Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:18, 1 October 2007

Cheating

I think the patriots cheating needs to be discussed, its pretty important to not only their season, but the Whole NFL.-- 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is preventing anyone from adding that information, provided it's fully sourced and is written from a NPOV. But it's difficult to source anything at this point, since everything is speculation -- the NFL hasn't said anything officially. Pats1 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with posting what the media has said. That is the story.►Chris Nelson 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Section heading

The investigation was about "illegal videotaping." I can't see how you can argue this. Honestly, this is ridiculous. Spying has much broader, negative connotation connected to it and suggests more than what actually happened. Pats1 /C 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"The investigation was about 'spying.' I can't see how you can argue this." They weren't being investigated because they were "illegally videotaping" the Jets. They were being investigated because they were spying on the other team and stealing their signals. Videotaping is just the method they used, but spying is the offense. Ksy92003(talk) 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really feel too strongly on the subject and I have no plans to edit anything related to this again. I agree with Pats1's argument here, and I disagree with Ksy92003 in saying videotaping was just the method. That is not true. The specific rule they broke WAS for videotaping, it is a more specific and totally accurate so it really can't be argued.►Chris Nelson 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you agree with Pats, then why did you revert him? You said "the investigation was about spying, there is no POV issue there." Pick a side, dude. You say one thing, and now, you say something else. You are completely untrustworthy because you always lie (and don't go saying that I made a personal attack in saying that you can't be trusted and are a liar; that's simply what you appear to be). Ksy92003(talk) 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Stop. You're trying to start stuff and I don't want to see this happen again. Chris stated his opinion, deal with it. Pats1 /C 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start anything. Chris' comment here is contradictory to one he gave earlier. And to me, Pats1, I just think you're upset at me because Chris agreed with you and I'm trying to figure something out. Keep out of it. Let Chris speak for himself. Ksy92003(talk) 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm upset with you because you, totally unprovoked, tried to launch this thing into a whole situation we all know far too well. There was no need for that "you always lie" comment and you know it. This situation was kept, as it should, on a content-only level until that. Realize when to keep it that way (always, preferably). Pats1 /C 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter if I speak for myself, considering I'm an untrustworthy liar? Pats1 is right. I felt one way, but after reading what Pats1 said on the subject here, I was swayed. Grow up, man.►Chris Nelson 22:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How am I the problem here. I don't see anything wrong at all with what I did. I don't really care if you're upset with me, Pats1, because I know I didn't do anything wrong. Anybody else would've wondered the same thing I did, why Chris reverted you saying one thing and all of a sudden changed his opinion.

And you, Chris. You continue with the personal attacks with the "grow up, man" comment; I didn't feel that was supposed to be used in a kind way. I highly suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to learn how not to offend other people. Ksy92003(talk) 22:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, hypocrisy reigns. Who was the first one to blatantly disregard WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in this discussion again? Pats1 /C 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with this. I gave my opinion, I was attacked for it, and I have nothing more to say. Sorry Pats1, I hope you understand that this is just not a big enough issue for me to endure this crap.►Chris Nelson 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I never violated those. I said "that's simply what you 'appear' to be." Giving my opinion isn't making a personal attack, is it? And others feel he is a liar because he made a pledge to follow a topic ban, saying that he wouldn't edit other football articles, and as soon as he said that, he edited football articles. There is proof that Chris isn't a man of his word. Ask Durova (talk · contribs) if you must, although she might not answer because she's "fed up" with Chris and this whole situation. Ksy92003(talk) 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In the words of Glenn Ordway, "you're making my point!" What the hell does any of this have to do with a heading in this article? Stop bringing outside, irrelevant gripes into this discussion just to start something. Get back to the topic at hand. Pats1 /C 00:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't begin this. You did. I made a simple point about Chris' opinion. You lashed out at me, saying "Enough," Stop," and "Deal with it." I defended myself. You say "I'm upset with you because you, totally unprovoked, tried to launch this thing into a whole situation we all know far too well." I didn't do a thing. This whole conversation which has veered off course resulted because you provoked me. I asked Chris a simple question about why he was saying something different now as opposed to earlier today, and you lash out at me. You tell me to "get back to the topic at hand" when you're the one who began bringing the conversation off course.

I didn't do a thing wrong here, and you were the first to make a comment not related to the topic, so I haven't a clue why you're directing all the blame at me. Maybe it's because you and Chris are very good buddies and always side with each other and you want to defend him by making false accusations towards me, or at least that's what it seems like to me. Ksy92003(talk) 01:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Twenty bucks you could not find an admin to agree with anything you've said here lately. Any reasonable admin (or person, really) would say you're the one in the wrong here. You're delusions are incomprehensible.►Chris Nelson 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As Sasha Callahan, an admin, reverts ksy's latest edit on this page... Pats1 /C 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but where did you get the impression im an admin? Sasha Callahan 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure. I was thinking of Alison for a minute. Pats1 /C 02:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it as a compliment. Sasha Callahan 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, Chris? What can't I find any admin to agree with?

And if I am "in the wrong" here, I ask you to please tell me how, because I don't have a clue. Ksy92003(talk) 04:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris... Ksy92003(talk) 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Spygate

Not gonna happen. Now you're just going backwards. A fake word used by some in the media is clearly NOT the best choice for this section. Give it a rest.►Chris Nelson 11:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Search for "Patriots Spygate" on Google or Google News, and you'll find plenty of results on it. If it's not going to be the section title, then "Spygate" should atlest be in the text somehwere, since it would helpful if someone was searching on it. An alternative (to the section title) would be to mention somewhere that the controvery was "dubbed spygate" or something. Bjewiki 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in no way official and there are plenty of other things it should be called. It has no place here.►Chris Nelson 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. It appears that, without making too much of an assumption here, ksy is going backwards in a WP:POINT kind of way. Spygate (or Videogate or Cameragate or whatever) is just a sensationalized media title. It's in no way encyclopedic or as widely recognized as Watergate (which, of course, is an actual name and not just a media portmanteau'd attention-grabber). But I can't see at all how "Spygate" is an acceptable heading for this section. Pats1 /C 20:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just forget it. Chris, you at first agreed with me, but then flip-flopped for no reason. Obviously, you're not gonna agree with me on anything because you and Pats1 always side with each other, so there isn't any point in discussing this anymore. I give up. Just keep it the way it is.

But Chris, I would still like an answer to the questions I posted in the above question. Ksy92003(talk) 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind because Pats1 made a good argument and the more I thought about it the more I felt he was right on the issue. I'm sorry if you are incapable of believing I just changed my mind because of the topic itself, and not because any stupid allegiance to Pats1 and/or any bad feelings toward you.

I'm not answering your questions above because I'm not wasting any more time on the issue. Basically, everything you claim here is wrong so that is my answer. You drove the discussion off-topic, you made it personal without reason, you made personal attacks, and you're the one behaving like a child. Everyone else would see it exactly the same way, so the problem here is with you and not myself.►Chris Nelson 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not drive the discussion off-topic. Pats1 did in the way that he replied to my comment, which was a perfectly valid comment and perfectly related to the topic, and I defended myself, and it branched off from there. Ksy92003(talk) 21:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you fucking blind? Here are the first four comments in this discussion:

The investigation was about "illegal videotaping." I can't see how you can argue this. Honestly, this is ridiculous. Spying has much broader, negative connotation connected to it and suggests more than what actually happened. Pats1 /C 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class National Football League articles
• Unknown-importance National Football League articles
• WikiProject National Football League articles
• Unassessed National Football League articles