This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 08:42, 10 December 2008 (→Edit warring block: i hate these stupid templates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:42, 10 December 2008 by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (→Edit warring block: i hate these stupid templates)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Status: Online 
Links
Why did you remove all of these links on articles?--Yankees10 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think you went overboard though, I can see removing links that were near others that were already linked, but some of them were way far apart, also you were removing the links to the birthdate in the infobox, which I dont think should be done, I do agree though with you removing the double All-Pro links.--Yankees10 22:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- His problem is he's using AWB, and that doesn't take into consideration that double links can (and often should) be present in an article due to length and space in between them. ►Chris Nelson 05:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, I already discussed this over on Yankee's10's page, agreed that I had made some mistakes, apologized, and went back through the articles and undid some of the removals. But since you also for some reason seem to need an explanation, let me repeat what I said there:
Sorry, new toy. I'll go back through those articles and put back the infobox links to birthplaces and birthdates. But the way the MoS reads, if a term had already been linked in an article, that's all it gets. For example, Barry Sanders has Detroit Lions linked 3-4 times, so I'll bring it down to the first one. I removed the extra links due to this from Maual of Style for one of two reasons.
1. Some were general links to months, days, or years: "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true: Low added-value items are linked without reason—such as 1995, 1980s, and 20th century." I also took advice from this directive, "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic" to remove general links to dates such as 15 August etc.
2. "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article. "Excessive" typically means more than once for the same term in an article. So I removed multiple instances of links.
Number 2 doesn't make any exception for length between the excessive links. And Yankees10 seemed to be okay with my explanation and apology. I hope you are satisfied now too.--User:2008Olympianchitchat 05:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've been looking for the discussion where the consensus has been established, but it was obviously a long time ago. So far, I've just found a discussion from summer 2007 mentioning the consensus. Trust me, this infobox was my idea and I've followed it from Day 1. There is a consensus, and you need to stop making edits against it until it is found.►Chris Nelson 07:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well as I've said, the two infoboxes were conceived by two different people. No, I've not found the discussion, but I do know that everyone who was around at the time knows what the consensus was (to not link them), which is why we all edit it that way (including an admin). As I am sure that there was a consensus against your style of edit at some point, will you avoid making any more of your edits before we have a poll on the NFL talk page? That way, if the same consensus is reached there is nothing we have to undo. If the consensus is in your favor, I'll drop it and we'll change the infobox standard.►Chris Nelson 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think you and I could discuss each change you'd like to make to the infobox and try to reach a compromise?►Chris Nelson 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about your post on my talk page. I've had a busy week, I'll reply within the next day though.►Chris Nelson 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Finally replied on my talk, sorry for the wait.►Chris Nelson 14:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Definition of AA
I would be interested in your opinion on this discussion: Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous#Recovery vs. recovered
RE: NFL Year template
Uhh...none of the player infoboxes need any year links. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 06:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for my false comment. I don't have time for doing these minor edits because of school and such. Just leave a message on WT:NFL and I'm sure someone will do it. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
See Jguk
Your recent edits, changing date format in international articles from international format to US format is a clear violation of the ArbCom ruling on Jguk, which is featured as a prominent warning on WP:DATE. See here for ANI discussion. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Noted player
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Noted player, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Noted player
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mayalld (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Warning regarding unlinking of dates
As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:
Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.
— Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli
Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Olympian. Your contributions on the date-delinking issue are well-judged and most welcome in the current efforts to improve a major aspect of WP's formatting. My advice is to disregard the threatening post above. It does not represent more than a fringe view, and one that is unsupported by logic or cogent argument. Tony (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Noted player
I have nominated Noted player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert
I've started a thread on TE's date reverting at WP:AN#Special:Contributions/Tennis expert. Please comment if you can.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Can you clean up more of the pages starting from here? I have to step out for a bit, but it's been started... Thanks seicer | talk | contribs 15:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Olympians
Do all Olympians get a page? What's the guidelines? I figure they have to meet the same notability guidelines everyone else has to meet, but it seems there's an assumption that Olympic participation is the "highest level" as defined in the guideline for athletes. Your thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- My problem with that is it seems to violate the broader guidelines for notability. There are an awful lot of Olympians and not all of them are competing at the highest level. Many of them (the vast majority of them) are non-factors. It seems to me it's easier to demonstrate some notability as an Olympian than to compete at the highest level (if you finish 16 you're not really competing strongly) so noteworthy Olympians should have no problem being sourced to a couple good references. No? Heck, half the "sports" in the Olympics are pretty marginal. I'm not trying to argue with you, i'm just enjoying the discussion and trying to work the policy and the logic of it out. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Date linking/formatting RFC
We apparently had the same idea at nearly the same time. =) I opened the RFC at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC. Let's leave it at the subpage so it'll be easier to point to in the archives if need be. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- As Masem requested the page be left as a subpage (and I agree with him) that's what I did. Note that nothing precludes it from being transcluded into the talk page if you think it's important. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note my edit to WT:MOSNUM, the discussion now exists in both places and edits to one are reflected in the other (and vice versa). This is basically abusing the template syntax, but it's normal and okay (WP:AFD uses/used a similar system of using subpages but transcluding on to the main page). As to your notifications at the village pump, I would prefer people not be directed to two similar RFCs, but as it now exists on both pages it should be a simple matter to update your links. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, while I know we disagree about date linking and formatting, I wanted to thank you for reacting calmly to the debate and helping to get the other RFC up and running. I believe the result of that RFC will be something everyone involved can accept. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused at your recommendation at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC#Context_links. Under the headers "Years should be linked in certain cases" and "Month/day should be linked in certain cases", you put a bolded Support, but the following comment seems to indicate that you are in fact opposed.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Per character images
You've been trying to add per-character images onto South Park articles of late. Please be aware that this is generally not acceptable. For direction, please read Misplaced Pages:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. For an example in action, List of students at South Park Elementary already has a single image at the top that depicts more than a dozen students. This is well sufficient for the purposes of the article and is compliant with our policies and guidelines. We do not need to then add pictures of every kid that is not depicted in that single image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Template
No I will not stop, It is not necessary to list that it is the players second or third time winning the award--Yankees10 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The List (South Park)
Please see our guidelines for writing about fiction. We are an encyclopedia, not just merely a regurgitation of "what happened in the episode". The material about "the ugly kids" is unnecessary and bloats an already weak article by adding fancruft material. Find a reliable source that discusses and creates a context for "the ugly kids" and then you will have something to add to the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, please read our rules on copyrighted images before adding large amounts of such images to articles. Thanks, Black Kite 21:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just because a character has a large part in an episode doesn't mean they should have a fair use image. You've already described Jamal's appearance in text, and WP:NFCC#1 says "...before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself (whether) the subject could be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all. If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.". Further WP:NFCC#8 says "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." Since the reader's understanding of the article topic (i.e. the episode) doesn't rely on seeing an image of Jamal, it isn't required (and aditionally, if it was required, it could replace the existing infobox image). If Jamal was notable enough to support an article of his own, it would be a different situation. Black Kite 09:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The point you're missing is that The Elephant Man (film) is actually *about* The Elephant Man and his physical appearance is the whole point of the film. This article is about an episode of South Park, and the characters are minor even in relation to that episode. Given that, textual description is enough. There's also the point that the section should preobably be removed per WP:WAF anyway, but it certainly can't support a non-free image. Black Kite 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed this image again. Please don't re-insert it without explaining how it passes WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. I have also deleted it from your user subpage, as non-free images are not allowed in any namespace except article-space (WP:NFCC#9 - "Non-free content is allowed only in articles ... and only in article namespace".) Black Kite 10:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, you haven't at all, and you're also edit warring over an image that clearly breaks Misplaced Pages policy. I suggest that this isn't a good idea, especially as you've re-inserted it 3 times now. Before you point out that I have too, WP:3RR does not apply to removal of copyrighted material. Black Kite 10:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed this image again. Please don't re-insert it without explaining how it passes WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. I have also deleted it from your user subpage, as non-free images are not allowed in any namespace except article-space (WP:NFCC#9 - "Non-free content is allowed only in articles ... and only in article namespace".) Black Kite 10:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The point you're missing is that The Elephant Man (film) is actually *about* The Elephant Man and his physical appearance is the whole point of the film. This article is about an episode of South Park, and the characters are minor even in relation to that episode. Given that, textual description is enough. There's also the point that the section should preobably be removed per WP:WAF anyway, but it certainly can't support a non-free image. Black Kite 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just because a character has a large part in an episode doesn't mean they should have a fair use image. You've already described Jamal's appearance in text, and WP:NFCC#1 says "...before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself (whether) the subject could be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all. If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.". Further WP:NFCC#8 says "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." Since the reader's understanding of the article topic (i.e. the episode) doesn't rely on seeing an image of Jamal, it isn't required (and aditionally, if it was required, it could replace the existing infobox image). If Jamal was notable enough to support an article of his own, it would be a different situation. Black Kite 09:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:HeismanTrophyLogo.png
Have you researched or addressed User:Zzyzx11 concerns related to the use of this image? I thought it was a great idea and added illustration to the draft pages but his replacement of the image with (Heisman Trophy Winner) directly in front of the references which also link to Heisman Trophy do not look as appropriate and possibly add confusion. If the image is not to be replaced I may remove the added links and just leave the ref. Slysplace 14:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I could not think of a good alternative text at the time. But the rules of Misplaced Pages:Non-free content have been fairly consistent in that using a non-free image like that on list articles is strongly discouraged when an alternative method like using colors or small text can be used to indicate such things. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Removal of non free image is understood, however I think the itself suffices if no other non text identifier can be used. My post here was directed at 2008Olympian as he first used the image I thought he should have a chance to find an alternative image to use in it's place. Granted the Image does resemble the Heisman Trophy this may be a difficult task. Slysplace 21:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you, Slyspace, the text looks terrible. I guess we'll just have to use the ref note instead, unless we can get a free image of the trophy that looks as good as the logo does.--2008Olympian 02:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Removal of non free image is understood, however I think the itself suffices if no other non text identifier can be used. My post here was directed at 2008Olympian as he first used the image I thought he should have a chance to find an alternative image to use in it's place. Granted the Image does resemble the Heisman Trophy this may be a difficult task. Slysplace 21:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
1976 NFL Expansion Draft
Image:Seattle Seahawks Tampa Bay Buccaneers helmets.png is not needed on this article. First, your claim that every expansion draft has a logo on it is false. Please see 1967 NFL Expansion Draft. Also be aware of using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Such arguments tend to fail. Second, you don't need this particular image because helmet images for both teams already exist on Misplaced Pages. It is considerably more preferable that if you MUST use fair use content (and it really isn't needed here), you should use content that already exists on Misplaced Pages first. Creating new content with both helmets on it when helmet images already exist is against our policies/guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1976 NFL Expansion Draft. 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note that I've made a report to WP:AN/EW regarding this incident. I strongly advise you to reconsider your position on this. I made a suggestion to replace the two helmet, single image with the existing helmet images already on the project. Your stance seems to be simply that the helmets facing each other (a la this version) is better than the helmets facing the same direction (a la this version). To make a claim that the former is better than the latter because they face each other is an exceptionally weak argument to retain additional fair use material when suitable replacement material already exists on the project, as in the latter version. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring block
I've blocked you for 12h for edit warring on 1976 NFL Expansion Draft William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- 2008Olympian, I've asked User:William M. Connolley to unblock you as I think it's inappropriate in this case. I've also placed an unblock request on your behalf below. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
2012Olympian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Asking for an unblock on 2008Olympian's behalf here. He did not edit the article in question past the 3RR warning, which should have been allowed to stand until that was apparent. Further, the block is possibly punitive in nature. What is more appropriate would be to warn this user that the fair use abuse that was occurring on the article is improper, and caution him on further such abuse. Respectfully, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You do not need to violate WP:3RR to have violated WP:EDITWAR, which is what 2008Olympian did. Also, 2008Olympian has been warned multiple times over the past few days - he clearly knew that his actions were disruptive. Unblock declined — Tiptoety 22:32, 9 December 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.
- Sigh. If this is 'help', I won't be asking for help again. I'm sorry you've become a victim in this 2008Olympian. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am willing to unblock if 2008Olympian states he will no longer edit war and instead take his concerns to the articles talk page. Tiptoety 22:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- The edit war here isn't the problem. The problem here is a lack of understanding of our fair use policies. I was trying to get some help from an uninvolved party to educate this user. Instead, he got blocked which is decidedly not what I was hoping to achieve. This version of the article introduced an additional fair use image onto the project that is not necessary, when this version produces the same effect. User:2008Olympian's complaint with regards to the latter is that the helmets don't face each other, and that doesn't look good. That's blatant abuse of our fair use policy and guidelines. This user, at this point, might not believe me. Having an uninvolved party educate him on this matter will help. Blocking doesn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- The fact is though, that he did edit war on a number of occasions and whether or not you wanted him blocked (though you did report to AN3 which is generally meant to request a block) his actions spoke for himself. Tiptoety 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see anywhere on that noticeboard that it is to be expected that parties reported there will be blocked. I went there looking for help (which still hasn't been provided), not looking for a block. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- In which case, I would suggest requesting page protection, and then either editor assistance, or asking someone who understands the policy. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm blocked so I can't defend myself on the AN board. Let me say outright I am willing not to edit war. Since I was blocked for two images, I address both:
As for the List image, every time it was removed, there were reasons given. When I put it back, I tried to address those concerns. At first it was several images and text that I added. I tried several routes: first, I edited the text to address the initial complaint of violating WP:PLOT. Then the number of images was criticized. I removed four out five images. Then it was a debate as to whether the single image violated the policy, and the image was removed. But at the end, I was only discussing that image with one editor and I didn't think that he had the right to keep the image off without getting consensus. I was wrong in that instance because the image had not started on the page and it was my burden to gather consensus to include it. But the above didn't show a pattern of blind edit warring, I tried a lot of alternative edits to both the text and the images as I went about it.
But here I viewed the situation as the reverse: The image in the page I was blocked over had been there for a long time so it should have stayed until it could be discussed. Look I wasn't trying to edit war. I just didn't want the image to be deleted before it could be discussed. I am willing to follow 1RR. From what I understand the policy to be, it is Bold-image removed, Revert-putting it back, then Discuss, so the image should have stayed until it can be discussed. But I am willing to not revert again even if someone else isn't willing to follow BRD.
Ive unblocked you since you've promised to stop edit warring. Please be aware that 3RR is absolute, except for a very few exceptions, and if you intend to get close to its bounds again you should be very sure you know what those exceptions are and how they are interpreted. Your discussion of image removal above suggests that you aren't really familiar with the rules. In which case, sticking to 1RR is safe, and anyway a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)