User talk:72.0.36.36 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.0.36.36 (talk) at 01:37, 6 July 2008 (→What is going on?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:37, 6 July 2008 by 72.0.36.36 (talk) (→What is going on?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

April 2007

You have to establish the noteworthines of that award you're adding. Quadzilla99 03:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be hard I can look for a source to help out if I have time. Quadzilla99 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK72.0.36.36 04:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NFL player

See that page for the standard format for NFL players, this was decided by consensus. Also see here for the decision for retired players. Quadzilla99 16:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pro Bowls are listed by year that's the consensus format used here see WP:NFL and the instructions on the infobox. Also please don't get mad at me. Quadzilla99 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

okay 72.0.36.36 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)72.0.36.36 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't mean to take out the height weight and the Halas trophy on LT. Oops! Quadzilla99 02:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

no problem72.0.36.36 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Team colors on retired players

Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Quadzilla99 11:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

72.0.36.36 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 02:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, including:

The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
The use of your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed.
The ability to create new pages.
The ability to rename pages.
The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
The ability to upload images.
The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

I also see that you've edited an article related to Georgia Tech. If you're interested, there's a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Georgia Tech, called WikiProject Georgia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can create an account, and then visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Again, welcome! —Disavian (/_contribs) 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks72.0.36.36 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

All-time University of Texas team

Could you provide a link for this (if you have one) so that we can cite it properly in the article? Thanks. ~ João Do Rio 10:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

72.0.36.36 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)okay, we'll do.

72.0.36.36 01:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)I put in the refernce date. .

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets

I don't think the "all time team" is relevant to the subject. It's just a list of players, and the section makes no attempt to explain itself. Also, notable Georgia Tech sportspeople are already covered in List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. If you'd like to make other additions to the page, try to focus on:

Prose instead of lists
Content that is verifyable
And be sure to provide sources

Thanks. —Disavian (/_contribs) 23:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the All-time team is relevant. It is not "just a list of players" but an organzied team under Georgia Tech football. However, I will agree with your verifyable point. I will provide the source. thanks. Please do not delete again. 72.0.36.36 00:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

72.0.36.36, please refer to the discussion on Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets. Those are my thoughts on the GT All-time team. I have a pretty good idea of GT Football history and I'd like to think some guys since 1991 deserve to be on a better all-time list (rather than completely excluding our 1990 UPI Title team).--Excaliburhorn 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you are deleting the All-time team beacuse you have an ax to grind. Just because you disagree with the timing of the release of the team does not make it invalid. That is a lousy reason for deletion. It is noted that the team was chosen in 1991, those who have some intelligence will understand that those who played after would not be included. That is the way all-time teams are chosen. It does not make any kind of value judgment on players who were not eligle. Your understanding of GT football history is not relevant. Nor is mine. What is relevant is that i nthe GT football media guide they continue to honor the All-Time GT team. It is noted that it was picked in 1991. That's the end of it. It is relevant by it's very nature and by listing in the GT media guide. I note that you now don't think it is a "list of players" but you think it does not select guys you like better. Well, get on the phone and call GT Sports Information and tell them to remove it from the Media guide or tell them you think there should be a new team selected, one with guys you like better. Until then, the team is relevant and I would appreciate you leaving it alone. 72.0.36.36 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we're just saying that it isn't relevant to the article - it doesn't significantly contribute to an understanding of the topic. If you want to edit constructively, you should write prose, preferably about the history of the athletic program. —Disavian (/_contribs) 01:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to again disagree. Although prose is preferred there is a time and place for charts and for an all-time team. The all-time team IS part of the history of the altheltic program. Not all wiki-pages are 100% prose. But I have to point out that now it is that this is an all-time list that bothers you, that is it not prose. Well, before it was that it was "dated" and that certain of your asn Excal's favortie players were not included. So, I have to beleive that the real reason you wish to exclude this is that it does not feature more recent players. To me, that is not a vaild reason for deletion.72.0.36.36 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Bulldogs, Miami Hurricanes, Clemson Tigers, Duke Blue Devils, NC State Wolfpack, Maryland Terrapins, Virginia Cavaliers, Virginia Tech Hokies, North Carolina Tar Heels, Boston College Eagles, and Florida State Seminoles do not list anything like that. Wake Forest doesn't have an athletics page. None of those teams list "All-Time Teams" and most of them are much better than this page. This is an Athletic Department article not a football history page. We NEED a GT Football page and this can be something we put on it. Until another ACC team or ugag lists an All-Time team, I think we should leave it off.

Secondly, I think that there are some people that are far more important to GT football that are not listed in that list. To leave off Clint Castleberry is an injustice to GT football (the only retired number and Heisman finalist). Shawn Jones and Joe Hamilton destroyed all of GT's QB records and were All-Americans. Shawn WON a national title. Joe was a Heisman runner-up. Calvin Johnson destroyed all of GT's receiving records and was consensus All-American all 3 years. That list in the media guide is just bad listing Scott Sisson over Luke Manget (most prolific GT kicker ever) or Jim Preas (222-0 kicker). These aren't people I think are more important. History, statistics, and the rest of the world think they are more notable but some GT fan poll in the early 90's is more important than what everyone else in the college football world thinks about GT (for all we know that poll could have 10 voters).--Excaliburhorn 03:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay after a little research, I found that this list really doesn't appreciate GT's rich football tradition but is rather a tribute to Bobby Dodd's players. The oldest player on the list is George Morris of 1952. So we're automatically excluding every player from Alexander and Heisman's coaching days, which includes two of our National Titles. 10 out of 24 of the players are from Bobby Dodd's tenure. 6 are from Pepper Rodgers' reign. 8 are from Carson, Curry, and Ross' tenures. Historically speaking, this All-time list is terrible in that it crops out 60 years of pre-Dodd football and does not include any of O'Leary or Gailey's players. Hence, it is dated and it lacks a true historical nature.--Excaliburhorn 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is not what YOU think of it, but what the SCHOOL thinks of it. If you were writing a book you could leave it out. Your "hence it is dated" is not a logical conclusion. You didn't like it at first, you don't like it now. However, you and the other opponent keep changing the mark. Flaws can be found for anything. You didn't like this before your research. Therefore I question the integrity of your research. In any research you must factor in the bias of the researcher so you won't get cooked details. Just beacuse your favorite guys are not on it does not make it invalid. When a new team is chosen when your guys are eligble, what if someone who thinks new rules or something helped Johnson break all those records, that the modern game is differenct that the Dodd era? What if they object because of the same things you state now. I would like you to be honest. You didn't like it from the beginning and now you are trying to gin up any reason to get rid of it. Guys who were not eligble in 1991 were not elible. Unless you have s9olid proof that pre-Dodd players were INELIGBLE then your research is false. Leave it up. It does not disrepect any player you like who was not elible. People who read an encyclopedia understand that. Why you are being so obtuse is a mystery.72.0.36.36 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see the list as a very respected and encyclopedic list. It doesn't include modern players and their achievements and it excludes players before Bobby Dodd's Era. Do I like the list? No, I don't like the list but it's from a sheer encyclopedic perspective. An obscure GT Fan poll is not encyclopedic. Personally, I think the list is a way to flatter older alum and keep them donating when they see their favorite players from the Dodd Era still mentioned in the media guide.

To me, All-Americans, Heisman finalists, etc. are voted on by national media and widely accepted players of prominence. I also cited the fact that NONE of the ACC wikipedia articles have any such All-Time teams in their ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT articles. Are my favorite players in the list? Well, most of them are. I respect history but I think you are overrating the credibility of this fan poll. As I said, you can put this list in to the GT football article (when it's created), if you want but I'm going to continually delete it from the general athletics article because it does not contribute to the understanding of "An overview of Georgia Tech's athletic program."--Excaliburhorn 03:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am neither overrating nor underating. It is what it is. Created for a reason and publised for a reason. The constant moving target is hard to meet. First, use prose, then it was the attempt to discredit the poll, then it was it does not represent the full history (which you frankly lied about) the all-era teams prove that. Now it is the poll was done by dip shit-cracker Georgia Tech fans and not the "national media" who would I guess have oh so much more knowledge. Come on. Get over it. None of your arguments holds water. You simply don't like the results of the poll and are censoring it.72.0.36.36 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the lists to the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football article. It is where it should be now. Thanks for adding the all-Era teams. One thing though: you keep forgetting Bobby Dodd as the All-Time Coach according to the media guide. I'll fix that.--Excaliburhorn 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are right. I did leave off the coach. My error. A new article seems to be the best idea72.0.36.36 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football

We decide things by consensus, and the consensus, I'm sure, is that the list goes and stays away. I'd like to reiterate that the list doesn't serve a useful purpose, and including it is probably a copyright violation. It's just a fan poll that doesn't accurately describe anything; the article lists non-neutral statistics, including specific awards, and particularly notable players are covered in the prose where relevant. It takes more effort to contribute than copying a list and formatting it with wiki-markup.

While I appreciate that someone's contributing to the Georgia Tech sports articles, you haven't actually written any prose, or provided any references, or uploaded any free use pictures; those three things are what the articles really need. You could even write or expand a game summary - we have several yearly articles that could use help, as listed on Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football#Current regime: 2002–Present. If you're much of a basketball fan, then you could expand Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's basketball (esp. the History section), which is rather short at the moment. Articles need to be written on every person listed on List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes.

Each of those are a lot more constructive in the long run than copying some poll's results. If you continue to ignore consensus by pasting your possibly copyvio list into the article, then there will be consequences, and I'd prefer to have you as a constructive editor than someone who could have contributed, but didn't because they couldn't learn Misplaced Pages's rules. —Disavian (/_contribs) 20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not be honest. Your "consensus" is 2 people, maybe three. The list is not a copywright violation. It is from the Ga Tech Media Guide. Were you to be honest you'd abmit the reason you don't like it is you do not like the results. All awards are polls of some sort, like All-Americans and all-time teams. The purpose of All-time teams is to honor performances of players and that poll, along with those others does just that. I challenge your authority do delete anything you see fit. Just because I have not written prose (yet) does not disqaulify my from anything. If you threaten consequences again, I will do the same to you. I say it is you who is not following the rules and other precedents. You have given excuse after excuse for deleting valid data. It changes every freakin' time. It appears as though you and a couple of guys who liek to control your "turf" are grasping at straws. I challenge your objectivity---you are not using anything but a personal bias to stop valid information that Misplaced Pages users may very well enjoy seeing.

Finally your dismissal of the validity of the All-time GA TEch teams is, as it always was, illogical. Leave the all-time team up. I will report any attempt by you to delete it again as vandalism. That is what it is. There is no valid reason to not have that information in the appropriate context, which it is. Your continual reaching for straws to censor information you do not like, that 100% meets Misplaced Pages standards, is very ammaturish. Leave it alone. You are not the "boss" of that article. If you don't like my posting-----follow the Misplaced Pages advise, quit posting yourself. The rule is that articles will be edited and as long as those articles are verifiable. You false accuasation of posting copyvio is not accurate and unappreciated. It is not.

--------This ^ was the compromise, Disavian, the consensus. Please leave alone or I will be forced to report you deletions as vandalism.72.0.36.36 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Voice your concerns via the discussion page. When 4 editors discussed the removal of the material, you didn't make your voice heard. Address their concerns rather than simply re-adding the content and calling people bullies and whatnot. I'd also suggest that you contribute more content to GT stuff besides the All-time lists. It would be helpful because a lot of the other GT sports articles really need work as well. If you're particularly interested in the Bobby Dodd Era of football, fill out some of that section in the GT Football main page. Stuff like that'd help everyone out. --Excaliburhorn 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the constant deletion of my lists are unfair and constitutes bullying. I would contribute more in the future if my wrok was not copnstantly deleted. The accuasations leveled at me are false. The copyvio and the accompanying threat breakes Wikie rules and I ahve requested arbitration to resolve it. There was a solution to this, a compromise everyone agreed to. That was not having the list on the athletic page but rather on the football page. That made sense. Then it was deleted again. This, sir, is wrong. This sir, constitutes bullying. I define bullying is someone (Wiki editor) abusing power to get his/her way. That is not a personal attack in an unreasonable way. It is a description of tacts used in this case. I would love to contribute more, but nothing I have posted has been left alone for 11 seconds. I have contact Ga Tech SID and Athlon. I will have them answer the false accuasations by Wiki editors who seemingly did so to remove conttnet they don't like, but conforms to all Wikie rules. Lists are often in encyclopeidas, all-pro teams, all-time teams, etc. It is valid and accurate and verifiable. 72.0.36.36 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess my issue is that if you're so passionate about this list, then you should add more content in other places. This list is really trivial compared to some other stuff we can add to Misplaced Pages about Tech athletics, particularly Tech football. Look at all of the red links in the lists. We could easily fill in some of those guys that had pro careers.--Excaliburhorn 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should calm down

Your accusations at Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football are unfounded. If you continue to make personal attacks, you can be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --B 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The accusations were aimed at me, sir. I was accused of copyvio. I simply stated ny opinion.72.0.36.36 23:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody accused you of anything. If someone claims that you plagiarized content, that is an accusation, but you did cite the source and you didn't copy someone else's text and claim it as your own, so that's not an issue - nobody is making an accusation against you. The question was (and is) whether or not we can use that content under our non-free content policy. Point #8 of that policy is that we only use copyrighted content when "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." In other words, is it possible for someone to have a good understanding of Georgia Tech football without seeing that particular list? If it is, then under our policy, we do not use the list even though legally we could. --B 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was threatened. I was told if I put up the list again it would constitute willful breaking of laws. That was an accuasation and it was false. As to the content, I will await the arbitration. I will not debate the merits with people who have a personal bias against the content and a friendship with the editors who seemingly abused power by making the copyvio charge72.0.36.36 23:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DR describes the dispute resolution process. You are, of course, welcome to take whatever steps in that process you would like ... but to be perfectly blunt, your attitude and willingness to work with others leaves something to be desired. People disagree with you about adding this content. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with them and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone is abusing any power. You have to be prepared for the possibility that there aren't too terribly many people who find it appropriate to have lists of this kind - that doesn't mean that there is something wrong - just that people disagree from time to time. --B 23:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I am free to go through the arbitration process. I treatment I have received by you and others here is why I have to do that, to ensure some fairness. I have stated I understand that people disagree. Reasonable people can disagree. What reasonable people cannot do it abuse their power and position to get their way. The content has always been the issue. It is not a list, it is not copyvio, it is not "unencyclopedic", it is not consensus (an agreement was reached and then broken). Inm short, the "powers that be" on this article didn't like the content of what I posted because it didn;t include their favorite players. That is not a reason for censorship. All the other things were smoke and mirrors in order to cyber-bully me into backing down. People can and do disagree. What they do when there is a disagreement is what is at issue here and what I hope the arbitration process will help solve.72.0.36.36 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

With regard to your comments on Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Disavian (/_contribs) 05:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the personal attack policy and although I was upset I didn't use slurs as defined by the policy. I refered to those who I felt were bullying as "bullies". However, this is not a slur. That being said . . . I will stay cool now that I know that I had every right to be offended and that there is recourse and accountability for those editors who broke the rules.72.0.36.36 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan Hampton Infobox

Do not change it again, this is the correct infobox--Yankees10 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Or what? Is there an "or what" with your threat? I frankly am a bit tired of people using bully behavior here. It is my understanding that there are rules about such things. There are polite ways to do things and this is not one of them, in my opinion. 72.0.36.36 00:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Youll be blocked tough guy--Yankees10 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC

Why the anger? I don't think it is right for your to be making threats. I think name-calling is also prohibited. Your "tough guy" remark is one of anger and I think is inappropriate. 72.0.36.36 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah your right, I overreacted sorry, I hope we can put this behind us--Yankees10 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We can, I consider it over72.0.36.36 03:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make the All Pro bold anymore, there isnt really a reason why it should be bold--Yankees10 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it be bold, I also want the second teams in there. There is no reason not to have them. Eventually, i will get more and more of the second teams in there.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

first of all the bold makes it stick out for NO reason, and also the infobox will get way overcrowded if we continue to add the 2nd team--Yankees10 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Second teams are important, very important and there is no rule against it. They are verifyable and encyclopedic. I will compromise and not do the bolds, but please leave the seond teams in, which is reasonable, I think72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Randy Gradishar

the way you are writing is way too unconsistent with other infobexes and the infobox is being way overcrowded, I suggest you just write under a highlights section in the article like this:

the infobox is for information and my format is acceptable. We just have to disagree on this. I do respect your work and your desire, however, many articles are different . . . highlights by the year are fine and don't overcrowd. . . they just make the box longer . . . that is all. The way I do it looks great, I think, and there is no rule against it72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It isnt supposed to look great, we are trying to make the articles consistant, along with Chrisjnelson we are trying to make all NFL players pages consistant--Yankees10 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is consistent, that is why the infoboxes are templates. It looks great--is my opinion.We cannot agree, let's call in duspute resolution, okay?72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No its not consistant at all, you are making the letters small--Yankees10 (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

first, consistency is not "identical". second, Ralph Waldo Emerson, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines". third, as long as I am following wikipedia rules, it is okay, fourth, we clearly cannot agree, so let's call in dispute resolution. fifth, you are breaking the "3 revert rule". 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to ask you why the hell do you think it looks better small, seriously it doesnt at all--Yankees10 (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My view is that with the new infoboxes, all the fonts, the same size, is not serving the purpose. The font's are jammed into the infobox so the eye does not capture what is there. Ask a graphic designer if using all the same typeface or font size is "easy on the eye". With the pale color, the large (in relation to the narrowness of the box) is a real problem. However, since a majority like the new infobox, I have backed off my objection. However, on this, it is important to me. I do a lot fo editing of substance which adds a lot to the articles. I should have as much say as the next guy72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to see what another user thinks first before we get the duspute resolution--Yankees10 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

well, if that user is ChrisNelson, I don't agree. I think dispute resolution is better because I don't think Chris is a neutral observer72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to see his opinion about the situation--Yankees10 (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris will likely agree with you. I repsect his work as well, but in my opinion he is not one to be really reasonable. He sees things his way. I notice he's been suspended before. Question: on the different sizes of fonts, do you get what I am saying about samller fonts that use "white space" to allow the eye is discern what it is seeing? I am not sure I was expalining it as well as an expert might.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary to list the Pro Bowls and All-Pro selection seperatly, its just too long and annoying for me to read. If what I ask would be done then making all the highlights small would also be unnecessary. By the way great work on Randy Gradishar's article. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem however. There are levels of "All-Pro" recognition that are found in the NFL Enclyclopedia, NFL Record and Fact book. If one is imporatant, than all are important I think. Pro Bowls are really all-conference teams, not All-Pro teams. Other all conferecne teams are recorgnized by Total Football, the Official NFL Encyclopedia. Since the infoboxes go down, then the reader has the option of reading the honors or he can ignore them. Things that are too long, if I understand wiki rules is not an issue, not is things that are annoying. What if it is annoying to have a great tool like wikipedia and those who are involved in an "NFL project" thinking that less information (when it meets wiki critera of verifiable) is better than a more complete accounting. On a football card, maybe there is an issue of length, here, it seems that the freedom is that compelteness cannot be denied because of "space issues". No? Further, with Pro bowls, there is a built-in flaw. That is the fact that some guys get to a pro bowl when a guy ahead of them gets injured. Howie Long, who is a favorite of mine, did get t o play in 8 pro bowls, but his last two he was a replacement. So, are is 8 pro bowls the same as a guy ho was voted to the team 8 times? In the way they are listed now, there is no way to place the context in which a pro bowl was made. It simple says "8x". With a more complete listing readers who are not experts can see a guy's career, no? If a guy was all-pro but didn't go to the Pro bowl he would be shorted. So, I will work with everyone, but I think an intelligent, fair, complete accounting of a guy's career is warranted so that questions can be answered, instead of raised. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you look at Randy Gradishar's infobox and see if you like what I did. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Highlights

All AFC, Pro Bowl, etc
All AFC, Pro Bowl, etc
All AFC, Pro Bowl, All Pro, etc

--Yankees10 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Links

Can you plesae put the links to there sacks in the article, not the infobox, and also when saying 1/2 a sack can you write .5, for example 78.5 instead of 781/2--Yankees10 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that. I only used the "1/2" and the link in the box for your benefit. I will put the link in the article where it is mentioned. 72.0.36.36 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I just thaught it would be better if we put it in the article--Yankees10 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also do you think you can add the career sacks to Manny Fernandez's page, I had to put 0 career sacks because there wasnt anything else I could think to put in his career stats section, and I dont no where to find his sacks--Yankees10 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Dolphins have his career stats in theri wbsite, I will put them in, and any more you canthink of, just leave a note.

alright thanks, I have a couple more if you dont mind, Jim Marshall (American football), Jack Ham, and Joe Greene (American football).

Nor Problem

thanks for telling me--Yankees10 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you do Deacon Jones please, since he had a lot of sacks that were unofficial. Thanks --Phbasketball6 01:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Oh never mind its already been done.

Shouldn't Bobby Bell be placed on the 20/20 club? Thanks --Phbasketball6 13:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you add Gary Larsens career sacks in the infobox, thanks--Yankees10 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, can you change Harvey Martin's info box? thnka72.0.36.36 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I'll do that--Yankees10 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the infobox for Harvey Martin, can you just add the Sacks--Yankees10 18:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that, thanks--Yankees10 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you do Marty Lyons sacks--Yankees10 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, can you do Mark Gastineau infobox?72.0.36.36 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the infobox, you just have to fix the sacks and it will be all good--Yankees10 22:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

done

Sacks

I got some players who you can add there sacks to once I create there infoboxes:Ernie Holmes, Greg Buttle, Brad Van Pelt, and Rosey Grier--Yankees10 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks--Yankees10 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All-Pro

Do you think you can improve the All-Pro article I created, it needs work BIG TIME!,thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks, now we can have the links to All-Pro in the infoboxes--Yankees10 (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you add Doug Atkins career sacks. thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sacks

Can you add the career sacks for Doug Atkins and Dwight White, thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can add Dwight White, but I cannot find a verifialeb source for Atkin yet, since he played in the 1950's maybe they Bears don;t have that, White had 55.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

alright thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ted Ginn Jr.

I would like to ask you to please stop changing the section header "Trivia" in the Ted Ginn article to "Notes". Regardless of what you call it, it'll still be a trivia section. Please comment on the Ted Ginn talk page before changing it again. Thank you. :-) Burner0718 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is personal information and can be notes or whatever. It seems like this is a personal thing about Ted Ginn, Jr. I think it should be left alone. Reasonable people can disagree about what is or is not trivia. WIth an athlete those could be considered important notes. Thank you72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, my bad. I am a big fan of his and in a way I guess you are right. BTW, have you ever thought about creating an account? Let me know on my talk page if you decide to join. I wouldn't mind some help fighting vandalism. Also, if you have any questions let me know. :-) Burner0718 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, I don't respect Pats1 at all. Burner0718 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sacks

can you please add the career sacks for Ernie Ladd--Yankees10 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

can you also add the sacks for Lamar Lundy and Bill Willis, I am guessing you couldnt find Ladds sacks--Yankees10 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Willis played too far back, I cannot fins anything72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

thats fine, thanks for Lundys--Yankees10 (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Ted Ginn, Jr., you will be blocked from editing. Pats1 /C 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is vandalism.02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I have called for arbitration in this matter. If you are not the arbitrator I don't think you should be making the judgement. Mr. seems to have violated the 3 revert rule and ignored the cooling off period.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Ted Ginn, Jr., you will be blocked from editing. Pats1 /C 03:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an unfounded threat. It is rude and ugly. From what I can tell, you were contact by Chris Nelson, who you can read his history, to do somehting about me. This was after, I repeat AFTER I called for dispute resolution. You now are threatening me with banishment when I have played by the rules. I ask you to contact and administrator who is not a "dude" of Chirs Nelson to resolve this. I will show my posts, you can show yours. I htink you have abused your power. You have the duty to post something in words, I think, rather than a threat. You are threatening me. For the record. The trivia tag is unwarrented in the Ted Ginn, Jr. article, I believe. You did not use any due dilligence it determining whether the contect was trivia or just a difference in style. Finally, I find you behavior rude and against wikie policies. I want you to contact an administrator as soon as you are able. I won't let this stand because a few people who are not acting in good faith, which you are not in my view, should not be able behave in bully-type ways. I think you'd agree.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reported Pats1 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)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Touchdown Club of Columbus has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. BJ 06:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will look into it.72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to the Ohio State - Michigan rivalry article was deemed unconstructive and reverted. нмŵוτн τ 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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 user:chrisjnelson , 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, user: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)

Hi, regarding the above message that you posted at WP:AN3, that is not the appropriate place for such a request. WP:DR gives our dispute resolution process. I'm going to take a look at the article history and I may have a few things to say, but I at least wanted to point you in the right direction (WP:DR) first. --B (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you. I am not 100% sure of how all these things work. I just wish to be treated with respect and that adminstrators don't wield their power to block an IP user without valid reason. I appreciate your help and am willing an answer your questions. I am not here a lot . . . I don't know all the rules, but I am trying to learn.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to add a warning to a user's (or IP's) talk page, you most certainly can. The practice is not limited to administrators. Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. Pats1 /C 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, until the second part of my complaint is considered, I'd rather not have any contact with you. It seemingly took me going "over your head" until you made a decent contructive post72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... I've taken a look at the article history. First off, you should know about the three-revert rule. Unless you are reverting simple vandalism (things like people replacing the page with nonsense or writing "MATT C IS COOL"), you will be blocked if you revert a page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. You are well over this limit, but if you will stop reverting and discuss the issue with them politely, there is no need to block you. (Blocks are preventative, not punative.) Second, trivia sections are discouraged and the other two users are correct to add the tag. "Trivia" text should be incorporated into the article in prose rather than bulleted form. Pats1 does not appear to have used any of his admin tools on the article, so there is no abuse of administrative privileges there - in other words, he has only made edits that any editor can make. Does this make sense? Please talk over the issue with them on the article discussion page. My suggestion is to try to find ways to work the trivia text into the article itself. --B (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Which ChrisJNelson has gone ahead and done, thankfully, so the show appears to be over. Pats1 /C 04:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this make sense? Yes and no. The abuse was his threat on my talk page--He threatend to block me without explanation. That was the abuse of Admin I meant . . . not the edit. I also think that others are above the 3RR. I can accept your opinion on that, as long as it is fairly adminster to others . . . as long as I am not the only one who is reminded about the 3 RR. It is my view that they are the ones who violated it-- (drew first blood) but, that does not mean I shoud have either, Further, when you see the profilers of those who were objecting---they all had a recent history of this kind of thing. In fact, Pats1 threatend to ban someone else it what looked like a personal thing about the New england Patriots. You can also see by his comment that the "show" is over displays the attitude I objected to. It connotes a true lack of respect and is not in keeping with this community. That is why I reported this. I don't think a threat---when not discussed (as you rightfully point out) is appropriate. I was dubious that those involed with the volation of the 3 RR would be reasonable, absed on recent actions. Then when the Admin came in as the "muscle" for chrisjnelson, I was truly concerned and that is why I filed the complaint. So, since you pointed me in the right direction . . . I have posted my abuse of power complaint. I accept you rulign here about the trivia tag. I dispute it, but will accept it and I thank you for your kindness and reason I have learned from your comments, especially that banning is not punitive but preventative. If youready the posts by Pats1 you could not discern that in any way at all.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, going through and quoting a bunch of discussion from another article and using it to "prove" that another user (or IP) "has a history of ____" is not considered to be civil. Secondly, if user warning templates violated Misplaced Pages's policy on threats, they wouldn't exist. The fact of the matter is, the Misplaced Pages policy was clearly explained in both the comment section of the article, and on the talk page of the article. Yet, you persisted in deleting the trivia tag, violating 3RR in the process, thus the warnings were issued. Whether the trivia section was named "Notes" or whatnot isn't of any consequence. If you wanted me to explain the situation to you (although it was already explained in edit summaries and on the talk page), you shouldn't gone through my contribution history and find "evidence" that I was "abusing" my admin powers, and then begged me on my talk page to "find an arbitrator." Unfortunately, that's not how it works. And if you're not sure about how things work, it's not a good idea to make posts like this. At that point, I was forced to step out from the situation, and just let you cool down. In the future, I suggest you cool down well before things get to 3RR, and try to work to resolve the situation instead of seeking revenge. Also, I see that you've been around Misplaced Pages for quite awhile and have made quite a few edits. It wouldn't be a bad idea to register an account and receive those privileges. Finally (but along the same lines as above), there was absolutely no reason for the whole thing about Chris being my "bud." When a user or IP gives me a heads up about a conflict on an article, I am obligated to check it out. I hope you can understand and learn from this. Pats1 /C 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not get kindly advise from someone who threatend to ban me under false pretenses. I maintin no one forced you to do what you did. Sadly, I think it took me going over your head to cool down. When you were supposed to communicate, it seemed to me you chose not to do so. Now, when maintain a possible, potential abuse, it seems to lines of communication or open.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're not the only one Pats1 has bullied. I think he should be recalled, comments? 63.18.205.193 (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know all the rules, but when someone abuses power they need to be held to account. I will post a response on your page where you can comment where I have already filed a complain and we can let the highr-ups decide. What happened in your case?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators is not the right place to go either - that is the place to discuss improvements to the Misplaced Pages:Administrators page. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the place to report an incident that requires immediate intervention, but that is not a part of the dispute resolution process for content disputes. That process is discussed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. But I really don't think any of that would be a useful process as there isn't really an issue to resolve. One thing that is extremely important when editing an article is to always use an edit summary. When you blank a section with no edit summary, someone looking at your edit doesn't know what you are thinking and has no way to know that it isn't vandalism. That appears to have been the assumption that Pats1 and Chris made and that is why you received the message stating you could be blocked. It's important to always explain your article edits, particularly if it isn't obvious. --B (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will follow your advice. However, Pats1 and Chris likely knew what was going on. it WAS obvious. But I will take my complaint where you suggest. Thanks.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, and it does not qualify as "administrator abuse" either--that term is reserved for real abuses of discretion, and those do happen. But this was not even a block,but just a warning about a possible block. Content disputes should not be escalated. 16:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said this? It is unsigned. If one were to carefully read the "possible block" you will see that it was done in an abusive manner, not stating a proper reason, in fact stating an incorrect one. I agree, content disputes should not be escalated but when an Admin threatens to block over content disputes, he has escalated it. This was about content. Not about style, which is what the trivia tag was about. Some did not like the content, it wasn't the style. They did not know hte rules out guidlines about trivia, they though they could be the sole judge about what is and is not trivia--as a matter of content not style. An Admin, who should know better and who was familiar with past behaviors of those who were objecting to content leaped to thier defense as the "muscle" to shut me up and block me out. My views are just as valid as theirs and I shouldn't have been bullied. All one need do is read the tone of the posts of Pats1. As long as you are unbiased you will see even now his attitude is pretty ugly and clearly is punishing in his tone and attitude. I think he should know better. If he is allowed to do this again, why would good faith people come here and contribute? If there is a content dispute, this guy may just threaten to block them. Rememebr he had the ability to block, not just threaten. He had the power to make his thrat occur, that is the same as a block. Also, you say "possible" block. No, it was going to happen and he made it clear but was not clear as to why. That is abuse any way you slice it. Thanks. Please sign your statments. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, this wasn't a content dispute. If the trivia section was being deleted, that would be. But removing a common tag applied to where it belongs isn't a content dispute. Removing an appropriate tag is an unacceptable removal of material on Misplaced Pages. Your argument about me warning you about deleting material as a "threat by a bullying admin" holds no water. Any IP or user can "warn" any other IP or user, including "threatening" a block. Quite simply, you were given the Misplaced Pages policy on trivia sections in both a hidden source-code comment, in the edit summaries, and on the article talk page. Trivia sections are to be tagged with a {{trivia}} tag. There's nothing you can argue about that, and therefore there was no "dispute." Pats1 /C 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have grasp of what happened and you, based on you constant tone, are remaing angry. Look, this matter is under review, let the process work. If it has intergrity then we can livve with that. If you look at your own posts and try and be unbiased you will see that my complaint is justified and you and the others, who in my view, did not show the utmost in maturity. In my view, this continues on your part. I am sorry you seem to remain angry, that is not my intent. My intent is to be treated with respect. FYI--The fact that a tivia tag was there was the problem. It was placed there because a couple of young men didn't like the content. They posted that. It had nothing to do with style. Style, is the issue with the trivia policy, not content. You keep trying to twist this into that so you can justofy your actions, which, I am sorry, I don't mean to be ugly, constituted what I consider bullying behavior. I had, and still don't know, if you actually had the power to ban me. From what I gather you did. Now, if "Any IP or user" can warn and not follow up with action, the warning is not really worth much, no? You, however, had the ability to make that happen. You said you WILL be blocked. Perhaps if you showed a bit of contrition rather than what I perceive as combativeness, perhaps I wouldn't have reported what I think was an abuse of your power. Just because I reported your action before you followed through from your threat does not mean you wouldn't have gone ahead and done it. I think it is reasonable to beleive that you would have. It seems you are not maintainting that your "threat" was just that---no, you had the POWER to make it happen and based on your terseness, I think you would have and I would have had no recourse. I stopped you, I think, from taking the next step in the abuse of power. That does not mitigate the initial threat, does it?72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My account was blocked because the username (RC-0722) was "found inappropriate". In reality, I think it was because my views differed from his on the length of the "Week 17" section in the 2007 New England Patriots season article. 63.18.154.70 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, I'm the dude who said he's a bully above.

All I can suggest is that you report it. Now that you have posted it here, I am sure it will get noticed. If the "higher-up" admins think there is a pattern and practice of potential bullying behavior---perhaps they will take note and do something, there must be some kinds of reprimands if, indeed, someone possibly abused his admin power, although I don't know. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

63.18.154.70, log in to your RC-0722 account and put {{unblock|why you think you should be unblocked}} on your account talk page. (You can edit your own talk page even while blocked.) The block message says that the account was being used by multiple people. Is that the case? --B (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Per both his user page and this comment, yes. Pats1 /C 13:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... RC-0722, you and your brother need to have separate accounts. If you post an unblock message on your talk page saying that you have done so or saying that you will no longer permit your brother to use your account (and that you will log out when you are done editing Misplaced Pages), your account can be unblocked. Shared accounts are not permitted for reasons of GFDL attribution and for security. I will leave this note on your talk page. --B (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

more sacks

can you please add the sacks for Gino Marchetti‎ and Willie Lanier, if you can find them--Yankees10 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have look for Marchetti--no dice--should be easy.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Best of 75 Years of SEC Football Super Team

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Best of 75 Years of SEC Football Super Team, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Howley

I got tired of calling every section sacks, lol, so I decided to call this one Chuck Howley, can you add his career sacks--Yankees10 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pats1

Hey, I saw that you have had problems with Pats1 as well. Did you report him at all?

Politik426 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. DOn't know what'll happen. I am in wait and see mode.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 /C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) nobody? Besides Pats1 this conversation is between myself and Politik426. What exactly is the purpose for you to comment? That is another example, I think, of your bullying behavior and it is not civil and is yet anotehr example of you flaunting the rules in my face. I don't get why you do that. Perhaps you think you need to hold it over me that you have more power and connections in WIKI than I do, I don't know. I think you and I should take the advise of "nobody" and go our separate ways. I have documented your actions, someone has reviewed them and please go your way, I'll go mine.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ksy92003 can read it or respond to it all he wants. You quite simply have a false assumption of how Misplaced Pages processes work and I've tried to help you fix that, but to avail. This is going nowhere. Pats1 /C 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I YOU have not tried to help in ANY way whatsover. You've really done a lot to make matters worse. Please go your way. You actions leave me no choice but believe that you are not acting in good faith--all evidence points to you thinking that you might be "untouchable" and you enjoy throwing that into my face. Otherwise, you would would have been civil from the beginning. Your very first actions concerning were uncivil and that has not changed at all, IMO. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

I put the 2007 NCAA Record link in external links because it was an external link. My understanding is the See also section is for internal links only. --uriah923 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Willie Davis (defensive end)

can you add Willie Davis (defensive end) career sacks, thanks--Yankees10 'Go Packers! 01:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't find anything . . . I will look, but he's one that may be too far in the past. .

alright thats fine, thanks for looking though--Yankees10 'Go Packers! 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Account

Hey 72.0.36.36. I was just wondering why you use an IP address as opposed to creating your own account. You've been here for a while, and it's kinda weird to see a long-term IP address, and I think it might be easier if you used a normal name (although 72.0.36.36 is the easiest IP address to remember amongst those I've encountered). Please give thought to it. Ksy92003(talk) 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All-Pros I might, but I guess i should, just never gotten around to it.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a really easy process, so time really shouldn't be an issue. Of course it's been so long since I signed up that I don't even remember what you need to do. Ksy92003(talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help, let me know. :-) Burner0718 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject National Football League

Hey, I saw your comments on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject National Football League, and although I agree with you, please do not make any personal attacks. It's not that I have any personal against you (I've had trouble with pats1 and chris nelson too), but you know how it is. On a side note, have you ever thought of setting up an account with us? We could use more editors like you. RC-0722 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I've reported chris nelson to jj137. RC-0722 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't say it's been a walk in the park w/ pats and c.nelson. BTW, you really oughtta create an account. Me and RC could use help fighting vandalism. Burner0718 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Having an account does have it's benefits. If you get one, let me know. RC-0722 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Burner0718 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've attacked chrisjnelson. In this most recent all-pro thing I think we've kept it civil. However it turns out is fine, but to me it is the credibility of the NFL project at stake. nothing personal to me.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on Clem, get a combine and we'll go race the Amish. Anywho, I'm just obeying orders. BTW, if you need help setting up an account, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RC-0722 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Florida Mr. Football Award has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Tuvok 22:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the references are above the list of awards, so if you want to revert go back prior to my first edits . . . that would be better. You have reverted it to something that looks wrong, maybe there is a glitch or something, I dunno.

Isiah Robertson

can you add his career sacks--Yankees10 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

done. Also, the All-Pro stuff you are doing is not really accurate. I have not changed them until there is a decision but the source (pro football reference.com) is goingto be chaning them back to the usualy way (1st teams, 2nd teams, All-Pro, All-Conference, etc. . . all the work you are doing will have to be changed? Pro Football reference blew it when they did that, Football researchers think the "puffing" of the All-pros in that site is causing real problems, I was curuious why you are doing all that work that will all have ot be redone?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Zorn

Glad to hear there's an answer on the mystery ROY award for Jim Zorn! Do you have a source for NFLPA awards? I couldn't find one online. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no, I have a subscription to the Newspaper Archive site, so I went to that and found it. The Oakland Tribune was the source Okaland Tribune, November 3, 1977, page 46. I also have all the NFLPA awards in programs from those events . . . the NFLPA began giving certain awards in 1967 and did so though about 1997 or so.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Do you think you can start putting all of your edits together instead of a making tons of edits, so its easier for people to see the history, by the way, great job on the Trace Armstrong article--Yankees10 01:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images of living people

Removing fair use images of living people is not vandalism, as you claimed at . Please read Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria. We do not accept copyrighted imagery when free license imagery could be obtained. Since Bobby Murcer is alive, it is possible to obtain a free license image of him for use in the article. I've reverted you, and also your edit to Clémence Poésy for the same reason. Please do not reinstate fair use images for living people. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be in error . . . it seems you are making a decision on your interpretation, no? Let's get a neutral person to look at it, fair enough? Whoever put the fair use pictures up, they were not deleted for any reason, so why is your judgment the final say? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's already been decided upon by the community and the Foundation. The Foundation's policy is clear, and there isn't much room for interpretation. If the person is alive, we don't accept fair use imagery of that person in virtually all cases. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- - Well, perhaps whay little room there is for interpretation, the term you used -- "virtually" shows there could be an exception. I am simply suggesting you may be slightly in error. Let's get a neutral to take a look, okay? Is that fair?72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Not really. The cases where you restored are very cut and dry cases. There's not much point in rehashing old debates yet again which have always supported removal of such images. Forcing me to engage in debates every time I remove one of these images is a waste of time and effort. It's not fair to expect me to have to do that when the Foundation's been very clear on their stance on this. Also see Misplaced Pages:NFC#Images_2 #12. There's really no wiggle room here. Clémence Poésy and Bobby Murcer are both still alive. Obtaining free license imagery for them is thus possible, and we don't accept fair use imagery in such cases. Please, stop restoring these images as you did here. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      - I have no idea about past debates, new or old. I am not forcing you to do anything. When you say there is "really" no wiggle room, there is . . . it seems that the photo, which is a book cover, (I think) is acceptable and passes muster. I need to point out you are in violation of the 3 revert rule. No?72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Also, reviewing the rules . . . Murcer is pictured as a player. He is no longer a player so getting a free image is impossible. I think you are wrong. A picture of Murcer now is not the same as him playing. I am sorry if I have offended you, but you are wrong as to Murcer I think.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, stop the revert war. This is a final warning. If you don't, I'll report it. The policies on this are clear an unequivocal. Murcer is alive, and per Foundation resolution, this image is replaceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are the one in a revert war. You are in violation of the 3RR. Your opinion that the image is replaceable is false. You have not addressed the issue as to the fact that Murcer is retired . . . a new free image is impossible. I think you have become too emotional to be a judge in this case. Let's get a neutral to take a look. I think that is fair. If you have time to report, report yourself as the violator. Also, let's get a neutral to review. I, upon reading the rules you are quoting, disagree that the image is replaceable. Since Murcer has not played for 25 years, a new free image of him is not possible. Murcer is notable as a baseball player. The usage rules mention rock bands that have broken up as one example. I think it is possible you are in error on this one. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Murcer is notable for things other than being a baseball player, things for which he has won awards such as three Emmy Awards. He is still active in his career. The image is blatantly replaceable. As to 3RR, you will note at Misplaced Pages:3RR#Exceptions that it says "reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies;" count as exceptions. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    - He is notable for baseball and as a baseball player. It is his baseball career that allowed him to go into broadcasting. I think you're not acting in good faith. I cannot tell what you are doing, but it does not seem productive. Your user page seems to be flippant and shows you do not contribute to articles . . . is that for real? Do you just go around like this? Are you and Administrator? I don't know. It does not seem like you act like one. Finally, there are exceptions to the fair use . . . this may be one of them. Let's get a neutral admin to come in. Then, if you prove to be right, I will trust your judgment. Based on your actions . . . I cannot beleive you are acting in good faith, what you are doing does not make sense.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      - That my actions do not make sense to you does not mean they are in bad faith. By guideline, you are expected to assume good faith. Please do so. Also, there's a myriad of ways a person can contribute to the project without ever adding a single word to an article. Such contributions to the project are no less worthy than contributions which do add words to articles. The userbox on the lower right of my userpage was placed there as sarcastic humor to decry the attitude that people who do not focus on article writing are no good, worthless editors. Such attitudes are patently false. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        I assume good faith until there is bad faith displayed by others. Your actions tarnish the good faith I afforded you. What may be patently false is your interpretation of the fair use image rules. My reading of the rules is just as valid as yours, since there is a difference of opinion, let's go to dipute resolution. In this case (and I don't know any others since your talk page is empty) you look like your are wrong. You are assuming a guy who is a boradcaster is notable just becasue of that. That is illogical. Murcer is a boradcaster becasue he was a baseball player and offers expert opinion on TV and radio. Therefore, it is impossible that a new free image can just suddenly exist. Therefore, there is an exception, as noted in the rules. Even though you may have been right 99.9% of the times before this, you have to allow for the possibility that you are wrong here, as it appears you are. Let's procede to dipute resolution.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        Feel free to do what you feel you must. I'm not going to stop you, nor could I. But, if I might spare you the effort, you're very much in the wrong. It's your time to spend though, and you can feel free to spend it as you like. Murcer is alive. He is active in his career. He routinely appears in public as part of his career. Any Wikipedian can take a camera and go take a picture of him at one of his innumerable public appearances. He's not some recluse we can't obtain imagery of anymore, and he's not dead. Obtaining free imagery of him is therefore possible. But, like I said, it's your time to waste. Enjoy, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's the problem. The image we have is of a book cover which depicts this person. Can it be used on Misplaced Pages under fair use? Yes - as the tag on the image page says, it can be used to identify the book, if there is an article written about the book. Can it be used in an article about the person? No. Since he's still alive, we cannot use a copyrighted image to identify him. Someone can get a non-copyrighted photograph, upload it, and use that instead. Is it necessary to get an image to show that he played for the Yankees? No; this is well documented and there are a myriad range of sources (including that very book) to back that up. For that reason, this image cannot be used in the article, at least as long as he is alive. (Although even then, I would note it's not the best image to identify him since he's facing the other way and you can't even see his jersey number.) To that end, both of you are told to stop edit warring over this. Per the non-free image policy, we cannot use this image in a biography about this person, so please leave it out. The article may be protected from editing if this continues. Thanks. Hersfold 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (72.0.36.36) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! ·Add§hore· /_Cont 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris Long

Sorry, you're wrong about the All-ACC selections. They are both selections no matter what team they are, and not specifying by condensing them does not make it false. I guarantee you that you can read news articles or player bios from official team sites just saying a guy is a "two-time all-conference selection" regardless of what teams each selection was.►Chris Nelson 05:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add that number to the article.►Chris Nelson 07:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you continue to add Chris Long (American football) mother into the intro, she is not famous like Howie is, I can see it in the early years section, but not in the intro--Yankees10 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because thats how all of the articles are or will be--Yankees10 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with a false-cause arguement? It is taught in logics classes. Just because "that's how all of the articles" are does not mean it is right. With all the poor or misleading information that is put on the NFL wiki pages, the least of the worries is an accurate intro. "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds".72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thats your opinion we are trying to get them consistant--Yankees10 01:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he did. I added Kyle Long, who is in the news and noteworthy, a reference to him is reasonable and part of Chris's biography. Chris mention his brother in the media, telling him that he should "sign with the Cardinals". So, the 3RR was abused by ChrisNelson. Also, Chris has been banned many times from wiki for just this kind of behavior.

The quote I gave is from Ralph Waldo Emerson about "A foolish consistency". From all the things you and Chris do it seems you'd look at the big picture. By innacurate information you make the NFL project a joke. Condensing All-pro teams, All-America teams, etc., you are taking what could be a great place of information and reducing it into less that what it could be. My question is why? I quoted Emerson to perhaps let you expand your mind a bit and understand there is a bigger picture here, one that could make wiki a great source of information to all who come here.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

By reverting Chris you know you just broke the WP:3RR rule, you should also check out WP:OWN--Yankees10 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No he did, I added Kyle Long who is noteworthy.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

His brother has no Misplaced Pages page and is not notable enough for that, therefore he's not notable enough to be in the lead of Chris Long's article. And his mother sure as hell isn't notable enough. You don't know what the hell you're doing and you ruin Misplaced Pages.►Chris Nelson 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try and keep personal attacks out of this. You may disagree, but I disagree with what you do, such as condensing All-Pro, All-American, and All-Conference selections. I know you work hard, so do I. I add substance and depth and accuracy by putting in verifiale sources. The Chris Long article is on it's way to being a Good Article. Further, one does not need a wiki page to be noteworthy. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's on it's way to being a shitty article full of superfluous, irrelevant quotes. You may just be adding "facts" but just because something's true doesn't make it relevant. How about an entire section on Long's bowel movement frequency? Like 10 years from now it's going to matter that Scott Linehan thought highly Chris Long on draft day. We don't need three freaking paragraphs of cliches and bullshit about it. It's not relevant now and it's certainly not going to be relevant looking back on his career.

And secondly, if one is not notable enough for his own Misplaced Pages page, it stands to reason he wouldn't be notable enough to be in the lead of someone else's. That's only logical. Why not talk about his great great grandfather who raised cattle in Iowa or some bullshit? Because no one cares, which can be said about 90% of the stuff you've added.►Chris Nelson 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not respond to you if you are not civil. I would prefer not to read your profanity.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Awwwz.►Chris Nelson 02:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the link, that doesnt mean they are as notable as Howie is, I think it should be under a personal section--Yankees10 18:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MATT SLATERS MOTHER IS NOT FAMOUS!!!!--Yankees10 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MATT SLATERS MOTHER IS NOT FUCKING FAMOUS!!!!, you are seriously being unreasonable and immature, you should read WP:OWN

I will not respond to you if you are not civil. I would prefer not to read your profanity, either.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

well you are not reasonable AT ALL, his mother is not famous, more than one person agrees with me and the last time I checked NO ONE agrees with you--Yankees10 00:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Five pillars 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN--Yankees10 00:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I Read it. I am contributing good information and helping the article and I am following the 5 pillars and I am being civil to you and Chris. I don't want these personal attacks anymore but I want to be able to contribute without you and Chris just coming in and changing it because you don't like it. I put in verifiable information from good, solid sources. What's wrong with that? You went around and changed all the All-pros that gives uneduated readers false information. I have lived with that, even though it is not accurate. You guys changed the infoboxes and used a font size that is not readable for the fomer NFL players . . . it is not consistent with the current players, I lived with that. Maybe you get your way more than your realize, but there is no reason to be uncivil and profane. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, I dont disagree with what your trying to do, I just dont think the mother should be there she is not famous one bit and also what do you mean you can live with it, like you own these articles, all of these things you have stated have been agreed on by me, Chris, and numerous other users, so dont act like since me and Chris like it that thats the reason why its there--Yankees10 00:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by living with it is I made my point and then left it alone. The All-Pros are not accurate. The inaccuracy of what you did, by changing them, hurts wikipedia's credibility. You took a single source, that is changing theway they look at things, and made wholesale changes. Like you, I care about these articles. We are told by the 5 pillars to be bold, and by making these article full of good information, like, for example, contracts, when guys were signed, these articles are better, no? I understand your point, I don't think I am acting like I own these things. I make a change I think is good and then an editor, with a checkered past comes in and reverts simply because he does not like it. What am I to do? Roll over? All I can do is follow the rules. I don't like being attacked, and when you and I disagreed about the All-Pros I left it alone---I didn't call you names or fill your talk page with profanity. I lived with it.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Answer?72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not like that! Your supposed to do this: (crickets). :) RC-0722 /1 04:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never used PFR as a source for anything on here. Any time I put All-Pros together, it was from a team website. Most of the time in player bios on team sites, they just say "seven-time All-Pro." Your biggest misconception here is that our way is "inaccurate." No it's not. It's 100% accurate. It's just 100% detailed. But that kind of detail can be left for the article itself. The infobox highlights are just that - highlights. Getting into the specifics of levels of All-Pro or all-conference selections isn't necessary here. It's not inaccurate to do it our way at all because a second-team selection is still just that - a selection. Saying "seven-time All-Pro selection" if a guy has five first-teams and two second-teams is not inaccurate because the phrase in no way implies they are all first-team selections." Should we change Pro Bowl selections to Pro Bowl starts and reserves? No, because we're just giving the highlights.►Chris Nelson 05:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you are not an expert in the field you are making comment on, it is also become an issue because you are invested in this. You give an opinion and say, "isn't necessary here" and so on. You do that as though you are the expert. What you should do is follow what the verifiable sources say. The verfiable sources do not agree. Calling, for just one example, Ted Hendricks an "11-time All-pro" is inaccurate, false, or whatever you wanna call it. You and Yankees10 made these change and reverted it when I tried to put the arrucate info there. So, it seems the right thing to do it use VERIFIABLE as the standard. That is the rule. What is NOW verifiable is that 1st and 2nd teams aggragated together is not verifiable. Yankees10 used PFR as the source for the many changes and now, they, being reasonable and professional, ralized the error of their ways and made the changes, which are now accurate.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Its already been discussed at WP:NFL and it was agreed that they would'nt be seperated--Yankees10 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Circumstances hace changed things are different now, you went ahead and made all the changes but then even I agreed you had varification, now you have no source and no varification. . . plus no one is home at WP:NFL. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There's not point in continuing to argue with someone that can't comprehend the truth. And at least I don't ruin Misplaced Pages.►Chris Nelson 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A mediation case has been started on this topic. Please see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) for more discussion on this subject. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, I am glad that someone with authority will look at this.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Original discussion

I have to say that your comment (04:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)) on the WP:NFL was spot on; I agree with it 110%. I hope that once an administrator or mediator makes their decision they take into account the immature comments of some of the parties involved (some are fine, but others well...) it seems every comment made which doesn't agree with their argument should not count (for un-given reasons nontheless). People seem to have a problem with admitting that they are wrong, but you know all of this this already; so I'll just say: Thanks! and keep up the fair, mature arguments, because in the end...well...it should turn out in our favor. Black ngold29 05:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as long as the resolution is fair I am cool with it. It is my opinion that once some folks are invested in a postion they never give it up. That leaves the rest of us two choices: (1) roll over and just say. "it's not worth it" or (2) ask that the rules of Wiki be enforced. I choose the latter. I just think the NFL project is worth doing the right way and I don't want it left to those who may damage it with inaccuracies and foolish consistency.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Too bad none of that (inaccuracies and foolish consistency) applies to me.►Chris Nelson 05:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I echo Blackngold9's comments. Thank you for your determination to make Misplaced Pages's entries on NFL players look as professional as possible. Sports related entries have always been a cut behind the other articles, so to speak, and if that's going to change, we do need to get the little things right. CopaceticThought (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson Arbitration

There is a arbitration regarding Chrijnelson over at WP:Arbitration.Fromos (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Still devoted to making the Chris Long article a long-winded, irrelevant piece of crap huh? Keep up the ~~good~~ work.►Chris Nelson 02:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep it civil.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I am. This is not how I would normally reply to something like "keep it civil."►Chris Nelson 02:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you need to just steer clear of me, as I have done you. I am sick of your behavior and your invicility and your disdain for the rules and for authority. If you wish to behave that way, please do not do it here. Thanks.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it awesome how I didn't get in trouble at all?►Chris Nelson 03:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems that no matter what you do you get a slap on the wrist, 24 or 48 hours being blocked. That is awesome.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Or nothing at all. Even awesomer.►Chris Nelson 03:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR

baseless :)

I am not in violation of the 3RR, you are. However, there is a tag-team going on with you and ChrisJnelson. Further, you have not given a reason as to why you put the tags up. You just put up the exact same ones as Pinkeith. Maybe he has his reasons but do you? First you say you weren't responsible and I accepted that, then you put them up . . . and you have yet to give one reason. Why is that?72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, I didn't put the tags up. Enigma 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing my talk page. I didn't even come close to violating 3RR, nor did I edit war. I reverted your vandalism twice. You reverted three times and show no signs of stopping, edit-warring with three different editors in the process. Ask any third party, and they will identify you as the one in the wrong. Enigma 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Look up Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. I simply put in a warning, like you did here. I contend it is you who is violating the spirit of wiki, not me. I don't think it is right for you to call something vandalism that is not. It seems to me to be a bit childish. I think you should read the warning I put on your page. I have every right to put it there, it points out that Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Think about it.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

...and yet, I didn't perform a large number of reversions. So it fails in that respect as well. Completely baseless. Enigma 21:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand

Regarding the stuff going on over at Talk:Chris Long (American football).. Just because the rules don't forbid a certain thing, doesn't mean nobody is allowed to object to it. The rules allow for all kinds of editorial discretion. If people think you're adding too many quotes, this is a valid objection, despite there being no rule against putting in a certain number of quotes. Also, you may find it easier to edit and communicate with other editors if you used a registered account. Friday (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the registered account thing. I have privalcy concerns. It seems that anytime there is an issue some editor says that a registered account is the answer. I have to disagree. I do agree with you on the "rules". I like the 5 pillars of wiki, I like the fact that if somehting is a good faith edit that is the basis for which some of the 5 pillars are based. It is that freedom I like here. I understand some people disagree, but my view is as valid as theirs. I think the rules are important because without them people can just bully you with "consensus" or an Arguement to the middle, which is not always correct, in fact it can hurt. Bottom line is the Chris Long (American football) is bold, it follows the rules and improves wiki. It makes an article not the same as so many others, which are often just copied out of media guides. I have done a lot of edits and I have added a lot of substance. I think my contributions improve wiki. Now maybe chrisjnelson does not agree, but that's okay, as long as he, or others cannot simply ramrod their view and force me to change. The quotes are good good and are verifiable and meet all the wiki rules both in the letter and spirit of wiki. What is wrong with that? Now, soneone has tagged several things and has offered up just this: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Well, that does not trump good faith edits meant to make an article special.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Registered accounts offer more privacy, because IP addresses say more about you than a meaningless name would. If you register as XYZ123, it says nothing about you personally. If you edit as 72.0.36.36... Enigma 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You're way more private with an account than without one - but this is a minor side issue, so nevermind that. The concern is that you're putting in too much information, which can sometimes be a problem. But, anyway, mainly I wanted you to stop saying "The rules don't forbid what I'm doing". It's a pointless, irrelevant argument. If you think your quotes are an improvement, but others think they're excessive, you're not always going to get your way. Compromise is often needed. Friday (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Argument to moderation There are a lot, I mean a LOT of times I have not gotten my way. Among them is the fact that 2 editors, TWO, changes all the infoboxes concerning All-pro selections. They did so on the basis of one internet site that grouped that data in a certain way. So, a guy who is a 3-time all-pro becomes a 8-time all-pro. Well, that website changed all the data to go back to the original way so that the 3-time All_pro is a 3-time all-Pro. Yet, these two editors changed EVERYTHING even though I raised the issue at the time. I was told that as long as the data was "verifiable" then I had no basis to object even though I knew it was wrong. Now, after a few months that website changed and what WAS verifiable is NO LONGER verifiable. So, now are those 2 editors going to go back and change back what they changed? Right now, since it is a daunting task all the NFL infoboxes (in terms of All-pro selections) is inaccurate until someone changes all of them. So, if it is okay, I am going to adhere to the rules and I am going to not accept the arguement to moderation just because someone says so. Sometimes right is right and as long as what I have posted in good-faith violates no rules, then there is little that can be done. Unless wiki becomes mob rule.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about these past disputes. You seem to be implying that if you make an edit in good faith, nobody else is allowed to change or undo it. That's what lead me to say "I don't think you understand." We're under no obligation to keep any particular content simply because it was added in good faith. Friday (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you don't care. That is why I posted what I did. You implied that I was "wanting things my way". I simply pointed out that that was not the case, in fact, it was quite the opposite. I do understand, but under wiki rules editors are supposed to respect others and be fair and reasonable. What you don't seem to understand is that this is not about editing or tweaking, it is about the deletion of a large section of work. If somehting can be made better then that is fine, if something is to be deleted under specious circumstances then I can edit it back. Look, I posted what I did. Now others are wanting to delete large sections of that yet they don't seem to come up with any good reasons. So, with respect, maybe you should not post here anymore. I understand your point. I disagree with your characterizations. You admit on your talk page you are essentially all about the deletions. I am about improving Wiki. I write prose and post facts with verifiable references. That is what is required of me. For you to suggest that "We're under no obligation to keep any particular content simply because it was added in good faith." Is wrong because I never suggested that as a single criteria. I has posted several criteria that allows quotations and other content. Good-faith is just one of the criteria. There are others, suich as the other 5 pillars. Maybe it is time for you to review those.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You clearly still aren't getting it. You keep trying to add the same stuff, because you like the article better that way. Well, several other people disagree, so it's pretty unlikely you're going to get your way in this case. And, instead of engaging in substantial discussion of what's best for the article, you're spending your time complaining about the terrible conspiracy against you. This cannot possibly help your case. If you continue in this way you'll probably find yourself blocked. Friday (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is I have a right to make my case as to the incidents that have taken place. I think is it odd that you say "I am not getting it". Well, isn't that a matter of opinion? You are essentially saying that it is mob rule here. I happen to think that wiki rules mean something and that wiki is not anarchy and wiki is not a democracy. If an editor thinks something improves wiki, that edit is encouraged. Anyway, do you seriously think what happened here is fair and right? If you had something happen to you, wouldn't you not like it? Would to just roll over? Why should I just roll over and stand by when people with an agenda decimate my good-faith edits? Those edits were done to make wiki better. My edits were not carfully edited, the edits were not crafted as to build a consensus, entire chunks were deleted with no reason given. None. I uderstand as you say "several other people disagree". I understand that. But WHY do they disagree? Friday, this is nothing more than they are saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In your opinion, Friday, is WP:IDONTLIKEIT a reason to delete CHUNKS of good-faith edits? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not mob rule. We call it "consensus" here, altho this is sometimes a slight abuse of language. See Misplaced Pages:Consensus. The reason has been given many times- many editors think you're putting in every quote you can find, rather than using a few good ones as appropriate. It's a judgement call. I get things that don't go my way all the time. It doesn't make me happy, but part of being a reasonable Wikipedian is accepting this sort of thing. Friday (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mob rule. You see, the only one who tried to build a consensus was me. In the latest incident, for example, I took the tags and made a heading for each of the tags and encouraged people to post why they thought the tags were needed and what they thought. Only Pinkkeith participated. There was consensus building going on. Then, Pats1 came in a edited it the way he saw fit. He disrupted the process. I think that is what you are failing to so. I don't think you get that. He came in, as a supposed "Peer reviewer". Well, he dislikes me. He's said so. His copy-edits gutted the article in two phases. So, when someone comes in (and that someone hates you) and subverts the process, never posts in the alreaded created headings, how is that consensus building. You se, Friday, everything you say buttresses by points, only you don't know it. It is Pats1 and the so-called majority (the mob) that are breaking up the process, they are flaunting their power, they are no repsect the rights of the minority. Had there been a continuation of the consensus procress (which is step 1 in dispute resolution) then I would be so adamant. Can't you see that?

Also, what you are missing is that I did compromise. There were more quotes in April. So, I trimmed them down. I was reasonable. However, in the events I describe, that wasn't good enough. So, I think you misunderstand what happend. It is hyperbole to say that I am putting "any quote I can find". I deleted them to be reasonable. However, as you can see, that wasn;t enough. They don't want a few quotes, or fewer quotes, they don't want the entire sections, they want no quotes. None. And it seems (correct me if I am wrong) you are saying "Do it Pat1 one's way and if you don't like it, too bad." Is that what you are saying? After I follow the process, I try and compromise, I try and get a disussion, etc. and it it me who gets attacked. I am quite sure you can see that because you ignore the Pats1 angle here. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right- I've been pretty much disregarding the actions of Pats1, because I don't have confidence that he's being reasonable in this case. I can see how his actions would rub you the wrong way. I'm not saying everyone's been on their best behavior in this incident. But, what I was trying to get at is, your best bet for improving the article is to just forget about him. I know, you can't exactly ignore him when he's removing a bunch of content you put in that you think is useful. But, do the best you can.

I share the concerns with others about undue weight. We sometimes need to consider Misplaced Pages as a whole, rather than looking at articles in isolation. Here's a very promising kid, but who has yet to even play a game, right? If his article makes him sounds like he's up there with the historically great players, this is inappropriate, even if all the quotes used are legitimate. Anyway, not sure what else I can say to try to help. But, I've got the article on my watchlist and I'll help out however I can. If people get the impression that you're more interested in talking about this conflict between editors than in talking about the article, this will look bad. So, do whatever you can do avoid giving that impression. Friday (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a point of agreement. I admit I could have behaved better as well. I have felt attacked by a couple of the characters invloved and have challenged them. On the undue weith issue, as I told neil, I will rewrite the deleted material so that it does not contain the quotes so that those who object to the quotes might feel better. Another agreement is that the good of overall wiki should be paramount. It is that reason I stand up for myself. If you look at the Chris Long article now it is exactly the same as all the other first round picks. There is not one bold thing about it. To me, taking a chance, being bold, breaking all the rules are important. At times there are articles that need to be different. In this case some don't want that to be Chris Long. I don't know why. Instead of making Chris Long a cookie-cutter article that could fit on the back ofa bubble gum card, it could have had things that were interesting, good, that made it different. They could IMPROVE to others that may pale in comparison. Instead they attack. There is an old saying about those who create and those who destroy and which takes more talent. Those who take chances and are bold are supposed to be rewarded on wiki, it was a founding principle. However, in this case, boldness did not stand. It was crushed. What's worse it may have been done by someone with an agenda of hate. It is all these things that cause me to be passionate. Had they actually improved the article maybe they'd have a leg to stand on. They made it the same as all the others. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"--Emerson.72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris Long

Yes, I am a Rams fan. I have been for thirty years now. I am not trying to rip apart the article, but rather improve upon it from my view point. If you think it is a good article already maybe we (St Louis Rams Wikiproject) ought to submit it for approval as a GA. I think you can submit it if you are not registered, but I can do it on your behalf. By the way, thanks for all your work and think about joining the wikiproject! --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple citations

In cases where the same source is used as a reference multiple times in the same article, instead of typing ibid, you can use <ref name="__"> and </ref>, filling in the __ with whatever helps to identify the source. In the first use of a particular source, you use <ref name="__"> at the beginning of {{cite web}} and close it with </ref>. At later uses of that same source, you simply put <ref name="__" /> in the place of the source, with the __ being the same as the first time you used that one source. You have to use a different "ref name" for each different website. If you have any questions about this, such as if I didn't explain it well enough, feel free to ask me. Ksy92003 (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, whatever you think. I did it the only way I knew how, but I confess I am not an expert in the "little details". I often need help in those areas. Thanks.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I learned that from TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) who I collaborated with in the past and is what I'd call an expert article writer. It also looks much better in the reference section because, instead of about 20 references that don't say the source, you have them all.. well, it's hard to explain. See the first reference for one of the articles that I wrote for an example of what it looks like. In that article, it cut a list of 18 down to 10 because 8 of the references came from the same source, and another source was used twice. Ksy92003 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly your way is better. I don't WANT the ibids there . . . but after Pats1 demanded all the citations then I put them in there. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Hi. Just a friendly reminder about the guidelines established by Misplaced Pages's 3RR policy. If you revert my copy-edit again within a 24-hour period of the first revert, you will be in violation of 3RR and could be blocked from editing. Regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. You and another person foisted your will on an article. You, I think, are part of a setup, trying toget me blocked. I won't fall for it. Tell Pats1 hello. I will be back tomorrow72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that you were a consipracy theorist. Good to know.

In all seriousness, however.... who? I have done no "tag teaming" or "trying to get you (me) blocked." I made a simple copy-edit. But, as I pointed out on the article's talk page, if you feel that I've done something wrong, feel free to make a complaint at ANI or any other venue that you see fit. I don't believe that you've got a case, but I will gladly answer any complaint that may or may not be lodged against me.

Also, I have a copy of the article, as it currently exists, saved. So if you attempt to restore all the eliminated "fat," you'll be wasting your time. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

An you don't think you are being unreasonable? What you are saying is you are the final judge as to what is and isn't fat? Why is that fair? I Don't think it is. There has been a situation here all day. You came in and did exactly what enigmanan wanted (along with others) that is tag-teaming and I think that's not right.72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there's a great conspiracy to subvert your views and get you blocked. I logged into my secret cabal account just now to see what the cabal administration thinks I should do next. *Message received, commandant!* Enigma 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny. Now you are in a good mood that you got your way, huh? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm never in a good mood. Please do not ever accuse me of that. Enigma 23:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Just gloating.72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I try and do that. I screwed up in my haste a couple of times. I went back once but it was already signed with a autosigner or something. I thought that would be good enough. Sorry.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

..you just responded to a bot.. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote Jack Nicolson in "A Few Good Men", don't I feel like the f-ing a-hole"72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a bot... Pats1 /C 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris Long

I'm going offline now and won't be able to respond to any comments you have until morning. Good luck! --NeilN 06:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay.72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tan | 39 04:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reply regarding "fluff" in NFL articles

You are obviously allowed to edit, at least for the time-being. Please don't make sensationalist remarks like, "Am I allowed to edit or not?" This is, after all, "the 💕 which anyone can edit" -- but, it is not the free encylopedia where everyone's edits are always kept".

The problem is that you are putting what many feel to be an excessive amount of detail into some of these articles. I have not gotten involved in the dispute, but I looking at some of the article histories, I feel at least some of Pats1's and Chrisjnelson's edits have been well warranted. It does not help your position that you are crying "conspiracy!" and making a federal case at every turn. That's sort of what I meant... if you feel that the highly-detailed content belongs in the article, the place to make your case is the article's talk page, not ANI. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I tried doing it at the talk page, you can check. Pats1 followed me to Jack Youngblood and took over, without working with the tree of us on the talk page. So, if I do things on the talk page Pats1 does what he wants anyway. If I take that "takeover" mentality to the AN/I page I am blasted. Look, it's okay, you are not required to care. I understand it's really nothing you need worry about and I don't want you to be burdened. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

72, this is very good advice. The problem is, what's "too much fluff" versus "an appropriate level of detail" is a pretty subjective thing. We have no magical way of objectively measuring it. So, neither side can prove the other right or wrong, it's just a judgement call. And, if you're on one side and everyone else is on the other, well, you're not likely to have it your way. Friday (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know I can't get my way only. Why does Pats1 get his way? That's the point. Real differences can be worked out. But this cannot because I have too high a burden to meet. Pats1 controls scores of article. Why did he go to Jack Youngblood yesterday? If you cannot see what cyber-stalking is then there is not point to the rules. I know I am now a pariah. I reported what I saw to be misconduct. No one cares. That's okay. It was never about fluff, quotes, or even content. I was personal. Look, you can disagree, that's okay. I understand.72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack Youngblood

I'm not taking sides any issues on what happened with the Jack Youngblood article or the Chris Long article. I think that both of you had some good points and did work on the article that you both felt that was in the best. Misplaced Pages is built so such a way that the majority rules. I don't agree with 100% of what people think, but you have to learn to fight your battles. If you look at the Trent Green talk page you'll notice something that I fought tooth and nail on. I still don't agree with what many people seem to think. Also, in fairness, I think that Pat did a lot of work on the article and his time he spent should be recognized and appreciated. I'm not trying to down play any work you do on Misplaced Pages or "siding with the bully" against you. In fact, I mentioned it before that I appreciate your help. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The work he did was child's play. Anyone can take someone else's work and re-arrange it and cut out what they don't like. That is easy. Creating is hard. I can go into an article and put in some titles and whatnot, re-arrange the chronology. Morons can do that. What takes skill is to craft something. So, he didn't do any "work" he cut and pasted. Big deal. Now it looks like all the others, nothing bold, nothing significant, nothing noteworthy. However, I do recognize that you were not taking sides. As I posted on your talkpage I should have worded that differently. I guess I thought you and I were kind of similar in thought. Let's do a good job, let's ignore the rules, but also make the article a GA, let's get some Rams stuff improved overall. So, I am not upset with you in the least. I do thank you for your compliment, but what Pats1 did is really nothing but move around what was compiled by others who did the work. What we could have done would be actually good. Because it is a subject I am interested in I would have devoted a lot of time to it. Now? Not so much. So, lets agree to disagree. You think he did a good job, I think he butchered it. The so-called improvements are unskilled and unlettered and poorly done. Gee, let's make a list. Gee, let's type "1968". Nothing to it. Some people create. Other cannot. Guys like me create, go out in the web find things. Others just need control of a situation. We could have gone though all that stuff and trimmed it, improved it, done the organizing (even I can type "1968") and then move text under it. So, here's to disagreement and let's do some good.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1 pretty much admitted to stalking you in a comment he made his talk page: "as soon as I saw all the IP's activity on the page in the contribs I went over and checked it out". This was something I was blocked for (although I didn't do it after I received for the warning, which is why the admin who was the victim of my stalking unblocked me shortly after). But an admin doing it to an IP.. there's really no excuse for this. Ksy92003 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least he didn't lie. I have not seen it, I will check it out now. This whole thing sucks. He will get away with this. Mark my words.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I take it back, I had already seen that. My mistake. Even if that were posted at the AN/I they won't care. They just look the other way, or worse, will turn it around on me somehow. They will make a moral equivilance argument, the ole' "a pox on both your houses". Thing. They will say they are sick of me and my complaints. They will ignore the stalking and they will say he has every right to edit where he chooses. They will say they don't care how he got there. They will say I am the one who wants things my way. They will say "you to should steer clear of one another" and I will and he won't and I will be given 50% of the responsibility for 10% of the actions. I will be told to go away, take a break, and my right to edit will then ne run over. They will say "he has every right to be mad at 72.0.36.36, that IP is a f%$king tattle-tale", he's a complainer. They won't ask if he went to Jack Youngblood to pour flames on a fire. They won't ask if he was upholding his duties as an Adminstrator. They tolerate wiki-stalking if it is Pats1 who is doing it, apparantly.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion? Find another article to edit for a while. Or make small changes to several articles. Don't worry about WP:ANI. Don't worry about Pats1. When you're saying things like "my wiki-life is over" and that you "Can't eat, sleep", you're taking things far far too seriously. The silence you're hearing at ANI is your answer, i.e. Pats1 following you from one article to a second is not enough to make a stalking case. But I'm sure he's not dumb enough to follow you to a third article because he knows that that would look real bad. So try reducing the histrionics a bit (no offense but that's what it's sounding like) and find something more productive to do. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This was about more than one thing. I put all three up there, oddly you comment on just the stalking. My point was that theis is a complex case that involved more than one offender, one blocked one not. Admins simply disagree. (1) Incivility (2) stalking (3) harassment (edits meant to provoke).72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And if no one responds there, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Repeating it over and over and shouting it louder and louder is only going to start looking bad on you. Accept it and move on. Find something else. That's the best suggestion I can give you. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I know I look bad in your eyes. However, I just pointed out that there were 3 things, not one. Look, I accept the state of things, I am working making the All-pros accurate, I have nothing personal against you or th Admins, I am just giving my views. However, it might be nice if a admin would, at the minimum, recognize my frustration. I have been attacked by everyone save 2 or three people. Usually in a dispute someone with compassion and authority mught say, "Look, I understand what happened but there is nothing that could be done even if you are right". Something like that. Mockery, name-calling, gloating, and all manner of ugliness came at me. One day, maybe you will be attacked unfairly and powers that be will turn a deaf ear. Then you may have some empathy, or maybe it has already occured in your life. If it did would you like to be given the middle finger?72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

All-Pro

Your starting with this All-Pro stuff again, it was agreed that it would be together at WP:NFL, please do not seperate them again--Yankees10 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, but figured there was a reason why there wasn't a first- and second-team listed in most of the infoboxes. Pats1 /C 22:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how did you know I was correcting All-pros?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, it was not agreed. Please don't start with me today! There is no verifiable source that combines All-Pro selections. I posted this several times that the source dried up. Since this has nothing to do with Pats1 this is about all I feel like doing right now. So, I will do my best to improve wikipedia by making the all-pro things accurate and verifuable and encyclopedic. This really is pretty straight forward, it is simple, it is not opinion, it is not a quote or anything, it is just the facts. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about it not being agreed on but more people asked for them to be together, so do not seperate them or I will revert, because it is not ONLY YOUR DECISION!!--Yankees10 21:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, go get Pats1 I guess. I dunno. It was only you who made the changes anyway. You have no source, no verifiable source, why would you want it incorrect anyway?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no source needed we are combining them, boy you really think what you say goes--Yankees10 21:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think what I say goes, far from it, I don't even get listened to, I know I don't matter here but the rules do. And wiki rules don't allow for original research and require verification, right?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You dont get listened to because you are an IP and IP's have a reputation of vandalism, you'd probably get more credibility if you just crreated an account--Yankees10 21:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you were sure quick to ask my help. Did I help you everytime you asked? But when you saw one-source that combined All-pros you and chrisjnelson changed hundreds of articles. I asked that it be discussed, but you and chrisjnelson didn't did you? There were opposing views posted on WP:NFL but you and he went through the whole thing. So, when the chips were down who was it who do things their own way, without WP:CONSENSUS, was that you two or me?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand what the hell you are talking about--Yankees10 21:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just pointed out you wanted my help with sacks. You accepted. That's all. Now, you and I disagree. You said "you really think what you say goes". I was pointing out that with the false combining of the All-pros you and chris changed hundreds of articles without so much as a discussion, you just went and did it. So, it terms of who gets their way, is it you or me? I have stopped coorecting the All-Pros until people get their say. You didn't extend me the same courtsey when I asked you and chris to stop when you changed all the articles without a verifiable source. You just did it your way and his way. Understand?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, where have you been, have you been editing lately?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change anymore, I didn't edit because my internet stopped working for some reason--Yankees10 23:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

is that a sarcastic ok, or a regular ok--Yankees10 23:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

a regular one72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, Also I dont think I am going to concern this with myself anymore, my main focus right now is cleaning up MLB retired infoboxes. I also think that if we put both first and second team in the infobox we should add a description of a first and second team on the All-Pro article so that we could have links to the section of that article for example it could be like this All-Pro#Second Team|Second Team All-Pro--Yankees10 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be okay. Accuracy is the key to me. Presentation, not so much, but also important. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You understand what I am trying to say right, cause I didn't really write it very good--Yankees10 23:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think so. I think the all-pros should link to pro-football reference.com It is the definiative source for All-pros, althoug there is Hicksports, too.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR (2)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Long (American football). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Enigma 02:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a tag-team effort by you, Chrisjnelson and Pats1 and others. This is exactly what happed two weeks ago. You reverted and edit I was working on about Long at the NATA. This is very disputive and this is very personal with three of you. Why is it you can gang-up to get you way? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that no one agrees with the material you're edit-warring to include. That includes Wknight94, Pinkeith, and several others. You do not have the right to add anything you want to the article, especially when the community vehemently disagrees. Please stop trying to paint this as one or two people "bullying" you. Enigma 02:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is. There is nothing wrong with my edits, but what ius happening is exactly as I have described. I have not followed Pats1 around to tick him off. I never gloated about nelson's blocking, I just kept editing thigns I was interested in. What you don't get is that they only are edit-warring because they hate me for reporting nelson. Therefore, the edits are not good-faith. They are done to disrupt. So, I can be a coward and back down or I can fight for equal treatment. I fight for what is right. My edits are just a symbol now, there is nothign wrong with the substance, just a differnee of opinion that can never, never, ever be resolved. So long as Pats1 hates me he will continue to change edits I do, that is what he's done. So, what would you do when bullied? Fight or quit?72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. I don't care who you are. I just disagree with the edits you've made and since everyone else does to, I'm restoring them when necessary. It has nothing to do with you.►Chris Nelson 02:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think any of your edits are wrong, but it's fairly obvious that you don't currently have consensus. I see some discussion on the talk page, but not discussion that follows the steps of dispute resolution. Has there been a request for comment? If not, that would probably be the next reasonable step. Edit warring over it won't likely lead to an ending that you're satisfied with. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however, I followed it. However, there are false claims that somehow Pats1 edits are the "consensus". What really happed is one guy dislike them, then he was so uncivil he got blocked. Then his friend got angry and followed me around and used his Admin power to avoid sanction. Now, as before, he has his cronies taking out their anger on me. Again. I am sure because I complained before that Admins will not look at this again. They will do nothing about Pat1 wikistalking, which he did, and his incivil edits that are done for one reason, to get even with me and to disrupt wiki. You would think the Admins would look at that but they won't because they don't like the fact that an IP can demand fair and equal treatment here. I agree with you. My edits are just as good as Pats1. However he does not like mine and has trumped up all sorts of charges that say my edits are not "encyclpoedic" and all sorts of crap. It is this: he WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not like me and therfore does not like my edits. Nothing more.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, maybe I missed it...but it looks like a request for comment would be the next step in dispute resolution. If there's been one already, I apologize for restating that point. I don't see anything wrong with your edits, but I also don't see anything wrong with their condensed version. It's fairly clear that you won't win an edit war over it though. Your best bet is to try to get more input from the community. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Anyway, I am not edit warring, I am editing. I added new information (watch, the usualy suspects will delete that as well)72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would do it. I think Pats1 should initiate it. The way I have doe it is given in and given in and given in. Then he does it his way. So, I think my way follow the rules and appeases all his objections. His way is juts his opinion, nothing more.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"What really happed is one guy dislike them, then he was so uncivil he got blocked. Then his friend got angry and followed me around and used his Admin power to avoid sanction. Now, as before, he has his cronies taking out their anger on me."

Wow, this is so false.►Chris Nelson 02:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You are edit-warring. Repeatedly editing back to your version is called edit-warring. I know you like to think that it's only edit-warring when others do it, but you've been edit-warring the entire time. If you make an edit, someone undoes that edit, and you edit it right back to your version, that's called edit-warring.
I'm not Pats1's "crony". If you actually look into the history, I've barely had any contact with him in my time here. No one asked me to intervene. I'm not doing it because I'm "friends" of Chrisjnelson or Pats1 or anyone else. You think it's a great conspiracy against you. It's not. Enigma 03:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. However, since you are don't have an interest in Chris Long why not go edit elsewhere. I am committed to improving Rams articles, you are not. So what do you gain by being in the middle of this? What do you care about this if it were not personal?72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, level of interest and commitment does not prevent people from editing articles.►Chris Nelson 03:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're only editing that article because of another user.. well, that's not a good thing. Ksy92003 (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny, Pats1 showed up at Chris Long only after a certain block. Then went to Jack Youngblood (according to his own words) because he followed activity by a certain IP (an IP he *said* he didn't recognize a week later)72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all, Pats1 is allowed to edit any article he wants. What probably happened was I was involved in the dispute with this user, Pats1 was AIM and I complained about him being , and so he checked it out. Then I guess he found out he agreed with me when it came to the content and decided to edit. That's his prerogative. Also, even without Pats1's involvement, there are a handful of other edits that agree with me. Editors who probably don't even like me.

Secondly, I just realized that this whole B.S. about how you should edit because your a Rams fan is pretty hypocritical, given our past dispute on Ted Ginn, Jr. I guess you should stay away from all Dolphins articles and leave them to me, right?►Chris Nelson 03:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anybody of anything; I don't feel like that today. But Chris, do you think Pats1 would've eventually checked out the Chris Long stuff a couple weeks back if you didn't talk to him on AIM? Ksy92003 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You nailed it. This is simply a matter of principle. nelson and Pats1 have taken over the NFL project and act like they WP:OWN it. They then, like the bolsheviks, act like the 3 or 4 of them are a consensus. It is not. There used to be a vibrant NFL project. One thing they did was falsify the All-Pro records of all NFL players. That alone makes the NFL project joke to serious football people. Anyone and everyone knows that a 1st and 2nd team All-pro are not the same thing. Only people who have no understanding of history would even suggest such a thing. Further, there is no source thaty shows the combining of All-Pros. You'd think that the NFL project on wiki would want to make the changes. But no, these guys want it their own way. When there is an Admin who has the power to block or threaten to block users who dissent then you have a chilling affect on those who come here to edit. That chill makes people less inclined to edit and the project becomes stagnet. Pats1 and nelson have ruined the discourse here by repeated beat-downs of people who disagree. For months, if you did somehting chrisjnelson didn;t like he's cuss you out, call you names, etc. and then Pats1 would come in and make a threat. It happend to several people who did nothing more that make good-faith edits. Now, we have nelson and Pats1 with total control over what goes on in NFL articles. If you edit it will get reverrted if those guys don't like it. It is sad but true. The admins have allowed a tyranny in the NFL project and the articles have infoboxes and the most trivial text. They mostly suck. Any dissent is crushed and other Admins, refusing to look at facts, just look the other way. Look at baseball and other projects, they are far better than the NFL. My interest here is the NFL and making wiki better, accurate, and reliable. Others here just want control and foolish consistency. To what end? So, you are right to point out the blatent dishonesty of a couple of bad actors. It is true and is proven but nothing will be done about it. They will always follow me around (even though they don't look at IP numbers THAT close (what a liar)) and change anything I edit from this point on. mark my words. In fact, it is happening already. You can see thier attitude, they think if a few guys agree there is nothing I can do, that my (or anyone's) edits can be deleted by a mob. They think wiki is a democracy or something. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)72.0.36.36 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. The good thing is there is nothing wrong with how that happened. There is no rule preventing me from discussing an article with a user and him deciding on his own to check it out and eventually edit.►Chris Nelson 04:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe there is any rule against it per se. But it is inadvisable because of potential conflict of interest. Just something to keep in mind. Ksy92003 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for Violating the three revert rule on Chris Long (American football). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Selket 03:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

72.0.36.36 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

===Block is unjustified=== Look, I cannot stop a block. I ask that the rules apply equally to IPs and to registered users. There was edit warring going on however, with three people taking one side and me on the other they can engage in a edit-war without breaking the 3rr. However, the rules state that people can edit-war and break the 3rr without actually reverting 3 times. First, those who reverted have to have a reason. Reverts are supposed to be a protection. Also, the rules say that the spirit of the 3rr can be violated. Also, why didn't you give me a higher level warning and ask for evidence BEFORE you blocked me? What you have done, even if by accident, is take sides in a serious dispute which has asked for a lock on the page. So, if there is relative peace for a few days then a users reverts an edit, then I revert that back. If two people connected to that user (based on previous activity there) revert my edits, why would I be the only one punished? Don't those with register account have a responsibiltiy? I think they do. So, I think the blocking is unfair because others, who know better, acted as one and violated the SPIRIT ofthe 3RR. I ask that you look at that as well. Either the rules apply to all or they should apply to none. Don't you agree? Also, by taking sides, other users will revert good-faith edits that have nothing to do with the conflict. By choosing sides then they can revert without any scrutiny. Consider these things when reviewing the block, they apply to EVEYRONE, no? ====Civility==== 1) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, and to observe Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette, Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:Writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC) ====Stalking==== 2) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor. If an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring can be appropriate, but constantly editing in another user's tracks is always a violation of the courtesy and civility expected in users. More limited stalking behavior, including making occassional edits made with the intention to harass, is also unacceptable. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC) ====Intentionally provoking other editors==== 3) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Misplaced Pages policies, as well as the spirit of Misplaced Pages and the will of its editors. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC) "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Also, I think you should look at when blocks are not to be used. This is a content dispute and blocks are not to be used then, that taken with the "Spirit" of the 3RR rule should be taken into account so the dispute can go to WP:DR. No only that there was not a real warning . . . enignaman is en editor who is involved with the content dispute and his warning tainted, so the things mention along with the lack of a warning by a neutral, uninvolved editor this block may have been hasty. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block is a correct application of the three-revert rule. Edit-warring is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. Sam Korn 13:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Incorrect, Edit-warring IS permitted on wikipedia . . . IF you get three or more people to do the work of one. Edit-warring is permissible if you are part of the "protected class" of administrator. Edit-warring is going atChris Long (American football) while I was blocked.

So, if an IP defends his good-faith edits it is edit-warring and if an admin and other users attack then it is simply "editing". This is a clear double standard applied to different classes of users. If edit-warring were not permitted on wikipedia, as you say it is, then ALL those who edit-war would be held accountable. The guidelines of edit-warring are far wider than just the 3RR. But, be that as it may, it is important to show the hypocrisy here. Some of the rules apply some of the time here and if you have POWER to block people then you have the POWER to avoid responsibility. This is the powerful ruling over those with no power. The enforcement of the rules on edits does not apply evenly to all users named or IPs, that is the issue.72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Pats1 took advantage of this blocking to revrt edits at Chris Long. That is twice in 24 hours. With what chrisjnelson's actions that is 3 times in 24 hours. Nelson and Pats1 are joined at the hip and have acted in concert for a long, long time. SO, by this block administrators have allowed edit-warring. If it is edit-warring by a protected class then it is permissible, the proof is Pats1 taking advantage of a block to revert good-faith edits. He never is held accoutnbale for anything, but that seems to be the standard here. Rules apply to some, but not Pats1. He stalked me, harrassed me and no one said "boo" to him. Also, due to nelson and Pats1 the NFL project is deader than dead. No one participates because of the cabal of Pats1 and Nelson and maybe a couple of others. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My last word on the matter... Making "good faith" edits does not allow you to edit-war over them. If there is consensus against you (as there appears to be in this instance), then, by edit-warring to include your text, you are undoubtedly in the wrong. Tag-teaming to edit-war is indeed not allowed, but I don't see that in this case. Sam Korn 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus. It is the "big lie" in this case. If you don't see the tag-teaming you are not looking at the history very well. Pats1 and chrisjenelson are a tandum and they are allowed to edit-war by you. Sorry, but that is the truth. If there were a consensus of parties that were not at "war" then that would be one thing, but that is not the case. This is simple "mob rules" and adminstrators who will jump on the one getting beaten to defend the bullies. However, now it is on record that "Tag-teaming to edit-war is indeed not allowed". At least that got said. Now we just need an admin who will look at the record close enough to see it. To do that, an Admin would have to go back and see the genesis of this. If an Admin does not want to do that, fine, but there is clear tag-teaming here with Pats1 and nelson and maybe one other. I don't mean to offend but truth is truth. Just look at the revert since I was blocked. What happened here was an Admin took sides in a conflict of content and applied the 3RR to me and not to the tag-teamers. If is is right that I am blocked then the edit-warriors on the other side have to be held to account, that did not occur here. One cannot edit-war alone my friend, it takes two (and sometimes three) to tango. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

InDeBiz1, Enigmaman, Pats1, Wknight94, and Chrisjnelson have all reverted your edit. It isn't just Pats1 and Chrisjnelson. --B (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at those players . . . they are the ones in the tag-team, with the exception of Wknight94. The others have warred with me and have never shown a single reason to revert my good-faith edits, otehr than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That is not supposed to be a good enough reason, given the mission and policies of wikie, like being bold and ignoring all rules. So, you made my case, thank you. Tag-team efforts by people with an ax to grind. Perfect. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is tag-teaming at all. We are not people that have conspired with one another in some plot against you, but rather just individuals that all disagree with your edits. No one is scheming and saying "hey, let's get this guy in violation of 3RR." No one is even communicating with one another, in any form, about this article. I'm sorry you're on the short end of this, but the simple fact is that if you're alone and we all happen to agree, there isn't much you can do (nor should be able to do). If the majority feels a certain way, then that's the edit that should stand.►Chris Nelson 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a giant conspiracy. Chris is currently editing from the grassy knoll, while I have my laptop open in some remote sound studio. Pats1 /C 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what I'd do without you, 72. Who else would inform me that I'm part of a conspiracy, a tag team, and a vast bullying plot to subvert poor 72? I'm not part of anyone's team. I disagree with your edits to the Chris Long article. Enigma 18:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to laugh when rules don't apply to you guys, isn't it? The privleges of power and being protected by power. None of this would have ever happened if chrisjnelson had not been blocked for two weeks. The edits of Long were not done in good faith by Pats1 and the reverts by others. They were done to disrupt and to harrass. Clear violations of wiki rules but the Admin buddy system protects other admins, even to the point where one can lie about wikistalking, trolling and editing in bad-faith. Nothing has ever been proven that my edits were wrong. It's just people who hate me want to walk over me. Joke all you want but that's what people who are unaccountable do . . . they mock those who dare challenge their authority. Arrogance of power is what this is called. Also, in all the time nelson was blocked I never gloated or made fun of him, I don't even respond to him at all . . . but when the shoe is on the other foot true character is revealed, isn't it? Kick a man when he is down, right?72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand what you want anymore. You have your edit that you obviously prefer. But you also have a handful of experienced editors who dislike your edit, and have all outlined their reasons why in extreme detail. So what more do you want? Once again, this has nothing to do with conspiracies, personal feelings or alliances. No one is reverting you because of an allegiance to another editor. No one is agreeing with me because they like me and are "sticking up for me." They are making the same edits I am because they agree with the content. So what is it you're looking for? What do you want? You expect all of us to just lie down and not make edits we believe to be right and good for the encyclopedia because you don't like them? I'm sorry you're alone on that side, but perhaps there's a reason for it. And, perhaps that reason is not because you lack friends and alliances here. Have you ever even considered that all of the editors involved in reverting you are doing so on their own free will, doing it because they believe their edits are good just as you do yours? All this BS about conspiracies and allegiances is nonsense. What we have here is one editor who likes his edit, and a whole bunch of editors who simply don't feel the same way. So what would you have us do?►Chris Nelson 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I want the truth. The truth is Pats1 edits were done in bad faith, He only went there because the holds me responsible for your blocking. Next, I want Pats1 to admit he saw my IP activity and went to Jack Youngblood and made bad-faith edits there. He was asked in the middle to pause. I want Pats1 to admit he followed me to several other articles and reverted my edits. So that is for openers. Pats1 must come clean. So far, he wont.

Then, I want to discuss the chris long article with people who are unbiased. Not for nothing and no offense but you and engima and Pats1 are biased in this matter. You have an ax to grind. What we will then learn in that the unreasonable level of scrutiny that Pats1 has deployed to my edits is unfair. No other article would have every word challenged as this or that. Pats1 and you are acting like you are the only guys with the sacred knowledge of what belongs on wiki. Frankly, and don't take this wrong, you and Pats1 have chased away a lot of editors in the NFL project due to how you would attack them. This is a constant pattern with you. I will say you are more civil and that is a good thing. You have not called names like you used to. I think the block actually will help you be a better editor. But still, your insistance to put up erroneaou All-pro stuff, to label what I post as "non-notable" and this and that is really wrong. I should not be the final decision-maker but neither should you or Pats1 as long as you guys have an ax to grind (me). The truth is this: There are not a whole bunch of editors who disagree. There are 3. Those three share a hatred of me. That means their opinions are biased. So, make fun all you want but it will not change the fact that there is tacit tag-teaming going on, not only on reverting my good-faith edits (which I shaved to the bone and were still not good enough for Pats1) but on this abuse of me that is occuring right here, right now.

I am 100% sincere when I say you are acting more civil than you did before. It is easier for me to repsond to you when you are not dropping f-bombs on me all the time.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the All-Pro/All-American thing again - at least not here. All I will say for now is that my edits regarding that stuff were in no way erroneous, and I will explain at some other point if you'd like.

While I appreciate the recognition of my current intentions to be civil in this discussion, I simply do not believe that any of us are "biased" in the case of the Long article. We all dislike your edits to the Long article not because of you, but simply because of who we are. Based on everything we've done here, everything we've read in our lives, everything that has molded us into the people we are - based on all that - we find your edits poor and think we have a better way of doing it. You may disagree, but please don't act like we're only doing it because we may not like you. We're doing it because as writers and as people, we disagree.►Chris Nelson 19:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris your edits are not "better". You just like them better. Look, it is clear the vitriol you have for me, and Pats1 and enigma. Look at the posts here . . . it is clear. This whole incident is payback.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"The truth is this: There are not a whole bunch of editors who disagree. There are 3." That's a lie, plain and simple. I can name at least six. Enigma 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Three of you are biased. Your opinion is tainted. That's a fact. The others are reasonable. It is not me who has a problem telling the truth.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

More name-calling and attempts to paint everyone who doesn't agree with you as "biased". Enigma 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I say YOU are biased. That is not a name, that is a description of your point of view. I don't sat everyone I say you, chrisjnelson and Pats1 are biased in this matter. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know what to tell you then. You can keep repeating the same accusation, but we all know it's untrue. Why is it so hard for you to accept that we genuinely just don't care for the edits you've made to the article?►Chris Nelson 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's called "fruit of the poison tree". There are 3 guys here attacking me, while I am banned, and you say there is no connection? Come on. If you guys had real objections then you'd be able to articulate tehm without using "non-notable" and things like that. There is a whole section on this in the guideline. It is summed up by this: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just beacuse you don't like it does not mean you have it your way. I have compromised, even if this final iteration stays (and it won't Pats1 has already edited it away) the article is nowhere near how it was 3 weeks ago before this mess. So, this is not a matter of reasonable and civil consensus, it is an effort to rid the article of what I put into it, not SOME of it, but the vast majority of it. You see, if the edits were done in bad faith, then they should not stand. That is the fruit of the poison tree. Even if they are reasonable (which they are not, they are the way you wanted it all along) then the uncivil manner in which I was trolled and stalked makes the edits wrong. You could get 100 editors to say there is nothing wrong with ym way or your way, but my edits were done in good faith. Pats1's were not. If the rules had been followed from the beginning this would have never happened. What you guys don't get is the way I wanted it is long gone. Let's say the way I wanted it was "A" and what you wanted is "Z". We were polar opposites, let's say. I compromised over and over and now after I agree to "M" or "N", Pats1` edits it even more and now we are at "X". The admins are letting a tag-team bully situation go and three of you still deny that you are tacitly allinged.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This appears hopeless. It seems to me you are the only one involved bent on making this personal. I'm sorry you have a bunch of people that don't like your edits. I really am. It sucks to be on that end. But that's reality, and the legitimate reasons for our edits have been articulated again and again. If you don't want to believe the truth about our motives (or lack thereof) then there's no more we can do.►Chris Nelson 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is. The reason for your edits have not been intelligently articulated. Mostly it has been "It sucks" or "that's not encyclopedic" or that's "too long" or "Too many quotes" or "non-notable". Those are not articulations, they are just statements and not very well lettered ones at that. I don't beleive your motives, no. There have been too many things I have seen done. The bottom line is you and Pats1 have total control of the Chris Long article. That is what you wanted and that is what you think you have. Anything I do (as I predicted a week and a half ago) will be challenged and removed. The scrutiny will be so high and it will apply to my edits only, not yours, not Pats1 not enigmas. What I want you to do it allow me to edit as you would allow yourself. That means if you don't like an edit I make to Chris Long, leave it be. Show you are trying to be fair. With Pats1 that is impossible. He's proven he will follow me around and change my edits. That is not right. So, what you can do is back down. Allow my edits to stand, even if you don't like them. You an Pats1 could do a lot of good, there are tons of articles that need work. Then, after a cooling down period the chris long thing can be revisited. You can show what kind of writer you are by creating and improving things that really need work. Go to Julius Adams and fix that up. It is a joke of an article but Pats1 spends more time editing Rams than Pats. So, show good faith by backing down. Surrender to win. See if you three guys are man enough to do that.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good ol' reverse psychology. Sorry, but I'm not backing down just because it would please you, and I'd hope none of the other editors involved would either. Couldn't I ask the same of you? How about you back down and let an edit of mine stand even if you don't like it? You won't do that. And why? Because you think you're right, just as I do, so it's pointless to ask one another to stop editing just because it'd please other side.►Chris Nelson 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have compromised. 95% of what I wanted has been deleted. Still, when there was a disagreement before one editor suggested I go elsewhere. . . I wondered then why it was ME who was be lectured and not Pats1. So, yes, I wanted to test how you guys really feel. I want those things in the Long article because they fit, they were good quotes. You thought otherwise. So now that you are in power, with your resident muscle, you won't back down. That's the rub. My not backing down was considered uncivil, yours and Pats1 forcing your will on the article are not considered uncivil. I actually would back down, if there was some reasonable contrition on Pats1's part. Though this he won't own his own actions and made ludicrous excuse after excuse when he was stalking me . . . If he'd admit he followed me around I would back down.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One more point, I did back down on the All-pro thing when you had a verifiable source. Pro-football reference errantly combine 1st and 2nd team All-pros. Now, they have those items correct. I have made only a few changes in that regard. ALL the edits you and Yankees10 made on the all-pros are wrong. There is no verifiable source but I am not making wholesale edits reversing them. Yankees10 asked me to stop until a deciison was made and I did. So, I DO back down. Even when I know 100% that you are wrong on the All-Pros. So, you could back down here as a way to show good faith.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I'm not going to get into the whole All-Pro/All-American debate here. But you're wrong. My editing style in that regard versus yours is not "right vs. wrong" but rather "condensed vs. expanded" or "brief vs. specific."►Chris Nelson 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you have to have a verifiable source. You don't. Condensing them could be original research. So, when there is accurate, historical information why would you want it combined? The combination does not accurately reflect the orignal data. By your argument a player with a 4.6 yards per carry could be rounded or "condensed" to read 5. That does no make it right. The main thing is if a guy (like Curtis Martin) is a 2nd team All-AFC and that gets "condensed" to count as an ALl-pro selection there is a fatal flaw . . . that makes it inaccurate. A second-team All-conference is not "All-Pro", however, in your "condensed" versions there are scores of examples like that. What happens if some idiot comes to wikipedia and uses your origianl research, puts it into some printed material. It will look like someone is trying to "puff" that guys' real All-pro record. What you and Yankees10 is a disservice to Jason Taylor or Martin or scores of others. It makes them look like their fans are "puffing" their resume. Cheating is cheating. Calling a 3-time or 4-time All-pro an 11-time All-pro is cheating. Ted Hendricks 72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're completely wrong, but in my experience there's no convincing you of that. Your examples are horrible and not at all representative of my edits regarding this topic. Oh well.►Chris Nelson 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How can I be wrong when every source says I am right. You cannot come up with one source that says 1st and 2nd team All-pros are the same. Name a source. Yankees10 couldn't. I don't think you can either. I KNOW you can't because there is no source. You condensed ALl-pros are not verifiable. Unless you can verify your information it is not allowed in wiki, so, it is you who is wrong on this. The Chris Long is a difference of opinion. This is you being wrong and the facts being on my side. Cite your source. Please.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hendricks was named All-Pro as a Colt in 1971, as a Packer in 1974, and as a Raider in 1980 and 1982. He also earned second-team All-Pro accolades five other times (1972, '73, '76, '77, '78). He also earned All-conference honors in 1971, '72, '74, '76, '80, '81 and '82, while being named 2nd-team All-AFC in 1973, '78 and '83.

How is this 11-time All-Pro? Cite your source.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a 9 time All-Pro. 1981 and 1983 are "just" All-Conference.Rlendog (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a 9-time 1st or 2nd team All-Pro.It is a 4-time All-pro.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Just look at the Pro Football Hall of Fame website, a fairly authoritative source: "Ted was named All-Pro as a Colt in 1971, as a Packer in 1974, and as a Raider in 1980 and 1982. He also earned second-team All-Pro accolades five other times."72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying your edits are wrong. I am saying your assessment of my edits as wrong is wrong. As I said before, my edits vs. yours are not right vs. wrong, because the are both accurate and true. I'm not debating this further, at least not here in this discussion I would not, and I'm never changing my editing style regarding this because there's nothing wrong with it.►Chris Nelson 22:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So when you want it your way that is the final way? When you have muscle to back you up that will work. Sadly, when I was accused of "owning" 2 articles no one noted (except me) that you and Pats1 think you own the whole NFL section. So, you ask why won't I back down? Because of statments like this: "I'm never changing my editing style regarding this because there's nothing wrong with it". All I have done is poitned out that your All-pros are not verifiable. So, if you got a consensus of 3 guys to agree with you does that mean your edits stay? Even if they are unverifible.?

Now, don't get upset, I don't want to get accused of making you uncivil, I just want an answer. . . IF, and I say IF you cannot find a source to verify the All-pros in the infoboxes would you allow me to go in and change them to a verifiable number, one that can be cited? Wouldn't that be fair?72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All-Pros revisited

My edits are verifiable. A four-time first-team All-Pro and seven-time second-team All-Pro is an 11-time All-Pro, because the phrase "11-time All-Pro" does not specify first- or second-team. It simply means he was an All-Pro selection in some form. This is 100% verifiable and is not original research. It is simply condensing the info for the sake of presenting only the brief highlights in the infobox. The article itself should include more specific info. There is not a sports journalist in the world that would disagree with me here.►Chris Nelson 22:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, for them to be verifiable you need to find a source. You have no source. Therefore they are not verifiable.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is verifiable, and I just proved it. But here's a similar numbers situation. Let's say a pro athlete has two kids with one woman, and two kids with another. Further, the only source on his kids at all that you can find says exactly that: "Player X has two kids with Woman 1, and two kids with Woman 2." Could you not write into the article that he has four kids, simply because you had to do the basic math yourself? Of course you could condense that even though you don't have a source that literally says "he has four kids." 2+2 is not original research, and 4+7 (from my first post above) is not either.►Chris Nelson 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean you need a source to be verifiable. Also, here is a note from a Hall of Fame voter. "There is only one All-Pro QB each year". Here is a direct quote from another Hall of Fame voter (both of these guys are current psortwiters for major newspapers and both, as i say, are Hall of Fame voters) "the reason there is a first team is that those guys are perceived to be better than guys on the second team. hence they are not the same honor.if that were the case should we include Pro Bwol alternates as Pro Bowlers because they almost made the first team?". So, Chris there are 2 elite sports journalists who don't agree. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a third comment from a Hall of Fame voter, this one from the west coast:

"differentiate with specificity"

1st team all pro

2nd team all pro

He would do it like I would do it, not your way.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a fourth comment from a Hall of Fame voter, this one from the southwest. "You're exactly right. That's like Avis thinking it's as good as Hertz even though Avis is acknowledged as being second best"72.0.36.36 (talk)

Comment from a 5th Hall of Fame sportswriter, thisone from the northeast. "there is a distinction"72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You have still not proven my wrong. You also did not source your quotes. Also, I have never included Pro Bowl alternates in the Pro Bowl selections count.►Chris Nelson 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have proven you wrong. You have no source. The Pro Bowl alternate was not my comment, that was from a Hall of Fame voter. He was making an analogy. His point is that there is a distinction in the two honors. Both are honorable but both are not the same. No one thinks it is the same, except you. As far as sourcing them, I kept their names out of it for their sake - -- but they are quotes from experts. I doubt you'd know theri names anyway but I identified them enough for this purpose. Look, just THINK about it. In all the years of the NFL there has never been anyone who agrees with you on this. There is no book that lumps them together. Even if you identified it, like Ted Hendricks was a 8-time frist- or second-team All-pro then you'd be accurate. But you don't do that, you include Ted HEdnricks' 2nd team ALl-conference selection. All-conference is not all-pro. 2nd-team All-Pro is not All-pro, it is 2nd-team All-pro.72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could I have a link showing where these replies came from? RC-0722 /1 23:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the question I sent:

I am in a discussion about All-pros. Some think that a 1st team selection and a 2nd team selection are both an "All-Pro" selection and are equal in status.

I differ. 1st team is first team, second team is second team All-pro. Both are honorable, but one is a higher honor than another, am I wrong?

I would value anyone's view on this.

thanks in advance

Here is the 6th reply from ym email (from the east coast) "First team is All-Pro."

72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the 7th reply (midwest writer)"In my mind, this is a no-brainer. An All-Pro is first team. That's it."72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never said all-conference should be included in All-Pros. Of course they shouldn't.►Chris Nelson 23:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In your edits and Yankees10 edits they are all combined. Yankees10 and you used Pro-football reference as a souce, the edits you and he made were identical to that wesbite. That website included 2nd team all-conferences as "All-pro" selections. They were wrong. They also included 1st and 2nd tam All-pros combined which is also wrong, they are wrong on 2 levels and they knew it. That is why they re-did all of it. Chris, just cite a source for your synthesis of the All-Pros.72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, please respond . . . if you don't think All-conferences are the same as All-pros then why are your edits and Yankees10 edits including All-conferences as all-pros. It seems that you even agree THAT would be wrong. Well, do you want examples? Curtis Martin, for one.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this 11-time All-Pro? Cite your source It is a 9-time 1st or 2nd team All-Pro.It is a 4-time All-pro.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Just look at the Pro Football Hall of Fame website, a fairly authoritative source: "Ted was named All-Pro as a Colt in 1971, as a Packer in 1974, and as a Raider in 1980 and 1982. He also earned second-team All-Pro accolades five other times."

I just noticed that the quote above is exactly taken from the Hall of Fame website and is almost the same. I would ask Chris Nelson and Yankees10 to say why is it justified to make Hendricks an 11-time All-pro. It is not verofiable72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

differentiate with specificity

I think that is well put. That is what should be done here. That's 4 5 6 7 elite sportswriters in just a few minutes who disagree with you. None of the 4 5 6 7 responses (in just a few minutes) agree with you. Satisfied?72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could I have a link where those replies came from? RC-0722 /1 23:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are email replies to an email I sent. I emailed writers I knew and asked if they agreed with my view or chris' view. So far, 5 have replied and I posted them via cut and paste from my email. Sure, you can say I made them up, but all I can do is swear they are true. Still, if you want your own email responses, find out who the Hall of Fame voters are, get their emails. I happen to have a list that I can email with 1 click, you can go to each of their newspapers and get your own responses if you desire, but I will not reveal their names to you, nor their e-mail addresses. If you choose to think I am not telling the truth, so be it. However, I know and God knows I am telling the truth and I would, if if would cause you to beleive, swear to it.72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay well I just emailed six Hall of Fame voters, and they all agreed that I'm always right and that anyone that disagrees is wrong and should just give in to my awesomeness. I won't reveal who they are or give you their emails, but I know I'm right and god knows it and baby jesus knows it so I win.►Chris Nelson 23:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on, there is no need for that. Really. No need at all. Why make fun of my faith?72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Who's making fun? Everything I said was totally true. I guess you just have to trust me. Even though I'm being weirdly secretive about disclosing the names of reporters who almost certainly keep their emails on the websites for which they write and are open to contact from anyone.►Chris Nelson 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then email them yourself. I just didn't tell them I was going to post them so it was out of respect to them. However, if you email them will you tell them they are stupid for not agreeing with you or will you treat them with some courtesy? Given your track record you may go off on them. CHris, just stay focused for a minute. Find a source that agrees with you, just one. Cite your source. Don't attack me, find a source.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You can find sources yourself. Google "Brett Favre seven-time All-Pro" and you'll find tons of articles describing him as such. It's not false information by any stretch of the imagination, it's just condensed and simpler.►Chris Nelson 00:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you or did you not say, "There is not a sports journalist in the world that would disagree with me here."? So, was I supposed to say to myself, well, Chris just said that so it must be so, or was i to email people I happen to know and ask a fair question. Then, when I post every response you attack me, and let's get this straight, you are calling me a liar. Even though you can email many of them on your own, you are calling me a liar. Yet, you said that every sports journalist in the world woud agree with you. I didn't call you a liar, I sent and email and got 6 repsonses. So, why did you say what you did if you didn't want to know what some sports journalist might think?. I said what I did to RC-7022 because he seemed interested as to where I got the info. I wasn't even posting to you, but you still had to make fun. Anyway, you should post your source. Find it and post it.

Bottom line: If you email writers yourself will you accept what they say? Would you THEN admit you are wrong on this? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reporter quotes are worthless since YOU asked them in only a way you know. You are biased toward your point of view just as I am on this, so for you to ask them in private anyone would know that you'd form the sentence in a way to try and induce a certain type of response.►Chris Nelson 00:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted the question I asked above.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just googled "Brett Favre seven-time All-Pro". The only source for 7-time All-Pro is wikipedia and two sites that copies wikipedia content. Pro-football reference has him as a 3-time All-pro.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, here is the 7th response from a Hall of Fame voter, this one from the midwest, "In my mind, this is a no-brainer. An All-Pro is first team. That's it.". Chris you have no leg to stand on here. You are simply mistaken on this. No one agrees with you. ALl-pros are an important item and they should be done accurately. Right? What I don't get is why you want them your way? It is just as easy to do it the right way. What is the problem here? Why can't you think you maybe are just wrong. Your Brett Favre google thing was a wild goose chase . . . what gives?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't how one messes up a process like googling, but congrats.►Chris Nelson 00:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a google search on "Brett Favre 7 time all pro" , and Several article say he is a 7 time All pro selection, however I am not too sure how reputable xbox360fanboy.com is. RC-0722 /1 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, sources have to be authoritative. Xbox fanboy I saw, and I saw Misplaced Pages and there was one site that copies wiki. So, what is going on here? There is no source that has Brett Favre as a 7-time all-pro. Not even the Packers mida guiide page 507. Fave was All-pro in 1995, 96, 97. He was second-team on 3 other occasions. Not even the packers claim Favre was a 7-time All-Pro72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

the only other source was zimbio.com. It is not authoritative.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

why the hell would you need a source that combines them, that is just stupid--Yankees10 01:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is why, Yankees 10, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

You need a source to be verifiable. You cannot put things on wikipedia that are not verifiable. That is the issue, combining them is not verifiable in any fashion I take it since there is no source now you don't think All-pros need to be verifiable? WHy do your edits not need to be verified?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't, and my example of the children proves why. If you consider 4+7 original research then you're just being silly.►Chris Nelson 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your children example is very poor. If you had a socitty thatvalued male children more than female children, like maybe in China, then the analogy would be as follows: Someone had 3 sons and 4 girls. If that father was trying to say he had 7 childrend he'd be right, but if he was asked how many sons he had and he said 7, he'd be wrong. Your flaw in logic is that first team all-pro and second team all-pro are the same. They are not. One is a higher honor than the other. That's what you will not acknowledge. Once you admit they are different then you cannot combine them UNLESS you say, 7-times 1st and 2nd team all-pro. If you just say 7-time all-pro it is misleading and also inaccurate.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Although technically, 4+7 in base eight is 13.. so some people (people who actually think in base eight) might ask for a source still.. Ksy92003 (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Yep, first- and second-team honors are different. One is obviously more prestigious than the other.

2. You're still wrong, and that will never change. The end.►Chris Nelson 05:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you got crushed here. You have not cited a single reliable source Misplaced Pages:Verifiability Without it I can edit EVERY article that is in error and I will use the Hall of Fame and Pro-football reference and hickosports as references. SO, I ask in advance, if I make those edits will you be okay with the changes? If not, by what authority will you revert them back? What will be your reason if you do follow me around and make reverts in my tracks? DO you consider youself the final decision maker? Do you WP:OWN the infoboxes? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't wait for you to stalk me, since that's very obviously what's going to happen.►Chris Nelson 05:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. I edited Ted Hendricks see what you think, see if you can live with that before you freak.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't really care about retired players much.►Chris Nelson 05:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good, but this applies to current players as well. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. A lot sooner when you start following me around.►Chris Nelson 05:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't follow you around. That is what Pats1 does to me. Besides, the bridge was already crossed. That is why there needs to be a resolution. You have no basis to combine selections. None. No one agrees with you. 7 writers have taken the time to respond to an email and all 7 disagree with you, you said "No sports journalist would disagree." Well, that is false. I have proven that Ted Hendricks was wrong by using authoritative sources, what you need to do is just come on board and make wiki better. If the all-pros are accurate it improves wiki. It means one editor is not wp:synthesis things and combining allples and oranges, as it were. Why not just compromise on this one?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not compromise? Because I'm not wrong, and you only think I am because your perception is warped. It's like trying to teach a wall. It's pointless. I've already explained time and time again why my edits are not false at all, and if you fail to get it that's not my fault or my problem. There's nothing more to be done on my end.►Chris Nelson 06:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, will all due civility, are not correct. You have an opinion, but it is not shared by experts. So, if there is nothing more to do on your end are you going to follow my edits and revert them? It is a simple question. I would rather hear it from you now. Also, please don't turn this around. It was not me who followed anyone around. Try andget this: You're explanations are not supported by the facts. You can have an opinion, but not your own set of facts. That is what is wrong here. 1st team All-pro and 2nd team All-Pros cannot be combined unless you note it and call them 1st and 2nd team All-pros. If you make the note, as the Hall of Fame sometimes does, then you'd be accurate. As it stand you are 100% and I know this will anger you, but you really are not well versed in this subject. You are not. It is not your subject and sadly you are 100% wrong. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is so not worth my time, so this is the last time I will write here again. But I sincerely suggest you take a long hard look at your life.►Chris Nelson 06:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do that. Thanks. I will take that as you will not follow me around and make changes. If it is not worth your time then you won't waste time on it. Good, that is good news. Just tell your muscle to do the same and things will be fine72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Maxim

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

72.0.36.36 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

what is going on? I was reporting an incident on WP:ANI about baseball bugs. What is this? I think I know but it is not based on current events, what is this about? I was posting a reply there and this block came on. I think an explanation is needed, not to mention a warning or some sort of communication. The reason given does not apply it was not me wo wikistalked anyone, this is quite suspicious.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=what is going on? I was reporting an incident on WP:ANI about baseball bugs. What is this? I think I know but it is not based on current events, what is this about? I was posting a reply there and this block came on. I think an explanation is needed, not to mention a warning or some sort of communication. The reason given does not apply it was not me wo wikistalked anyone, this is quite suspicious. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=what is going on? I was reporting an incident on WP:ANI about baseball bugs. What is this? I think I know but it is not based on current events, what is this about? I was posting a reply there and this block came on. I think an explanation is needed, not to mention a warning or some sort of communication. The reason given does not apply it was not me wo wikistalked anyone, this is quite suspicious. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=what is going on? I was reporting an incident on WP:ANI about baseball bugs. What is this? I think I know but it is not based on current events, what is this about? I was posting a reply there and this block came on. I think an explanation is needed, not to mention a warning or some sort of communication. The reason given does not apply it was not me wo wikistalked anyone, this is quite suspicious. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

What is going on?

Very weird here right now. Is User:Maxim out there? Why did you block me? For reporting BaseballBugs's comments to WP:ANI? Furter, he;s taking this oppotunity to trash and mock me even more. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Important note – Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that you got mixed in with a few other 72.xxx IP's that had been trolling on AN/I. I left a message for Maxim to see if that might be the case. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that part. I was trying to keep the discourse at a higher level at the Long article and I was in the middle of posting a response at the AN/I and I was blocked72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.

Category:

Requests for unblock