Talk:Mark Fidrych

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birthplace?[edit]

This article says he was born in Worcester, Massachusetts, then ends by saying he lives "near his Northboro, Massachusetts birthplace". Most of the online references I found put his birthplace in Worcester. One writer referred to Fid as a "Northborough native"; perhaps he was born in Worcester, but moved to Northborough at such a young age that he's considered a native there, and that reference led others to think he was born in Northborough. (This reference says he played at Algonquin RHS in Northboro.) On the basis of what I've found, I'm going with Worcester as his (sole) birthplace. JamesMLane 01:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Northborough has no hospitals and is close enough to Worcester that his parents could have been living in Northborough when he was born in Worcester. But I don't know whether that's true. -Rjyanco 12:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Under that scenario, he was born in Worcester but was indeed a "Northborough native". He wouldn't have a "Northboro birthplace" but perhaps "childhood home in Northborough" would be correct. Anyway, I inserted the fact that he played high school ball at Algonquin RHS, so the reader can see that he's now living near where he grew up. JamesMLane 21:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chronology of 1976 season[edit]

I'll start a thread off. First I think this was a WP:BOLD good faith edit by User:Over The Desk. Not vandalism but turning into a content dispute. On the content my opinion is that the section as is is sub-optimal. What I think should happen is that section be trimed to highlights and writen as prose as opposed to a full timeline. Just my opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with this. However, I do believe that Over The Desk was becoming contentious and a discussion needed to be opened before it became a full-blown edit war. Thanks for getting it started
In support of OtD, I think a lot of that info is duplicated at 1976 Detroit Tigers season anyway. -Dewelar (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop will all of the sly comments. You said that my edit was "darn near" vandalism. Was it vandalism or good faith? It is one or the other, because the difference is intent. Now because I reverted ClueBot and another editor I was "becoming contentious"? Please explain yourself. Accuse me of something or retract your sly little innuendos. Over The Desk (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Darn near vandalism" and "good faith" are not mutually exclusive. I accuse you of seeking conflict rather than seeking harmony. The above comment does not help your case.
Now, I have explained myself to the extent I feel is necessary. Any more than that gives this whole issue more attention than it deserves. Good day. -Dewelar (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though we have discussed it elsewhere, I need to respond to this. Good faith and vandalism are completely different. "Darn near vandalism" is meaningless expect to suggest bad faith without being able to justify it. It is sneaky. My edit was clearly good faith and I do not see how I sought conflict. Accusing somebody of vandalism is, in my opinion, seeking conflict. Reverting a bot and a user who has categorised a good faith edit (including a fairly detailed explanation in the edit summary) as vandalism, is not seeking conflict. Neither is defending myself from sneaky innuendos. Over The Desk (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response on your talk page, but if I had read this first my response there would likely have been quite different.
You are completely wrong about the two things being "totally different". Good faith edits quite often can look like vandalism. That qualifies as "darn near vandalism". Even something that is technically vandalism can be done in good faith. Thus, what you did was exactly what I said it was -- if not vandalism, then darn close.
No, you are wrong. Sure, good faith edits can look like vandalism, but an edit is either vandalism/bad faith or it is good faith. Motive is what is important. Over The Desk (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to further point out that ascribing negative motives to me, as you do above, is a personal attack, and definitely is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. There is a big difference between accusing someone of vandalism and accusing something someone did of being vandalism, just as, for instance, someone can do something stupid without actually being stupid. If I believe your assertions, both of good faith and of not seeking conflict, then I would conclude that you are taking this far too personally, and that you need to step back and take a few deep breaths. Let. It. Go. -Dewelar (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, point it out, but at least take responsibility for the fact that you ascribed negative motives to me (i.e. saying that my edits were darn near vandalism) and in fact you continue to do so. You want to tar my good faith edits with the brush of bad faith edits, without being able to justify it. If you accidentally killed somebody, and there was no reason to think that it was anything other than an accident, yet I said that it was "darn near murder", you would probably feel that I was using innuendo to unfairly tarnish your reputation. Don't tell me to let it go, just stop using sly terms (weasel words I understand it is called around here) to tarnish people's motives unless you can actually show they were in bad faith. Over The Desk (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These situations are not analagous. As I have pointed out on your page, I did have reason to believe that your edits may have been done in bad faith. I am not a mind reader, and therefore cannot know they were done in bad faith. I preferred to hedge my statement, and not outright say your edits were vandalism. Because you are continuing to malign my character without reason, you are continuing to give me reason to doubt your good faith. It's unfortunate that you seem not to understand the difference between cowardice and caution. That is the kind of thing that leads one to be unnecessarily contentious, as I believe you are being here.
To put things more succinctly, your anger is misplaced. Please stop hounding me and take your frustration out elsewhere. This discussion is over. I apologize to the other good folks trying to edit this page in peace, and will now withdraw from the discussion. Feel free to interpret that as a victory for yourself if you wish. -Dewelar (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you had reasons to interpret my edits as vandalism then provide them here, otherwise stop trying to tarnish me with your weasel words. In future if you are sure something is vandalism, call it vandalism, if you are not sure don't call it "darn near vandalism", call it a good faith edit that concerns you or which you don't agree with. That is the correct way to do things when dealing with other people, otherwisw you will continue to attract pointless disputes both on and off Wikipedia. Here endeth the lesson. Over The Desk (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how important the 1976 season was to Fidrych, the team and the city, I would like to see a more concise version of the previous chronology remain on Fidrych's page. I do not have the Wiki-Fu to edit said chronology, mostly since I (a Detroiter) lived through that season and it's impossible for me to have an NPOV. Over the Desk moved a bit fast and overreaching for our usual work here, but did so with good intent. Vandals don't have good intent. Portia327 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think everybody can calm down and trim the section a bit, rather than spend the time arguing over who meant what. Just suck it up and edit, with maybe a short apology or 2 added in the space below. Smallbones (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize for one thing above - having reread WP:VANDALISM, good faith and vandalism are mutually exclusive after all. My original edit summary was correct -- vandalism if bad faith, "darn near" vandalism if in good faith. Sorry again for the trouble. -Dewelar (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see, that is the problem. Vandalism is bad faith, so "darn near vandalism" is "darn near bad faith". My edits weren't in bad faith at all and I would be interested to see any justification for saying they were. This is why I am saying that, in future, please either classify edits as bad faith (buit only if they clearly are) or good faith. "Darn near bad faith" is, in my opinion, an unfair, and unjustifiable, smear whether intended or not. Over The Desk (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the 1976 season chronlogy a while back when I was a Wikipedia newbie. I think Smallbones did a good job of editing the section. I agree with Portia327 that the season chronology should remain given the importance of the Fidrych's 1976 season and "Bird-mania" in Detroit and baseball. I was a young kid growing up in Detroit that year, and so my original season chronology lacked neutrality and encyclopedic style. I think it has been much-improved by Smallbones' scalpel, and I've trimmed more myself. Cbl62 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone Cover[edit]

I've deleted the assertion that Fidrych was the first athlete to grace the cover of Rolling Stone. Both Muhammad Ali (1971) and Mark Spitz (1973) appeared earlier.

Rolling Stone Covers #50-99

Vonbontee (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sad story[edit]

I am thinking Wiki could actually have a section devoted to passed away personalities where those who knew them could say a nice word. There could be a designated agent who could clear the comments, such as close friend or family member.184.100.7.220 (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Fidrych. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Fidrych&oldid=1199406230"