User talk:Vanished user 6390593

DeflateGate

Hello and welcome! I've undone most of your edit here. As set out in my Change Summary, someone did ask on the talk page for an explanation of the "Gate" suffix. However, the details of the evidence are set out in the following sections and don't belong in the Intro, especially a reference to "the illegally deflated footballs" -- which is not (yet) a fact. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to reply to you about this so I'll just copy and paste what I posted on your talk page.

I am new to editing articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not totally clear on how to even reply to what you said. First of all, though, thanks for letting me know. I only have one question - is the part that is up for debate not the Patriots' involvement? I believe that the fact that the balls were deflated below the legal minimum has not been disputed, as in Bellichick's presser he acknowledge the deflation of the balls but explained that they were that way because of weather conditions and the Patriots' methods of preparations of the balls.

Also, why did you delete what I wrote in the investigation section? What I did there was simply to make the wording more accurate or clear. I deleted a statement that said the Colts' equipment manager kept the ball as a "souvenir" because it doesn't make sense and also did not have a source. Tonyarnold2 (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to keep the conversation in one place, and I was "watching" this page for a reply. Please sign your posts by typing four straight tildes (~)--they get replaced with a signature and timestamp.

That the balls were under the legal inflation has been shown. That they were "deflated" has not yet been shown. My only big concern is to keep the introduction an introduction and leave it to the following sections to supply the details. As they evolve, it is best not to have to revise the Intro as well.

My deletion of your material in Investigation was a mistake. I was focusing only on the Intro and might not even have seen that you edited further down. I'll correct this now or tell you why I didn't. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS--I've restored your text on Florio. Re: D'Qwell Jackson, I've restored your text with a few tweaks. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PPS--You've got to do the four-tilde thing. You have a robot following you and marking each of your posts as unsigned! Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point for the introduction was that it currently states that the controversy is "stemming from an allegation that the New England Patriots deliberately or negligently underinflated footballs." That suggests that part of the controversy is whether the balls were underinflated/deflated/whatever you want to call it at all, when that's already a known fact. I was trying to clarify that the controversy stemmed from the discovery of the footballs being underinflated, and then was amplified by allegations that the Patriots did it intentionally to gain an advantage. Tonyarnold2 (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of your change was to cite the measurements. (By the way, you are not the first to want to do that.) As on the talk page: We know that balls were underinflated during play; that is not even controversial (as the rules don't specify initial inflation versus inflation while in play) except for the suspicion that the Pats are trying to get away with something, which we don't know yet. Deflategate turns on intent, not inflation, and that is what I tried to keep the Intro focused on. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then wouldn't it make sense to mention that the controversy was sparked when the balls were found to be underinflated, and then it turned to a matter of intent? Tonyarnold2 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would not make it a better Intro to mention the spark, the coach's reaction, the quarterback's reaction, or the weather. The Intro should introduce the subject. All those other things are laid out just below. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-edits

There is nothing wrong with replacing the robot's signatures of your posts with your real one, and you took pains to add the correct time. However, on first glance in the History, the change looks like vandalism: A net deletion of characters, user too new (at that point) to have a user page, no Edit Summary, and not even checked "This is a minor edit." So when doing stuff like this, do explain it for the History. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement

I can see that you are a new editor, but you need to know that Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You must not copy and paste text from sources you find on the web into articles as you did in the article Marc Martin. I have removed the infringing text, but the material you copied is subject to copyright, as is almost everything on the web, and when creating or expanding articles, you should completely rewrite the information from the source using your own words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marc Martin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marc Martin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Martin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]