Master of Puppets (talk | contribs) →Edit warring: new section |
|||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
:::I found this picture[http://content.etilize.com/images/400/1010654820.jpg] of the proverbial Ivory Tower. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
:::I found this picture[http://content.etilize.com/images/400/1010654820.jpg] of the proverbial Ivory Tower. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::I was picturing a slightly different ivory tower.[http://www.45cat.com/image/085/van-morrison-ivory-tower-mercury.jpg] --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 03:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
::::I was picturing a slightly different ivory tower.[http://www.45cat.com/image/085/van-morrison-ivory-tower-mercury.jpg] --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 03:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Edit warring == |
|||
Alright, so. You've been reported for edit-warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&action=historysubmit&diff=414330170&oldid=414328571 again]. Seeing how this is the second time in 24 hours, most people would be placing a hefty block on your shoulders; I'm not, though. I'd like to help you guys work a solution out. |
|||
Before I do that, please understand that a content dispute does not know the meaning of 'right' or 'wrong'. It doesn't matter if somebody goes to the article about blue and says that blue is actually the colour red; you can't edit-war with them. It leads nowhere and disrupts the encyclopedia. If there's something that you can't resolve on a talk page, contact an administrator. Reverting somebody over and over will only get you blocked, and that's not a good thing. |
|||
Anyway, fill me in on your side of this. From what I can see, you think that [[2011 Iranian protests]] should be categorized with the Arab-world protests. People disagree with you. Anything else I should know? |
|||
Thanks, [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d">m.o.p</span>]] 05:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:11, 17 February 2011
Thanks!
Thanks for adding the date on the Yanks roster. I'm usually hardcore on that, can't believe I missed that! Thanks :-) Kjscotte34 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject proposal
Hey. I saw you in the Onion's edit history, and thought you might find this interesting: a couple days ago, I proposed a WikiProject that specializes in the Onion. Vote for-or-against it here! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
- I proposed a task force like Brad said to. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy#The Onion task force. Hope you join! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
who knows why
colberts work is considered by many a overcompensation for a lack of genitals, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.35.6 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
hey sorry bout those comments thats was my freind jimmy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackkattackk247 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Respectful request
Hello,
Would you please take a thoughtful look at the article about Barack Obama's speech at the Tucson memorial, and carefully reconsider the notability of this specific topic? I think that the comments by five historians are particularly relevant, especially since four are presidential biographers and two are Pulitzer Prize winners. Also relevant are that almost all the sources cited discuss the speech as the primary topic, rather than a subtopic of coverage of the shooting. We also see news organizations conducting polling about the speech mentioning it in their discussions of the lead-up to the State of the Union speech next Tuesday. Substantial commentary on the speech has been published in media outlets world wide. Also, no other Obama speech has received such a favorable response from Obama's most consistent critics. Taken together, I believe these items demonstrate notability, and that this topic deserves its own Wikipedia article along other historically significant U. S. presidential speeches. I await your response. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll take a look later today. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
sorry
Sorry about interupting your edits. I thought was completely in-between yours. The WP edit conflict really needs to be improved to make it easier to make the changes without screwing up someone elses work. Arzel (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problem, I figured you weren't screwing with me :P That was a really big problem when that particular page was hyperactive, in the first days. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Byron McLaughlin
Thanks for the assistance on Byron McLaughlin. There's still three points need addressing. Brad78 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right, meant to say I'll get to this tomorrow, if it's not already done before then. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: Talk:SarahPalin
Sorry if you think I'm changing your comment. As far as I can tell I merely changed the heading to reflect the discussion. Perhaps you should consider posting your comments as comments rather than as headings. Thanks.Tryggvi bt (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Sport rosters
Can you find a wiki-policy describing roster changes, for players who are rostered by do not play a game for said team. At the moment, it is reliably sourced that Napoli was a member of the Jays. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I know it's not written out in a specific place, but I believe it's been discussed in the Baseball project talk page somewhere. I'll raise the question again at WP:BASEBALL. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Precedent
What you said in the United States Senate election in Texas, 2012 is 100% false. I have contributed to every U.S. Senate election in 2010 election cycle and every cycle prior. We put the Democratic primary first because it goes by alphabetical order.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, one of us is wrong then because I contributed to most (I don't think all) of the Senate articles and I remember incumbent party going first. That seems more fair than alphabetizing, Republicans could see that as bias towards the Democrats. This should probably go to the appropriate WikiProject. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Look I'm not gonna go back to every single U.S. Senate election article and change it. Let's do alphabetical order Democrat primary first.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- But I don't agree with that. Choosing alphabetical order is arbitrary and favors one of the parties over the other. Going by incumbency favors the incumbent regardless of party, which accurately reflects elections. I'll take it to a WikiProject for further discussion. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a thread. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- But I don't agree with that. Choosing alphabetical order is arbitrary and favors one of the parties over the other. Going by incumbency favors the incumbent regardless of party, which accurately reflects elections. I'll take it to a WikiProject for further discussion. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Look I'm not gonna go back to every single U.S. Senate election article and change it. Let's do alphabetical order Democrat primary first.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Frank Thomas
Yea, it was brought up there. I'll get to it shortly. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Justin Duchscherer
why did you revert it? there even was a link there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.143.127 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, the title says "signed", but the body says "agreed to". The deal is not completed, as it is pending a physical examination, and a player with an injury history like Duchscherer's is not guaranteed to pass a physical. The WP article already has a sourced notation about the pending deal. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank You For that insight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriolephan2 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Johnny Damon
Question, if both MLB.com and johnnydamon.com (his official site) have him listed as a member of the Tampa Bay Rays (as does the TBR site) why do you keep reverting it back to free agent? Vyselink (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- He wasn't listed on MLB.com until today. The Rays are announcing the deal officially today. Therefore, it was inaccurate up until today to say he was a member of the Rays. I won't revert it any more because I would now be wrong to do so. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Elections
I don' see your point. Hypothetical polling is not historical at all. It doesn't matter. There is no wikipedia policy on this (I believe), if I am wrong show me. I devote much time to updating these pages, including adding polls. I feel like my work is for nothing, and it is frustrating. Maybe I should just leave, cause my input does not appear to be welcomed. You act like it is your way or the highway, and it isn't. Maybe we could compromise and have a seperate section for "declined polling"(name could be worked on), although I doubt you will agree.America69 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't mean to add to your frustration. There aren't alot of well defined policies, and that causes problems in various ways. I remember taking this idea that polling data should remain from Template:Historical election article, which suggests that information shouldn't be deleted. Granted that refers to individuals, but these polls are snapshots of the situation at a point in time. In some cases, these polls can shape a politicians' decision to run or not. We should probably take this to the appropriate WikiProject to establish some consensus, find something we can all accept and then just go from there. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Took a few deep breaths... I see where you are coming from. I have become use to removing, or seeing polling of declined(or defeated)candiates removed. To me that seems to have become the "norm". With that said, I am always open to discussion. I should have taken a better approach, and moved the polling to another section, instead of a down right delete. I just feel keeping all those polls, to me, and this is just my view, clutters up a page. If you feel this should go to a Wikiproject page, which I can't think of which one it could, I would concur. If you think we could, maybe we could just come up with something, so this isn't drawn out, and we can all go on with our editing. Thanks! America69 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Baseball Rivalry Templates
I wanted to talk to you regarding two things. First is the content. The related articles are articles of a similar nature. The Yankees-Giants, Yankees-Dodgers, Mets-Yankees are all related under Subway Series. Taking out the rivalry articles is taking away something relevant to the whole topic of MLB rivalries of NYC teams. Second is the color scheme. Initially, someone had changed the Mets-Yankees template. I agreed with it because the topic should be neutral and thus the color scheme of one team dominating doesn't seem balanced. I can appreciate disagreeing with my color choices though, so if you do want to change the color scheme to be more aesthetically pleasing I won't object at all, but I would ask that we keep the templates as color neutral as possible except maybe the team titles. Arnabdas (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. Regarding the appearance, I agree that it would be good to find a way to make it team neutral. Going with the default colors for the title bar and team colors for the above bars, though, is visually unappealing. All the navbox subgroups are unnecessary, and also visually unappealing. Regarding content, I think alot of the articles that are put there, like Interleague play for instance, are barely related topics, and only those most essential should be kept in there to avoid clutter. Team history articles to me seem too unrelated, though I grant there is an argument for keeping those in there. Consider me undecided at this point on those. --Muboshgu 17:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- User:SNIyer12 was the one who came out with the format. I'm just concerned about the content. I think the histories should be included. However, regarding your concern about clutter, we could take out the references to the other rivalry articles now and just have a reference to Subway Series since we have a Subway Series template. Arnabdas (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Economic History of the Dominican Republic
What I am saying is that a large number of people in the Dominican did not have indoor plumbing. If Bartolo Colon had the money to purchase and utilize baseball equipment his family had to have been upper middle class, in their own local economic terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordSessions (talk • contribs) 01:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Right, and that's why your edit said nothing about baseball equipment. --Muboshgu 16:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would be most grateful if you would explain your removal of the See also section which I just added to the above template, together with the link to the 2011 Iranian protests. Whilst Iran is not an Arab country the Iranian protests are clearly directly related to the protests/revolutions taking place in Arab nations and a reference in a See also section seems to me reasonable and useful. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies, please ignore the above, I just noticed that you didn't actually delete Iran, but merely moved it up to the top of the template.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
3RR warning
Warning!
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. . Kurdo777 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- On what article am I edit warring? --Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- What part of Iran is not an Arab country, don't you understand? What consensus are you talking about? Read WP:consensus to see what it means. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be an Arabic country to be related to the protests in the Arab world. You're getting overly hung up on a strict definition of a word which is unnecessarily limiting. Yes, protests began in 2009, but they resumed now in response to Egypt. There is an overwhelming consensus on the talk pages of the main articles and templates that it should belong in a "related" section, separating it from the Arabic countries themselves. When we settle on a better name for the main article, you'll have no reason to complain. But we have no WP:DEADLINE for that. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- That Iran is not an Arab country is "getting overly hung up on a strict definition of a word". You're essentially implying Iran not being Arab, is a minor issue. "They're all the same" anyways, right? Come on, this is like saying Koreans are Chinese, or Germans are Swedes... Kurdo777 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, this is saying that the term "Arab world protests" is imperfect as it doesn't encapsulate the full scope of what's going on. You should assume good faith and not suggest I'm a racist. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I never said that. You seem like a good guy, you're just not getting the point. A temple titled ARAB PROTESTS , does not belong on IRANIAN PROTESTS page. This is not a minor issue. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- And I'm saying that the main article and template need to be renamed something more inclusive, that it's an ongoing discussion, and it shouldn't necessitate the removal of the article from consideration of the overall template. I understand your point, and I think you understand mine, so it's an issue to discuss in the larger community. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- An article's talk page should not be used to use to discuss other editors. Please read WP:NPA. "Discuss content, not the other editors". Please do not restore the attacks against me. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Those aren't attacks against you, it's related to the content of your contributions, and in no way derogatory. All that was on the talk page is a link to the discussion about your contributions. I'll leave it to the editor who opened up that discussion to reinsert if if he pleases. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- One again, read what I said. An article's talk page should not under any circumstance be used to discuss another editor, derogatory or not, article's talk page discussions should be limited to the content of the page, and content of the page only. By the way, you have officially violated WP:3RR on 2011 Iranian protests by reverting 4 times within 24 hours. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Those aren't attacks against you, it's related to the content of your contributions, and in no way derogatory. All that was on the talk page is a link to the discussion about your contributions. I'll leave it to the editor who opened up that discussion to reinsert if if he pleases. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- An article's talk page should not be used to use to discuss other editors. Please read WP:NPA. "Discuss content, not the other editors". Please do not restore the attacks against me. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- And I'm saying that the main article and template need to be renamed something more inclusive, that it's an ongoing discussion, and it shouldn't necessitate the removal of the article from consideration of the overall template. I understand your point, and I think you understand mine, so it's an issue to discuss in the larger community. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I never said that. You seem like a good guy, you're just not getting the point. A temple titled ARAB PROTESTS , does not belong on IRANIAN PROTESTS page. This is not a minor issue. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, this is saying that the term "Arab world protests" is imperfect as it doesn't encapsulate the full scope of what's going on. You should assume good faith and not suggest I'm a racist. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- That Iran is not an Arab country is "getting overly hung up on a strict definition of a word". You're essentially implying Iran not being Arab, is a minor issue. "They're all the same" anyways, right? Come on, this is like saying Koreans are Chinese, or Germans are Swedes... Kurdo777 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be an Arabic country to be related to the protests in the Arab world. You're getting overly hung up on a strict definition of a word which is unnecessarily limiting. Yes, protests began in 2009, but they resumed now in response to Egypt. There is an overwhelming consensus on the talk pages of the main articles and templates that it should belong in a "related" section, separating it from the Arabic countries themselves. When we settle on a better name for the main article, you'll have no reason to complain. But we have no WP:DEADLINE for that. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- What part of Iran is not an Arab country, don't you understand? What consensus are you talking about? Read WP:consensus to see what it means. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
See my proposal on the template's talk page. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Jason Isringhausen
first of all Metsblog is a credible news site, in addition to editorialism. The secondary references were cited there. Second, what use is a Cardinals picture now? It is out of present scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Met20a (talk • contribs) 02:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It's gonna be updated tomorrow by someone else. Wikipedia is supposed to be real time. Right now, Isringhausen is a Met. This is cited fact, not theory. You are hindering the purpose of this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Met20a (talk • contribs) 02:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Metsblog is one of the better blogs, but that post was blank other than the title and reader comments. I see Newsday reporting it on twitter now, so it should be only a matter of time before we have a good source. I am not "hindering" this site, I am defending it through WP:V. His status will be updated as soon as it's verified.
- Also, the Cardinals picture is of higher quality, and it's the consensus of the Baseball WikiProject that the highest quality picture should be used, regardless of quality. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Source
I'm sorry, how is this not a legitimate source? -Marcusmax(speak) 04:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
are u the person who made this site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trystan929 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since modesty prevents him from speaking out on this, I'll speak for him: Yes, he is the person who made this site. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was busy running the show from my ivory tower. Now get back to work Bugs! --Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I found this picture[1] of the proverbial Ivory Tower. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was busy running the show from my ivory tower. Now get back to work Bugs! --Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring
Alright, so. You've been reported for edit-warring again. Seeing how this is the second time in 24 hours, most people would be placing a hefty block on your shoulders; I'm not, though. I'd like to help you guys work a solution out.
Before I do that, please understand that a content dispute does not know the meaning of 'right' or 'wrong'. It doesn't matter if somebody goes to the article about blue and says that blue is actually the colour red; you can't edit-war with them. It leads nowhere and disrupts the encyclopedia. If there's something that you can't resolve on a talk page, contact an administrator. Reverting somebody over and over will only get you blocked, and that's not a good thing.
Anyway, fill me in on your side of this. From what I can see, you think that 2011 Iranian protests should be categorized with the Arab-world protests. People disagree with you. Anything else I should know?
Thanks, m.o.p 05:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)