User talk:Terence7/Archive 4

Ronald Reagan
You may not have noticed, but your latest revision to the Ronald Reagan article puts you in violation of WP:3RR.

Looking over the paragraph, I think the unemployment figures in the first clause should be reverted to the annual figures, which can be cited to the same secondary source as the inflation figures in the previous sentence; the further figures about highs and averages, whether using monthly or annual numbers, constitute original research and should probably be eliminated entirely (unless another secondary source can be found to indicate they are particularly important). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that -- I didn't think WP:3RR was applicable since the different reverts were not the same, but maybe I misremembered/misunderstood.
 * I agree that it probably makes the most sense to eliminate the rest of the sentence entirely. I maintain that it's more accurate and therefore appropriate to use the Jan. '81 and Jan. '89 figures as benchmarks for the Reagan administration rather than the 1980 yearly average (entirely before he took office) and 1988 yearly average (which doesn't reflect the last month of his term). I don't think it makes any difference that these would be cited from the government source I added rather than the government source that was already in there. Terence7 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer. I meant to suggest using the Cannon reference instead of either government report source. If the actual book isn't readily available, page 235, used for the inflation cite, can be seen in the Amazon (U.S.) search blurb (keyword "unemployment"), and page 5, which says essentially the same thing, is shown in its entirety. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, the Cannon book is consistent with the annual unemployment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as it should be. So we could cite both the book and the BLS website if we're using the annual numbers.
 * My point is simply that it is more accurate to specify the unemployment rate for the month Reagan took office and the month he left office instead of the annual averages. But I suppose there's something to be said for citing the yearly averages too. Probably doesn't matter a whole lot either way. Terence7 (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss a disputed edit
Please see Talk:Yale University. It appears that another editor disagrees with the edits we make to the article about Yale being a Big Three college. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 11:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

UVA Law
My intent was never to "ruin" the page. Sorry if I gave you that impression. I took some of your criticisms and changed the format back but kept some of the details I had added myself. The infobox is definitely an improvement (it took so many edits because I'm not used to editing infoboxes and kept messing up) and I added info about the law library, more info to admissions, etc. I find it insulting when you revert the page back to when I added any of these new details. If you think they are worded or cited poorly, feel free to fix them, but don't do a wholesale revert.

tl;dr - sorry about the many edits (I'm a wiki noob and ran into formatting problems with the infobox) and I hope you find the current state satisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.241.51 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with your most recent revisions. My main objections were to (1) cutting down the intro section so drastically, and (2) adding the "history" section that was a massive run-on of dates and events.
 * I encourage you to sign up for a username, as that will make it easier for people to interact with you on Wikipedia. Terence7 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Peyton Manning
I strongly suggest against edit warring with Eagles 24/7. Per WP:EW you will be blocked if you do. It is not an official transaction right now.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the following sentence: "On March 7, 2012, the Colts announced that they would release Manning." With a citation to http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7656028/indianapolis-colts-peyton-manning-part-ways-14-seasons
 * This is 100% accurate. They have announced that they will release him. What's the objection? Terence7 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Big difference from an official stand point between "will release" and "have released". Will release just means they plan to release the player, they just have not filed the paperwork to make him a free agent. NFL admin's on here have decided to not make any changes until a transaction is official.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the difference -- that's why I added SPECIFIC language describing exactly what has happened up to this point. To say that "admins have decided" isn't a justification or reasoned explanation, it's just a description, which I'm already aware of and happen to disagree with.
 * Setting that aside, it's ridiculous to think that the press conference is insufficient basis for making changes to the article.
 * By the way, the plural of "admin" would be "admins" without an apostrophe. Terence7 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you to correct my grammar so please refrain from doing so. For the Peyton Manning issue, just leave it alone. You won't win a battle with an admin, I know from personal experience. He's in the middle of an ANI issue so he doesn't have time to deal with this, so i'm stepping in enforcing things he's taught me through past interactions with him--Rockchalk717 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Enforcing?! You need to take a look at WP:CONS. Terence7 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't apply to this because there's nothing to reach a consensus about. He is still officially a member of the Colts until a transaction is made releasing him. It's that cut and dry. BTW, Peyton Manning's page has been completely protected, only admins can edit so apparently he doesn't feel there's anything to come to a consensus about.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. The point that Manning may (or may not) technically still be a Colt at this minute has been conceded. The question is whether to include the announcement of his impending release. I find it puzzling that anyone would think that this announcement (that he WILL BE RELEASED) for some reason needs to be excluded from the intro of the article. The need for consensus applies to this debate as much as any other on WP, which is why I will be filing a grievance against your admin friend for abuse of his admin authority. Terence7 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My actions are backed up by WP:PROTECT and WP:BLP.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly! In fact, you're in violation of WP:PROTECT: "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes." Terence7 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I protected the article due to the excessive edit warring.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not that is justifiable, the point is that YOU'RE not allowed to be the admin who does that, given that YOU were part of the supposed "edit warring." Terence7 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To other visitors: this dispute was (largely) resolved at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Terence7 (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)