| Revision as of 05:06, 19 April 2009 editPAVA11 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,030 edits →MLS: quote← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:11, 19 April 2009 edit undoSpydy13 (talk | contribs)42 edits →Avoid the appearance of evil: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| In light of the week's events, it would behoove you and your brother if you stayed out of any discussions he is actively participating in. You've already been accused of ] and ] and so many people (including admins) are watching you both very closely. Grant's arguments should be able to stand on their own. When you chime in, it doesn't help. Regardless of how honorable your (or his) intentions may be, it would be easy for anyone to perceive it as more evil activity from the two of you. Just my simple advice. --]<sup>'']''</sup>|<sub>'']''</sub> 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | In light of the week's events, it would behoove you and your brother if you stayed out of any discussions he is actively participating in. You've already been accused of ] and ] and so many people (including admins) are watching you both very closely. Grant's arguments should be able to stand on their own. When you chime in, it doesn't help. Regardless of how honorable your (or his) intentions may be, it would be easy for anyone to perceive it as more evil activity from the two of you. Just my simple advice. --]<sup>'']''</sup>|<sub>'']''</sub> 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Your point is taken, but the only reason it is seen as evil is because GRSZ11 poisoned the well as soon as he possibly could. I believe it was you that made the point that all view points should be taken, regardless of how long they have followed soccer. Does that concept not apply to me? I do not consult Grant before making my posts and I see no reason why my points aren't just as valid. I am not in lock-step with Grant and particularly disagree with the way he acted in terms of edit-waring. My points have differed from Grant's if you actually read what we have said and when we do agree it is not because of nepotism, it is because the arguments make sense. There is no reason why I should not be able to voice my opinion on these and future matters. ] (]) 05:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:11, 19 April 2009
This account has been created in an attempt to voice my opinion about the 2009 MLS Season article. I am User:Grant.Alpaugh's brother and created this article in part because I had forgotten my password to a previous account and also because I was afraid of being accused of nepotism in any discussion that I had on the 2009 MLS Season article. I understand that the second part is disingenuous and will immediatly switch back to the other account if it will eliminate confusion. You will see that a User:Caleb.Alpaugh was created in March of this year. I created that account with the intent of cleaning up the L.A. Galaxy article, but ended up not doing anything because I became frustrated with the amount of work that had to be done. I feel that I should be allowed to voice my opinion, even if I happen to share the same IP as Grant.Alpaugh. I am not aware of a one user per house rule on WIKI. You will also see that this account (Spydy13) did not make any edits to articles, but only attempted to move along the dialogue on a much heated topic. ----
unblocked
I have unblocked this account as well as that of Grant as I find the explanation credible. Please understand my reasoning for blocking both accounts, the timing of the edits and the fact that a new account showed up and began to make your exact arguements made it appear as though some chicanery was going on. I urge you to continue to use the talk page and avoid edit warring per your prior agreements. I would also urge that if any other friends/brothers/roommates are going to be stopping by in this manner, that such associations are made clear so that everyone can understand what is going on. Unless we have that, we only have the evidence to go on. Sorry for the mix up on this.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I thank you for unblocking me and my brother. I wanted to ask you whether or not I should continue to use this account since their has been a history established, or would you prefer that I switch to the User:Caleb.Alpaugh account that I created last month. I sort of feel as if this account has been tainted because User:Grsz11 has told various users that this account is Grant.Alpaugh. Thank you for any help you can give me with this matter.
- Well it's still a meatpuppet, which is unacceptable as well. Grsz 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I stated in the first post on this talk page, I created an earlier account so that I could edit the LA Galaxy article. I am obviously a fan of MLS and I visit the season article weekly because it is much easier to look at than the tables of MLSNet.com. I went to the discussion page because I had seen that the tables had changed and wanted to know why, considering I had thought that they were perfectly fine to begin with. I read the previous points made in the discussion and added my own two cents. I created a new account because I knew my points would be thrown out if everyone knew that they were coming from Grant's brother. I don't really know what else to say. You don't have to have to an account to use WIKI, so I committed no violation there. I can read, so there is no reason why I couldn't catch up on a discussion, which again means no violation. I just hope that in the future you can avoide making false accusations as soon as someone attempts to make rational points in a discussion. Also, please avoide poisoning the well in the future.
- Well it's still a meatpuppet, which is unacceptable as well. Grsz 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I thank you for unblocking me and my brother. I wanted to ask you whether or not I should continue to use this account since their has been a history established, or would you prefer that I switch to the User:Caleb.Alpaugh account that I created last month. I sort of feel as if this account has been tainted because User:Grsz11 has told various users that this account is Grant.Alpaugh. Thank you for any help you can give me with this matter.
MLS
What specific change did I want to make? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get across. Grsz 04:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- "You" got rid of the colors from the conference tables and "you" deleted the standings summary. Do you honestly not remember screwing with that sentence at least 5 times before up and deleting it? I do concede that after looking back through the history, the conference tables didn't indicate qualification for other competetions, but the bar currently meant to indicate the two qualified teams doesn't really explain the information that it is trying to get across. I guess what I am trying to say is why do the colors need to be gone in the first place? Do they offend you or hurt your eyes? It just doesn't really make sense to me. Spydy13 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the explanation because Grant or you said it was redundant and didn't need to be there. He/you then proceeded it to remove it from past season articles (presumedly because he agreed). Grsz 05:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- "The information you added is redundant. It is poorly formatted. It is incomplete. Most of all, those things are completely unnecessary as this information is detailed completely in a previous section of the article." -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)"
- I removed the explanation because Grant or you said it was redundant and didn't need to be there. He/you then proceeded it to remove it from past season articles (presumedly because he agreed). Grsz 05:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- "You" got rid of the colors from the conference tables and "you" deleted the standings summary. Do you honestly not remember screwing with that sentence at least 5 times before up and deleting it? I do concede that after looking back through the history, the conference tables didn't indicate qualification for other competetions, but the bar currently meant to indicate the two qualified teams doesn't really explain the information that it is trying to get across. I guess what I am trying to say is why do the colors need to be gone in the first place? Do they offend you or hurt your eyes? It just doesn't really make sense to me. Spydy13 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Avoid the appearance of evil
In light of the week's events, it would behoove you and your brother if you stayed out of any discussions he is actively participating in. You've already been accused of sock puppetry and meat puppetry and so many people (including admins) are watching you both very closely. Grant's arguments should be able to stand on their own. When you chime in, it doesn't help. Regardless of how honorable your (or his) intentions may be, it would be easy for anyone to perceive it as more evil activity from the two of you. Just my simple advice. --SkotyWA|Contribs 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your point is taken, but the only reason it is seen as evil is because GRSZ11 poisoned the well as soon as he possibly could. I believe it was you that made the point that all view points should be taken, regardless of how long they have followed soccer. Does that concept not apply to me? I do not consult Grant before making my posts and I see no reason why my points aren't just as valid. I am not in lock-step with Grant and particularly disagree with the way he acted in terms of edit-waring. My points have differed from Grant's if you actually read what we have said and when we do agree it is not because of nepotism, it is because the arguments make sense. There is no reason why I should not be able to voice my opinion on these and future matters. Spydy13 (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)