User talk:Zeng8r/Archive/2007-2017

My Talk Page Archive, 2007 - 2017

(aka A DECADE OF BLAH-BLAH-BLAH)

History of Ybor City

Each major city has it's own history page e.g. History of Los Angeles, California or History of Miami. The History of Tampa was started about a couple of years ago, but the quality of the article was poor until you came along to help me tremendously with the quality. Thanks Zeng8r! Since Ybor City has an extensive (and quite unique) history as Tampa itself, I also made an separate article, just in case the Ybor City article gets to lengthy. A great thank you for halp improving the Tampa articles. Cheers! --Moreau36 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if you'll get a notice that I replied, but... ok, it's not a big deal, but it seems like the same thing over and over again. You're welcome; I enjoy it AND I'm actually planning on writing a book based on the history I already knew plus the research I gathered... Zeng8r 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just got the message. The best of luck with your book. Judging by your edits, you'll do an outstanding job with your book. I'll definitely buy it. --Moreau36 23:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's two copies spoken for - you and my mom. It'll be a Tampa history-lite, for kids and busy adults. Over the last few years, I've put together a booklette on local history for my 5th grade classes since there really isn't anything for that audience in print right now. So I'm building on that. Zeng8r 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Peace

Hi. Sorry to have stepped so solidly on you toes. I should have chosen my words more wisely. One thing that I have discovered at WP is that few people are going to read long statements on talk pages. It's just a fact, sad but true. Best of luck and here's to happier times working together. --Kevin Murray 02:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings; it's not personal, it's just wiki. My outrage was fueled by the irony of being asked to help redesign the county's local history curriculum on the same day that excerpts from my bigwig-impressing manuscript are being (unjustly, imo) criticized on this site. Zeng8r 02:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My passion is sailing and that's what I came here to write about. But I got both barrels of the critical shotgun on my first major article, which was about Catalina Yachts. I was accused of being a shill for the factory etc. My pictures were deleted because it "looked too much like a catalog." Another article about a major design team who had designed America's Cup boats was deleted as "vanity spam". No good deed goes unpunished. Please don't lose interest in the project. --Kevin Murray 15:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kind reminder

After seeing your edits to a few South Florida related articles, I saw that you are a great writer (to be expected of an English teacher). However, the tone you are utilizing in writing does not really fit in with the proper tone of an encyclopedia. Brittanica, World Book, and Encarta do not use terms like "heydey" or phrases such as "Sometimes, big things grow from unlikely beginnings." While this is expected of prose, it is not expected of encyclopedia articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I have serious misgivings about the way many wikipedia members forget the 5 pillars of wikipedia (not to mention standards of quality writing) and instead become fixated on their fuzzily-understood concept of "encyclopedic", which they obviously think means "so dry and boring that nobody would read it unless their teacher made them."

Looking though wikipedia, I have yet to find any policy, guideline, or rule which my writing violates. I have found plenty of poorly organized collections of garbled information posing as coherent articles. Those are the entries that need the attention of editors, not articles that are written "too well" (an actual quote from an email I received).

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be part of a project that is devoted to foisting more mind-numbingly dull prose on the world. But, nonwithstanding the opinions of some, I don't think that's the objective of wikipedia at all. Zeng8r 11:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuban sandwich

Hi! I see you've gotten kinda wound up about the Cuban sandwich article after trying to deal with a difficult editor. I how frustrating it can be, but I'd encourage you to try to keep your WP:COOL. Getting your dander up almost always makes the problem worse, especially with newcomers like the anonymous editor presumably is. Best regards, William Pietri 03:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. It's frustrating dealing with someone who keeps repeating the same (inaccurate) edit w/o discussion, especially on a topic near and dear to my stomach, er, heart. Thanks for taking a look. Zeng8r 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Zen, your knowledge of the history of our metro area is impressive. Nice articles! Blaze33541 (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I...I...I don't know what to say... except that I'm off to get some cafe con leche with Cuban toast to celebrate! Zeng8r (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Sabbatical Over (kinda)

A column in today's Tampa Tribune apparently referencing wikipedia's Cuban sandwich article caught my eye, so I came back to check it out. Thankfully, I guess somebody else also saw it and repaired the inaccuracies before I had to do it (again).

However, I'm still a bit soured on the wikipedia experience and my time is still limited, so I'll only be making limited contributions and edits for the foreseeable future. Zeng8r 01:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow Never Knows

Thanks a lot for your review of the Fabs song. Could you take it off the Good Article Candidates list? Thanks again. --andreasegde 01:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I put one on the list, thought I should review one on a subject I kinda knew.... Zeng8r 01:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Strategy for Ybor City

02-Dec-2007 (From Wikid77): After reading the latest additions to the talk page (for "Ybor City"), I realize there are difficult opponents. I've found that the best hope is typically to focus on the History article (created by User:Moreau36). It's really amazing how much can be put over there with little objection/revision: just compare the history/revision-log of Ybor City versus the other article. Most wannabe experts just don't gut history articles as often.

Any city/town article seems to attract the "factoid-fans" who tend to gut everything towards becoming a fact-sheet, listing simple things, such as a list of city monuments, or a list of nearby schools. Those factoid-fans seem to think by removing paragraphs about a town's past, they allow more space for the "important" lists of stuff in the article. In fact, months ago, several editors, in the style of a group attack (a "cliqueopedia"), had even pretended to me that they were implementing a "new Wikipedia standard" for the infobox and layout of all city/town articles. On the contrary, there are several (competing) groups that have multiple styles & infobox tables for how to structure and condense city/town articles for various states/nations. The general problem with putting interesting text in a city/town article is that those articles (such as "Ybor City") attract those factoid-fans from the masses, en masse, so they win edit wars by the mass attack.

As you have clearly seen, the Wikipedia process is fatally flawed, with no measurement for when an article is "good enough" to leave intact (without gutting). Other editors, besides yourself, have questioned massive rewrites of their articles, so I have seen multiple articles hacked (when "good enough was good enough"). The Wikipedia policies are so poor that I had thought that, obviously, there should be other wiki encyclopedias where I could take my articles for better protection, but most other wiki projects are even worse for crazy policies. Wikipedia is big, with enough resources to become something good, some day, by improving edit-policies in the future. The strategy today is to "hide" valuable writing, such as in history articles (which bore the hacking masses), until the day that Wikipedia policies mature more to deal with controlling the hacks in today's complex world. Wikipedia article-management is a joke: you find Microsoft hiring people to alter/spin computer articles to their favor; Jewish slanting is systematically removing the word "Jew" from certain articles. Any real encyclopedia, or even tourism website, is tempted to hire hacks to gut Wiki articles about Florida's tourist destinations. They can easily continue making Wikipedia look like a joke, while offering better articles about tourist spots in Florida on their websites.

For now, put the best writing in history articles. For editing "Ybor City" when someone hacks or inserts false text, tag it [with "{{fact}}"], and then it can be removed in a week or so. Meanwhile, readers will see "citation needed" and think, "Humm, that statement is probably false." Multiple hackings can be reverted in that manner, but it takes weeks to slip all the changes back in. Fortunately, most people who fight obstinately, on their initial edits, will lose interest in only a few weeks, and the text can be returned as before. I feel certain that Wikipedia policies will improve soon, because the wild masses now have joined the editing, and many wiki managers have realized that "too many KOOKS spoil the broth" (or the article). Hang in there: there is real hope for a sensible future in Wikipedia. -Wikid77 11:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. This site has become so important as a world-wide repository for information, but it’s frustrating to see how easy it is for just a few misguided (or, even worse, malicious or manipulative) users to distort, destroy, and misrepresent accurate material contributed by users who actually know what they’re talking about. Zeng8r 16:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility warning on Talk:Ybor City, Tampa, Florida

Hello Zeng8r, I'm quite concerned about your comments on the Ybor City talk page. You seem to be trying to exert an extreme sense of ownership over this article; I would ask that you keep in mind that no one owns any article. Please also remember to assume good faith in your dealings with other editors; operate from the standpoint that people are trying to help the article, not hurt it. Your comments are bordering on personal attacks, which is why I chose to leave you this message. Please be more civil with your statements in the future. Thanks. GlassCobra 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you're repeating the same words as the person I'm debating on that article, I assume you haven't read that entire talk page. (Can't blame you, it's far longer than the article itself...)

In a nutshell, the issue is that a couple of editors have completely rewritten an article on a subject about which they admittedly know nothing due to an (inaccurate, imo) claim of "tone" problems. As someone who helped to write the original article and who knows quite a great deal about the subject, I objected. The only "attack" was me 1) repeatedly stating that they had no grasp of the topic and were making errors of both fact and omission in their edits and 2) quoting the wikipolicies they cited and pointing out that they clearly did not justify their actions.

In response, one of the users in question suddenly changed the reason for the extreme edits from tone to a "lack of references". When I pointed out that it already had many references, he began to nitpick sentence by sentence, stating that pretty much every phrase needed a citation, to the point that it was obviously a facetious and unconstructive attempt to prolong an invalid argument.

I was done arguing at that point and told him so. I guess reporting me for "incivility" is a way to try to continue the debate. I don't see how that would be productive, since it's very hard to assume good faith under these circumstances.

Oh, almost forgot to mention... a "tone" banner was placed on the article back in early October and was removed after discussion. But the same editor put it back on a few weeks later, restarting the debate and quickly editing the text before any knowledgable users besides myself noticed what was going on. Zeng8r 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have read the entire talkpage; you are assuming bad faith when you assume that I would not fully acquaint myself with the situation before involving myself. Contrary to what you apparently believe, I am repeating what those who disagree with you have said because they are quite correct. Plain and simple, Wikipedia does not allow peacock terms, and whether or not they are "common knowledge" does not make them compatible with the neutral point of view policy. You would do very well to read the most recent section on the Ybor City talk page. GlassCobra 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I assumed you didn't read the talk page because 1) I've seen more than one instance in which a 3rd party took a side in a dispute on the word of one person without actually reading the entire discussion and 2) I disagree with both your assement of both the article and my behavior and thought perhaps it was do to a lack of context. In any case, you do deserve some credit if you did read all of that pontificating...

I don't believe I crossed any lines in that discussion, but if I did, I followed in the footsteps of other participants, one of whom began the "discussion" by making accusations of plagerism in an edit summary. And it certainly seemed obvious to me that one in particular (skunk-something) is a whole lot more interested in endless argument that in collaborative encyclopedia building.

Also, I am aware of wikipedia's "peacock" policy. The original article did not violate it. While you may not agree, my viewpoint is shared by other users on the relevant talk page. I wouldn't have made a peep of protest about minor adjustments, however, and could have easily clarified any details with more cited facts if requested.

What a couple of users actually did, however, was rewrite huge chunks of text, blindly removing and over-condensing and questioning basic info despite a total lack of knowledge of the subject. That's the issue I have with the edits. And, by the way, I actually did fix some of the introduced errors several days ago. The repairs were wiped out in a wave of further edits, which is why I do not intend to return to the article until the flurry passes.

Again - did you catch that this new argument was a resumption of a recently closed one? The previous "tone" banner was discussed and removed about a month ago. As you can see from the page history, it wasn't me who removed it - it was someone else who agreed that the article was fine as-is. Is it acceptable to repeatedly slap a warning on an article and restart the debate until you get the result you want? It's unconstructive to the greater good of this whole project, imo - editors should move on and find one of the thousands and thousands of article that actually need help. Zeng8r 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Zeng from mikeL.

Thanks for your response to my latest comments on the Ybor page. They were meant for this page but I got muddled. My point is that you are always vulnerable to fools because of the way Wikipedia works. You can not alter that. My attitude is patient resignation mixed with mild contempt.

The wartime servicemans phrase "don't let the bastards grind you down" and Groucho's (well it should have been his) "is this a private fight or can anyone join in ?" come to mind. Remember most of these unadjusted clowns have an intolerent need to assert themselves and Wikipedia gives them a way to do so. Pity that they completely ignore the purpose of Wikipedia in the process.

Anyone who battles against all this is an ill-advised hero. So take it easy(?easily?),

enjoy your daughter and I hope in a small way my best wishes from mikeL

...now sinbot (little cutie) can sign this for me I think it makes him happy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the reassurances that this whole place isn't a completely lost cause. I was pretty steamed at first, but now "patient resignation mixed with mild contempt" is an apt description of my current attitude as well, perhaps with a little pity thrown in.

Have you noticed the latest edit summaries (and edits) on the Ybor City article? Jeez. Just... jeez. Know any good admins? They (I suspect sockpuppets are involved, but whatever) have the article locked down right now with instant reverts. I'd like to actually restore it at some point, but I'm not going to waste my valuable time if every contribution starts a new edit war. Zeng8r (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ybor City

Hey. I saw your note on the WP:Florida page and I took a look at the Ybor City article. I'd like to offer a few friendly suggestions. First of all you have to aproach things calmly. It's really easy to get really emotional about things especially when you're dealing with something that's close to you as Ybor apparantly is. Most people aren't trying to piss you off intentionally. They just want what's best for wikipedia. TSecondly, I suggest you read up on the guidelines you've been cited. Understanding how the policies work will help you argue your points effectively. Now, this one is specific to the last discussion on the talk page. What wikipedia policy ammounts to is that you can say that someone considered Ybor a "hip place to be" but you can't say that Ybor is a "hip place to be". Do you understand the difference? And yes you'll have to use reliable sources to back things up. Even if you feel it's trivial and even if you have to use the same source more than once in the same paragraph. The reason is that people will challenge you. If it's backed up then it's backed up.

I got most of my experience in these matters working on articles for WP:AFRO. Nearly every article we work on is contentious. Outside of religion and politics they're some of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia. What you're dealing with is nothing. Trust me. But if you're patient and you are willing to make adjustments to your content to fit with Wikipedia then it'll be fine.

I'll try to keep an eye on the Ybor article so there can be a bit of balance. Good luck. CJ (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was rather pissed by the discussion-opening edit summary, but I've been relatively calm (if a bit sarcastic) since then. My main concern was that users with absolutely no knowledge about Ybor/Tampa were rewriting and ruining pretty good article. Now that it seems that they're balanced by a number of local editors, I can sit back, relax, and let the editing process happen.

Anyway, thanks for the advice and the input. Zeng8r 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey look, here's the deal, right now because you're the only voice of dissent the merger is probably going to go through. I know you don't agree with it but if you keep working on the entire Ybor city article and size becomes an issue (it gets over something like 30kb) the history can be split back out. Please don't take it personally. It's just how wikipedia works. A lot of the concerns have nothing to do with content or knowing the content. It's about organization. And the quality of the work won't be affected. CJ (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge isn't the question, imo; it's the info that's important. My goal is to push the new version of the History of Ybor City to Good Article quality or better, which would probably make it too long to be a section in another article. But I really don't mind if it's merged or not as long as a comprehensive history is on here somewhere.

And thanks for your concern; I'll be ok... ("deep breaths, deep breaths") :-)

Seriously, the thing that ticked me off there were those non-locals judging the article and taking stuff out out of sheer ignorance ("Errybody in Florida has alligators in the yard!"), then arrogantly arguing that they were better judges than I to decide what should be included or not. Zeng8r (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Now we have 2 Barnstars

• I agreed with you both, and felt we should have seperate Athletic & Academic Barnstars. I am really getting excited and I hope it brings in alot of editors to the project. Jccort (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think it's for the best. Do you know how to set them up as templates? I have no idea myself... Zeng8r (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your image uploads

I've noticed that you've uploaded a lot of images in JPG format. However, it is prefered that images are uploaded in lossless formats, such as PNG. This is easy to do, if a photograph, just copy and paste it into a graphics program, such as MS Paint, then when saving, select PNG as the type, as opposed to JPG. Don't believe me? Then check this out. Anyways, it would be more preactical and efficient if all images were in PNG. Thanks.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. I tend to automatically save my to-be-uploaded stuff as jpegs, but it's not a big deal to save it in a different format. Zeng8r (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table RfC

Hi, I see you edited the Oxford Round Table article. Do you think you could comment on the RfC on the ORT talk page? We have not yet gotten comments from outside editors like yourself. Thanks!Academic38 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked it over and honestly have no idea if the suggested changes are for the best or not.

Actually, it's a pet peeve of mine when editors who know nothing about a topic start tossing out opinions and blindly hacking at the article, arrogantly stating that their edits and suggestions should count for more because they're "uninvolved 3rd parties". Since I know nothing about the Oxford Round Table and only stumbled upon the controversy accidentally, I don't feel at all comfortable contributing any more than the little bit I've already done. Don't wanna be "That Guy", if you know what I mean.

So nothing personal, but I'm going to step out of the OTR article discussion and stick to editing topics on which I'm more informed. Zeng8r (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The University of Florida Barnstar

• I created the Barnstar. Please feel free to edit the award in any fashion that you choose. I just wanted to get it out there, but please tweak the Barnstar as you see fit. Thanks Jccort (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not bad. I'll have a little time later today and I may tweak the image a bit if you don't mind. Like I said, good idea for the award. Zeng8r (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I Am That Perry Bruns

I did graduate Jesuit High School of Tampa in 1988. I'm surprised my writing skews young for you--most people have thought my writing made me sound like an old man from the age of 16 on.

Besides...there really aren't that many Brunses in general, and even fewer Perry Brunses on this planet. I'm pretty sure I'm the only one currently residing in North America. P.F. Bruns (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Dude, we served time together in the ol' JHS band! Email me when you get a chance, pls: zeng8r(at)verizon.net Zeng8r (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Al Lang

My bad! I had no idea we were getting this at the same time...hopefully, I didn't overwrite anything you did. I'll check and see if everything I've done is OK as well! Glad to see I'm not the only one working on this, though ;-) EaglesFanInTampa 14:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You saved first, and I think I cut and pasted your edits into the stuff I did. Just wanted to give you a heads-up in case I missed something. It's certainly an appropriate day to edit the article. Actually, I'm heading out to the (last) game pretty soon... Zeng8r (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't, cause I'm working and I just took off yesterday to close out Chain of Lakes Park over in Winter Haven. Watching the Rays close two stadiums in as many days is really interesting; it could possibly be a third if the Reds can't get a deal with Sarasota to keep them in Ed Smith Stadium, either. Just eerie I say.... EaglesFanInTampa 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Zeng8r for the warm welcome back!! Sitting here in L.A., I do miss being in Tampa due to it's uniqueness. I will continue to work on Tampa-related articles. With your help, we have more of Tampa to read about on wikipedia. Thanks and cheers! :) --Moreau36 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

UF pics

Hey, if you need any on campus photos, I'll be hopping up there again sometime soon-ish, I'm sure. Or anything in and around Gainesville, really. I mean, I got a shot of the potato. I can just as easily get some of the Fries. :) Btw, going to St. Augustine this weekend. Anything there you'd like shots of? That's not an NRHP or NHL or suchlike, that is. -Ebyabe (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're welcome! It's another flawless victory for righteous truth!!!!1! Or maybe just for statistics. But definitely one of the two... :-) Zeng8r (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Somebody keeps removing your edits, on Croquette, I do not understand why. Surely this is an international food item?

Warrington (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! This is is an unproductive, repeated, combative reversion on the article, repeatedly reverting each other's edits, and I suspect that it qualifies for edit war. It probably should be reported according to the policy. Maybe this tag would help?

{uw-3rr}} Warrington (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like this editor's only choice is to wipe everything, compromise is unlikely. A 3-revert tag would probably only inflame the situation further, however. There's a 3rd party dispute resolution page where the article can be listed and uninvolved editors can take a look and give their opinion. I'm pretty sure the consensus will be to do as we've suggested - tag sections with and go find more sources. Zeng8r (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are probably right. A 3rd party dispute resolution page seems like a good solution . If the article can be listed there than this will stop beeing a local conflict. A rather silly one, too. Since when are croquettes a cntroversial issue? They are like french fries, meatballs, mashed potatoes, dumplings or hamburgers, you can find them everywhere. Do you know how to list this article there?

Warrington (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is kinda ridiculous, isn't it? I don't see the reason for the wiping zeal. The problem is that the article is difficult to source because it's a common food that doesn't usually garner a lot of press, just a lot of satisfied eaters. I bet there are more sources in versions of the article in other languages, but I only speak-a the English and Spanish.

The third party dispute page is here: WP:Third opinion. The article's on my watchlist, so I'll chime in on the talk page again if need be. Zeng8r (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is ridiculous. I suspect that the reason for this wiping zeal is about, well, a kind of hidden satisfaction in making people upset or bossing them around. I was thinking about just give up the whole thing, but than that will learn people to get around using force and arrogance.

So you listed the article?

Unfortunatelly, there are no sources in versions of the article in other languages, I checked that.

And one more thing. This is the current version, what is left of the list. I have to say that this sounds weird. Krokett is a Hungarian croquette. In this current new edit it disapeared somewhwre. And where is the Czech variety?

“This variety can be ordered in most restaurants as a side dish as well as bought frozen”

it sounds like you can buy Hungarian Krokett in Orange County or somewhere in New Brunswick. I mean making so much fuss about correctness, and than not beeing correct yourself.

[edit] Variations "Krokett" is a small cylindrical croquette made similar the Czech variety: potatoes, eggs, flour, butter and touch of nutmeg and salt that are deep fried in oil. This variety can be ordered in most restaurants as a side dish as well as bought frozen. Croquette can be made with cheese too, called turokrokett[1]. In Tampa, Florida, there is a type of croquette made with seasoned crab meat that is traditionally breaded with stale Cuban bread. Locally, this is known as a deviled crab (croqueta de jaiba).[2]

And the new edit makes it sound like all croquette with cheese is called turokrokett (HUngarian for cheesecroquette)

Warrington (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

Do you know anything about this subject? Jelly cream pies.

Warrington (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really, tho they sound pretty tasty. Why? Zeng8r (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a silly, sudden idea. I thought that you maybe had the right knowledge to edit on that article. Sorry to bother you.

Warrington (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No bother at all. I just tend to stick to topics that I know pretty well. The issues in the croquette article came to my attention because I'd added the mention of deviled crabs a while back and the article was still on my watchlist. I love me some croquetas, hence the "I know pretty well" connection. Zeng8r (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WQYK (AM)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from WQYK (AM). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. P.S.: at Wikipedia, when we discuss a history of a radio station, we discuss the history of that frequency, not the call letters. Therefore, it is important that the history of 1010 AM as WINQ and WCBF must be included. The history of 1110 is not only mentioned in this article, it is also at WTIS. Thanks for your cooperation. -- azumanga (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was both rude and inaccurate. I indicated the reasons for my edits on the WQYK (AM) article both on the talk page AND in my edit summaries. My repeated calls for discussions have never received a response - not last March when you first made inappropriate (imo) changes, not a few weeks ago when you made them again, and not yesterday, when you instead deposited this condescending canned message on my talk page.

Once again, I'll try to discuss this on the appropriate talk page... Zeng8r (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree

Nice userpage!

And your opinion about the project, well, sadly, I couln't said it better myself.

It is full of rude people around here.

Warrington (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're right. That's why I stay in my wikiorge cave most of the time... Zeng8r (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a reminder

Don't forget to sign talk page comments, especially warnings. It makes it easier to see if the problem edits have been repeated after the warning if you do so. Thanks! —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do... --Zeng8r (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Now they start deleting the Croquette‎ again

And they did it all wrong too. Now they call the Hungarian for Czech.

Fixed all the references, GRRRRRRR.

Warrington (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a lot of work, good job! Now the little croquette article has almost as many citations as the one on the front page... lol... Zeng8r (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You bet!!! It WAS a lot of work, and not one wrong information in the whole stuff. People do not add false and misleading information about food that wouöd justify extra caution.

And it IS kinda overreferenced... If somebody adds more tags I am going to scream!!!

Warrington (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

White Witch

Thanks for your work on White Witch (band). Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. They were before my time and I'd never heard of them until this week, when I discovered by accident that this nice older guy I work with was the guitarist in a certain early 70s band. I looked them up and found that the article needed some cleanup, and there you go. Zeng8r (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw them twice in concert. Since you are an educator, could that person be Buddy Richardson? Bubba73 (talk), 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It might... :)

Yep, Buddy spends some time as a substitute teacher these days. The kids love him, as he always brings an acoustic guitar and plays a few tunes if they behave. Zeng8r (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Give my regards to Buddy. I spoke to him on the phone about 10 years ago and sent him some recordings. Bubba73 (talk), 01:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Locksley

I didn't mean to remove college and conference data with my last edit. Sorry about that. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's ok. We were editing at precisely the same time and I got a bit confused myself... Zeng8r (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the great editing. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Universally known locally

Thank you for adding the source about "The Big Guava," but clearly it wasn't "universally known locally" if I've lived here for five years and never heard a person in my life say that. Mike H. Fierce! 07:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, make that pretty much universal. A local newspaper columnist came up with it in the late 70s/early 80s and it caught on pretty quickly. It's likely more recognized by those who were here back then, but it's still used in the media all the time. Zeng8r (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas present

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To you Warrington (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!!

Warrington (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

HHoYC

	<font=2> HHoYC (Happy Holiday of Your Choice)! Ebyabe (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zeng8r. You have new messages at NJGW's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NJGW (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is a thread on the administrators' noticeboard which may concern you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lyrics. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cuban cuisine

Thanks for the message. No problem with the comment, but respectfully, I disagree with your undrstanding. As I have put on the talk page - Sopa is soup and would be served separately. Is this the term used in the US ? You state that potaje always includes potatoes as a main ingredient. Again - is that a US usage ? It isn't in Cuba, and doesn't fit the definition in http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potaje - "El Potaje es un plato a base de verduras y legumbres cocidas en abundante agua." or in the Oxford dictionary - "vegetable stew/soup (gen with pulses)"

I added that tag in passing, but am concerned by the general lack of referencing on that page. I am also concerned that it may not accurately reflect the cuisine of Cuban. -- Beardo (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the award! I wasn't the only one to work hard on Tampa related articles, so in return,

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		for such hard work and making the Tampa Bay Area more visible and talked about on Wikipedia. Moreau36 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Zeng8r (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tampa Bay climate article warning

By all rights, the person who initiated the GA review can fail it tomorrow (02/22) since all the issues have not been resolved. Just an FYI. I just jumped in to help with some of the issues, not bring it up to GA myself. That's normally left to the person who nominated it. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Zeng8r (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Backyardigans episodes

Gimme a hand here. Take a look through here and see if any of these songs sound familiar. I'm certain some of the song names we have listed are incorrect and have deleted the ones I'm sure of. Also I'm sure I've heard this somewhere before, but I can't identify it. HalfShadow 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, some of those were wrong. The original edit was by a user with the same name as one of the composers for the show, which made me a bit suspicious, which made me quick on the revert.

My little one runs through these DVDs pretty quickly; I'll help update the song listings as we go along. Zeng8r (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bug Girl's driving me nuts; I'm sure it sounds familiar, but that's all I can say. That site I linked has videos of all the songs for every episode, of course it's not hugely important that we have names for all the songs, it can always get done when it gets done. The page itself seems to have become somewhat of a vandal magnet of late, which annoys me since almost half the page is my work, so I'm rather (and rightly) proud and protective of it. Speaking of which, you wouldn't happen to heard anything of season four, have you? About all I know is that there is such a thing and it exists; I'm hoping someone might have a potential date so I can get back to synopsizing. HalfShadow 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Awasser55

That was a very courteous and informative way of handling that user, and I commend you for it. I and the others who had warned him before should have done the same. His book won't be useful as a source on Wikipedia, however, as it's self-published and he has no credentials as a historian, just some "plain raw truth that is not afraid to stampede powerful governments with the herd of popular outrage", to quote his webpage.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if the book is reliable or not since I haven't read it. However, the multiple template-based warnings on the guy's talk page looked like a case of biting a newcomer. I figured he deserved a clear explanation of relevant policies to be sure he knows what's what. We need more Florida history buffs helping out on articles like the ones he was editing; don't want to scare off a potentially valuable editor. Zeng8r (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Florida Gators football

Zen, like you, I monitor changes to the University of Florida annd Florida Gators articles to revert vandalism edits and to make sure the crazy, non-relevant additions by Gator fans get whacked, too. Personally, I don't think the most recent edit to the Florida Gators football article is worthy of saving (i.e. the one about Stoops and the two BCS wins by the same school with the same coach, etc.). I will defer to you, but I think if we keep that kind of secondary trivia in the article, it ought to relegated to a sourced footnote. It also needs to be re-written to make to clarify what the user meant (I get it, but it's a monument to confusing prose). From my perspective, the 2 BCS wins, same coach reference looks like a fairly petty attempt to distinguish the Gators two BCS wins in three years from what LSU accomplished earlier. Just my 2 cents worth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, Zeng8r. You have new messages at BQZip01's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 05:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Logo

This logo is used excessively. On the individuel team articles like Florida Gators baseball you could make an argument to have the logo, although I would disagree, nonetheless I haven't removed it from there. On Florida Gators it passes for sure. But the usage of the logo on the individual year articles fails wp:nfcc. Garion96 (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As I asked on your talk page, is there any new consensus about this? Over the past couple of years, I've read through several ridiculously long arguments on this very issue (e.g. using team logos on multiple season articles) but have never actually seen a consensus reached. As such, it's inappropriate to engage in wholesale independent removal of these images, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What's to discuss about it, it is kind of obvious. You know, the free content encylopedia and all. Btw, this edit summary is interesting since you already reverted five of my edits. Garion96 (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"What's to discuss"? I dunno, maybe the actual wikipedia policy on this issue? As for that edit summary, I was reverting the articles back to their long-time status quo while asking for some rationale to your edits. All you've expressed so far is "I don't like it", which doesn't really amount to anything except your personal opinion. If you browse through the relevant conversations, you'll find that your opinion is not exactly the clear consensus. I'll dig deeper tomorrow. In the meantime, let me say that your dismissive attitude isn't very conducive to constructive conversation. Zeng8r (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please use a non-copyrighted logo (File:Script ``Gators``.png) instead of the non-free File:FloridaGators.png, per this discussion. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the alternative. It's not the best solution, tho, since that isn't actually the official logo for the team. Zeng8r (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As I thought, while there are some strong opinions on the logo issue, there is no consensus, so the de facto policy is to leave things be. Replacing the official logo with the "Gators" script is not a very good solution, imo, since the actual logo of the team should be in that spot. I don't think it's worth arguing over, tho, so whatever. Zeng8r (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: GA for Tampa, FL

Hi,

LALaker13 nominated Tampa, Florida for GA a while back. I just did a preliminary review with some requests for fixes. I noticed LALaker13 hasn't been editing for a couple of weeks. Since the GA nom can't be held open indefinitely I looked and saw you have contributed to the article recently. If you have an interest in helping to resolve the GA issues please feel free.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I wish I could help. During the school year, my edits are mostly confined to cleaning up vandalism and updating time-sensitive info. Your comments on the GA review were spot on, imo, but I just don't have time to get involved in the revisions right now. Zeng8r (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, to get back on topic, that reference is valid & published source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and fighting the abortion fight in the text of the Tim Tebow article is totally inappropriate. Zeng8r (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I quote the reference -' "They thought I should have an abortion to save my life from the beginning all the way through the seventh month," she recalled. '

The 'She' quoted by the reporter is the "pro-life" mother with an agenda! - it is a self serving reference! and now wikipedia moved the reference from bio section down to section on controversy - FINALLY removing the "pro-life" POV.

I know who was quoted. Are you saying that you have better insight into Tim Tebow's prenatal medical history than his own mother, as quoted in a published article? That's quite an interesting claim. So have you looked over wp:soapbox yet? Zeng8r (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reknown lawyer Gloria Allred has questioned the veracity of claim which, until recently, Wikipedia artfully IGNORED.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerle (talk • contribs) 06:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You can think whatever you want, but as a wikipedia contributor, you can't force your personals opinion into articles, especially when they're diametrically opposed to info found in a valid source. Besides the anti-advocacy policy, I suggest you review the wikipolicy about original research, and perhaps the three revert rule as well, since you might be in violation of that one.

In any case, this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page. I've only reverted your changes once; other editors have agreed and reverted them several additional times. Zeng8r (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

review what? your poorly written guides to editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerle (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the official explanations of various wikipedia policies which I've linked several times above? If so, then yes, you should take a look. While you're at it, you might want to read Wikipedia:Civility as well. Zeng8r (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

1996 Florida at Tennessee football game

Zen, please have a look at this article, 1996 Florida at Tennessee football game. I thought you might want to weigh in on the proliferation of these sorts of articles. IMHO, these details need to be incorporated into either the season or rivalry articles, and we should not encourage a proliferation of redundant articles of questionable notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible derivative uploads by User:83d40m

I am receiving no direction regarding how to proceed in order to prevent the deletion of my images that qualify as Florida public documents and you participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 23. I suspect that these images will be deleted today even though I was told that I had two weeks to respond.

May I open those image files, insert the correct template in the license window, delete the notice, and get on with life? One of my images already has been deleted. How do I make correction to that so that it may be restored? Any help you can give me would be most appreciated? ---- 83d40m (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're experiencing the all-too-common small-minded behavior that regularly drives valuable editors away from this project. Clearly, there's no copyright issue with your photos or others released by the state of Florida. The problem is that the "possibly unfree files" page is frequented mostly by users who are obsessive about deleting photos which they feel are "unfree", whether or not they actually are. As you can see, most of them don't even bother to consider opposing viewpoints, no matter how well supported by facts.

I'd suggest finding a reasonable administrator to take a look. User:Athaenara is usually pretty good about either helping or directing you to someone who can help. Zeng8r (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this page or any of the "possibly unfree images" pages are still on your watchlist, but do you ever look over those "discussions"? I wandered back over there following a link from a friend's talk page - he took a photo of a national monument and the copyright obsessed deleted it for completely bogus reasons. Poking around through more examples, it becomes obvious that virtually every image that ends up on those pages gets deleted, no matter how logical the arguments to keep and how nonsensical the arguments to delete. It's laughably pathetic, imo, and just another reason why I've been spending much less time working on wikipedia articles. Zeng8r (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

2009 SEC championship game

I'm not in any edit war whatsoever. 3rr says reversion of blanking/vandalism does not count toward being blocked for exceeding 3rr. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop playing dumb - you know very well that you're not reverting "vandalism". You keep putting in the same opinion-laced paragraph and several other editors keep removing it. That's an edit war, and while you haven't technically violated the 3 revert rule, you're violating its spirit. Seriously, the silly college rivalry games need to stop. There are plenty of websites for that, but wikipedia is not one of them. Zeng8r (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am reverting vandalism, the blanked text that I am restoring includes the sentence stating that Alabama won XX-XX (again, as a Georgia fan I don't care but it is fact). I.e. blanking the result of the game, in the article about the game. If that's not vandalism then I don't know what is. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Tebow crying is documented fact, not mere opinion. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BS. The score is already mentioned several times in the article, and that's not what you've been reverting. You do realize that articles have an edit log, right? It shows that you keep re-inserting the exact same opinion-based statement about crying. Other editors (not just me, notice) keep reverting it instead of tweaking it because it's unsourced and worded in an obviously biased manner by an editor who seems to be playing games. Zeng8r (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the score is indeed what I have been reverting. [1] removes the score, [2] I restore it. [3] Score is removed a 2nd time, [4] I restore it again. That's 2 reverts if they counted toward 3rr, which these don't. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Yes, the first sentence in that two sentence paragraph mentions the final score. However, as you well know, the score is already mentioned multiple times in the article, so it really isn't needed. As you also well know, it's the second sentence of that little addition that I'm referring to.

This conversation reminds me of times when I catch one of my (10 y/o) students doing something that they shouldn't and they leap into amusingly contorted verbal and logical gymnastics to try to explain their actions. "No, I wasn't eating in the computer lab; the pretzel just fell in my mouth and I started chewing it so I didn't choke..." or "I wasn't (again) trying to tease a rival's player; I was just putting in the score of the game. What's wrong with that?..." lol Zeng8r (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The score is not mentioned "multiple times in the article", especially not in the main text body. Aside from the text restored by 96.32.... the score only appears in the infobox and in the table of how the points were scored. So the anon was right to restore the score to the actual text. The second sentence of that addition isn't opinion either, it is verified fact that Tebow was crying. And again, this is not UGA vs UF this game was UA vs UF, so us UGA fans don't really care who won or who did what, just that the article is factual. --70.33.79.99 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

fyi, there's relevant discussion on the article's talk page if you actually want to discuss this seriously. Zeng8r (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Zscout370's deletion of File:Florida Gators logo.svg

Zen, please feel free to join the conversation over at Zscout's talk page when you have time. The Gator head logo SVG file has now been restored, and there is a perfectly civil, if somewhat one-sided conversation on-going. Zscout would like to see 2 or 3 fair uses of the logo; I think that magic number is more like 16. Part of our negotiating strength is that only the Gators football team uses the script Gators logo. The other part of their problem is that they have no defined number for "too many uses." The closer they can get to zero fair use instances of any copyrighted logo, the happier they are. We're on stronger ground here than in past "fair use" fights because every one of the remaining uses of the Gator head logo is a perfectly valid use under their own rules (and was already perfectly documented before the latest dust-up). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was pretty busy this week and didn't time to get involved. It seems to be resolved?... Zeng8r (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not. Zscout and the other NFCC enforcers are simply focusing their enforcement efforts on the South Carolin guys and elsewhere for now. Trust me: they'll be be back, and probably relatively soon. Not a bad idea to read up at WP:NFCC. Their position is that no copyrighted, potentially copyrighted, or copyright-able work may be used under the "fair use" rationale if there is a so-called "free use" or "public domain" alternative available, which for them usually means an all-text logo. The rule requires that that the alternative be "equivalent," which, of course, they interpret in their own favor. Here, they are trying to force the use of the script Gators logo instead of the Gator head logo. Both logos are federally registered trademarks, and neither is subject to a registered copyright, but the NFCC enforcement guys seem to base their enforcement of the NFCC policy on the basis of retained, residual or common law copyright, which to them, means they still win in these dust-ups unless you can demonstrate an express all-purposes release from the author/creator of the copyrighted work in question. Given the unique cursive lettering and graphic design of the script Gators logo, it may pass the threshold of creative originality, and thus be subject to copyright itself. They will, of course, attempt to ignore this problem because they believe that no words-only logos may be subject to copyright. More evidence that you shouldn't send laymen to do lawyers' work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Article review - thanks!

Hi, thank you so much for reviewing my draft article for Kitson & Partners, I really appreciate your feedback. Having seen the mistakes that other editors have made with promotional articles, I worked really hard to make sure that the article was neutral and well sourced. I definitely understand WP:OWN and I hope that other editors will take an interest in the article and make constructive edits. Thanks again for your help, Brushfoot (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ralph's Mob - Thanks!

Appreciate the help on the Ralph's Mob section of FC Tampa Bay. I'll keep working on it, but it's looking a lot better already. Lol when some of my fellow mobsters found out you were the one reverting all the edits, some wanted to "kick you in the balls". It's all good now :D. I created and edited the 2010 FC Tampa Bay season page last season. I could use some help in making this season's page more readable and more in line with Wikipedia standards. It looks like you have some experience writing team's season pages, so let me know how I can make this one better. Thanks again! Sportzfrk99 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, no problem. I'm an old Rowdie fanny myself, btw, so I have nothing against the mob or the Rowdies, current or original. There's been a rash of anonymous users adding unambiguous spam to Tampa-related articles lately, so I may have a bit rude at first. Nothing personal; just wikibusiness... Zeng8r (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

talk page etiquette

I saw your comment on talk page etiquette at User talk:96.27.77.81 while commenting on an unrelated matter and figured I'd point something out - purging comments off your own talk page as the anonymous user did is not actually a violation of talk page policy or etiquette. It's not generally okay to delete other peoples comments, but there is a categorical exception for comments on your own talk page, even when the comments are warnings or statements of concern. It's not like it is a big deal in this context or anything, but I figured I would let you know. The exception is detailed on the same page you linked in your comment. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought about just deleting your comment above in an attempt at ironic humor, but decided to reply instead, lol.

Technically, you're right. However, what the IP user deleted was a previous conversation in which he was called to task for some poor editing behaviors. He did this immediately after yet another user had questioned him for repeatedly doing the exactly same thing in many more articles, obviously thinking no one would notice and he could claim ignorance. He may not have violated the letter of the policy, but he certainly violated its spirit. Zeng8r (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• update And just now, the user restored the discussion in question that he'd removed weeks ago. Odd. Zeng8r (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Severe weather in Tampa

Just dropping by to say hello. I heard you guys were hit hard by severe weather in the area yesterday. I hope you and your family are safe. Cheers! --Moreau36--Discuss 19:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That was the worst non-tropical weather day I've seen in years, but thankfully no serious injuries around the area. There were 9 confirmed tornadoes, tho. If you're interested, there's a detailed NOAA report here. Zeng8r (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Cuban Sandwich

Wat U mean that? My addition is well researched and not a joke, is true it is. Pleze do no cast asperzions on my work here. I don't go to where you work and "shake the slurpee machine," as it were. Dank you. Beresford 77 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if it's possible to clear a quarter million making Cuban sandwiches, please pass the mustard. Otherwise, I've gotta warn you that this is generally a very dry and serious website full of overly stuffy and self-important people. Cracking jokes in articles is sure to attract the wrath of the wikipolice, which is never a good thing. Not telling you what to do, but in my case, I generally try to govern myself accordingly. Zeng8r (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you for the sage advice. While I did have a close acquaintance who did make a "lot of Miami" in his sandwich shop in Miami in the 1980s, I have given your words some thought and realise that you are right. I'll try to add sources in the future. Thanks. Beresford 77 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC). (Oh sorry about the spelling and diction of my last message, I was a little messed up yesterday.)

Please educate yourself with this:

"If the sandwiches didn't arrive with the first wave of émigrés from Cuba more than 175 years ago, they were certainly a fixture in Key West by the time those fleeing Spanish rule formed communities around cigar-manufacturing factories in the 1860s, says historian Loy Glenn Westfall, author of several books on Cuban cigars. The sandwiches were a favorite cigar worker lunch.

While most of the cigar factories and workers moved on to Ybor City in Tampa after a devastating fire in Key West in 1886, a taste of the culture remained.

A Cuban sandwich was born in Cuba and educated in Key West, says Westfall". [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.51.6 (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Now there's a much better source than the "some random guy who emailed a blog" citation that you tried to use earlier. I actually know Westfall; he's one of the leading historians of the Florida-Cuba connection, and that statement is definitely worthy of inclusion in the article.

However, it's not an end-all, argument-closing statement, since other good historians have come to different conclusions (educate yourself using the other references at Cuban sandwich). Still, that's a good find, Mr. A.(!) Zeng8r (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

College Hunks

I posted a report at WP:COIN about them. The account involved appears to be a one-use one. It can be dealt with there. Later, and have fun! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! As you might have noticed, he totally ignored my advice and went so far as to unilaterally remove the problem banners I'd added to the article. I cringe at getting involved in something like this these days; good to see you're on the case. Zeng8r (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! It's sad when newbies don't get the point. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but not at the expense of common sense. If Chris isn't the president or CEO or otherwise connected with College Hunks, I'll be surprised. Admins can deal with it, that's why they're paid the big bucks (ha-ha). And conversely to you, I live to jump into this sort of thing. Cheers! --Ebyabe (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not ignored any advice. I have been working tirelessly to improve the article. I have been conferring with McGeddon about how to improve the article and have improved both the tone, content and cited sources in the article. I am not acting any way other than in good faith, however I am not at the same time content to leave tags that misrepresent the content when no case is being stated as to why any particular content is being raised into question. I also don't see the need for the condescending tone of the remarks. I have repeatedly asked for assistance in approving the article. As a matter of fact I am a field coach for the company and I happen to think the history and development of it is worthy of encyclopedic documentation, as did clearly the original creators and contributors to the article.

I have also asked for content to be pointed to that I could focus on improving and recruiting independent third party sources to contribute to. I may be a wikipedia newbie, but I am not unintelligent and I have in no way acted outside of good faith. I have not added content in an effort to be promotional, only in an effort to document the important aspects of the articles topic, which happens to be College Hunks Hauling Junk. I plan to contribute to many other areas of Wikipedia as well, I start here since the content had become dated and did not properly reflect the company about which the article is written.

Please consider the significant efforts I have made to request assistance and feedback as well as my disclosure as soon as I realized that was the appropriate method to take. I would much rather work with you than against you and I do not wish to use wikipedia promotionally, I only wish to ensure the credibility of the information posted about a company that is most certainly notable in the eyes of INC Magazine, Fortune Magazine, Entrepreneur Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, FOX, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and so on.

I look forward to your thoughtful reply. ChrisTheHunk (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As clearly stated on this very talk page, I'm burned out by the wiki-nonsense and don't intend to get any more involved in this issue. I only stumbled upon your contributions because I was looking up some totally unrelated info and noticed that somebody had inserted the owners of a junk hauling business into the "notable residents" section of the Tampa, Florida article. After all the notices and advice you'd already received, how could you think that was a good idea? And it didn't take much further sniffing around to discover that you've been inserting links to your company's web page into a bunch of totally inappropriate articles all over wikipedia AND have repeatedly removed banners designed to call editors' attention to an article in need of repair. Looks really bad, imo.

Anyway, due to the fact that you seem to be a single-purpose account with unfortunate editing tendencies, an investigation has been requested at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Good luck with all that. Zeng8r (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Florida–Florida State notable games

Hey, big guy. I'd like to get your input on the UF-FSU football rivalry talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What about? I think you're on the road to cleaning it up nicely.

And nice catch on the '94 UF/FSU match and rematch correction. I was at both of those games yet didn't remember what year they were played. Trying to forget, I guess. Zeng8r (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking for ratification of the proposed "notable game" selection, just to make it an official "consensus." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hadn't noticed your suggestions. Comment made at the talk page. Zeng8r (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Begging for help

I see that you offered to take a crack at the close paraphrasing in Charlie Wall. I'm trying to whittle down the mountain at wp:cp, with literally hundreds of articles, so I am hoping to get other editors involved, and spend my time on articles where there's no one else interested. I also see that you are semi-retired, so I'll have to appeal to the semi-side, not the retired side.

Any chance you could take a crack at cleaning up the prose?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

With regards to Wikipedia, I'm a lot more "retired" than "semi" these days, plus a new school year just started. I guess I could try to get to it eventually, but it certainly wouldn't be any time soon. --Zeng8r (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Florida Gators football: "State Championships"

Your opinion is hereby requested: Talk:Florida Gators football#"State Championships". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DragoLink08: ANI discussion regarding requested range blocks

Zen, Cuchullain and I have filed ANI reports regarding Drago's continued disruptive editing and sock-puppetry. I have also requested appropriate range blocks for the University of South Florida IP addresses that have provided him with an escape hatch for three years. Your input is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

Obviously, I've been busy. So is it over? Did we win? Zeng8r (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sir. Action was taken at ANI. Let me know if you see anything else that turns up with his fingerprints on it. They range-blocked all of the USF-registered IPv4 addresses for three months; that should slow him down at least, but he can always create a new registered account at Kinko's, Starbuck's, the public library or through some other public wifi network. We've at least made it a little inconvenient for him. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

Zen, thank you for the kind comments of support at my RfA. When one is under fire, support from those WP editors with whom I have worked most closely mean a great deal. Assuming I survive the next 24 hours, I hope I can of service to you in the future. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. You deserve it, as you'd make an excellent admin. Can't believe the pack of bitter bees that have swarmed out of the MOS hive. They might be even worse than the fair use obsessed, and that's saying something. (Best if you don't reply to that, imo.) Anyway, good luck... Zeng8r (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your strong and outspoken support during my recent RfA. Coming from one of the last of the old-timers, it meant a lot. Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and I'd do it again even though it probably put me out of the running for any future admin consideration, lol. No good editor deserves to be put through a circus of an RfA like that, and you certainly didn't deserve the result. The class with which you've handled the whole thing is just more proof that your nomination should have been easily confirmed. Zeng8r (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Florida–Tennessee football rivalry

With regards to the image that I removed on the page File:Florida Gators logo.svg, it is a non-free file which means usage of that file is limited. (see WP:NFC for details). However the file you replaced it with File:Florida Gators script logo.png is free, and thus the same rules to not apply. Werieth (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. However, all of these Florida gators football rivalry articles were using the free-image script Gators logo until someone who doesn't understand the NFCC rules and concerns recently replaced them with the non-free Gators head logo. There is even an explanatory note on the talk page of the Gator head logo which explains its use is limited to the primary Florida Gators sports team articles, and should not be used for season, rivalry, playoff or bowl game articles. There is an appropriate non-free use rationale for each of the primary team articles.

On another note, please do not replace consistent internal spacing or uniform HTML coding when it is obviously used intentionally throughout an article. Many of us simply cannot distinguish the single-character ASCII codes for ndashes and mdashes and ordinary hyphens in the Wikipedia editing window, and we have continued to use the HTML characters to ensure uniform usage of ndashes in scores, win-loss records and year spans. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, DL, that's just what I would have said. :-) --Zeng8r (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for watching out for the evil and for the bad doing their work in the dark... Hafspajen (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I do what I can to uproot evil in the field that I know... Zeng8r (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Faithful Barnstar
	The Real Life Barnstar is awarded to editors who make contributions both online and offline, by organizing wiki-related real-life events. What I want to say, if you still watching my page, why don't you jump in leaving some messages sometime and conversating a bit - time to time? Don't be shy! You are very much invited. Hafspajen (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Extra dogs

Thanks, and glad that you returned, as otherwise there's a definite dearth of whimsy around here. However, your talk page moves a little too fast for a part timer, lol. Zeng8r (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly, just ignore the others. And what are you up to nowadays? Hafspajen (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, Zeng8r?? Hafspajen (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

'ello and sorry, ol' chap, didn't mean to ignore you. Been busy - kids, trainings for work, housesitting, etc etc. I just sign in once in a while to keep an eye on things and (mainly) to procrastinate from more important stuff. I'm semi-retired from Wikilife, don't ya know... :-) Zeng8r (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

eee.. . Hafspajen (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Florida Gators Football Ring of Honor

Zen, please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gator Football Ring of Honor. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Florida Gators football "Controversies" section

Zen, when you have a moment, can you please take a look at the distorted material the IP user (IP v6) is adding to the Florida Gators football article under the new "Controversies" section? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a needed section, as I mentioned in a new discussion on the article's talk page. Nice to see you back! --Zeng8r (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I've also got a different Gators-related issue. The Wikipedia copyvio enforcers were campaigning to reduce the use of all copyrighted college sports program logos to as few on-wiki transclusions as possible two or three years ago. The Florida Gator head logo stood out near the top of the list at the time for most uses of a copyrighted image on Wikipedia. With some serious jaw-jawing, I was able to get them to back off and allow us to continue to use it on all of the individual Florida Gators teams articles as well as the Florida Gators program article, after I had replaced the gator head logo with the non-copyright script Gators logo on all of the rivalry, sports team seasons, bowl game, NCAA tournament articles, etc. I believe there are only 17 permitted "fair use" transclusions of the gator head logo, and it should not be used anywhere else. Earlier today, I caught another IP replacing all of the script Gators logos with the copyrighted gator head logo -- and such obvious over-use could attract the attention of the Wiki copyvio enforcers again, destroy the detente we've had on this issue for 2+ years, and lead to the severely curtailed use of the gator head logo on all but a handful of the Florida Gators team pages. I would be grateful if you would (a) add all of the articles that transclude the script Gators logo to your personal watch list, and (b) quickly revert any changes of the script Gators logo to the copyrighted gator head logo as quickly as you see them. You can find a list of all the articles that use the script Gators logo on Wikimedia Commons here. Thanks, Zen. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do, as time allows. Zeng8r (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Our friend is back; probably need some help riding shotgun on the main football article. I deleted the entire controversies section: topics are more appropriately discussed elsewhere, i.e. Johnny Rutledge, Jevon Kearse, Tank Black, Urban Meyer and Aaron Hernandez articles. Keep WP:3RR in mind. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

A staple of diners and fast-food restaurants, cheeseburgers were first popularized in the United States during the 1920s and 30s. Anyway, this is Wiener Shnitzel with something familiar on the plate... Hafspajen (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope it's still edible; I"m hungry... Zeng8r (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you! --Zeng8r (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Croquetas con patatas fritas

Croquetas con patatas fritas

Something nice for the Holiday. Hafspajen (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• The croquetas look delicious, but it's an odd combination. Are there any veggies on that table, Hafspajen? Drmies (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't know Mies. This is Zeng8r, my friend from the Warrington -time. One that didn't went crazy... he is still here, faithul and a bit retired. English teacher like you. Hafspajen (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas message

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Hafspajen (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year Zeng8r!

Happy New Year!

Zeng8r,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, Hafs, same to you!!! --Zeng8r (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

How's life doing with you nowadays? Hafspajen (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, enjoying the holidays off, hope yours are pleasant as well, thanks for asking. And, jeez, your talk page must be the busiest on Wikipedia. My watch list always says something "17.3 million changes since your last visit", lol. Thanks for taking time out to say hello. :-) --Zeng8r (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Must be weird. But, no, I am not the busiest, for example Drmies talk is much more busy. What are you doing, teaching still? Hafspajen (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested . . . .

Hey, Zen. Happy New Year. I'd like to get your opinion on this revised infobox template for college football players: [6]. After determining what data points to include, we'll recruit a template editor to handle the coding for us. Once we determine what fields we're adding and what we're deleting, then we'll work on the modified graphics. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, DL, I totally missed this. Hope things turned out ok. Zeng8r (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hafs

Colosseum in Moonlight

• Noticed you were around .... Mr Zengör.... Hafspajen (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha, you got me. Needed some me time so I've been doing the most relaxing thing I can think of - working on some quiet little local history articles. Hope you're happy and healthy, etc... Zeng8r (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am Je suis Hafspajen now. Read this... groan Hafspajen (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand beside you in solidarity, haha. [7] --Zeng8r (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, I will have two blocked users on my consistence soon-. Hafspajen (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, old friend. Hafspajen (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I do - now. Look at my userpage. Hafspajen (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Voilà! Category:Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen. . --Hafspajen (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I am honored! I also seem to have been blocked and quickly unblocked on the Swedish Wiki, and my user page was deleted within 24 hours. Those people over there are a little too serious about themselves, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

They are, they are, very serious. However they seems to forgot that this was the original Wiki.... They copied and changed it to something more strict, less free, more bureaucratic and less sensible. Rules that made it less spontaneous and less fun. Harmless fuh, I have to add, because nobody actually gets hurt if you put Wikilove, pictures or a redlink on your page only pedantic, police minded guys who like to patronize others and think the others private space is their business. I a not asking anyone's advice what clothes to put on, how to decorate my apartment or what to put on my talk page. I was also editing the Wikipedia for just as long as they did, since 2008. Dmies started in 2007, you 2007 ... Some of them who were involved at the criticizing against me, started much later, Le Lapin Vert started 2012; Adville in 2010, - Obelix who reverted me, is also a longtimer, but it looks like it was under some kind of restrictions, he was not supposed to do more that two reverts per day or be engaged in discussions, pity that he did them both in this case.

Howerver, if you don't have a user page on another language Wikipedia, the talkpage just copies yours from Meta. Does that by default. It's been like that for about a month now, this is mine now, at Sw-Wiki. It is copied from Meta Wiki- my Meta account. They can't delete it there, cos they only have local admin powers on Swedish Wiki. And I guess, it is best to avoid them, all together, since nobody apologize, nobody said sorry we offended you. Some said that it was overly hard treatment, but most agree that I was doing the wrong things even if it wasn't very wrong. I say, that they are overly strict and restrictive - and I guess it s here we disagree. I say, nobody got hurt by my pictures, my redlink or anything I put on my TALK. It is MY TALK, not theirs, and I believe one should do whatever you want with your own talk, as everybody does overhear. For a good reason, it doesn't hurt anyone and it is more fun, it is creative and one should have the right of self-determination - (självbestämmande - a concept the Swedes are rather aware of) - right to your own space, own ideas, own opinions - and yes own talk. And, also, what turned me of most, it was this adversity and animosity that I don't stand, people have not the slightest inhibition of telling the most uncivilized accusations openly to anyone, blunt, unfriendly, impatiently, it looks like this is normal way of interacting over there, so ... what happened to Wikipedia pillar four= WP:Polite? Hafspajen (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Stated simply, they make such a fuss of small bureaucratic mistakes, while they ignore one that is much bigger - the way they interact. Editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect, maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably. Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, and YES on all Wikipedias, this is one of the basic rules - and it is here Sw-Wiki is not following the rules. They throw accusations on everybody and on each other with no restrictions whatsoever. It is rather a sad situation.. Hafspajen (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

,

• P. S. Wikipedia:Trifecta .... Hafspajen (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Color graphics for Infobox college football player

3-pixel accent with white text

Florida Gators

Zen, here's a sneak peek at how the revamped infobox is going: Template:Infobox college football player/testcases#Joe Cool (typical example). What do you think of the colors, graphics, and layout and design? In particular, how do you like the "college varsity stripe graphics?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The stripe looks really good, imo, and I like the tweaks in the info placement for all the different versions. Just a couple things - I know it's a common football factoid, but I've never liked including a player's weight in an infobox. Technically, every time a lineman hits an all-you-can-eat buffet, you'd have to up the guy's number by a few pounds. It looks like some proposed versions leave out weight. If that's an option, I'm in favor.

Also, what happens when a player goes on to NFL? In the past, I've seen player articles with multiple infoboxes, making the article redundant and cluttered. I just found the earlier revised college / NFL version using Jadeveon Clowney; looks like you've worked on that problem as well. It's definitely an improvement. Thanks for getting me back in the loop - is there on ongoing discussion somewhere? --Zeng8r (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Ongoing discussion somewhere?" No, there's an ongoing squabble over compliance with WP:ACCESS, and the early discussion among WP:CFB and WP:NFL members has been on hold while we dealt with template technical compliance issues. I expect we will open a mini-RfC on the template talk page to make final decisions on the old parameters and links to be removed, and new ones to be added, sometime in the next couple of weeks -- I'll ping you then. If you want to get caught up on WP:CFB opinions on point, check out User talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox.

In answer to your question, all NFL player will convert to Infbox NFL player once they play in a regular season pro game. Drafted college players who never play in a regular season pro game will revert to/stick with Infobox college football player. We have something like 1,000 to 1,500 historical All-Americans and major award winners who never played pro ball and should all be using the CFB box, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlotte Harbor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter

	Happy Easter
	Happy Easter....  ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you! People like those over at the Swedish Wiki are why I'm semi-retired around here... --Zeng8r (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are getting in the middle of it now and than. Hafspajen (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

	Thanks
	Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, Zeng8r .. I think it is better to cut the ropes. I don't know what will happen... Maybe some day, in the future, if things change, who knows. But not now. I might be sensitive, but I think some people do own me an appology, and that one will never come. And the rest, it is all in God's hands. Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Bill Arnsparger

Hey, Zen. I hope summer break is treating you well. I saw your edits to the Arnsparger article earlier this morning, and had a suggestion for you: when the dust settles in a week or so, let's see if we can't build out the article for a Good Article review. There are plenty of significant news sources covering his career, and all of the major national media and sports publications have done obituaries, many with significant career retrospectives. Given Arnsparger's significance in the history of the Miami Dolphins and University of Florida athletic program, this would seem like a logical candidate for us to work on together. Any interest? After 8 years on-wiki, it's about time you have a Good Article listed on your user page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sounds like a plan. That article certainly is ripe for expansion; now that the Florida AD section is fleshed out, the other sections look quite meager in comparison. Zeng8r (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, The New York Times, Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, MiamiDlophins.com, GatorZone.com, San Diego Union-Tribune, The Times-Picayune, The Gainesville Sun, and the Shreveport paper all had nice retrospectives. I also found a great Sun article in Google News Archive from when Florida hired him in December 1986. I saved the links for 25+ articles, and archived all of the new ones using the Wayback Machine, so they will all be available to use in the future. It's much easier to write a GA when we have plenty of material and first-class sources. It's going to be a few days before I can return to it -- I need to complete a couple of GA reviews for other people's articles -- but have at it in the interim. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Florida Gators decade articles

FYI: [8]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Gaspar

I was recently asked to examine the coins in this Gaspar hand box and took a picture of it. I don't own this, as it wasn't for sale, and have no vested interest it other than personal intrigue. I want to get more REAL information about it and Im sure others are too. I don't know how the Tampa history museum decided the coins were Gasparilla souvenirs but they are VERY clearly colonial macuquinas. I can even tell you where and when they were struck. You don't have to be much of a historian to realize the museum was wrong. Im not saying this this is Gaspar's hand but they are definitely real coins and the current information on the wiki is just plain WRONG. You're the last edit so Im assuming that you are policing it. By the way, the entry in general is extremely biased on the negative side. Whoever wrote, if you, definitely didn't watch all of the news coverage.

I went back and watched the NBC and CBS stories and Harvey Kite-Powell never even says anything about a monkey hand or pirate souvenirs. Also, at the end of the NBC report definitely has an orthopedic surgeon say it looks human but wanted to have a closer analysis of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coinman54 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The info comes directly from an article in the Tampa Bay Times in which Harvey Kite-Powell says that the coin were non-precious "mementos" from the 20th Century and that the hand looked like it came from a monkey. You can read it at this link. Did you look over the Wikipedia policy about original research that I linked on your talk page? You might think that the coins are old (and they might be; I have no idea). However, there's a citation to a published quote from an expert who says otherwise. To claim otherwise on Wikipedia would require a contradictory published opinion from a different expert.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Jose Gaspar entry is "extremely biased on the negative side". If you're claiming that he really existed, then I have to disagree, as there is no evidence to support that his story is anything more than a colorful myth concocted up by an enterprising advertiser by way of Juan Gomez, who loved to tell tall tales. This exhaustively researched article from the Tampa Bay History Journal was pretty definitive. --Zeng8r (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Zeng8r. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Zeng8r, Reasons for removal of content

I am expressing a strong plea to remove the content where user gasparillamedia wrote erroneously, absolutely for personal gain, not representing ME at all, back in 2014. Yes, a contact I have had a loose connection to here did try to delete the posts, because they were absolutely just the rantings of a man who was delusional and likely intoxicated, while he was trying to impress "whomever" and profit from doing the posting. Since the whole subject is an irrelevant rant, can it not just be deleted? I understand the boundaries now of external links... And also, when I did other grammar edits, it was my own post I was correcting, not those of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.199.247 (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't make the rules; I'm just a semi-active volunteer editor keeping watch on my little corner of the Wiki-world. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, talk page guidelines say that other people's posts should only be deleted in very specific situations. It seems to me that User:GasparillaMedia's posts on talk:Gasparilla Pirate Festival do not meet those criteria. Several users have tried to insert links for their own organizations / events / businesses in that article over the last few years, so a discussion about why that is NOT ok seems to be both useful and relevant, even if one user went a little over the top for a minute there. (BTW, other guidelines state that personal attacks are not ok, so please keep that in mind when making allegations about Wiki-ing under the influence.)

If you want a second opinion, maybe you should ask User:Cuchullain. He's a good admin who was involved in the original discussion. Thanks. Zeng8r (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

And hoping your Christmas isn't white! Cheers, old man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, hope your Christmas was great as well! --Zeng8r (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks as always, Hafs, hope you're doing well!... --Zeng8r (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, mostly... and you? Hafspajen (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So true

I really enjoyed reading the section called "A bit about myself and my wiki-philosophy" on your user page. Everything you said is so true. Caden ^cool 03:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. There are many who feel the same way. Unfortunately, many of them have already left the project, thereby increasing the percentage of "difficult" editors. Zeng8r (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right, too many good editors have left. Wikipedia is broken and many more will continue to leave. It's a shame. Caden ^cool 15:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers.com access

You should have full access now. Note that our Wikipedia Library accounts don't include "Publisher Extra" content. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re NewspaperArchive signup

Hello, Zeng8r/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, but did you not read where I said give this week and I'll create a PNG or vector image for them? I'll get to it, but you gotta give me a few days. It's people like you that make me want to leave this damn place. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 12:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty then. The problem here is that you're unnecessarily reincarnating a problem which was resolved long ago after many long and painful arguments. I don't see anything wrong with the current files. The images have to be small to meet fair use, and they look just fine at that size in the infoboxes. You're creating drama and more work for yourself when there's no need for any changes at all. Zeng8r (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Go Gators

Do you have the book by Arthur E. Cobb? Cheers. Cake (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Zeng8r. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Tampa, Florida

I see that you reverted my edit at Tampa, Florida, to add back the unsourced content I had removed. Regarding the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the table you added says they were founded in 1976, but the Tampa Bay Buccaneers article says they were established in 1974. Also, your edit says that the Tampa Bay Rays were founded in 1998, but the Tampa Bay Rays article says that an ownership group "was approved on March 9, 1995", and the team was "established in 1998". Also, you added that the Tampa Bay Storm was founded in 1987, but the Tampa Bay Storm article says that the team "relocated to Tampa Bay in 1991, changing its name in the process". This is why I delete most large, unsourced edits that contain a lot of numbers and dates. Could you please take a moment to add sources to your edit (per WP:PROVEIT), or revert your edit? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you take the time to look more closely at the article history, you'll see that I did not add the Tampa sports table; I reverted your removal because it was a nice addition to that section. If you take the time to look more closely at those team articles, you'll see that the years listed are when those teams first took the field. This can easily verified by clicking on the individual team names in the table itself, but as a lifelong Tampa resident, I already knew that the dates were correct. Sourcing every one of those years is unnecessary and would make that simple table look cluttered. It's fine the way it is, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've challenged your edit for reasons explained above and you have indicated you will not be reverting or adding sources. I will be removing the table as unsourced content. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Does it matter to you that the "reasons" you gave above are based on your misunderstanding of both the editor who added the information and the information itself, as I already explained? Thankfully, a more sensible editor agreed with me at the article. Zeng8r (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

So the original editor had a misunderstanding; then the "sensible editor" who agreed with you changed one of your incorrect dates; and you live there so you're the expert on all things Tampa. As an experienced editor you should appreciate that when you add this sort of half-correct original research it makes Wikipedia less reliable to its readers, and undermines the hard work of other editors who take the time to support their edits. The Tampa article is all yours. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't "original research" and it wasn't incorrect; it was a nice addition with one potentially confusing column heading. An experienced editor like yourself should appreciate the fact that new editors (like the one who added the table) don't always make perfect contributions, and that if you instantly revert their work instead of working to improve it, you're likely to turn new editors into former editors. Anyway, I fixed the heading in question to clarify what the years indicate, so there's no longer any possible confusion. Zeng8r (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Zeng8r/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is WP:NEWSPAPERS.COM.
Message added 22:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please fill out the google doc by MIDNIGHT THURSDAY or You will have to wait and reapply for access after our news sign up method goes live. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The information is valid and shows that is proven

Please stop taking down valid proven information. What more do you need to know that this is valid he was with Monty Grow and the DOJ had a press release. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/seventy-seven-charged-southern-district-florida-part-largest-health-care-fraud-action

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Adding something like this to Shane Matthews would require multiple solid news sources, but I've searched and found none. Unless you can find proof, this cannot be added to the article per WP:BLP. Zeng8r (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

update Still have seen and heard zero news about this, and Matthews is still doing his radio show and coaching high school football. Guess it was someone else with a similar name. Zeng8r (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If i give you proof that it is the same Shane Matthews can it be posted? Justicegator (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the arbiter or what can go on Wikipedia; I'm simply quoting the very strict policy concerning the inclusion of information in biographical articles. I just conducted another thorough news search and again found absolutely no mention of Matthews being in any sort of legal difficulty, which means that it can't be added. You can see the guidelines for yourself at WP:BLPSOURCES, particularly this section: WP:BLPREMOVE.

I don't know if your information is true or not. I do know that it has not been reported by the media at all, so it can't be on Wikipedia. Zeng8r (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

About Fronticla

Hi, I saw your comment on Fronticla's talk page. I had exactly the same reaction, but discovered that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section actually does list "award-winning" as a "peacock term" that should not be in the introduction to an article – and has done for at least five years. It seems strange to me, as it is surely a verifiable term showing notability that can be expanded later in the article, but there it is. It is not Fronticla that should be confronted, but the policy, if it does not agree with current consensus. ---- Robina Fox (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that policy needs some nuance, as people who have won significant recognition should be described as "award-winning" early in the introduction, imo. But the larger issue here was Fornticla's behavior - making hundreds of mass edits and then refusing to discuss them is not a good way to make friends and influence Wikipedia. Zeng8r (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)