User talk:Wxthewx99

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --W.marsh 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Portal:Baseball/News
I made a few tweaks to your Hafner addition, and I write only in order that you shouldn't once more impute malign motive. There were several syntactic and grammatical errors in your edit that I attempted to remedy (of course, should I have made errors, you should surely correct them). I noticed also that you changed Although his team win to Although his team wins; even as your edit here was probably fully appropriate, in view of the singular American nature of the news passim (my inexplicable love of British English notwithstanding), you might want, at your leisure, to peruse WP:MoS, as some contributors are particularly irked at an editor's changing the fashion in which a collective noun is treated.

I write principally, I think, lest you should think me to have edited your version for other-than-encyclopedic reasons (see, e.g., in view of my putative desire to own the portal), and I hope you'll not once more think me to have been untoward here. Joe 02:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tried to reply at Portal talk:Baseball/News to your concerns, in order that we might move toward (hey, see, I used the American toward over the British towards!) a meta-philosophy such that we'll better be able to work together on the portal; please let me know if there's anything my treatment of which you think to be insufficient&mdash;I want to ensure that we're on the same page, at least as regards what questions we're discussing, if not as regards the appropriate dispositions thereof. Btw, I'm quite certain you think me to be acting as a hardass/jackass; I rather think you're justified in reaching such conclusion (even as I'd like to believe that generally I'm neither a hardass nor a jackass), and I'm sorry that I've been less clear and more abrupt than perhaps I ought to have been.  I'm going, at the very least, to try to leave alone any news items that you add, as I understand how disconcerting it must be to have me ostensibly denigrating every contribution you make; I hope you'll believe that I've not meant to be a jerk but probably have been hypercorrective. Joe 22:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, btw, for catching my transcription error re Hughes. I rather think the item not to merit inclusion (even) in portal space&mdash;after all, we haven't any article on consecutive plate appearances in which a hit was recorded, and we wouldn't generally make mention of such records at current sports events&mdash;and to be a classic Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but I am loathe to remove good contributions and in any case don't want you to think that I've it out for your every edit.  To my mind, almost all of what you're adding is quite excellent&mdash;indeed, it's a pleasure to work with someone who is knowledgable about baseball but who also understands what Wikipedia is (articles w/r/to sports and pop culture, as you've surely gathered, attract copious cruft), but I hope you'll consider how WP:NOT might apply to PB/N (as I will, as perhaps it is I who interprets NOT, etc., much too strictly).  Joe 07:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Canada Series

 * I have no problem with the merger. SFrank85 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Baseball/Quotes
(I wrote you apropos of this issue yesterday, but I find that my note was&mdash;brace yourself, this will shock you&mdash;exorbitantly long, and so I hope I might be a bit more cogent here.) FWIW, I imagine that I ought to explain my move and cleanup of your addition; to the extent that my edit summary did not make clear that I did not intend simply to rework capriciously your text, I apologize.

My move was only in order that the images in the section should continue to display properly (viz., without unnecessary white space infra to them), but I gather that you may have thought me to be impugning the quality of your addition (I do think it to be unencyclopedic, but I didn't–and don't–intend to broach that issue); I have not, then, reverted your return of the quote to the top of the section and will preserve it upon my updating of the quotes in a few days (when also I will be sure that new images display properly).

As to my reworking your text, I found your version to have several syntactic and grammatical deficiencies&mdash;to-wit, Los Angeles Times was not italicized, in contravention of the manual of style; Mike DiGiovanna was not bolded, which non-bolding is inconsistent with practice across the portal (you have, I see, fixed this); $ was not linked, in contravention of the manual of style; present tense was employed, which usage was inconsistent with practice across the section (you've also remedied this in part, but "Boras has" remains; the latter concern, for instance, is why I used theretofore instead of heretofore); and, you ended the phrase in a preposition, which locution is, though not really disfavored by descriptivists, substandard for encyclopedic purposes&mdash;and intended to act solely to render the text such that it should be consistent with encyclopedic standards; I certainly hope that you appreciate that I do not mean to act simply to rewrite all of your submissions but only to attempt to improve them, as ought you to do, for example, to mine, and I hope you'll drop me a line at my talk page should you think me to be wrong regarding any of the five concerns I raise.

I surely err as much as the next editor, and I surely don't mean to be a high-handed, pretentious, uptight, pedantic prick here (it really sounds as if I protest too much), and so, whilst I gather we disagree about much, not least the level of rigor we ought to apply in divining the encyclopedic merit of the inclusion of a given fact and the level of formality we ought to use in our writing here (to be sure, even my academic writing style is less highfalutin than my on-Wiki style, and that which I employ whilst writing to or hanging out with friends is considerably different), I imagine that, as editors acting in good faith and ostensibly editing quite productively across the project, we ought not to continue to clash as we have. I'm going, then, to recommit to being especially circumspect when considering editing your contributions, most prominently, to the baseball portal, and I hope, similarly, that you might take an extra moment before editing to review those prospective contributions; each of us, I would suppose, as any editor, would do well to mind Essjay's suggestion that one, before he presses save, confirm for himself that his change will benefit the project.

I am, as you will have gathered, a bit distressed by our having quarreled other-than-productively with some frequency (more frequently that have I with any other editor, and apparently more frequently than have you with any other editor as well), so I'd surely like to bury the hatchet, to which I hope you're amenable. Cheers, Joe 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter
--  jj137   ( talk )  03:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)