User talk:Ultimahero

Like always, yea...

Hi

Hello Ultimahero,

I just stopped by to encourage you to continue your efforts here. I could understand if you're feeling a bit down, and bitter about some of your recent efforts lately. Please try not to feel that way. Wikipedia is a global site; meaning that there are people here of all ages, professions, cultures, and walks of life. Some people will be friendly and talkative, others will come across as cold and uncaring. Sometimes you'll run into people who tend to say "go away, leave me alone"; that doesn't mean you should not continue to try to edit articles. It's like walking into a library and trying to talk out-loud to everyone .. people will tell you "Shhh .... we're busy". For the most part, I'd say it's best to avoid some of the "drama" areas such as AN, ANI etc. Work on editing articles to the best of your ability, and go to the talk pages to discuss any changes that you may have a different opinion on. When you have time, read up on various policies to try to understand what works and what doesn't. I am personally very "in and out" here, so sometimes I may be gone for days at a time, but I'm always happy to try to help if I can. Always feel free to drop me a line if you have a question. Cheers and best, — Ched :  ?  08:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no intention of giving up. It's certainly frustrating to feel as though you've been wronged, but then again I recognize that I'm biased. But I'm not quiting.Ultimahero (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

NFL rivalries

You seem to have a history at attempting to claim ownership of the page. I think it's time to stop now. 24.29.231.148 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, random IP user. You seem to be the one who thinks he owns the page, given how you are making demands. I've edited the talk page long ago about a standard being needed, and have been ignored thus far. If you think the rivalry is substantial then you must prove it.Ultimahero (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw the talk page. See what I added. 24.29.231.148 (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As did I. See how I responded already.Ultimahero (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Responded. 24.29.231.148 (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can confine this to the page.Ultimahero (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Dodgers ownership

As I pointed out on the talk page, MLB is taking over daily operation of the Dodgers, but the USAToday.com item I saw indicates that McCourt is still considered the owner. In short, your revert was correct. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. (Although, to be fair, I revered it before I even saw the news the Selig took over operations!) :) So I don't know what's going on....Ultimahero (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It would have been my assumption also. I had only heard a brief radio blurb on it today, until I found a source. But this is not really like the Expos situation. I'm sure Selig doesn't want to be foster-parenting the team any longer than necessary, and will work on getting the Dodgers sold, with all deliberate speed. Then there's the Mets situation. Financial crises on major city teams. I wonder if Selig longs for the good old days when all he had to worry about was steroids. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. Or the good old days where he could overlook steroids. Anyways, as a Dodger fan I hope that they find new (and capable) ownership as soon as possible.Ultimahero (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume the IP's are acting in good faith and merely misunderstanding the story, but if it continues to be a problem, one of us could go to WP:RFPP and ask for the article to be semi'd for a few days.

Yesterday, Fenway Park turned 99, and it got me to thinking about aging. Specifically, Wrigley Field turns 97 in a couple of days, and last week Dodger Stadium turned 49. Which means that Fenway was already 50 when Dodger Stadium opened, and here it still is, 49 years later. Who'd a-thunk? I always admired the way the Dodgers ran their organization under the O'Malleys. I know Brooklynites hated them, but they had their chance, and said "no" to a (domed!) stadium in Brooklyn, so the Dodgers went to the left coast. Dodger Stadium is now older than Ebbets Field was when the wrecker ball took it down. Here's a bit of nostalgia you might find funny, whether or not you remember the TV show "Mr. Ed", about a talking horse.[1] This show played in September of 1963, when Dodger Stadium was still brand new, just before the Dodgers and the great Koufax were getting ready to sweep the old Yankees into near-oblivion. Enjoy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You might also enjoy this one.[2] It's a "Munsters" episode that also includes Leo Durocher, as did the Mr. Ed clip. Leo was kind of a natural ham, so he did pretty well with the occasional acting assignments he garnered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I don't think they're trying to vandalize, just probably not reading the sources carefully enough.

I wasn't alive when the Dodgers came out to California, but it's been great having them here. They've created a lot of great memories.

Thanks for the links, by the way. I especially liked the catchers reaction when Mr. Eds coming home, as if he's thinking, "I have no idea how I'm going to block the plate...." And I remember that Munsters episode. Good times.Ultimahero (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You bet. I'm trying to figure out who the screen-climbig catcher was. The pitcher was Koufax, of course. The catcher could have been Roseboro, but it didn't look that much like him. Not sure who the coaches were, standing next to Durocher. Video wasn't clear enough. They did a pretty good job with the illusion of Mr. Ed batting, considering it was largely faked. On the Munsters thing, I forget why the Dodgers didn't hire Herman. I'm thinking maybe he couldn't field worth a lick, but I don't recall. But talk about a born DH! I just hope for your Dodgers' sake that they can get an owner with the right set of values. Peter O'Malley must be snickering at all this. He's pretty old, but maybe he needs to be brought back in for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up at IMDB, and apparently the catcher was Ken Hunt, who wasn't even an actual catcher. He was an outfielder. But I had never heard of him before, and I don't know who the other are, either.

Yea, it's a shame that we haven't had the O'Malley's or at least someone of a similar caliber. Walter and Peter were incredible owners.Ultimahero (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken Hunt (outfielder) mentions his appearance on that Munsters episode. Here's a picture.[3] I vaguely recall the name, though I couldn't have placed him by face. The article has an uncited statement that he was stepfather to Butch Patrick. That would figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Ultimahero. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Although I find it interesting that you say "may".Ultimahero (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's standard wording. As in "that gun may be loaded". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I just find it funny because Mmyers1976 is the one who started this particular thread in regards to a discussion we were having earlier. The "may" just makes it sound ambiguous.Ultimahero (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically of a little bit from Love and Death, but I couldn't find a clip. Woody Allen and Diane Keaton are plotting to assassinate Napoleon in this early-1800s story. She's fiddling with a pistol, and it goes off with a loud bang. Woody says, "Be careful with that gun, because it may be loaded." I think that little joke echoed a public service announcement that used to turn up on the media from time to time. And, yes, I've seen Love and Death too many times. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I've never seen Love and Death. I guess I should check it out.Ultimahero (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I owe you a thanks

I wanna thank you for your common sense and that you spoke your mind in the very inappropriate report LedRush made. It was also satisfying to see how you completely demolished Mmyers76's outrageous accusations. The whole thing was absurd, that both you and I were reported, and for reasons so made up and ignorant. But that is also what makes it amusing to see the two of them consoling each other on LedRush's talk page, convincing themselves that if the admins were more competent, if you and I didn't "derail" the discussion, things would have gone differently. To add to their superior knowledge, Mmyers76 "knows" my type and actually takes comfort in "knowing" that I will get blocked again, and he "knows" that karma works... his logic is astounding. They also brought up the closing statement by the admin who closed the discussion, LedRush actually taking offense by the statement because he is remotely included in it, addressing the admin on his talk page. I laughed at the closing statement by the admin, finding it amusing how irritated it was, and I laughed even more when LedRush attempted to gain back his supposedly lost pride on the admin's talk page and how the admin totally waved him and Mmyers76 off. I guess taking offense too easily is what set off both our reports this time. Like Mmyers76, as he says, I don't have any trouble speaking my mind, and a block won't bother me in the slightest bit, but their behavior after their total defeat is nothing short of grooming. Their responses (especially Mmyers76's) were farfetched, speculative, accusing, illogical, out of context, and assuming knowledge of us as persons, but now, after LedRush's goals weren't anywhere near achieved, those traits grew out of proportion. Nothing short of grooming.

Thanks again, Ultimahero. I'll take your advise on the angry tone in consideration when I write in the future. Revan (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I specifically requested that they not discuss me personally, so I want to be consistent and not speculate on their motives, thoughts, etc. As far as the conversation as a whole, I didn't want to see someone get blocked who didn't deserve it, so I just did what I thought was right. I wish you the best in the future.Ultimahero (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, didn't want to drag you into anything. Good luck, yourself. Revan (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your recent edits to Revan's talk page. I believe we missed an opportunity to push Revan towards constructively editing Wikipedia at the WQA I filed, but I think it is great that you are taking the time to deal with him patiently and civilly. Because you've come to his aid before, he may heed your warnings as he has not heeded the warnings of many other editors here. I wish you the best of luck.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll echo what LedRush said, and I would also like to say I rInsert non-formatted text hereegret we got off on the wrong foot, and I don't harbor any lingering ill feeling and hope you don't either, and that we have more constructive interactions in the future. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why either of you would thank me. One of my main arguments about his behavior was how he responded on my talk page after seeing what was being written on LedRush's. It was simply inflammatory. I fear that your posting here, while obviously not with the same degree of vitriol, will have the same effect. I have no interest in taking sides or playing games. I didn't come to Revan's defense on WQA because of any attachment to him. I did it because I thought (and still do think) that he was being wrongly accused at that point. Likewise, I didn't post on Revan's page for your betterment; I did it because I want Wikipedia editors to hold to a higher standard. That includes both of you and myself as well. I have to be honest when I say that I do not hold your opinions in the highest of esteem. LedRush, you say we "missed an opportunity to push Revan towards constructively editing at the WQA I filled". However, I still maintain that you were wrong there. I do not desire to bring that debate to life again; I'm simply pointing out that I don't agree with your premise. And there can be no denying that I personally was the subject of discussion between you two (including my motives, personality, etc.) on LedRush's page. I specifically asked you both to stop talking about me as a person and neither of you agreed to do so. Based on our previous histories I have no reason to think that either of you are interested in what's best for Wikipedia, Revan, or myself for that matter. The only reason that I didn't post on your talk pages a message similar to what I sent Revan is because I felt from our short interactions together that such a message would fall on deaf ears.

That being said, I would be more than happy to put the past behind us and start over. However, I must emphasize that "teams" or "taking sides" does not appeal to me. That means I am not interested on "ganging up" on Revan. If you are truly concerned for Revan's ultimate betterment, then please do not post about either of us again. (At least not in the context of our current discussion.) Thank you.Ultimahero (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultima, I'll be blunt, and then I'll drop this for good. I was trying to be gracious and not say "I told you so." In WQAs, AfDs, etc, once uninvolved editors have given their opinions, there is no need for them to post rebuttals to the opinions of other uninvolved editors they disagree with, as you did. As long as the facts are correct, let the preponderence of opinion speak for itself. Everyone's opinion is obvious from their first post, you don't "win" by "refuting" other people's opinions, you certainly aren't going to change them that way, and it's simply unconstructive to the point of being disruptive, as the WQA in question demonstrated. My mistake was not telling you this sooner than I did, and then disengaging with you. Trying to "refute" others' opinions as you did derails the discussion and makes the discussion so daunting, both in thickness of text and combativeness that it discourages more uninvolved editors from posting their opinions. What it also does is embolden disruptive editors who think they have found a "champion" in you, as happened here. I know you still think you were right in defending Revan in the WQA, but the next time around it may be that someone else is vigorously defending someone you thought was out of line, and that championing will embolden them against you. If you let the preponderence of opinion speak for itself rather than feeling the need to champion someone in a WQA which can't levy sanctions or blocks anyway, things balance themselves out and stuff like the behavior of Revan that you are now complaining about are less likely.

As for your problem with us commiserating over you, you were very combative and pretty arrogant in the WQA, your choice of behavior gave others a bad impression of you, and we shared with each other about it. You can't have it both ways, both be abrasive and expect people not to form negative opinions of you because it. And there was nothing wrong with me giving the IP a welcoming word of encouragement to counter what you said. If you want to be argumentative with people, you're going to have to accept the consequences. Notice I didn't raise objections to Revan's "I owe you thanks" discussion, because I quite simply don't care what he wants to say to you about me on your talk page, that's between the two of you, it's no skin off my nose, though I did enjoy the unintentional irony of him accusing us of grooming when that is exactly what he was doing with you. I was really hoping that your recent post meant you had started to recognize the consequences of overzealously championing someone, but I guess not, so I don't have the highest esteem for your opinion, either. To be honest, I really don't have any interest in what is best for you or Revan, I just don't care, but my long history of constructive edits shows that your accusation of me not caring what is best for Wikipedia is just baseless lashing out. You don't have to worry about me "talking about you", because other than saying something if I notice you disrupting WQAs, etc. again by "refuting" the opinions of other uninvolveds, I have no interest in any more interaction with you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, in any debate you have to challenge the arguments presented. A persons argument is only as good as his ability to defend it. If someone is willing to make accusations then they have to be able to defend their allegations under examination. That's simply how it works. The charges against Revan in that context were simply dead-wrong. The fact that you could not respond to anything I was saying, despite how desperately you wanted to, proves this fact. You would only be able to say "I told you so" if you were in fact correct on the original issue, which you were not. Revan's current behavior is besides the point; he was not wrong originally. If someone takes from that they can act any way they want then they will be called out. I will defend a person if I feel they deserved to be defended and correct them when they deserve to be defended. It's my effort at being consistent.

You said: "As for your problem with us commiserating over you, you were very combative and pretty arrogant in the WQA, your choice of behavior gave others a bad impression of you, and we shared with each other about it." How, sir? Disagreeing makes me combative? Believing I am right makes me arrogant? Wouldn't you have to label such charges against anyone who ever had an opinion they were willing to voice, then? I never said I was smarter or claimed to know more than anyone else. This is the difference between your methods and my methods, sir: I debate the issues, you debate the person. From the WQA page, to LedRush's page, to here you have to continued to discuss me AS A PERSON. You continue to talk about my personality and my motivations as if you knew me. Not once, at least to my knowledge, have I speculated on who you are. I limit myself to the arguments you make.

You said: "You can't have it both ways, both be abrasive and expect people not to form negative opinions of you because it." You have every right to discuss the edits that were made and talk about what happened. I, however, have every right to demand that you not discuss me personally, given that it's Wikipedia policy.

You said: " And there was nothing wrong with me giving the IP a welcoming word of encouragement to counter what you said. If you want to be argumentative with people, you're going to have to accept the consequences." Yes, sir, there was. You found a completely separate disagreement that I had with a different user on an issue that had nothing to do with the WQA. You didn't bother to check the history and see if his accusations were true. You just started using that as a reference that I was having multiple altercations with multiple users. You also sought him out and implied to him that I didn't consider his edits valuable. Sir, I believe that falls much more in line with "hounding" (what you accused me of) then anything that you can say I did.

You said: "Notice I didn't raise objections to Revan's "I owe you thanks" discussion, because I quite simply don't care what he wants to say to you about me on your talk page, that's between the two of you, it's no skin off my nose, though I did enjoy the unintentional irony of him accusing us of grooming when that is exactly what he was doing with you." Whether you take offense at personal attacks or not is your business. That doesn't mean you have a right to talk about me as a person. And remember, it was I who condemned Revan's personal attacking of you and LedRush, out history aside. Why did I do that? Because personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia, regardless of how much you may dislike the person.

You said: "I was really hoping that your recent post meant you had started to recognize the consequences of overzealously championing someone, but I guess not, so I don't have the highest esteem for your opinion, either." If by that you meant that I shouldn't defend a person who I believe is being wrongly accused then you're right. I still will continue to help out anyone who I feel is being attacked inappropriately. And you don't have to respect my opinion, but you do have to respect Wikipedia guidelines and not attack me as a person.

You said:"To be honest, I really don't have any interest in what is best for you or Revan, I just don't care, but my long history of constructive edits shows that your accusation of me not caring what is best for Wikipedia is just baseless lashing out." Context would be helpful, sir. What I said was that BASED OFF OUR PREVIOUS HISTORIES I didn't think you wanted what was best for either Revan, myself, or Wikipedia. I'm obviously correct on the first two. As for the third, my point was that well-informed, productive editors are the best thing for Wikipedia. You show no interest in helping other editors, at least not from my experience with you.

You said: "You don't have to worry about me "talking about you", because other than saying something if I notice you disrupting WQAs, etc. again by "refuting" the opinions of other uninvolveds, I have no interest in any more interaction with you." I think I have every right to worry about you talking about me since you've shown an affinity for it thus far. But I certainly hope you fall under Wikipedia guidelines.Ultimahero (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well stated, Mmyers. I came here to thank Ultimahero for actively engaging a known disruptive editor (he was blocked for harassment and incivility) and coaxing him to be constructive. In return, I have, in bad faith, been accused of no being interested in what's best of Wikipedia, Revan or Ultimahero. I am also implicitly accused of taking sides and ganging up on Revan. It takes an exceptional amount of bad faith to makes these leaps, and I am more than happy to try to forget any editor who wishes to edit in this manner.LedRush (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, please do not pretend that the timing of all of this is coincidental. You and Mmyers1976 were discussing me as a person on your page. I asked you both to stop and yet you both refused. Even though it's Wikipedia policy to not talk about the editors themselves you both seemed fine to discuss me. But, once I corrected Revan, you both flock to my page to "thank" me. Why? Why would you thank me when just moments ago you were refusing to stop talking about me (and which up to that point had been in a negative light)? Why had your tone towards me changed so suddenly? It was because of how I had responded to Revan. You feign shock when I say that you don't have my best interests at heart, but you obviously don't. WHY ELSE WOULD YOU REFUSE TO STOP TALKING ABOUT ME AS A PERSON? Clearly my "best interests" are only valuable to you when they're aligned with your best interests.Ultimahero (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't pretend to be polite by calling me "Sir" immediately before launching into unsubstantiated accusations. When you call me a liar, please don't be disingenuous at the same time.

I don't know what your definition of a moment is, but we stopped discussing you in a "negative light" four days ago. The only reason this thing is still going on is because you refuse to let it go. I refused to say that I would stop talking about you because I believe the request is inappropriate. We were not uncivil, and said nothing vindictive. We merely vented at your attitude and edits. I don't know why you think we flocked to your page, but I assume we both edited here quickly after your edits on his talk page for the same reason you edited on mine less than an hour after an edit about you was made (and all 3 times in less than 2 hours): because you watched my page and saw the posts. Revan has attacked me enough that I have monitored his page: I saw your post and thought to encourage your productive activities. I assume Myers did the same, but I cannot speak for him. Seeing as you have access to literally all the communications we have ever had together, your accusations of teaming up seem quite absurd.

My tone changed because instead of encouraging unconstructive edits, you begin to encourage constructive ones. I also don't understand your last statement: it is in everyone's best interests for Revan to be a constructive editor, and for you not to encourage bad behavior.

Unless you launch into new justifications for your attacks against me, I really hope not to post here again.LedRush (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You said, "Please don't pretend to be polite by calling me "Sir" immediately before launching into unsubstantiated accusations. When you call me a liar, please don't be disingenuous at the same time." Sir, I refer to pretty much everyone on here as "sir". Whether you accept that or not is your business. The claims are not unsubstantiated. Your inability to respond to them does not make them false. And I didn't call you a liar. I'm simply saying that you do not have my best interests at heart. The facts undeniably prove that.

You said, "I don't know what your definition of a moment is, but we stopped discussing you in a "negative light" four days ago. The only reason this thing is still going on is because you refuse to let it go." Hmm. I guess you need to be refreshed on the timeline. On April 22nd at 19:54, Mmmyers1976 left the first message under the newly created header, "I owe you an apology". The two of you talked on this subject until 21:48 of the same day. Then, I left my first message on your page politely asking you to stop talking about me personally. This message was left at 22:24 of the same day. I spoke with Mmyers1976 alone and left one more message at 22:31, the same day. At this point I switched and began directing the conversation to Mmyers1976 talk page. I left two messages there, one at 22:49 and the other at 22:51. Both were on April 22nd. So in total I left two messages on your page and two on his all within the the span of a half hour. I never again edited Mmyers1976's talk page and didn't edit yours again until you brought the issue back up. On April 26th at 15:39, you responded to the old message that I had left over three and a half days ago. At 17:36 of the same day I left a single response, the last edit I have ever made to you talk page, requesting that you stop talking about me personally. At 17:58 on the same day you replied by saying you would not do so.

Thus, Mmyers1976 and I stopped discussing the subject 4 days ago. You brought it up again on the 26th, and I left a single message in response. You responded since then, meaning that you were the last one to comment on the subject. From your last response on your page to the last message you left here, dated April 27th at 1:14, a grand total of 8 hours and 16 minutes have passed. The facts of the timeline hardly fit your characterization that "The only reason this thing is still going on is because you refuse to let it go". My original posts were all within a half hour span and I did not say anything else UNTIL YOU BROUGHT IT BACK UP. Then, I left 1 message and haven't responded since. So it's hardly accurate to say that I "refuse to let it go". You kept the conversation rolling by bringing it back up and you continue the possibility by refusing to cease.

You said, "I refused to say that I would stop talking about you because I believe the request is inappropriate. We were not uncivil, and said nothing vindictive. We merely vented at your attitude and edits." Well then let me once again remind you of what was actually said:

"I really am sorry that I let Ultimahero drag me into an argument with him that ended up derailing the WQA."

"self-important types like Ultimahero"

"The guy will pick and argument and monopolize a talk page on just about anything."

"The dude would start an argument with a brick wall on whether it is actually made of bricks."

Now, I will note that all of these are made by Mmyers1976, but it's still your talk page. By not refusing to participate you condoned it. (When Revan was insulting you two I refused to take part in personal speculation). These certainly aren't just edits about the situation. Calling me "self-important" is a comment on how I view myself, thus you are speculating on how I think about myself. That's personal. Comments about me arguing about "anything" or "with a brick wall" are intended to convey that my motive is to only argue for the sake of arguing. Speculating on my motives is certainly personal. Thus, Mmyers1976 was uncivil in talking about me personally, and you went right along with it in implicit agreement. So it was not "merely [about my] attitude or edits". It was about me as a person.

You said, "I don't know why you think we flocked to your page, but I assume we both edited here quickly after your edits on his talk page for the same reason you edited on mine less than an hour after an edit about you was made (and all 3 times in less than 2 hours): because you watched my page and saw the posts. Revan has attacked me enough that I have monitored his page: I saw your post and thought to encourage your productive activities. I assume Myers did the same, but I cannot speak for him. Seeing as you have access to literally all the communications we have ever had together, your accusations of teaming up seem quite absurd." You did flock here. That's the best way to characterize it. I edited Revan's page at 21:39 on April 26th and you posted here 22:19 the same day with Mmyers1976 posting here 22:30 the same day. Both of you showed up in less than an hour. That seems pretty quick to me.

There is no question that a "team mentality" has been demonstrated thus far. You and Mmyers1976 act as though you are "against Revan and I", as evidenced by your mutual "venting" about us on your talk page, as well as your both immediately showing up here to "thank me". Revan acts as though he and I are "against you two", as evidenced by his "venting" against you too. This may not be intentional but the behavior is certainly apparent. I, however, have no desire to "team up". That's why I felt comfortable coming to you and asking you not to talk about me: I don't believe the different sides we took on WQA need to translate to any other area. I also refused to talk about you with Revan and have condemned his post-WQA behavior. I don't want to "team up". I'm interested in what's best for Wikipedia.

You said, "My tone changed because instead of encouraging unconstructive edits, you begin to encourage constructive ones. I also don't understand your last statement: it is in everyone's best interests for Revan to be a constructive editor, and for you not to encourage bad behavior." I never encouraged "unconstructive edits", sir. Not agreeing with your charges on WQA is not the same as intentionally approving of destructive behavior. That is a clear misrepresentation and to equate those two things is inappropriate. Further, your attitude towards me was more than just not approving and then approving. You and Mmyers1976 had been engaged in a discussion about me personally, one which you refused to stop a mere 4 hours and 21 minutes earlier. (The time between the last post on your page and your first page here.) You had refused to stop talking about me personally. Now a few hours later you were here "thanking" me. How do go from refusing to stop personally attacking me to thanking me? It's simply not coherent and your explanation doesn't justify the change. And as far as the last comment I'm not sure what you're referring to.

You said, "Unless you launch into new justifications for your attacks against me, I really hope not to post here again." There you have it, sir. And you certainly do not have to interact with me anymore.Ultimahero (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultima, I'm not going to address your long reply to me because I said I was going to drop this situation between you, me, Revan, and LedRush, and I meant it. However, I do think it would be helpful to point out a misapprehension under which you labor which will continue to cause problems in the future, whether I am involved or not. You say "Sir, in any debate you have to challenge the arguments presented. A persons argument is only as good as his ability to defend it." Dispute resolution forums like WQA are not debate rounds where the purpose is to advance arguments and win those arguments. The purpose is to resolve disputes, often through compromise, and the mindset you describe is anathema to that purpose. Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy states "Remember that dispute resolution mechanisms are ultimately there to enable editors to collaboratively write an encyclopedia – not to win personal or political battles." Mmyers1976 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you have never dealt with what I had to say in full so why should this be any different? You are right, however, that the point of WQA is not to argue just to argue. However, context will help resolve this. You said, "As long as the facts are correct..." And that's exactly what we're debating: the facts. All the time we spent talking about whether fanboy was an attack or not was an effort to get the facts straight. I agree that once we have the facts in line then arguing is pointless. But as long as we differ on the facts of the matter then we will differ in our conclusion. That is what I meant when I was talking about the need to interact with the arguments of others. If they're trying to present the facts in a manner that is not accurate then correction and counterargument is required.Ultimahero (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

MLB Rivalry Page

Hi, I remember your activity on the MLB Rivalry page. I replied to some discussions and also started a couple of my own. Would appreciate your opinion. Arnabdas (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Going off that, I don't know how to nominate an article for deletion. The Braves-Mets rivalry page just has to go now. Half the page is about the Yankees. Makes no sense at all. At worst, it may motivate people who care about it to improve it with better sourcing. Arnabdas (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with it either. But I'll look into it and see what I can find.Ultimahero (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion, but I don't think I did it the right way. Arnabdas (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion for the deletion, so I'm not sure where to comment on the situation.Ultimahero (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for nfl rivalry page

Hello, I realized that long ago you tried to have a criteria for the nfl rivalries page. I am trying to make a criteria for inclusion for the page (like you did with the baseball rivalry page) but I would like your input. The "criteria" now seems to be if it has a page, its a rivalry. So I would like your help "evaluating" the rivalries on the page and determining if it should be on or not. Again, we first need a criteria. When you tried to get something started on the page two years ago to get a criteria no one replied because as far as I know no one uses the talk page. Also, I think most of the rivalries on the page deserve to be there but there are lots of rivalries that I don't think should be on. Thanks for reading

clecol99Clecol99 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to help if I can. I would think a criteria would be something along the lines of whether or not a rivalry is notable. Have two teams had big playoff games, such as playoffs meetings, such as Cowboys-Steelers or Browns-Broncos? What are your thoughts? Honestly, I think a lot of that page could be thrown out. I mean, Redskins-Ravens, really? Does anybody care about that? But, yea, if we can get some kind of criteria going I think that would help.Ultimahero (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangers Astros rivalry?

Hello ultimahero, there seems to be a movement of sorts to get the Astros-Rangers rivalry on the mlb rivals page and they are saying it is signficant because "it has a page" and "it has a trophy". I remember your common activity and I would like you to weigh in on the talk page. Thanks. clecol99Clecol99 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)