3RR |
Chrisjnelson (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
:* Here is a copy of the posts to my talk page. Do what you want with them. My patience is exhausted. Unless you are willing to compromise with other editors, I will move this to the final stage of Dispute Resolution - [[WP:RFAR]]. This is not a simple process and will take up a great deal of time, but despite the fact that numerous people have asked you to find a middle ground, and you refuse to - leaves me no other choice. I will mark this page for watching. If you do not wish to settle this outside of AC, confirm here and I will start the process. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Jmfangio|<b>Juan Miguel Fangio</b>]]|[[User_talk:Jmfangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat </font>]]</span></small> 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
:* Here is a copy of the posts to my talk page. Do what you want with them. My patience is exhausted. Unless you are willing to compromise with other editors, I will move this to the final stage of Dispute Resolution - [[WP:RFAR]]. This is not a simple process and will take up a great deal of time, but despite the fact that numerous people have asked you to find a middle ground, and you refuse to - leaves me no other choice. I will mark this page for watching. If you do not wish to settle this outside of AC, confirm here and I will start the process. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Jmfangio|<b>Juan Miguel Fangio</b>]]|[[User_talk:Jmfangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat </font>]]</span></small> 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
::There's nothing to compromise about. Anyone that suggests a "neutral solution" does not realize that my edit is perfectly neutral. There is only one correct way to represent Pro Bowl selection years. Any other way is wrong or perhaps a mistake. I will never stop doing what I am doing because it is right, and one mistaken editor on Wikipedia will not change things. Anyone with any kind of logic and knowledge of the NFL knows I'm right. So do whatever you want, justice shall prevail!►'''[[User:Chrisjnelson|<span style="color: #005e6a">Chris </span><span style="color: #005e6a">Nelson</span>]]''' 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:57, 6 August 2007
Baxter/PUP
I'm not going to argue with anyone because it's Wikipedia and I've got better things to do, but your argument doesn't make any sense. First of all, you're not providing me with absolutely any proof that he's been actually activated from the Physically Unable-to-Perform list. Second of all, LeCharles Bentley also passed a physical, yet you haven't removed him from the Browns' PUP list. Please tell me what your criteria is for removing a player from that list when the official NFL website hasn't done so, nor the team's official website. I'd really like to know, since I've got proof from the Browns' website that stated clearly that he would be in camp, but would start camp on the PUP list, which also stated that he passed his physical, but made absolutely no notions whatsoever that he was removed from the team's PUP list. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've found the Browns' website to be updated fairly accurately compared to websites you and Pats have been using. Whether that's just my misperception or not is my own business. Anyway, Baxter hasn't participated in any team drills. He's participated in one-on-one, by-himself-away-from-everyone-else drills with trainers, because he's not ready for "contact" and whatnot. As far as I'm concerned, until some website claims "Baxter, activated from PUP," he's still on that list. I could either be stubborn and ridiculously wrong, or you could be making me look like a complete idiot right now (which I really don't doubt, after some of the conversations we've had regarding other things when I first started helping with rosters). But just because he's participated in drills isn't solid proof he's not on that list. In the article you provided me, it claims he participated "just" in position drills, I think with "just" meaning to be emphasized, indicating he's still not ready for full contact and balls-to-the-wall football yet. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um. Can we delete everything I typed and go back to, like, three days ago when I asked Pats1 where he got his information? Like I said, you could've been making me feel like an idiot, and... um, you win. I didn't "look" at PFW when Pats1 told me that's where he got his information; I only looked at the top line. I didn't realize that's what they call "activated from the physically unable-to-perform list." So, I'm sorry... um, again. :| Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not so much surprise which was my reasoning for disbelieving you and Pats1, it was that I thought it would've been made into a MUCH bigger deal than what it was, which was clearly no deal at all. Anyway, I've really got to stop jumping the gun when it comes to these articles. That's how you and I started off, and I'd rather keep it friendly like it has been. Anyway, I'm sorry again, and I'll try not to be douchebaggy about things in the future and actually try to figure them out for myself first. :) Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just mad because I made myself look really condescending by asking where you two got your information without actually looking for it myself. I'm just making it clear now that I really wasn't trying to be a jerk, I'm just really frustrated that there wasn't a bigger deal made about Baxter's awesomeness right now. (Not that that means he's actually going to be any good again or anything, haha.) Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not so much surprise which was my reasoning for disbelieving you and Pats1, it was that I thought it would've been made into a MUCH bigger deal than what it was, which was clearly no deal at all. Anyway, I've really got to stop jumping the gun when it comes to these articles. That's how you and I started off, and I'd rather keep it friendly like it has been. Anyway, I'm sorry again, and I'll try not to be douchebaggy about things in the future and actually try to figure them out for myself first. :) Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um. Can we delete everything I typed and go back to, like, three days ago when I asked Pats1 where he got his information? Like I said, you could've been making me feel like an idiot, and... um, you win. I didn't "look" at PFW when Pats1 told me that's where he got his information; I only looked at the top line. I didn't realize that's what they call "activated from the physically unable-to-perform list." So, I'm sorry... um, again. :| Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Flikr
Would you happen to know what copyright and/or license template to use when uploading images from Flikr, or how to use images from Flikr at all? I was feeling nosy so I checked out your past archives, and noticed someone recommended you use Flikr for images with a Creative Commons license. However, I wouldn't know where to begin to look for information on how to use images from Flikr properly, or what templates to use when I've uploaded them. I was going to go through the Browns roster and update all the players' infoboxes to the new one you've all been using, and I was going to add images where I could, but I've got no idea how I should do it, or how to do it, or why the sky is green. So, if you have ANY idea at all, I'd love you long time. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 03:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. I think I've got it figured out. I'm sure I'll make plenty of mistakes before I can tell which are really free and which aren't. Thanks. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Some new template stuff
I'm more than sure we're already on the same page when it comes to everything you mentioned. I'd already done all the things you suggested I do when I replaced Charlie Frye's infobox, so I think we'll be good to go for the remainder of the infoboxes. I have to note, though, that leaving the "highlights" section blank leaves code in the template, which I think looks bad. I've got no idea how to get around that, though. Other than that, we're on the same page. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 04:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was using ESPN because I considered it more "recognizable." It doesn't matter to me which one is used. Also, I only italicize them because I think it makes it look neater. Like Christmas lights in July. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
GTA IV
Hello, I've reverted the GTA IV release date back to its previous Take-Two stated timeframe of Q2. My reasons for doing this are two-fold. Take-Two are the publishers and they have not stated a date beyond the vague Q2. Secondly I checked a number of on-line shops and every single one had a different release date. So I've reverted back to a Take-Two as they are the the people who will decide upon and announce the release date. Thanks for putting the citation though, there are millions of other Wikipedia users who wouldn't have bothered. - X201 08:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
3RR
You apparently do not fully grasp what WP:3RR is. 3RR is a rule against making four reverts on a page within a 24-hour period. As you can clearly see on the history of Michael Vick, I have made exactly three reverts because of you in the past 24 hours. This is 100% not a violation of 3RR, so I don't know why you're going to waste your time reporting it. It's not a violation.►Chris Nelson 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- What you do not seem to understand is that my edits are not unneutral. Just because you do not understand why doesn't mean they aren't neutral. They are 100%, undeniable fact. I've tried to help you understand this, I really have, but you just don't get it. You don't get that one way is totally right, the other is totally wrong. If you question the neutrality of my edit, go question the neutrality of Gravity. There's no difference.►Chris Nelson 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Here is a copy of the posts to my talk page. Do what you want with them. My patience is exhausted. Unless you are willing to compromise with other editors, I will move this to the final stage of Dispute Resolution - WP:RFAR. This is not a simple process and will take up a great deal of time, but despite the fact that numerous people have asked you to find a middle ground, and you refuse to - leaves me no other choice. I will mark this page for watching. If you do not wish to settle this outside of AC, confirm here and I will start the process. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing to compromise about. Anyone that suggests a "neutral solution" does not realize that my edit is perfectly neutral. There is only one correct way to represent Pro Bowl selection years. Any other way is wrong or perhaps a mistake. I will never stop doing what I am doing because it is right, and one mistaken editor on Wikipedia will not change things. Anyone with any kind of logic and knowledge of the NFL knows I'm right. So do whatever you want, justice shall prevail!►Chris Nelson 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)