User Talk: Zeng8r

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{busy}}
{{Archive box|auto=no|image=Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png ↗<br>
A Decade of Talk: 2007 to 2017<br>Even More Talk: 2018 to Now
}}
<br>

=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 ↗. <span style="color: #000000;">'''Cake'''</span> (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

: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)
::I wonder if there is some way to get the first names of the lettermen other than captain Gordon Clemons. <span style="color: #000000;">'''Cake'''</span> (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

: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)
::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)
:::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)
::::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)
:::::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)
::::::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)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Go Rays

Was trolling the Tampa Bay wikiproject thinking about making a Gasparilla Music Festival page, and I stumbled across ur account. Always cool to see another Rays fan in the wild. I'm super excited about the new owners but actually getting a stadium funded in Tampa in gonna be exhausting. Thatchmomo (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropicana_Field&oldid=prev&diff=1345026882 ↗ Yes, it is easy. Are you looking for one? I reverted the edit because it's generally the responsibility of the person adding the material to provide a source. Joyous! Noise! ↗ 22:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

:Just got back from a short dog walk, and realized how snarky my remark above sounded. Apologies: I really didn't intend it that way. Thank you for finding a source. Joyous! Noise! ↗ 22:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:DUCK

My gut was screaming the same thing ↗ yesterday while trying to have a conversation with them about their edits. This user is clearly not as new as they appear and they obviously have a lot of experience arguing in talk space, but I don't have enough to take it to SPI. That's why I gave up on the conversation, assuming they will out themselves soon enough. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

:I have a lot of Florida history articles on my watch list and noticed the pattern, and then the "new" user certainly behaved more like a wily and ornery veteran when you tried to initiate a reasonable conversation about the proposed changes. Definitely someone(s) to keep an eye on. Zeng8r (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::I'm just glad I wasn't the only one to notice... :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::Well, lookie there... we got it ↗... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)