User talk:Wjemather

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Two things

Hi there. I have two requests. 1.) I left a reply to your comments about reverting my contributions on Talk:2019–20 PGA Tour. I would appreciate a response when you get a chance. 2.) If you are willing, I would be interested in engaging in a dialog about what constitutes original research. I would like to better understand your position on the topic. Thanks. BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you comments, but I'm quite busy today so likely won't have time to respond fully until at least tomorrow.
Regarding OR: in the simplest terms, (ideally) everything should be explicitly verifiable; secondary to that, if deducing from sources, there should be almost zero chance of the deduction being wrong. It's also important to recognise what assumptions and deductions sources are making (e.g. Rob Bolton's qualified for the majors/wgcs list). Taking your latest update to the field of the PGA Championship as an example ([1]), we are still waiting for confirmation on replacement for Grace (Stuard is replacing Howell), who may not have officially withdrawn yet. Cauley is now next off the rank, but he could just as easily replace someone else should they officially withdraw sooner than Grace. Regards, _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, my mistake on Stuard. I was updating the Holmes WD when I noticed the news item about Grace. I hastily added that to the edit and made a mistake. When I noticed in the morning that they still hadn't announced a replacement for Grace and that Stuard had instead replaced CH3, I went to fix it, but noticed that it had already been corrected.

It is certainly my preference that everything be explicitly verifiable , but that usually doesn't happen with the category 12 PGA exemptions until some time after the final field is published. This is because category 12 is mostly a "dog bites man" news item. Since the PGAoA doesn't publish explicit criteria for this, the published news will invariably be of the form "player X is in the field for the PGA Championship" with no mention of how they are eligible. The only option, then, is deducing from sources. My contention is and has been that the published list of exemption criteria and a published list of players in the field largely suffice to meet your stated objective of almost zero chance of the deduction being wrong. There are a few special cases to handle, but those can be dispensed with without too much trouble.

Given that the PGAoA has stopped its prior practice of publishing how players achieve eligibility and that pgatour.com has likewise dropped this information from the "Inside the Field" feature for the PGA championship, there is a real possibility that in some future year we will have not explicit source identifying which players fall into category 12 (except for the lazy journalists who copy and paste from the wikipedia page).

There is generally no need or urgency to deduce conclusions, so we can and should present the information we have and wait for clarification via reliable sources. Failure to wait for published detail can lead to circular references with (as you rightly point out) lazy journalists copying from here – I have seen at least one such example with regards to the PGA field. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2020 PGA Championship

On 12 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 PGA Championship, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women's British Open

Hey Wjemather, agree with putting results in one merged table. You'll need to do some tidying up of the purse presentation though, as a lot of older editions are £ figures and not $ as is now indicated. Jopal22 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Didn't notice that – thanks, I'll get on it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...}

Gary player sunshine tour totals are wrong

Surely the world golf hall of fame have the correct wins and correct bio figures ?. 178.167.177.47 (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the WGHoF is riddled with factual errors. The same is true for tour websites (for tournaments outside their remit). Often this is because they have accepted information from players/agents/other sources without checking – and some players are renowned for inflating their achievements – or have simply misread what they have been given. In this case, "1975/1976 GM Open" could easily be misread as two tournaments (one in 1975 and another in 1976) when it was a single tournament in the 1975/1976 season. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 PGA Tour of Australasia

Hi, I created a page for the 1996–97 PGA Tour of Australasia season. Would you mind taking the time to complete the order of merit section for this? As I cannot access the relevant sources to be able to complete this myself. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll see what I can find. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not leave a disruptive message on my talkpage again

Do not leave the above on my talkpage again. The figure wiki uses is 160 so we go with that. I could send you a message saying you are disruptive to the page and threaten to get you blocked like you have tried with me. You do not own wikipedia nor do you decide what should go on a page. If you want a career figure of 160 go with 160. You were not worried about other sources when you deleted 3 titles from the page in the last few days so I don't see why you should worry now. I have worked on Wiki for year's to better it not devalue it. DooksFoley147 (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DooksFoley147: Happy to comply. However, please be aware that my only recourse should you continue to disrupt Wikipedia will be to request dispute resolution or administrator intervention rather than attempting to assist you in understanding Wikipedia policy.

On that note, per my earlier message on your talk page, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. As there is no weight of reliable sources that agree on 160 wins as an accurate figure while explicitly stating what is being included (individual, team, exhibitions, etc.) – various sources give wildly different totals with different criteria – we abide by WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. and state what can be verified. In this case, that is quite vague, so "over 150" seems reasonable and importantly it is supported by all reliable sources.

Please do as suggested previously and in future discuss any changes you would like to make on the article talk page. Other editors will be able to assess whether the balance of reliable sources support your proposals. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket articles AfD

I might suggest that you allow the discussions you have started to take place before tagging any additional articles for deletion discussion; it isn't wrong to make these suggestions per se, but slowing down the pace a bit might deescalate the situation a bit. Just a suggestion. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dotWhats the point? hes not interested in discussion at all, proven by the fact hes deleted the discussion on here about it. Hes done his job, hes drove another bunch of contributers away from the site because he thinks he runs the pages. CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there are two other related articles that likely don't meet notability guidelines, etc., but I haven't looked into them properly yet so will hold off for now. Those that I have nominated already seem like pretty clear cases though. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"haven't looked into them properly yet", like you said to me, YOU DONT RUN WIKIPEDIA. If you just left us to do our own thing with the pages we have been working towards there would be no issue but because you think you own the place and dont want anyone to do anything with your precious sports articles your doing this. And the most embarrasing thing is youve history doing this. Well done, do what you want with them, I wont be contributing to them.CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles here must comply with policies and guidelines (I provided links to the basics at your talk page). At present these articles are sourced exclusively to primary sources which does nothing to establish notability. If you have non-primary/non-self-published reliable sources, then please cite them for verification as this is the best way to establish notability and for the articles to be kept. Also problematic is that, from what you have said, they seem to consist largely of original research – again, citing sources remedies this issue. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CreamyGoodne55 I was addressing this user, not you. We want to help you, but you have to be willing to collaborate in a civil manner and listen to the advice you are being given. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dotSorry but I have zero interest in "being helped" when someone has attacking our pages like this. If you wish to support people that are harrasing and targeting users then that says more about the admins on here than meCreamyGoodne55 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: it would seem that the personal attacks and disruption of the AfDs have been renewed following expiry of the block; would you suggest taking this to ANI or can you deal? Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any personal attack when I havent even named you in it. Maybe your starting to feel a bit guilty at what you have done, and by the messages Ive got its apparently not the first time either. Surely people should know the full story before they make a deicison on the matter?CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As bystander, it seems clear to me who is harassing whom, and it is not the way you are suggesting. Everyone is giving you the same advice, but you are choosing to stick your fingers in your ears. Spike 'em (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2020 U.S. Open (golf)

On 21 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 U.S. Open (golf), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Player and Jack Nicklaus runners−up finishes

Hi you said these have been removed and archived in the page history, Where can I find the archived page history pages ?. Regards 80.233.56.46 (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]