User talk:Stoneice02/archive2

Compromise
The agreement of leaving the suspension and ridding the article of the comments would be okay with me, as all i wanted from the beginning was a compromise. I hated to have my stuff deleted for no apparent reason. Thank you for the compromise. P.S. We can still discuss with the AMA about my punishment. I or my children never attacked you personally. But, we made foolish comments and if you want me to punished or suspended, I would be okay with that as well. When, if at all, may i put up the information. And by the way, have you seen the sabres. we've gotta tough division this year AGAIN. Kruse56 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I haven't had much time for WP over the past few days. I agree with the compromise and if you haven't already done it, I will make the change after I've checked up on my long watch-list. As for the personal attacks, I am willing to let bygones be bygones. Just be careful in the future. Some of the comments made by you and your son are textbook WP:ATTACK. Stoneice02 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

LAST TIME
Can you tell me what a consensus is? And will that authority be of Sox fans or neutral people. It is not an attack on David Ortiz. My two favorite players are Papi and Jason Giambi. I just want things to be accurate, as i never said he threw them at the umpires. Maybe, is it possible for you agree on a deal. Can you agree to let me put one of them. I can see your point on the quote, but every other time a famous athlete makes a mistake (T.O....Alex Rod slap play...A.J. Pierzynski...fight b/w Tek and Rodriguez) like throwing bats, it is newsworthy and shown on their wikipedia. ALSO, you do not have the citation for Ortiz's two walkoffs in one day where it explicitly speaks of such. Kruse56 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL one more thing...Do you think that the citation following FACT NUMBER 2 is a citation. That is some fans view on it. Why do you not delete that? Kruse56 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ONE MORE TIME
You had one valid point. It is now cited, always has been notable as other people's negative track records are on their Wikipedias, and is unbiased as I never said that he threw them at the umpires, although, having watched every Sox game for the last 50 odd years including that one, it sure looked like he did. Kruse56 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RESOLVE DISPUTE
I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I have absolutely no idea how you negotiate or resolve a dispute with someone. Therefore, I am using this area to try. It is obvious that you are a Red Sox fan. I am also a Red Sox fan. A lot of major suspensions are listed on Wikipedia. When David Ortiz threw his bats at an umpire, he showed his character. Although I am a huge Papi fan, he shouldnt be called the face of baseball because of an incident like this and his selfish comments while we were being beaten in the division this year. Is there any way we can work this out? This information is notable and factual. Kruse56 03:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Kruse56

Also, I have no idea if you are an administrator. If you are not, may I ask why you seem to be deciding what is notable information? And if you are an admin, are you not doing Wikipedia an injustice due to your RSN bias by deleting information that has even the slightest negative connotation.

You are in no position to judge any negative information regarding my information, as you are a BoSox and a Papi fan. Yet, you continue to delete my information because you do not find it valuable. As a TRUE Sox & Papi fan, I find it very valuable.

You may think that too many people are suspended for actions like this every year. First, that is not true. Not many people throw bats at umpires. Second, why are much suspensions because of much lesser things mentioned all over Wikipedia MLB Player websites, such as A.J. Pierzynski. Also, pertaining to the comments made by Ortiz in regards to the MVP, many people make controversial statements all the time. Do you know where you find them? On their Wikipedia article.

(Ortiz also promotes his own flavor of Glacéau Vitamin Water.) Also, how do you determine what information is valuable. My information, when looked at from an unbiased perspective, is clearly valuable. It shows the character of a person.

Finally, I know that my support of Wikipedia really doesnt matter. However, as a Red Sox fan and a baseball historian, I find the whole Wikipedia experience to be very pleasant because of its unbias nature. If for some reason, you cannot remain neutral and find Papi's suspension or his controversial statements to be not newsworthy, I will find someone who can. Unlike the rest of Red Sox Nation, I am not a New York Yankees hater. Rather, I admire everything they have done throughout baseball history and can only hope that we achieve it someday as well. Though I admire the passion of RSN, I choose to represent RSN like a class act contrary to most others. Kruse56 11:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Kruse56

Could you tell me?
Could you tell me that the time mentioned in history of an article is what time? Is it U.S. time?

Swadhyayee 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe, but I am not positive, that it is based on your Preferences (Special:Preferences) Stoneice02 18:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking
User:192.223.243.6's last edit was at 17:03 UTC, he was blocked at 17:07 UTC, and I edited WP:AIV at 19:14 UTC. So no, it's impossible to vandalize while blocked (at least, from the same IP address...) (And a tip: generally you add your message to the bottom of a talk page, a little "+" tab between "edit this page" and "history" is convinient for that.) Conscious 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

why revert?
I was starting the NTSB investigation section on the plan crash, fully cited. ALso, it was at the request of another user at Talk:October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash to insert the info. I did and added some from the preliminary investigation. TransUtopian 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize. Our edits (my revert and your addition) were within seconds of eachother. I was actually reverting the name of the info box. I have re-added the section you wrote. It needs to be reformatted, though... not sure if that is due to bad copying-and-pasting on my part. If so, sorry again. Stoneice02 14:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! I thought you might have mistook me modifying the References section for vandalism, a place few edit nowadays due to the way they're set up. I did that to minimize an edit conflict with the Responses section. But I didn't look at the edit, just the edit summary, until just now.
 * The hyphen at the beginning was from the diff, and I changed it. Again, no problem. :) TransUtopian 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)