User talk:Firenze127/Archive1

Hello All
Greetings fellow Wikipedians!!! This is Firenze127, and as a general rule I will post replies to your posts both on this page and on your own talk pages. Thank you. firenze127 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds GAC
I noticed your nomination of Barry Bonds at WP:GAC. I am curious about 4 things with regard to your nomination:
 * 1) Why as a relatively uninvolved editor (according to http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/) are you making the nomination on such a heavily edited article?
 * 2) Why are you making it with a criticism-section tag in the article?
 * 3) Why are you making a nomination this late in the season, when it is much easier to nominate this type of article during the offseason?
 * 4) Are you aware of current editing controveries in the article Talk:Barry_Bonds?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, have you looked at the reflist formating variety?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring your other comments/questions, however I would like to remind you as to #4, a general consensus was accomplished on the topic of the career statistics format. I very highly respect your views on that particular subject, don't get me wrong, but all the editors weighing in on the opinion (except yourself), even the ones you brought in to give their opinion were all for Anastrophe's and BRMO's stat table ideas. I'm truly sorry that your table was substituted, but unless there have been more comments made on this particular debate, I'm not sure "controversy" is the right word for the current state of affairs. BRMo openly gave anybody permission to sub the table he had created with yours. Since nobody seemed to have any other things to say, I moved over the table. If there was a continuing discussion on this subject going on outside the Barry Bonds talk page, I was completely unaware of it. Please let me know if such a thing was going on. I have seen your userpage and you are obviously a vastly more experienced editor than me and has more knowledge in these things. I'm sorry if I am missing something, but (as far as #4 goes) I only acted according to consensus. Please reply with any more comments/questions. Thank you. firenze127 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I pretty much asked my questions in order of importance. You pretty much ignored 2 & 3. The addendum is probably 2.5.  4 is yesterday's news.  You may not be aware of how long it takes to review a GAC of this length.  You probably have 10 to 15 days before this gets reviewed based on how long my Hector Lopez article has been sitting in the queue.  This GA review could be a big waste of time for a reviewer.  I am wondering if you will be fixing any of the glaring issues before it gets reviewed in about 2 weeks.  I would encourage you to withdraw your nomination if you don't, IMO.  Let me ask again:
 * Why are you making a GAC nomination with a criticism-section tag in the article?
 * Have you looked at the reflist formating variety?
 * Why are you making a nomination this late in the season, when it is much easier to nominate this type of article during the offseason?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, first let me get one thing out there. You are most certaintly welcome to remove the nomination. I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly see the many reasons (plus the one you just provided) why this article is not yet ready for GA Review/Status. However, I would like to also say -- I must admit, I am bit surprised with your comment. Did the tone of my reply to your comment not merit a less harsh reprimand? Yes, I definitely ignored #2 and 3, did I not say that? Anyhow, I'm sorry for causing so much trouble with the nomination. You could call this a formal apology. Unlike my stat table moving, this decision was rash, without consensus, and a waste of other people's time. I hope we can move forward from here and that I can learn from my mistakes. Thank you for your feedback. firenze127 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to be harsh. It is just that when submitting an article with a LONG warning you should try extra hard to have it ready.  It seems you are an experienced editor.  Are you better known under another user name?  At some point in the next few months I am going to go through all the refs and make them all consistent.  I am hoping beyond all hope that someone else will tackle the tag issue.  It is better protocol if you withdraw your own nomination both at WP:GAC and Talk:Barry Bonds with proper edit summaries saying what you are doing.  --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did as you suggested and I thank you for explaining your comments. I might work a little on the tag issue or find somebody else to do it. However, a user by the name of ThomasIrvin doesn't think the Controversies section should be merged with the rest of the article, see Talk:Barry Bonds for his comment. firenze127 02:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)