User talk:Ksy92003/Archive-Oct2007

Talk page

The red is Buccaneer red. I didn't just want to show the Bolts on the page exclusively. I like your colors, they go together well. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 00:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Bobby Grich, a fellow Wilson High grad. DYK? Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 03:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (btw, I'm still up following SD/COL, epic game)

HOMERUN SAN DIEGO! 8-6 IN THE 13TH. Sorry, had to get that out. Honestly, I can't think of any notable people from my school, unfortunately. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I kinda preffered Colorado as well (drama my friend, if that were the Indians over the Yanks, I'd be pissed). Heck, Colorado still can win. Matsui, Tulowitzki, Holiday, Helton coming up, with Hawpe following Carroll. Not over yet.

I'll need to check out this Chris block. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 04:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Colorado has tied it! Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This game has been absolutely amazing. Btw, I'm not on TBS, couldn't find the game, and I've settled for MLB GameDay tonight. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Intentional walk to Helton. Hey, what did I say? With the batters coming up, Colorado wasn't dead. I predicted it! Sorry to brag Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 04:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

THE ROCKIES WIN THE WILD CARD! Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 04:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, heard JT The Brick say that. This better be minor for the Rox, they cannot afford to lose Holiday, obviously Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 04:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. What a heartbreak it would be to see such a great game end with an injury that hurt the team in the playoffs.

As for Chris, it's kinda sad, actually. I'm sick of seeing him in so much trouble. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 04:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll give my take on that quickly. Mike Cameron actually played tonight. Bradley, well, that's a good possibility. I mean, he is a loose cannon. It's just sad to see how the Padres got so many blessings and couldn't use them to their advantages. But the Rockies definitely earned it. All the luck to them, hope to see them in the Series vs. the Yanks (then the love affair ends, go Yankees) Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I do occasionally have some criticism, on both you and Chris, and having said a little about you to Chris tonight (he e-mailed me) I'll say this about Chris (sorry for this Chris): He seems to think most of what he says are not personal attacks. Seriously, "F'ing blind..." that's not a shot at someone? Wow, I guess nothing is. Chris kinda needs to join a mentoring program at Wikipedia, just to calm down. No, that is not an attack either. He is a top 5 contributor to the NFL project, but he is among the worst Wikipedians behavior-wise. Sorry Chris Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 05:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm retaining my relationship with Chris, sorry. It's in my best interest, and maybe yours as well Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 05:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nelson

Well, I'm in no position to be critical of someone else being a hot-head, as I've been known to get a little steamed from time to time; and I don't really want to take sides on this issue, as there is room for criticism of both of you. However... he nearly got nailed for his confrontation with the guy who turned out to be Tecmobowl reincarnated, and that lesson didn't seem to stick. I would also say that I think you should back off from name-calling, even if it's G-rated. As Tecmobowl (ironically) used to say, focus on the content. I learned a few things from the Tecmo battle this past summer, and I try to stay away from getting personal unless I have solid evidence (as with User:Ron liebman, although I've pulled many a punch where that guy is concerned). Calling someone a liar is not a comment on content, unless you can somehow prove he's a liar. But to me, regardless of the high or low level of the argument, vulgarity really crosses the line, and deserves a block. Learn from this. Take the high road, even (or especially) when you're tempted to get down into the ditch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreadable

FYI, your talk page is almost unreadable (specifically, internal links are completely unreadable). You might want to fix it. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This didn't improve much if you're wondering. All internal links are barely legible and almost burn my eyes. Same result on two different monitors so it's not a problem on my end. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? I can see them quite clearly. Ksy92003(talk) 23:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On my machine, the links are in purple, which pretty well fades into the red. Kind of like the Bush-Quayle bumper stickers where Bush was in white and Quayle was in red, on a blue background, rendering Quayle's name nearly invisible (it didn't help, they still lost). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do have pretty good vision. Maybe that has something to do with it (not saying any of you have bad vision, at all). Maybe I can just read it easier than most people can. That's fine. I'll continue to experiment. The colors that I've been choosing I've chosen them because I want to represent either of my favorite teams: the Los Angeles Kings or the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Ksy92003(talk) 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have very good vision. In fact, I have four eyes. 8) Maybe if you could find a less vivid shade of red? It's like the page is drenched in blood. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

At least my talk page doesn't look like a pumpkin... sorry, Soxrock, had to do it :) Ksy92003(talk) 00:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, yours looks like ketchup and his looks like mustard. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I love ketchup, and I'm allergic to mustard. Haha perhaps this means something. Ksy92003(talk) 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I like them both, but I'm more into Mayo, so that's what my talk page is colored as. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was cream cheese :) Man, it's amazing what I started, huh? Just wanted to add a bit of color, and now look. We're even having some controversy about it haha. Ksy92003(talk) 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Or cream cheese. As long as it's not from Philadelphia. I don't root for anything from Philadelphia. But as you know from history, color is often controversial. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of a Norwegian sandwich, consisting of white bread, mayo, provolone or limburger cheese, lutefisk, and cream cheese. You can't get much whiter than that. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The one thing from Philadelphia that I rooted for: the Phillies. I just had to root for them to upset the Mets. As a Los Angeles Kings fan, I know what it's like to cheer for the underdog. Ksy92003(talk) 01:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

At the celebration, assuming they're still made, in addition to champagne they should have handed out Phillie cigars. Or maybe they did? I saw someone working on a cigar at the Cubs celebration, but he was having trouble keeping it lit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The version you just switched to looks better, but the links are still hard to read. Sasha Callahan 00:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, my sig looks really good with this background. Sasha Callahan 00:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

The links still look readable to me. Wknight94, Baseball Bugs, what are your opinions? Ksy92003(talk) 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The links are readable, its just that the blue on red burns the retinas. Sasha Callahan 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha, another similarity to Dan Quayle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The blue font doesn't look problematic to me... maybe the blue background on your signature makes it look more painful, but you probably won't message me here a lot, I don't think. Ksy92003(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you got me. But, honestly, I actually like orange. But I'm also going to keep testing my page, I want it to look good, represent my teams, but not be hard to read. Perhaps I should've kept a regular look, like here. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 00:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I like orange also. But none of my teams wear orange. Only silver, "forum blue," red, blue, and gold. So I have to pick from those. Ksy92003(talk) 00:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JerryBusser

I do not think that it was helpful to argue about whether repeated insertion of information, against consensus, by a user that was pretty obviously socking, was a useful thing to do on a checkuser page. Have you thoroughly reviewed the sockpuppet policy?

Also, many editors will perceive dark colored talk page backgrounds as hard to read and potentially hostile to those coming to the page. I know I find it very hard to read your talk page. Is that intentional? ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, my comments weren't related to the actual sockpuppetry. But my interpretation of WP:SOCK was that multiple accounts could be used if they weren't causing disruption. But that was just my interpretation; I can be wrong.

Secondly, as for the colored talk page, I got the format from somebody else where it was initially yellow. When I noticed that I could change the colors and actually thought about it, I wanted to use colors which would represent my favorite sports teams, like the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (hence the red). I didn't make it red to add hostility or anything like that. I just wanted to represent something that's very close to me. Ksy92003(talk) 19:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AMP NHL Winter Classic

Hi Ksy92003!

You may not know this, but, the occurrence of an NHL game played outdoors is excruciatingly rare, and is a marquee event. I'm afraid your AfD wouldn't reach a consensus to delete, so if you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware that most games are played indoors. I'm a die-hard NHL fan. The reason I nominated the article for AfD was because I didn't feel that one particular regular season game should be notable enough for an article, even if played outdoors. It's just one game that counts for two points in the standings, just like any other game.

As of right now, the only real significance I feel the event has is that it's going to be an outdoor game. I can't think of any other significance.

By the way, I didn't appreciate the comment "Nominator should be aware that NHL games are normally played INDOORS. Stay with stuff you know about" left by Mandsford (talk · contribs). As a die-hard hockey fan and a 17-year season-ticket holder for the Los Angeles Kings (I'm only 17 years old) I took this quite insulting. Ksy92003(talk) 01:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your purchased season tickets at birth?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris, this is borderline harassment. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but if I could've, I would. My dad has been a Kings' season-ticket holder since 1980, and he's been taking me to games ever since I was born. Ksy92003(talk) 01:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you join WP:HOCKEY, then? And I told Mandsford very sternly to be nice, I don't think he'll bother you again. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You thought you could steal Tom Glavine away from us!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll respond each comment separately:

1. Actually, Maxim, I have already joined the project, and have been a part of it since I began in November.
   1. I've never seen contribute much, so I was a bit surprised, but it' isn't a big deal! :D Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited a lot in the hockey project, but since then, my edits on mainspace articles have greatly decreased in quantity because of all the disputes that I've been involved in with other users. Perhaps now that hockey season is underway I will begin again. Ksy92003(talk) 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm still disappointed that we were robbed when we drafted Tom Glavine and he decided to play baseball. But, the good news is that in that same draft we got Luc Robitaille so that all worked out for us. Ksy92003(talk) 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are truly an NHL fan, then I am surprised that you would have gone to such trouble to single out this particular article for deletion. I remember not long ago that we had someone else who nominated for deletion an article about the 1967 NHL expansion (being a Kings fan, you need no explanation as to its significance). Earlier this week, we had someone nominate an article about Dag Hammarskjold. Anyway, there is nothing in your post that would tip anyone off that you are knowledgable about the game. Mandsford 11:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, can we all disengage and find something other than arguing to do? Cheers, --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Patriots roster

I think it is curious that you have yet to acknowledge the clear evidence Pats1 provided at the New England Patriots roster template talk page. I have no doubt you will argue with me on this, but this is the truth of the matter - Pats1 just provided evidence straight from the Collective Bargaining Agreement that proves everyone wrong that was undoing his Rodney Harrison edit. In light of this, and considering he cannot revert it again because he'd violate 3RR and I can't because of my restriction, the adult thing to do in this situation would be to undo your own edit, Ksy92003. If you actually did it I'd be downright amazed. Of course, I'd bet anything you won't do it, perhaps not even acknowledging the evidence at all, because I have a feeling you're too proud to admit when you're wrong. Guess we'll see how grown up your are in the next day. Do the right thing.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason I didn't reply to what Pats1 said on that page is because I didn't know he had said anything; at the time that he made his edit, I had a lot of changes on my watchlist, and I had overlooked it. And now that I've looked at it, I'm not gonna say anything any more. I'm going to disengage form that discussion because you don't listen to me. Also, I'm not gonna revert myself because somebody is trying to bully me. I'm not gonna do something just because you tell me to, and also because I don't feel I should revert that edit.

He is listed on the Active roster on Patriots.com. He is listed on the Active roster on SI.com. He is listed on the Active roster on ESPN.com. Three official websites (not blogs) that all say the same thing, and yet you dispute it. One more thing: something else you don't seem to understand at all. In the past, you have said that the official websites are great for rosters and are great for updating. How come now, you decide that the website is no good. If the websites have all been good in the past, why wouldn't it be good now? That's what you've said, and I don't understand this at all. Ksy92003(talk) 12:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Typical you. I knew you wouldn't do the right thing.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing what I think is right. Are you telling me you wouldn't do exactly the same? Ksy92003(talk) 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you think it's right, you're deluding yourself because you were PROVED wrong. Those websites were PROVED wrong by the legal document drawn up and agreed upon by the National Football League and NFL Players Association. This is no different that editing the article Pig and maintaining they can fly.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't even about that. How come now, you're saying that the team's official website is wrong? Ksy92003(talk) 15:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jee-Sus Christ. Okay. I will try to explain this one more time. I'm really too nice, I gotta stop that. But here goes:

In my extensive experience following NFL transactions, I have come to be familiar with all the NFL team websites. These websites are run by someone in PR, not like a coach or front office guy, so keep that in mind.

Now in my experience, I have noticed that team websites can be useful for some things, but not others. In my opinion, some are not good about updating in a timely manner. I've seen websites go a week or more without being edited to add a newly signed player or delete a released one - especially practice squad guys. It's just the way it works, because most people aren't that thorough.

This, I would say, is the major negative about team sites. Another is that they don't always have proper distinctions for players. Harrison being on the exempt list is a good example. We can prove he's on the exempt list, but the Patriots' website keeps him on the active roster so as not to confuse the public, which doesn't really get how that works. Tank Johnson is another example. He is nowhere to be found on the roster at DallasCowboys.com. Not under a suspended list, nowhere. Nor has he ever been. But we do know he has signed a contract with the team, and we can verify that with sources. It's just an example of the Cowboys' PR department not updating their roster. Most websites are just pretty slack, in my experience.

Now because team websites can't always be trusted to have the right players all the time, what can they be trusted on? Well, when they actively edit the roster for a specific purpose or add specific information to the roster, that is when you can safely assume it is correct. That is why I looked for Tank Johnson's number there. Because I understand that while the Cowboys' roster might not update it as often as they should, when they DO it's not going to be full of inaccuracies like jersey numbers. IF they ever added Tank Johnson to the roster, and I'm sure they will when he is activated, the jersey number they put is very unlikely to be wrong. Why? Because someone went out of their way to edit the roster with a specific purpose because they had new information. You're not going to see Tank Johnson added with the number 47 - if someone adds Johnson to that roster it's safe to assume they made sure they had good info.

As mistakenly said by Bjewiki and maybe yourself, it's not about when I or anyone else thinks the sites are reliable. It's about doing some things well and some things not well. I understand you do not have this knowledge for yourself because you haven't been scouring NFL team sites daily for years. But Pats1 and I have, and like anyone would, we have gained a strong understanding for how each one operates, their strengths, their weaknesses, when to trust them, and when not to. Anyone that put in time we have would gain this same knowledge. You can either trust our expertise on the subject or you can't. But try to understand that I am not pushing any agenda, I am not deciding when these sites are trustworthy. I'm giving you my opinion based on years of experience.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that if the site is good at some things and not at others, then it isn't reliable. Since you say that the Patriots website is wrong because they list Harrison on the active roster, but you and Pats1 say it isn't, then that means that website can't be used as a source. They aren't entirely trustworthy, so we don't know if they are telling the truth or not. You say it does some things well, and some not so well.

As for Harrison's addition to the Active roster, "someone went out of their way to edit the roster with a specific purpose because they had new information." "If someone adds [Harrison] to that roster it's safe to assume they made sure they had good info." How are these two cases any different? You're completely contradicting yourself with these statements. Ksy92003(talk) 16:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I feel this is hopeless. I tried.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Ksy92003(talk) 16:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jake Delhomme

Yes, he's out for the season. However, he should not be placed on the IR list here, until the move is done officially in real life. Same thing with Chris Simms. Bucs announced that they will IR him tommorrow (Wed.) but we can't make that move on the roster template either, until it's officially completed. Bjewiki 02:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I saw that Chris removed Delhomme, and that you restored him. I assumed that he was supposed to be restored to the IR list and that you accidentally placed him in the active roster. My mistake. Ksy92003(talk) 02:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I posted a response on the Panther's template talk page. Also, check your inbox. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 02:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Alex Rodriguez Ted Simmons Graeme Lloyd World Series Trophy Liván Hernández Shutout Bob Melvin Games played Mike Couchee Warren Spahn Ron Cey Yogi Berra Pedro A. Martínez Tris Speaker Andy Van Slyke Bud Harrelson Terry Pendleton LaTroy Hawkins Steve Phillips

Cleanup List of highest paid baseball players Shaun Alexander Cal Ripken, Jr. Merge Craniosynostosis The Canada Series Eagle Stadium Add Sources Mike Mussina Great Central League Memphis Redbirds Wikify Jack Pierce (athlete) Steve Howe (baseball player) Jong-Beom Lee Expand John Clarkson Jesse Burkett Cry Wolf

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Suicide freak

Wow, the first time I have had userpage vandalism since June '06. Didn't even know about it. However, I was not caught in an autoblock, must be outside IP range "71.99.141.107." Thanks for the note, though. I was scared for a second. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 02:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, looking at it, our edit times match up. He had an edit at 00:48, and I have a lot at that time (just before I hopped on Madden, boy did that almost turn out to be the worst decision I ever made!) Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 02:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's no big deal, I guess. It turned out to be (drum roll please...) Connell66. How the hell would he know me anyway?Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 02:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi There...

The policy you linked to refers to article talk pages. Pats1 can remove any comment he wishes from his talk page per WP:TALK#User_talk_pages. Its the same policy that allows you to do this. But it doesn't let you do this. If you really want people to know what he said, simply put the diff there. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 23:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally read the wrong one. I still see no reason why Pats1 feels the need to remove the comment, but according to WP:USER, I shouldn't have done that. I'm gonna leave as is. Ksy92003(talk) 23:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, I can't editor review you until you answer the questions. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. I just haven't had time to work on answering those two questions. I'll do that momentarily. Ksy92003(talk) 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Pats1 RfA

Your diplomacy in the above discussion will certainly look good on your own RfA someday. youngamerican (wtf?) 22:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you. If you've seen my user page, then you'll see that I hope to either self-nominate myself for RfA or have somebody nominate me for RfA by January 24. Ksy92003(talk) 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Thanks, I needed that laugh. Have a tasty thank you, The Hybrid T/C 06:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hybrid T/C has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just Thought i'd tell you

I just thought i'd tell you that I added your name to a list of Wikipedians I Respect at my user page, and if you would like to delete your name you can--Yankees10 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think you are the only user that I actually have gotten along with ever since the first time we met. The circumstances in which we met each other weren't the way I would've hoped, and we haven't really encountered each other a lot since last April, but I appreciate just that you remember me. Thank you. Ksy92003(talk) 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not getting it

Was your editor review a chance for you to get genuine feedback? Or just a required step towards adminship? The general consensus there was that you need to expel Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) from your life here. Instead, in just the few days since the ER, you've

1. E-mailed him
2. Left him yet another irritated talk page message when, yet again, he didn't respond to your e-mail the way you wanted
3. Accused him of vandalizing your talk page with a damn swastika!
4. Left him another message with some cookie thing

If that's your idea of ignoring someone, I hate to see what happens if you start harassing someone! I don't like how all of this is shaping up at all and I'll have my eyes on both sides of this situation. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

1. 1. The e-mail was sent because of the way Chris reacted when Soxrock told him about the editor review. Chris didn't believe what I said in the editor review at all, and in the e-mail, all I did was ask him why he didn't believe me for feedback. I didn't think it sounded mean or provoking at all.
   2. Chris never responded to my e-mail. The sarcastic response I was referring to was the first one he left on his talk page after Soxrock commented.
   3. I thought we'd already cleared up the vandalism. It was rash judgment, and Chris was my first instinct. I'd already apologized for that.
   4. The cookie thing I sent him was an attempt to patch things up. I was trying to put aside our differences by sending him that. The template says "Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend," and since we've had disagreements, that was what I was trying to do. It was a genuine attempt to put our differences aside.

I didn't think there was anything essentially wrong with any of these actions I took, and I already apologized for my accusation of Chris and had said I was going to put that aside. That's when I decided to send him the cookie. I didn't think I was doing anything wrong with the e-mail when asking for feedback such as why he didn't believe I would try to put this behind... I really am trying, hence why I sent the cookie. The comment I left him on his talk page in response to that comment was after Chris said "Apparently, "ignoring Chris" means "e-mailing him." I felt the need to defend myself from anybody looking at the talk page who thought I was trying to provoke him by explaining the context of the e-mail, which was asking him why he thought the way I did, something which I didn't believe was a big deal. Also note that after he removed it, saying "reverting vandalism," I didn't try to re-add the statement, something which in the past, I would've probably done instantly. I wasn't trying to provoke him at all, and I was genuinely trying to put our differences aside. Ksy92003(talk) 13:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

By "ignoring him", I mean cold turkey. Don't send him an e-mail, don't defend anyone from him, don't comment on things he says, don't try to patch things up with him, don't get angry when he doesn't want to patch things up with you, etc., etc. Just leave him alone. How many times does this whole cycle need to be repeated? You send him something to patch things up, he deletes it off his talk page, then you get upset and ask him why he deleted it when you were just trying to patch things up and then he calls you something nasty and then you report him and then he's re-banned. How is any of that helping? You don't have to be friends with the guy and he doesn't have to be friends with you... Just leave him alone. Don't talk to him, don't talk about him, don't watch what he's doing, don't watch what he's saying, don't revert him... Just leave him alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to stop. For the record, I didn't get upset when he deleted anything from his talk page. Yes, I sent him an e-mail, but it wasn't mean or provoking. All I said in the e-mail if you must know is that I saw the comment Soxrock left, and was curious as to why he didn't believe me. I didn't say anything mean at all. When Chris left the comment saying "apparently ignoring means e-mailing" I was afraid that other people would look at the comment and think I was trying to provoke him. That's why I said what I said. Chris wasn't telling the whole story. Yeah, I e-mailed him, but what I said in the e-mail wasn't bad at all. I felt I needed to defend myself by saying that I didn't say anything mean in the e-mail at all, which is why I didn't re-add the comment: because I really am trying to turn over a new leaf.

Whether you think I'm trying my absolute hardest to resolve these conflicts or not or whether you think I'm trying in good faith to put the conflicts aside or not, I'm trying to stop. It's just hard because these conflicts have gone on ever since April, and after six months, it's hard to just forget about it just like that. It's gonna take some time, I promise you. This is a work in progress, and eventually, over time, the conflict will dissipate. Ksy92003(talk) 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Patience wearing very thin

I really hope it's a coincidence that you suddenly felt a need to edit nothing but Miami Dolphins player articles yesterday. I'd hate to think that you are purposely playing only in Chrisjnelson's part of the playground after these last few talks and after I asked you nicely to keep away from him. My patience with this situation is wearing dangerously thin and a very different picture is starting to appear than what you have been painting. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the reason why I chose the Dolphins' players was because I was on the internet before making those edits, looking up the last time the Dolphins began the season 0-7 (because I was thinking of the Dolphins being the only team with a perfect record, and it's interesting how now they could have a winless record. They were on my mind and I wanted to start working on football article. I know this looks suspicious, but that was my true motive, honestly. I'll stop because it looks suspicious and I don't want to be accused of baiting Chris.

As for the actual edits themselves, even if they were all Dolphins articles, in the edits I was making, I was only removing excess information. When the disagreements with Chris and I regarding those edits began, all the discussions we've had about the intros have been about me changing the wording and sentence structure of the intros. In the edits that I made last night, I was removing excess information.

Because of the discussion we had the other day, it would be incredibly dumb to do anything to provoke him even further, as I'm sure that would probably give me a long block. The articles I was editing were Dolphins articles because the Dolphins were on my mind and I wanted to do a little cleanup. But the specific edits I was making were never discussed between Chris and I, so I don't think that could possibly be an attempt to provoke him. If I were doing the exact same edits I did a couple months ago, that'd be a different thing. But even if the articles are similar, what I was doing was never discussed with Chris at all. We had discussed changing the sentence structure, something which I haven't done since those discussions, but we hadn't discussed what I was doing, which was simple cleanup to the intros as well as other minor edits I saw that needed to be made.

Of course, I know that this looks suspicious, so it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't believe my reason for why the Dolphins or why I wanted to edit them. But I'll stop doing that because I know that it looks like I was trying to provoke him. If it comes to this, I'll even revert all my edits if I need to. But now, it seems like there's a topic ban on me for football articles, which I've taken some interest in since football season began and baseball season ended for me, just because everybody will think that I'm only doing it to provoke Chris. Ksy92003(talk) 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, in these discussions (which have all been in e-mail), Chris said that his way was better because he's a journalism major and I'm just a high school kid. Ksy92003(talk) 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no topic ban from all football articles. But when your topic of interest suddenly swings to the articles on Nelson's user page and only the articles on Nelson's user page (a set of articles that you've never edited before mind you) surely you know how that looks. Use some common sense please. We're not idiots here. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to say that anybody is an idiot. The time of night when I was making the edits was incredibly late for me, and my mind was very heavy due to thinking of the wildfire victims, and I guess the coincidence never really occurred to me. My mind wasn't clear and I wasn't thinking straight, and I do apologize for this incident. As for the articles, Chris does edit the roster templates, but I was never under the impression that I couldn't edit any of the Dolphins' players articles because Chris likes to edit the Dolphins' roster template. For that, I'm a little bit confused as to where the real issue is. I was told not to provoke Chris. I was never told that I couldn't edit the articles that are linked to in a template that Chris edits. I don't see what the problem is with that. Ksy92003(talk) 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, after I had finished my edits I was going to remove Chris from my watchlist, and then I saw the edit summary he typed in response to unrelated edits I made to my talk page. I think I'm rather fortunate that I was just about to get off for the night, or I probably would've reacted negatively in response. That made me a little bit angry, but I didn't do anything in reaction. I then removed his page from my watchlist and I haven't looked at it since. I'm not sure if Chris has been told about that edit summary comment Chris left, although I'd be surprised if it slid under the radar and went unnoticed.

That's all from me for now unless you've something else to say, Wknight94. As Chris' block is set to expire later this evening, I'm going to begin working on hockey and baseball articles if I can (by if, I mean I might have to do AP Calculus homework). Now, not to say that I don't want anything to do with you or anything, but I hope this is the last time you have to talk to me. Be well. Ksy92003(talk) 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Compromise on player intros

It seems the real only consistent conflict between us at the moment is NFL player article intros. I realize you aim to ignore me and that perhaps I should do the same, so you don't have to reply to this if you think it's best. However, I would like to at least attempt to reach a compromise on the intros. We both seem to believe that a consistent formula for the intros is a good idea, so that's a start. I am willing to make a few concessions, and I am hoping you will make one.

First of all, I agree that it should be college football rather than [[college football|collegiately]]. You're right - there's no point in piping it.

Secondly, I am fine with listing just the round in the draft sentence. Specifics can go in the "Professional career" section.

Thirdly, I'm fine with ditching the world "currently plays for" in the intro. "...is an American football quarterback for the Miami Dolphins..." is sufficient. And admittedly, dropping "currently plays for" avoids any confusion if the guy is on I.R. or something. For practice squad players, I was thinking "...is an American football quarterback who is a practice squad player for the Miami Dolphins..." If you have any other suggestions, feel free.

My one request of a concession on your part is to re-consider my use of the word "originally" in the second sentence. I feel you are mistakenly tying it too closely to the word "drafted." I wasn't putting "originally" in there to give the idea there could be multiple times drafted - "originally" is meant to say this is when the guy first entered the NFL. I guess I can see how it might seem a little funny with a guy that's only been on one team, but for guys that have been on multiple teams I think it definitely reads well. See Orien Harris for an example.

Also, I had a question about your linking of the cities and states of birth. I understand why you're making your edits the way you are, but I've always just linked to it as a whole since it's an article (ex. Boston, Massachusetts). Is there a specific policy about this sort of thing. I've never really seen your way of doing it in any other place, but I've yet to see a policy on how it's traditionally done.

So what do you think?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Alright, this is good.
2. For players who were drafted in the first round of the NFL Draft, I simply left it as the overall pick. I think that if a player was drafted in the first round, then the overall draft pick is important, and unimportant if the second or later picks.
3. For the practice squad note, the way that I would suggest it would be “…is an American football quarterback on the Miami Dolphins practice squad.” No offense, but I think “who is a” is language that can easily improved.
4. To be honest, I didn’t really consider the reason why you did it. I mean I considered the reason, but not the reason you just provided. I don’t mean to bring back past experiences, but if you had told me that was the reason a long time ago, then I wouldn’t have had a problem with that. I removed the word “originally” because I felt it was redundant, not particularly because it was ambiguous. For the NFL players, most of them are only drafted once. Using “originally” would be alright in that case then. I think there should be a different format for a player who is drafted, not signed, and then goes back into the draft pool. Feel free to let me know any suggestions you have.
5. There is no policy for this, as far as I’m aware. I just felt it was easier to link to both the city and the state. There are some articles like Chicago where the title name is just the city. There are many US cities like that, and in player articles, then it would have to read “[[Chicago]], [[Illinois]].” There are many US cities that have articles with similar title formats, and it’d be far too difficult to change all of them because of the amount, all the re-directs, etc. It doesn’t really make much a difference; it’s a preferential thing. For my reasoning, take Los Angeles for example. Los Angeles, California is the city, but California is its own title. It’s a separate title: a state. I think that California, as a superior… thing (I can’t think of what to call it), deserves to have its own link. It’s not a big deal, completely preferential, and it could be done either way. It just depends on how you feel. Granted, the way I’ve done it means you have to type a bit more, such as “[[Los Angeles, California|]], [[California]]” instead of “[[Los Angeles, California]]” but I think that it’s worth giving California its own link.

I’m glad that you and I are finally on path to reaching a compromise, which hopefully would put our differences aside. I’m sorry for wrongfully accusing you of making that vandalism. It was a swastika, and you were my first guess because of the Nazi comment from months ago. It was rash judgment on my part, and I apologize. Ksy92003(talk) 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but it's kind of hard for me to keep everything organized with your replies in my comment so I'm going to keep mine all down here. A few comments:

• I agree, the overall pick is better for the first round. It's more relevant that Peyton Manning was first overall than just to say "first round."
• I definitely understand what you mean about the phrase "who is a" and I admit I don't care for it myself. The problem with saying "for the Miami Dolphins' practice squad" is that I think the phrase "the Miami Dolphins of the National Football League" is an important one, and you can't really do that if you put the apostrophe and "practice squad" in there. Any ideas?
• Also, it's always been my feeling that intros should go like this: First paragraph should be the the basic info we've discussed. An optional second paragraph should be included for things like noteworthy family (ex. Eli Manning is brother of Colts QB Peyton Manning, etc.) or really notable accomplishments (Tom Brady is a two-time Super Bowl MVP, etc.). Would you agree? I feel this two-paragraph format can be stuck to pretty much all the time, except when there are unusual circumstances, like say in the case of Michael Vick.

And yeah, I definitely understand why you thought that vandalism was me. It's a very odd and random thing for a vandal to do, and if I were you I would have been almost certain it was me. But I can honestly say I had no connection to that, directly or indirectly. Very strange though.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I re-organized my comments and put them in numbered bullets. I’ll continue with the discussion normally.

I didn’t consider the “National Football League” part when I made that comment. But now that you remind me of that, I admit that it wouldn’t flow well if you said “Miami Dolphins’ practice squad. I guess “[so and so] is an American football [position] on the practice squad of the [team] of the National Football League.” At this time, I can’t think of any other alternative, so if you think of something better, then I’m kinda forced to go with that. As for the information that goes in the lead, obviously Michael Vick is a clear exception because he isn’t just a football player: he’s a criminal. The introduction needs to outline both halves. I don’t think there is any disagreement about that. But for players like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Vince Young, I think that a sentence that says how many Super Bowl trophies they have won, regular season/Super Bowl MVP, Offensive Rookie of the Year, etc. are quite important accomplishments in their career. Winning those great awards is as big an event in their playing careers as Vick’s dog fighting scandal.

I believe you when you say it wasn’t you. That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do with your block set to expire a couple days after. It wasn’t an accusation, just noting a bizarre coincidence. I hope you didn’t take offense when I questioned about this.

On another note, I wasn’t expecting a reply from you when I got home from school today. I didn’t think we were gonna communicate at all, but I’m glad you did leave that comment. Now that we’re discussing this actually on Wikipedia (all other discussions have been on e-mail) I think the discussion is better, and I think that the compromises/agreements we have on this now because of this discussion actually can bring you and I do a good friendship on Wikipedia, which is quite beneficial for both of us. I know it’s just one conversation, but I think that just this discussion is a major step in resolving our disputes once and for all. Ksy92003(talk) 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've actually considered that phrasing also, regarding the first line. I just didn't like it because the phrase "of the" appears twice - on the practice squad of the Miami Dolphins of the National Football League. Sounds kind of stupid to me. But yeah, it's a tricky thing and I don't really know what the best option is right now. Are you really opposed to "is an American football quarterback who is a practice squad player for the Miami Dolphins of the National Football League"?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to remove redundancy, so of course I wouldn't want something that would add repitition of terms. I'm sure there is a better way to add the practice squad part in there, but your example would be sufficient enough for now. If the player isn't on the practice squad, then the "who is a" could be removed, but for the practice squad players, I can't think of any other alternative in the mean time. Ksy92003(talk) 03:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely better to remove the "who is currently..." if possible. I just wanted to preserve the "of the National Football League because it really should be written for people that don't know about the NFL, being an encyclopedia and all. I'm not a big fan of abbreviating it on first mention either, though you've never done it that way if I remember correctly?

So it seems we've got all the intro conflicts hashed out, no?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey also, regarding some of your infobox edits to Dolphins players, one thing I've been doing intentionally, and have discussed with User:Phbasketball6 is that I think it might be a good idea to leave the "name=" field no matter what. My reasoning is that, let's say you have a page like Kerry Reed. But let's say in the future, another Kerry Reed becomes notable and requires their own article (Kerry Reed (politician), for instance). After making this page, someone moved Kerry Reed to Kerry Reed (American football). If we leave out the name field in the infobox, his name in the infobox will change to the article name and the person that moved the article, without necessarily any interest in football, might not notice this and add the field. So I was thinking maybe it's best to always leave the name field, that way the name in the infobox stays the same even if a page if moved/disambiguated. What do you think?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to say that this will be the only edit that I will make today. See the note at the top of my page for the reasoning behind this.

Now, to answer your paragraphs one by one. OF course the one obvious reason to say "National Football League" is basically because... well, you know how I live in Long Beach, and the closest team is the San Diego Chargers, more than 100 miles away. My local professional team is the Los Angeles Avengers of the Arena Football League, a completely separate league (although many players to switch between these leagues). The league needs to be in the intro because there is also the CFL and NCAAF, and NFL, AFL, and CFL teams are all mentioned in the infobox. I've noticed that you have edited CFL players also somewhat commonly, so that's something we'd definitely need to keep in the intros.

For the infobox, I definitely think the name field should be in the infobox code. A lot of the players are an "(American football)" title. Also, when you asked about this, I thought about one edit I was making to the Dolphins articles Monday night. One of the players was once a free agent, but was signed to the Dolphins. I'd like to add that this wouldn't have been an issue for me if you were active on Monday because you would've done it almost immediately. Because he was a free agent, the "currentteam" and "currentnumber" fields were removed from the infobox. I didn't know why the infobox remained with the free agent colors until I noticed that. When I did notice that, I was finally able to add those parameters and the Dolphins colors appeared. Those fields should remain in there, I think, because I'm sure somebody else, somebody not familiar with the infobox codes that much like myself, wouldn't know how to correct this. I don't know if there are any other cases where this is true, but I think that's something for you to keep your eyes on. If you've got any more things you'd like to discuss, you know you're welcome here. But I think we've pretty much gotten this all figured out :)

Finally, I'm sorry tht the "Nelson" part of your signature doesn't show up on my talk page. Ksy92003(talk) 13:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudget RfA

Dearest Opposer,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!

Rudget _{Contributions} 09:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

admin nom

I'd like to nominate you for administratorship. Please let me know if you are interested. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Chad Johnson

Please don't undo the move of Chad Johnson, where I just undid your move, at least not right now. I'm about to explain on the talk page there, one sec.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I didn't think there would be a problem with that. If you want, you can also redo the moves I made to the other Johnson page and the disambiguation page. I already took care of that for you. Ksy92003(talk) 03:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Chad Johnson. I think you'll understand where I'm coming from.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA question

I'm only vaguely familiar with Chrisjnelson and your interactions with him, and so I am disinclined, at least for now, to pose any specific query with respect thereto on your RfA. I wonder, though, if you might—at your convenience, of course—offer a bit of clarification about this comment you made two-plus days ago in the context of your dispute with Chrisjnelson; I am, I must confess, a bit concerned by the implicit suggestion, one that I may well misapprehend, that you weren't entirely certain two days ago that you could forbear editing in a suboptimal manner, as well as by the explicit profession earlier in your colloquy with Wknight that you expected to apply for adminship in roughly three months, such that you should have time to "get out of the[] bad habits that have caused problems for [you]" (you may, perhaps, have meant that three months would give you time to demonstrate to the community that any problematic behavior was atypical, which would, of course, be just fine). I question, then, whether I'm missing something or if in fact your thinking changed at least in part over the past few days. Cheers, Joe 08:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must confess that I wasn't planning on going through with the RfA, and the main reason I decided to go through with it now is because I wanted more feedback. I myself wasn't expecting a successful RfA here, but I thought that if I were to go thorugh with it then all the people who voted "oppose" would give me some feedback and some things to consider, and they have. I didn't think it would be successful, but I still wanted to know what major things I needed to work on depending on the reasons for opposing.

Another minor reason why I decided to go through with the RfA was because somebody came here and asked if I'd be interested, and I kinda felt bad about declining. That's not an excuse by any means; although it is on the verge of being closed per WP:SNOW, I still am glad that I decided to go through with it this time because I got valuable feedback. I'm not giong to have any need for the admin tools at this time, and it should be several months (possibly June '08) before I would have any need, after I graduate, so we'll see what happens. Ksy92003(talk) 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your vote on my RfA...

I think you misunderstood what was being said in my initial statement, and as it has been clarified and elaborated upon from various sources, I would like to ask that you either consider a different line of reasoning for your opposition, or consider changing your vote. MSJapan 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I will do so when I have the opportunity to edit on a faster computer. The computer in which I am currently on is struggling right now, and it is going too slow for me to be able to do this at this time. I will do it later on in the afternoon. Just please be patient, okay? Ksy92003(talk) 13:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that your RfA was closed, 9/9/5, before I got the chance to do this. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it would've mattered either way because of the low percentage. I'm sorry, but don't worry; when you submit a second RfA, I will give you the same opinion (support, oppose, or neutral) that I was going to have after reconsidering what had been brought to my attention. Ksy92003(talk) 13:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reggie Jackson Infobox

I just thought it should be RBI because thats what most people no it by--Yankees10 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You can revert it back if you want--Yankees10 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I did it--Yankees10 17:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah I see what your saying--Yankees10 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)