Hello, Ethelh, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Geniac (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Wikipedia page for Sam Fuld contain so much irrelevant information? The page is cheapened by every positive quote made on individual plays made during his short career. If you take a look at other baseball players, each page is concise. I find Fuld's page to be excessive and want descriptions of his Major League Baseball career to be shortened given he has only played in 26 games.

Derek Jeter has a slightly longer page than Sam Fuld, yet has played over 2000 more games. His page is a great model for how a Wikipedia page describing a MLB career should be written. 98.223.210.96 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Mtreacy[reply]

All of the information is notable (despite your subjective POV), as it was notable enough to be listed in newspapers, mlb.com, etc (objective sources). Deleting portions of it that are properly referenced is vandalism. The size of his article is well within appropriate size for Wikipedia bios. Some other ballplayers should be similarly augmented (if editors were to put in the time, and if there were that much written on the ballplayer in newspapers, etc.), but the fact that they have not attracted the interest of editors does not require that other articles be shortened. The fame of the ballplayer does not determine the quality of the article, or how long it should be. Note that while Jeter and Fuld are both rated B for quality, the top-rate baseball article bios (at FA) include people such as Moe Berg, Orval Grove, Art Houtteman, Jimmy McAleer, and Bill Ponsford.--Ethelh (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your contribution to one of wikipedia's latest WP:GA's

This user helped promote Sam Fuld to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the preference for a consistent format throughout an individual article, and so have changed back those two. --Geniac (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--Ethelh (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Why am I red but others aren't?--Ethelh (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are red because there isn't currently anything on your userpage. If you want to be blue, all you need to do is add something to your userpage- it can be a complex userpage like I have, or just a sentence that says "This is Ethelh's userpage." Check out WP:USERPAGE for some things that userpages can be useful for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tx!--Ethelh (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than use all those quote boxes, can you instead find ways to incorporate those quotes into the text of the article? The boxes are cumbersome, and often are misformatted on certain monitors. It would help the articles instead if you could write the quotes into the existing texts. Kingturtle (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a GA article review that I worked on I was told, in contrast with your suggestion, to use quote boxes -- incorporating material that was already in the text of the article -- in order to improve the quality of the article. That was done, and the article was given GA status. Your view may be a personal one.--Ethelh (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair answer. I just wonder if you are over using them. The boxes start to dominate the articles. Kingturtle (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will keep that in mind. I've tried to limit the use to the better quotes. One article that does have 3 of them now, though, is Sam Fuld, where I have sought balance by limiting myself to that number and not adding a fourth. Happy new year.--Ethelh (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We both follow the Jewish baseball scene. Let's work harder on agreeing who should be considered Jewish and who not. How about that? You use the Reform definition, but you leave out the most important part: raised as a Jew and living a Jewish life. Lists don't make one a Jew.[1]

Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one decides who is not jewish and who is, either, you may add notes who is more jewish if you like. Ethnicity and religion are two different matters; you may add who is a religious based jew if you like that much. Living a jewish life, should a person ask how he will live a jewish life to religious doctrines, or other jews. What a misconception. Kasaalan (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the link on Craig Breslow‎ for that comment had been completely referenced, with the article title, publish date, source etc, I would not have deleted it. I will reference the policy as you suggest, but I would suggest to you that you learn how to create reference tags instead of straight links. With all the info those tags provide, there is no question to the authenticity of the reference. Hardnfast (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be the problem, and how may I help you? Prodego ^talk 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the fellow who kept on deleting my entry finally agreed that it was correct to leave it in. Thanks very much.--Ethelh (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, feel free to contact me if you need any additional help. Cheers! Prodego ^talk 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw your attention to my response to your reporting of an ip to AIV. AIV is for urgent admin response for current disruption - cases of long term disruption from an ip address might be more properly addressed to WP:ANI where a group of admins and others can discuss what action should be taken. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. Done.--Ethelh (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackal4 has run amok on a number of baseball pages. Pls take a look at my comments on his discussion page -- perhaps you can talk sense into him. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've noticed a bit of that, and will take a further look.--Ethelh (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean.--Ethelh (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing WP:NPOV on Josh Whitesell. I hadn't seen that. Good catch.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Jackal4 has been blocked for the second time this month -- this time for a 30-day period. See [2].--Epeefleche (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Another editor, NatureBoyMD, has come up with what I think is a good and thoughtful template and conditions for a "notable alumni" list for a minor league team that interests him. See [3]. I thought that before he finalizes it, it/he might benefit from you taking a glance at it, and giving him any comments that you may have, since I could see it being used for other minor league teams (its better than anything I've seen), and you are a baseball editor whose views I respect. Feel free to leave your comments on it for him on my home talk page at the above url, as that is where he and I have been discussing it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For each alumnus I removed, I checked the source, and found that there was inadequate citation there. Also, I have no motives other than ensuring all information about living persons is sourced. I'm sure the Exeter article has the same problems, but I can't put in the effort to fix it. --Taeshadow (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were correct and in line with the manual of style - see the heading "Inside or outside" at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation marks. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Ethelh, WP treats quoted material as precisely as possible; we do not insert extraneous final punctuation that is not in the original. This may go against what some US schools teach their children, but that is neither here nor there. Tony (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a borderline case. I chose to assess the article as low-priority because, while I'm not going to remove any sourced info from the article, the lead statements don't strike me as correct at all, especially the part about being the 'most acclaimed singer'. Actually he's not that well-known and most artists who represented Israel in Eurovision as also highly-acclaimed and got numerous local awards. You have a point about Eurovision though, it's considered fairly important in Israel, so perhaps we should auto-assess every Eurovision representative as mid- or higher, and I will change the rating accordingly. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder how many Israeli singers have been both Singer of the Year and represented Israel in Eurovision? I imagine those would be an elite few, and they would include him. Would think that all in that category would be higher than "low priority."--Ethelh (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it would help improve the article greatly if the citations were repeated. Afkatk (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this. Date linking for autoformatting is deprecated so it isn't necessary or helpful to do this. --John (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed a navbox from the bottom of the article because Castillo was not linked in it. Sorry for the shorthand explanation, as that was one of many articles where I was doing the same thing. Thanks, let me know if you have any oter questions. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. If I deleted something else it was in error. My apologies and thanks for letting me know. Sometimes I mess something up when doing repetitive edits on multiple pages. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: Except in rare cases, we do not permanently block IP addresses, so don't make that threat. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't continued vandalism-only use be such a case?--Ethelh (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to List of vegetarians, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses (some of which you have deleted, I see) are on your talk page. It's probably best to keep the discourse in one place, so that it can be reviewed more easily by interested persons.--Ethelh (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you should go to an uninvolved admin for help, rather than people who've had arguments with the user before. Alternately, try the IRC channel #wikipedia-en on irc.freenode.net. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... I was frankly looking for someone with experience with the user, who might therefore be able to get through to the user -- especially who has addressed the same issues previously.--Ethelh (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category, especially "other exceptions". It's not obvious, but names with apostrophes, non-initial capital letters, and non-capital initial letters actually have to be mis-spelt to have them sort correctly in categories. This is actually standard in virtually all English reference works; see for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica online index, here. Note how in their index, the article for Philip D'Antoni comes between the articles for George-Jacques Danton and Danton's Death. This is sorting method is motivated by the fact that there are a number of surnames in English that have multiple spelling variants, differing only by trivial punctuation or case; "D'Arcy/Darcy" and "duBois/Dubois/DuBois" are examples. A proper sort places them all adjacent, sub-sorted on first name. By the way, the Britannica (and the New York Times and many but not all other references) also does something we don't do; removing all spaces in the sort keys. Keep in mind that the DEFAULTSORT statement only specifies a sort key; it does not change anything displayed - the article's title is always what is displayed in a category. Studerby (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Ryan Braun to be a Featured Article. As you were a frequent editor, you may wish to contribute your view as to whether it should be a FA. The discussion of the FA comment process can be found at [4], and the page that you can go in through to leave comments is the article's talk page at [5]. Same holds for Kevin Youkilis. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; as I pointed out on that page I think Kevin Youkilis still needs some work before it qualifies as FA. I do think that Ryan Braun is ready, however, whenever that one comes up for review, except for a few citations which need fixing and I suggest be fixed first.--Ethelh (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look more carefully: [6], [7], [8], and more. --Sift&Winnow 06:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were the edits reasonable? If so, what's the problem? --Sift&Winnow 06:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your scouring of my user page, you seem to have overlooked this interchange:

How do you find out the changes so fast? Do you watch [9]? RoyalbroilAlt 20:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalbroilAlt (talk • contribs) [reply]

Yup. Then I pick and choose the things I'm interested in. Sometimes I follow the edits of other editors who seem interested in the same things as me, not to wikistalk, but just to find interesting material. --Sift&Winnow 20:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. It's the way of the wiki. Royalbroil 21:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth I would want to wikistalk someone like you is beyond me (or anyone, I would think). But believe whatever fairy tales you wish. Fantasy is free. --Sift&Winnow 18:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a Latin phrase for it, which means that the thing speaks for itself. But as long as the edits aren't disruptive I don't have a major problem with wikistalking. It's just that I noticed that another editor had found you to be wikistalking them as well, you denied it, so I saw fit to weigh in. Make sense?--Ethelh (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I rated Aleksandra Wozniak as low importance because relative to articles about Canada, that's how athletes generally rate. Please note that Mike Weir is also rated low, and even Wayne Gretzky is only rated Mid. PKT(alk) 12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the articles that focus on how important she is to Canada, and specifically to Quebec, I would have thought that she would be rated more highly. And she has as indicated represented Canada in the Federation Cup, the female version of the Davis Cup, which I would think is the most significant thing a Canadian tennis player could do on behalf of Canada. Do you agree? I imagine it is all subjective. But from what has been written by those authors of the articles to which I am referring I would have thought differently. I'm not sure if it is your personal bias of sports not being that important, or the authors' bias of sports being very important. Either way, there appears to be a disconnect. My bottom line, though, is that of course I defer to you and the others who are on the Canada Wikiproject. Would you think that your view would match theirs? If uncertain, I imagine we could bring it to their attention. Do you think that is a good idea? Or overdoing it? Just let me know. Either way, I am certainly more than happy to defer to you and them on this issue. I just was surprised for the reasons stated above. I do appreciate your rating the article, of course.--Ethelh (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and put temporary short-term protection on the Aleksandra Wosniak article. That way, no anon can edit it for the time being. Hope it helps. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Tx. May I come back to you with any future problems? Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I have to run, but yes, please feel free to let me know if you have any further problems. Leave word on the VIP page as well like you just did. Double coverage can't hurt. Take care!  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem today ... (though, due to your help, not an IP address ... see the last edits at [10]... What to do?--Ethelh (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report about Miacek (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and understood. Since your above notice in regard to the editor's edits at [11] and the first warning to that editor, editor today has again deleted content at Party of Democratic Action at [12]. The deleted material consists again of material properly sourced from reliable references, primarily to information reported in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Time Magazine. Apparently the primary reason for the reversion is that the editor dislikes the content, which appears to conflict with his POV. Editor complains about reliance on the conservative American press, and reference to a NYT article from 1994, and the content of material (even though it is supported by reliable sources). I don't wish to edit war, but the editor has now deleted this material twice in 24 hours now, and there have been two warnings, and I have communicated both in edit summaries and on the talk page of the article -- all to no avail, and the article now stands stripped of the above-mentioned material. What would you suggest as next steps? Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm sorry if I'm not too familiar with editing on wikipedia. My name is Maciek Zarzycki and I'm a very close person to Aleksandra wozniak, and I even used to be her manager for a few years : http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/sports/story.html?id=0cc9859b-ee08-4662-99be-c28de7d66484

The information about her jewish roots is incorrect. She is catholic. You can go see on her official web site on this page http://www.aleksandrawozniak.com/fr/photos.asp?View=Photo&PhotoID=IRIS%202008%20-%20Pro%20Photo%20Shoot# and you will notice she's wearing a catholic cross.

On the two reference you put for her jewish heritage, one don't even mention her name, and the second one (the book of day by day in jewish sport history) will be reach soon to let them know about the confusion.

Thank you for not putting back this wrong information about her. She and I respect the religious beliefs of everybody, so we expect our beliefs to be respected too.

Thank you Maciek Zarzycki maciek.zarzycki@gmail.com

Hi. If that is the case, the easiest way to correct it is to have a statement that she is catholic reflected in her website. That will override the other references that, as of today, indicate that she is Jewish. I'll be happy to help if you alert me to when that sentence is input in her website ... will be happy to make the revision and put in the citation for you. Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please let me know if you can address this and give us a reliable source that maintains what you maintain, as I have suggested. It has now been over a week, and I see this has yet to be done. If not, we will have to revert to the only reliable sources, which conflict with your information.--Ethelh (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I don't like them is that no one updates them and that all of a players stats are on MLB.com/Espn.com/etc. So why do you need this big box of stats when they are already on an another page with an external link to guide you there. Plus, Wikipedia is not a stats haven. Ositadinma (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is not a big box. 2) As with the infobox, which I don't see you seeking to delete, it is updated from time to time and the update date is indicated. 3) As the page may be printed and not solely viewed on line (with click-through capability), there is a benefit to the stats being on the page. 4) The stats are at the bottom of the article, and therefore don't IMHO interfere with readability. 5) As indicated, some of the highest-rated Wikipedia pages have these. 6) You subjectively (and at least one other editor) don't like them; I (and the editor(s) who have initially input them do like them. Wiki standards don't mandate that they be deleted. We all tolerate things that aren't the way we would like them to be on Wikipedia per our own POV, as long as they do not violate a clear Wiki guideline. I believe if someone copied the entire baseball reference entry, that would trigger a violation of the Wiki guideline, but this does not IMHO. But if you have a different view that you wish to raise to the community, feel free to raise it on the baseball page -- just let me know, and I will join the discussion there. Really, though, I don't think this does any harm, I think it is an aid to those who like stats (which includes more than a few baseball fans), and do not think it is a violation Wiki guidelines.--Ethelh (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WT:WikiProject Baseball and you'll see that most people don't like them. It was already brought up for discussion, but I brought it up again. Ositadinma (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decision has already been made now and before (topic as already been brought up) so that stat boxes are gone. Thr Kinsler article is way too long for a player with 4 seasons of expierence. Too many refs/dead links/info and too much Jewish info. I know he is Jewish, but come on. Kinsler might have a long career and we need to update the article as his career progresses. His article is already over 30KB long and might well be over 100KB when his career is over. It seems to me that you don't know what wikipedia is about. You only care whats on Kinlser or Feldman page (Jewish guys) and not whats on the rest of the Rangers. You put more stats in their article than on any other stat page combined. I would appreciate if you shorten the articles and add more decent info. Also stop undoing my very helpful contributions or other wise you might get block from editing wiki for your nonsense reverts. Ositadinma (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that the stat boxes will be deleted. It has already been discused on a archive page on the wiki baseball project. And consenus is- delete them. Kinsler page is too LONG. Wikipedia is a online encylcopedia and can only have so much room. dead links, unessecary stats and other stuff needs to be gone. You are the one undoing my perfectly good edits and I do not believe that YOU would take the stat box off of his page since you love it so much. Ositadinma (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this warning - he was already blocked; I reverted your warning as being stale. I do appreciate your vandal-fighting efforts, though - keep it up. Tan | 39 00:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- I thought that it had not been noticed, as some of those nasty profanity ridden edits had not been reverted, and I thought it would be of assistance to whoever looks at the page next time there is vandalism for the person to know that all of that editors edits through July 11 were vandalism.--Ethelh (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per my message at the edit warring report here, both you and Yankees10 need to stop reverting one another without discussion. No further edits should be made to the article until one of you starts a discussion at the article's talk page to work out a consensus over what to include; if you two can't agree with each other you can seek extra input at Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. Continuing to revert one another without trying to have a discussion, though, is unacceptable.

If either one of you starts reverting again without discussing things, the article could be protected, or either or both of you could be blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite accurate, as I discuss in further detail on your talk page. As I discuss on your talk page, both Wknight and I sought to discuss both in edit summaries and in a message I left on user's talk page (which was summarily deleted without a response on the talk page).--Ethelh (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I reverted your edit to my talk page is because instead of coming to me trying to discuss the situation you decided to threaten me by saying I would be blocked if I didnt stop. Thats not how you start a discussion. Anyways I am not the one who removed most of the info, Wknight did agreed with me that there was way to many things about his K's. With the references I don't agree that there should be that many. I mean come on is it really necessary to have four references showing he was optioned to the minors. --Yankees10 19:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPCAT, a Jewish tag should not be added to the above article. This also precludes explicitly stating that someone is Jewish when they have not personally stated it themselves. The "sources" you are now using require both synthesis and original research to reach the conclusions drawn by your wording. I must let you know that if you continue to revert away from the consensus (and policy-driven) version, you could very well be blocked from editing. Unitanode 03:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now spreading this conversation from the talk page of Sam Fuld where it began, and belongs. Most of my response is there. A minor portion is now on your talk page. I won't respond here, as I believe it easier for admins to follow this conversation if it is kept in one place, other than to reiterate that it is in no way a violation of those guidelines, as I discuss elsewhere.--Ethelh (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above was an official warning about your BLP violations. Warnings are left on the talkpage of the offending user, which is the only reason I came here to begin with. I came across the article at the BLP noticeboard, and your edits were problematic. I did some work to fix it, and you reverted en masse. Thus the warning. Unitanode 04:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was never notified of the BLP noticeboard notice relating to me. Nor do I see a link to it in your above comment. And, in any event, the reverts at issue are not category reverts, which is what WP:BLPCAT applies to, so it is innaposite. Though, for reasons stated on your talk page, inclusion of the category is appropriate as well.--Ethelh (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on Sam Fuld at the BLP noticeboard a week or so ago. It was not about you specifically or any editor, but about the sourcing of his religion. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had thought, once the BLP entry was brought to my attention for the first time by another user (see below), that your reference to the "other editor" in that entry was to me. Apparently from the above, Unitanode may have thought the same.

In any event, it is interesting to see what you were asking, as distinct from his action. Unitanode reverted repeatedly based, he says, on his application of the BLPCAT guideline. But that applies to categories. The focus of this editing dispute is text in the article, not category classification (at this point, at least). But I recognize now that I see your noticeboard entry that you were not relying on the category classification guideline, but instead asking about the sources.

One source was an article written by a 10-year-veteran and Senior Editor of the official publication of major league baseball, who had been writing on Fuld for at least two years. That is a gold-standard source. That source in and of itself more than adequately supports the statement, and is all that is needed.

The author of the second entry, Ron Kaplan, is a journalist. He is the sports and features editor for the newspaper in question, and he has been writing for that newspaper for five years. He is also the editor of the Bibliography Committee Newsletter for the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR). SABR, as its name suggests, is a serious baseball research organization, established in 1971 to foster the research and dissemination of the history and record of baseball. The author's work has also appeared in such publications as Baseball America, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Forward, January Magazine, and American Book Review among others.[13]

The newspaper that Kaplan writes for, which has been publishing since 1946, is among the largest Jewish newspapers in America, and the largest-circulation weekly newspaper in New Jersey.[14] The column itself is entitled "On Jews and Sports" -- squarely the focus of the entry in question. All of these factors militate in favor of viewing that as a reliable source as well, though given the first source there is no real need for the second (or third) sources.--Ethelh (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I got your note, but I see it's marked as resolved at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sam_Fuld.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the category issue, you should never ask someone in public for their real name, unless they've already disclosed that information. Any repitition could lead to your editing privileges being suspended. If you want to know if someone is using a second account there are better ways of doing so.   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood (now). I thought that Wiki guides you that the best course is always to discuss with the editor through discussion. But if there are better ways to broach the topic, I'm happy to hear them. I btw did not do anything more than ask if she was Betty (in this case I was referring to a screen name). I understand from her subsequent information as to how she arrived in the discussion that she is not the person who has Wikistalked me. And I understand that even if she were Betty, that in itself is not a Wikipedia violation. In any event, the subject matter that I believe you have backround in is the deletion by the editor not of a category, but of text, with the basis for the deletion being WP:BLPCAT (a guideline I recognize you had a hand in). From all the background discussion I've read on that, and indeed from the language of the guideline itself, it appears to apply only to deletion of categories. Here, however, it is being used for deletion of text, which seems a rather blatant misapplication, since the guideline for text calls only for sourcing such as has been applied here (not "I have this religious belief") statements.--Ethelh (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ethelh. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Unitanode 04:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NW (Talk) 15:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. [15] [16] --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Moriarty (government official) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Moriarty (government official) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]