| Revision as of 05:07, 17 November 2008 editLocke Cole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,893 edits →Warning regarding unlinking of dates: a warning regarding prior arbitration← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:27, 25 December 2023 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:2012Olympian/Archives/2021/December, User talk:2012Olympian/Archives/2021/May) (bot | ||
| (316 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| <!--Template:Archivebox begins--> | <!--Template:Archivebox begins--> | ||
| <div class="infobox" style="width: |
<div class="infobox" style="width: 225px"> | ||
| <div style="text-align: center">]<br /> | <div style="text-align: center">]<br /> | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{ |
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive|period={{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1|-1}} {{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1|-2}}}} | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | ||
| |algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
| |archive = User talk: |
|archive = User talk:2012Olympian/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ---- | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| == All-Pro == | |||
| Look man, just because you have come into the discussion doesnt mean all the sudden the All-Pros become changed, prior discussions have agreed that it should be how it is, not the way you think, to say that people agreed overwhelmingly to seprate them is delusional and ridiculous, so dont just start changing them because you think they should be like this.--] 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Also NFL.com is the link that has agreed to been used, so stop adding pro football reference.--] 22:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll have to find it, dont start adding it or seperating the All-Pros again and I wont revert your edits until we get this solved--] 22:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::heres the agreement on NFL.com:]--] 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::By the way I dont find any place where it says that people agree with seperating the All-Pros--] 22:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Another thing is your not even consistant with how you are displaying it--] 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Ok, but where did you find these because a lot of these are proably sockpuppets of 72.0.36.36--] 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Ok when you seperate them can you at least make them consistant with each other like I did with the Joe Montana and Michael Irvin--] 23:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I just have one more request, can you put a - between First Team, so it looks like this: First-Team--] 23:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I am currently doing it--] 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == John Linehan (basketball) Speedy Deletion == | |||
| No problem mate, very sorry about the quick delete. I see so many kid athletes that "not in NBA" has my finger over the trigger faster than it should. Happy editing to you. :) -<b>''' ]'''</font><b>]</font></b> 06:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thank you for the barnstar!--] 13:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I think your interpretation of the MOS is off key here, This table is seriously over linked. The MOS regarding wikilinks in tables might apply if there were multiple tables on the page and the rest of the draft series followed suit. The entire draft series has been edited as first instance only (as required by good article standards not list/tables) and consistency is an important part of the NFL wiki project. Also the use of abbreviations needs to be eliminated just as it has been on the regular draft pages. Remember this is an encyclopedia and people other than sports statisticians read it. As always happy editing ] ] ] 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Links == | |||
| Why did you remove all of these links on articles?--] 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think you went overboard though, I can see removing links that were near others that were already linked, but some of them were way far apart, also you were removing the links to the birthdate in the infobox, which I dont think should be done, I do agree though with you removing the double All-Pro links.--] 22:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::His problem is he's using AWB, and that doesn't take into consideration that double links can (and often should) be present in an article due to length and space in between them. ►''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 05:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Ummm, I already discussed this over on Yankee's10's page, agreed that I had made some mistakes, apologized, and went back through the articles and undid ''some'' of the removals. But since you also for some reason seem to need an explanation, let me repeat what I said there: <blockquote> | |||
| Sorry, new toy. I'll go back through those articles and put back the infobox links to birthplaces and birthdates. But the way the MoS reads, if a term had already been linked in an article, that's all it gets. For example, Barry Sanders has ] linked 3-4 times, so I'll bring it down to the first one. I removed the extra links due to this from ] for one of two reasons.<br /><br /> | |||
| 1. Some were general links to months, days, or years: "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true: Low added-value items are linked without reason—such as ], ], and ]." I also took advice from ], "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic" to remove general links to dates such as ] etc.<br /><br /> | |||
| 2. "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article. "Excessive" typically means more than once for the same term in an article. So I removed multiple instances of links. | |||
| </blockquote> Number 2 doesn't make any exception for length between the excessive links. And Yankees10 seemed to be okay with my explanation and apology. I hope you are satisfied now too.--]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 05:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been looking for the discussion where the consensus has been established, but it was obviously a long time ago. So far, I've just found a discussion from summer 2007 mentioning the consensus. Trust me, this infobox was my idea and I've followed it from Day 1. There is a consensus, and you need to stop making edits against it until it is found.►''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 07:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well as I've said, the two infoboxes were conceived by two different people. No, I've not found the discussion, but I do know that everyone who was around at the time knows what the consensus was (to not link them), which is why we all edit it that way (including an admin). As I am sure that there was a consensus against your style of edit at some point, will you avoid making any more of your edits before we have a poll on the NFL talk page? That way, if the same consensus is reached there is nothing we have to undo. If the consensus is in your favor, I'll drop it and we'll change the infobox standard.►''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you think you and I could discuss each change you'd like to make to the infobox and try to reach a compromise?►''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hey, just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about your post on my talk page. I've had a busy week, I'll reply within the next day though.►''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Finally replied on my talk, sorry for the wait.►''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 14:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Main Page redesign == | |||
| The Main Page Redesign proposal is ] to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the ]. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Season links == | |||
| Talk to ], who does most of the infobox work. ] ]/] 01:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Definition of AA == | == Definition of AA == | ||
| Line 88: | Line 24: | ||
| I would be interested in your opinion on this discussion: ] | I would be interested in your opinion on this discussion: ] | ||
| == |
== TUF 10 & TreyGeek Talkback == | ||
| Uhh...none of the player infoboxes need any year links. -- <font face="Chiller" size="3">''']]'''<sub>]]</sub></font> 06:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry for my false comment. I don't have time for doing these minor edits because of school and such. Just leave a message on ] and I'm sure someone will do it. -- <font face="Chiller" size="3">''']]'''<sub>]]</sub></font> 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{Talkback|TreyGeek}} | |||
| == See Jguk == | |||
| == Petition to have flagicons returned to fighter pages == | |||
| Your recent edits, changing date format in international articles from international format to US format is a clear violation of the ArbCom ruling on Jguk, which is featured as a prominent warning on ]. See ] for ANI discussion. --] (]) 01:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have started a petition in the hopes of having flagicons returned to fighters pages. Sign ] if you would like to help. Thank you. | |||
| ==Proposed deletion of Noted player== | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process{{#if: Noted player|  because of the following concern:|.}} | |||
| :<b>Noted player</b> | |||
| == File:Free Blue Star.jpg listed for discussion == | |||
| All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. | |||
| ] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> --]<sup>«¦]¦»</sup> 05:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>'''Unused, superseded by ].'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| ==Warning regarding unlinking of dates== | |||
| As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, ], which I quote: | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| {{"|Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.|]}} | |||
| Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --]<sup>«¦]¦»</sup> 14:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at ] and elsewhere. —] • ] • ] 05:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:27, 25 December 2023
Status: Online 
Definition of AA
I would be interested in your opinion on this discussion: Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous#Recovery vs. recovered
TUF 10 & TreyGeek Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Petition to have flagicons returned to fighter pages
I have started a petition in the hopes of having flagicons returned to fighters pages. Sign here if you would like to help. Thank you.
File:Free Blue Star.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Free Blue Star.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax 05:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:ASUinterlock.gif
The file File:ASUinterlock.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, superseded by c:File:Arizona State Sun Devils baseball logo.svg.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax 14:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
