| Revision as of 07:47, 19 April 2009 editGrant.Alpaugh (talk | contribs)7,714 edits →WPS: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:01, 23 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (138 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Please feel free to leave me a message here and I will respond to it ASAP. Have a good one.<br> | Please feel free to leave me a message here and I will respond to it ASAP. Have a good one.<br />-- ''']]]''' 18:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| -- ''']]]''' 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Notice of discussion == | ||
| 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 <removed>. Best, Danny. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --] (]) 04:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent WEllington Phoenix FC to Wellington Phoenix == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The clubs name is actually Wellington Phoenix FC. You'll see this on their logo, and you'll also see it on the website (http://www.wellingtonphoenix.com/ - the writing under the nav clearly says Wellington Phoenix FC) ] (]) 09:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Perth Glory F.C. == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692054221 --> | |||
| == Invite to the African Destubathon == | |||
| Just a friendly note on the ] speedy deletion / move. I declined the speedy because given the number of times you and ] have reverted each other in the last couple of days, this ''is'' a controversial deletion / move. If you two can't work something out between you, I suggest you take it to ] for consensus.--] | ] 23:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. You may be interested in participating in the ''']''' which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --] (]) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Replying to your post at ]: when you and another editor are running up against 3RR over whether the redirect should stay as is, it certainly seems to others that you are not in accord. As I said above, either work it out between you or take it to RfD.--] | ] 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao@enwiki using the list at //en.wikipedia.org/Category:WikiProject_Football_members --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Hey == | |||
| Hi. We're into the last five days of the ]. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! | |||
| I just want to present an olive branch- I have no problem admitting that I don't know much on Misplaced Pages but I am also not completely new to website/coding/or sports editing. If you have some opinions on how to improve my KCW articles I welcome the input and by all means have at them. I probably can't see the forest from the trees on my own articles a lot of the time but I've spent a lot of time recently researching the project pages from a lot of different sources, I feel view myself as a bit of a creator and view you as more of an editor- I think we can work together like that. Hope you have a good day and I hope we can improve this little area. ] (]) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WiR_list_1&oldid=812113281 --> | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| == Don't tell me what I think == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] <sup><span style="font-variant:small-caps">(] • ])</span></sup> 21:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| You just errantly pointed out that I'm "]" which I am not (not yet anyway). I've never watched soccer on TV beyond a few World Cup games every 4 years and am only interested now because I decided to buy season tickets to the Sounders FC this year and am enjoying their success. Their first home game was the first match I've ever attended in person. Furthermore, I've never played soccer competitively or for recreation in my life. I played (American) football in high school. Despite what you're telling me I think, my opinions are driven by a desire to do the right thing<sup>TM</sup> on Misplaced Pages and not by some misunderstanding, misconception, or other outside interest. | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] <sup><span style="font-variant:small-caps">(] • ])</span></sup> 14:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Please don't confuse the feedback I'm about to give as incivility. Consider it more of ]... | |||
| :You make a lot of important contributions to many MLS articles which is a great thing. Don't let this productivity turn you into a ] where you think that your history in some way empowers you to have a more important opinion that someone else. As you've probably noticed with some of my edits, I've researched a lot of the previous discussions around MLS related articles to make sure that I don't do something against consensus. In reading those discussions, I've seen you participate vigorously in a number of them. In many of them you've brought up disparate points to back what you've already determined is the proper conclusion and people have called you out on it. You really need to do a better job listening in these types of discussions rather than trying to further prove your own point from a different angle every time you talk. | |||
| :In the interest of not ], I've decided to walk away and let you win if that's how it turns out. I deemed the entire discussion petty after my second post and decided I would have at most one more post before I walked away. I've seen the discussions you previously engaged in and was not about to go down that road. It's just not that important to me. | |||
| Anyway, sorry if any of the above offended you. It's meant as honest feedback and not a personal attack. I hope to cross paths with you many times again in the future. Hopefully we'll be in agreement more often than we disagree. Either way, I'm glad you're here.--]<sup>'']''</sup> 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == WPS == | |||
| Hey, edit summary was needlessly hostile. You essentially accused him of using the wrong abbreviation on purpose, which was probably not the case. Just try and be a little less aggressive when it comes to issues like that. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 04:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You misunderstood. I was talking about two seperate issues. They made a similar correction to the abbreviations, and I was following suit so we are in line with WPS abbreviations. The I'm referring to is the Away-Home format, which I also corrected in the edit. American sports articles on WP use a standard format of Away-Home, W-L-T, and so do American soccer articles. They are trying to change that, and this has been beaten to death ] and a number of other places. One person on one article can't change that unilaterally. -- ''']]]''' 04:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Who is they? All articles are self-contained, what happens at one has nothing to do with another. CyMoahk had nothing to do with anything on the MLS season and it's inappropriate for you to take it out on him. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 05:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::They is CyMoahk. We've been having this discussion for over a month now. Please refrain from talking about things you know nothing about. -- ''']]]''' 07:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Use of standings templates in MLS season article == | |||
| Why don't we try to discuss this civilly ourselves instead of having it out in open court. If you and I can reach some consensus, that would help the main discussion a lot. I've copied below the last two posts from the discussion I engaged in with you while you were blocked. Can we pick up where we left off? --]<sup>'']''</sup>|<sub>'']''</sub> 05:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for finally debating the merits of the arguments. I apologize for my tone earlier, but you can imagine how frustrating it is doing something one way for three years, and then mid-season changing things to suit the wishes of people who have never been involved in the American soccer articles, especially since you are so open about your newness to the game. | |||
| #In baseball articles the template is 5 or 6 teams long, in MLS there is a conference standing and a full table standing. Together they are much to long, especially when the information is already detailed in another template. Pick one or the other. | |||
| #Keeping information accurate was much easier when everything was updatable through one click of the mouse. Editing the whole article also kept the page from having 16 different versions during matchdays. Since you have yet to establish why these templates need to be in the club season articles to begin with, I don't think that those alleged benefits outweigh the costs to those who actually update the main article. | |||
| #Apparently you haven't tried hard enough, because the overall standings template is now sortable (something that wasn't previously in the table, and is unnecessary as it causes umpteen accessability problems). Additionally, the conference standings templates no longer have the same look as the overall template, which makes them look sloppy and poorly designed. There is no reason why the templates shouldn't simply be copy-and-pastes of the two tables before all of this happened. | |||
| #Why should the changes you want have to be implimented '''before''' there is strong consensus for them? Shouldn't the fact that the articles were a certain way for several years without objection give that format weight? I wouldn't go to the Premier League article and change the standings template in use all season, and then expect my changes to stand while the discussion about them carrys on. Why should that happen here?If you could try to format your points like I did in future posts, it would make things easier to follow. Also, now that I am unblocked, I plan to copy most of this to the main discussion. -- ''']]]''' 01:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Formatted as you requested: | |||
| :#What other template is the information already detailed in? Honestly given your recent "washing of the hands" I can't understand why this is so important to you still. I think having the standing in the team season articles is useful, notable and informative and I haven't "washed my hands" yet. | |||
| :#I think your sorely exaggerating it when you say "16 different versions". Honestly, if you're right and it's really that difficult, why don't you just let it happen and then you can say "I told you so" when it turns out to be harder than any of the other editors expected. I think you'd get equal satisfaction out of that as you are now of belaboring this point. | |||
| :#Can we discuss whether the overall standings template should be sortable separately. It's irrelevant to the template discussion. The conference standings were ''exactly'' as they were in the article when I created them. The had recently changed to remove some of the coloring, but I copied them exactly. I agree that they should be exactly the same as they were in the article before we made the transition to templates. From there they can "grow and change" as they would have in the article. Don't pollute the template discussion with nit-picking these differences. | |||
| :#Based on that comment I suspect that as soon as an admin fixes your block correctly, you plan to revert everything again. Let me suggest that you don't do that (but I'm sure you'll do whatever you want). Regardless, for the purposes of this conversation it really doesn't matter what the state of the article is while it's going on. I know you want to keep screaming "it's not fair, it's not fair," but my response is "it doesn't matter" for the discussion. It's not a valid point because it can change at any minute. It's just a gripe. | |||
| :So if I understand everything, #1 and #2 seem to be the real sticking points for you. Fair? --]<sup>'']''</sup>|<sub>'']''</sub> 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, but can we first agree that someone (preferably you) should edit the conference standings templates to use colors like they did before, and make the overall standings template unsortable, like it was before? That would preserve the look of the article, while keeping things templated. I think that would be a fair compromise that would show good faith for the discussion to come. Deal? -- ''']]]''' 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've removed the sorting from the overall standings template. It turns out that putting back the colors on the conference standings template is complicated. I would have to create a 4th template with the color legend in order to get it ''exactly'' as it was before. But I have to ask myself what value the colors actually provided. a link to one of the last iterations before the templates were put back in. All of the colors have the same meaning. Why 4 colors? It was weird before and it's still weird now. Can we agree that we'll figure out a way to sort the conference tables out after this discussion has concluded? I've done half of what you requested in good faith. The other half isn't a simple revert though. I would appreciate it if we could ignore the conference table playoff indicator debate for the time being. Fair? --]<sup>'']''</sup>|<sub>'']''</sub> 06:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You could split the legend up into two sections, one half at the bottom of each template. They mean different things, one is for automatic berths, the other is for wildcard berths. It shows the difference between the two conferences' playoff contingents, and was completely uncontroversial for the last two seasons. This was never discussed, and the change was made unilaterally by one editor. I would appreciate the article remaining as it was, except for templates, which is the real issue of contention here. That would be fair. -- ''']]]''' 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Alright, I've put back the colors in the conference tables. They're not exactly as they were when they became templates because I also added "(Wild Card)" to the legend to address the problem I just explained. Okay, now I've provided you with an olive branch to start with. Don't abuse my trust (since I seem to be the only one willing to give it to you any more). --]<sup>'']''</sup>|<sub>'']''</sub> 07:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I really appreciate the attempt at working through this. Everything is as it was before, and I appreciate that wholeheartedly. It is 3 AM here, though, and I'm exhausted. Can we continue this tomorrow? | |||
| == Personal attacks == | |||
| If you had been following MLS for more than the last week, you would see that the number of teams from each conference making the playoffs changes from week to week. Eliminating the colors from the Conference standings eliminates valuable information. Furthermore, it takes away from the unifying look of the two sets of tables, as now they are using different formats. Just because '''''you''''' don't understand something, doesn't mean it is bad. It is clear from your attempts to edit the intro blurb that you fundamentally misunderstand MLS as a competition, which is fine, but that probably means you should leave the editing and formatting the standings to others. Changing the format mid-season is even more problematic. You made these changes unilaterally. All discussion on the talk page was about the question of whether or not to move to templates, not on changing the formats. Please address these issues somewhere in discussion, so that we can move on to whether or not to use templates. Also, the way you have been going around telling everyone who will listen that Spydy13 and I are sockpuppets is rather immature, don't you think? You're not doing anything but ], which is problematic. Spydy13 and I haven't been proven to be guilty of anything, and the way our block was steamrolled through (a move the blocking admin now regrets) is not unsimilar to the manner this whole discussion has proceeded, which is also unfortunate. You also seem to misunderstand that my brother and I can be living in the same house, have multiple computers, and still have the same IP because of our internet provider. I guess my point is that you should do a little less talking about things which you obviously know very little about. -- ''']]]''' 05:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Please don't make personal attacks again. I removed the colors for the '''conference''' table for exactly that reason, that only the top 2 are guaranteed. I don't care how much more you think you know, you're behavior the past week is unacceptable. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :If my edits (the few I made) were without consensus, wouldn't someone have removed them? ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 05:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I did. I got blocked for edit warring on a different issue, and the templates were made based on the ones in place at the time. SkotyWA didn't realize my objection to the lack of colors, and agrees that the templates should have been exactly the same as before. You made your edit because you didn't understand the difference between automatic and wild card berths, but if you had been following the article for more than a week you would have seen the conference standings in flux. Look at ] and ] and you will see that the Eastern Conference got 5 teams in both years. It just so happened that when you stumbled into the article it was 4 and 4 and you assumed that there were 4 colors representing the same thing. Again, just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it is bad. -- ''']]]''' 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your behavior, just as you have done mine. You have been just as abrasive and provocative as I have, and to a lot more people on a lot more talk pages. You spread unfounded allegations as though they were fact, and that doesn't even address the fact that your actions in editing the article (just like mine) were entirely without consensus. Can we agree that we should both have acted more maturely? Can you attempt to address my arguments? -- ''']]]''' 05:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, I knew it was just the first two...obvious when I made the line and reworded the lead. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 06:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::When you first made the change it was under the fourth. You don't know what you're talking about. -- ''']]]''' 06:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Also, I can do what I'd like on my page, just like you can here. If you want to remove all these messages fine, but I would rather keep a conversation in one place. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 06:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit war report == | |||
| Sorry Grant, but I've been contemplating this a long time and though I'm generally very trusting, I'm really getting tired of all the back-and-forth on the 2009 WPS season article, and the more I read about revert policies and about the other trouble you've gotten in to, I can no longer think you're servicing Misplaced Pages well with your stubbornness and tendency to quickly change whatever you don't like, even when you're in the minority (and it's not just me saying that, I've read all the comments above on your talk page). I also notice you've broken you earlier promise of "I will continue to revert poor grammar and unfactual things, but I will not edit war" with all the changes you've made on the 2009 WPS season article. So ] another edit war report. ] (]) 06:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As per your comments on my report, | |||
| :*If you read up on Edits Wars, they are not limited to 24hr periods. | |||
| :*It was not OR. I gave the source I used, and anyone else could verify or correct the information I put up by looking at that source. I have incredible trouble believing you even read some of the things I said in the discussion page since I quoted the part of the OR article that supported my claim ''and'' another editor supported me as well. | |||
| :*I try to not revert (unless I have new evidence/support) since I don't want to be the one accused of edit warring; trust me, I would be reverting your things more often if I wasn't so paranoid. And your edits are ''not'' uncontested, based on the comments of three other users supporting me on the talk page. | |||
| :*I wasn't opposing your SB->SJ switch, btw, good catch on that one; I hadn't realized WPS did that since it wasn't on the old site, which was up until just two days ago. | |||
| :I will admit I'm always wary of rules, and thus scared of misunderstanding policy. However, I've read plenty enough to be pretty sure I know what I'm doing. ] (]) 06:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you understand that every American sports article uses the Away-Home, W-L-T format? There is no reason to confuse WP users by doing something different. Look at that MLS discussion, and you'll see why the consensus was what it was. As for the stats, the random trivia ones weren't sourced like the Premier League ones were, so there's no need to re-include them until they are sourced. As for the other tables, why shouldn't we use the one page summary WPS reports? I don't want to edit war over this either, but I think you should better understand established WP practice before continuing this discussion. -- ''']]]''' 06:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Dude, are you crazy Grant? You've been given a ''0RR'' warning ] and yet you still continue to revert. Seriously, knock it off. You have good ideas and often contribute value, but you've also got a serious problem following rules and being nice to people. It would be a shame if your actions caused you to be blocked indefinitely. I know you think you're the victim here, but honestly, you're the cause of most of your frustration. Okay, I'm butting out now. --]<sup>'']''</sup>|<sub>'']''</sub> 07:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:01, 23 February 2023
Please feel free to leave me a message here and I will respond to it ASAP. Have a good one.
-- Grant.Alpaugh 18:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Notice of discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Talk:2012 Major League Soccer season regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Invite to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Nomination for deletion of Template:16TeamBracket-2legs-except final
Template:16TeamBracket-2legs-except final has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pbrks 21:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:32TeamBracket-2legs-except final
Template:32TeamBracket-2legs-except final has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pbrks 14:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)