User talk:Tedmoseby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Quinn Picture

Hello Tedmoseby - Thanks for the upload offer - it was a great picture (I remember the home uniform) that a vandal had defaced with a pink skirt - I could not for some reason revert to the original upload. Sensei48 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Conflict

Hi Tedmoseby - Well, I'll do what I can for dispute resolution, and gladly. It's just that I'm a civilian editor - I note you also asked ZimZalaBim, who has worked on ND articles and actually is an administrtor on Wiki, which means he has some sort of magical powers that I don't.

I'm going to post a reply on the ND football Talk page and to Tool's page; let's see what happens. Sensei48 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Attempt

Gentlemen - I don't think that this is a dispute past resolution with a bit of compromise and, I hope, good will. As I read it, here is the problem:

a) Tedm. wants a different section in the article for other important games ND has played in addition to several already mentioned in the article.

b) Tool wants these games to be listed as wins and losses (plus maybe ties) in approximately equal proportion to maintain NPOV.

c) Tedm thinks there needs to be a rubric other than wins/losses for inclusion on this list.

d) Tool believes that Tedm in so suggesting is violating Wiki:OR and Wiki:NPOV rubrics.

I hope I have this right; assuming for the minute that I do, here's what I think.

First, any such list as Ted proposes is bound to be subjective to a large degree, given the gross number of games ND has played and the perspective that any editor would bring to such a list. However, by itself, I don't believe that that fact violates Wiki prohibitions against OR or NPOV.

The collaborative nature of Wikipedia permits any editor - like Tool - to amend an article according to the lights of his/her own knowledge, providing that that knowledge can be attributed to a recognized source. So the creation of this section does not by itself violate Wiki rules, I think. It's a slippery area - but if you two could agree on a compromise document of rules and guidelines, I think you'd be on solid ground for including this section in the article.

If ANY editor can justify a game's importance according to some mutually agreed upon sourced and sourceable criteria - and that could include any given game - then it should be allowed on the list.

Ted's rationale here looks pretty good to me - but if guidelines for a section like this come from one person, then Tool is right and it becomes subjective. You both are probably aware that if you start this section - even if you agree completely on guidelines - you'll have to police it constantly (especially during football season) because extremists and partisans both pro- and con-ND assault this page regularly at that time.

Proportion of wins to losses is another question. If you look above, I quite accidentally proposed one win, one loss, and one tie for inclusion (not knowing two of the three were already included). But proportion vs. NPOV is another slippery area. I am fully sympathetic to Tool's fear that such a section could become mere blatant ND puffery without some serious attempts at balance. But I don't think you'll find that in numbers, maybe especially not to Tool's satisfaction. Notre Dame has won 74% of all the football games it has ever played - shouldn't that be the measure of the proportion? If you make a list half wins and half losses wouldn't that violate NPOV in an anti-ND way?

My answer would be to avoid a question of proportion altogether. Notre Dame has won plenty of significant games and lost many as well, and I've never actually myself tried to compute a proportion. So here's what I'd propose:

1) That the two of you would agree that there should be some sort of section of this kind (maybe organized into significant games as a subset of important rivalries? - or whatever you could agree on).

2) That you would create guidelines consistent with all Wiki policies, especially or sourcing - and that these guidelines should be limited to, say, three to five bullet points.

3) That you would (after initial agreement on a limited number of games - I'd say eight to ten that you both felt belonged) would pledge your lives, fortunes, and sacred honors to support each other in policing the section for violators of your rubric, and that in what would be the then-unlikely event of a dispute between you on inclusion of a game would apply to some wise graybeard administrator like ZimZalaBim for resolution.

That's the best I can do at the moment, guys. Maybe Zim will weigh in. I'm going to post this on your Talk pages and welcome comments. Regards to you both. Sensei48 (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft Inclusions?

Hi Tedm. -

Saw your update/revision to the ND page. Just wondering if you think it advisable to put draftees on the list of NFL players - after all, they haven't made any teams yet and may not. I don't mind at all, but some hater may come along and take exception to it. Regards - Sensei48 (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi Ted - got your message - thanks for the explanation. I agree that while a page of ND in the NFL might be fun, it would also be a burden to keep up.

On another topic, I see that that ridiculous rivalry things is still going on with BC and Stanford listed again in the main article. I had an idea. How about doing away with the section as rivalry and instead substituting a section on opponents played most often in Irish history. That way you would get the real rivalries - USC, Michigan, Navy, Purdue (in-state 60 miles apart is not a rivalry? - shoulda been around when I was! ) likely Pitt and MSU. It would also eliminate BC and Stanford. I don't know - might be worth looking into. Sensei48 (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ND-USC rivalry page

Thanks for the head's up. From an initial look over, it looks good --I'll take a look in detail later, most certainly as I find interesting articles or whatnot from the normal major sources. I think the two schools are generally good about writing about each other, as its a more respectful rivalry than most. I actually took the photo of Jimmy Clausen in his infobox --I got a few other players, but he was the only one I immediately recognized and I couldn't really match the others to roster photos... All the best, Bobak (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)