User talk:Jmfangio

Proposed topic ban

here - you may wish to comment. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's a pretty unreasonable request. Considering the fact that the RFC was opened because of his behavior and considering the fact that he continues to violate all sorts of WP:PGs, I have no intention on agreeing to your terms. I will stop for a while to give this issue time to be dealt with, but i'm not agreeing to the "super bowl" aspect. If there is genuine progress here - i will wait as long as it takes, but as i've already been screaming for some help here for over a month - i think i'm being more than reasonable. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Look... you can do whatever you want with the infobox. I will totally, 100% drop out of the entire thing. I just want to edit the things I'm really interested in, which to date you haven't edited which might be fortunate for both of us. I'm not going to say any more than that because it's just not worth it. But just know I'm done editing any of the things I've previously seen you show interest in.►Chris Nelson 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Juan - okay I know I said I wouldn't do anything with the infoboxes, but the thing is I really enjoy adding them and in all honesty it's hard for me to see pages of lesser known players not updated when they should be because most people just don't do that kind of stuff. So do you think it would be alright if I still did infobox stuff, but basically compromised on stuff like the Pro Bowl thing? I'll talk through anything and probably be a lot more compromising in general - I don't want to get into anything controversial. I plan on talking to a few of the admins involved in the ban discussion about this as well, I just wanted to know if you'd be cool with it. So let me know please.►Chris Nelson 17:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not responding because there is nothing more to say. You continue to go back on your words, continue to make uncivil statements (and i'm talking about toward other people on other topics), and have not helped to resolve this issue. I will continue following the RFAs and RFCs that are in place. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anyway, I've asked User:Durova the same thing I asked you, which you can see here. If she's okay with it, I'll probably continue adding infoboxes and discussing on its talk page, but I'll compromise on pretty much anything and I'm going to do everything on my part to avoid any altercations. Also, if she's okay with it, I told her I'd ask you to tell her if you think I'm ever going against my word, at which point she should ban me from the topic.►Chris Nelson 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa nellie...first off, that's she. Second - Chris, I closed that topic ban proposal because you made a pledge. If you turn around and break that pledge I could block you for disruption, then write up an evidence statement for the newly opened arbitration case citing this sequence of events to demonstrate your lack of self-control. The likely outcome is that you'd get involuntary limitations placed on you for a considerably longer time frame. Durova^Charge! 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you that you stop talking above me, as if you're the reasonable adult and I'm the problem child. You are guilty of SO many things in all this, so many violations and errors, as am I. The only difference between us is that I have a clear view of my role in it. So I'll ask you once to please lose the arrogant and condescending tone with which you've written about me lately. I'm sure you won't do it because, after all, you're innocent as always. But it's worth a try.►Chris Nelson 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris - i'm nearly 2x your age and you have the audacity to not only call me "mentally unstable", but to do it repeatedly - and then make statements like "My opinion has not changed". You can take my words however you want - but seeing as you are the one that keeps coming to me, i cannot help you any more. I'm neither arrogant nor condescending - i simply do not respect people who show no respect for others - especially ones that are 17 and inclined to shoot their mouths off. If you truly want to disengage me, then you will stop coming to my talk page and avoid discussions I am a part of. I would recommend that you extend this to other editors who you cannot engage politely. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If only you saw things are they really are. I will hope you eventually come to some great epiphany, even if it does come much later in your life than would be ideal.►Chris Nelson 04:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Page disambiguation/renaming

Hi, Do you want me to have a play and see if i can sort some code out to do it?

The only thing i would need, was some consensus from some project that is sorta responsible for the category, to say, yes, this is wanted. Just so we dont have people complaining. As i agree with changing it based on the root categories your wanting....

Let me know

Reedy Boy 18:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Reedy Boy/American footballers - 1001 pages. Those are the ones that have things in brackets, but its not American footballer Reedy Boy 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wholly shnikees - that's great!!! I have seen a handful of comments on this matter, and as a result, i took the most pro-active approach moving articles and such. If it does not say (football player) or (football) then it is likely that a WP:D page exists - some people share the same name so, whether right or wrong, they have been disambiguated by other "qualifiers". There has also been a move to remove "player" or "coach" - per WP:NAME and WP:D, but also because the practical problems - in older times people were sometimes both and what's to stop a player from becoming a coach... what happens if the player is a better athlete than coach..etc..etc... The short of the long is that yes there was some discussion on it and this is the "result" of that discussion. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As a quick note - Bill Walsh (American football coach) should simply be Bill Walsh (American football). As you can see, because of some disambig problems - we might have to have an administrator handle certain moves. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am an administrator ;). So Basically, and and all disambiguated pages ie pages with (text) want changing to (American football)? As there are some other random ones in there too. Putting up a bot request for it Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Reedy Bot 2 Reedy Boy 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your best bet is to have Reedy Boy help you; I'm not near as knowledgeable on AWB & categories as he is. Ral315 » 23:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Ral! He definitely seems to know what he's talking about. Okay so for Player Name (football), Player Name (American football player), Player Name (football player) the new page should be Player Name (American football). The other situations might be to complicated for mass adjustments. If possible, getting a report on all "failed" moves - because of redirects or whatever, would probably be helpful. Then we could identify which ones are "duplicate" articles, and then go in and have an admin (maybe you) move all the other ones like Wade Wilson (football) to Wade Wilson (American football). Hopefully i'm not making this more complicated.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done some list processing. Its gone down from the 1001 to 608. I have removed any where the new target page already exists (to save problems), there are no redirects as they were made from a category list (will double check none are redirects!). Also, changed list so that the disambiguated pages meet the Player Name (football), Player Name (American football player), Player Name (football player) to be changed. Reedy Boy 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW - That's incredible!!! So are the 608 remaining people dismbiguated by some "other" maner??? That's a whole heck of a lot better. Anyway to get the list of the 608 - perhaps there may be some other "automation" that we can figure out. Regardless, i'm digging up a barnstar. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait till i get it done first. ;). There will be 607 hopefully automatically moved, leaving about 400 to be re-assessed and worked out from there. Some were dupes, waiting to be merged and such. Can i ask, wheres the discussion about the move. I ideally need it if people start complaining about the bot. Cheers! Reedy Boy 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll dig it up for you as soon as have the time. Most of my editing time right now is with ongoing discussions and collecting research for an arbcom case i'm involved in. I don't know that there has been "one focused" discussion - rather a bunch of comments on a bunch of conversations lamenting the same thing. As far as the football v American football aspect of it - i think wp:D shows the consensus on that. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is important...

readability collapse

Jmfangio, please e-mail me. Believe me, I've something very important to tell you that I can only tell you via e-mail. Please. Ksy92003(talk) 04:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I don't really have an email I'm comfortable using for this - do you know of another way to communicate? Also, i am begining to collect "evidence" for the ArbC i'm involved in. I amd doing so at User:Jmfangio/sandbox. If you view there you will see some "evidence" i have collected that involves our previous dispute. I am using it only as a reference now as I want to eventually explain to people how two other editors were able to move past a dispute, and quite peacefully mind you. Please understand that it is only in a temporary holding place and will only be used as a "balance" - it will not be used to implicate or insinuate anything against you. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I understand the privacy issue. I'm not sure if it's something that I should actually say here, but I feel it may help the situation. I'll only tell you about it here, as opposed to e-mail, if it's your wish. It would help the situation I feel, but it's still not something I want to make public unless the person I'm directing the message towards is aware of it. So it's your choice if I make it public here or not. As far as the evidence you're developing in your sandbox, I think it is a good idea to collect evidence about a prior dispute as to how you were able to resolve it to show the steps you're taking to try to solve this one. Ksy92003(talk) 05:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC) If it is in regards to the arb case - you are more than welcome to make comments but i will neither encourage your or discourage you from that. If you have something you would like to add - you can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. If you feel it is something i would not take in the best way - i can assure you that i know you and i are working toward putting a bad relationship behind us. If it is horrendus - we can alwasy refractor and just move on :-). Glad you understand regarding "your evidence". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Well, the thing I have to say is that Chrisjnelson sent me an e-mail some 30 minutes ago, and it was... well, for lack of a better word "inappropriate" towards you. It has nothing to do with me, but I was the recipient of his e-mail. He used the type of language that I could never condone using (I'm a born-again Christian) and I believe would be offensive towards you if you knew it. I think that is all I really need to say for now, but will give you the specifics if necessary. Ksy92003(talk) 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) You are more than welcome to disclose that on the ArbC. I've been called worse by a lot more powerful people. I don't know what the "rules" are about posting specific email comments here on wiki, so i would say just do what you feel is appropriate. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Is it really my place to enter an ArbC discussion? I mean the issue between you and him was before you and I even encountered for the first time, so is me giving any background information allowable in this case? Ksy92003(talk) 05:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Totally up to you, perhaps the clerk User:Daniel can give you more advice as this could be viewed as a conflict of interest. Be well and please feel free to chat about the content with me until your head explodes :-). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Hehe your last sentence gave me a slight chuckle. I'll go talk to Daniel just to see if I could divulge this information. Ironically, the first time I ever encountered Chrisjnelson was when he and Yankees10 (talk · contribs) were both making personal attacks towards each other on Talk:Reggie Jackson, remarks I believe are still there, and I intervened to quell the dislike towards them. So don't feel that any personal attacks you feel are made towards you are "special treatment" for you. He hasn't made any towards me, but I have witnessed him making some towards other users far before you even registered as a user. I won't release the specifics of this e-mail unless it is allowable. Ksy92003(talk) 05:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC) If i felt it was "me" that was really the problem - i'd have bailed a long time ago. If i felt that this was directed at me because I was truly the problem - i'd react differently. It appears though that this type of situation has popped up with several other editors, many of whom have a very different editing style than i do. It is because of these interactions with others that i have been steadfast in my position. It is because this behavior has extended far beyond our interactions that I do what i do. People will (and rightly so) point to the uncivil statements i have made toward him and the violations of 3RR and such that i have been guilty off. I make no bones about it - i did that. It was however, done only after extensive attempts at dispute resolution failed to help and after careful consideration of WP:IAR. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I've left a comment at User talk:Daniel#Jmfangio/Chrisjnelson, and will await a response from Daniel before taking any further action of this manner. Also, Chrisjnelson does know that I would tell you of this, as I told him in an e-mail, which he replied to in a similar manner such as the original. So I wouldn't expect Chris to deny what I'm telling you and Daniel, and I've the proof to back this up, should it be required at any time. Ksy92003(talk) 05:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries, just handle this as you see fit. I'm not terribly concerned about what he has said about me on a personal level (i've heard worse). I am only concerned about how this affects the community. This is why there is an arbitration case against us. I have read the statement at D's page -although technically i did "forgive you", it has been a joint effort on both of our parts. You were as much a part of the "patching up", so perhaps a better way to say things: We found a way to work past our problems. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want Chris to think that he can e-mail me things just to get out of trouble. If he says something negative to me about somebody else, I feel that I have the responsibility to tell that person. I don't want Chris to take advantage of me by e-mailing me what he can't normally say, so for me, that's a huge part of this. I know that something he says to me about somebody else shouldn't play that huge a part in this ArbC, but it could be quite helpful evidence to especially support the WP:CIV and WP:NPA statements you've made. Ksy92003(talk) 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I make a friendly suggestion? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, what is it? Ksy92003(talk) 05:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would either not give out any personal contact information - or create an account specifically for this type of thing. That way, if you are uncomfortable continuing discussions with people - you have an easy way to drop and run so to speak. Taking this type of abuse from people is an unnecessary burden. Again, if you feel that this interaction is something you want to address with the community on a broader scale - you can look at the RFC and ArbCom case that are currently running. Seperately - you can report this to WP:ANI.

Disengaging with people here is a different story. Sometimes it is harder than one might think. Sounds familiar huh :-). I usually try to avoid people as much as possible when things like this break out, but then you get the situations when people seem to think it is rude if you do not engage them. It creates that "damned if i do, damned if i don't" situation - but it is what it is. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that would be the best thing to do. Unfortunately, going back on that right now won't do anything because now, Chrisjnelson already has my e-mail address. I don't think I should do anything with ANI or anything like that because of one e-mail, especially when there are a couple other steps being taken, and I think it'd be best to let those run its course and leave this out, unless it would help assist any of the actions being taken currently. I don't want to interfere with those processes yet.

Anyway, this is too much for me to think about at this time. I'll just wait until the morning when I hear from Daniel before really thinking about this anymore. I'm not so certain that this one e-mail is so crucial enough that something needs to be done about it right now, or any time extremely soon. I don't know what role Daniel plays in this; you referred to him as a "clerk" I believe, but I still don't even know what that means, but that doesn't concern me at this time. I'll wait for his response in the morning and take whatever necessary actions at that time. Good evening, Jmfangio. Ksy92003(talk) 06:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly understand - it will be nice if we can get back to the dates infobox discussion (i just created a subnav here so that I can start toying with the ideas expressed there. In the meantime, WP:CLERKS will help you differentiate clerks from others. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Where should I answer? Your Talk page or mine?

Re: Hey
Thank you, sir! I actually already have hit you up for info, in a way, as I have been studying your User Page (or was it the Sandbox) for ideas. Pretty nifty. And, since I'm all over the place with Wikipedia policy, style rules, etc., maybe I should just ask you here: Is it standard procedure to answer on my own talk page or on yours? tharsaile 18:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll refractor chief! :-) Thanks for asking. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

JMF, please do see my talk page. I'm getting a bit nervous. tharsaile 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:A rarity

Well thats just me ;) Its better to have some backing of some people (as is often inevitable that people complain). As 600 page moves having to be reverted wouldnt be a nice task! Oh, and then the ~600 talk page moves... I've made mistakes before, so I just try to be a bit more careful! Reedy Boy 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to take your time with this stuff! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

See the WikiProject. 18 pages that show as duplicates! Reedy Boy 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ray Lewis

I responded on the talk page--Yankees10 04:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Name

Can you add Name to the infobox so it says, for example Steve Young instead of Steve Young (American football) in the infobox for the Template:Infobox NFLretired, I would do it but I dont know how to--Yankees10 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Vick Related Comments

No, they do not violate either of those policies. These posts merely post these players' controversial public statements in support of Vick. There is no opinion conveyed through any of them. This is interesting information that belongs in these players' profiles. If you google news their names you will turn up hundreds of articles written about their comments in defense of Vick. The bottom line is it is a public comment by the player himself. Nobody is passing judgment on it or saying anything bad about them. All I did was post the facts.

It's pretty clear the bias is coming from you here. You are a member of the Wiki NFL project. You are clearly an NFL fan and don't want anything published that could negatively affect these players' images or the NFL's image.

There is no need to get into an editing war here. These public statements clearly belong in these players' wiki profiles.