Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PAVA11 (talk | contribs) at 18:18, 16 April 2009 (→Blocked: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

WL

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

WL

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

Manchester United/Europa League

I don't want to get into an edit war over this, however, the other users agreed that the note was the best temporary solution, with no arguments against. It offers "very useful info to people to who aren't too in the know about these things, without being factually incorrect." (quote from Aheyfromhome). Why you feel the need to remove the note should be discussed first. Thanks --Eastlygod (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

MLS Transfers

WAT UP,

I think the MLS Transfers need to be listed properley, which obviously includes alphabatizing and sortability because I've reported a few European transfers and that's how they did it, so that's the reason why I would do it that way on the MLS transfer list. – Michael (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any differences between FC and F.C. FC still means football club, so I don't see putting the full name, Wellington FC on there or Carolina FC. As I said, there's pretty much no difference between FC and F.C., we need to discuss this on WT:FOOTY. – Michael (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, I don't got time for this, you gotta trust me on this part. You know how hard it is to put alot of transfers down and then fight over it? Eduardo Lillingston is who we're talking about right? Ya see Fox Sports has the club name down as Tecos, so I'd rather have the name down on the list as either UAG, Tecos, or Tecos UAG. I don't want the long name because I just want to avoid line breaks, can you please just do me a favor and not do that? – Michael (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2009 (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) CipherPixel (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perth Glory F.C.

Just a friendly note on the Perth Glory F.C. speedy deletion / move. I declined the speedy because given the number of times you and Timsdad 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion for consensus.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Replying to your post at User_talk:Fabrictramp#Perth_Glory: 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.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 WPS Season

....wow.... Come in and delete half the article, why don'cha? o.O A bit extreme I think, but kudos on the general cleanup for what you did keep. Those sections look much nicer now. =-) CyMoahk (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was browsing through conflict resolution stuff (since apparently we might need it), and I realized with my edit earlier this morning we just hit our limit on the 3RR. Technically, you can revert again once the 24hr period is up, which is only a few hours away, but I hope we won't go there; I think we're both more reasonable than that, right? =-) CyMoahk (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Portland Timbers

I know you have major ownership issues on MLS articles, but seriously, the freaking owner of the team said the name of the team will be Portland Timbers. There is no wiggle room in that. If you have a problem with that, please feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Portland Timbers (MLS)#Team name. Thanks! --Bobblehead 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I do a lot of work on MLS articles doesn't mean that I think I own them. There's never been a single instance where I've justified a controversial edit with some form of "Because I said so, and I own the article," and throwing that accusation around is a violation of WP:NPA. The simple fact is that while Timbers will surely be part of the new team's name, the new team's name has not been officially announced. Look at the fact that the Seattle Sounders became Seattle Sounders FC, and Vancouver Whitecaps FC have changed many times over the last few years between Vancouver Whitecaps, Whitecaps FC, and Vancouver Whitecaps FC. It is simply speculation to say anything else right now. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Consolidating here. I have your talk page on my watch list. Take a look at Talk:Major League Soccer and say that again. I'm not the only one noticing your ownership issues on MLS articles. Your work on the MLS article is much appreciated, but it does not give you any more say on the articles than anyone else, especially when things are verifiable. The Sounders and Whitecaps are completely different issues. In both cases the ownership group made it clear that the name of the team was up in the air. However, every source that mentions the Timbers expansion also mentions that the team will retain the name. There is no mention that it will "retain some form of the name". Find a source, then we can discuss if the article should be moved to Major League Soccer Portland 2011. --Bobblehead 23:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of ownership =/= ownership issues. After clarifying the meaning of that accusation, not one person has stuck with it, and I think you should reevaluate your accusation as well. I'm not saying that I have more say than anyone else, either. I'm saying that you are vastly misunderstanding what was said in the announcement today. Nowhere in the press conference did Paulson say "The team will be called the Portland Timbers." The release said that the "The Portland MLS team will retain the storied Timbers name." You could say that about the MLS team in Seattle and the USL-1 team in Vancouver. Yet both of these franchises have changed names from the NASL days to now. The article only refers to the "Portland Timbers" when referring to the NASL and USL-1 teams. Seattle Sounders FC has the nickname of "the Sounders" too, but it has a different name from the previous incarnation. You are overestimating the "officiality" of the announcement. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, the format is "(city) MLS 2011," not "MLS (city) 2011". So could we please move that to Portland Major League Soccer 2011? Tom Danson (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC season 2009

Hi Grant, wanted to toss ya an invitation to join the discussion here regarding the Seattle Sounders FC season 2009 article name. Cheers. ← George 08:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Premier league

I let a little question here Talk:Premier League 2009–10. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

MLS 2009 Season Attendance

I understand that MLS is not the most reliable in terms of it's attendance but removing my addition without discussion might be a bit far reaching- Those stats came directly from MLS and their website, as do most all the other information included within the article, should we remove it all at a whim? Should we go remove all attendance data from MLS team articles under the same thinking? I think I will revert it back into being includedMorry32 (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2009 Major League Soccer season. 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. Grsz 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Losing finalists of cup competition in Europa League

Please cite an official source that the losing finalists will not have a route which retrieve after Saturday 20 December 2008 please. Otherwise, the information "Losing finalists will still be available" is the final decision by the UEFA. Thank you. Raymond Giggs 09:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The latest decision by the UEFA is according to here. Raymond Giggs 09:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Before talking in topic, I must tell you that "FA Cup winner" does not make sense. The word "winners" must be plural. Please check for the dictionary if you oppose that. Okay, whatever, the losing finalists of FA Cup will get the Europa League spot if the winners qualified for Champions League. If the FA Cup winners finish fifth, then the FA Cup winners are considered in the first spot of Europa League, that makes losing finalists cannot get the Europa League spot, which goes to the sixth-placed team. So the sixth-placed team can get the Europa League spot only when the winners finish fifth, otherwise the spot will go to the losing finalists. Raymond Giggs 10:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Xerez CD

• why are you so heavy?? Is the last time that I repeat. neither spanish and german football clubs use points in her name, english and italian yes, if you wants redirect many clubs, begins with other leagues, the spanish and german clubs dont carry points. Greeting. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

what says? I dont understand, my level of english is poor, jaja, and your level of spanish?? you wants that I report to administrator? Do you like english and italian football?, then, get to edite english teams. un greeting, yankilandia. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey

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. Morry32 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

reply

Dozenth? This is the only time you told me. – Michael (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall PeeJay telling me that, except back in August. – Michael (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I know man, I'm doing everything I can to get it right. – Michael (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I think

You just errantly pointed out that I'm "obviously a fan of European football" 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 on Misplaced Pages and not by some misunderstanding, misconception, or other outside interest.

Please don't confuse the feedback I'm about to give as incivility. Consider it more of calling a spade a spade...

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 diva 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 beating another dead horse, 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.--Skotywa 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Championship

Consensus was not reached regarding to treating CSA sanctioned tournaments the same as USSF sanctioned tournaments. Consensus is an agreement. Also, after leaving the article alone since last year its frustrating that you find the need to bring up this issue again. Here is the link to this years tournament on the official site. http://www.canadasoccer.com/tourney/FIFA_Clubs/national.asp notice how they have the home team first. The website does not appear to have the 2008 tournament archived but I assure you that they presented the stats as W-D-L format. So it would be appreciated if you revert the page to W-D-L format, with home team listed first in accordance with the way that the governing body that sanctions the tournament does so. I should not have to take the time to revert your incorrect edit so fix it. NeilCanada (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also, note that on Misplaced Pages:Consensus, it states that "Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.". I disagree with the idea of there being the same rules for Canadian Soccer articles as there are for American soccer articles. Yes I concede the fact that all (three) of the professional teams in Canada use WLT format for their refular season, but this is only because they are in American leagues. The Canadian Championship is different and should be treated as such. Many people in the whole debate about WLT vs WDL on the 2008 MLS season page brought up the idea of using the format of the governing body of the league. If you take this as a valid understanding of the argument then along those lines you should see that any CSA sanctioned tournament (which the Canadian Championship is) should be treated with the rules that the CSA treats it, as home team first and WDL. Now, about your using the term consensus when justifying your edit. First, if you read the wk:consensus page you'll see thats not a valid argument, and second there was no consensus reached for two reasons. First reason, there was no agreement, just certain people submitting to others, and second and most importantly the consensus you refer to was about a different issue and therefore would not apply here. You can not say that because you reached an agreement on sport in USA that it automaticallu applies to sport in Canada. Something else that I found interesting from the wiki consensus page was the point about silence implying consensus. The article remained in WDL, home team first format from June 2008 until your recent changes, this would seem to indicate that there none of the users that used it felt it warranted a change. Also, there is any argument about using WLT because thats what is used in the place where the tournament occurs, then it should be noted that of the users that have edited the article since June 2008 and did not find the need to change the home/away and WDL format (only counting ones who listed where they were from) the majority were Canadian, implying that the people from the place where the tournament is played didn't disagree with the formatting. I see that you've sent me a message, I just thought I would finish writing this before reading it. NeilCanada (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed on editing WPS page

I have noted that you are a major editor of the MLS page, so I'd like to ask your advice. I'm new to editing Wiki, but I'd like to start on the WPS page and it would seem to be a good idea if it were very reflective of the MLS page. My question is would it be alright for me to copy the lead of the MLS page, paste it into the WPS page and then edit it with the proper WPS info? It seems to me that this would make the WPS page stronger and show a common thread between the two, but I wouldn't want to step on any toes, or commit Wiki-plagarism. Thanks for the advice! Rhodesisland (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant, actually the page I am planning on editing is the Women's Professional Soccer page. I feel it's off to a good start, but I'd like to see it improve. As I've found no one else working on it, I was going to be bold and spearhead revisions. I plan on copying, or copping ;) the lead from the MLS page in format and basic text. Thanks for the advice. I shall begin tonight! I'll see about the WPS 09 season page too.Rhodesisland (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

When you revert another person's edit, please make sure you're not removing any useful/sourced content in the process. For example, your revert of Premier League 2009–10 removed a navbox that User:Soccer-holic had added. This probably was not your intention, but please be more careful about exactly what you are reverting in the future. – PeeJay 21:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war report

You seem to stopped participating in the discussions on Talk:2009 Seattle Sounders FC season, so I've reported you for edit warring here. On an aside, you seem to be way to quick on hitting the revert button when you don't like something. Especially when you're in the "minority". --Bobblehead 23:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season. Tiptoety 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC) {{unblock|My block is supposed to be expired, but I'm still not able to edit.}}

I'm not sure what the problem is. You should be free to edit, as there are no active blocks on this account. The entire site was down about an hour ago with some database errors (I was getting that) but that looks cleared up now. Please try again, and if you cannot edit, please leave a copy of the block message below so we can help fix this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, still blocked. Here is a copy of the message. Note the expiry time being a whole day later. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are currently unable to edit pages on Misplaced Pages due to an autoblock affecting your IP address.

This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong.

A user of this IP address was blocked by Tiptoety for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Grant.Alpaugh". The reason given for Grant.Alpaugh's block is: "Edit warring: on 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season". This block has been set to expire: 22:41, April 16, 2009.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.

I fixed it. You were caught by an autoblock, which for some reason wasn't set to expire at the same time as your main block. I think if you try to edit while blocked, it resets the autoblock for some reason. Regardless, I have released the autoblock on your IP address. You should be free to edit now. I would recommend that you not go back to what got you blocked in the first place, but you shouldn't have any more problems with this autoblock. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop edit warring across multiple articles just because you don't like it. This is your warning. No admins will hesitate to block you given you were just blocked two days ago. Grsz 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Because of your continued disruption, . Grsz 18:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)