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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Black ngold29 01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"I will continue to get rid of crap like that for the good of the articles"
I'm not incorrect and I'm not biased. So no issue there.► Chris Nelson Holla! 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Which questions?► Chris Nelson Holla! 07:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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. Black ngold29 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Or we'll be goin' around in circles :-p Xavexgoem ( talk) 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What "other page" are you referring to? Black ngold29 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Black ngold29 01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"I will continue to get rid of crap like that for the good of the articles"
I'm not incorrect and I'm not biased. So no issue there.► Chris Nelson Holla! 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Which questions?► Chris Nelson Holla! 07:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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. Black ngold29 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Or we'll be goin' around in circles :-p Xavexgoem ( talk) 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What "other page" are you referring to? Black ngold29 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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