Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:35, 3 December 2008

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

Last edit to WCQ overview page

Honestly, your change didn't show up - just the "Guatemala is host of the World Cup" stuff. Dunno why that was (maybe you don't get an edit conflict when you edit in the way I did). Jlsa (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) (Feel free to delete this)

Contact

Grant - hi, wanted to get in touch with you with regard to your updating of the CONCACAF pages (which is great, by the way). Can you possibly send me a number I can call you on to discuss? My email is danny_peters99@hotmail.com. Best, Danny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djp080306 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Goal table

Grant, as a compromise I've kept the table on the main MLS page, but given it a unique "Players" section not unlike several other leagues. That section can be expanded later with more info on major DP signings, records, etc... Things not exactly relevant to the main history of the league. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Brad Guzan

I realize that your edits were made in good faith, and there is a problem on Misplaced Pages with people jumping the gun with this sort of thing, but this is not one of those times. Several sources (including ESPN and Sports Illustrated) have reported that the deal has been made. Period, end of story. You (or anyone else) arguing with this point with nothing to back you up amounts to original research. Think about it this way: several reliable sources say one thing, while an editor says something else. Obviously, we go with what the published reports say (even if they're not 100% correct - Misplaced Pages is concerned with verifiability, not truth). Clearly, that Guzan has signed with Villa is verifiable. Is it 100% accurate? Perhaps not, but that isn't our concern. (I'm not saying it isn't true, of course it is, but just for argument's sake.) As for what you said in your edit summaries: Misplaced Pages not being a newspaper has absolutely nothing to do with this. All that means is that not all news reports are noteworthy, but a professional athlete switching clubs is undeniably noteworthy. Also, I'd suggest not repeating the same condescending phrase in all of your edit summaries - promptness is actually a good thing.

Anyway, I'm leaving the article. I've written a one line mention of the signing that I can't imagine you or anyone would object to, and I'll leave it at that. Cheers, faithless () 07:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. All of the sources you point to say specifically that the deal is pending a work permit being issued. Hold your horses. There is no reason not to include the fact that a deal has been made in principle, but making it seem as though it is complete is misleading and not what the sources say. You should not add him to the Villa article or squad template, remove him from Chivas, or change his infobox until he gets a work permit. Read all of the sources, not just the headline. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So that's the third time I've been told to "hold my horses." Did you repeat that trite catchphrase because you knew it irritated me, or do you really think it's the best way to make your point? I never inserted anything in the article that wasn't supported by the sources. Guzan signed with Villa - that's it. Including something about how he's waiting for a work permit would be fine (I didn't include it because I didn't find it necessary), but everything I did was supported by reliable sources. Your "read all of the sources, not just the headline" makes no sense whatsoever, to be frank. You don't need to respond to this, and I will take no offense if you remove this discussion from your talk page; I'm eager to move past our petty squabble, and I'm sure you are as well. faithless () 07:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We were having a petty squabble? You really need to learn to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and not take every content dispute so personally. The deal will not be finalized until after he gets a work permit. This is exactly the same situation as during the winter, which, in case you missed it for the last few months, didn't exactly end with Villa signing Guzan. For what it's worth, the page has been semi-protected to prevent IPs from changing this page, so the rest of the community agrees with me that we should wait. The only reason I kept saying "hold your horses" is because you clearly weren't. However, if I had known it bothered you so much, I wouldn't have kept saying it. No hard feelings, but, to be honest, there really shouldn't have been any. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In what way am I not assuming good faith? Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean that as an insult to you - would you not agree that we're involved in a pointless and nonconstructive argument? Anyway, it's all in the past as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, faithless () 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY discussion

Hi Grant, not to sound annoying or anything, but I've recently started a discussion regarding the names of Brazilian clubs on[REDACTED] (here) and considering the scale and importance of the clubs involved and the fact that there is no formal move request, I thought it might be a good idea to inform some of the regular WP:FOOTY contributors in order to get a consensus and not just a few opinions. So if you could take a second to express your opinion, it would be appreciated, cheers. BanRay 22:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on UEFA Cup 2008-09. 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.

Hey man, I'm sorry I had to post that boilerplate warning here, but something had to be done to stop you and Kingjeff from reverting each other, and without the warning, a block would have been out of the question as a punishment. Fortunately it didn't have to come to that, and at least you had the good sense not to come down on me like a ton of bricks for doing it like Kingjeff did. Peace out, bro. – PeeJay 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fellow Celt

Hello there,as a fellow Celtic supporter I thought I would do you the courtesy of letting you know I reverted your change on Association Football. The goal line is the line between the posts, the line on either side is the bye line. Keep supporting them. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cancel that. It seems I'm either using outdated terms or they were informal terms. God, I must be getting old! :) Jack forbes (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Read

The main point in my comment was that the user was often rude. I commended him on the work he does. That you picked up on that last minor point is pretty revealing. I don't have time to read the rules fully, but I'm sure there is a rule regarding politeness. You may think I have been rude in speaking my mind, but so has he on many occasions. ForeverDevil (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Board

Thanks for the heads-up -- I didn't realize that until I made the comment -- However, it turns out that the stadium used to be the home of the Colorado Rapids, a football team in the non-American sense. (But yes, I'm another of those Americans who forget what most of the world means by "football")Johnelwayrules (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Guzan

Re: this edit summary, I'm kind of surprised you didn't know that Guzan's work permit was approved a few weeks ago. :) howcheng {chat} 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for template

Hi! I just saw your template at {{32TeamBracket-Tennis3}} and I was wondering if you could do me a big favour! Please look at this template: {{16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis7}} and I was wondering if you could make a template like that but with 32 Teams, just making the player name spaces smaller at {{32TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis7}}. Thanks, very much appreciated! - Nick C (t·c) 12:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it's done now. - Nick C (t·c) 20:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 MLS Season

Vandalism? Really? Aren't you going just a LITTLE too far? I happen to agree with KitHutch on the whole defending champs/holders thing, but that's beside the point. You seem to get very picky when it comes to certain things on these articles. Because of this, you're getting in way too many edit wars. Can't a little conversation clear these things up instead of constantly edit warring? So what if you don't get exactly what you want in the article every time? It's called compromise, I'm sure you've heard of that before. Hell, we did that once. Talk it out, and please don't go spouting vandalism accusations when he feels his solution is just as appropriate as yours. --Otav347 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy on the your answers when you revert people's edits. My comment about your grammar related to you conjugating a plural subject with the word "is" in the Superliga article, but you had a smart ass remark that ignored the major part of my edit (I think it related to whether you put "the" in front of a sports team's name). One is debatable (whether you say Columbus Crew or the Columbus Crew) and the other is not (teams are v. teams is). Yours was the more obvious. I also noticed you previously didn't really read my edit on the MLS 2008 page (about tiebreaking criteria) and just reverted it with a smartass comment as well. This was despite the fact that the link said the same thing. Based on your edit history that I saw, you seem to care a lot about the subject matter, but also need to be a bit more diligent before making harsh comments on people's edits and reverting things. But, also good work in general! Nlsanand (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your explanation of the revert. I still kinda think it would make more sense to include the Houston discussion but I will not revert until after a little discussion. Could you take a look at the MLS 2008 talk page? Any back up on why your way is better (outside of precedent, which I have conceded though I did not check), would be appreciated.Nlsanand (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WL

I believe it is time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.6.154 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On disagreement, and edit summaries, on Major League Soccer

Sorry, but it really isn't sufficient to say "I have to disagree with each one of those changes". We've discussed your lack of executive veto on this article before. If you're going to disagree with edits then you should either be providing a concrete rationale in the edit summary or taking it to talk. In this case, the changes you reverted consisted of:

1. Using properly-closed (and hence XHTML and HTML-compliant) line break tags instead of open, tag-soup ones;
2. The conversion of the fourth and fifth commas in a sentence into parentheses for readability, and the removal of an obvious summation of thirteen and one;
3. The unwrapping of a short URL, to reveal the entire URL;
4. The removal of the disputed term "soccer pyramid" from the intro, backed up by consensus on both talk:American soccer pyramid and the Football WikiProject talk.

Of these, only #3 is in the least bit contentious. To revert the lot, asserting that you agree with "each one" of the changes, suggests that you simply aren't willing to accommodate minor changes to the article which you personally disagree with. This is not in the spirit of collaborative editing. I'm waiting to hear your rationale for this change, but I do expect it to go back in, and I do expect that your attitude towards others' edits of this article will see significant improvement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm only responding here because this is more than the simple back-and-forth conversation, and I want to keep things all in one place. I will let you know about this response on your talk page.

I don't understand where you get off playing school marm to me about anything. My attitude towards others' edits is exactly the same as everyone else's. Namely, I have the right to disagree with other's edits if I think they are bad. Since the closing of the tag has no impact on the way the box is actually displayed, I didn't factor it in when making my decision to revert the whole edit. Sorry, but it's not like it was the only open tag in the box. Second, I think that, whenever possible, commas should be used for parentheticals, but I understand your position on this, though I disagree with it. I also think that there is no reason to include the entire URL when "MLSnet.com" is the way the league refers to its website, especially when the http prefix is understood and omitted whenever possible in a myriad of other contexts. Finally, I was unaware of the dispute re: "soccer pyramid" as a term for the North American leagues. Since that term is used and understood by most people familiar with soccer when referring to the system in question, I think it should remain in the article, especially since the difference between most systems worldwide and the North American systems is only a technical one for those unfamiliar with soccer. I guess what I'm saying is that if you know soccer, then you get the point, and if you don't know soccer the difference is inconsequential. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but for a long period before the 1980s, though it was technically possible for teams to get elected to the Football League in England from the Conference, there was a de facto monopoly on League football by the 92 teams already in the Football League, rendering promotion-relegation from the Football League and Conference basically dead. This didn't stop the use of the term "pyramid" when describing that system, so why should the current state of affairs in the U.S. prevent that term being used about it?

I appreciate your frustration about my disagreement, but I think you've taken it much more personally than I intended it. I spent an entire day cleaning up the article over the weekend, and I promise you that I removed a lot of trivial crap from the article. Random facts about players that were not sourced or all that important to the league's history, trivial stuff like columns in the teams table explaining that the Chicago Fire play in the Chicago area or the Los Angeles Galaxy play in the Los Angeles area, etc. I would also add that you're edit summary was less than ultra informative, either, even though your edits were, as evidenced by this conversation, controversial. I don't exercise a veto over the article, nor do I claim to have such power, but then again neither do you, and I would appreciate an improvement in your tone when disagreeing with me. I honestly meant nothing by it, and I think you should do a better job of assuming good faith. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's precisely because you didn't mean it personally that there's a problem here. This is a community, and when editors disagree with each other in good faith the onus should not always be on everyone else to start discussion. Here you've provided several reasonable rationales for the revert: why didn't you bother sticking them on the talk page? Why was your edit summary no clearer than "I disagree"? Because you do a lot of cleanup on this article, you are entitled to believe that any edits you disagree with are fly-by wrongdoings which are there to be hastily removed?

I "get off playing schoolmarm" to you because you're a valuable contributor who is nevertheless failing to respect the community norms of discussion and compromise without an excessive amount of effort on behalf of others. Even after I pointed you to the discussion on the pyramid system article, one which you disagree with, you haven't added anything to that talk page - whether you expect others to argue for you, or for them to chase you down for a response when the change is made and you revert it, you're not taking the small amount of time to communicate in advance of a change which would nip edit wars and other conflicts in the bud before they started.

The football WikiProject is in general one of the more collegial projects on the site. There's a lot less public acrimony and edit warring precisely because people take the time to discuss their positions without first being put under duress. When it comes to MLS articles, though, it seems we're back to the old acrimonious WP:BRD process.

Anyway, I'll take the specific editing points here to the talk page, when I can be bothered. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that in the 45 minutes between your complaint and my response I have not found the time to contribute to the talk page. I have a job, and was able to get 10 minutes to respond to your comment before having to get back to my job. I find that in most cases (like stylistic non-issues such as this), people make a change, I respond by reverting it, and then they respond by reverting me. In that case, 9 times out of 10 the issue gets moved to the talk page and is discussed or one person concedes and the issue is moot. I honestly don't think that this is something to get all bent out of shape over. I would also like to reemphasize that you provided little to no edit summary yourself, and I'm not particularly inclined to participate in your bureaucratic boondoggle every time I disagree with an edit. It is people like you who push valuable contributors to this project away when despite their many hours of service donated to making improvements to the encyclopedia they are outcasts because they get sick of all the infighting nonsense that takes place here. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that trying to draw you into discussion with the community (without reverting you, or making an outcry on one of the public talk pages) is "making you an outcast", then I can hardly see how one would make someone feel welcome. I've stuck up for you in the past over this sort of thing, but if you genuinely think that discussion amongst regular editors is only required after edit wars then I suppose we can only agree to disagree. Thanks for the replies anyway, even if we did generate the usual level of acrimony over them (which is half my fault). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I was just really frustrated by work, and my tone was out of line. I think the same might have been true of you in that I think we both read each other's remarks an implied a level of hostility that simply wasn't there. I will attempt to be more deliberative in the future. Have a good one, and please, weigh in on the tables I've added to the MLS article and which order you feel they should be in. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

MLS

Regarding your removal of the Oakland Coliseum from mention with the Earthquakes. I've reverted your edit. While your argument is interesting, the Quakes have 2 home stadiums this season, Buck Shaw and the Oakland Coliseum. The Coliseum wasn't just a one off for a lone Beckham game like Arrowhead was nor was it a last minute decision like KC. The Coliseum has been listed as one of the team's two home stadiums since day one and 3 games have already been played there out of 11 home dates. It is also listed as such on their website as one of the two home stadiums. No one wanted the Coliseum in the main table so the superscript seems a reasonable alternative until 2011 or 12. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

-- Why do you keep changing the opening paragraph for MLS? I'm using the EXACT language that MLS uses on its own website in the "About MLS" section. How can you get more exact than the original source?

Gateman1997 (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeAtmiaz (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, which changes are you referring to? -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The changes for the opening paragraph for the MLS. I keep changing to use the exact language that MLS uses on it's website in the "About MLS" section and you keep changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeAtmiaz (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Grant, I was trying to revert an edit that someone made to the 2008 MLS page, and it didn't work out. The editor got rid of the infobox..... and I don't know where it went, oops. NeilCanada (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

MLS Supporters Shield

Thanks for catching that - says they've won it, but it does indeed appear that Houston has that extra game. Nfitz (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well that's just the first in a long list of reasons never to visit goal.com. The fact that they generally make shit up is another. But, hey, MLS can't even calculate its own tiebreakers correctly. They think Dallas is in a playoff spot, which they would be if Goal Difference was the first tiebreaker. Unfortunately for both of them, it so isn't. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GodGiven Love

HI,

I know you have had some experience dealing with the above user. I Would appreciate your input here Lp1234 (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Some moron"

Thanks. Mind your edit summaries. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes please mindful of WP:Civil Gnevin (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ITN

Would you care to rejoin WP:ITN again? All of the kinks have been pretty much ironed out, and I'm an admin now, so there's more quality updates, not just trivial, non-updated junk. Just wanted to throw that out there, Spencer 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WCQ CONCACAF Round 4

All I was doing is organizing it like the CONMEBOL has it. Hope you agree with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazerduz (talk • contribs) 03:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF CL berths for MLS

I might be thinking about this wrong, but doesn't MLS have three guaranteed berths with the potential for two more? According the official qualification (see MLS's recent press release), the guarantees are MLS Cup winnner, SS winner, and MLS Cup runner-up. MLS can also qualify through USOC but an MLS team may not win that. Also Toronto can qualify through their Canadian tournament. 3 + 2, right?

Also I ordered the qualifying teams Columbus, NY, DC, and Houston as that's the order the press release said was priority for qualification. MLS Cup winner then SS winner then MLS Cup runner up then USOC winner. After that the priority is best regular season point total (thus making Houston last to officially qualify). Just wanted to give some insight into my thoughts. Thanks. --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: I just read what you saw on CONCACAF's website as Houston being 2nd seed. I suppose the order and numbering (or what I interpreted as priority) for qualification in MLS's press release seems misleading. Other than that point, I was listing them the way MLS did. --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello? --Blackbox77 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you look at your talk page? --Blackbox77 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WL

orbis non sufficit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.6.236 (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: ITN from 3 weeks ago

Didn't realise that, although I have to say I a bit shocked that that is how the US political system is run. You say you may not be a dictatorship but surely that system means the US public would be unable to remove the political leader from power (as should be expected in a democracy) . In European republic systems the president as head of state doesn't run the country - that is the responsibility of the prime minister who can be booted out. In the UK we couldn't remove the Queen as head of state (other than by a coup!) but we could (and very nearly did recently with Gordon Brown) remove the PM because by being accoutable to his political party if the public don't like them, they don't like them and thus they can be removed or 'forced to resign' - see Margaret Thatcher for case in point. If the president in the US is both head of state and the political leader and is not accoutable to his party, how can he be removed from power? That is what I meant. I wasn't suggesting that the US is/was/could be an absolute dictatorship, however if the public have no way of removing a president outside of elections, it could be argued that you have democratically elected four year dictatorships - that was what I was saying --Daviessimo (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can agree to differ. However the condescending tone is rather silly and its a tad ironic that given that your 22 years old as well. You know no more about 'life' than me and just because you taking political science you're going to know more about politics than me (I could argue that my degree means more because I got it from the 76th best Uni in the world). Also whats with the 'you need to know history'. History has nothing to do with it. In fact as an American I would have thought you'd rather patch over your history what with unjust wars, racial segregation and the like. The simple fact is that people in Europe (myself included) don't buy the notion of the US being the free country it claims to be. --Daviessimo (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously I don't know why it is you are so angry:

(1) I make a 'tongue in cheek' comment about the American political system (Oh sorry I forgot the Americans have nothing but the highest regard for British politics and rule and it is never the focus of jokes)

(2) You take considerable offense and feel the need to push your viewpoint on me by leaving a mini lecture on my talk page

(2) I refused to take it so you become patroninsing and resorted to insults

(3) I call you a hypocrite because lets face any insult you aim at me applies equally at you (I may not know history or politics but do you know anything about the Earths angular momentum balance and its effect on global climatic systems?)

(4) You throw further insults and stereotype a whole nation and continent displaying definite signs of 'xenophobia'

Hmm I'm sure there is a joke about George Bush in there somewhere but I fear you may take it seriously. --Daviessimo (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not my fault you see satirical jokes as 'stupid ass comments' --Daviessimo (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

San Jose Earthquakes

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.