Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:53, 19 April 2009

Please feel free to leave me a message here and I will respond to it ASAP. Have a good one.
-- Grant.Alpaugh 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Contact

Grant - hi, wanted to get in touch with you with regard to your updating of the CONCACAF pages (which is great, by the way). Can you possibly send me a number I can call you on to discuss? My email is <removed>. Best, Danny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djp080306 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent WEllington Phoenix FC to Wellington Phoenix

The clubs name is actually Wellington Phoenix FC. You'll see this on their logo, and you'll also see it on the website (http://www.wellingtonphoenix.com/ - the writing under the nav clearly says Wellington Phoenix FC) CipherPixel (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perth Glory F.C.

Just a friendly note on the Perth Glory F.C. speedy deletion / move. I declined the speedy because given the number of times you and Timsdad have reverted each other in the last couple of days, this is a controversial deletion / move. If you two can't work something out between you, I suggest you take it to Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion for consensus.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Replying to your post at User_talk:Fabrictramp#Perth_Glory: when you and another editor are running up against 3RR over whether the redirect should stay as is, it certainly seems to others that you are not in accord. As I said above, either work it out between you or take it to RfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I just want to present an olive branch- I have no problem admitting that I don't know much on Misplaced Pages but I am also not completely new to website/coding/or sports editing. If you have some opinions on how to improve my KCW articles I welcome the input and by all means have at them. I probably can't see the forest from the trees on my own articles a lot of the time but I've spent a lot of time recently researching the project pages from a lot of different sources, I feel view myself as a bit of a creator and view you as more of an editor- I think we can work together like that. Hope you have a good day and I hope we can improve this little area. Morry32 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I think

You just errantly pointed out that I'm "obviously a fan of European football" which I am not (not yet anyway). I've never watched soccer on TV beyond a few World Cup games every 4 years and am only interested now because I decided to buy season tickets to the Sounders FC this year and am enjoying their success. Their first home game was the first match I've ever attended in person. Furthermore, I've never played soccer competitively or for recreation in my life. I played (American) football in high school. Despite what you're telling me I think, my opinions are driven by a desire to do the right thing on Misplaced Pages and not by some misunderstanding, misconception, or other outside interest.

Please don't confuse the feedback I'm about to give as incivility. Consider it more of calling a spade a spade...

You make a lot of important contributions to many MLS articles which is a great thing. Don't let this productivity turn you into a diva where you think that your history in some way empowers you to have a more important opinion that someone else. As you've probably noticed with some of my edits, I've researched a lot of the previous discussions around MLS related articles to make sure that I don't do something against consensus. In reading those discussions, I've seen you participate vigorously in a number of them. In many of them you've brought up disparate points to back what you've already determined is the proper conclusion and people have called you out on it. You really need to do a better job listening in these types of discussions rather than trying to further prove your own point from a different angle every time you talk.

In the interest of not beating another dead horse, I've decided to walk away and let you win if that's how it turns out. I deemed the entire discussion petty after my second post and decided I would have at most one more post before I walked away. I've seen the discussions you previously engaged in and was not about to go down that road. It's just not that important to me.

Anyway, sorry if any of the above offended you. It's meant as honest feedback and not a personal attack. I hope to cross paths with you many times again in the future. Hopefully we'll be in agreement more often than we disagree. Either way, I'm glad you're here.--Skotywa 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Grant.Alpaugh for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Grsz 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WPS

Hey, this edit summary was needlessly hostile. You essentially accused him of using the wrong abbreviation on purpose, which was probably not the case. Just try and be a little less aggressive when it comes to issues like that. Grsz 04:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I was talking about two seperate issues. They made a similar correction to the abbreviations, and I was following suit so we are in line with WPS abbreviations. The I'm referring to is the Away-Home format, which I also corrected in the edit. American sports articles on WP use a standard format of Away-Home, W-L-T, and so do American soccer articles. They are trying to change that, and this has been beaten to death here and a number of other places. One person on one article can't change that unilaterally. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is they? All articles are self-contained, what happens at one has nothing to do with another. CyMoahk had nothing to do with anything on the MLS season and it's inappropriate for you to take it out on him. Grsz 05:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They is CyMoahk. We've been having this discussion for over a month now. Please refrain from talking about things you know nothing about. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of standings templates in MLS season article

Why don't we try to discuss this civilly ourselves instead of having it out in open court. If you and I can reach some consensus, that would help the main discussion a lot. I've copied below the last two posts from the discussion I engaged in with you while you were blocked. Can we pick up where we left off? --SkotyWA|_Contribs 05:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally debating the merits of the arguments. I apologize for my tone earlier, but you can imagine how frustrating it is doing something one way for three years, and then mid-season changing things to suit the wishes of people who have never been involved in the American soccer articles, especially since you are so open about your newness to the game.

1. In baseball articles the template is 5 or 6 teams long, in MLS there is a conference standing and a full table standing. Together they are much to long, especially when the information is already detailed in another template. Pick one or the other.
2. Keeping information accurate was much easier when everything was updatable through one click of the mouse. Editing the whole article also kept the page from having 16 different versions during matchdays. Since you have yet to establish why these templates need to be in the club season articles to begin with, I don't think that those alleged benefits outweigh the costs to those who actually update the main article.
3. Apparently you haven't tried hard enough, because the overall standings template is now sortable (something that wasn't previously in the table, and is unnecessary as it causes umpteen accessability problems). Additionally, the conference standings templates no longer have the same look as the overall template, which makes them look sloppy and poorly designed. There is no reason why the templates shouldn't simply be copy-and-pastes of the two tables before all of this happened.
4. Why should the changes you want have to be implimented before there is strong consensus for them? Shouldn't the fact that the articles were a certain way for several years without objection give that format weight? I wouldn't go to the Premier League article and change the standings template in use all season, and then expect my changes to stand while the discussion about them carrys on. Why should that happen here?If you could try to format your points like I did in future posts, it would make things easier to follow. Also, now that I am unblocked, I plan to copy most of this to the main discussion. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Formatted as you requested:

1. What other template is the information already detailed in? Honestly given your recent "washing of the hands" I can't understand why this is so important to you still. I think having the standing in the team season articles is useful, notable and informative and I haven't "washed my hands" yet.
2. I think your sorely exaggerating it when you say "16 different versions". Honestly, if you're right and it's really that difficult, why don't you just let it happen and then you can say "I told you so" when it turns out to be harder than any of the other editors expected. I think you'd get equal satisfaction out of that as you are now of belaboring this point.
3. Can we discuss whether the overall standings template should be sortable separately. It's irrelevant to the template discussion. The conference standings were exactly as they were in the article when I created them. The had recently changed to remove some of the coloring, but I copied them exactly. I agree that they should be exactly the same as they were in the article before we made the transition to templates. From there they can "grow and change" as they would have in the article. Don't pollute the template discussion with nit-picking these differences.
4. Based on that comment I suspect that as soon as an admin fixes your block correctly, you plan to revert everything again. Let me suggest that you don't do that (but I'm sure you'll do whatever you want). Regardless, for the purposes of this conversation it really doesn't matter what the state of the article is while it's going on. I know you want to keep screaming "it's not fair, it's not fair," but my response is "it doesn't matter" for the discussion. It's not a valid point because it can change at any minute. It's just a gripe.

So if I understand everything, #1 and #2 seem to be the real sticking points for you. Fair? --SkotyWA|_Contribs 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but can we first agree that someone (preferably you) should edit the conference standings templates to use colors like they did before, and make the overall standings template unsortable, like it was before? That would preserve the look of the article, while keeping things templated. I think that would be a fair compromise that would show good faith for the discussion to come. Deal? -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sorting from the overall standings template. It turns out that putting back the colors on the conference standings template is complicated. I would have to create a 4th template with the color legend in order to get it exactly as it was before. But I have to ask myself what value the colors actually provided. Here's a link to one of the last iterations before the templates were put back in. All of the colors have the same meaning. Why 4 colors? It was weird before and it's still weird now. Can we agree that we'll figure out a way to sort the conference tables out after this discussion has concluded? I've done half of what you requested in good faith. The other half isn't a simple revert though. I would appreciate it if we could ignore the conference table playoff indicator debate for the time being. Fair? --SkotyWA|_Contribs 06:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You could split the legend up into two sections, one half at the bottom of each template. They mean different things, one is for automatic berths, the other is for wildcard berths. It shows the difference between the two conferences' playoff contingents, and was completely uncontroversial for the last two seasons. This was never discussed, and the change was made unilaterally by one editor. I would appreciate the article remaining as it was, except for templates, which is the real issue of contention here. That would be fair. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've put back the colors in the conference tables. They're not exactly as they were when they became templates because I also added "(Wild Card)" to the legend to address the problem I just explained. Okay, now I've provided you with an olive branch to start with. Don't abuse my trust (since I seem to be the only one willing to give it to you any more). --SkotyWA|_Contribs 07:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate the attempt at working through this. Everything is as it was before, and I appreciate that wholeheartedly. It is 3 AM here, though, and I'm exhausted. Can we continue this tomorrow?

Personal attacks

If you had been following MLS for more than the last week, you would see that the number of teams from each conference making the playoffs changes from week to week. Eliminating the colors from the Conference standings eliminates valuable information. Furthermore, it takes away from the unifying look of the two sets of tables, as now they are using different formats. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it is bad. It is clear from your attempts to edit the intro blurb that you fundamentally misunderstand MLS as a competition, which is fine, but that probably means you should leave the editing and formatting the standings to others. Changing the format mid-season is even more problematic. You made these changes unilaterally. All discussion on the talk page was about the question of whether or not to move to templates, not on changing the formats. Please address these issues somewhere in discussion, so that we can move on to whether or not to use templates. Also, the way you have been going around telling everyone who will listen that Spydy13 and I are sockpuppets is rather immature, don't you think? You're not doing anything but poisoning the well, which is problematic. Spydy13 and I haven't been proven to be guilty of anything, and the way our block was steamrolled through (a move the blocking admin now regrets) is not unsimilar to the manner this whole discussion has proceeded, which is also unfortunate. You also seem to misunderstand that my brother and I can be living in the same house, have multiple computers, and still have the same IP because of our internet provider. I guess my point is that you should do a little less talking about things which you obviously know very little about. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks again. I removed the colors for the conference table for exactly that reason, that only the top 2 are guaranteed. I don't care how much more you think you know, you're behavior the past week is unacceptable. Grsz 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If my edits (the few I made) were without consensus, wouldn't someone have removed them? Grsz 05:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. I got blocked for edit warring on a different issue, and the templates were made based on the ones in place at the time. SkotyWA didn't realize my objection to the lack of colors, and agrees that the templates should have been exactly the same as before. You made your edit because you didn't understand the difference between automatic and wild card berths, but if you had been following the article for more than a week you would have seen the conference standings in flux. Look at 2007 Major League Soccer season and 2008 Major League Soccer season and you will see that the Eastern Conference got 5 teams in both years. It just so happened that when you stumbled into the article it was 4 and 4 and you assumed that there were 4 colors representing the same thing. Again, just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it is bad. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your behavior, just as you have done mine. You have been just as abrasive and provocative as I have, and to a lot more people on a lot more talk pages. You spread unfounded allegations as though they were fact, and that doesn't even address the fact that your actions in editing the article (just like mine) were entirely without consensus. Can we agree that we should both have acted more maturely? Can you attempt to address my arguments? -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I knew it was just the first two...obvious when I made the line and reworded the lead. Grsz 06:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When you first made the change it was under the fourth. You don't know what you're talking about. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I can do what I'd like on my page, just like you can here. If you want to remove all these messages fine, but I would rather keep a conversation in one place. Grsz 06:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war report

Sorry Grant, but I've been contemplating this a long time and though I'm generally very trusting, I'm really getting tired of all the back-and-forth on the 2009 WPS season article, and the more I read about revert policies and about the other trouble you've gotten in to, I can no longer think you're servicing Misplaced Pages well with your stubbornness and tendency to quickly change whatever you don't like, even when you're in the minority (and it's not just me saying that, I've read all the comments above on your talk page). I also notice you've broken you earlier promise of "I will continue to revert poor grammar and unfactual things, but I will not edit war" with all the changes you've made on the 2009 WPS season article. So here's another edit war report. CyMoahk (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As per your comments on my report,

• If you read up on Edits Wars, they are not limited to 24hr periods.
• It was not OR. I gave the source I used, and anyone else could verify or correct the information I put up by looking at that source. I have incredible trouble believing you even read some of the things I said in the discussion page since I quoted the part of the OR article that supported my claim and another editor supported me as well.
• I try to not revert (unless I have new evidence/support) since I don't want to be the one accused of edit warring; trust me, I would be reverting your things more often if I wasn't so paranoid. And your edits are not uncontested, based on the comments of three other users supporting me on the talk page.
• I wasn't opposing your SB->SJ switch, btw, good catch on that one; I hadn't realized WPS did that since it wasn't on the old site, which was up until just two days ago.

I will admit I'm always wary of rules, and thus scared of misunderstanding policy. However, I've read plenty enough to be pretty sure I know what I'm doing. CyMoahk (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand that every American sports article uses the Away-Home, W-L-T format? There is no reason to confuse WP users by doing something different. Look at that MLS discussion, and you'll see why the consensus was what it was. As for the stats, the random trivia ones weren't sourced like the Premier League ones were, so there's no need to re-include them until they are sourced. As for the other tables, why shouldn't we use the one page summary WPS reports? I don't want to edit war over this either, but I think you should better understand established WP practice before continuing this discussion. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, are you crazy Grant? You've been given a 0RR warning here and yet you still continue to revert. Seriously, knock it off. You have good ideas and often contribute value, but you've also got a serious problem following rules and being nice to people. It would be a shame if your actions caused you to be blocked indefinitely. I know you think you're the victim here, but honestly, you're the cause of most of your frustration. Okay, I'm butting out now. --SkotyWA|_Contribs 07:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you've got to talk about this stuff before you just stomp all over it

Please see the following edits I had to make to clean up your mess tonight:

I can't decide if I should consider this as your violating the good faith I extended to you earlier this evening when I brought the standings templates back to their exact look from the MLS season page. I then pleaded on each talk page that people be patient as I worked for consensus on the usage of the templates in the MLS season article. All this after you have been blocked twice and are in a 0RR probation and have everyone and their dogs pissed at you. I'm furious, but it's late so I'll reserve judgment until tomorrow. The highlighted row and team specification in the templates were fundamental features of the templates and you tossed them out without even a peep on the talk page. If your response to this is anything other than apologetic, I'm done helping you work with the other editors in a rational manner. Good night. --SkotyWA|_Contribs 08:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)