Talk:Wes Durham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Edit conflict on Wes Durham
I have only just noticed this, but after looking at the history, there's a slow (~1-5 days per rv) but ongoing edit conflict between LBronstein (talk • contribs) and who I am assuming is Dandurham (talk • contribs); the latter acting under IPs 71.32.90.238 (talk • contribs) and 71.35.184.9 (talk • contribs). This edit conflict is not healthy and it needs to stop right now. Now, usually, I'd just revert the vandalous (sp?) addition, but LBronstein (talk • contribs) appears to be acting in good faith, providing the article with good facts. Now, if you kids don't clean up your act and negotiate what parts are encyclopedic, this is going to get ugly, and you're both going to get banned. As the founder of the Georgia Tech WikiProject, I like to see people contributing to GT-related articles such as this one. If you both get banned, articles I'm interested in don't improve. While it's true that neither of you have edited articles not related to someone with the last name of Durham, I would hope that you two are more interested in Wikipedia and would be willing to contribute to the many related articles, or any articles for that matter. A happier, healthier encyclopedia, so to speak.
That being said, you two need to respectfully talk this out. Use the talk page to collaborate on improving the article, in a way you can both appreciate. Look at the articles of other American sports announcers to get ideas on how to improve this article, especially if you find one that is a Good Article or a Featured Article. I'm also going to post this on the talk pages of the users and IPs in question, but I want you two to respond on the talk page of the Wes Durham article. We'll see where it goes from there. Remember, be polite, assume good faith and no personal attacks. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am user Lev Bronstein, and I appreciate your comments. A few notes: I am new to Wikipedia posting, though I read it frequently. The Durham post was my first ever, and I did not understand why what I added kept disappearing. I wondered if it was something I was doing incorrectly, and my response was to keep re-posting it. In the spirit of what has been written, I have refrained from doing so again and will be glad to disuses these comments and try to arrive at an amiable compromise of some sort.
-
- I tried to very hard to maintain a neutral tone in writing and to remember that – as I said - Durham has many admirers, including some in my own circle of Tech enthusiasts. And he also has many detractors, as I note, and I tried to include points from both groups. The quotation is verbatim from a game this year (Va. Tech). I will add that most of my friends who like Durham don’t dispute the accuracy of these observations. He tells lots of stories about game officials, often mentions their hometowns more than once and frequently announces – particularly in basketball – which announcer has whistled a foul, is fascinated by dunks, mentions team defenses infrequently, and interviews people by leading off with several sentences of his own observations. Some people absorb all that and find it charming, and others find it frustrating, but it all happens. Regardless of your opinion, that’s what I conveyed. Or tried to.
-
- I appreciate your remark about other posts. As a longtime observer of Tech athletics, I think I have sometime to add to this project. There are several more posts in the works; today I expanded the posting on Al Ciraldo and added a number of remarks about the Dome. Both, I fear, feature the same characteristics as this post. Regarding the Dome, I aver that the spectator experience feels intimate in a setting that is spacious. I’m not sure if such adjectives will survive objections form others who may feel differently, but one of the things that I value the most about Wikipedia are such notes.
-
- In writing about Durham, I knew the subject was a live person about whom I had heard many varying opinions, and I tried to steer a neutral course there. I hadn’t heard anyone express reservations about the spectating experience at the Dome, so I was more forthright.
-
- I look forward to hearing any other comments on this.
I find Mr. Bronstein's comments interesting and very enlightening. It sounds very much as if he has spent a good portion of his time listening to my broadcasts, although he has a large degree of "writer's embelishment" on some of this. It also sounds like he has an some issues that no matter what I sound like, he is going to listen somewhere else. In short, I'm not his "cup of tea". Perhaps one day we can visit to talk about the broadcast profession and what he sees as "quality". Cause evidently it is not the work I submit.Wdurham0125 02:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)