Hopefully we can come to a compromise, but just keep in mind that Wikipedia has a three-revert rule, which menas that you can't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Adios, Khoi khoi 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment about my work on Ty Cobb. Thank you also for improving the lead and meticulously checking the article. The lead was on my to do list in the lead-up to a peer-review and eventual FA review.
No worries about moving my comments; not a big deal. I think I may stay out of the discussion in the future as I can see the validity of the points on both sides; and it's escalating in tension. I like to stay out of situations like those ;) I've definitely seen worse, though, and it's not that bad yet, but the foundation is there for it to get there. Maybe I'll try to provide a level-headed response if I feel the urge. Anyways, have a good day! - Bluedog423 Talk 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Kudos. The one thing you might want to also consider is where it says in the fair use rationale that this shows her at a significant time. That might be true, or it might not be. I think it's part of the POV issue. It's fair to still say this case is the reason for her notability, but stating why this particular picture is notable is still pushing it. Wahkeenah 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Why are you insisting that we don't know when this photo was taken? The information is right there on the image's page: [Image:Crystal Headshot2 3.jpg].
P.S. - You are not supposed to edit, or re-arrange article talk pages, either. Duke53 | Talk 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
(It's in it's entirety on User talk:Johntex; fragments here were removed).
Hi Guanxi,
Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. If I think of any other way to help illuminate the discussion on the Duke pages, I'll try to help. -- Allen 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. There are any number of ways to look at this situation. Unfortunately, I think these articles communicate the feelings of the editors rather than the information that should be delivered. These are not black and white situations, but I do agree with letting the facts speak for themselves. The Cobb intro was reworked because it was poorly done. It can and should be expanded upon. Rather than make any claims about what people may or may not think, you can effectively communicate the same idea by presenting factual information. The comment regarding the # of votes he received when he was elected into the HOF is just such an example. There are a number of people who think Cobb is one of the greatest players, there are a number that don't. // Tecmobowl 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I think that the article's protection has expired...the tag is still there, though. I will remove it. Sr 13 03:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As probably the leading contributor to the page, I thought I should notify you. Guanxi 17:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting in touch with you sooner. When I edited the article, it was as a casual observer - one who knows Wikipedia, but who wouldn't consider himself a "regular" by any means. So, forgive me my "drive-by" - even though I still think that statement is positively ridiculous (Wikipedia has
who? for a reason :)), I'll butt out and let the grizzled Cobbians work it out. Personally, I agree with whoever said "the greatest hitter", but baseball's like football - just like how you can't compare Jerry Rice to Emmitt Smith, it's dazzlingly difficult to compare a hitter to a pitcher and say one or the other is the "greatest ever" of any era. Really, though, "greatest anything" is a term to be avoided whenever possible :) --
Badger Drink 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) - Redacting this. Upon closer examination of the talk page, your statement on June 5th is that you will change it to "baseball historians" or somesuch. It's been two months and the article still reads "knowledgable fans". I consider myself a knowledgable fan of baseball, and I wouldn't call Ty Cobb the greatest of his era. "One of" the greatest, sure - but what a stupid superlative. Even the proposed change - "many historians" - is, without a proper citation, a perfect example of a
weasel phrase. Consider me butting back in. :) --
Badger Drink 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Very nice work, thanks. Sorry if I was a bit snappish re your view as to consensus, there. Part of that was probably a carryover due to my strong preference that article-related discussion should stay on the article talk page. I really dislike it when that spills over to user pages, but it's a common practice, of course, and there's no way you could have known of that. I should probably put something to that effect in my talk-page edit notice. I should probably also refrain from editing while feeling grumpy, as it appears from my last comment on the article talk page. ;-) Thanks again, – OhioStandard ( talk) 05:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Somehow you can allow all the current references to Michigan, but all the following sources proving Michigan State also wore the winged helmets are thrown out?
And that doesn't include SpartanJerseys.com. What are you protecting?
Imacericg ( talk) 22:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I just added a line to the article and cited a reliable source (published book). All of the other sources on that page are Michigan or Princeton websites or fansites and you would not allow any Michigan State websites. Lets start somewhere (with a book). Imacericg ( talk) 22:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm tired of the spurious accusations. If you want my cooperation, stop them now. guanxi ( talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No accusations. Just seems that its very, very difficult to get something about Michigan State on the page, when others got a free pass. I am starting fresh and instead of hitting "undo" I cited a reliable source per your recommendation. We are cool, no worries. Imacericg ( talk) 23:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You say "No accusations" and then repeat them in the next sentence. Let's talk about the article, and reliable sources, on the article's talk page. guanxi ( talk) 23:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, I just responded on the talk page. Imacericg ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You removed the following sentence which contains very important information to the article. All you had to do was rephrase it if it was not to your liking.
"It was not until February 11 that the US embassy in Pakistan began to refer to the arrested US citizen as "Raymond Davis" in its Press Releases. [1]"
We had the US State Department and the US Embassy who referred to him as "the arrested US Diplomat" which is stated in the article. The Department of State even stated that "the name going around was wrong", which is also stated in the article.
Then for the first time, they call him by the name "Raymond Davis" in a press release and you remove it as "original research". I edited it and re-inserted it like this :
"On February 11, the US embassy in Pakistan referred to the arrested US citizen as "Raymond Davis" in its Press Release. [2]" which can no longer be called "original research"
You could have done that much without cutting it out. Hudicourt ( talk) 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Guanxi. I agree with Hudicourt. A lot of work has been done on this page so it would be appreciated and more polite to suggest improvements on the discussion page first. Also a quick search on the net yourself would have revealed that this was not OR and then also you could have contributed by adding a link to the article instead of diminishing it by removing revealing and highly relevant information.--
Mystichumwipe (
talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mbuzi. Since you had some involvement with the Mbuzi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 05:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Guanxi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Guanxi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Guanxi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully we can come to a compromise, but just keep in mind that Wikipedia has a three-revert rule, which menas that you can't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Adios, Khoi khoi 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment about my work on Ty Cobb. Thank you also for improving the lead and meticulously checking the article. The lead was on my to do list in the lead-up to a peer-review and eventual FA review.
No worries about moving my comments; not a big deal. I think I may stay out of the discussion in the future as I can see the validity of the points on both sides; and it's escalating in tension. I like to stay out of situations like those ;) I've definitely seen worse, though, and it's not that bad yet, but the foundation is there for it to get there. Maybe I'll try to provide a level-headed response if I feel the urge. Anyways, have a good day! - Bluedog423 Talk 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Kudos. The one thing you might want to also consider is where it says in the fair use rationale that this shows her at a significant time. That might be true, or it might not be. I think it's part of the POV issue. It's fair to still say this case is the reason for her notability, but stating why this particular picture is notable is still pushing it. Wahkeenah 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Why are you insisting that we don't know when this photo was taken? The information is right there on the image's page: [Image:Crystal Headshot2 3.jpg].
P.S. - You are not supposed to edit, or re-arrange article talk pages, either. Duke53 | Talk 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
(It's in it's entirety on User talk:Johntex; fragments here were removed).
Hi Guanxi,
Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. If I think of any other way to help illuminate the discussion on the Duke pages, I'll try to help. -- Allen 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. There are any number of ways to look at this situation. Unfortunately, I think these articles communicate the feelings of the editors rather than the information that should be delivered. These are not black and white situations, but I do agree with letting the facts speak for themselves. The Cobb intro was reworked because it was poorly done. It can and should be expanded upon. Rather than make any claims about what people may or may not think, you can effectively communicate the same idea by presenting factual information. The comment regarding the # of votes he received when he was elected into the HOF is just such an example. There are a number of people who think Cobb is one of the greatest players, there are a number that don't. // Tecmobowl 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I think that the article's protection has expired...the tag is still there, though. I will remove it. Sr 13 03:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As probably the leading contributor to the page, I thought I should notify you. Guanxi 17:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting in touch with you sooner. When I edited the article, it was as a casual observer - one who knows Wikipedia, but who wouldn't consider himself a "regular" by any means. So, forgive me my "drive-by" - even though I still think that statement is positively ridiculous (Wikipedia has
who? for a reason :)), I'll butt out and let the grizzled Cobbians work it out. Personally, I agree with whoever said "the greatest hitter", but baseball's like football - just like how you can't compare Jerry Rice to Emmitt Smith, it's dazzlingly difficult to compare a hitter to a pitcher and say one or the other is the "greatest ever" of any era. Really, though, "greatest anything" is a term to be avoided whenever possible :) --
Badger Drink 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) - Redacting this. Upon closer examination of the talk page, your statement on June 5th is that you will change it to "baseball historians" or somesuch. It's been two months and the article still reads "knowledgable fans". I consider myself a knowledgable fan of baseball, and I wouldn't call Ty Cobb the greatest of his era. "One of" the greatest, sure - but what a stupid superlative. Even the proposed change - "many historians" - is, without a proper citation, a perfect example of a
weasel phrase. Consider me butting back in. :) --
Badger Drink 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Very nice work, thanks. Sorry if I was a bit snappish re your view as to consensus, there. Part of that was probably a carryover due to my strong preference that article-related discussion should stay on the article talk page. I really dislike it when that spills over to user pages, but it's a common practice, of course, and there's no way you could have known of that. I should probably put something to that effect in my talk-page edit notice. I should probably also refrain from editing while feeling grumpy, as it appears from my last comment on the article talk page. ;-) Thanks again, – OhioStandard ( talk) 05:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Somehow you can allow all the current references to Michigan, but all the following sources proving Michigan State also wore the winged helmets are thrown out?
And that doesn't include SpartanJerseys.com. What are you protecting?
Imacericg ( talk) 22:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I just added a line to the article and cited a reliable source (published book). All of the other sources on that page are Michigan or Princeton websites or fansites and you would not allow any Michigan State websites. Lets start somewhere (with a book). Imacericg ( talk) 22:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm tired of the spurious accusations. If you want my cooperation, stop them now. guanxi ( talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No accusations. Just seems that its very, very difficult to get something about Michigan State on the page, when others got a free pass. I am starting fresh and instead of hitting "undo" I cited a reliable source per your recommendation. We are cool, no worries. Imacericg ( talk) 23:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You say "No accusations" and then repeat them in the next sentence. Let's talk about the article, and reliable sources, on the article's talk page. guanxi ( talk) 23:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, I just responded on the talk page. Imacericg ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You removed the following sentence which contains very important information to the article. All you had to do was rephrase it if it was not to your liking.
"It was not until February 11 that the US embassy in Pakistan began to refer to the arrested US citizen as "Raymond Davis" in its Press Releases. [1]"
We had the US State Department and the US Embassy who referred to him as "the arrested US Diplomat" which is stated in the article. The Department of State even stated that "the name going around was wrong", which is also stated in the article.
Then for the first time, they call him by the name "Raymond Davis" in a press release and you remove it as "original research". I edited it and re-inserted it like this :
"On February 11, the US embassy in Pakistan referred to the arrested US citizen as "Raymond Davis" in its Press Release. [2]" which can no longer be called "original research"
You could have done that much without cutting it out. Hudicourt ( talk) 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Guanxi. I agree with Hudicourt. A lot of work has been done on this page so it would be appreciated and more polite to suggest improvements on the discussion page first. Also a quick search on the net yourself would have revealed that this was not OR and then also you could have contributed by adding a link to the article instead of diminishing it by removing revealing and highly relevant information.--
Mystichumwipe (
talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mbuzi. Since you had some involvement with the Mbuzi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 05:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Guanxi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Guanxi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Guanxi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)