Jump to content

Talk:Zack Hample

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

Sources

[edit]

Several sources were removed from the article (diff). Listing them below, as they can potentially be used to expand the article. North America1000 02:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for adding my content

[edit]

I have added my content because its valid to the article. Even though it is unsourced for now I am working on getting the sources properly in. In addition, the sentence about him pushing kids does not belong on the header because it's not true. IsraeliIdan (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wiki 101. The rubber-band ball isn't sourced and it's debatable if it's even relevant to this person who is known for being an aggressive ball hawk. When there's a source that makes the rubber-band ball notable feel free to add it to the page. Also, if the kid claim is untrue provide a valid source that proves it's not true. Until that happens please quit removing properly sourced information. I've added a rfc since the user is starting an edit war.Nemov (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
. It is relevant. But again debatable. Will source. Yes, he's a ball hawk but he's not pushing kids. Have the source will link it. I will put the correct info in the article and those are my reasons. However, will do so in two hours since I need to go somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvikorn (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information on pushing people is reliably cited and valid for the lede Atlantic306 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it's not. I am quoting him. "You can watch me for five minutes or five years and you will never see me move or push another kid out of the way to get a baseball, also I give a lot of my baseballs to kids at the stadium". Any source that reports this is fake and should not be included in Wikipedia. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His word is not good enough. You need to provide reliable sources that it is not true. Stop removing reliably sourced information that is pertinent to the article. ~ GB fan 10:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he is banned from three stadiums is also sourced and needs to remain unless there are reliable sources that say the information is false. Please stop removing sourced content and inserting unsourced trivia. ~ GB fan 16:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is not banned from three stadiums. He has done videos during the 17-19 season at more than 30 stadiums. Source: his channel. Any source that reports this is not true and should be included in Wikipedia. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once properly cited the content is valid, please work on finding the citations before adding content to a page. This will lead to less controversy and would make discussion much more to the point. Sixteensixtyfive (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That should settle this topic for now so I'll remove the RFC. Zvikorn, future edits must be supported with citations.Nemov (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am now reverting the false edits with sources.IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he has made it into a stadium does not mean he wasn't banned. He made it into the Fort Bragg game without being eligible to get a ticket. You need to provide a reliable source to show it is not true. We do not take your or his word for it. ~ GB fan 10:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
. FORT bragg is not an MLB stadium. ALso, he's not banned. Here is the source: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO_Ro3UG5WPqwtRjzgBQugQ

He has made videos at all stadiums this year. He wasn't kicked out once! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvikorn (talk • contribs) 10:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source. ~ GB fan 10:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If VIDEO PROOF isnt reliable then what is? some fake news site? SUUUUURe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvikorn (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say Fort Bragg was an MLB Stadium. You are using the fact that he has made videos in all the MLB parks as proof he is not banned. Just like he got into the Fort Bragg game without being eligible to get into it, he can possibly get into stadiums he is banned from. His ability to make a video in a stadium is not proof he isn't banned from a stadium. It is proof he went into the stadium that is all. You also claim he wasn't kicked out but do not provide a source for that fact. Even if he was not kicked out of any stadium, that does not prove he is not banned. All it proves is that he wasn't kicked out. We use what reliable sources say about someone to build the article. We do not use what we think to be true. Things will be much easier here when you come to understand that basic fact. ~ GB fan 12:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IsraeliIdan, you really should research what is an acceptable source on Wikipedia. That should eliminate your confusion. A person's opinion isn't a reliable source that's Wiki rules. A person who is banned from a stadium could conceivably still be able to get into the stadium. His videos don't prove he's not banned. If he hasn't been banned there needs to be a notable source that disputes the claim. If you keep up these rogue edits we may request that you're locked out from this page.- Nemov (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Content should not be included until relevant sources are found. Would be smart to remove the content and re-add it when proper sources are found. PreacherBob55 (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admins please read

[edit]

until dispute can be solved I think the page should be locked. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be and it should be locked at what it was before you started removing reliably sourced information and started adding unreliably sourced information. ~ GB fan 10:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What was before is not the truth. I have provided video sourcies. The sites are fake news and should not be included on wikipedia. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please involve a different admin. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template on this section does not belong. That is what you would use to ask for an edit to an already protected article. THis article is not protected so it is a useless template. ~ GB fan 10:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a dispute. There was RFC added and no one supported IsraeliIdan's edits. There could be a case that this user is locked from editing this page given the numerous unsourced edits to the page. The user has continued to make edits even though no one on the talk page has supported his claims. - Nemov (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nemov, there is a dispute, it is one against a few but it is still a dispute. ~ GB fan 13:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zvikorn when you are unblocked, if you think this page still needs to be protected against updates you will need to request that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ~ GB fan 13:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over ban from 3 stadiums

[edit]

Nowhere in the text of source 2 by Benjamin Chase is a stadium ban mentioned at all. The article links to a tweet in which a reply mentions the ban from three stadiums. I don't see how this is a proper source for the text in the lead section and "Criticism" sections of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.147.34 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue here is that the page is receiving so many bad edits the proper sources are being removed. At some point myself or someone else can restore the source. This article mentions it: https://calltothepen.com/2017/06/21/mlb-ball-hawk-zack-hample-gets-roasted-on-twitter-after-complaining-about-clayton-kershaw/ as well as this FOX article https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mlb-ballhawk-zack-hample-gets-roasted-on-twitter-after-complaining-about-clayton-kershaw-062117 If there's a dispute about it there needs to be a source. Nemov (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official article that disputes it. However, Hample was able to go to all 30 major league stadiums in 2018. If you look on his YouTube channel, you can see this. CrispyCream27 (Talk) 06:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Hample is doing on a video isn't a source. If you have a valid source feel free to remove the cited information. What's he's doing on YouTube is irrelevant. Nemov (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
just because he visited a stadium does not mean he's not banned from that stadium. It just means he bought a ticket and stadium security didn't catch him on the way in. Which is not hard to imagine. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am late to the party, but nonetheless I am here to join the fun. My usual practice is to discuss contested issues prior to making changes and to try and avoid WP:WAR. However, in accordance with WP:BLPREMOVE, "contentious material about living persons . . . that is unsourced or poorly sourced . . . should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Furthermore, such removal falls under WP:3RRBLP (7), which exempts the removal of "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy" from the normal requirement to avoid edit warring. Thus:

I have removed the claim that Hample has been banned from three different stadiums because I could not find the source for these claims. From the discussion on this talk page, it seems that a source once existed. However, the links are dead, and a Google search is unfruitful. Feel free to discuss the issue right here, but please do not revert the deletion without a source. Unless a source is found, I will also have the old revisions deleted WP:RVDL. As a side note, I would like to see the page adhering more to WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT. WannaBeEditor (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging involved editors: @JimKaatFan:; @Nemov:; @CrispyCream27:.

Very strange. The links worked just a few days ago. I double check from time to time because this page receives so many bad edits. Maybe Hample got them to take it down since there's two sites involved. If there's nothing to back up the claim I'm fine with the removal. Nemov (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there's not much we can do unless a source magically pops up. I too am surprised that the links disappeared. CrispyCream27 (Talk) 06:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WannaBeEditor: Since the articles have disappeared without correction would the archive version still be a valid source? I found the archive version of the article. https://web.archive.org/web/20190610120345/https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mlb-ballhawk-zack-hample-gets-roasted-on-twitter-after-complaining-about-clayton-kershaw-062117 Nemov (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemov: As a general rule, many Wikipedia pages cite to archived webpages because the archived versions are a lot more stable. However, biographies of living persons are quite problematic. (You can read WP:BLPSUX if you want, but keep in mind that it's only a WP:ESSAY, not a WP:GUIDELINE.) My impression here is that the claim is simply false. In addition to believing that Benjamin Chases's original article is no more that WP:BLPGOSSIP, I think the fact that both sites took the pages down after WP editors started the discussion here, supports such a conclusion. Considering all that, I think the archived Fox article fails WP:RELIABLE, and I would thus support removing both the claim that Hample was banned, and the source from the reference list. WannaBeEditor (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's pure speculation that this article had any effect on pages disappearing. Pages disappear all the time. They can disappear for any number of reasons. The archive exist to allow us to reference the source. Is FOX source reliable? That really wasn't in question. Unless there's better reasoning I would not be in favor of removing the information. Perhaps if Mr. Chases offered some insight to support your theory, but at this stage it's just an theory. Nemov (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should have a look at this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/zack_hample/status/1113126695186436096 Zack Hample is clearly campaigning to have this sourced statement removed from his Wikipedia entry. Also of interest, Benjamin Chase clearly states that FoxSports "picked up a piece that I wrote elsewhere. I sourced where I got the information on restrictions in the original article." So Benjamin Chase clearly is not gossiping, he sourced his information on Hample being banned from three stadiums, and the Fox piece, archived or not, is clearly reliable, in my opinion. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JimKaatFan: Thanks for the information. That would explain all the bad edits. Chases clearly stand by the story and the source. This seems very reliable to me.Nemov (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zvikorn:; You've been asked numerous times to find consensus for your changes. Instead you continue to make edits. You've been blocked from making edits in the past and this will continue to happen if you ignore direction from editors and do whatever you want. I'll hold off on making further reverts since I've made three now, but your behavior continues to be disruptive. - Nemov (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page below. You are being pushy imo to other editors. You are not even an admin. Stop making threats. Idan (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging involved editors: @JimKaatFan:; @CrispyCream27:; @Strongsauce:; @Zvikorn:.

Can we come to a consensus about this section? It's been changed countless time by various users and the revert war is silly. Just come to a consensus here. Fox is by all account a reliable source. The author of the article stands by the original claim. Mr. Hample complained on Twitter which probably why people keep coming here to change the article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we can compromise, for the people who believe he is banned and security still let him in we will keep that sentence, and for the people who believe he is not banned we have that he denies the claim.
It's not a claim. He's banned from 3 stadiums. He may have gotten into those stadiums anyway, because what security guard is going to compare the thousands of people they see every day to the list of banned fans every day? It would be easy for him to slip into a stadium that he's been banned from.
JiImKaatFan, I'd like to say to everyone reading this. Be aware that this guy might not be telling the truth. The A rod deal was published publicly and the 1 hour stadium was not part of it. Please provide me photo/video evidence of him knocking over One kid and you win. Idan (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JimKaatFan:;@Zvikorn:, anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. So JimKaatFan's personal experience doesn't really matter. The changes to the article were reliably sourced. I moved the additions to the criticism section. talk) then reverted the edits again. That's 3 times in 24 hours. If you continue to revert edits I am going to request an admin block you from editing the article. If you cannot find consensus, then you need to stop making edits on the article.Nemov (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all of the information in Nemov's version is reliably sourced. I didn't say my anecdotal evidence was relevant, and I didn't include any of that in anything I've written in the article. But everything there now is sourced, and so it's very relevant. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JimKaatFan:;@Zvikorn:I'm going to refrain from making further edits until there's a larger consensus about the sections in dispute. I suggest you both do the same. I've requested a third party to come look this over. The three of us talking about it isn't bringing this to a resolution so it's best if we let someone else sort it out. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think leaving that in as-is is a bad idea, especially since wikipedia's policies are to remove anything that is in dispute to err on the safe side. Zack Hample's big claim to fame is catching baseballs so him getting banned from stadiums seems like something people would have posted about if it had any actual truth to it. Instead we have one guy who wrote an article, who is a blogger and not a news journalist, offering a statement that is not suppose to be taken as fact? But even if he was not a journalist, and could at least offer some kind of sourcing for his information, then that would also be completely fine. But there isn't any backing of the claim. I think it's pretty weird to ask other editors for proof that he isn't banned in order to get that part removed from the article. The claim that he is banned from 3 stadiums is less vigorously robust yet is allowed to stay in.
I also find it ridiculous that someone removed my inclusion of his youtube page in his profile. Apparently this is because he's not a youtuber? Uh okay. Seems more like editors are trying to control this guy's wikipedia page for some weird vendetta. Either we can decide information should stay in until they're mediated or things should stay out until they're mediated. But instead what we have are people cherry-picking and patrolling this page, deciding what is best for the article while essentially locking other people out of editing the page. seems to go entirely against the spirit of wikipedia. I welcome any third-party moderation of this issue. But honestly it's quite ridiculous that something so weakly cited is able to stay in, while something that is literally a part of the biography of the person (he posts almost regularly on his youtube channel) in question is forcibly removed each time someone wants to add it in.
Edit: After reading all the edits from Jan 20th.. Oh yeah someone definitely does not like this dude. Enough to constantly patrol what should or should not be in the article.Strongsauce (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Strongsauce:Thanks for your input. Is Hample notable for being on YouTube or for being a ball hawk? Is Fox Sport an unreliable source? Those are really the two biggest questions to sort out. If Hample is notable for being on YouTube and if the Fox site is determined to be reliable then it should be removed. There's an extensive criticism section with or with the stadium ban information. I also agree about the vendetta, but it seems to go both ways. @JimKaatFan: outlined his personal opinion above and @Zvikorn: has been blocked from editing the article twice now. I sent a request for a third party to discus the reliability of the source, but the talk page is very confusing with the multiple sections and users using multiple usernames. - Nemov (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fox Sports is not exactly the source of the article. The article was copied verbatim (I think permission was given?) on another site: FanSided and written by Benjamin Chase. Again digging into the articles, there is no evidence provided other than the statement. How does the author know he is banned? Did he ask the stadiums for their blacklists, did he ask Zach Hample, did he call up MLB's offices, or did he just make it up? No one can say since there is no sourcing. Zack Hample has also denied it. So at least that should be mentioned. Not doing so I believe violates NPOV for articles. As for the YouTube notoriety: There are articles describing him as both a YouTuber and a Ballhawk. He posts on it at a high enough frequency to get 450K subscribers and have several videos with millions of views.
Here is the charity he worked with describing him as a YouTuber: https://pifbs.org/featured-partners/zack-hample/. Here's one from a Podcast: https://radiopublic.com/what-the-buck-podcast-6NkZqw/s1!320d5. Local News: https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/berks/youtube-star-zack-hample-to-snag-balls-with-r-phils/article_99061da9-d5ca-570f-a75b-0a6d51953d30.html Strongsauce (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Fox is a reputable source than that is good enough for me. The author gave permission for Fox to use it. How the author got the information isn't really relevant if a reputable source stands behind it. Hample could have challenged it at the time and Fox would have been forced to remove it if it was in serious dispute. The author still stands by the claim according to his statements on Twitter. As far as YouTube is concerned I don't have a real strong opinion about that either way. Can you be notable for two things? There are plenty of people who have large following on YouTube who are more notable for other things. Hample is certainly most notable for his baseball collection. Nemov (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone has a YouTube page, that doesn't mean there should be a link to their YouTube page in their Wikipedia article. If a reliable secondary source talks about their YouTube page in depth, then of course it's relevant and deserves a line or two (at most). But what's been happening is that someone, either Hample or someone he knows, is changing the infobox to portray Hample's primary claim to fame as a YouTuber. It isn't. He collects baseballs. That's why he's notable. That's it. He's not notable as an author, because he's written three books that almost no one read. He's not notable as a YouTuber, because no sources mention him as a prominent YouTuber and his following is minuscule by YouTube standards. There's no vendetta against Hample at work here. There's a vendetta against unsourced information that is added by the subject of an article (or his fans). JimKaatFan (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Given that this is a BLP, and at this point the status of any purported bans is questionable at best, WP:BLP would require that any such statements stay out of the article for the moment. (If the primary publishers of the sources about the items have removed them from their sites for some reason, that leaves using the archive versions highly questionable, as their publishers may no longer believe that information to be accurate). Until the existence of any such bans have been ascertained with more certainty from reliable sources, that should not be presented in the article, especially not as undisputed fact. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, thanks for your help. I'm on board for removing the ban information from the article. Fox Sports removed all their written content from their site a few months ago to move to a video format. That change wasn't related to Hample. - Nemov (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

[edit]

I understand the reasoning for putting back the "3 stadium ban" statement, but I don't see why we can't put a YouTube infobox and label him as a YouTuber aswell. CrispyCream27 (Talk) 17:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were serveral edits after the first one so I just rolled it back to the last one before you started. I don't have an issue with the infobox. Nemov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you! CrispyCream27 (Talk) 18:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have an issue with it. That issue being, he's not known for being a youtuber, same as how he's not known for being an author, although he's apparently published two books. He's known for being a baseball collector. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think there should be kind of mention of it? I mean, he has 400k+ subscribers and regularly produces content. CrispyCream27 (Talk) 01:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hample is known for being a ball hawk. That's what is notable about him. Is it notable that he has a YouTube page? I agree with JimKaatFan, it's not notable. Nemov (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, 400k subscribers doesn't even place him in the top 5000 youtube accounts (by number of subscribers), and it's not even close. #5000 in the list has 2.4 million subscribers. People can buy subscriber numbers anyway. 400k is not a big number, in this context. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JimKaatFan:, @Nemov:, If can add my 2 cents here, I think @CrispyCream27: is correct in wanting to add Hample's YouTube activity. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article (WP:NOTEWORTHY). Thus, while Hample's YouTube page is not his claim to fame, and while he may not be a top youtuber, his activities on YouTube are significant enough to include them in his page. WannaBeEditor (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a reliable source that discusses his Youtube activity in depth, then sure. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would need to be included in the source in order to be considered "in depth?" CrispyCream27 (Talk) 06:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CrispyCream27: Not much, really. For example, you can write that Hample has upwards of X amount of subscribers and cite to the YouTube page itself. Even though it's a Primary Source, it may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source." It is obviously better if you can find some secondary sources as well (i.e., interviews where his YouTube activity is discussed) Feel free to ping me once you have added some YouTube stuff and I can look over the sources. I also intend to do some work on the page myself soon when I will have some time.WannaBeEditor (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But is his Youtube page and followers notable if no one else has mentioned it? Seems to me that you could fill up everyone's article with trivia like that, if you don't require a secondary source as a reference. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankees999:I noticed you added the YouTube infobox to this article. This has been discussed in the past and removed since it's been established that Hample is notable for being a ballhawk. He is not notiable for being on YouTube. You can review the discussion above and if you have sources to make it notable then it should be fine. I'm tagging JimKaatFan since he's been watching this discussion. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would half a million subscribers not be notable? I don't understand. Yankees999 (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable sources discussing his YouTube channel? If there are please add them to the article as outlined above. The sources in the article right now about his ball hawking and not about his YouTube page. - Nemov (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nemov is correct. If no reliable sources are discussing his Youtube channel, it is not notable. Picking an arbitrary number of subscribers and asking "How is x subscribers not notable" is pretty much the definition of WP:OR.
As a side note, if you look at the top Youtubers, 481,000 is not that much. To even crack the top 50, you need 31 million. Additionally, you can buy subscribers at a rate of about $10 per thousand. So just looking at someone's number on their Youtube page is meaningless, for Wikipedia notability purposes. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

[edit]

This page has received a couple of semi-protection to aid with vandalism, but the page is still continuously receiving bad edits. The page needs stricter edit control to prevent so many poor edits. If this is the wrong kind of protection please advise the correct course of action. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemov: This template is for requesting edits to pages that are already extended-protected. To request protection for a page, you can go to WP:Requests for page protection. You might also find WP:Protection policy useful. Alduin2000 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alduin2000:Thanks for the help. I read the documentation wrong and posted here. I have made the request and the protection has been extended. Nemov (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed line about being banned from 3 stadiums

[edit]

This part of the article is very poorly sourced. Links to an article on FOXSPORTS that is now gone, retrieving the web archive does mention that he was banned from 3 stadiums but no additional information is provided.

On twitter: Both the author of the article and the person who this bio is written about denies the claim and also denies adding that to the article. See Twitter thread here: https://twitter.com/zack_hample/status/1113126695186436096?lang=en

There is an editor on here who seems to keep reverting this change back, I am hoping he was reverting in good faith. Looking at the article cited and the fact that the author of the article denies writing it, the person this wiki page is about (Zack Hample) denies it, and the fact I cannot find other sources of this information leads me to believe that the statement about him being banned from 3 stadiums is not true at all. Strongsauce (talk)

Edit: Apologies that I missed the above discussion about this. First I was mistaken that the article's author denies writing it. He did indeed write it in another article that the Fox Sports one sourced. The article is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20190422193747/http://calltothepen.com/2017/06/21/mlb-ball-hawk-zack-hample-gets-roasted-on-twitter-after-complaining-about-clayton-kershaw/

Reading this article, it just claims that he has been banned from 3 stadiums. No mention of which stadiums, no mention of where, how, or anything other than a statement. How can this be claimed as a legitimate source with no other sites ever corroborating this?

As discussed above, the author of the reliably sourced article stands by it. This page has received a great deal of vandalism. The page has been protected because this sourced claim keeps getting removed. Until there's a reliable source to dispute the article there's no compelling reason to make a change. ~ Nemov (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source used for that statement has no actual cited source for where they got this information from. Nowhere in any of the articles that are cited does the author state where he found the source of his information. Needing a "reliable source" to dispute a statement that has no source in itself seems to make no sense. Just because a statement is made on an article on the Internet does not make it true and irrefutable without an additional source.
I am not a vandal, what I am doing is not vandalism. I have looked through all the sources for that statement and found none of them offers evidence that he is actually banned from 3 stadiums other than the author of the article mentioning it without a source. Tantamount to plain gossip. Per, WP:BLPREMOVE, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Again the cited source is extremely weak, and nowhere else on the internet can any reliable sources be found. Several different editors to this same change because they can also see that the cited source is weak.
Strongsauce (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intention to say your were a vandal. You're not, but I was pointing out that this part of the page has been the target of a great deal of vandalism. I disagree that this is poorly sourced since the original source has stood by it and it hasn't been retracted. I disagree that this is "poorly sourced," but I have been wrong before so if there's a consensus that the source that was used by other reliable sources is weak then it can be removed. Thanks for your help! - Nemov (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start from the beggining

[edit]

To nemov and his camp and to my, why don't' we compromise, I don't want to to remove anything out of your article. I don't care if you keep the whole criticize section in. All I want to add is just add that he denies being banned. Idan (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is your name Zvikorn or Idan? I'm confused. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zvikorn has also used IsraeliIdan on this Talk page. It makes following some of these discussions very difficult. - Nemov (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball collection claims

[edit]

Daniel Case raises a good point about the baseball collection section. Much of it is poorly sourced or not sourced at all. Hample's website isn't a reliable source. The entire section could be edited down to a couple of paragraphs. If no once can find reliable sources for that section I recommend removing most of it. - Nemov (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also question why every date is given with month/day/year exactitude. I often see this in other articles and trim it down to the year because I just don't see how that's encyclopedic. Are these going to become future holidays? What is the continuing relevance of these dates (other than for an editor to show their work, so to speak)? We ought to be fine with the year, and the month within the year if needed to distinguish two different times, and only use the full date when we're talking about two incidents in the same month. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you two 100%. I took out all the unsourced, as well as one source that seemed very sketchy to me. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Hample vs. the World

[edit]

I don't have the time at the moment, but this article should include a information about the documentary about Hample[1]. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look to find sources. They all seem to be paid-promotional/press release type stuff. That makes sense, given that Hample financed the "documentary" himself. I'm not sure it reaches the level needed to merit a mention. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty[2] of[3] coverage[4] I found just doing a quick search. It's more notable than much of what's included in this article. Nemov (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's "coverage", but I don't think any of those three links are strong sources. It's not like it's the NYT or rogerebert.com. I'm adding that to the fact that it was a self-produced and self-financed movie, when I make my judgment. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who produced it is kind of irrelevant if there's coverage. I just posted 3 quick sources that are good enough. It doesn't need to be covered by the NYT when there's several film sites writing about it. You don't have to add it if you don't want to... this is for someone who wants to do it. Nemov (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRITS section title

[edit]

@JimKaatFan continues to change the section title[5] that's not in line with WP:BLP/WP:CRITS policies. Please find consensus before changing it again. Thanks Nemov (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked this part of the artice to conform with WP:CRITS.[6] I hope this helps. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zack_Hample&oldid=1207530915"