→Civility: reply |
|||
Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
:Either way, incivility won't help matters. Dealing with it or talking to an admin will.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">Contribs</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[WP:CFL|<font color="black">WP:CFL</font>]])</small> 22:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC) |
:Either way, incivility won't help matters. Dealing with it or talking to an admin will.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">Contribs</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[WP:CFL|<font color="black">WP:CFL</font>]])</small> 22:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Edit warring is why you got blocked. Not bringing it up to an admin. If you don't edit war and bring it up to an admin to follow the situation, you should be safe.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">Contribs</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[WP:CFL|<font color="black">WP:CFL</font>]])</small> 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC) |
::Edit warring is why you got blocked. Not bringing it up to an admin. If you don't edit war and bring it up to an admin to follow the situation, you should be safe.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">Contribs</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[WP:CFL|<font color="black">WP:CFL</font>]])</small> 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
I plan on bringing up a discussion on [[WP:Baseball]] within the next couple of days regarding how the style of the infobox should be so we can try to end this horseshit and hopefully come up with a certain way all retired infoboxes should be setup. By the way I found the hilarious comments you wrote on Giants27 talk page. "I truly wish someone would finally put him in his place", wow thats fucking hilarious, who says that over something on the internet.--[[User:Yankees10|Yankees10]] 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:01, 25 October 2009
Olympic Team Roster
Players | Coaches/Other | |||
Pitchers
|
Catchers
Infielders
Outfielders
|
Manager
Coaches
|
Re: Deolis
I'm assuming your message was in reference to a notice my bot left you on the Wikimedia Commons - if so, then you need to send confirmation to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org that the image in question is licensed under the form of copyright you asserted when you uploaded it. You added a "{{OTRS pending}}" to the image page, but OTRS has not received the verification you promised. There's more information on this at commons:Commons:Licensing, or you can ask a OTRS volunteer for more information at commons:COM:OTRS/N. As I am not an OTRS volunteer, nor am I sure which image you are referring to, I can't help you much further. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It should look Like this:
First off, I want to mention that I am a fan of both Everlast and Eminem. I never had any intentions of promiting one's music over the other and was just looking to improve Everlast's entry when I started editing it.
In my opinion, the verse from the Dilate Peoples track should remain in there as it was the start of the war between them. I believe I present it in a "Look, here it is" kinda way that is not disrespectful, nor is it biased toward Everlast. Mind you, as I say that, this IS Everlast's entry. If anything, it should be biased toward Everlast. See the movie "Notorious"? See what a punk they made 2Pac out to be? Anyway, is it a copyright violation to reprint the entire verse if it is properly acredited? The source is the Dilated Peoples website.
Anyway, this is what I think:
- Sadly, it is copyright vio no matter how you do it. And the whole song 'quitter' isn't a 'Hit 'Em Up' parody, only the second half after eminem said 'That's why I fucked your mother, you fat mother fucker!' The first part is original. But this is a good start. We just need to synopsi-fy the lyrics to the song rather than post them. Also, I wouldn't necessarily have included those particular examples from 'Quitter/Hit 'Em Up' that you posted but I would rather find consensus than argue endlessly. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Lyrical war with Eminem
Shortly after both artists contributed tracks to the End of Days soundtrack, a feud erupted between Everlast and Eminem.[1] Eminem and Everlast crossed paths before a concert in early 1999. Eminem says Everlast didn't acknowledge him, and said he didn't greet Everlast because he didn't recognize him right away. Everlast's version is that he tried to congratulate Eminem on his success, and Eminem blew him off. Either way, Everlast's verse from the Dilated Peoples all star track "Ear Drums Pop (Remix)" contains the following:
I read the New Testament and gave it up for Lent
All the places I went just to pay my rent
Used to keep me bent, on a ritual daily
Cock my hammer, spit a Comet like Haley
I'll buck a three-eighty on ones that act shady
I'm original like Grady, check my Sanford, Son
You know you ain't the one that rep peckerwood status
I'll bust that ass, keep your eyes on the floor
What you comin here for? Son, you know the law
Let's take it back to the house, slide off your blouse
Lift up your skirt and expose your panties
For the world to see, you can't rep it like me
I'm Communist, terrorist, vandalist
Catalyst, scandalous, masochist, never miss battalist
You must be crazy, or just plain dumb
You might catch a beatdown now where I come from[2]
Eminem, in turn, ripped Everlast several times in public and on the song "I Remember (Dedication To Whitey Ford)," released as a b-side to the D12 12" vinyl single "Shit On You." In it, Eminem talks about how he remember's Everlast's music, however, "Kid Rock and Limp Bizkit came along now/Don't nobody wanna hear your old ass sing no more."[3]
Everlast responded with the track "Whitey's Revenge," released only on his official website. Whereas the song contained references to Eminem's strained relationships with his wife and mother, it was "Better run and check your kid for your DNA", again referring to Eminem's daughter, Hailie Jade Mathers, that set Eminem off.[4]
Eminem & D12 responded with a take off on 2Pac's "Hit Em Up" (a diss song aimed at The Notorious B.I.G.), entitled "Quitter."[5] In it, he warns Everlast, "If you talk about my little girl in a song again I’ma kill you." The track ends with the spoken words, "Fuck him, that’s it, I’m done, I promise, I’m done, that’s it/I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I promise/I just believe in kickin a man while he’s down/God damn! I quit," and again warning, "Mention my daughter’s name in a song again you fucking punk."
Everlast echoed similar sentiment on the status of this feud, stating in various interviews that he felt everything had been said and he would now refrain from further responses. Evidence & Dilated Peoples, however, felt the need to throw one last parting shot, "Search 4 Bobby Fisher."
--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I like what you have done, and it's a good step in the right direction. I would imagine the synopsis of 'Quitter/Hit 'Em Up' including something along the lines of:
After Everlast made comments about Eminem's daughter, Eminem's response was harsher in tone, referring repeatedly to Everlast's heart attack and lower record sales.
- Something like that. That pretty much is the jist of the song lol --216.17.75.89 (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I also think it is a good idea to include links to the song lyrics. Include a synopsis in the entry, and anyone wanting to read more and get finer details of the feud could click the link. Perhaps a link to the lyrics of "Search 4 Bobby Fisher" also. I think we pretty much have a consensus.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah me too. We just need to synopsify the lyrics to these songs and get a finalized version. I'm sorry I was so uppity to you for so long instead of being a normal person. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Now that you're well on your way to consensus on this, I've unprotected the page, so once you have your final wording, you can go ahead and add it. Nice work. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Rickey Henderson
Please do not change the Rickey Henderson article to say "outfielder." We went through this discusion long ago: Henderson played 2,423 career games in left, and 404 in center or right. That's a left fielder. Timneu22 (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest - National Rural Letter Carriers' Association
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. As you have identified yourself as an officer of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, please refrain from using the Wikipedia article about the organization as a soapbox to editorialize a point of view, e.g., referring to proposed legislation as "anti-labor". Continuing to edit where you have a COI may lead to an article ban.Template:Do not delete JGHowes talk 11:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Stop fooling around with the positions unless you want to get slapped for edit-warring. "Outfield" is less specific than "Right field" / "Left field". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Johnny on this one.. Outfield makes more sense in this case. Silly to list both right and left field.. since he played both it makes more sense to list him as an outfielder. Common sense really. Spanneraol (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not specific enough to be truly useful. "Outfield" tells me nothing except he didn't play infield. The three outfield positions are played significantly differently. He had a grand total of 6 games in center field, 30-some at first base. Besides his pitching career (plus a few games pitched while a Yankee), he played somewhat more than half his games in right field and somewhat less than half in left field. Note that retrosheet breaks this info down by position, where available. Much more useful than the baseball card approach.[1] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- 73 games in center if i'm reading that retrosheet page correctly, though Baseball reference says 64 games. I still disagree, if you played multiple outfield positions it's best to say simply outfielder... but i'm sure I'm not going to change your mind and I don't care enough to get into a longer debate over it.Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, 61, not 6. That's still a small fraction of the games he played in the outfield. Players can be called upon to play most any position when needed. I've seen pitchers stashed in the infield for a few batters, due to game situations. But that doesn't make them infielders by trade. Dale Long once had to play catcher, left-handed yet, because they had run out of regular catchers. But Long was not a catcher. Henderson played a much larger percentage of his games in center than Ruth did, but still only 1/6 of the number he played in left. Henderson was arguably a left fielder and a sometimes centerfielder, though primarily a left fielder. Ruth was primarily a right fielder and a left fielder, not a center fielder. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- 73 games in center if i'm reading that retrosheet page correctly, though Baseball reference says 64 games. I still disagree, if you played multiple outfield positions it's best to say simply outfielder... but i'm sure I'm not going to change your mind and I don't care enough to get into a longer debate over it.Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not specific enough to be truly useful. "Outfield" tells me nothing except he didn't play infield. The three outfield positions are played significantly differently. He had a grand total of 6 games in center field, 30-some at first base. Besides his pitching career (plus a few games pitched while a Yankee), he played somewhat more than half his games in right field and somewhat less than half in left field. Note that retrosheet breaks this info down by position, where available. Much more useful than the baseball card approach.[1] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Johnny, you shouldn't change the positions around till the discussion at the project talk page runs it's course.. Spanneraol (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Pete Rose
If you want to discuss it, we can certainly do so on the article talk; I have that page on my watchlist so I will see if there is a discussion opened. I'm willing to be open-minded but I didn't see much need for it: Baseball-Reference would have the information, and prose is preferred to lists. Since there was already prose, the list was superfluous, though the prose could certainly be expanded. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely not the entire text of the interview. It can easily be trimmed and shortened into prose; it's essentially an embedded list now, and one that's rather useless IMHO. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't argue in edit summaries; Yankees10 has tried to start a talk discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (File:Nederlandbaseball.PNG)
![⚠](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Nederlandbaseball.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! and Rural Carrier talk
Hi, thanks for contacting me regarding the changes I made to Rural Carrier. I guess I understand that you would like it a different way. I can certainly understand that a technical introduction like that would be adequate and professional for an article inside a Rural Carrier's handbook. However adequate and professional for an encyclopedia is different, and the information that was included in the introduction was trivial and was in no way helping the introduction "to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." I think once a proper introduction is made you will not prefer it the way it was. Please reply!--Kiyarrlls-talk 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Everlast edit
- I've undone part of your edit to the Everlast (musician) article (specifically: the removal of the expansion and improved references tags). The justification for removing them appeared insufficient as the need for inline citations is conspicuous. The first three sections of the article go completely unsourced (no inline citations whatsoever), and statements like "Everlast is a devout Muslim" go unsupported.
"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
bwmcmaste (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If you could possibly help me detail them then it would be most appreciated
They're trying to place me under a 1 year block over at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118/Evidence arbitration committee and well I just got well off this swine flue and I've sorta got a stuffed schedule so any help would be most well appreciated.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering...
Do you ever check other players infoboxes and see that they are all like this. You should really read Wikipedia policies and stuff. Because youve been a here a year now and still dont know what a navbox or sandbox is or that there is something called WP:Civil--Yankees10 19:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Its not visible so that it saves space, all you have to do is press the little button that says show--Yankees10 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have an idea lets discuss before reverting anymore.--Yankees10 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop unconstructive edit warring...
...and discuss on Talk:Pete Rose. This is not helping anybody. Don't wait for someone else to discuss; just do it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you wrote, actions speak louder than words. I've also seen several uncivil comments from both of you, and it's unproductive and anti-community. If you think it's a problem, please just be the bigger man. If you want to resolve a dispute with him, use mediation or some other channel. Edit warring doesn't help anyone. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pete Rose. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Straw poll
Please consider striking/commenting out/removing your "Oppose" !votes from the straw poll at Talk:Pete Rose. As per the directions, the straw poll is for denoting which proposals you support, not which proposals you do not support. Your objections have been registered above. All we are asking for is what you support and a rationale as to why, not why we shouldn't do certain things. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
John Stearns
Why do you have such ownership problems over articles. Once you start editing an article, as soon as someone, specifically me, adds something or removes something you revert them and claims they are ruining your work. Yout dont own Pete Rose, Dave Kingman, John Stearns, Minnesota Twins minor leaguers, etc. I have not touched a single part of the article just the infobox, so why cant we just compromise so that the infobox is consistant with pretty much every other retired player. Adding info like stolen bases to Stearns infobox is ridiculous, the guy had only 91 in his career or having a record he doesnt even own anymore. I also have no idea why you continue to remove the selection part of the All star selections. By the way the Pete Rose discussion went down, you should have noticed most people dont agree with you, but yet you still add this stuff to the infobox.
- Actually no these are def. your traits I revert vandalism, you revert because you like your way better and clearly believe these are your articles and therefore you have a major ownership problem. This is an encyclopedia not a baseball card so that statement is not even revelant. You still havnt explained why 91 stolen bases are notable or why you remove selections from the All stars.--Yankees10 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- You still have no explanation, typical--Yankees10 20:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Message at Commons
Hi. I left you a note at Commons:User talk:Johnny Spasm. You can reply there if you like. Wknight94 talk 00:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to respond here or just continue the immature reverting (despite an earlier agreement that says you are wrong).--Yankees10 01:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
3RR complaint
See WP:AN3#User:Yankees10 and User:Johnny Spasm reported by User:Killervogel5 (Result: ). You are welcome to add your own comment there. If you would promise to stop edit-warring on Pete Rose, you may be able to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Infoboxes
Why do you have such an ownership problem with player articles. This is getting absolutely ridiculous.--Yankees10 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- This does not look like the 'peaceful discussion' that somebody claimed was occurring between the two of you in the AN3 report. If there is no promise from either of you to behave better, there may be blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do not follow you. They are on my watchlist. I have told you this numerous times before. I never said the article didnt benefit from your work, I have never even made a single edit towards the actual article part itself, just the infobox which I do not agree with. I am trying to make all of the retired player infoboxes a certain way that makes them all consistant and you continue to make edits towards them that make them inconsistant. So when you claim I ruin your work you are also doing the same to mine.--Yankees10 05:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Two people do not make an agreement, so there was no agreement regarding the World Series at top. I did not mean to revert the part about the book, I did not see it, I would have not reverted it if I had.--Yankees10 15:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- You guys are well-intentioned, but you are classic edit warriors. If you can't make an agreement on what to do about the Pete Rose article, you can still be blocked. One way for you to agree would be both promise to stop editing that article for a month. Let others fix the infobox, if it's truly all that important. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Two people do not make an agreement, so there was no agreement regarding the World Series at top. I did not mean to revert the part about the book, I did not see it, I would have not reverted it if I had.--Yankees10 15:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
Template:Z9 at Pete Rose and other baseball articles, per this complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I dont exactly remember, but I think it was about halfway through when we were unblocked.--Yankees10 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah that reference looks legit, we should probably bring it to WP:Baseball maybe someone can help us there.--Yankees10 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah--Yankees10 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but what exactly does a players birth year have to do with what happened in baseball that year. I only bring it up because I've seen other people remove it for this reason. --Yankees10 22:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
BY
Why do you continue to add the BY template to every single year. There is no point when there is nothing about the Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers on the page.--Yankees10 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yell then you are incorrect. It was not made for every single year to be linked.--Yankees10 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was just dropping by to leave the same message.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
ChiSox?
Also, I just saw you make a revision from "White Sox" to "ChiSox" at the Scott S page ... am I missing something?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Civility
Your comment on Yankees10's talk page, no matter how annoying was incivil. Saying "I have ex-girlfriends less annoying than you!" crossed the line. While I agree with your edit, please comment on content and not on editors. Thanks,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Either way, incivility won't help matters. Dealing with it or talking to an admin will.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I plan on bringing up a discussion on WP:Baseball within the next couple of days regarding how the style of the infobox should be so we can try to end this horseshit and hopefully come up with a certain way all retired infoboxes should be setup. By the way I found the hilarious comments you wrote on Giants27 talk page. "I truly wish someone would finally put him in his place", wow thats fucking hilarious, who says that over something on the internet.--Yankees10 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- ^ "Eminem & Everlast: The Whining Continues..." Retrieved 2009-02-22.
- ^ "Dilated Peoples". Retrieved 2009-02-22.
- ^ "I Remember (Dedication To Whitey Ford)". Retrieved 2009-06-23.
- ^ "Whitey's Revenge". Retrieved 2009-06-23.
- ^ "Quitter". Retrieved 2009-06-23.