Section break[edit]

They've gotten into editing wars over this, which is not uncommon for these two users. Chrisjnelson has been blocked 17 times for edit warring over the last year and Yankees10 was just blocked last week. So instead of seeing this spiral out of control I thought we should get mediator involvement. If the mediator agrees we should add "originally" to every article then the edit warring could end. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, who's the "we"? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At User talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally you had said "Hmm. I think the leads should have the word originally to keep traded and nono-traded player pages uniform" 67.137.0.28 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for this use of "originally," but I'm not losing any sleep about it. I don't plan to come here again. Was I named simply because I started the section on the Chris Long talk page? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Using the word originally implies they have been drafted more than once..."

This is completely false. It does not imply they have been drafted more than once - it implies it's when their career began.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "He was originally drafted by the Chiefs in 2007." The emphasis should not be on the team, and if it is then yes, it does sound as if he's not there anymore. The emphasis should be on "originally" as in "Player X is a current player for the Chiefs, and he was originally drafted by them in 2008."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It simply does not convey a message that you say it conveys, it implies a player played for more than one team.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue to argue that because it's untrue. It's not my job to define words for people.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is your occupation doesn't mean you are good at it, or that you have the final say. Blackngold29 01:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to go with Chrisjnelson and Yankees10 on this one. The word "Originally" should stay/be added. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over on the WP:NFL discussion page this point was posed by Jayron32, I feel it is the best argument presented so far, on either side: "The word "originally" is an adverb that modifies the verb "drafted". When there is only one draft that is relevent, why does it need to be modified? What two different drafts do we need to differentiate in order to use a modifier like the adverb "orginally"? " I see this whole debate as an argument over what is correct english, and this statement sums up proper english perfectly. I feel the word 'originally' should not be included for this reason. Blackngold29 01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RC-0722, do you mean that this word should remain with all players, or simply with players who have changed teams? CopaceticThought (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron was wrong. There sentence is completely correct, and of that I am sure. So that clearly wasn't the best argument. In fact, one could argue it was the worst since it was totally false.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about more than "origianally"[edit]

There are several issues, I have an issue with how ChrisJNelson and Yankees10 treat others. They assume their way is the only. Theyu laced my talk page with profanities, definitively decaling that their way was right and mine was worthy of slamming. I only make good-faith edits to wiki. Regardless, I agree that originally applied to a player who is still with his team is not the best way to handle that.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not about more than that. That's what this page is for.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think your behavior in this issue is worthy of being looked into. I was brought in on this, I have a right to express my opinion about have you act and how you judge others' good-faith edits, and other things.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what you are talking about I dont treat users bad, how can you assume this from one instance. Also I was the one that left profanities on your talk page, which I agree was a little bit overboard, but I was frustrated about how you have a control issue over the Chris Long (American football) article, so dont blame Chris with leaving profanity--Yankees10 02:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have control issues with any article. I have made good faith edits on Long, Slater, and others. I edited them with the intent on making them better. That's all. For some reason it is yourself and ChisNelson who seem to take ownership over not only Long and Slater, but many other NFL articles. It seems anyhting that is independent is rejected and then reverted by you and ChrisJNelson. Then comes the problems. It seems to me that it is you and ChrisNelson who are having control issues and then vent your frustrations by trashing others. I happen to think you and Chris do some very good work, however, like anyonem you guys are not perfect . . . so when I think there is a chance to improve an article I do. You and Nelson not only criticized the placing of good-faith edits, you criticized the contents. I showed you the 5 pillars of wikipedia . . .you seemed to not comply with them . . . therefore, I am glad this is coming to light. I just don't think a few people should ctonrol all the NFL articles and then get your way by just wearing out people with your reverts. Most people just give up to yours and Nelson's bullying tactics. Part of what I call "bullying tactics" is using profanity to intimidate me. When you call names and say what I post is irrelevant does not make it so, and what you are doing is trying to get things dome your own way. Look both you and Nelson are very young . . . mistakes are easily worlked out but then there is a pattern and practice of profanity and expressing yourselvs in such a juvinile way, it ruins wikiepedia for good-faith editors like me. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I tried changing it and was simply told by Yankees10 "Too bad, that's how it is." I asked for a specific link to a Wikipedia style guide and received none. I'm also not losing any sleep over this, though. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say "too bad"--Yankees10 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I found it--Yankees10 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have never given that as my reason, and I certainly don't think Yankees10 should be arguing for it for only that reason. "Because that's the way it is" is not a reason at all. I do it because I think consistency is good for this part of NFL player articles and it does in fact make complete sense. I think it's written perfectly the way it is, and that's why I do it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth I thought this was something agreed to on WP:NFL, thats why I said too bad thats how it is done, I didnt even know Chris made it--Yankees10 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to bully anyone by using profanity. If you could be bullied by profanity you'd be pretty lame anyway. I use profanity to express how I'm feeling at the moment. Like if I'm fucking pissed, I'm not going to say I'm pissed. I'm going to say I'm fucking pissed. There's a difference. And dude, I can't help it if your good-faith edits are horrible. Chris Long's and Matt Slater's moms in the leads? Give me a freaking break. That is without logic, and I will continue to get rid of crap like that for the good of the articles.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. However, your position of

"I will continue to get rid of crap like that for the good of the articles"

is really the heart of the matter. Why are you the one who decides what is good or bad? What if someone thinks you are the one who ruins articles with disinformation, like the way you condense All-Pro and All-America selections. No matter how many times you condesne them cannot make it right. However, I digress, the issue is you who may have WP:OWN issues and WP:CIVIL issues and other issues with the rules here. This is not a dictatorship run by you, I don't think, and I don't think you should be able to abuse others so easily, it is bad for wiki and it is not fair to the rest of the good-gaith editors here. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using my common sense. I see a piece of an article I think sucks (and have good reason for) so I'm going to remove it. The end.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have that same right? If I think what you do is incorrect can I just "remove it"? I don't think so. What if your "common sense" is incorrect or if you happen to have a bias? What then? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not incorrect and I'm not biased. So no issue there.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply posed the question, what if? What is there were a time when you WERE biased, what then? Can that never happen? Are you always right? Your answer makes my point perfectly. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am always objective. I don't give a shit about Chris Long, his mother or the Rams. I have nothing against them and no allegiance too them. But I know what's notable and I know his mom isn't at all, so I'm going to remove it until the end of time because it's irrelevant crap and makes the article amateurish and worse overall.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is you who should be removed to the end of time. You are judging contnet which is against the spitir of the 5 pillars of wikipedia, isn't it? I think you might consider reviewing the good-faith edit section.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, do you think this Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility "*Using derogatory language towards other contributors" applies to you?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or this? Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility "*Rudeness, profanity directed at another contributor, or indecent suggestions." Does this apply to you in your opinion? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crickets.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort, but crickets is like this: (crickets) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. I'll get it next time. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still wish ChrisJNelson would answer the questions.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which questions?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, (1) do you think this rule: Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility "*Using derogatory language towards other contributors" applies to you? and (2) do you think this rule Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility "*Rudeness, profanity directed at another contributor, or indecent suggestions." Does these rules apply to you in your opinion? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they apply to everyone. But I disagree in large part about what is considered "uncivil" here, so I'm not going to blindly adhere to the rules on it. I'm going to do what I believe should be acceptable, and deal with the consequences later.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's the problem. What is acceptable to you may not be acceptable to others. As long as you set your own standard like that you are de facto saying the rules don't apply to you. I think your answer is very illuminating. I hope it is considered by the Admins.72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considered for what? The fuck I cuss more than some is irrelevant in the "originally" discussion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considered in the consequences of your actions. You have enganged in uncivil behavior with your rudeness and profanity dircted at me and you have used derogatory language towards other contributers. Those are two-clear cut rules you have broken and there needs to be an enforcement of the rules or your actions towards other users will continue in my view. Wiki is not a right it is a priviledge and the rules, as you freely admit, do apply to you. Someone, other than you, needs to review your actions and see if they warrant consequences. You said yourself that you deal with the consequences later, after you have done your actions. As I said this is more than "originally" it is about if the rest of those interested in the NFL project will be subjected to your personal attacks. I think we should not be subject to the kind of actions you have displayed on an on-going basis. For the wiki rules to mean anything your behaviors need to stop, or be put to a stop. It is not funny, it is not cute, it is plain rude, coarse, and uncivil and I am tired of it always coming from you. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted above:

They've gotten into editing wars over this, which is not uncommon for these two users. Chrisjnelson has been blocked 17 times for edit warring over the last year and Yankees10 was just blocked last week.

If this is true, why does Nelson get to continue to behave is ways that any objective observer would call uncivil? WP:CIVIL. It can be seen here that even is discussions where Admins are looking at a specific issue that he still attacks other's. I don't quite understand (and I am willing to learn) why this guy is not banned forever. What does one have to do to be banned permanately? If being banned 17 times (if that is true, I don't know if it is) does not tell you the character of an editor what will? How long does he get to stay? 18 times? 20 times banned?. I was threatend to be blocked because of 1 incident. An Admin named Pats1 threatend with with banishment in no uncertain terms. How that is relevant is it is my view, my opinion based on belief and what I have seen is that Pats1 acts as the "muscle" for chrisjnelson. I saw it in my own case. What I would like most is a fair, civil discussion when there are disputes and that the rules of wikipedia are allpied to all, both those with an account and those who choose not to have one for personal reasons. If one can get his way through sheer force of will and wearing out others then what good are the rules? I say a nelson suspension for a long time should be looked into given his history and his current behavior, even in this thread. it just looks pretty bad.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pats1 isn't my "muscle" but if I need help and I'm right, he'll help out because he's a smart and logical guy.

And I really don't feel like I've been blocked 17 times purely for edit warring. There's no way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you "feel" is not a really good standard. If you've been banned 1 or 2 or 3 for edit warring, it says a lot. Maybe the 17 is a total number, I don't know, my point is if you've been banned numerous times, it says a lot about civility. So does your attitude and your negativity and your profanity. It is just not needed in my opinion and is not civil. Besides, I just want to know why a guy can be banned as many times as you (whatever the number is) can stay here. I asked the Admins what are the standards? Admins? I think I have asked a fair question. If there is a better forum, fine, but this seems to work, eveyone is here . . . let's just get these issues out on the table and let everyone have their say, makes sense to me.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His block log can be seen here but let's keep this on topic. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, if the record of behavior of the parties involved is relevant (and I think it may be) then I think the Admins should take that into consideration. Wow. That's a long list. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the point, I happen to agree that the originally drafted makes little sense and I posted that concern with nelson and yankees10 (I think) I just said it does not make sense if a player has never changed teams. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - No, admins should not take my past into consideration here. While you've failed to grasp it thus far, this page is about the phrasing of a sentence and nothing more. My past is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I eat babies in my spare time, the only thing that matters on this page is the topic at hand - nothing more. If you want to whine about me, do it elsewhere.

Secondly, there is a major difference between thinking something doesn't make sense and it actually being untrue. Considering is complete does make sense, the problem appears to be with you and not the sentence. So good luck with that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. the user who started this was wise, starting this instead of allowing an edit war. It preempts what you would have done, which is this: He makes a change, you would follow him around and revert everything. Then, if he made a complaint, then the Admins might even blame HIM, because he does not have a user ID. I've seen this. I've stated I want the rules to apply to everyone, fairly. But, if they ignore your uncivil behavior (which they won't ignore, I don't think) then the WP:CIVIL rules don't apply to you. That would be unfair. So, in this case, I think your behavior matters----when that bahvior is posted in wikipedia. What you do in your personal life does not matter. What do you do here is supposed to matter, Wiki is not a right . . . is is a privilege that comes with a certain code of conduct. If you violate that code of conduct, then you should be subject to a penalty. Same as me, same as everyone. Isn't that fair?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my fiancee last night about this topic. She has two degrees: one is a Bachelor's of Arts in Speech Communications from Minnesota State University, Mankato and the other is a Bachelors of Science in journalism from the University of Minnesota. She's worked two years as an assistant editor at the American Journal of Kidney Disease when it was stationed in Minnesota, and now she's working as an Editor at Priority Publishing in Edina, MN. Needless to say, grammar is her life.

She said normally she wouldn't use Wikipedia or work on Wikipedia because in her field it's considered unreliable and sloppy, but since I've already gotten involved in this she'll help out. Instead of making a knee-jerk response she said she'd go to work and check her AP Stylebook and ask a couple of other editors at work so she could be 100% sure. While the ametuer journalist immediately says they are right because they figure they know better, the professional likes to get input from others. She asked two other editors at work today about this, one who has a Master's Degree and one who is a specialist in grammar. We just got done having a lengthy conversation on it.

Their Response:[edit]

It can be taken by a reader one of two ways: the first is to put the emphasis on drafted which would be making what is called a false statement on some articles because it would imply that they've been drafted more than once when in fact many have not. And you don't write things in articles as if they've already happened just because it may or may not happen in the future(WP:Crystal). The other way to take it would be to as Chrisjnelson wants you to take it which would be that they originally started at this team. This would also make it improper grammar because it is considered redundant and unnecessary. You should always use the least amount of words as possible to make your point across. A good rule of thumb on redundancy is that if you're reading a sentence, and by removing one word it still makes sense, then that word should be removed. Also keep in mind that some readers may see it as implyng they've already moved to another team (which is a false statement again).

My fiancee and the one with the Master's Degree took it as being drafted more than once, and the other person took it as this is the team they came from. All three of them said that if this article came across their desk the way it is now, they would take a red pen and cross the word "orginally" out because if it confuses the reader it shouldn't be in there. And adding "originally" in every article obviously confuses at least some readers here. The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information about a popular topic to the layperson, and confusing the reader undermines that purpose.

Also, she was wondering if Chrisjnelson had an alterior motive, because she said consistency doesn't overpower readability. Consistency is generally used within the scope of the same article, not multiple articles. Nobody wants to read the same thing over and over again in every article. In a way she said she could see where he is coming from, because when you're in school you are expected to write a little wordy but when actually writing in your profession you want as little words as possible to create a better finished product.

Also Chrisjnelson, when you actually get in the field your articles will be edited by sometimes two or three editors before being printed (and they will often edit each other's work). If you are going to be this defensive and combative on edits to your work this field isn't going to be for you. But she wasn't too worried about that in your case because this is something they usually teach you to work with in years 3 and 4 in college. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to how you make it sound, I'm not actually retarded. I know how to write.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course those who are educated would say what they did. If has been pretty obvious from the beginning that using "originally" was incorrect either way. I don't have a masters degree but I knew enough to know that the use of "originally" did not convey they message fort which it was intended. As far as as consistency I'll let Ralph Waldo Emerson speak, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Enough to sway me. I say we eliminate the word originally. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson about 18 times in the past month, and every time it still does not apply here. If you search your talk page for his name, you'll see that you've spouted off the same quote four different times. No one's impressed by you quoting a great writer, so give it up. No one thinks you're smart and well-read because you know one quote. Your endless stupid edits far outweigh being able to recite one line of someone else's work as if it means anything here. Hate to break it to you, but the consistency I've been implementing is completely a good thing, and I can be certain RWE would agree given that I know he wasn't mentally retarded.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I figured it would be too good to be true. Chrisjnelson from previous discussion: "If an actual expert could prove me wrong and explain why my phrasing is invalid, then I guess I'd cease adding it. But I'm pretty confident I'm not wrong here." It would appear that an "actual expert" has proven you wrong and explained why it is invalid, so now you just move on to attack him for his responses. Blackngold29 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been proven wrong because it's not incorrect English. I understand that there are some editors to prefer be without and I understand why, but it doesn't make it grammatically incorrect. It is correct English both ways, and when I said "if someone could prove me wrong" on that, I said it because I knew it was correct and that no one could prove me wrong because of it. So say it's misleading, confusing or unnecessary is one argument, and there are good arguments for it. But to say it is incorrect English is and will always be false.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One way is a false statement the other is redundant, those are both incorrect english; where's option 3? Blackngold29 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not false, so you're wrong if you think that. And while I could see an argument for it being redundant, I feel rules like that are not ones that should be followed blindly. They are more guidelines than rules, and some people like myself believe it reads and flows better with the way I have it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is then catering to you and only to people that think like you. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my question Chris. And when it comes to writing an encyclopedia, yes they are rules. If you're writing a story then there are no rules, anyone who's read Matthew Reilly or Stephen King knows that. The thing is we aren't writing "The life story of Tyrell Johnson" here, we're merely reporting facts on his life. Blackngold29 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we disagree.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was the understatement of the year. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we did not disagree we would not be here in the first place. We are here because we disagree. Blackngold29 16:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "originally drafted" is misleading. I don't see what on earth the point of "originally" is in this context, and it can definitely be misleading. Enigma ^message 07:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or we'll be goin' around in circles :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to sign it if I'm not a main party? CopaceticThought (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No... it's really a way to get folks on track, truth be told :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "other page" are you referring to? Blackngold29 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05_Tyrell_Johnson_(American_football)#Mediator_notes Bjewiki (Talk) 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought I'd let this thing see itself through to to end just to be an asshole, but I thought better of it. I'm letting you know that in the past few days I have ceased adding "originally" to the way I write player article leads, and I've also removed it from some articles I've edited in that span (ex. Rob Bironas, probably some others I can't recall). While I am still sure that there is nothing wrong with my original method from a writing standpoint and it is accurate despite the misinterpretations of others, I've decided it's just not worth all this lame bitching and moaning. So to possibly save some any new people (mediators or whatever) the trouble of having to examine the situation, vote or whatever, I'm letting you know now that this is no longer an issue, at least on my end, because I've decided to save myself the needless annoyance. For the record, this should not be taken as an admission of being wrong, nor should it be interpreted as trying to avoid any punishments from what some consider being "uncivil." I stand by every such comment I've ever made, because quite frankly some of the people here deserve to hear it - plus more. This page will not be off my watch list, by the way. The end.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be misconstrued as uncivil, although I could see it as just frank writing style, plus a lot of frustration, which I understand. But you can't change a wiki this way, especially one of this size. Which is part of why we have informal mediation at all (or medcom and arbcom would be swamped). So keep a cool head, blahblahblah, and I won't endlessly link behavior guidelines, which is particularly loathsome to me as an editor and mediator (and we've heard them all before, anyway, and it's not like we don't get them).

All that said, there is a dispute here, and like you said it's lame. That's what medcab is for :-p So will you sign on? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to do exactly?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sign here Xavexgoem (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I see the point since the only one really on my side (since Yankees10 was doing it for a reason that turned out to be untrue) is myself. You guys can do whatever you want here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of who. Does your argument have merit? Medcab only deals with content disputes, so who thinks what doesn't matter. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it has merit, but since I'm the only one who cares about my side and I've given up, what's the point?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking... So there isn't a problem anymore? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as this "originally" think goes. I've decided not to continue using it, and I was the only one really on that side of the argument.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 08:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'm going to close this then. If it comes back up, refile it. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just would like to point out that the Arizona Rattlers' website has copied and pasted part of my intro for their bio on Mkristo Bruce, as seen here. It's very clearly from Wikipedia, as it's worded exactly like I had written the article ("originally" and all) and everything is still linking to Wikipedia. Just thought this was amusing.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three things I noticed about the bio: 1) the player's bio says "originally signed", which is different because players can be signed as free agents more than once. 2) The player is now in the Arena Football League, a completely different league from the National Football League, so the word "originally" in this case could also mean that he had come from another league. 3) I didn't see anywhere on the bio that the text came from Wikipedia; if a website uses direct text from another, aren't they legally required by law to state the source? Ksy92003 (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to prove any point, I just thought it was amusing. Considering I wrote that part of the Bruce article and all the links are still intact, it's very obvious that it was lifted from here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it "obvious" and I wouldn't say they copied it because of legal restrictions. But it doesn't really matter, eh? Ksy92003 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely obvious they looked him up on Wikipedia and just copied a piece of the bio. They probably signed him and didn't feel like writing it themselves, so they copied and pasted that piece. I guarantee you linking Wikipedia is not standard practice, so the fact that it's all linked in all the right places just like it was in the article (before I changed it) makes it very obvious. I'm not even considering any legal implications, I just thought it was amusing that in all these debate over the word, this team clearly chose to copy and paste my wording.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you can think what you think. Everybody's got their own opinions. It really doesn't make any difference, so whatever. Ksy92003 (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't sure they copied-and-pasted it from Wikipedia? You're right it doesn't matter, I just find it a little odd that someone could not believe something so obvious.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't continue discussing on this page, unless you really think it's better than discussing somewhere else (which, hey, it might be). Please just... be nice :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Big brother is watching you[reply]

It actually could be, now that I look at some more stuff, specifically the awards; "He earned Pacific-10 Conference second team, ESPN.com All-Pac-10 first team, Leon Bender Defensive Lineman of the Year Award and WSU's Defensive MVP." I didn't think that the "originally" sentence came from Wikipedia until I considered the awards, as well. Out of my own curiosity, I'll try to reach the team in charge of the player bios for the Arizona Rattlers and find out if they did get these couple sentences from Wikipedia. And if I find that it is, then I will offer my apologies. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha it's not that serious. It's pretty obvious without confirmation. Why else would the links all be there? There is no way that's standard practice to link "undrafted free agent" in their bios. I'd bet my life on it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]