User talk:Jmfangio/Archive 1

Your sig style
Hi, I'm glad you like my signature :) You can copy the code, I don't mind :-p. Here it is:

Jmfangio ► Talk

I've already included your talk page and user page in the code. You can edit the colors and stuff as follows,


 * You can change the border size by replacing "2px" with any number, like on or 3, though 1 or 2 are usually the best


 * You can change the color of the boarder by replacing #003366, with any other hex html color - [here's a full list http://www.december.com/html/spec/color.html] (there are five sets that of colors).


 * You can change the color of your signatures background by changing #E8E8E8 to any code from the previous html color list. However, I believe you can't use really bright or dark colors, since they tend to distract use - I think the Neutral colors should be fine.


 * Changing #df6108 will allow you to change your font color, check out the html color guide.


 * Finally, you can also change the the ► symbol. You can use any of the symbols near the bottom of the Wikipedia Page editor thing, like ♦ ₪ £ Φ. Check out the Windows Alt keycodes for more information.


 * When your finished, go to your preference section, and paste the code the signature section. Then you should be good to go.

I hoped this help. If you need more help, please feel free to leave another message on my talk page. I'm going to be busy today (7/14), but I should be free tomorrow. Good luck. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 14:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh my goodness you rule!!! Jmfangio ► Talk 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Enjoy the signature :). Feel free the leave a message if you need any more help. Take care! -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not that great with tables, but Help:Table has some really helpful tutorials. Madden 2008 and Resident Evil (series) also have some basic tables. Hope that helps! Oh yeah, I kinda like going back on forth on talk pages. I know some users think its annoying, but I usually forget to check the other person's talk page :-p -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 02:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, sounds tricky :p Good luck. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Creating Policies and Guidelines

 * You appear to be a fairly new user. I suggest gaining some experience and understanding of the current policies and guidelines at WP before specifically proposing new policies.  But fresh perspective is good and your ideas should be discussed perhaps you could share them at the Village Pump as Radiant suggests or seek a mentor who might be able to direct you to where these topics might already be discussed.  I would be happy to help.  --Kevin Murray 15:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see that you are experiencing unfriendly attitudes. There does seem to be a bit of frustration.  I got my head bit off yesterday on a minor edit of Charles Lindbergh, can you imagine how that got to be a sore spot?  When you have time, please shoot me a list of where you think the policies need attention and I can get you to the right discussions.  Thanks for your cheery response.  --Kevin Murray 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Template help
Hey are you good at templates? I thought maybe you were because of your work on the NFL retired one. I want to create a new current NFL players one to propose to WikiProject NFL, based off the MLB player template, but I'm not good at this stuff and I don't know how to make them myself. Anyway, I know exactly how I want it to look in my head so can you help, and if so would you be willing?► Chris Nelson  04:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PFR is probably the best, I don't think database football updates anymore. And sites like NFL.com don't show stats on player pages once they're retired. So do you think you could help me make a current player NFL infobox template like the MLB one? If I tell you exactly what I want it to look like?► Chris Nelson  05:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, hold on a minute and i'll start a sandbox for it on my user page. Jmfangio ► Talk 05:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, cool.► Chris Nelson  05:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey do you think you'll work on the current players template any today?► Chris Nelson  20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Templates
I'm happy to help with templates to the extent of my knowledge. Feel free to ask anytime on my user talk, though it will sometimes take me a day or so to respond. Looks like you're off to a good start though! --JayHenry 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot creation
I have a question that you may be able to answer. I saw you post on the WT:EL page that you had created a bot. I have no idea how to create bots or i would know the answer to this question. Could a bot be built that would remove duplicate wiki links in an article? I'm trying to read up on what people think of repeatedly used WLs in articles, but it the meantime, was just a question that i thought you might be able to help answer. I'm watching here so you can either respond here or on my talk page and i'll see it. Jmfangio ► Talk 01:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You aren't the first one to suggest the idea, see Repeated article-link bot and Wikilink bot. But a fully-automated bot would stir up a lot of controversy and likely never get approved.  However, the proposal stand a lot more of a chance of being implemented in the AWB since all edits are "checked" by humans.  —Dispenser 07:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits
I want to let you know that when you changed the infobox for Joe Montana, you put the year he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame instead of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's.com id page #. I wanted to let you know before you change anyone elses template that's in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Great work, I love the template and do you think the college that they went to should be added because the college that football players come out of is more noticed then the baseball players. Thanks --Phbasketball6 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Village pump discussion
Just a ping to let you know I responded to your question at the village pump, but to summarise, see Banning policy. Steve block Talk 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Width
On Tom Bradys page I wasn't able to fix the image width, can you help me with this please? -- ThanksPhbasketball6 20:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for changing the color for Mark Brunell, I wanted to see what it would look like and when I saw it I hated it but forgot to switch it back. Outstanding work on those two templates. Thanks --Phbasketball6 01:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Instante Messaging
Do you have any IM programs? I'd like to talk to you about some things and it's so much easier to talk instantly rather than via talk pages.► Chris Nelson  23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't give out that information. I'm happy to discuss this on here and you are welcome to continue the discussion, but if you would like to have an alternative version of the template, you can easily copy this to your subpages.  I can do it for you if you are unfamiliar with the practice. Jmfangio| ►Chat  23:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that, I just wanted to iron out some issues and it's easier to do through IM, it feels more personal.► Chris Nelson  23:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine, we can continue to use the discussion page. In the meantime, please stop adjusting content on the infoboxes that we are in discussion about. Jmfangio| ►Chat 23:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New NFL Infobox
Whilst conducting a search to find the actual, I came across your user page. I have a few questions about it, where should I ask them? The NFL project page, here, or the actual template talk page? :-p. PS, good work with the signature ;) - ShadowJester07 ► Talk 01:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ask on the template talk page, we're all discussing issues there.► Chris Nelson  01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

College football school page names ("American"?)
Please stop changing the names of college football school pages to include the word "American." "American" is clunky and redundant in this context. Should we change the page name for "college football" to "college American football," a phrase that no one ever uses? I think not. When you say "Michigan Wolverines football," that intrinsically defines it as American football, and not soccer or some other kind of football.

I am trying to have an administrator revert such page name changes that you have made.

Jweiss11 03:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't really my issue, but Jweiss is right. The University of Michigan, like all other universities in the U.S., refers to their football team as simply football and soccer as soccer. There is no need for American there, Jweiss is right in saying it is clunky and redundant.► Chris Nelson  03:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio, to addess your comments on my talk page: I didn't mean to be overly bossy here, but what you are doing is major structural change, which you've partially executed; not only would each of the main school pages need to be changed, but also all of those for specific team year articles and other ancillary pages. I think before any of us does something like this, there should be some agreement and consensus. As you suggest, I am all for a discussion, forum, vote, etc on this matter. I see your point about the abiguity of the word "football", but the context of a "Michigan Wolverines" should sufficiently define it. Again, should we say "college American football"? Is the WikiProject College football misnamed? Again I think not. Along with non-abiguity, efficiency and succinctness should be virtues of equal consideration.

Jweiss11 03:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to address this here but it seems that most people wanted to focus on the soccer issue. I made a brief reference to it, but my main point was that I wasn't dealing with the "soccer" v "football" issue and didn't have the heart to try and refocus the discussion.  Within an article on the Michigan Wolverines, WP:MOS supports naming the topics "football" and "soccer" within, but seems to support American fotball on the specific articles.  I agree that many things need to be considered.  Which is what i tried to do before I made any changes.  Perhaps we should redirect from Am football to football????  I'm not sure which is better, but i'm inclined to say football > Am. football is better.  Also, I this example, I'm not sure what you mean by succinctness and efficiency.  Are they separate issues here? I think they are the same thing. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess succinctness, saying things clearly in as few words as possible, is a type of efficiency, so less just say succinctness. Generic pages for "football (soccer)" and "American football" need amplification to define them because just "football" describes a set of games that includes both of them.  But when you have a local, specific qualifier, you no longer need the generic amplification.  Jweiss11 04:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw your comment on WT:CFB and responded. I think that would be the place where the most people would see the discussion. It's a tricky subject, but I think we can get through it with some good, focused discussion. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is... there's no need for discussion. Logically, there should be not "American" in any of those articles' names. It seems to me by changing these things you just caused a lot of problems.► Chris Nelson  04:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you're telling me this can't be discussed? If you choose not to discuss it, that's fine .... but we have every right.  Things are not going to "improve" if there is no discussion. Please stick to one topic at a time and let's focus on the infobox issues. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm telling you that it is illogical to do things that way, and therefore is an illogical discussion.► Chris Nelson  04:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you find discussion to be illogical, then don't participate. Jmfangio| ►Chat 04:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we do indeed need a dicussion to dispell any illogic. Jweiss11 04:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if we all had some logic, we wouldn't even need a discussion because we'd know the right way, like I do.► Chris Nelson  04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please move this topic to the apporpriate talk pages (namely WT:CFB). My talk page is not really the place to have these type of discussions. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your last comment at WT:CFB
I was trying to keep everything of the same discussion at the same point (that I believe is why we have indentations to keep discussions together) but I removed the comment when I added a reply anyway. It says the same thing and it actually explains my position better I think. Phydend 14:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I'm aware of 3RR, so please don't patronize me. I've made three edits, and so have you. Your next one will be in violation of 3RR. So perhaps I should be the one warning you.► Chris Nelson  17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the outcome will be, but you have violated WP:3RR and have been reported on the admins' noticeboard. Please note that I have NOT violated WP:3RR on this page.► Chris Nelson  17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As you've seen on the 3RR page, I've warned both you and Chrisjnelson about reversion warring. You are both experienced editors, and I'm sure you can find a compromise and seek out other opinions.   Buck  ets  ofg  20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message on my talk page. I don't want to get drawn into your dispute with Mr. Nelson, and so will not.  But your comments seem to imply that you are under the impression that you did not violate WP:3RR.  It is my judgment that you did, and I would strongly advise you to read that policy carefully, since although I let you off with a warning this time, most admins would have given you a short block.   Buck  ets  ofg  23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Please do not tell me about policy, considering in the very conversation above this reply, you are told by an admin that you did violate 3RR even when you say you didn't. Obviously, you're not one to be telling others about policy.

As for our "dispute", my edits do not violate any policy, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV included, and clearly you thinking they do only furthers the notion that you need to better familiarize this policy. I have sourced all such edits edits with factual evidence from reputable sources.

While I think it's obvious we'll never agree on this (and probably nothing in the future, as a result), and while I do regret asking for your help on the infobox seeing as how it's caused so many unnecessary problems, I am appreciate of your efforts on the infobox for the most part, and I think it's largely very solid.► Chris Nelson  07:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And in reply to your last post on User:Phbasketball6's talk page, if you think anyone can force you to have a discussion (or engage in an edit war, which you've accused me of recently) you have some serious self-examining to do. You are responsible for your own actions. You make a conscious decision every time you post on a talk page or edit an article, so take responsibility for your actions. Not to mention I wasn't even talking to YOU with that post on Phbasketball6's talk page but rather Phbasketball6, it seems it is you who attempted to engage me in conversation there.► Chris Nelson  07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm asking you to slow down and you are ignoring that. Beyond this, I don't think there is any more direct communication can do.  In order to talk to you, I made a post on your talk page.  In order to talk with Phbasketball6/Phfootball6/ I posted there.  Be well. Jmfangio| ►Chat  07:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the infobox is already in use on some players (whether you agree with it or not), do you think maybe you could edit your template rather than the main one, and we can keep the latter like I had it, at least until you get it fixed? I ask becsause right now it makes things look odd, and I just don't see the point in doing that to articles if we can do it on the practice one.► Chris Nelson  13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Until you show other editors the respect that they show you, I'm not inclined to do anything on your behalf at this moment. Neither of us should be adding any templates to athletes pages.  Do not ask me to do anything for you as I will not.  Since you are not able to edit templates without a great deal of help, i would suggest that you simply wait until the matter at hand is resolved.  Then, through the course of discussion, new things can be added to the template.  In the meantime, I am going to fix the few issues that I intended to fix. Please leave me alone until after the RFC has ended. Jmfangio| ►Chat  15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NFLactive
Please stop your edit warring on this template. Further reversions will result in a block for violating thethree-revert rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastordavid (talk • contribs)


 * I'm trying not to 3RR with this user, but he is busting templates. He continues to assert WP:OWN yet he doesn't understand what he is doing.  I requested 30, and they suggested RFC, which I did.  THe other user saw this, I have asked him to leave it alone until he knows what he is doing.  This is creating display issues all over wikipedia.  I have already asked for the template to be fully locked for a temporary period of time, and during the wait, he started editing again.  I am violating the "word of the template" but not the spirit.  Please understand I am not the problem, I just want some sanity. Jmfangio| ►Chat  16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner with that template. Unfortunately, when your post came, I had to do something in real life. NawlinWiki has protected the template, and would like you both to discuss. Thanks. Acalamari 18:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I think you should put the RFC on Template:Infobox NFLactive as this appears to be the "live" template, no?

I also think you need to articulate specifically what you want people to comment on, as it's not clear to me and it's a real bear fighting through all those comments. One more observation -- recommend you chill a little bit re: Chris Nelson. Seems like you're taking it a little personally and you don't need to. Both of you have ideas, and both seem to be fairly decent. Just figure out how to work together, as WP:OWN could be construed to apply to you as well IMO... Just my $0.02. --Jddphd 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your thoughts, but that guy has worn out his welcome with me. A few of the comments he has made toward me:
 * "I gotta say I really wasn't expecting for any debates about this, I just needed someone to help me create the infobox I envisioned.►Chris Nelson 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)"
 * "There's no debate over how to present Pro Bowls and their years." (Others had asserted otherwise).
 * "...because all I was looking for was someone to help me create the template I was envisioning."
 * "But you seriously need to reexamine your life - what there is of it, anyway. You're arguing against fact, against accuracy, and you're as delusional as anyone I've ever seen."
 * "You have got to be fucking kidding me! There are not legitimate claims to both sides. One is right, one is wrong. Why the fuck is this a debate,..."


 * Fair enough - missed the "fucking kidding me" thing! Jddphd 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And my response to that comment: "I'm sorry that other people's opinions do not matter to you. If anything, the NFL agrees with my side of the "perspective": http://www.nfl.com/probowl - By your logic, the "2007 Pro Bowl" doesn't exist. Perhaps it's time to let others chime in on the topic. Jmfangio| ►Chat 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC):
 * There was more than that before I finally lost my patience with him - and I still haven't attacked him. I personally don't care about him. I don't have WP:OWN issues with the template, I just have issues with someone ramming stuff down other's throats.  I'm polite and cordial, but when someone doesn't return the favor, I'm much less inclined to hold their hand through issues. As per your comments on the RFC, I will expand the "comments". Jmfangio| ►Chat  19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox - Pro Bowl dispute
I have put my $0.02 on the NFL Infobox as it concerns the Pro Bowl year dispute. I ask that you please work constructively to try to resolve it. There were some pretty nasty things said previously - let's just leave them aside and try to reach an agreement? Jddphd 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sig
Ji Jmfangio - like your signature!!!! Pedro | Chat  10:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to drop you a line expressing my thanks for your involvement with the N.F.L. football project and with your help in getting the Charger page unlocked. This place needs more level headed caring folks such as yourself! Two thumbs way up! RMANCIL 07:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Only going to say this once
The policy you cited is meant for multiple article talk pages (or policy pages) where it isn't clear which discussions are connected. Between users this is common practice and is easy for an outsider to follow. --Bobak 15:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It took me long enough, but I found the "discussion"
Changing a bunch of article names to something unnecessarily complicated for the sake of a template is a hideously bad solution. -- B 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't done for the sake of the template. It was done for the sake of consistency amongst the content and disambiguity amongst them.  Some of the articles had no disambig, some had (football), and some had (american football).  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NFL active infobox
Thanks for the heads up about the issues at hand. I will not longer contribute any edits to this template until there is some kind of resolution. RyguyMN 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, I'm terribly sorry for the trouble. I know you weren't aware of everything.  If you have the stomach for it, once the "process" is under way, your input would be good.  I'm not even saying I disagree with everything this user suggests, simply that there is no polite and reasonable discussion taking place right now. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware of this, but I thought it might bring you solace to know MANY people have had problems with during other WikiProject NFL discussions. You're probably too fried to read another word of his nonsense, but you might want to check out his trail of destruction at Template talk:Infobox NFL player. Hang in there. —  x a n d e r e r  00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm the one involved with that dispute. Thanks I took some time to read through that. Let me know if there is anything i can do for you. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Mediation request notification
A request for mediation involving you has been initiated at Community enforceable mediation/Requests. To indicate your willingness to participate, please sign the page in the indicated area under the request involving you. Should you have any further questions about the process, please don't hesitate to ask. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson
Howdy,

This mediation at Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson has opened. Hoping everything goes the best. I'll be in touch there, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. Regards, Navou banter 03:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

NFL boxes
Hi Juan. I've just read over the dispute; please tell me if this is correct, or not.


 * The NFL season runs from summer to about February (precise details don't matter).


 * NFL Pro Bowls take place at the end of the season, where players who have played well over the season get selected; like an all-star game.


 * The last season (summer 2006 - Feb 2007) is known as the 2006 season.


 * The last Pro Bowl took place earlier this year, which is 2007.


 * The players were picked for the 2007 pro bowl based on their performances in the 2006 season. It is usually therefore known as the 2006 roster.

I then have some questions:


 * Are all those points correct?


 * What do ESPN, Fox Sports, the New York Times, etc use?


 * What does the NFL use?


 * If you aren't disagreeing with Chris's choice, who is?

Thanks. Neil  ╦  08:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for your effort. I hope to address all your questions, but if i miss something, I'll make sure to catch you up once I'm awake again.
 * The regular season for each NFL "year" takes place in one calender year. The playoffs and Pro Bowl always follow in the subsequent calender year.  For example, the 2006 Season all took place in 2k6, but the playoffs and the super bowl followed in 2k7.    You are correct in that the 2007 Pro Bowl was for players who performed well during the 2k6 season.
 * There is no consistency throughout the media. Some media sites (CBSsportsline - which "powers" http://www.nfl.com) uses the year of the game.  Others note the year of the "regular season".  Some even refer to it as you did (2006-2007 season).  There is just no definitive solution.  Here is the roster page for the 2k7 game, you will see that the only mention of year is by the year of the game.
 * Here is a partial list of others that either support listing pro bowls by the year of the games played OR they support a neutral solution (which is what I support). All of this is taken from Template talk:Infobox NFLactive and I will be happy to point you to specific sections if need be.  This is based on their "final" positions (as I read it).
 * User:Phbasketball6 (aka User:Phfootball6)
 * User:Wlmaltby3
 * User:Jddphd
 * User:Morgan Wick
 * There are others who support Chris, and that is in addition to his friend Pats1 (they are admittedly friends). So please realize that he does have support.  Most people have agreed that an impartial method is needed.  If you need more help or more examples, please lmk. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request notification
A request for arbitration which lists you as a party has been filed at Requests for arbitration. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brett Favre edits
I don't know if you were aware, but that IP was likely someone evading a ban. I range blocked them.--Isotope23 talk 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks! I wasn't sure if he was serious or just vandalizing.  He wouldn't respond, but I wanted to give him the opportunity. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Peyton Manning
Please review the note I left on Talk:Peyton Manning. Best regards, Navou banter 02:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't edit warring, I was making edits to the page and Chris, a user i have an extensive and problematic past with, did that to create edit conflicts for me. I simply just copy and pasted my edits into the top box because I don't have the time to deal with him anymore.  He has attacked me, followed me around, expressed WP:OWN and does it to anyone who doesn't agree with him.  If you really want to get involved, I'll be glad to provide you with the ridiculous number of times I've asked for help on this matter.  There is actually an WP:RFAR out there.  He edit wars with anyone he doesn't agree with and berates people as well.  You guys need to do a better job with your research, this is readily available information and had someone talked to me, I would have been glad to explain it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block
This account has been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violation of the three revert rule at Peyton Manning. Durova Charge! 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is such a waste of time. This editor continues to harass people, continues to instigate fights and all attempts to bring this to the attention of admins has done nothing but get him warnings. He violates WP:NPA with regularity and all he did here was make quick edits to a page while I was in the middle of bringing the article up to standards. I was not edit warring, i was being duped. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 21:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this whole dispute is from your point of view, nor do I care. I just want you to know that, for future reference, if you're in the middle of "bring the article up to standards," that doesn't mean that nobody else can edit the article.  I don't know about the exact situation, and I don't really care, but just know that somebody can edit whatever article they want... if they know that you're editing it also, it's courteous to not edit it, but that's his responsibility.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  I'm not accusing you of anything or defending Chris Nelson, but I just want you to be aware of this.  Ksy92003  (talk)  02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are not up to speed on the situation, then i suggest you don't comment. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

List of career ......
As I can't discuss them any further, and I see Ksy just made an edit here (thanks for the fix), before you go undoing the edits - i think you'll find my actions well supported and done so to solve disputes that have popped up. I'll be glad to talk about them on the relevant talk pages once I'm able to edit again. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I re-directed the "List of career..." articles to their respective player's articles; then, I added all the content in whole to their articles, as both I and felt that there was no reason for there to be separate articles.  It doesn't make any sense for there to need to be a separate article; it seems that it would make much more sense if all of a player's accomplishments can be visible on the main page.  So I left all the information completely intact; I simply moved it to the main articles as there doesn't appear to be any need for a separate article.  And just so you know (I assume you already knew this),  left a comment on his talk page that he wants you to read.  Ksy92003  (talk)  05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to look at chris' talk page. It's not on my watchlist, nor do i have the patience to deal with him any more.  As for this, I think it would be best if you wait until I can talk about it over there.  Most people won't know what's going on on my talk page.  The edits were made in good faith and if you look at the edit summary - were done for good reason.  Why don't we wait until we can discuss this before you go back and revert any more of the work.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any problem with what I've done with all those awards. Why do you, Jmfangio, believe that it is necessary to have a separate page for an individual's accomplishments?  Ksy92003  (talk)  05:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not going to get into it on my talk page. I'll discuss it where people interested in  the topic are most likely to see it. Please wait until I return (it's less than 24 hours, so that isn't unreasonable). I'm signing out as there isn't much i can do here while on suspension. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

problem with Peyton Manning page
Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Football_League_first_overall_draft_picks

look under M. See the problem? It won't allow me to fix it. Plus, there appears to be a bogus Manning page up. Can you help? I don't know who I can get in touch with.


 * Hey, I put this back up, i know exactly what the problem is and we'll get it fixed once we can discuss it over there (i'm blocked until later tonight). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Pats edit
JM, thanks for the talk page revert and defense. The Patriots edit I reverted appeared to be vandalism since it was a change to an all lowercase text and was a redlink. I probably didn't look closely enough (it was late) at what the previous text and the actual text was, but definitely a good faith edit on my part. Regards, AU Tiger » talk 21:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No question it was a good faith edit. Didn't realize the guy was a sock, but someone mentioned that on the ip page. Be well! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC
What do you want me to do? It's not my problem. He and I put our problems aside usually within ten minutes. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to do anything specific. I was simply notifying you about the RFC because you had commented on the infobox talk page. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolving conflict
Jmfangio, I am wondering if you would be interested in resolving your conflicts with through mediation. I think this would be quite helpful for both you and him because it's about the conflicts between you two personally, not for content dispute. I know we've had disputes in the past, but I don't like seeing two or more users arguing with each other, especially when it looks like the arguments are going nowhere. And even though we've had our disputes this past weekend, I do want to help you. But first of all, do you want to resolve the conflicts between you and Chrisjnelson? Ksy92003 (talk)  23:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So you want to jump past WP:DR with me, and then advise me on how to behave here? You're not helping.  Especially when you cite WP:COOL when it isn't a guideline or a policy.  If your sensing some tension from me it's because I'm almost as frustrated with you as I am with Chris.  I have opened up a general RFC, a 30, notified related wikiprojects, and filed multiple wiki alerts.  I finally thought we were getting somewhere when he agreed to community enforeable mediation but then he bailed when he didn't like how that was going.  I've filed an accepted WP:RFCC on his behavior; but seeing as the two of you behave in a very similar fashion - I don't know what you hope to accomplish by opening this discussion with me.  If you truly want to help, you would probably be best to let other's handle this.  I don't know that your in a position to offer an unbiased opinion.  Again, if you want to handle our disputes in a more acceptable fashion (i mean a community accepted fashion - you're free to file whatever you want against me), then I'm all ears. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you think that's best. If you don't think that it will be any helpful for me to try to help you, then I accept your decision. I can't help you if you don't want me to help you. I just pray that this whole situation will be resolved ASAP. Ksy92003 (talk)  23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said before - there has been wide spread support for getting things done, most of the admins have been very slow to do anything but warn him. As for our payton manning issue, I'm happy to enter into any form for the DR process so long as it is done in accordance with the guidelines and suggested order.  Opening an RFCC first is not the way to go. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Notification
As far as I can tell, my comments to him were merely placated by the fact that, in all honesty, I feel that the RFC that you've put on him is ridiculous. I don't see why there's any need for it. You disagree with him; he disagrees with you. For all intents and purposes, there should be an RFC on you as well. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to make my opinions known to him, whether they're helping or not. I didn't make those comments with any intent to help or hurt anything that either of you are trying to accomplish. If I agreed with you, I'd have made a similar comment on your talk page, and you wouldn't have been telling me to keep my opinion to myself. Also, to my knowledge, telling him that I feel that the RFC you've placed on him is ridiculous is not an insult to you, but an insult to the means by which you're trying to resolve disputes. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you would like me to point you to the numerous (and i do mean numerous) statements of article ownership (and these aren't gray - they're absolutely easy to see), and the vast amounts of personal attacks, let me know. I will keep this short - but i can easily point you to probably about 300 edits between the two of us where his actions are so far out in left field and mine are for the most part - beyond civil.  After a certain point - my patience with him has led me to be very short with him, but it is not without good reason.  I'm here to discuss and work on bettering the encyclopedia.  Not everyone is going to agree, but if editors that i disagree with can comeby and say "thanks", doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that I'm not really the problem.  I don't agree with WP:BITE and WP:NPA - when someone unrelentingly violates them, and when the proper steps have been taken - and they continue - i'm going to snap back.  Trust me ... this is weeks and weeks of this crap.  It's stupid - if we can focus on content, and not make uncivil statemtents, we'll all get along.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One a related note - many people say (as you just did) that i'm not calling you x y or z. They go on to say "i'm calling your actions".  While they might not be the same thing (and most often are not  - a person and their actions are separate) - very few people are likely to respond well to that statement. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can choose to believe whether I'm insulting you or your actions, but I assure you I'm not insulting your person. From what I've been able to tell, you're a good editor and you've got a good head on your shoulders -- just like Chris. You've both got to put your differences aside and start working together. You've often claimed he's the problem, but you're not helping. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 00:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you are insulting me or my actions - just stop. That's what i'm saying.  Don't insult either.  Instead of "ridiculous" go to the appropriate page and assert that you do not endorse it.  Leave me out of it.  You keep harping on "you this and you that"...I am for good reason at this point - I'm trying to get us OFF this damn topic.  Talk about the content; not the editor.  Talk about the edits, not why the editor did what they did.  The only reason I am talking about the editor is because I can't get anyone to talk about the content without this type of stuff filtering in. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, every discussion has started off civil and on-topic regarding content until you've lambasted someone for no reason. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you really want me to show you some more instances of me being nice, and more nice, and more nice with this guy until then snapping at him when nobody would do anything - I will; but will that really help? Let's stick to content and let the RFCs and everything else deal with this issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever you want. I don't want to be on anyone's bad side anymore. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 01:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, content discussions are much better! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your questions
Hi there! I appreciate your desire to try and work things out with Scipio3000. I know you have asked some questions so I will answer here. If I put it on his talk page he will delete it.

User:Scipio3000 was first blocked on August 7 by admin El C. The block was for harassment and attacking other users. On August 9, just hours after the first block expired, he was blocked again by admin Persian Poet Gal for 3RR on the Sicily page. he was warned {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScipio3000&diff=150284394&oldid=150284117} but proceeded anyway. These two blocks were for 48 hours.

Scipio begged for relief and I was prepared to shorten the block but then this exchange occurred. I asked him about deleting comments, including those not his own, from an article talk page. He replied that he had not. That was not true. I allowed the block to expire as instituted.

I encouraged him to be more careful.

He then made unfounded allegations against another user and I responded strongly although I did not block him. .

He makes plain in this diff that people without Sicilian background should not be able to edit the Sicily article freely, {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JodyB&diff=151189328&oldid=151178111]. And then here {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thesicilianist&diff=prev&oldid=151186190] he uses the term "White boy" in a perjorative way especially in the context of his feelings about non-Sicilians. I hope this helps your questions. --JodyByak, yak, yak 17:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Scipio3000
I've had him blocked. Sorry, but it was a lost cause.--Atlan (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Refractored"
What exactly do you mean by this all the time? I've never seen a definition that fits.► Chris Nelson  23:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See Code refactoring (it should give you the idea). Basically, the only time I do that is when a) I put a comment in the wrong place or b) a tp conversation is in it's infancy and i'm keeping it centralized. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And oh yeah WP:RTP is the "actual" information you will probably find that more useful. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. Interesante.► Chris Nelson  23:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You may also want to look at the "other comments at WP:TPG, it kinda talks about it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologize
I apologize for my guess who, but it just seemed that you might have been attempting to cause trouble after his talk page vote gave support for a no consensus as opposed to a merge and delete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Accepted, I didn't even really look at that discussion - primarily because I am trying to avoid the two other active commentators. My best advice to anyone is that if we focus on content and not contributor, we're bound to get along just fine.  I'm here to improve things and so are you - so let's take that and use our abilities to discuss (even if we don't agree).  Onward and upward. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Jmfangio, when TtT said "guess who," I honestly didn't know who he was referring to. I didn't have a clue in my mind, nor did I have any reason to believe that it was you. Since you were the one who created the AfD, by reading that comment I could understand how you could be frustrated by reading that, being under the impression that I knew it was you. That's an issue that you need to resolve with him (and I see that you have). It caught me offguard that it was you, but I didn't know that until I went to the AfD page and saw that it was you. Because TtT said "guess who," I had thought that the AfD might've been started by somebody who was had a recent problematic conflict between both him and me, a category that you don't fall under. While you may disagree with how TtT sent me that comment, nothing he said gave me any impression that you, nor anybody else in particular for that manner, nominated the article for AfD. So please, don't be mad at TtT (I see that you have, again), because he didn't say anything to me that made me think it was you. Ksy92003 (talk)  01:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop posting here. You are not following my points at all and I really don't care about who said what to whom and on what date. All i care about is content discussion and that people don't chime in with chirpy comments that escalate an otherwise civil process.  Nuff said. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I only did what you asked. I was gonna reply at User talk:TonyTheTiger, but you said, and I quote, "If you want to refractor this conversation to my talk page, i'm fine with that." The last part says "I'm fine with that," so now you snap at me when I reply here, when you said you were fine with that? You know, I don't care what you think... you asked, I complied, and you have a problem with that. I don't see why you have a problem with this, and I don't really care anymore. Ksy92003 (talk)  01:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

about your question
I have discovered the copyvio, since he pretty much pasted the link there to let everyone know at that moment. However, when I look at the history, obviously User:Edward321 discovered it first, before the link was posted. MythSearchertalk 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. Not sure there is anything else i can do at this point. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please listen...
I'm asking you kindly... please stop bothering me. You've already pushed my temper to a boiling point because of how disruptive your behavior has been as a result of your discussions with me. It would just be best of you to just keep as far away from me as you possibly can. Ksy92003 (talk)  03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have gone out of my way to be polite to you. You have made uncivil statements, biten me, and refused WP:DR, you then go and open up a totally unfounded RFCC and I still went out of my way to be polite.  I tried to leave and you begged me to give you more feedback, I did - and you started getting personal - AGAIN.  I have been nothing short of polite back to you.  However, do not refractor archived conversations.  This is not a "i'm trying to piss you off thing" - this is a blatant violation of wiki documentation.  Don't do it.  If you want to have quick access to the conversation then keep a link to the archive on it.  The information is archived.  I will report this on the boards if need be - do not refractor talk pages that are archived. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You took a discussion that was somewhere else and moved it to your talk page, and you say that's perfectly fine. I take a discussion that was somewhere else and move it to my talk page, and you threaten to report me. I'm not gonna revert you again because I'm not getting blocked for WP:3RR on my own talk page. Now, you refused to do something I politely asked you: tell me what it says that says that I can't do that. Ksy92003 (talk)  04:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See your talk page, that is my final response to this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(Refractored from my talk page, User talk:Ksy92003 I am happy to let this recent thing go by the wayside. However, if you copy archived talk page information and post it here - then you will be reported. This is not acceptable. If you want to have access to it, it is permanently available on the archive User talk:Jmfangio/Archive 1. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All I'm asking is to show me why I can't do that. And I don't mean by saying "WP:TPG."  I mean an actual quote from that page that says I can't do this.  Ksy92003  (talk)  04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have pointed you to three different articles that have relevant content on this. As they are important articles, it is best that you read this.  Now i am quite serious - i am stepping out of this.  It is not productive, does not improve wiki content, and does nothing to lower the civility status between the two of us. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But I don't know what the exact rule is. That's all I'm asking. I can't find anything in those pages that says I can't do that; you provided the link, so you need to prove to me that it says what you claim. If you don't, then you can't revert me for doing that because I have no proof that I can't do that. And another thing: you prematurely archived the discussion. So you say that just because you don't want to have the discussion with TonyTheTiger or myself anymore that I can't keep the discussion going? Ksy92003 (talk)  04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't report me because you've yet to tell me what it is that I've violated. You've yet to show me where on WP:TPG or those other pages it says that I can't do that, even though it's exactly like something that you did, and you say that's okay.  Ksy92003  (talk)  04:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Start at the top and read to the bottom. You are not familiar with any of the information there - so read it all. The WP:ANI is now in place.  Goodbye. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna read those policies now. It's something that I could care less about. First of all, the issue of me putting something on my talk page isn't something you should concern yourself with. I also strongly replied to your ANI.

Although seriously, I don't know why you hate me. The first time we met on Friday, I was trying to help you, and then you turned this into all this hostility towards me. Ksy92003 (talk)  05:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)