User talk:Zepppep/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Zepppep! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

What can we do about this?
As I am sure you have also noticed, User:Carthage44 has been continuously reverting constructive edits, in particular to the Adam Dunn page. Is there any way we get this user to stop? After all, he does not own the page and there is no harm in either of us updating stats. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've read we should attempt to resolve it on the article's talk page and look to build consensus, one way or the other. I went to his talk page (before I went to the article talk page), thinking User:Carthage44 might be open to a discussion. However, he deleted my question from his talk page and simply left edit summary comments "stats don't need to be updated daily" or something like that. If the user continues to do it and there's a consensus that updating Dunn's stats as often as users may like, then I think it can be brought to an editor's attention. I honestly have much more experience with Wikitravel than WP so you can also feel free to point me in the right direction, as well. I would say it's a bit annoying that one user believes they own the page. (Sigh) Zepppep (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, quite frankly, I haven't been on Wikipedia very long, and I don't really know what direction to point you in. I will try to resolve the problem, though. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam Dunn reverts discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Adam Dunn reverts". Thank you. --AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you help?
I'm starting work on an article to list the transactions for the 2012 season, and it is going to take a lot of work. If you are interested in helping, I'd appreciate it. Of course, if you aren't interested, that's fine. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I have abandoned the project. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!
I'm glad to see you have returned. I was afraid you were gone for good. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Chris Perez (baseball). When removing content, 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 content has been restored, as you can see from the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Perez_(baseball)&action=history 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. -- WikHead (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely wasn't my intention. I almost always leave edit summaries whenever I add/delete to an article. Simple mistake...thanks though! Zepppep (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're most certainly welcome Zepppep, thanks for your message! The portion of your work that I reverted truly appeared to be accidental... but still needed to be reset nonetheless. Had I actually thought you were trying to be disruptive, I would most certainly have reverted your entire session rather than just a slice of it. I hesitated briefly before sending you the generic uw-delete1 message (above) as you did indeed provide a summary... but because it didn't quite summarise the (accidental) end result, I figured it was best to at least let you know that something had gone wrong, and that you'd have to return to complete your edit. It's pretty clear to me that your intentions are only to make that a better article. Have yourself a great day Zepppep, stay well, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Reggie Jackson
The stats in the infobox are for the players most important stats. I wouldn't include Reggie's K's among his most important.--Yankees10 03:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree SOs may not be an "important" stat for an overwhelming majority of MLB player articles, but for Reggie, his SO rate was much greater than his peers and he did it 25% of his official ABs. I think it's also why the stat is included on articles for Jim Thome and Adam Dunn.Zepppep (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jackson is prominently featured in the lead for the Strikeout article, so seems I'm not the only one who thinks it was an important stat of his career. 00:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Zepppep (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited Johnny Damon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Fixed. Zepppep (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Johan's lead
I have been left with the understanding that the place of birth does not need to be in the lead. I guess if you wanted to change it to what you had suggested, that is fine. However, the place of birth is already contained in the infobox, so it is not an absolute necessity at any rate. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just using the Jim Thorpe article (star status) and Rickey Henderson article (good) as examples. Zepppep (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. You could also ask at WT:MLB, though I might have asked there in the past myself. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Check it out if you'd like. Zepppep (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. Thanks for taking a swing at the umpire pages too. I agree, sometimes there isn't much to say. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Johnny Damon
If you look at the bottom of the Johnny Damon profile page, Johnny Damon is listed under American people of Irish descent, but the first part of the page only mentioned his Croatian descent. Damon is an Irish surname rather than a Croatian surname. I think it makes more sense to mention his entire ancestry, rather than just 2/3. His Wikipedia profile page used to mention his Irish descent in the main article itself, but it was removed for some reason (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091009221518AAIWyb3). I'm not so much adding new information, but just putting back what should have been there in the first place. Aoa8212 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with how many countries of descent are listed; if you're putting it there because there's a link at the bottom of the page, that's not an actual source, however, and an actual source should be added to the article ASAP to back up any claims and make sure it's on the path towards being a good article for a living person. If you know of a good, verifiable source which talks about his ancestry, be bold! Zepppep (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But someone removed it, right? So why did they remove it? Did they perhaps read something that said Jimmy Damon was in fact not of Irish descent, but they simply forgot to list so in their edit summary, or even a bigger mistake, forget to cite a source? As it stands now, there's not a source, either, so without sources, it's tough to know what is true and what isn't. Because an article used to state something doesn't mean it should be added back. Keep in mind I'm not trying to deny Damon's father may be of Irish descent, but what I'm saying is without sources, about the only thing that makes sense is to remove any mentions of his parents. Zepppep (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Cleveland
Good to have you aboard, Zep! Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Mnap25
The edit was reverted because of the user's prolonged failure to update the date for the stats. He had been given a final warning, continued his actions, and therefore all of his edits from today have been reverted, and he has been blocked for 24 hours. Also, the reason for the lack of the edit summary is, I would imagine, that rollback was used to revert the edit. AutomaticStrikeout 03:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated the stat date to August 1 and I don't see that he edited that date to something else. The only thing I see that he did was change the number of losses to the correct amount. In this particular instance, I don't see any harm done on his part; am I missing something? Zepppep (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like AutomaticStrikeout responded for me. The user's repeated changes of factual information without sources has gotten to the point of vandalism (you'll note that uw-unsor4 is a redirect to uw-vand4) and cannot be trusted.  I was in the middle of another project (just now finished), so I didn't feel like spending time on an edit summary when I would have used rollback if possible.  Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

For this article, maybe he didn't do anything wrong, I'm not sure. However, I think Nyttend decided to go through and revert every edit from this user for today because the user was being blocked for abuse of editing privileges (not updating the dates on other articles after a final warning). I'll let you and Nyttend sort it out, I am going to bed since it's after midnight for me. AutomaticStrikeout 04:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so the user was OK in his most recent change to the Jeff Karstens article and his edit should not have been reverted. I'm sure the block on the user is warranted, however, in other instances you two have likely discussed at greater length than I'm privy to. As I stated, I have seen instances of the user seemingly refusing to update the stat date along with the stats but this particular instance seems to be one where he was in the clear. Zepppep (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All I knew was that the user was repeatedly refusing to cite any reliable sources (or even unreliable ones!) for his changes, and doing that enough times is grounds for blocking. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wanted to leave a message on the user's talk page stating "I looked on a reliable source" as the edit summary continuously was aggravating. It's not a helpful edit summary. Zepppep (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To sum it all up, I think Mnap25 was likely, as Zepppep said, in the clear on this particular edit. However, the user had basically waived his right to have good faith assumed by that point, and this one constructive edit was reverted along with all the nonconstructive ones. AutomaticStrikeout 16:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Gabby Douglas
I just had an admin protect Gabrielle Douglas right before you started editing it. He did it so quickly, I didn't have time to revert some disruptive edits. Haha. Anyway, the bad edits have been ongoing for the past few hours (now that Douglas is worldwide superstar), many of them to the Flying Squirrel nickname. (It may be the same editors using multiple accounts because it's been changed to Flying Princess (NOT her nickname) many times.) Anyway, I noticed you changed Flying Squirrel (which is correct and fully sourced), back to Flying Princess in the infobox. Can you fix that? Also, you moved the sentence about how Martha Karolyi gave her the nickname from the lead to the middle of the 2012 section. That nickname is extremely prominent, and it's not known via the sources exactly which year it was given to her, so that's why it was in the lead as the second paragraph. I had thought perhaps to put it in the "Personal life" section as an alternative to the lead. It just seems very out of place sticking it in the middle of the 2012 section. Thanks. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good eye. I didn't change Princess to Squirrel until after my initial big edit. I wasn't even aware that was her nickname but after seeing the sources was in fact made aware she had one and that it was Flying Squirrel. Regarding the info box, I didn't change anything there but I can change that if you like. Regarding her nickname in the lead, leaving it there is fine if it's something very prominent. I wouldn't worry about the exact year or date she was given the nickname. If there are sources that identify how/from whom she was given the nickname, that suffices. There doesn't need to be an overwhelming amount of info. regarding it -- just the fact that her coach gave her that nickname suffices. Three sources for one item seems to be overkill. Perhaps a footnote can be added explaining why there are three sources. I'm not sure how prominent her nickname is as there appears to be confusion as to what it actually is. I moved it from the lead to the 2012 section because all the sources were dated 2012, and I'm not sure how much interaction she would've had with Karolyi before 2012 (and hence, not likely Karolyi would've given her a nickname much before then). I wouldn't put her nickname in Personal life because if what you're saying is true, that her nickname is prominent, then that is not something that would only be known to a few people. Zepppep (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: I see Flying Squirrel was put back in the infobox. I saw your edit comment ("sources used in the article say "Flying Squirrel"). Wow, you must be one of the only people in the world who didn't know her nickname is the Flying Squirrel. Haha. I guess you're not following the Olympics. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am following the following the Olympics but not from a U.S.-based media company. Also, my viewing of the men's and women's gymnastics has been spottty. I saw absolutely zero of her London performances. Zepppep (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zep. Yes, her nickname is very prominent. It's been used at least a hundred times during the Olympic coverage and in many news articles. So much so that I'm getting tired of hearing it. Haha. The reason there are three sources for the nickname is because of prior debate about where the nickname originated. So we put three sources to put the debate to rest. Thanks. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My guess is her nickname has only become prominent very recently, and as is often the case, it wouldn't have become known to too many until she made the Olympic team and until she started coming under the spot light more. The sources are all from 2012, again, showing she was either recently given the nickname or it only became something the press thought was worthy of mentioning until she started to get a little more attention. The number of athletes that have a nickname given by a coach or teammate but not known in too many other circles is staggering. I'm glad I could help clean up the article. And as you've already mentioned, I did put it as "Flying Squirrel" in an edit made a few minutes after my initial (large) one. Zepppep (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zep, thanks for the note about the discussion on the Douglas talk page. I replied. Regarding one sentence you rewrote in the article, I really wish you would change it back to the original way I wrote it because you removed a lot of the key elements so it's now out of context and sounds odd. ;)


 * MY VERSION: "At age 14, Douglas moved from her home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to live with a host family in West Des Moines, Iowa, so she could train with Liang Chow, who was the coach of former world and Olympic champion Shawn Johnson."


 * YOUR VERSION: "When Douglas moved to Iowa to train under Liang Chow, Douglas and her sister again convinced their mother to let Douglas move, with Douglas staying with a host family in West Des Moines."


 * You took out the reference to age 14 which is important because it lets readers know when it happened (just like the prior two sentences). You removed the Virginia Beach, Virginia, reference, which is the only reference in the entire article about where her home is (not counting the infobox). Remember, that section's content used to be the first section below the lead. You also took out the names of her highly-regarded coach Chow (who led her to gold) and the name of the famous Olympian he coached, Johnson. Those names are important because it puts it in context that she moved to be with this top-notch coach who coached another Olympic champion. Also, the sentence now starts with "moved" and then mentions the "move" a second time. So it now essentially says... When Douglas moved their mother let her move. The part you added about the mother having to be convinced (again) is not important at all in this sentence. The original instance where they had to convince her just to let Gabby start taking gymnastics lessons is important because it's a well-documented story about how she got started in the sport. Her living situation with the host family is also notable and has been covered quite a bit by the media, and one of the sources I included is a feature story about life in that home and how she's like one of their children. One other issue: you used "Douglas" FOUR times in that one little sentence. Haha. Wow, that's a lot of issues with one sentence. You really gave it a major overhaul. ;) So anyway, there was a lot of thought put into the wording of the original sentence. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please put the original version back, along with the wikilinks for Chow and Johnson. You can leave out the wikilinks for Des Moines and Virginia Beach. They're linked in the infobox. Thanks a lot. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please look here for the items which you claim I "removed." If you click on the link or look at the article from top to bottom&mdash;or look at the edit summaries I've left after editing the article, you will see your concerns (above) are indeed .nothing to worry about as your understanding of the article is incorrect. I didn't see anything specifically mentioning her host family and didn't take anything away from them as far as how much weight they received in the article. And in regards to links, we treat links in a stat/bio box separate from links in the body of the article, so please note that I have left Virginia Beach and WDM linked in their first usage in the body. I did, however, change the wording of the sentence in regards to "move," because in fact the way the article reads, it states Gabby and her sister had to convince her mother to attend gymnastics lessons, not to move; so therefore, there is no second "move" and I did change it so "move" wasn't used twice in the same sentences. Zepppep (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comment to the number of times I used "Douglas" in the same sentence was added after my reply. Again, if you read the sentences found here here, you will see it has been re-worked. Zepppep (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the edit summary after my latest edit, just fixed several of the reference markups. All 24 of the references used in the article are properly formatted now. Zepppep (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, sorry Zep. I'm so confused now. The article has been reworked so much since I asked an admin to protect it last night.

Look at the last sentence of the 2010 section, then look at the last sentence of the Personal life section. It's the one at the end of the 2010 section that I was referring to. It's basically the same content in both places, which isn't necessary. Things have changed so much since I wrote that sentence. Originally, there was an "Early life" section, which was the first section after the lead. That section was renamed to become the "Personal life" section, which you then moved from the top to the bottom of the article. But the sentence I wrote you about is now in the 2010 section.

This was the entire "Personal life" section content when I wrote it:

Douglas is the daughter of Timothy Douglas and Natalie Hawkins.[11] She began training in gymnastics at age six when her older sister, Arielle, convinced their mother to enroll her in gymnastics classes.[12] When she was eight years old, Douglas won an all-around gymnastics award for her level at the 2004 Virginia State Championships.[13] At age 14, Douglas moved from her home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to live with a host family in West Des Moines, Iowa, so she could train with Liang Chow, who was the coach of former world and Olympic champion Shawn Johnson.[14][15]

You can see how the host family is mentioned (with the Des Moines Register feature story about her life with the family cited. Anyway, the last sentence of the article (at the end of the Personal life section) can be removed. It's simply a repeat of the last sentence in the 2010 section. And the last sentence of the 2010 section can be changed back to my wording:

"At age 14, Douglas moved from her home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to live with a host family in West Des Moines, Iowa, so she could train with Liang Chow, who was the coach of former world and Olympic champion Shawn Johnson."

The current wording is:

"Douglas moved from Virginia Beach, Virginia to West Des Moines, Iowa in October at the age of 14 to train under Liang Chow, the former coach of 2008 Summer Olympics gold medal-winner Shawn Johnson."

I chose to use "former world and Olympic champion" because I wanted to point out that she was more than just an Olympic champ, she was both a world and Olympic champ.

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Her moving from Virginia was a professional decision -- hence my putting it in the 2010 subsection. Personal life details are very different from things related to what the article subject is known for. The only thing that would be considered "personal" about the paragraph would be the name of her parents -- everything else could be considered part of her career taking form, which is the reason why this individual has her own WP article and millions of 16 year olds do not. Usually "Early life" is for things which took place in a subjects life that led to their "path to becoming famous enough to have a WP article" so I am in support of an "Early life" subsection. I was not the one who changed "Early" to "Personal." But the Early life subsection for her is a bit different, 1) considering her age and 2) considering the lack of details about her formative years, so I guess it's another reason while I was working on the article that nothing jumped out to me as "oh, there's enough meat here to warrant another subsection." But if there's only a few sentences for a subsection a tag of "this section needs expansion" can be added, encouraging others to seek out sources to make the article better. A typical BLP "Early life" subsection, for example, a baseball player's introduction to the sport, his high school career, and if there isn't much to write on about his collegiate or semi-pro career, would constitute an Early life subsection. WP articles grow over time as different users become involved in the creation process and there are more stories and events that shape the article's life. By no means are articles concrete, especially BLps. The host family is mentioned in the Register article but don't believe mentioning anything about them specifically is of merit. There were lots of details in the story that would be irrelevant to the article; if you disagree, go forth! There are other parts to that source that would be more worthy, IMO, such as her difficult time adjusting to life in Iowa and her initial shock. But I didn't add that either. I think "moving from __ to __ at the age of 14" lets the reader know how difficult the move would have been. But it wasn't too severe -- she (reportedly) never developed any sort of disorder or significant amount of challenge because of the move, or almost gave up her career, etc., so that's why I kept the focus of what was written in that story on things related to her career. If there are personal details, such as her favorite color, rapper, subject, etc. then that would be good info. to add in the personal life subsection. Also, I hope by now you've also seen much of what you wrote earlier (above) was borderline baseless (such as the links, name of coach, etc.). Zepppep (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zep! I just got your message on my talk page. I apologize, I didn't mean to imply you did anything wrong at all. And even if you had changed any of my edits, I wasn't mad about it at all. I just wanted you to put back the edits I had made because you seem like a great editor, and right now I can't edit because I had an admin protect the page. Haha. I really want to get rid of that sentence in the "Peronal life" section about her moving to Des Moines removed. It's basically just saying exactly what's said in the 2010 section. And the two citations can just be moved up to the sentence in the 2010 section. Whoever added that must not have seen it was already addressed in the 2010 section. Have a great weekend! --76.189.114.163 (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated it about 20 min ago or so. You can check the article's talk page for an update as well. Zepppep (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, great. I'll go check it. One other issue. I noticed someone added lots of text (3 sentences) in the Personal life section about her relationship with God and it has all these unnecessary quotes. First, having all that text is overkill and not worthy of inclusion. The most it should mention, if anyting, is that she's a devout christain, or a christian, or something like that. Period. The 3 sentences (two which are totally unsourced) all basically say the same thing anyway. The only sourced info from those sentences is the part where she says she "gives all glory to God." I noticed on the talk page that a user named Ryan Vesey was pushing hard to have all that info in the article; he claims that "It is incredibly widely reported." But I checked and Google News returned only about 3 results. Haha. Anyway, when I saw all that religious content in the article, I immediately said to myself "what the heck is all that even in there for?" The one citation, by the way, is from a Christian website. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just saw what you did with the host family sentence in the Personal life section. The sentence should just be completely removed. I believe what happened is that the editor who added it did not realize it was already included in the 2010 section. It doesn't make sense to say the same thing in two different sections. And you (and I agreed) already decided that it was a career decision (because she moved to train with coach Chow) and therefore it should go in the 2010 section, not the Personal life section. I liked your reasoning on that. So just get rid of the sentence at the end of the article, and merge in the reference to the "host family" in the sentence in the 2010 section. And relocate the 2 links from the deleted sentence to the remaining sentence. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. You don't need to leave messages on my talk page. I'll keep an eye on yours. Thanks! --76.189.114.163 (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very few IP users watch others' talk pages, hence my reasoning. But if you're on top of it, I'll gladly take a break from it. Zepppep (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They read as following:


 * (2010 subsection): Douglas moved from Virginia Beach, Virginia to West Des Moines, Iowa in October at the age of 14 to train under Liang Chow, the former coach of 2008 Summer Olympics gold medal-winner Shawn Johnson.


 * (Personal life subsection): When Douglas left Virginia to live with a host family, she and older sister Arielle worked together to gain their mother's reluctant approval.
 * The 2 do not say the same thing. And the reader should be informed where Douglas lived when she departed VA -- a boarding school? family member? host family? By stating "host family" it informs the reader. Zepppep (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We are saying the exact same thing lmao. All I've been saying is that the whole issue of her moving to Des Moines is ONE event in her life, and so it should all be included ONE time, in ONE place in the article. And the reader IS informed where she moved to... to live with a host family. _I_ was the one who originally put it in the sentence (the sentence in that's now in the 2010 section), but then someone removed the "host family" part from that sentence. And then someone added the new sentence in the Personal life section and included the words "host family" in it. But they didn't realize the move to Des Moines event was already in the 2010 section. Now do you get what I'm saying? :P I just want the two separate sentences to be merged together into one sentence, and the sentence should be in the 2010 section only. And the part about convincing the mom is not that important because obviously the mom had to approve the move haha. But hey, if you think that little detail is important, then merge it into that one sentence, also. ; --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Did her dad approve of the move? Zepppep (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that whole part about getting the mom to approve is just not important at all! It goes without saying that her parents approved of the move. She didn't sneak off to Iowa. Haha. Anyway, my original sentence had everything that was needed: "At age 14, Douglas moved from her home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to live with a host family in West Des Moines, Iowa, so she could train with Liang Chow, who was the coach of former world and Olympic champion Shawn Johnson." You can just add in "October" to the sentence, so it starts out "In October, at age 14,..." --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, did her dad approve of the move? Was everyone on board except her mother, or what? One could argue the part about the mother needing to be "convinced" is important, as some parents might be wholeheartedly behind such a move whereas Douglas's mother was not. I don't know how many parents of Olympic athletes would fall into the which side of the camp but there are those who have an agenda the first day the child is born, and those who feed their child's late and budding interest. Here's an athlete who had a mother that didn't want her to enter the sport. Here's an athlete that in 2010 had reached a level in the sport very few gymnasts in garages all over the world obtain, and yet her mother has to be convinced to let her daughter pursue something she obviously enjoys and is good at, knowing her daughter has a gift that if nurtured, could take her to levels she'd never imagined? Now obviously the mother had to be behind it at least to some degree, otherwise she wouldn't have agreed to it at all. That's why I put "reluctantly" agreed to it. It's kinda heartwarming to know this detail, IMO. Zepppep (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes. Of course the father approved. He's been interviewed on TV. The only issue was that the mom obviously didn't have the money to move the whole family to Iowa, and obviously she would miss Gabby very much if she moved away. The only hesitation the mom had was when Gabby originally wanted to get into gymnastics, when Gabby was six. But the mom said fine, Gabby became great at it very quickly, and the mom was totally supportive the whole way. As I said, the only issue with the move to Iowa was that the mom would miss her a lot and was worried about sending Gabby off on her own like that. But Gabby made it clear to her mom that Chow was an incredible, legendary coach. Gabby insisted that she needed Chow in order to reach the highest levels of the sport. Again, most parents would have the same concerns about their minor child moving out of state on their own to live with another family for a long time. But it's common for world-class child athletes. So I'm just saying that I think this whole issue about convincing the mother or the parents approving is pretty insignificant. It goes without saying that when a young kid tells their parents they want to move away on their own that there would be a lot of questions and concerns. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He was interviewed in 2010 on TV, or recently he mentioned this? I would need to do more research (than I care to do) to see just how supportive her mother was of the move. If the dad supported it the whole way, it's possible the move occurred more so because of his input. At any rate, a reporter with one of the citations thought the "hesitation" was large enough to warrant inclusion in a story of theirs. OK, I've had enough Miss Douglas for a day. Zepppep (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't seem to get away from WP today! OK, as you may have noticed an update to her talk page listing sources for re: her faith. I am checking them now. One of them I just got done reading states it took she and her sister two years to convince her mother to move from VA to train, and this is something you don't think is significant enough to warrant mention? The article is here. Zepppep (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're worrying WAY too much about the issue of the mom (or dad) approving the move. It is very well known that the idea to move to Iowa started when Gabby was 12, and then she made the move at 14. But my main concern is not at all about the issue of getting the mom to agree. That's just a small side issue. My biggest concern is that the whole event about the move to Iowa should be in ONE place in the article, not two. So whether convincing the mom is included or not, the whole issue should all be together in the 2010 section. Not part in the 2010 section, and another snippet in the Personal life section. I don't understand why you haven't just combined all that yet. I've asked like five times already to merge the text. If I was able to edit right now, I'd just take care of it myself in about 15 seconds. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is well known." So well known it (the duration of making the decision to move) doesn't deserve mention in the article? Maybe I'll feel better about merging them when I do some research on how long it take the family to agree on the move. I wasn't aware it took 2 years, so again, not sure how well known it was. Zepppep (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Your vote discussion
Hi Zep. I saw the Vote section you started on the A-A Firsts talk page. But you forgot to sign it. I think you're doing a great job of trying to get the page improved. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure you should be using the word "vote." I remember a discussion where polling was going on and some administrators admonished the people about using the term "vote" in the discussion. They talked about how vote-counting doesn't decide things; consensus does. So it's more like making recommendations, that acutally "voting." Haha. Those admins cited WP:!VOTE. Anyway, like I said, you're the kind of editor who would be great at guiding that article through the improvement process because you're logical, fair and, most importantly, neutral. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Zeppep. I know you're trying to be constructive and helpful, but putting "vote" on a page and giving a five-day deadline really isn't the way Wikipedia works. We do a Request for Comment that goes on a Wikipedia-wide noticeboard, is usually up for a minimum of 7 days and which an admin closes. I've left a note to this effect at Talk:List of African-American firsts. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, if you really think Zep is being "constructive and helpful" then why, two minutes earlier, did you call what he did "meaninglesss" on the A-A Firsts talk page? Give me a break.


 * Here's your full comment: "First, we don't decide things on Wikipedia by voting. Second, if you're going to do a Request for Comment, please go to that bluelink and do it the proper way. This is meaningless otherwise."


 * Do you see the words "helpful" or "constructive" in your comment? Didn't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said in response to you on the A-A Firsts talk page, "It's no surprise at all that you oppose Zep's excellent, appropriate and good faith efforts. First, you should educate yourself on WP:!VOTE. While using the term "vote" is definitely not preferred, it is also not prohibitied. Zep is conducting a poll, which is totally acceptable. And voting, as I'm sure Zep knows, is simply submitting a recommendation. Zep's purpose is to encourage feeback and to build consensus. And I'm also sure that Zep fully realizes that we don't count votes; we attempt to reach consensus. Second, Request for Comment does not apply here. This is a standard talk page discussion about improving the article, not an issue that requires outside dispute resolution. So, contrary to your baseless and unproductive statement that this is "meaningless," what is actually meaningless are your comments. You apparently need to be reminded again that you do not own this article. If you'd like to submit a Yes or No, or comment, on the issue at hand you are more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, perhaps you want to explain your glaring avoidance of the issue of professional wrestling firsts being included on the list. In any case, we will continue with this process of trying to improve the article."


 * And since Tenebrae was so uptight about the word "vote," I also posted this: "I have updated the section title to "!Vote" to clarify that this is not a vote-counting process, but rather a means to help determine consensus as part of the ongoing discussion. For clarification, see WP:!VOTE, WP:VOTE and !vote."


 * So Tenebrae, enough with your passive-aggressiveness... coming here and telling Zep you think his poll is helpful and constructive, but saying on the public talk page to everyone that it's meaningless. You have proven by your long-term words and actions, and avoidance of the issues, that you do not care about improving that article and that all you want to do is control it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that Tenebrae has yet again posted his "this is meaningless" comment on the poll thread. As if saying it the first time wasn't enough. Haha. Pathetic. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Make it THREE times he's call it meaningless on the talk page. He just did it again. But this time he also added that it's an "empty exercise." Haha. He's like a king who's worried that he's losing his throne. Has no interest in helping; only fighting the effort. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tenebrae, yes, I was and am trying to be constructive and helpful. I may not have used the correct wording (vote instead of straw poll) but action in and of itself is not prohibited. Some may question its validity but I think they can be useful in some situations. Trying to round up opinions so far on this talk page is like trying to round up a herd of cats. Furthermore, it is difficult because rather than responding to specifics, some users have said "I'm not responding because that's too much to wade thru" or ignored repeated invitations for reason for support. I would also question as to whether consensus has been reached on Gabby Douglas, as you reverted an edit Mcusa made on 3 August and told the user to revert to the talk page. In light of all that's going on, would you also try to do as I've done (constructive and helpful) by stating your reasons for including professional wrestlers? Leave your responses on the talk page. Of what has actually been posted to the talk page, a consensus is forming that would not have those individuals listed. Zepppep (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:VideoGamePhenom
I issued a final warning. In the future, if a registered user has been warned on a particular issue, you should issue a higher level warning message. If you aren't already, you might consider using a tool like Twinkle to make patrolling easier.

Per WP:DDE, the next step would to report to WP:ANI.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Tenebrae
Have you seen his talk page image? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (Gulp). Zepppep (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This was vandalism and has been reverted.TMCk (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why wasn't the user at IP 211.26.243.21 given a strong warning or edit block then? Zepppep (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP has one single edit, most likely a sock. Tenebrae might know who they are and act on it if s/he wishes. Although it's usually best to ignore the trolls. TMCk (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad to hear that wasn't his image and the editor who did that should be blocked permanently. But it also sends a clear message about Tenebrae. He obviously did something to really anger someone. TMCk is no angel himself. He removed an entire paragraph of content I posted on the Firsts talk page. I warned him of the seriousness of that violation and instead of just apologizing, he got rude with me about it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Gabby Douglas added/removed again
Zep, another editor added Gabby Douglas on the Firsts list today, then Fat&Happy removed it, with the edit comment "rv not ground-breaking as explained at talk page, latest of a long line of gold medal winners." He falsely implies that "explained" means consenus was reached, which it of course was not. Those were just a few editors giving their opinions. It's not even close to consensus. There is currently no separate list for Olympians and having Don Barksdale on the list for "First African-American Olympic gold medal basketball winner" is a complete contradiction to the claim that gold medal winners for individual sports do not qualify. If Barksdale qualifies, why doesn't Douglas? Either they both go on or neither goes on. Your thoughts? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know. I don't mind if that happens if consensus has in fact been reached. Unfortunately, it has not. I mentioned this in 2 different postings on the talk page that I thought it was suspect. Zepppep (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's abundantly clear that Tenebrae will continue to do nothing but avoid every direct question or contradiction regarding the two issues (Douglas and wrestling). If you browse the full discussion on both issues, you'll see how many points he has totally ignored... the Douglas-Barksdale contradiction, the fact that there are many individual firsts on the list within particular fields, all the fictional wrestling firsts, etc. He obviously has no defense for keeping them on the list, and never will. He's now said three time how he's "not wild" about including them and even said he "might" actually support removing them, yet will not simply state his opinion and provide solid reasons. This is the reason I think it's important to temporarily abandon the issue of creating a new lead. It gives him a very easy way to avoid talking about the wrestling issue and all the contradictions with the list. The lead issue just muddies the waters, which is exactly what he wants. He's using the issue of your lead proposal as a way to pretend he's being cooperative overall. You can see what he did with the comment that he sent us on a goose chase to find. He claimed that comment explained his reasons for validating the inclusion of wrestling people. But of course when I found it, it said absolutely nothing in that regard; just some general comments about past editors had a "point" about them being included. There is not one reason anywhere in those 50+ talk page discussions that alludes to why wrestling firsts are on the list. So, we are down to this: one guy fighting the removal of the wrestling firsts with zero reasons given vs. three editors strongly suppporting their removal, with many clear reasons and examples provided. It's time to end this issue since absolutely no counter-arguments have been given or will be given, and no proof whatsoever has been shown to back the claim that past editors reached a consensus on the wrestling issue. I can't imagine that any good reason exists for including fictional firsts on a very serious list like that. As you may have seen in my most recent comment, I said that if they want to have a list for wrestling, then they should create a "First AA Professional Wrestling Firsts" article. Why do you think he's fighting so hard to get fictional firsts removed? It's mind-boggling. This issue could have, and should have, been settled two days ago. All he had to say was, "You guys are right. Wrestling first shouldn't be on there. They're not real. So let's remove them." Then we could've moved on to creating good "rules" for deciding inclusion, and cleaned up your proposed lead. Dispute resolution on this wrestling issue would make no sense because not a single person has provided a reason why they should be included. Dispute resolution is when you have strong reasons and opinions on both sides of an issue. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We can still work on cleaning up the proposed lead. I do find myself scratching my head at times. There is currently discussion taking place on the article's talk page. I am trying to get folks to chime in on whether consensus has been reached re: Douglas or not. In the last few days, 2 IP users have tried to add her and at least 2 users (you and Mcusa) on the talk page vote for inclusion, while I see 3 users are not for inclusion. In regards to the wrestling, I do don't see support for inclusion, other than the the fact that items were added to the article. I do not see any users on the talk page in support of inclusion for pro wrestling. IMO, you are free to edit those with an edit summary, I'd reckon. Anyone who disagrees would need to support their reasons and a discussion could be hashed out at the talk page. Zepppep (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would make much more sense for you to do the removal of the wrestling listings since Tenebrae considers you to be a serious editor. You can imagine what would happen if I did it. There are 10 of them, I believe... keywords to find them are: wrestling, WWE, NWA and Extreme. It still absolutely amazes me that they ever got on the list. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Evan voted for inclusion of Douglas, also. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2012
 * Evan voted for inclusion of Douglas, also. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2012

(UTC)
 * What one user thinks should not prevent you from making contributions. IP users are allowed to contribute to WP just as much as any registered user. Zepppep (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's yet another contradiction: "First African-American Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Roderick L. Ireland". So I guess that means we should have the first AA chief justice of every state in the country? ;) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

These are the 10 (all of them are characters portrayed by actors, with fictional accomplishments):

First African-American male professional wrestler to win a world heavyweight championship: Bobo Brazil (NWA)  First African-American wrestling manager: Slick  First African American General Manager for World Wrestling Entertainment: Theodore Long  First African-American Extreme Championship Wrestling champion: Bobby Lashley  First African-American female professional wrestler to win the NWA World Women's Championship: Amazing Kong  First African-American WWE Tag Team Champion: Tony Atlas (partnered with Rocky Johnson, a Black Nova Scotian)  First tag team made up of two African Americans to win the WWE Tag Team Championship: Men on a Mission (Nelson Frazier, Jr., aka Mabel, and Robert Horne, aka Mo)  First African American to win the WWE Championship: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson  First African American to win the WWE Women's Championship: Jacqueline Moore  First African American to win the WWE Diva's Championship: Alicia Fox

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases
I know the point you are trying to make; however, it might be best to just wait for sources to materialize that support other editors' proposal for list criteria. In the absence of those criteria, their proposal would be simply rejected for lack of sources.—Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I know which specific edit you're referring to and the lack of sources, precedent, etc. the editor has shown, but I thought maybe writing what I wrote -- and showing an example of a source -- might actually win the editor over. But I know what you mean. I probably devoted too much time to responding to fish that's dead in the water. Zepppep (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, was just a different perspective and commend your assumption of good faith.—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The issues displayed by the editor persist, despite attempts made in the past to confront the issue. Zepppep (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

He's at it again
Hey Zep. I thought we were finally getting somewhere with the Firsts article and that guy Tenebrae. Then I come back to the talk page after several hours off and find this comment:

"I don't even know where to begin. It doesn't mean anything that other editors with this page on their watchlists may not want to wade into what's been a fairly uncivil debate due to one taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP lowering the level of discourse. They tend to wait for something formal, where there's a modicum of oversight. Frankly, to start talking about wholesale changes to one aspect of this article without asking the editors who added that material to be involved in the discussion . . . well, that seems about par for 76, but I can't image that Mcusa or Zep feels that's right or proper." You've been leading this effort and he says he doesn't think you'd think the process is proper? Haha. And he praises Mcusa, the guy he kept insisting I was the sockpuppet of. ;)

And he posted this comment to Malik Shabazz: "Speaking of which, what's your take on the wholesale changes that, primarily, that anon IP and one other editors are trying to push through there without RfC or other wider discussion? Is it worth your time to comment or, as I suspect other editors are doing, you're looking at their walls and walls of text and saying, "I'm not wading into all that." It's been frustrating, especially with that taunting and extremely immature anon IP."

As I said, I thought we were making good progress thanks to your great leadership. But that guy is apparently back to his old ways. I KNEW it was fishy earlier today when he seemed to be starting to participate in a productive manner. And as is typical, what seems to be too good to be true, usually is. He was being totally disingenous and is now back to fighting our efforts. Now all he's saying should be done is to remove a couple listings.

I have no doubt he's still tracking every move I make on here and will be here to retort. ;)

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, you mean like you're doing? Geez.... --Tenebrae (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)''""


 * As I said Zep, here he is. As scheduled. ;)


 * Zep, here's what he just wrote to an adminsitrator about the two of us: "it's getting tiresome since he and another editor want to completely overhaul the article in their vision without seeking broader consensus. They both make extremist "all or nothing" statements. And both of them, especially the other one (Zepppep), post walls and walls of words. You know the type and I'm sure you know the situation. Is there any way you could post a reminder about civility, and your thoughts on the best way to seek broader consensus? I'm concerned things are going to escalate and a long-stable article, which could certainly use some fixing and pruning, is going to get decimated by two editors who refused to seek out broader consensus for their major overhaul." Just as I told you. Anyway, I think you've done a wonderful job of helping to improve that article and it's very sad that this one guy is so threatened by our efforts that he resorts to completely misrepresenting to admins what's going on. But they can read the talk page to see for themselves. And look at the edit history of the article for the six years the article's been up. Again, you've done a really great job, Zep. I'm sorry this guy continues to think he owns the article. Unfortunately, I don't think he'll ever change. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Both of you guys, for the sake of the article, need to attempt to cool down a bit. As I stated on the article's talk page, whatever discussions you want to have on your own talk pages is completely up to you guys. I haven't followed other users around and don't really feel like doing it, but I don't know how my "walls and walls of words" could be lumped in with personal attacks, immature language, etc. The words I wrote are always about content. Zepppep (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You did nothing wrong. Don't worry about it. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You did nothing wrong. Don't worry about it. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have left messages on both of your talk pages. While there have been periods of enjoyment in working with both of you, please consider this the last time you will use my talk page to trade barbs with one another. Zepppep (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why?
....you added more here after they're already blocked. Why? dangerous panda  10:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed the conversation was still open and thus, still accepting of issues. Cheers. Zepppep (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No: once the block has been made, piling on additional stuff is not appropriate. Just because it's not marked resolved, does not mean it's not resolved. It was not accepting of further issues  dangerous  panda  11:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can appreciate it -- your tone is well taken. Unfortunately for me, I didn't see anything that stated additional comments were not allowed, such as what is on other threads: "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it...". The user had directed some of their vitriol towards my way and there were additional offenses committed since the time other editors had posted abuses, so I went ahead and followed their lead. I made the additions in good faith. I wasn't attempting to open a closed door -- I merely didn't know the door had been closed. I don't know what the criteria is for a closed discussion, apparently. I would be able to understand "the above discussion is closed" however. I am one of those editors who is not well-versed in the rules pertaining to that page -- please know I wasn't attempting to do anything in bad faith. Zepppep (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Message on my talk page
I appreciate your message, and while we may have areas in which we have reasonable disagreements, I find you a good-faith editor &mdash; though again, I wish you had broken up your post into three paragraphs since it's much easier to read that way. And it doesn't really take any effort other than hitting the return button a couple of times! : )

I agree with you, certainly, that like virtually any article on Wikipedia it needs improvement (though given the quality and copiousness of its footnoting, I think it's better than many list articles). The suggestions you make do seem to me to amount to a major overhaul of an active and long-stable article, and I've found that when editors advocate an all-or-nothing stance, there's often resistance since that goes against reasoned judgment &mdash; and since human accomplishment is so varied and the nature of firsts have so many qualifiers, it's rare that rigid rules can account for all of them, so reasoned judgment is needed.

It's far easier to build consensus by taking things one step at a time rather than suggesting that we have to institute new rules, now, right away, and the rules will be all-or-nothing. There's no rush, no deadline, and with a long-stable article it's important to get as many points of view as possible. I'm sure you wouldn't object to that.

The pro wrestling issue seems to be a hot-button item, so perhaps that should be the first to be addressed. Against my better judgment, I've volunteered to go through the trouble of initiating an RfC and alerting the article's editors to it. Let's tackle that, then tackle whatever you think should be next &mdash; academia, federal government, whatever. That's my suggestion, reached through years of experience here.

I look forward to settling in and working with you over the long haul to make this article the best it can be. I'm sure other editors will as well. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I don't feel you have crossed any lines with me or delivered any low blows, personal attacks, but rather just perhaps not been completely honest in expressing your frustrations to others. You may well remember I did use subsection headings as well as paragraph form when presenting a large addition] to the talk page, but I didn't see this mentioned by you yest. I have taken your advice into consideration and in almost every circumstance, implemented it. I allowed you to freely comment on the lead example I offered and did not retort in a way that was off-topic, let alone defensive, hostile, etc.


 * I am well versed in the consensus mantras. I know it is wise to work on items which folks agree with first, then perhaps tackle the others. I have also solicited opinions from many other WikiProjects, 7 in total, in hopes of showing you and any other reader of the talk page it is not merely an agenda I am trying to pursue, let alone a "personal" one, but championing ideas which can make the article stronger. As you mentioned yesterday, you would also concede the article is not necessarily the strongest. I would love to one day see this article as an FLC.


 * I have been an editor to WP about half the duration of you, roughly, and know you have experience which I am highly seeking for purposes of article improvement.


 * In fact, the pro wrestling listings are not my biggest issue with the article, but I would agree they certainly are a hot-button item. And as I've stated, I would not oppose Rfc at all, considering the opinions I sought have not come to fruition and it would also help generate consensus. I too look forward to working with you in the long haul. I may not have the years-long history of working with this article as you have, but I trust you have found all my comments to be on-topic, content-related, and always in good faith. Zepppep (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have, and I do. I'm sincere in saying you've spotted areas that clearly need improvement and focus, and as you can see from all the work I've done this morning &mdash; taking about an hour toset up an RfC and notifying every registered editor of the article for the past two years (whew!) &mdash;  I'm ready to put the work in! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I hope we get some new eyeballs (or old ones returning). If not, with my posts to 7 different WikiProjects and your tags thus far today, we have gone well and above our call of duty as far as reaching out. ~That is one thing we can't be accused of. Zepppep (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

patience is a virtue?
See? Sometimes the stick just takes a little longer to swing, but sooner or later... --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 13:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm 90% positive I know to which you speak, and if it happens to be the 10% I don't know, I will take it anyways! I could use a positive flow of energy over here! Cheers! Zepppep (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

30–30 club review
Thanks Zepppep for your review on Talk:30–30 club. Could you please transfer your comments to the FLC page, as only comments on that page are taken into consideration. I have to admit I only found your comments today on the 30–30 club talk page (as I only check the FLC page for feedback). Sorry about that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I am not sure if the review comments are supposed to be showing on the FLC page, but I did transfer them. Let me know if I've done any of the transferring incorrectly and I'll get it righted. Zepppep (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're showing. And I just fixed a few minor formatting errors (to save you the trouble).  Once again, thank you for your feedback.  I'll get right down to it.  Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zepppep. I've addressed the comments you made on this FLC. If you want to respond to what I've written or have any additional feedback you'd like to give, feel free to add more comments. If not, could you please return to the FLC page, cap our discussion as "Resolved comments" (since it's becoming quite lengthy) and place your position (i.e. whether you support or oppose this list becoming an FL). Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! I support the bid! (Wasn't sure how to cap but let me know if you need me to do anything else.) Zepppep (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! To cap, all you have to do is put back the text deleted from this edit and place }} at the very end of your comments (but before the support vote).  The vote goes right underneath the resolved comments.  I would have wanted to help cap it, but under written FLC rules, only the reviewer (not the nominator) caps comments.  Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the how-to's! Zepppep (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)