Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:24, 6 January 2008

Archives

1. December 2006
2. March 2007
3. April 2007
4. May 2007
5. June 2007
6. July 2007
7. August 2007
8. September 2007
9. October 2007
10. November 2007

Jeff Cook (basketball)

Regarding my reversion of your reversion: there is no basketball-specific category for Idaho State, so I think it's fair to put Cook in the general alumni category. Zagalejo^^^ 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect season

I'm sure you've just watched the Pats go to 16-0 with a 38-35 win over the Giants. New York Dreams (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dammit! I wanted to get here first! Well, doesn't matter who got here first, they won! J-ſtan_{User page} 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thanks. Pats1 /C 05:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite a feat, innit? Cheers mate! gaillimh 06:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nostradamus! Pats1 /C 06:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 pats season

You deleted it. I understand there's a rule against recreation of deleted articles..but it was a very good article that you deleted. In addition, it will probably be recreated again - possibly by yourself. So the question is, what's the point? --n1yaNt 06:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was aiming for to clean it up and such. That's why I came back to fix it up, change the grammar, discourse, etc. Oh well, I'll remake it after they go to the Super Bowl, hopefully you won't find any grounds to delete it then. And if you do, let me know and I'll try to fix it before you delete it, again. --n1yaNt(~Cpt. Obvious~) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyler Palko

You did a bunch of work on the Tyler article after a dispute took place. I left it alone until this morning but another editor is undoing some of your changes, and mine, that were references and other wording. The article is already tagged as needing references and the intermittent editor is adding more information without sources. I said something but apparently since I am "not part of the NFL project" I am not taken seriously as an editor by the men editing the NFL (something I was told, not something I believe). Can you give the article a look. I'm trying to find more references, but it is hard to add references to someone else's additions who refuses to add them. I believe Street20 is the editor's name, but I'm not positive without looking and then editing your page again, which tends to piss people off. Thanks for your help.KellyAna (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Im glad...

... that you made this reversion before I saw the comment, cause my reply would have invovled the phrases "condescending prick" and "buy a GD dictionary." :) Also, congrats on the perfect season. Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I appreciate your help on the articles that I've created and maintained, mainly the Chiefs articles (History..., 2007 season..., and the main Chiefs article). It shows that even Pats and Chiefs fans hold utmost respect for eachother : ) Thanks again! Conman33 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha yeah we're looking forward to next year here. The #4 pick is always a good thing. Hopefully they can top what the Pats did this year haha. Conman33 05:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 Playoffs

Why did you delete all the game data boxes for next week's wildcard games? 69.210.252.204 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

André Davis

RE: “not what the highlights box is for”

The heading in the box is “Career Highlights and Awards.” I’m pretty sure that returning two consecutive kickoffs for touchdowns could be considered a career highlight, especially since it has only been done seven times. If I’m misinterpreting “career highlights,” please explain. Thanks —Travis 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm... Maybe the header should be changed to “Career Records and Awards” to avoid future confusion. —Travis 15:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New field for infobox

I was thinking of adding a new field to the infobox. I'm pretty sure it's a good idea, I just don't know where it should go. I'm thinking it should say something like "Status:" or "Roster Status:" And essentially just put Active, Practice Squad, Suspended, or whatever reserve list the guy is on. The Team History section, even with the asterisks, doesn't always fully explain a guy's current status, so I feel this would be a good, contributing addition. So where should this go? Under the guy's position, perhaps? Or do you have any other ideas?►Chris Nelson 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. Anywhere is fine, I guess. Pats1 /C 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry Pats1, I made some harsh claims and was uncivil. RC-0722 is my best friend and I really don't think he intentionally did any thing wrong. Being new myself, I haven't fully learned all policies yet, but I'm learning them quickly. Please forgive me. Happy New Year! Burner0718 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RC-0722

Why was my account blocked? 76.250.130.129 (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem at Ted Ginn, Jr.

Yo, can you help me out at Ginn's page? An IP editor keeps removing an appropriate trivia tag. See the last discussion on the article's talk page for more info. Thanks.►Chris Nelson 02:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I have called for arbitration in dispute resolution. Please call an admin who is not biased and is not a "dude" of Chris Nelson. Mr. nelson has behaved pretty rudly now and in the past (he has been suspended in the past). The other two objectors have also been quite rude to other recently. One kept changing your edits on the Pats 2007 season. I think there are rules and all I ask is that they be followed. I have read the Wikie rules on trivia and the list is fin as it stands. Styles can vary. So, please call an adminstator to arbitrate this and I would apprecite you not throwing a threat around like you did. I found it to be essential vandalism because you clearly didn't have time to investigate, you, apparantly, just listed listened to your "dude" and perhaps---PERHAPS abused your power.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, I call on you to contact an administrator immediately. I have not broken any Wiki rules. You may very well have. You threats are unfounded, there is no reason for you to just take your "Dudes" side, you have not contacted me in a reasonable manner, you came at mewith nothing but threats when you had just a few moments to discern what was going on. How long was it aftter your "dude" asked you to do something that you just did it?. I have not broken the 3 revert rule and I have a legitimate concern about you behavior here. Please response as soon as you are able and please respons in a nice, reasonable, wiki-firendly tone, you are supposed to have certain responsibilites and I ask that you address them, Please. Thank you.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reported your behavior to dispute resolution. I told what I thought went wrong and you may tell your version.

Ted Ginn, Jr. I request an dispute resolution on this issue. I found an artice that I had reason to think had an inappropriate tiuvia tag. It was disputed. The three onjectors have a track record of being rude and ugly. One of them, a Chis Nelson, then contacted an administrator who now, rather than be a reasoned authority, I think, threated me ability to edit. When he did this, I had already requested dispute resolution and he did it anyway. he did not post a note explaining any rules that I was breaking. I think this editor, Pats1 may have abused his/her power by taking one person's side in a matter of moments, when he/she had little time to investigate. I may be unfamailair with some things and admit I am not perfect, but one I understood there were rules, I have been able to get along with folks. This, I think was abusive but a person who has the power to block me (as he'she claims). He should have looked and at least seen if my claims were valid before acting. Further, there was what lookied like a familiarity between Pats1 and ChisNelson. One that makes me question the objectivity of Pats1. It made me feel like it was "his way or the highway". I don't think that is the way disputes are supposed to be handled in WIKI, no? I thought there was consensus, there was dispute resolution and a 3 revert rule, a cooling off period. I posted this to Mr. Nelson and Pats1 but seemingly it was to no avail. I wish this matter to be looked into. thank you.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible abuse of power.

I have contacted wiki the best way i know how. If it is not the proper way then I ask that you follow-up and make sure it gets intp theright hands. Sonce you have chosen to make two threats, based on nothing, and have chosen not to contact me, I can only guess you will be silent and I find that unfortunate. However, I hope this can be reivewed quickly and reasonablly. This is nothign personal agaisnt you. I find your behavior offensive, not you personanlly. I think your behavior did not show good faith and was not up to wiki editor standards.

However, if you choose to answer. Please explain where and how you get the authority to threten a user with being banned. Who grants you that ability and where are the rule by which you must follow. I would like to read them, just as I read the rules on what triva tags are and are not supposed to be. Are you, with one with the power to ban, supposed to know those rules? I would like to know what your responsibilites are in this type of matter.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have looked it up, it seems that you can be reprimanded for actions that abuse power. You were to have read the rules and are to behave in a civil, appropriate manner, at least according to the rules.

Be careful, please! If you are granted access, you must exercise care in using these functions, especially the ability to delete pages and the ability to block IP addresses.

I beg to differ.

There is a dispute. I saw your comment there, I htink you should respond to me, if I understand the rules.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow man. This is getting insane.►Chris Nelson 03:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

your edit sumary

I notice your edit summary, in what I thin kis the above dispute: "(There isn't any "dispute" here. Trivia sections, no matter what they're named ("Notes" or "Personal" or whatever) are "to be avoided" unless temporary, when they're tagged to be inserted in prose.)" seems a little erroneous: There is no policy saying they are to be removed, & this does not justify a total removal of the material. The place for this, though, Is AN/I. , and I've advised the IP editor to take it there. DGG (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA says almost exactly what Pats1 said. --B (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

FWI WP:TRIVIA also says,

"What this guideline is not
There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests: This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. - Some information is better presented in a list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information should be included in articles — it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies."

It seems there is a reasonable "balancing" that needs to happen in these things, no? The desire for the information to be the desire that article have good style. Content policies would cover the trivia, no? Stlye policies would cover the lists. I think when looked at closely this was a content onjection, not a style one, based on previous posts by those invloved. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

there is general agreement that the material should be integrated when possible--this was done for some, but not all of the material in the section removed. Whether the material not integrated belongs in the article is a question for the editors at that page. But reverting back and forth over something like this is not a way to deal with it, whether for style or content. If the people at the article don't agree, WP:Dispute resolution is the way to get other opinions. And yes, it does help when people quote policy correctly. DGG (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is right. I agree reverting back and for on my part was wrong, however, it did take two, or thre to tango. Pats1 should have seen that this was a "gang'up" then chisjnelson asked him to do something. Rather than respect that I had already called for WP:Dispute resolution, he saw, he knew it, he took one side and threantened me with being banned, which he had to power to do. He then, after I stood up for myslef and for therules, said there "was no dispute". I begged to differ. I appreciate your reasoned approach, DGG. Thank you.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue at hand here wasn't at all the removal of a trivia section. It was simply the tagging of a trivia section. And to 72.0.36.36: "calling for dispute resolution" doesn't have any real meaning. Dispute resolution is more of a set of guidelines to follow when there is a dispute, not an actual process like WP:ANI. Pats1 /C 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that someone who possibly abused his power disagress cannot be relevant. Dispute resolution had meaning when I posted it. I had reason to beleive that there was content dispute. Had Pats1 respected that rather than threatening me he would not me in this mess. He saw that I climed there was a dispute, chrisjnelson and two others also stated this was about content not style. They kept quoting the wrong parts of the guidelines and said "I am right" etc. Pats1 then received a message and although he could see that I called for a fair and reasonable solution, even if it is a set of guidelines, he went ahead with his threat, which he had the power to follow through with. THAT is the issue now. The issue now is whether he behaved in a manner that a wiki admin should. Clearly, when Pats1 saw that I called for dispute resolution he should have helped in that process. Instead, he picked sides and acted. That is an abuse of power, IMO. What he says now, which is really after-the-fact compliance, and forgive me, "spin", for lack of another word. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What power? I never used any admin tools, so I can't for the life of me see how I could even begin to "abuse my power." Anyone - including you, if you ever needed to, can issue a warning to any user. You "calling for dispute resolution" means nothing. Those are a series of steps that should always be followed, no matter if a user "calls for dispute resolution" or not. Whether you like it or not, it's my responsibility as an administrator to make a decision and act on it. Just because that decision didn't fall in your favor doesn't mean I'm "abusing my power," and quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of you dragging that assertion on. Pats1 /C 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You know you had the power to block me. You said you were going to use your admin tools IF I did something else you didn't like. Calling for a dispute resolution means something according to wiki rules. I don't know why you didn't act on that. But you did not. You acted on chrisjnelson's reqeust not mine. Why? Why would you do what "dude" wanted and not come in as as an admin. You know that your misused your responsibility, you merely took a side and issued a warning that carried punitive consequences. That is the definition of a threat and an abuse of power. Now that I have seen you more in action, the more I am convinced that I will keep this going until there is a fair resolution. When I see a end who will make a snap decision and then say "End of subject". I see part of a pattern an practice. You were fair before and you were not fair with me and now that I have gone over your head, instead of waiting for a decision, you still try and justify what you did. I will await a decision as to whether you should be an admin or not, maybe it would do some good for you to loose that power for a while so you wouldn't say things like "End of Story". pretty curt, if you ask me72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The above user wanted this posted.►Chris Nelson 04:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But he was right to say that. There was no gray area in that debate, he was right so he said that was the ned of it, becasue it was. You're reaching.►Chris Nelson 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To 72.0.36.36: You're exactly right. If you kept on deleting an appropriately-placed and justified tag, you were going to be blocked for deletion of material. Just as any user who issued any warnings to you probably would have found an admin to do the same. Besides, your next edit would have broken 3RR, so I would have had to block you anyway. "Calling for dispute resolution" means nothing. Do you want to argue this? WP:DISPUTE is a series of steps any user should ALWAYS take whenever there is a dispute. I have no idea what you think it was. But "calling for" dispute resolution or not has no meaning - they're just guidelines any user should follow as soon as any dispute arises, and they have nothing to do with "calling in an arbitrator." As far as your comments concerning Chrisjnelson's request go, they're starting to border on violating WP:CIVIL. Consider this your warning about your "dude" comments. And I'm not going to even start on the second part of your last post, because it demonstrates a clear lack of comprehension as to what WP:ANI is. ANI is not an official process in terms of having a clear set of steps and a definite resolution. Most often, a user (or IP) posts something on ANI and there's never any response. It's simply an area for administrators to be informed on and, if necessary, act on a dispute. Pats1 /C 13:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting articles

Do you have the ability to delete articles on your own if necessary?►Chris Nelson 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they meet criteria. Pats1 /C 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well one I think needs to be deleted is Brian Soi. He didn't make it out of camp when we signed him as a UDFA after the supplemental draft, and we haven't seem him sniff a practice squad in 2007. Also, I'm starting to think Template:MiamiDolphins and Template:MiamiDolphinsStartingLineup are kind of unnecessary.►Chris Nelson 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Soi? Do you not think his article should be deleted? He's really not notable enough at this point.►Chris Nelson 01:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, tough call. I don't see any harm in keeping it, but after the whole Tommy Davis thing, I'm not sure. Pats1 /C 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well how about this - even though he's probably not notable now since he never even made a practice squad his first year, why don't we wait until March and see if he can't latch onto an offseason roster. If he isn't on a team by the draft or so, I think it's safe to delete him. Unlike Tommy Davis, Soi's never even been on a practice squad. Right now, he's not notable enough in my opinion. But I guess we can wait in the event he gets picked up in the offseason. I doubt it though.►Chris Nelson 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Houston/Dukes

You'll notice I've moved these guys back to the reserve lists as they were before. Do we have any evidence that a player has to come off the Left Squad list once a season is over? If a guy's never reported, which they still haven't, why would they ever come off? I'd imagine the same would go for Plummer and the DNR list. What evidence do we have that they aren't on these lists, or can't be?►Chris Nelson 06:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Just keep checking up on NFLPA. Pats1 /C 13:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)