the biography on her be the biography on her? Seems clear to me, the controversy page is about a legal incident at large, with Blalock only as one character in a larger plot. Sandra Palmer is as much a part of the page as Blalock is, since she was directly affected, even more negatively than Blalock you could argue. Earflaps (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My user page says I'm particular about making sure an article is reliably sourced and I am but WP:OVERCITE is something I have long taken seriously too. You kept committing OVERCITE while I keep saying in my edit summaries that was why I was changing your work. The edit summaries I do is a message.
I will pay more attention to OVERCITE. I suppose I was wondering why you didn't take the twenty seconds to clean those sections up yourself. It would have been much more helpful than a total revert. Earflaps (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your adding of detail is great and please add more if you find it, just be careful with the facts (If unsure you can always pop me a message here. I am online as long as I'm home), don't overclutter the article with ICs, and think some more on sourced content in golf articles before removing any of it.
You'll notice basically nothing in the article is removed (just trimmed a bit and reworded), except some facts where I clearly explained they seemed very off topic. I still stand by my removals in those cases. Earflaps (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Around four years ago, I did the work to create Whitworth's win and playoff boxes. She won 88 times and took part in 28 playoffs. To get those records compiled was incredibly hard. The LPGA Tour by its own admission in the tour's early days used to keep their record keeping in the trunk of somebody's car.
  • - I try to limit my hornblowing or at least try to. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Tewapack has had next to nothing to do with the article. Before I created it, I asked for his help on naming it, he didn't give it. Tewapack didn't feel it was worthy of an article. No article on a sports #1 player being suspended for a year which caused a three-year legal battle? Lets say Tewapack and I don't always see eye to eye.
      • Um, to point out, William, you're giving me hell for inaccuracies, but Blalock was actually only suspended for a week. The judge put a hold on the suspension after she'd missed only one tournament. Earflaps (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

FYI - this relates to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive942#Earflaps. Earflaps has been banned as an undisclosed paid editor, who was also socking. If you wish, any edits they made can be reverted per WP:EVASION. SmartSE (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Smartse: Thanks for the notification. I don't know if I will be reverting any edits here. One small comment- Due to my interactions with Earflaps, I would have been interested in the thread you linked to above if it hadn't been closed already. It's past. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. They edited hundreds of articles so I couldn't tell everyone unfortunately. Plenty of clean up still if you want to help out! SmartSE (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jane_Blalock_v._Ladies_Professional_Golf_Association&oldid=1207790481"