User talk:Wjemather/Q1 Q2 2011

Thanks for tidying up behind me!

With this edit at Talk:The Chair (Aintree Racecourse) and your improvement to The Chair! Bigger digger (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche

Has this user been harassing you? I'm considering filing an RfC/U against this user due to talk page disruption concerning the labeling of living persons. Are you aware of any other BLP related issues involving this user? Yworo (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Harrassing is perhaps a bit strong. Let's just say there are obvious problems with their general editing relating more to WP:NPOV, but I'm sure that has inevitably crossed over into BLP problems. Normally I would say those things can be talked out, but any objection to their position is met with ad hominem arguments (attacks and accusations), wikilawyering, repetition of "its in the RS(es)" ad nauseam while disregarding the partizan nature of those sources, and bogus claims of consensus rather than contributing to a constructive discussion.

FYI I've followed the Geim discussion from afar, and am just bewildered as to why someone would be so hell-bent on labelling someone in that way. _wjemather^bigissue 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that describes the behavior I've observed. There are only two reasons for that sort of labelling that I can think of, wanting to expand the ranks of notable Jewish people through whatever means possible (i.e. increasing the headcount on List of Jewish Nobel laureates); or feeling a need to make sure all Jews are tagged and identified. I suspect the latter and it simply seems unwholesome. Yworo (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they have probably crossed the line into harrassment now. _wjemather^bigissue 20:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's humorously ironic you are being accused of wikihounding Epeefleche instead of the other way around. Epeefleche is pretty much notorious for following around anyone he has a personal beef with and intentionally taking the opposite position in discussions he's not privy to. Bulldog123 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He's done it again. Can somebody please open up that RFC/U? Bulldog123 18:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Bramlett

Give this page a once over, please!BLUE_DOG^TN 00:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

re

Hi. I've replied to your message on my page. Thank you. Whitehorse1 22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You are award The Citation Barnstar

Thanks, I'm a little surprised that the neither of the dessenters have helped with the task of restoring the valid content. _wjemather^bigissue 16:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not. I wish I could help you more, but I have another article to rescue from being deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Another issue in List of Microsoft codenames

Hello, Wjemather

Again, thank you for your efforts in this article. Your efforts are appreciated. However, I'm writing in to notify you of a very subtle matter. The issue is highlighted in WP:BRD. Fleet Command (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to Andy's restoration of the links I removed, I think I was quite right to revert. Primarily he mistakenly reinstated all the links including the rubbish, and the only one he seemingly wanted back was also of no value as explained on the talk page. _wjemather^bigissue 13:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I think it is reasonable not to rigidly stick to some rules in Wikipedia, especially since it has no firm laws. But please be careful: I've seen people making a habit of ignoring BRD and ended up experiencing bad times that a helpful Wikipedian does not deserve. Anyway, I won't be bothering you with this issue anymore. Have fun. And merry Christmas. Fleet Command (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Greg, firstly thanks for fixing the paragraphs – clearly needed doing, so never going to be an issue. Secondly, it would appear that my comments towards you may have been mis-interpreted as a general sweeping statement about all of your opinions. My comments were an instant reaction and only ever intended to refer your repetition of accusations regarding my conduct, which to my mind are misconceptions based clear factual inaccuracies (such as my involvement and opinion on Jewish lists – I had zero prior involvement with any of them, nor expressed any opinion on the virtue of them; and I have never said Wikipedia’s criteria need revisiting). In any case, I should not have shot from the hip like I did and apologise for any offense caused. Finally, always feel free to post here should you so wish. _wjemather^bigissue 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your above gesture. We seldom cross paths in our own editwars but we do seem to periodically cross paths when you and Epeefleche are bitch-slapping each other. Let’s, you and I, seize the moment to make a fresh start. I’m sure you’ve seen my past practice of linking “collaborative writing,” which is intended as a humorous stress reliever that acknowledges the conflict that occasionally arrises. But the link also implies that Rebecca can call Gary a “neanderthal” and—at the end of the day—you and Epee can amicably call it a day. Greg L (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You're most welcome, of course. I actually hadn't read that one, but I've seen a similar tale somewhere with the same message. Yes, I'm still hopeful Epeefleche and I will be able to interact constructively without friction in future, but I'm not sure what there is I can do at this point to change their interpretation of my every action. Until that happens, I'll just avoid interacting with them even more than I was doing before. I'm open to suggestions on how to resolve the situation, if you have any ideas. _wjemather^bigissue 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • What you don’t see can’t annoy you. That’s seriously all I’ve got. Wikipedia is a big world so it should be a seldom occurrence that you two find yourself seated next to each other at the same bar at the same hotel in the same city wondering why the other guy’s got such a fat ass that it’s encroaching into your personal space. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, not exactly how I'd put it. However, given how long we've been on here, it's inevitable we will run into each other occasionally, especially on interest crossovers (as in this case with golfers), and when that happens I'd rather it did not degenerate in the manner it has recently. Still, if you do think of anything. _wjemather^bigissue 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

TPC

You completely changed all things I had done to correct the TPC pages. Explanation is need to why you do not agree with those changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.96.248 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, it was not just me who reverted your changes. Secondly, your changes conflicted not only with reliable sources but also with the PGA Tour's own TPC Network directory. Please feel free to use the article talk page if you have any more changes you want to see, so that they can be discussed first and will not then be reverted later. Finally, the changes I reverted related mostly to incorrect capitatisation. We do not duplicate companies preference for capitalising words that would not normally be so capitalised (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) for further info). Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 21:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are completely wrong. I would consider myself a reliable source and could basically prove all the changes I made. As you also said about PGA TOUR. It is capitalized, all the letters not just P, G, A and T but the whole name. Look it up. Apparently not many people are familiar with how the courses are titled, there are PGA TOUR owned and/or operated courses then Licensed Facilities. Please provide more details on these changes because the changes I made are in fact correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.96.248 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, see http://www.pgatour.com/company/about_us.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.96.248 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the above information, who do you think put all the information about TPC San Antonio and TPC Cancun? Who put the information about TPC Beijing when you can't find it anywhere else but wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.96.248 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:Identifying reliable sources to help discover why you are not in fact a reliable source. If you add information that cannot be verified, it will be removed – see WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research to find out why.

The PGA Tour's TPC Network has 2 categories of course [1]: "Daily Fee and Resort Courses" & "Private Courses", there is no "Licensed Courses" category – you seem to invented that yourself. I can also find nothing to verify that "TPC Beijing" is in the pipeline, in fact there are zero results on google for that term.

I am well aware that the PGA Tour use all-caps styling, but third party publications do not [2], and nor do we. _wjemather^bigissue 00:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Email me at go1f.junkie@yahoo.com and I can send you a paper that will verify both the licensed courses and TPC Beijing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.96.248 (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also here is a great example of two courses that are under licensing agreements. http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/oct/05/golf-dorals-blue-monster-pga-wests-stadium-courses/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.96.248 (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done some additional reflecting on your point above. It seems obvious you agree that the correct text for pga tour should be "PGA TOUR", correct?

I have also done some additional research in your theory about the PGA TOUR only having two types of courses: daily fee/resort and private. You will notice that if you click on the daily fee/resort or private courses I listed as licensed facilities, you will notice that there is a link that takes you away from the TPC website. Most of these courses are owned by Heritage. A perfect example of this TPC Las Colinas, TPC Tampa Bay and TPC Stadium Course at PGA West. Many of the private courses that are PGA TOUR owned and operated courses have their own website for member login. That is the reason. Lastly, the course locator link you posted showed the courses are officially drops the at and of off their names. Why has this convention not been accept in the article changes I made. I guess this holds true to the renaming of The Players Championship to just The Players as shown on the PGA TOUR website. http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/r011/

By the way, I hope you are understanding my points and are taking them as valid. I am trying to make these pages are correct as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.96.248 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. I understand fully all your points, however, the changes you want to make contravene our policies and guidelines, as indicated above. As for the naming issue, see WP:NAME. _wjemather^bigissue 18:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not following you. Most of these things are documented. Please provide additional details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.96.248 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am still awaiting an email so I can provide you with verification. go1f.junkie@yahoo.com

Really, not necessary. If you cannot point to reliable 3rd party sources, then we do not include it. It's that simple. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a document from the PGA TOUR. You can't find it in the public domain, nor can I send you the full document due to sensitivity issues. I am very passionate about making these articles correct. It is something that really bothers me since I know it isn't correct, kind of like when ESPN talks about the PGA players. That isn't correct, they are PGA TOUR players.........just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.96.248 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It that case, it constitutes WP:Original research, and as such cannot be included. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability not truth". _wjemather^bigissue 13:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree but you are the one improperly informing the public. I made it correct but apparently providing correct information isn't what we should supply to the golf world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.96.248 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough of this. I can only assume that you have not read any of the policies and related guidelines I have directed you to, so it is completely pointless to prelong this discussion. Finally, if there were a TPC Beijing in the pipeline, then there would be an abundance of coverage in mainstream news media. Since there isn't any coverage at all, it is entirely reasonable to assume there either is no such project, or that any such project is in the very early preliminary pre-conception stage. Either way, it doesn't get mention on Wikipedia. _wjemather^bigissue 18:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

John Hawksworth (golfer)

• Marvellous work on the above, many thanks. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 22:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche Part 2

So now he's adding List of Jewish sportspeople external links to literally hundreds of articles. Bulldog123 01:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, been going on for weeks now. It was the piped addition of the NPOV violating word "select" (i.e. List of select Jewish X) to those additions in golfer bios that led me to raise a glaring problem with that list which in turn drew a very hostile response and then a brush off – see the talk page – and I'm not inclined to get re-involved at this time I'm afraid. _wjemather^bigissue 10:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting increasingly tired of his shenanigans.Brought it to BLPN. Bulldog123 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I share your concerns but as I've already said, having gotten the short end of the stick recently I've no desire to dive in again at this stage. _wjemather^bigissue 22:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Predictable responses so far. Suggest you might take it to the RS noticeboard as well before going further down the DR process. _wjemather^bigissue 08:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes the entire noticeboard was railroaded by some weird comments by User:Greg L and now I don't know what's what anymore. Bulldog123 04:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new there. Just need to ignore the attempted sidetracking and re-focus on the big issues, I think – the less than reliable sourcing and the BLP problems that creates. Other problems can be dealt with later unless they get out of hand. _wjemather^bigissue 16:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

King's Cup (golf)

Hi, Please check the 2009 score. When the par is 72, the level par score after 4 rounds is 288. How can 268 be -14?? 77.162.13.83 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Corrected now. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 16:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The PGA Professional Golfers' Association

Hi Wjemather

I'm head of media at The Professional Golfers' Association and new to Wikipedia but am trying to update the content about our organisation.

I see you have undone my changes, can you clarify why exactly so i can understand the process.

Many thanks

Nat Sylvester 01675 470333

nathaniel.sylvester@pga.org.uk

NathanielPeter (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I had guessed as much. I have left notices on your talk page which contain links to all the relevant policies and guidelines. The major concern here is that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and your additions were not. They also contained peacock terms and other unsubstantiated claims. You are of course welcome to update the article and provide correct information, but it must comply with the aforementioned policies and it would be best if it were referenced from third party sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) rather than the PGA website. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 12:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the revert for some reason User:Sculptor Dame is adding spurious maintenance templates to ALL the articles I have created? cheersTeapotgeorge^Talk

I only removed the very obvious bullshit ones (advert tags). I'm always suspicious when a "new" user starts tagging like that, especially when they are articles created (or recently edited) by one individual – I smell socks (blocked ones, usually). _wjemather^bigissue 00:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD question on some cricket leagues

I thought I'd ask you before nominating these two articles. I'm not quite sure if a proposed league is notable and you are a cricket expert.

1) American Premier League A league that was proposed to start in 2009 and never did. The official site link at the bottom is to a fan site that hasn't been updated for awhile. The official site hasn't been updated since 2009.

2) Major League Cricket is a little trickier. As a company, it was around seven years, but never formed the league it was proposing. Their website went belly-up in December 2007.

Bgwhite (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because they may have folded does not make them non-notable – see WP:NTEMP. That said, my instinct tells me that MLC probably is/was notable and APL probably isn't/wasn't. The cricket project's talk page – WT:CRIC – would be the best place to get a broader view on this. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 18:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Thanks for the note. Just thought those links were helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalartstation (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Digitalartstation. _wjemather^bigissue 19:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading the logo.but can we use something else? :)?

Hi, Thank you so much for updating the logo! Such a great help. I was wondering if you can update it to this logo instead - http://www.shopritelpgaclassic.com/downloads/SR_LPGA_Logo_Vertical.jpg. Thank you sooooo much!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalartstation (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done with lowered resolution to comply with fair-use. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 19:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomads Golf Club

I have editted the article after placing the hangon tag on the page and have added comments to the discussion page. I am unsure how much to add to the discussion page. I am also EXTREMELY frustrated with the fragmented nature of administration on Wikipedia, as Admin's opinions, viewpoints and biases clearly come into play. The article has been reduced and reduced over time and it still gets tagged for speedy deletion for differing reasons. The consistency for deletion is fractured.Highlanderdownunder (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I previously advised to to become familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is clear you have not done that. Instead you keep writing the article by closely paraphrasing the various nomads websites. This makes it both promotional and a violation of copyright. _wjemather^bigissue 08:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it is promotional. If I were to be granted use of the text from the National body's website, would that suffice to prove no copyright infringement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlanderdownunder (talk • contribs) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You do not seem to have taken on board any of the comments received at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 28#Nomads Golf Club. Regardless, it would still not avoid the fact that it would be written in a promotional tone and violate WP:NPOV policy. Instead of wasting time trying to get copy-pasted material into an article, it would be better if you simply deleted the entire content of User:Highlanderdownunder/Nomads Golf Club, which still contains massive copyright violations by the way, and started again using your own words. _wjemather^bigissue 08:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I'll be taking this Epeefleche issue to ANI. This is a required notification. You may delete upon reading it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, just what we need. More drama. _wjemather^bigissue 16:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe a path to resolution. It's worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche

Can you not just avoid him? He clearly (rightly or wrongly) doesn't want to hear from you and your posting on his talk page is only going to aggravate him. If you have something that you really need to bring to his attention, post it on my talk page. You're obviously a good editor who cares a lot about the project, so don't let whatever animosity you and Epeefleche have between you get in the way of that. Whatever the cause of the animosity (I don't know if it's your fault or his), it's not worth getting another block over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The message I posted with regard to fair-use rationale was intended as helpful guidance, nothing more, and was worded as such. It wasn't a warning and contained nothing confrontational yet was met with a totally unacceptable response. I neither have the time nor the inclination to respond to every innaccurate statement, misrepresentation and false allegation that will now be presented at AN/I by Epeefleche and friends, who seem intent on doing nothing more than using your decision insert the words "harassment of Epeefleche" in my block log as a big stick to beat me with. _wjemather^bigissue 23:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Interaction Ban

Per my closure of the AN/I thread: you are now subject, by community consensus, to a ban on interacting with Epeefleche. If you come across a related CCI concern please privately contact Moonriddengirl with the details, she has offered to resolve any such issues. I know you volunteered to a self-imposed ban on AN/I but the consensus is to formalise it - and I feel it cannot hurt to do so. Any questions; drop me a line. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)