Jump to content

User talk:Jmfangio/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for violation of WP:3RR on Dick Lane (American football). Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - and what was your basis for this? I see the person I reported who did violate the policy was not blocked. Additionally, the edit reverting that took place with another editor revolved around the removal (by me) of a CSD tag. I do not see how that falls under the criteria for 3RR. Not to mention the fact that i went to said user and invited them to a conversation before they continued. I am protecting a status quo as Ksy92003 (talk · contribs), the other user, refuses to enter into DR. He and another user who seem to be "supporting one and other" have been especially problematic for me. They have no patience and little ability to discuss things without calling me a baby or tossing other (often far more pejorative insults) about. If you can explain how the CSD tag removal violates the 3RR, I will gladly accept this ban without a fight. Considering that I had also filed a WP:ANI for like the 5th time against this user (who won't go into DR), how am i the problem? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jmfangio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not violate 3RR on Dick Lane. I removed a CSD tag that one user had placed (several times) and I suspect that was in appropriately considered. The other user involved was reported first at WP:ANI and then WP:3RR for his actions. I am being harassed without hesitation by this user and another; they refuse to leave me and my edits alone. I am happy to work with people here, but without proactive intervention - these guys are going to continue to hound me as they have done so for over a month.LATE ADDITION - I did not implement full reverts of Ksy - I only reverted the text which he had been told yesterday was the type of text that was in dispute.

Decline reason:

Clear violation of 3RR. Diffs are [1] [2] [3] and [4]. Even if the type of text was in dispute, as you assert, then the 3RR is even more relevant. Full reverts are not necessary. The diffs show the same edits were reverted four times.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

-- But|seriously|folks  06:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Even not counting the removal of the CSD tag (and removing a patently incorrect CSD tag should .never. be considered for 3RR), I still count four reverts of Ksy92003. --B 03:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on your involvement in this matter; and your seemingly friendly interactions with this user, and given the fact that this guy has laid into me more times than i account, don't you think you should be a little less biased or perhaps step out? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • My involvement is why I left the unblock tag above, rather than reviewing it myself. As for my interactions with the other user, I don't believe I have had any direct ones. With Chris, yes. With this other one, no. --B 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You are correct on the user being Chris; sorry for the mistake. It is Jaranda who communicates with Ksy. Three quick questions for you a) Have I asserted a willingness to go through DR? b) a willingness to disengage? c) and/or a willingness to let their already controversial edits stand so long as they extend the same courtesy to me? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
From prior experience dealing with tense situations, I might recommend taking a step back; people can form impressions very quickly, so it's important to be on your best behavior whenever you can. The more polite you are, the more reasonable you are, the more you strive to accomodate people, the more apparent it will be when your counterparts do none of those things. It's easy to get trapped into thinking that the current version of a page is important, but the only really important thing is what a page says a week from now, a month from now, a year from now. Think in the long term, if you can. Some people might call this the "high road," but I prefer to think of it in terms of giving people enough rope. Given my prior involvement, it doesn't seem appropriate for me to review or comment directly on this unblock request, but once you are unblocked or this block expires, I hope you'll take that advice into account. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The funny thing about all this is that I actually have been able to retire at a young age because of my ability to negotiate contracts and settle disputes. The difference here is that I am powerless. I can promise you that if your advice was ever considered by the two other users I'm fueding with - this would NEVER have happened. But i still can't figure out why when WP:NPA was violated last night by these guys - no reprimands were handed out (again!). We're not at day one of me being called names and followed - we're well into the 4th week. You say you don't feel comfortable issuing a block or an unblock - I wish other's would behave as ethically as that. The blocking editor however, has a pre-existing relationship with Ksy. So again, maybe it is other's that need to heed your words as much (if not more) than I. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION

IMPORTANT - VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE - Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) is again using my block as an excuse to implement VERY controversial edits. See [5]. This needs to be undone immediately as this discussion has not been completed. As it is a template - leaving it in there means he can go institute the changes on as many articles as he sees fit. Removing it from the template will then cause some significant problems. Please adjust this immediately. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

More information behind my RFU

Ksy had not touched the Lane article until after my I worked to keep the article from getting CSD'd AND after I had inserted the new infobox (one that has not been argued over i might add). Considering the fact that all of the other articles he edited with the WP:DATE summary seems to be modern players who have nothing to do with Lane - is it just possible that i'm correct when i say that these guys are following me around and not me following them? Doesn't it seem a bit unusual that he just happens to show up an an article I most recently edited (and quite publicly i might add)?

I have been said to have reverted his edits four times. However, his first edit (and all 3 subsequent edits) were reverts of my insertion of text. So where is his suspension? Also - I only implemented partial reverts. I did not remove content which was non-controversial.

Considering the fact that I've been called a baby, a lunatic, mentally unstable, and a few other choice phrases, why is it that I'm still having to put up with this type of behavior? We need patience and discussion without hostility I say again: I've not behaved in accordance with all guidelines and policies at all times - i know this. However, I have only operated outside of these for one reason: To protect the spread of potentially problematic code/text and to keep the WP:CON established on various WP:PGs. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Jmfangio, if you really must know, I edit pages that I see in my watchlist. My watchlist is what gives me my inspiration as to what edits I make. I saw that you had a discussion with another user about this article, then looked at the article, and saw that it needed clean-up, specifically with linking to the sections for the Chicago Cardinals and Los Angeles Rams. I removed an unnecessary part of the disambiguation code that served no purpose, I fixed the Defaultsort template to exclude his nickname, as well as other edits. While you are correct in saying that the Lane article isn't related to the other articles, that's because the edits I tried to make to the Lane article (before you reverted them) were ones I made to that article because I felt that they were necessary and inline with guidelines. It was then that I decided to do the same thing for the other articles, and I've done the Arizona Cardinals players and Atlanta Falcons players.

The only reason I went to Dick Lane (American football) in the first place is because I saw the page from my watchlist, which as I said above always gives me my inspiration for which articles to edit. It had nothing to do with you; it just so happened that you were the one who made the edit that triggered my watchlist. Ksy92003(talk) 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even edit any of the changes that you made; you provoked me by reverting me when I didn't even edit anything that you did. Ksy92003(talk) 04:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yet you know these are controversial edits and yet you know that this is problematic and you still jump in. Maybe it is in your watch list - but that should mean you should see "who is editing your comments". I really don't have anything else to say to you that you haven't already heard. You continue to come here. Just leave me alone. There is no question that if you are going to be invovled with the development of the template - we are going to run into each other. But you have yet to extend to me any courtesy. The next step is not for you to continue with the widespread WP:DATE changes - the step is to open DR - which you refuse to do. Please do not engage me anymore and if you see me editing an article that you have never touched - be more cautious before jumping in moments after i've been there to make your edit. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
And again your time line is off and your statement does not add up. I don't believe you are being truthful anymore. If you had Dick Lane on your watchlist - then you would have seen exactly what transpired. I did not provoke you, nor did i seek you out. You keep admitting on one hand that you are watching these pages and then you ignore the fact as it is convenient. This is quickly spiraling out. If you want to see this brought to a reasonable and peaceful co-existence then stop with the controversial edits, and open up DR. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I don't believe any of my edits were the least bit controversial. Whether they were or not, that's not why you reverted me. Without seeing that I was improving the article by cleaning it up, you reverted me just because it was me. My edits weren't controversial; you were the only one who appears to have any sort of problem with it. I really think you only reverted me because you don't like me. Your reverting of me was for unjust reasons, as was the ANI and 3RR you opened against me. Ksy92003(talk) 05:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • AKsy - unless you want to work on a DR, please leave me alone. You refuse to enter the dispute resolution process when there is a dispute. Your behavior and chris behavior - while unchecked by the system has widespread implications, I suspect that's why you guys like doing them so much. Regardless, do not contact me unless it is to enter into dispute resolutions. I will be refractoring every other comment you post here that does not work toward solving the problem. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hot button topic

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Hot button topic, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Fram 11:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Fram, unfortunately my edits to that article have been cut short due to my time constraints (you can probably see what i'm going through right now). The content there is a little on the short side for where I wanted it to be. As I'm still blocked, it would be great if you guys could hold off just a bit. I have never written anything like that before, so i did spend some time reading WP:N before posting it. Again, it's a little sparse but it is tagged. I will be happy to have a more content related discussion here and let you refractor my comments to the articles talk page IF THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE SOME PART OF MY BLOCK. That could be considered a circumvention of it (understandably so). If that is the case, please give me a chance to comment and if you could keep it from being CSDd, that would be great! i'd love to have the opportunity to talk about it after I'm free to edit other pages again. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Soxrock

Soxrock, who's currently blocked, asked to speak with you. He asked me to give you his e-mail in hopes that you e-mail him. Here's his e-mail:

soxrock-wikipedia@hotmail.com

Ksy92003(talk) 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • At what point do you intend to leave me alone? I'm not emailing with you or any of your other friends, I'm not engaging you guys in any more discussions like this. The only reason I'm even leaving this up is so that people can see how you guys continue to behave. I don't know soxrock and don't care to engage him. We can either move forward with DR or we can stop with the controversial edits and go our separate ways. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND - STOP TALKING TO ME HERE - STOP YOUR WP:DATE EDITS ... THEY ARE CONTENTIOUS. USING MY BLOCK AS AN EXCUSE TO CIRCUMVENT DISCUSSIONS IS NOT APPROPRIATE - EITHER ENTER INTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION OR STOP YOUR EDITING Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one who is against these edits. I'm not doing it because you're blocked, I've done it before you were blocked. Again, you are the only one who doesn't like my edits, and that doesn't mean that I should stop just because one person doesn't like me. I've made numerous edits in the past day on lots of articles. Most likely some of those are on some people's watchlist. Therefore, if anybody else didn't like my edits, they'll tell me. But just because you don't like what I'm doing when you already don't like me is no reason for me to stop. Ksy92003(talk) 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Another thing that I'm not sure you understand is that most of the articles on current players already exclude links in those dates, so that's the majority. So what I'm doing, aside from the WP:DATE, is converting the articles' infoboxes to what is most commonly used. Ksy92003(talk) 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

I just want you to be aware of the fact that, in regards to the discussion at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive‎, I want you to know that I perfectly, 100% agree with you in this recent debate and will support you however I feel I need to. Ksy92003(talk) 02:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just fyi - WP:TPG lays out the refractoring of others and why i do it hear. I read almost everything you guys have said. You don't need to agree with me, all you need to do is state what you feel is best for the templates. This is where our whole mess began. If we discuss content and shy away from he said this or that...we'll be SOOOO much better off. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
At first, I agreed with Chrisjnelson, but you convinced me otherwise. After I thought about the way you explained it, and after talking with Chrisjnelson, I changed my stance. After, Chrisjnelson sent me a harmful e-mail, personally attacking me for agreeing with you. I will continue the discussion at the template talk page if Chrisjnelson wants to bring up the comment again.
I also wish to issue a formal apology to the two recent times that you were blocked for 3RR because of me. I behaved completely inappropriately in regards to the disputes that we've had and I wish I could go back in time and prevent it from happening. I don't know why I behaved the way I did, but I really regret it. I really hope that from here on out, we don't have any more arguments and I hope that you and I can work together from now on. I'm not trying to kiss-up if that's what you're thinking; this is a heartfelt apology. I'm really, really sorry. Ksy92003(talk) 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • With all do respet - thank you. I'm not inclined to hold grudges or anything of the sort. Moving forward, if we continue to talk - i bet working together - we can help things here. I have spent a great deal of time reading WP:PG and all the other related pages. I'm not familiar with every single one of them, and often - just like WP:DATE - I think there are problems.
  • I'm by no means perfect, and the written word is often absent of tone and implication, so please take that into consideration. Most every editor here operates under WP:AGF most of the time. And nearly all of my edits are based on the guidelines and policies here on wiki (for example: the moving of content to sub-articles).
  • Let's just be friendly, even when we disagree. I have changed the section header for this so that it better describes the content of the discussion. If you are opposed to it in any way shape or form, feel it has miscommunicated your statements, or changed anything - please do revert that. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(Refractored from User talk:Ksy92003)

I have struck my WP:STALK claim from the ani page and updated it with a status change. I did not get into exactly what happened so that you didn't feel "called out". If you want me to note that you initiated the "peaceful happy thoughts", i will do so. I have responded on my talk page as well. Please either respond there or you can refractor the discussion here. Just Don't Worry, Be Happy. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the section heading, I was initially gonna change it, but I decided to let it say just to see if you would change it, and lo and behold you did :) Of course the only reason I had the section heading the way I had it was because I wanted to make sure that you didn't delete the comment because it was quite important.
To be honest, I have no idea what got into me. I was just so frustrated initially, and extended our disagreements to a much higher degree than was necessary. I know you've previously tried to disengage, and for some reason I wasn't allowing you to. It was then that I realized that the only way for us to resolve our conflicts was for me to disengage. Fortunately, that seems to have calmed everything down between us. Do I think that both of us could've handled the situation better? Possibly. But what's done is done. I think the best thing to do now for us is to just forget about all our past disputes and just start over. Ksy92003(talk) 06:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003(talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

All is well that ends well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


This is important...

(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)

Spotted this while I was here for the baseball thing, and I wanted to suggest trashmail.net as an option for getting e-mail, if you're uncomfortable revealing an account of your own. It's worked well for me in the past. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:19, 5 September 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)

Scott Milanovich

Updated DYK query On 29 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scott Milanovich, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--JayHenry 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Dispute

I just want to see if I could get your opinion on the recent dispute between myself and Chrisjnelson. The discussion was removed by Chrisjnelson from his talk page, so you'll need to recover it from his page history to view it. I'm not asking you to take sides or anything, but I would appreciate it if you could give your impartial opinion on our argument. You can just leave any comments here. Thanks. Ksy92003(talk) 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure i'm in the best position to offer impartial advice. If you have an editor who is outright disruptive and drives other editors away - you need to "pick your battles." For every contentious discussion i have entered into with someone, there are aften a large chunk of issues that i either over look or just don't address.
I wish that i could say go to the noticeboards or Dispute Resolution. But based on my recent experiences there - i'm not sure how much traction you will get.
I have not read through the gist of the recent dispute (and did not dig through CJNs talk page either) - but just stick to the spirit of the guidelines and policies and you'll be alright. Content is king.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. It's just not right because he comes out and says that he's a better writer than me just because he likes his version more than mine... the dispute is about the introductions to an article, which if you compare you'd see are far too similar to create an edit war and content dispute. He comes out and slams me for something so minor. Ksy92003(talk) 02:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have had continued run-ins with this user and I'm not sure I can tell you something you don't already know. I went and edited a few infoboxes for guys that were released and he promptly followed with contentious edits. It is what it is. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the best thing to do would be to stay away from him, huh? But I know that you've had conflicts with him, but I felt really insulted in the way he was speaking, as it made me feel like he was declaring himself superior to me. He said that he was a better writer than me for no reason at all, and I took much offense to that. It seems like he feels like he can put down other users whenever he wishes. Ksy92003(talk) 03:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is it really takes two editors to disengage. Similar to our previous problems (which i'm starting to realize were exacerbated by a third party), it's hard to avoid someone who follows you around. It's frustrating i'm sure - and it's fine to get mad in the "wiki sense" but don't let it bother your sleep.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To put it another way - there are some serious issues about how the NFLactive infobox is being implemented and with what seems like zero chance of good content discussion - it appears they are going to stay that way. I'm not going to dare bring them up now, instead, i'll do what i can to "minimize" the problems. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to mention is that an edit that I made to Kevin Everett was wrong; I said that he was an undrafted free agent, when he was in reality drafted by the Bills in 2005. He reverted me ([6]) with the edit summary "Reverting because Everett was not undrafted and Ksy92003 does not know who he is so he's mistakenly adding false info to article." My next edit, [7], I gave the edit summary "if something i put is wrong, then fix it instead of reverting it," which is a statement I believe you would agree with, as well. This edit primarily led me to believe that Chrisjnelson doesn't care about the article, rather only cares about reverting me. Now, I was wrong, and he knew that, so it seems quite reasonable that the best thing for him to do was fix my mistake. Additionally, he reverted a bunch of other good edits, including adding some more links, cleaning up the article, etc., and that isn't anything that should've been reverted.

This really just makes me angry. Clearly, Chrisjnelson would rather annoy the heck out of me instead of actually improve the article. He gets so angry at me for such trivial manners and begins to insult me; I don't know what more can be done about this. I don't know why Chris behaves this way towards me when I haven't done anything wrong enough to deserve this, nor have any of the content disputes been worthy of me having to use even a single neuron in my brain to even think about. This whole situation is completely ridiculous. Ksy92003(talk) 05:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:American football v football

Hey, Im interested in doing it for you, im just not up on the naming conventions and policies, so cant comment on what should be done. Has a consensus been reached? As i've been busy with work, and havent had much chance to comment. Reedy Boy 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think would call that conversation in its entirity representative of conensus. You have one person who disagrees and everyone else on the same page. I'm not trying to minimize the other's input - i just sort of see it as a stale debate. We are all agreed on leaving the "canadian v am football" out of this move. Plus, the move is very much supported by WP:D. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. If you could, could you please summarise it, to let me know what wants changing? And then i can reparse the list of moves, and look at getting the bot approval done? Thanks, Reedy Boy 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI progress

Just a note that Spartaz (talk · contribs) said that you need to provide evidence for the ANI. Ksy92003(talk) 22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thx, I did see that. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just commenting that if the aggreement worked out is not valid it is not valid. I would recommend that you reference it in your ANI reports, as I think many of the regulars there don't look at CSN much. --Rocksanddirt 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmfangio/Archive_2&oldid=1083957196"