Talk:Zack Hample

message: Several sources were removed from the article (diff). Listing them below, as they can potentially be used to expand the article. North America1000 02:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I have added my content because its valid to the article. Even though it is unsourced for now I am working on getting the sources properly in. In addition, the sentence about him pushing kids does not belong on the header because it's not true. IsraeliIdan (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wiki 101. The rubber-band ball isn't sourced and it's debatable if it's even relevant to this person who is known for being an aggressive ball hawk. When there's a source that makes the rubber-band ball notable feel free to add it to the page. Also, if the kid claim is untrue provide a valid source that proves it's not true. Until that happens please quit removing properly sourced information. I've added a rfc since the user is starting an edit war.Nemov (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: . It is relevant. But again debatable. Will source. Yes, he's a ball hawk but he's not pushing kids. Have the source will link it. I will put the correct info in the article and those are my reasons. However, will do so in two hours since I need to go somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvikorn (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: His word is not good enough.  You need to provide reliable sources that it is not true.  Stop removing reliably sourced information that is pertinent to the article.  ~ GB fan 10:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

text: The fact that he is banned from three stadiums is also sourced and needs to remain unless there are reliable sources that say the information is false.  Please stop removing sourced content and inserting unsourced trivia.  ~ GB fan 16:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is not banned from three stadiums. He has done videos during the 17-19 season at more than 30 stadiums. Source: his channel. Any source that reports this is not true and should be included in Wikipedia. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

text:  Once properly cited the content is valid, please work on finding the citations before adding content to a page. This will lead to less controversy and would make discussion much more to the point. Sixteensixtyfive (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That should settle this topic for now so I'll remove the RFC. Zvikorn, future edits must be supported with citations.Nemov (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am now reverting the false edits with sources.IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because he has made it into a stadium does not mean he wasn't banned.  He made it into the Fort Bragg game without being eligible to get a ticket.  You need to provide a reliable source to show it is not true.  We do not take your or his word for it.  ~ GB fan 10:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

text: . FORT bragg is not an MLB stadium. ALso, he's not banned. Here is the source: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO_Ro3UG5WPqwtRjzgBQugQ
He has made videos at all stadiums this year. He wasn't kicked out once! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvikorn (talk • contribs) 10:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a reliable source.  ~ GB fan 10:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  If VIDEO PROOF isnt reliable then what is? some fake news site? SUUUUURe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvikorn (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say Fort Bragg was an MLB Stadium.  You are using the fact that he has made videos in all the MLB parks as proof he is not banned.  Just like he got into the Fort Bragg game without being eligible to get into it, he can possibly get into stadiums he is banned from.  His ability to make a video in a stadium is not proof he isn't banned from a stadium.  It is proof he went into the stadium that is all.  You also claim he wasn't kicked out but do not provide a source for that fact.  Even if he was not kicked out of any stadium, that does not prove he is not banned.  All it proves is that he wasn't kicked out.  We use what reliable sources say about someone to build the article.  We do not use what we think to be true.  Things will be much easier here when you come to understand that basic fact.  ~ GB fan 12:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: IsraeliIdan, you really should research what is an acceptable source on Wikipedia. That should eliminate your confusion. A person's opinion isn't a reliable source that's Wiki rules. A person who is banned from a stadium could conceivably still be able to get into the stadium. His videos don't prove he's not banned. If he hasn't been banned there needs to be a notable source that disputes the claim. If you keep up these rogue edits we may request that you're locked out from this page.- Nemov (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

text:  Content should not be included until relevant sources are found. Would be smart to remove the content and re-add it when proper sources are found. PreacherBob55 (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for adding my content 

message: until dispute can be solved I think the page should be locked. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be and it should be locked at what it was before you started removing reliably sourced information and started adding unreliably sourced information.  ~ GB fan 10:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  What was before is not the truth. I have provided video sourcies. The sites are fake news and should not be included on wikipedia. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please involve a different admin. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The template on this section does not belong.  That is what you would use to ask for an edit to an already protected article.  THis article is not protected so it is a useless template.  ~ GB fan 10:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

text: There isn't a dispute. There was RFC added and no one supported IsraeliIdan's edits. There could be a case that this user is locked from editing this page given the numerous unsourced edits to the page. The user has continued to make edits even though no one on the talk page has supported his claims. - Nemov (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , there is a dispute, it is one against a few but it is still a dispute.  ~ GB fan 13:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

text: when you are unblocked, if you think this page still needs to be protected against updates you will need to request that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  ~ GB fan 13:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins please read 

message: This page has received a couple of semi-protection to aid with vandalism, but the page is still continuously receiving bad edits. The page needs stricter edit control to prevent so many poor edits. If this is the wrong kind of protection please advise the correct course of action. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is for requesting edits to pages that are already extended-protected. To request protection for a page, you can go to WP:Requests for page protection. You might also find WP:Protection policy useful. Alduin2000 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help. I read the documentation wrong and posted here. I have made the request and the protection has been extended. Nemov (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended confirmed protection 

message: To nemov and his camp and to my,
why don't' we compromise, I don't want to to remove anything out of your article. I don't care if you keep the whole criticize section in. All I want to add is just add that he denies being banned. Idan (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your name Zvikorn or Idan? I'm confused. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Zvikorn has also used IsraeliIdan on this Talk page. It makes following some of these discussions very difficult. - Nemov (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets start from the beggining 

message: Daniel Case raises a good point about the baseball collection section. Much of it is poorly sourced or not sourced at all. Hample's website isn't a reliable source. The entire section could be edited down to a couple of paragraphs. If no once can find reliable sources for that section I recommend removing most of it. - Nemov (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also question why every date is given with month/day/year exactitude. I often see this in other articles and trim it down to the year because I just don't see how that's encyclopedic. Are these going to become future holidays? What is the continuing relevance of these dates (other than for an editor to show their work, so to speak)? We ought to be fine with the year, and the month within the year if needed to distinguish two different times, and only use the full date when we're talking about two incidents in the same month. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with you two 100%. I took out all the unsourced, as well as one source that seemed very sketchy to me. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball collection claims 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I don't have the time at the moment, but this article should include a information about the documentary about Hample. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look to find sources. They all seem to be paid-promotional/press release type stuff. That makes sense, given that Hample financed the "documentary" himself. I'm not sure it reaches the level needed to merit a mention. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of coverage I found just doing a quick search. It's more notable than much of what's included in this article. Nemov (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's "coverage", but I don't think any of those three links are strong sources. It's not like it's the NYT or rogerebert.com. I'm adding that to the fact that it was a self-produced and self-financed movie, when I make my judgment. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Who produced it is kind of irrelevant if there's coverage. I just posted 3 quick sources that are good enough. It doesn't need to be covered by the NYT when there's several film sites writing about it. You don't have to add it if you don't want to... this is for someone who wants to do it. Nemov (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zack Hample vs. the World 

message: @JimKaatFan continues to change the section title that's not in line with WP:BLP/WP:CRITS policies. Please find consensus before changing it again. Thanks Nemov (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworked this part of the artice to conform with WP:CRITS. I hope this helps. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CRITS]] section title