Talk page archive

If you're looking for an earlier discussion, check the archives -->

UF quarterbacks

The last two seasons I needed to complete the list of UF quarterbacks was 1908 and 1918. Still clueless about 1918. Posting here to ask for help. I found the 1908 quarterback was "Chippy" Edgerton, but I don't know anything about him. Wonder if he's a relative of John. Cake (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it was the busiest time of the school year when you asked your question and I didn't see it until now. There really wasn't a 1918 season - just one pretty much exhibition game - so it's barely documented and I can't find much, either. There's a brief writeup in the 1919 Seminole (the UF yearbook) that includes photos of all the players but it does not list their positions. Here's the link - look on or around p. 98, depending on which numbering system it's using: UF Archives. I don't have newspapers.com access any more or I'd look for a game recap in the Tampa Tribune, which always covered the Gators pretty well. Zeng8r (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Don't call editors lazy, like you did here. It seems like you had an attitude when I asked you for a source. I'm just following Wikipedia policies and guidelines here. Please be civil, especially your edit summary. Editz2341231 (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get very annoyed when editors delete text that is likely to be true for lack of a confirmational citation on the specific sentence. Asking for a citation in the edit summary is not enough, as only us obsessed editors will ever see it, and the article is left with less info for readers. If you can't be bothered to spend five minutes verifying a plausible statement, the least you can do is leave it there and drop in a "citation needed" marker. That way even casual readers will know that the item could use a reference and might be tempted to do the work. Zeng8r (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at this and this. All content must be verifiable. That means when me or another editor removes unsourced material and asks for a reference, the material becomes challenged and a reference is needed. I could have left a "citation needed", but then what would the chance of that tag in the hundreds of thousands of articles with the same tag become noticed? Editz2341231 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a regular Wiki-editor for 18 years; I know the procedure. I've also seen many perfectly acceptable articles hacked into stubs because some people find that it's easier to delete reasonable but unreferenced info than to look for a good citation or at least drop a "citation needed" tag where appropriate. I find that practice to be destructive to Wikipedia and, quite frankly, lazy.

I was particularly annoyed by your specific edit because the sentences you deleted defined the location of South Tampa. Location is of great importance in an article about a neighborhood, and removing that information from the text served to greatly diminish its helpfulness. True, there was no reference, but there was no reason to believe that it was a false statement, and as it turned out, the description you removed was accurate. Using an edit summary to ask somebody else to fix the damage is not good enough, imo. Casual readers and even casual editors don't look at page histories, so few people will see your request and the information will simply disappear. Again, it's much better to either fix the problem yourself or drop a tag into the main article text so that it's more likely to be noticed.

I didn't mean to come across as rude, but your initial edit was not helpful, and when I restored the deleted sentences and added a citation needed tag, you re-removed the section AND the tag. That was a worse edit, as you seemed to be trying to provoke an edit war. I'm glad you came to my talk page to discuss the incident. No hard feelings and happy editing. Zeng8r (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that location is a great piece of information within an article. The problem was that it was unsourced, so a source became needed and I deleted the unreferenced text and asked for one. Instead of finding a source you restored it and did a tag. Of course that seemed like to me that you didn't pay attention to my message when I asked for a source on it (and per WP:BURDEN as well).

It turned out afterwards when you found a reliable source that the location was accurate. I am mentioning initially when the location was unsourced, which is a big deal on an article. Editz2341231 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address what I said about unnecessarily removing key material, but it appears that you're actually a sockpuppet of User:Username593700 and have been banned for repeatedly and indiscriminately deleting content, so this conversation suddenly makes more sense. Zeng8r (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, looks like I don't even need to make a new topic. To answer your questions at SPI: no, that's not the right place to report it, but yes, it's quite common to mass-revert socks. I just skimmed their contributions history and it doesn't look to me like there are likely to be so many bad edits here that I'm inclined to roll back everything they've ever done - lots of it looks like minor gnoming fixes. If you disagree, you may want to ask for help at WP:ANI. Otherwise I'd say you're perfectly justified in undoing the problematic edits (though if they are actually unsourced, it would be good if you could add maintenance tags). -- asilvering (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]