User talk:Marksanta123

Welcome!

Hello, Marksanta123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Please be sure, when making edits such as you are doing to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim article, that you include reliable sources for your claims. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Ok, ok, I get it, you're a fan. That does not mean you can rewrite a Wikipedia entry as a fan page. If you feel strongly about this, let's put it to an editors' vote, all right? --TashTish (talk)


 * Hello, I have reedited the Los Angeles Angels wiki page and cited my sources not as a fan but as a wiki editor making it possible for people to research the professional baseball team and get reliable information on the true history of the team, a non biased view on Angel fan experience, and other brief details that would be important for people doing research. I hope the rich information given is not edited once again to remove the informtaion cited which is hard to find for people.


 * Listen, you didn't re-edit anything, you just added back all the personal stuff that was edited out in the name of objectivity. It wasn't just me; Pshla619 likewise edited out your insistence that the major league Los Angeles Angels existed in the 19th century. (A fact, by the way, I felt was worthy enough to stay in.)
 * Anyway, I'm not going to make an issue out of it. But believe me, items like "For various reasons, Angels fans have a hatred of these teams [that have a rivalry with the Angels]" (which, by the way, is not cited, and probably can never be) have put a target on your edits to be speedily deleted by others who may care more about this than I do. –TashTish (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello TashTish, i have cited all my reedits, such as the Los Angeles Angels name dating back to the 19th century http://www.laalmanac.com/sports/sp06h.htm, i said nowhere that they are the exact same team, I only refered to it as the same team name, and in that giving the two teams a connection with name and location, please read the page, don't skim. I even cited a page that shows how the team name was bought in order to continue the franchise.  As far as the only reedit you quoted, i did not put hatred, i merely put "The Los Angeles Angels fans have been known to "DISLIKE" these teams for various reasons."  I said nothing about hatred, so i do not know why you are taking it so personal.  By the way, the only reason that line was put in was because it is refering to the "Rivalries" section of the page, and in putting "DISLIKE" it is simply refering to a rivalry.  So I can put a rivalries section up about the teams rivalries, but i cannot refer to the other teams as being disliked?  You need to stop being so personal and look at the page as a way for people to get information, did you not read my response right above this?  People looking through the Angel wiki page will see a team rivalry section that cannot be easily cited, but that does not make it false.  The fact is that the term "DISLIKE other teams" was used in the Rivalries section, and the teams are stated from a widely accepted fact, but if you would like me to cite ESPN sports pages that referance the Angels in rivals with each one of those teams i can do so, it is just useless for readers to see those citations because when they read a rivals page on wiki they won't be questioning where the information is drawn because it is just a fun fact.
 * If there is any other citations or issues that you need explaining please quote them, instead of rambling on, and state what is wrong with them "in the name of objectivity"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksanta123 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As much as you'd like to think, an encyclopedia is not a place for "fun facts." —TashTish (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yet again you continue to bash my phrases personally and not quote a single line on the page that isn't cited, and "fun facts" are material that is factual altogether, so that would make it serviceable to someone who would find the information useful, whether it be a small detail or not. A little tip, try doing your reserach about a page before you make assumptions relying on what a majority thinks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksanta123 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You could start by learning to spell. –TashTish (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You can start by learning how to comprehend what you read and do proper research, instead of disrespecting people you don't even know on the interenet who are trying to help. Please quote the "Very personal edits" that you are refering to, i still have no clue what you are talking about, all i see you and pshla619 editing out is rich information about the team.

October 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not edit against consensus. If you believe you have information that needs to be added to the article, please discuss it on the article talk page. Continued insertion of information that community consensus has determined is not desired to be in the article is tendentious editing and can result in blocking. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, it still appears necessary. Not using reliable sources, falsifying consensus (a HUGE no-no), incivility, original research ... add the now current WP:SOCK issues, and you've got a lot of 'splainin' to do before being considered for unblock. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock|Hello user Boing! said Zebedee, i believe that it is not a personal reasoning or deduction, i stated "CAN BE SEEN" not, "HAS THE BEST FAN SUPPORT EVER". Boing! said Zebedee If i put something along the lines of "The Angels HAVE the best fan support" and provided no stats or comparison to other teams then it would in fact be a personal deduction, but please notice the "CAN BE" and "IS" difference in logical reasoning. I may also quote the Los Angeles Dodgers wiki page, "The Dodgers have a loyal fanbase, evidenced by the fact that the Dodgers were the first MLB team to attract more than 3 million fans in a season (in 1978), and accomplished that feat six more times before any other franchise did it once." This quote in fact makes more of an assumption than mine does. This is quoted from the New York Yankees wiki page, "With the recurring success of the franchise since the 1920s, the Yankees have been and continue to be one of the most popular sports teams in the world." This is a quote from the Oakland Raiders wiki page, "The nickname Raider Nation refers to the die hard fans of the team spread throughout the United States and the world." So as you can see Boing! said Zebedee my edits have been under much scrutiny that is accepted on many other pages, the only difference is that my fan support section is provided with logical reasoning through a comparison of other fan attendance and win/loss records to show what a true fan support might look like.
 * Comment: Re: "The Angels fan support can be seen as a loyal fan-base when compared to the other 30 MLB teams, due to the fact that they have drawn 3 million plus fans to the stadium for nine years straight, and at least 2 million for 28 seasons, and a game average in the past ten years of roughly 41,869 fans at each game during some of the franchises worst disappointing years of 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2010. These statistics give Angel stadium the fourth best ranking in fan attendance in all of the MLB for a combination of 2009, 2010, and 2011.", which you think was unfairly removed. It's full of your own personal reasoning and constitutes your own personal deduction - as such it breaches WP:POV, WP:OR, and probably specifically WP:SYNTH, and it was correct to remove it. Had you simply stuck to presenting just the facts, and no personal deductions from them (eg "The Angels fan support can be seen as a loyal fan-base"), and provided a source that supports them, that would have been fine. I'm not going to formally review this unblock request, but it looks to me that there's a lot you need to learn about what constitutes valid additions to articles before you do any more editing - those policies I linked to would be a good start. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTTHEM - your comments about others' "irrational edits" don't add to the case to be unblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bushranger The "irrational edits" are the only reason for my block, so why wouldn't they matter? I'm trying to fight an unjust case here.
 * The actions of others are irrelevant to your being unblocked. Saying "it's them, not me" indicates a lack of understanding and acknowledgement of why you were blocked, and in no way suggests that the behavior that led to your blocking won't be repeated. - The Bushranger {{sub| One ping only }} 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bushranger I continue to appeal for using dual accounts, and I continue to admit it would not be done again, yet i get denied responses that suggest it had so much more to do with the way i was editing in opposition to the consensus of 3 or 4 people. So my responses have changed to include everything to admit my wrongs, but your suggesting i cannot fight my case in the smallest instance, even if it was unjust?  I admitted my wrongs, but i cannot suggest a little more investigating?  If the admin continue to act indolent about reading, and acting upon my honest requests of looking at the material edited out, then maybe I will act just as lazy and change my IP address, it would take me 3 minutes instead of 3 months of back and forth antics that don't bring into play the many intangibles.  I have been fighting and trying to explain how the same actions would not be done, over and over, but instead of looking at the rational argument, you people take a single one of my sentences completely out of context. So please let me know if I should change my IP address or if someone will stop playing childish games to give me a fair review.


 * Talk page access revoked, as Marksanta123 is just continuing the same content dispute, and is now apparently threatening to sock using different IPs if he doesn't get his way. And, Marksanta123, that article will be pretty heavily watched by now, and if you use a different IP to re-insert POV changes they will be removed and you will be blocked again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)