Template:Archive box collapsible

Thanks for the notice/suggestion. It is partially a habit I got when countedits were still relevant (not to me, but to others that would comment against my edits). I will try to refrain from doing that, at least for the more visited pages (although I think there might be a method to see in the watchlist only the last edit by a user). As for the RfA, I am not that happy with the way it is run. I am not going to say that I have a better solution, but for example I personally don't like how minor stuff such as lack of comments for edits or not labeling small edits as minor relate to the ability to be a good admin. Also, changing editing habits for the sake of admin eligibility is one of the most negative parts of the process. Even though the ideal admin would do this, favoring candidates that mimick this behavior is not what I hope from admins - in a community where users are ideally expected to contribute without waiting for something in return. Thanks again, Nergaal (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now you Gladys J. Cortez. The WordGirl article is 32 kilobytes long and why couldn't I add the long note? Why? Simulation12 (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killervogel5 is being very disruptive on the formatting of the 2008 World Series pages as I have been trying to format the page as the same as the rest of the 2008 Major League Baseball postseason pages (2008 NL and AL Division Series, 2008 NL and AL Championship Series). He keeps reverting all my edits and says his version is better. Nope, he has become very aggressive in my opinion. I ask that he be blocked from editing privlidges for an undetermined time for these disruptive reverts. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:39 PM US EDT Oct 22 2008.

In defense, the two users actively involved with this page have been trying to maintain it in such a way that complies with the Manual of Style. NoseNuggets refuses to defer to the original style as per MOS, and will not listen to reason involving changes, instead citing his own work on other pages. He also provided me with an unprovoked level-4 vandalism warning, rather than addressing the issue on the talk page as requested. I stand on my record. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had my eye on the 2008 World Series article for a few months now, I have attempted to bring forth a new format in an attempt to get the article up to GA status—a would be first for World Series articles. Myself and Kv attempted to discuss the issues with NoseNuggets, but he refused to further conversation. Usually, as I'm sure you know, articles are modeled after currently existing FA and GAs, but in this case we do not have that luxury, instead we are trying to create it. I can understand the want for continuity, but this is obviously a special case. Kv has been assisting me and we have written the majority of the article together, he has been very helpful and I have not seen any evidence of "vandalism" on his part. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Blackngold29 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I see.

Wait: Let's start with what I DON'T see first.

• I don't see any effort to talk this out on the article talk page. Carrying on a discussion via edit summaries and usertalk pages is MUCH less efficient than doing so in the article talk page, and article talk also makes it easier for other users to add their input. Plus it removes those annoying one-side-of-the-discussion-only conversations like the one on NN's talk page.
• I ALSO don't see anyone actually citing the relevant sections of MoS. This makes a tired, hungry admin just home from work VERY cranky, when she's expected to do all the legwork of looking up and quoting relevant passages at you.

Now, on to what I notice, in no particular order of relevance.

• Killervogel5: you're over 3rr today and should probably be blocked for that. I'm not going to do it this time, but please count before you revert--seriously.
• NoseNuggets: First, off-topic--for the love of all that is good in this world, would you PULLLEEEZE archive your talk page? That table-of-contents is like scroll-wheel hell for me. Now, on to my ON-topic point, which is: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Some of your comments show a bit more 'tude than is helpful in an actual DISCUSSION. Discussion means one side states their points civilly, and the next person says--again, without attitude--"I disagree, and here's why:" followed by the relevant MoS citations. I don't see that here.
• To no one in particular: Just because things have "always" been done a certain way, that doesn't mean that every similar thing needs to follow the pattern. Again, not having any relevant MoS diffs, I can't say one way or the other which view they support--but it's at least within the realm of possibility that the old articles are not following MoS correctly either. This is why MoS cites are needed in this discussion--as EVIDENCE of what the MoS actually says, instead of three differing interpretations.
• One comment I CAN make about the article and its MoS-ness, because this is a peeve of mine: FLAGICONS in infoboxes are bad. MoS says they're not to be used for decoration, and that's just how they're being used there. Everyone knows what "USA" or "CAN" means; you don't need a flag icon too.

So: who's right?

• Can't say--I have no relevant MoS diffs from which to judge. Bring them to the article talkpage and we can work from there. Meantime, I'm not blocking anyone, and I would HIGHLY (underline, underline, underline, exclamation points) recommend that you take this conversation to the ARTICLE talk page, there to discuss them CIVILLY and CALMLY like adults. Now, if any one of the three of you can't do those things--relevant MoS cites to support your point, and considering each other's arguments like civil adults with no sniping--well, THEN I'll be able to tell who might need to be blocked. But it's not going to get that far, now is it??Gladys J Cortez 04:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and one more thing...next time you need a baseball issue decided, please keep in mind that you're speaking to a Cubs fan here, and thus in my mind you are all baaad, baaaaaad people because THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE US PLAYING THE RAYS!! Good grief, men, it's been a full doggone CENTURY!! Do you people have no COMPASSION?(/baseball-related trauma venting))Gladys J Cortez 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I hope we'll be able to talk something out, I've never had any problem with talking. A Cubs fan who thinks their team is suffering... you have no idea, lol. Blackngold29 12:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is exactly (underline underline underline, exclamation points) why I knew you'd be a good admin. How refreshing! 8 points for Gladys. Why 8? Idunno. Let me ask you, why not 8? What makes you think 6, or 10, or a billion, would've been more special? 8 it is. Eight is Enough. .. Ohandanotherthing... (and the Cubs were supposed to be playing the Twins, fool. Not the Rays, the T-W-I-N-S.) Keeper ǀ 76 13:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On semi-related topic, i recently made an edit to the History of the Philadelphia Phillies article to include recent playoff results and Killervogel5 reverted my change. I was just curious about the exact reason for this. I don't understand why this revert was made, or why my edit could be considered "potentially controversial". If all I needed was to add a source, wouldn't it just have been easier to note that than revert the edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.243.2 (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see where "Why Can't Us?" comes from--and the other header is way more descriptive of the actual contents. For the rest, we're going to need to ask Killervogel5, so I'm off to do that. Gladys J Cortez 04:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that there was wayyy too much detail inserted for this particular article. Information that specific belongs in an article that's built to be highly detailed about this season; i.e., 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, where the info already existed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 10:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've also just completed the outlining of the appropriate parts of MOS for the talk page of the 2008 WS, if you'd care to look. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 10:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It was easier to just say MOS at the time rather than this page, this page, this page, oh wait this doesn't fit in an edit summary omgwut... Should have gone to the talk page. Wish NN had gone when I asked him to so that none of us would be involved in this mess. My bad. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 11:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering how would be a good way to incorporate the "why can't us" slogan into the history of the phillies article. It really is a big deal here in philadelphia, and the slogan and the story behind it has been making national news (it was in USA today), so it should be significant enough to be in the article. If my only problem was not citing sources, i can take care of that; i was just wondering how i could incorporate that without having me edit reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.243.2 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking vandalism in the sense that the information had been added and removed multiple times already and they still were not getting the message. But, it was reaching on my part, certainly. Had I not been rushed and feeling impatient (and annoyed) I would have given it more thought and used a different edit summary. A hidden message might be needed there, though I am not certain it would do any good. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will put the hidden message in later, and hope it does some good. Thanks for your message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for keeping an eye on things, but what do you mean? I have something like a iron clad thing where I will absolutely not revert an edit more than once per page per day. I don't believe I've broken this since I instituted it. This edit here reverted three of PCPP's[1], but I thought that only counts as one. None of his edits were constructive or reasonable, and he never discusses any of the edits he does--it is hard to 'prosecute' his behaviour because he only does once every month or so, then disappears. The rest of the changes I made were reasoned and explained on the talk page. I know they included restoring removed material, but did not understand that 'revert' took such a narrow definition? This is a really important point, by the way. Edit warring is ridiculous and destructive, and I will have no part in it. To explain what I mean, if I had changed the re-added material slightly, would that still have counted as a 'revert'? My intent and action was not that of a revert, but of a regular edit, at least as I see it. Wonder if you know what I'm getting at. I understood that I reverted once on that page only, and of course for what I understand to be a sensible reason--but please let me know if I'm missing anything.--Asdfg12345 16:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]