| Revision as of 22:14, 16 November 2008 editMayalld (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers20,695 edits PROD nomination of Noted player. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:07, 17 November 2008 edit undoLocke Cole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,892 edits →Warning regarding unlinking of dates: a warning regarding prior arbitrationNext edit → | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| ==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: | |||
| {{"|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.|]}} | |||
| 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) | |||
Revision as of 05:07, 17 November 2008
Status: Online 
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.--Yankees10 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Also NFL.com is the link that has agreed to been used, so stop adding pro football reference.--Yankees10 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--Yankees10 22:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- heres the agreement on NFL.com:Template talk:Infobox NFLactive#New NFL.com - to use for stats?--Yankees10 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--Yankees10 22:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Another thing is your not even consistant with how you are displaying it--Yankees10 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--Yankees10 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--Yankees10 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--Yankees10 23:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I am currently doing it--Yankees10 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. :) - FlyingToaster 06:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar!--Yankees10 13:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
1995 NFL Expansion Draft
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 Slysplace 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Links
Why did you remove all of these links on articles?--Yankees10 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.--Yankees10 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. ►Chris Nelson 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:
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 Detroit Lions linked 3-4 times, so I'll bring it down to the first one. I removed the extra links due to this from Maual of Style for one of two reasons.
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 1995, 1980s, and 20th century." I also took advice from this directive, "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 15 August etc.
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.
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.--User:2008Olympianchitchat 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.►Chris Nelson 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.►Chris Nelson 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?►Chris Nelson 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.►Chris Nelson 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Finally replied on my talk, sorry for the wait.►Chris Nelson 14:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Main Page redesign
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Season links
Talk to User:Chrisjnelson, who does most of the infobox work. Pats1 /C 01:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Definition of AA
I would be interested in your opinion on this discussion: Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous#Recovery vs. recovered
RE: NFL Year template
Uhh...none of the player infoboxes need any year links. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 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 WT:NFL and I'm sure someone will do it. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
See Jguk
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 WP:DATE. See here for ANI discussion. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Noted player
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Noted player, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Noted player
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mayalld (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
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, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:
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.
— Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli
Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)