Talk:2018 Major League Soccer season

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J man708 (talk | contribs) at 09:23, 26 November 2018 (→overall table). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:23, 26 November 2018 by J man708 (talk | contribs) (→overall table)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2018 Major League Soccer season article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Football: American & Canadian / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

North America Low‑importance

	North America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Display issues

There are several issues with the way the information is currently displayed in the article. Firstly, he different yellows used in the conference tables are not distinguishable. Secondly, the text in the footnote of the overall table overlaps with the show/hide button.T v x1 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Which colour would you suggest be used in conference table?

I don't see the text overlap issue. Which browser and resolution are you viewing the page with? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe orange instead of different shade of yellow to denote the conference semi-finals spots would be better? As for the text overlap, see the screenshot on the right. I generally use Safari (version 11.1.2 currently) but it's identical in the other browsers I have installed (Firefox and Chrome). My current screen resolution is a whopping 2560x1440.T v x1 00:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

if your resolution is that high, I'll remind you that you don't have to push a window to the full width of the monitor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

overall table

@J man708:, we seem to be off to a bad start. Your first edit was unexplained. My response was to ask a question. I honestly didn't know what the issue was. When you claimed Its the league table, matching every other seasons article, you made a plainly inaccurate statement. The rest of the interaction was petty, but I didn't check before reverting because I didn't know what the issue was and you lied to put the article in a state you preferred. I'm sorry if I upset you. Feel free to make bold changes, but discuss if you get reverted, and not via snarky edit summaries, but on talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I lied to put the article in the state I preferred? A mistake doesn't equal a lie. I wrote "League table" which as you know, is used interchangeably with other season articles (which is what I believed the other articles used), I'll admit I was incorrect in my assumption as to that. My point is that calling the section the "Supporters' Shield" is completely wrong and that the edit I made changing it to "League table" shouldn't have been undone, rather just edited on top of. Undoing and sending alerts is needless, as is this conversation.
- J man708 (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right. A mistake does not equal a lie, but you claimed that that "every other seasons article" was this way and yet you didn't check either. So you made a false claim. If it was unintentional, I could understand. You complained that I didn't check (which I didn't) yet you made a statement that made it appear as though you checked and yet you didn't. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. I explained why it was reverted. Did you see why I did so? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't see why an undo was necessary, when a simple edit over the top of it would suffice. - J man708 (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Did your first edit have an edit summary? No.

Did I undo it because it was wrong or because I wasn't clear why the change was made? The latter.

Was your edit summary in the next edit (where an edit rather an a revert would have sufficed) accurate? You believed it to be accurate, but it was clearly wrong.

Assuming an editor knows that it was unintentional error, is it better to correct the error and let the misunderstanding continue unchecked or is it better to alert that editor somehow? It is always better to inform an editor of an error.

Since there was no clear understanding that it was an honest mistake, is it better to alert the editor or let them think they "got away" with something? It is always better to inform an editor of an error.

You were wrong at every step and there's very little justification for your behaviour, but you keep trying. I hope you understand this now. I don't actually expect an answer. If you do, don't expect anything further from me unless it's clearly ignorant and self-serving on your part. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Does every edit require a summary? No.

Does every edit on this page require your permission? No.

Did you assume I was putting the article how I preferred or that I was genuinely fixing up an edit that I believed to be wrong? In short, did you WP:AGF? No.

Did you acknowledge that where I knew I was in the wrong (being something technical, by having "League table" instead of "Overall table"), I admitted to it? No.

Did you acknowledge the point that I was actually bringing up, which is that an edit doesn't need to be undone if it has a small error, but can be simply fixed? Not really.

Walter, you're the boy who cried wolf. You're happy to edit war and then dob the other person in for doing what you've been doing, but you show that you believe yourself to be taking the high road by making the report against them (WP:BOOMERANG). Perhaps you'll find that people will be more willing to work alongside you if you fix your ways? Perhaps you'll also find that if you do fix your ways that "mysteriously" you'll be involved in less arguments on here.
Surely you're not the lowest common denominator here, are you? No! Not you! Never! - J man708 (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not about permission. I watch for vandals, who like you, make a mess of articles. I may have been a problem in some instances, but in this case, you are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandals? Hahaha! At least I'm here to make an encyclopedia, not like yourself who is evidently here to receive the world's longest blocklist. Do us all a favour? Hurry up and get permabanned. - J man708 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're here to make an encyclopedia start behaving more mature and use edit summaries. And stop lying, I don't have the world's longest blocklist. But considering I'm also in the top of contributors, some conflict is expected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

And if you're truly one of the self proclaimed "top contributors"... Sorry, I can't even type that with a straight face... If you are indeed a good contributor, then perhaps you'd learn that having a blocklist that long shows that "Hmmm... Perhaps I am the cause of some of my own issues around here!" And please, quit using this talk page to attempt to discredit me? That's one of the things a personal talk page should be used for. Perhaps a "top contributor" should know that? - J man708 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been a bit more clear: Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of edits I'm No. 137 on that list. That's what I mean by being a top contributor. I'm not using this page to discredit you, your reputation is clearly defined in your edit history. Nothing I write here will change that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

And what does my edit history proclaim? That I'm a bit of a WP:WikiGnome? Superb.

This isn't a one-up contest. Being 137th on the list doesn't mean shit when people don't respect you when you are frequently WP:Gaming the system. Besides, I could use Twinkle and Koavf myself to a ridiculous number of fake stats, too. I choose to contribute with a keyboard, rather than a mouseclick. That's how this encyclopedia was built. - J man708 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet you're treating this like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You clearly identified a discrepancy. Thanks for helping make this article better. I made it correct. The only winner is the article. In the future, I'll try to fix your mistakes without a revert so you're not alerted since that seems to offend you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Revert when necessary. A technical issue (ie. "League/Overall table") to fix the status quo? Just edit it and leave an edit summary if you deem necessary. I wouldn't have mentioned your editing practices if you hadn't mentioned mine first. To me, it seemed highly hypocritical of you, a person with a block log and a history of edit-warring as extensive as yours to bring this up to me. You still don't seem to understand this. I know I have my faults when it comes to Misplaced Pages and yes, I will try and place an edit summary in the future more often, however your previous history of edit-warring, gaming the system, prior arguments and willingness to drag this on to this ridiculous extent is something which certainly far outweighs what I've done... In short, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. - J man708 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking some blame in this. I'll let my 200,000 edits stand on their own merit too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Along with your blocklist? Hah. Be my guest. - J man708 (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and by additions to various admin boards. Ping me when you get to 200,000 edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

What does an edit count have to do with you being unable to take any form of criticism? - J man708 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Is that what this discussion was about? It seems I took the criticism you offered rather well. To answer the first half of your question, I mentioned edit count not as a badge or anything, but just as a way to say I think this discussion has gone very far off topic and is serving no useful purpose. I'll try not to be so opaque in the future. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Did you? Because you didn't acknowledge it, but instead kept mentioning how wrong I was and how I'm a horrible editor in relation to yourself? - J man708 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you're a horrible editor in relation to me, but I do believe that you bear some blame in the edit war that I (foolishly) continued. But yes, this discussion is no longer about the article, it's about you trying to justify yourself because you think I'm trying to vilify you. That's not what I'm trying to do. Conversely, I refuse to have you put all the blame on me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Am I trying to put all the blame on you, or did I already admit to having been incorrect on my initial edit? In the future, please assume good faith into others? We're really not all out to get you. I know you've dealt with a lot of edit warring in the past and the outcomes have been unfair, but you can't assume everyone is like this. - J man708 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It certainly felt like you're trying to put all the blame on me, along with implying that my block history was the longest in the world and now that I'm paranoid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Cleary you're too stubborn to see anything else but your own point of view. These are my points plain and simple. 1) I don't think you should've undone the edit, instead just fixing it up. You replied with a remark and then talked about edit counts for some reason. 2) I suggested that you curve your behaviour as you're known to edit war. You replied with "I'm one of the top contributors". 3) I have admitted fault in the initial matter. You refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK to the point where this is still going on, some 7 hours later. 4) Any form of criticism (and I have tried to give it constructively at times and been forceful at others) doesn't seem to get through your head. If you can't acknowledge these, then please stop responding, as you're clearly too stubborn to function like a regular human being. If you can acknowledge these points, perhaps learn from it and realise that this has become a 7 hour long discussion which has already been rectified. Jesus fucking Christ dude, drop the fucking stick. - J man708 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I do see your point of view. In fact, seeing all sides of a debate is one of my strong points. I do understand your concern, but I haven't been discussing you for a while. This is the first reply in many where I address you. You could easily drop the stick as well, but you're treating this like a battleground: you have to win. 1) I should have undone the edit because it was unexplained. Plain and simple. It was also wrong. 2) An edit war takes two editors. To avoid an edit war WP:BRD. Who started the discussion? I did. 3) You have not admitted fault unless point three is the acceptance. Show me the diff and I'll strike this comment. You're still going seven hours later. 4) I have accepted constructive criticism many times and I have learned from your comments, but not what you think I should be learning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Your answer seems to be very much "I know you are, but what am I?". You're clearly incorrigible at this point. Best of luck in the future. - J man708 (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking that about your responses all along. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, dude. WP:DROPTHESTICK already! - J man708 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I am neither Jesus, nor the one who needs to drop the stick, but feel free to take your own advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this childishness really how a "top contributor" should be acting? - J man708 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. When I use the term top, it means I have made more edits than most others. You're using the term to imply "one of the best" or "most impressive". So, yes, to get my edit count up to stay at the top, this is how I should be acting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you still going? You're now talking about rhetoric? We've gotten past the original issue. Drop the damn stick, the horse died a long time ago. - J man708 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Before you ask me such childish questions, ask them of yourself first. The exact same questions and answers can come from you. Why are you still going? What pissing contest are you trying to win (see BATTLEGROUND above)? I have no need to stop, so you can stop being a META:DICK and telling me to do something that you won't do yourself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"I have no need to stop". I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Nothing is accomplished from that.

Walter, you started this discussion by bringing it to the talk page. I answered. You're clearly not happy with my answer. That's fine. Either way, please move on. - J man708 (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You were not happy with my behaviour and kept pushing that point. Nothing is accomplished by pouting and acting childish because I was trying to alert you to your errors. And I didn't start the discussion, you did by making two f-ed up edits. I actually followed WP:BRD. Please move on yourself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

So I started this conversation by bringing this to the talk page? You are deluded. - J man708 (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No. You started it by edit warring and using edit summaries to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I was edit warring? Really? Go report me then, WG. - J man708 (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

we were both edit warring, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

And what do you honestly believe should be the outcome of this? What would you most like to happen from this? - J man708 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

For you to admit that I wasn't doing something wrong by fixing your edits using a revert.

For you to admit that your changes were not what they claimed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you finding the need to revert the edit. My reasons are as follows - You know as well as I do that "League table" and "Overall table" are interchangeable in most articles. This is clearly extremely different from "Supporters' Shield Overall table" which is something that it has never been called on here. I feel that a simple edit were to suffice, as opposed to a revert. A revert generally comes across as a "Fuck you, you're completely wrong", regardless of how others intend this action to be taken. Yes, I made a mistake with my original edit by placing the aforementioned words "League table" wherein it's actually "Overall table" that is used. If this is necessary to apologise for and that's what this has all been about, then you've clearly missed me admitting fault in this several times now.

You've mentioned what you believe I should do from this, but what do you believe should happen to you, being unbiased and considering your known history of edit warring?
- J man708 (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have missed you a apologizing, and have asked you to show me the diff where it happened, so I will ask you to use the {{diff}} template or just link to it. My edits were minor changes (although not marked as such) so nothing should happen to me (or you) for the edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

My first response "I'll admit I was incorrect in my assumption as to that." - J man708 (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. You equate admitting to an error is your way of apologizing. I suppose that's as much as I can expect. That addresses the second point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you see any errors to admit to yourself? - J man708 (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I have and I have admitted to several. You have not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm at 136 now. Keep it up! Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, my first response admits to it being a mistake. - J man708 (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW - That is literally the definition of apologise. To admit or express regret to something one has done wrong. As for calling me a sociopath, that's a direct personal attack. - J man708 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

You did admit to it. You did not express regret. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I very much regret it, as it has turned this into a total farce. - J man708 (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The fallacy of equivocation yet again. You don't regret the action but what it led to. BTW, you still are ignoring your own advice and dropping the stick. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Because again, as I said earlier, you started this conversation by bringing it to the talk page, so I'm responding to each of your comments. - J man708 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You started the conversation by reverting. You don't need to keep responding because I will respond to every inaccuracy you provide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Then that's an edit, not a conversation. - J man708 (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

And that's the problem. You don't see that edit summaries (or lack thereof) are conversations.

The fact that you don't generally use them (even though you read them, which is evidenced from the fact that my fist revert commented that the reason for the revert was because you didn't explain why you made the first change, I caught you in an error when you made the second, and you misread my musings about your psychological state) supports that claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Conversation - A talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged. - J man708 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

And that's what was happening with the edit summaries. Yes, I started here, but you started the edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not a conversation then, then please let's end the conversation here and you can feel free to end the edits elsewhere. This conversation has gone on far too long. - J man708 (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories: