User talk:Eaternation

Sean Tracey article
The items tagged with "citation needed" are so tagged because they may violate the biography of living persons guidelines. Please do not remove these tags without providing sources for the material or providing justification for their removal. Thank you. -Dewelar (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please point out to me the information I added to Sean Tracey that is false? The information about the Angels is correct -- pitching in extended spring training is not the same as pitching in their organization, i.e. actually pitching in a real game for any of their affiliate teams. I never said he wasn't a member of the organization. I have changed it to read "never pitched in a regular-season game" as opposed to simply "never pitched", but the distinction is semantic at best. As for the Newark Bears, I never added anything about transactions, just that he pitched one game. As for your information, if there are no sources for it, then it must be removed per WP:BLP. -Dewelar (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for information on the D.L time in 2007 and 2008, its mainly blog reports. If you would like I can try and attatch a few links for your help. Your information at times is great, however some is negative in tone and semanticly false, for pitching in extended as part of the Angels organization is pitching in an organization, he was there and getting paid and wearing an Angels uniform... The Orioles are classic with "hiding" potential 6 year minor league free agents and that is exactly what they did with Tracey in 2007 on his free agent year, so it is hard to track down transaction records. I see youve done extensive research in the past and you take pride in it, so maybe you should put that talent to work and find the sources that show Tracey on the D.L. in 2007 and 2008 and help you put a positive tone in your work on Tracey's page. There is plenty of positive facts to write about him, and you have chosen to address negatives in word choices like (never) and pointing out moments of failure rather than moments of success, and furthermore failed to get up to date articles related to the Ozzie beanball story that have come out recently about the incident. It seems that your information has a slight bias against Tracey with the words you have chosen.


 * As I said, I changed the wording in the article to be more precise. Regarding tone, Wikipedia does not allow for an article to be either positive or negative, as that would violate the neutral point of view.
 * I have no bias regarding Mr. Tracey, nor do I know anything about him beyond his baseball record. I am presenting the facts, all of which are drawn from reliable sources. I am working on a lot of different articles at present, and in the process ran across this article, which was a mess. I cleaned it up, added some sources for various information, and tagged the information that I couldn't source via a quick Google search.
 * You, on the other hand, appear to be personally invested in Mr. Tracey in some way, and as such you probably should not be involved in editing his article. It may even be a conflict of interest, depending on who you are. I would suggest you do some checking into Wikipedia policies and guidelines before throwing out accusations as you have above. -Dewelar (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Accusations, please. I stated facts that your work wasnt thourough and as a result not nutral.  Be thoughrough like your other work and then you will be nutral.
 * It's apparent that you don't have a grasp of the neutral point of view. I suggest you read the text at the link in the previous sentence before continuing to edit this article. As for being "thorough", you might wish to consider that, to date, it is your own edits that are lacking in the sourcing required for inclusion. Deleting information, as you have done, makes the article less thorough, not more.
 * It is also apparent that you have issues with feeling that you have some level of ownership of this article. That leads me once more to suspect that your editing might constitute a conflict of interest violation. I'm obviously not the only one who considers your edits to be inappropriate, so please consider reading the guidelines I have linked here before continuing your disruptive behavior. -Dewelar (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My edits were made because your work is lacking complete research, and once again is not neutral. I suggest you be complete, and until then you dont have the grasp of proper point of view.   This article was fine until you made the recent edits which weren't entirely complete like you claim, once again making this article not neutral and leading me to think that you have a conflict of interest because you wont extend and deliver complete and neutral research beyond a "quick" google search.  In the quick search you left out some of Tracey's accomplishments and stats in the minors and majors yet chose to expose some of his moments of adversity. What you chose to mention out of the quick search demonstrates the lack of neutrality, lack of proper point of view, and conflict of interest because you have left out credible accomplishments all the while pointing out negative moments in Mr Tracey's career.    I only added more information and offered to get credible sources and you have ignored the offer for some reason which puzzles me because all your other work is thourough... Your obviously lacking consistancy here and in denial of your point of view by attacting me with policy and code bable.  It seems this is being done to deflect attention away from your poor, non-neutral, conflict of interest, and incomplete work.  My own editing was made to make it clear that this article is not neutral in its point of view for lack of complete research on your end.  You dont own this article either, I am being just here thats all.  Disruptive behavior in this situation is an opinion (you know what they say about opinions), for it is also apparent that you dont want to be thoughrough in your research of this article and are disrupting true development like you own it. Which leads me to feel that you are in conflict of interest.   I suggest you clean up your work here, for you are in violation of everything you came at me with.
 * Obviously, this is going nowhere, and the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense hasn't worked on me since I was six. I've done all I can here. Since you fail to heed my advice, and are failing to understand the warnings of others, the next time you disruptively edit this article you will be referred to the administrators. -Dewelar (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * your finally right on one thing, this is going nowhere. I have no problems with the administrators, for that threat hasnt worked on me since I was six either, I am sure they will find both parties representing valid arguements.  I have obviously called you out on you work, and you have nothing to say except "rubber and glue stuff". Once again the advice of others is pure opinion, and you are failing to heed my advice and failing to understand and listen to my reasonable request for some reason. Well my life isnt wiki so have fun with your ego and continueing to bully people with your code bable all the while masking your lack complete/ neutral work which protects your point of view and creates a conflict of interest.  A complete research is neutral, a quick search that is lacking data in its report/article is not neutral.

OK, I'll try one more time. Much of what you've written here is very difficult to read because it's written so poorly. However, after taking some time away, coming back, and rereading, I believe I'm getting the gist of what you're saying.

First off, I didn't decline any offer you made. If you wish to research and find sources for the edits you made regarding Tracey's injury history and his retirement, along with your discussion here regarding the problems he experienced during his time with the Orioles, I heartily encourage you to do so. Just remember that, without proper citation, such information is likely to be removed from the article.

Secondly, I added nothing of substance to the article. What I did was take what was already in the article and find what sources I could to corroborate it. I also restored a piece that was deleted regarding his dispute with Ozzie Guillen, which was a highly controversial incident at the time, and was removed by someone else because it lacked proper citation. I found some, and put it back in. If you have an issue with the actual content of the article and its balance, I suggest you take it up with other editors. Your only objection seems to be that I added a small piece of information that he never pitched in a game for the Angels organization. I added this because the article makes a point of mentioning that the Angels signed him. His performance -- or lack thereof -- is therefore relevant; whether that reflects badly on him -- or, for that matter, on the Angels for not giving him a full shot -- is not.

Thirdly, if you'd like to add some information to the article that reflects on some of his positive accomplishments, nobody is stopping you from doing so. Perhaps you could add some information on his minor league career before joining the White Sox, or more about his college career -- provided that you have sources you can cite for it.

Finally, as you can see below, removing chunks of the text of an article without explanation is considered vandalism by Wikipedia. Saying someone never pitched for Team X is not negative. It is a statement of fact. It has no point of view. I will once again implore you to read the article on the neutral point of view so that you can better understand this. If, in your opinion, a fact portrays someone in a negative light, you can't remove that fact just for that reason. That's vandalism -- it's removing stuff just because you don't like it, and that's not acceptable behavior.

This isn't Dungeons & Dragons. "Neutral" does not mean "balanced between positive and negative" here. It means presenting facts without a point of view. That is all I have tried to do. If you feel otherwise, I really can't help that, or help you. -Dewelar (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Sean Tracey. 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. Endofskull (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Sean Tracey constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. —  Jeff G. ツ  20:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The recent edit was done because this article is not nuetral, current, and thourough as a result. Thank you.