Jump to content

User talk:Aviper2k7/talkarchive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buck-O-Nine Page Edits

[edit]

Not sure why you keep removing the Buck-O-Nine bio. photo. It shows the band members, and was credited appropriately. The photo was copied from the website of our booking agent's website. In addition, you removed the Buck-O-Nine title from our info box. The photographer is our bassists girlfriend, and we absolutely have permission to post images of ourselves on a wikipedia page that is about our band. I'm getting the image uploaded to www.buckonine.com and will source it from there when I re-post it. For reference, I used the information from the bio photo on the Primus (band) wikipedia page. --Buck09

Please see Wikipedia Fair Use Criteria. If licensed under "fair use" the image would be deleted because it fails criteria #1- Image can't be replaced by a free one. And even if you do have permission to use the image on Wikipedia, it wouldn't be allowed. Only images with a proper copyright tags are allowed. You would have to have proof by her that she releases it under a proper copyright tag, allowing the image to be altered and even commercially sold.++aviper2k7++ 00:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need any proof whatsoever - this image is posted as a promotional image on the band's booking agency website, and has now been added to the band's official website under the directory /press_kit. I have read the fair use pages, especially the sections regarding promotional photos, and have made every effort to conform to the requirements. It does not fail criteria #1 because this is the official (current) promotional photo of the band. Tell me how there is supposed to be another copy that is "free"?!?
A free image would be to you, yourself, personally take a picture of the band (performing or not) and license it under a copyright tag that is accepted here. You could also look around the web to find an image that someone has taken and ask them if they'd release the image under one of the acceptable copyright tags.
Fair use means that an image is necessary to an article and cannot be replicated, and thus a copyrighted image with a low resolution can be used. Since this is a active band, a free image can be taken (at a concert) and be placed on Wikipedia.
Many bands do have free images. See Cake * or Tool * or Red Hot Chili Peppers *.++aviper2k7++ 04:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Browns FLC

[edit]

I removed that image, so feel free to change your vote if you want! Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Would you mind commenting here? They're thinking about re-opening that poll about the NFL infoboxes. Quadzilla99 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Packers colors

[edit]

I took those colors from the official logo.Chris Nelson 17:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took them off the official colors of the Green Bay Packers.[1]++aviper2k7++ 17:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WI-icon.png listed for deletion

[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:WI-icon.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bother me since I made the svg image anyways.++aviper2k7++ 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Can you explain why you restored the TSB external links from my changes? I'd like to see them restored. You left some explanation when you made the change, but I'm afraid I disagree. (And what is "ODP"?) I find the FAQs I linked to be very informative and thorough. I am not "advertising," am not the original author of those files, and have nothing to do with them. But if we're interested in definitive knowledge, there are no sources with more information on the game mechanics. They're certainly more informative than the Sportsline link currently available (as entertaining as that is, it's hardly informative). Additionally I don't see the value of the IGN and Gamespot links. They provide very little additional information and are no more official than the FAQs. If there's a policy or linking protocol they violated that the current crop don't, what is it? I appreciate your vigilance toward possible bad links, but I think in this case it's unwarranted. Thanks. --jkwilson

I linked to the Open Directory Project because there were new links being thrown in every day. They were all fansites and didn't really give extra verifiable information on the game. Instead of listing each fansite and having people fight over what links should be in, I linked them in a group. And the Sportsline link is removed, it isn't very encyclopedic.++aviper2k7++ 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox NFL season

[edit]

You make a good point regarding a bot to change all the infoboxes. I'll just manually add a infobox for changes between seasons and leave it the way it is. --Pinkkeith 13:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, maybe I will just make a second one that people could use. --Pinkkeith 13:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just reply

[edit]

All I'm asking is that you explain yourself to me. I'm not involved in any edit war and I don't think it's fair for you to accuse me for no reason. It's very hurtful to me to be accused of doing something that I didn't do. The way that you commented me on my talk page, "Can you go a day without starting an edit war? Seriously!" makes me think that you just want to accuse me of something without looking at the facts. Aside from the fact that the way you phrased that comment is rude in its own right, but you accused me of being in an edit war without ANY evidence at all. And by the way, there isn't any proof that I'm engaging in an edit war because I'm not. So the next time you want to accuse somebody of anything, make sure that your accusations are accurate and makes sure that you have your proof ready in case anything happens. Please don't do this again. And to be honest, I expect an apology from you. --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not argue in edit summaries. Edit summaries are done to explain what you did, but not to carry on an argument. Looking at your edit summary it looked as if you reverted. Please explain edits on the talk page instead of in edit summaries.++aviper2k7++ 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, this edit here where you acted as though you changed it but only did a minor edit.++aviper2k7++ 15:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you haven't read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles#Sorting, where I said that I wouldn't revert anybody's edit unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. I even made that point directly to you: "I will stop reverting other people's edits [except when] necessary." I also said that it took me 45 minutes to write that response, which obviously means I mean every single piece of it.
I'm not gonna place all the blame on you, as I do agree that I shouldn't have used that edit summary. However, since you noticed that I hadn't reverted your edit, I believe you should've at least issued an apology to me, explaining that you were wrong about the accusation you made towards me. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surname sorting

[edit]

Might I ask how that helps? It doesn't do anything more. They are already sorted by surname, so adding that "span style" crap doesn't do anymore than what's already done. Besides that, having all the additional characters makes it harder to read while editing.

But the main reason why I removed it is because it doesn't appear to do anything other than, according to you, sort by surname. It's already sorted by surname, making this redundant and pointless. Therefore, I removed it. Please explain to me what the necessity of this is. --Ksy92003 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's sorted by surname already, but what happens if they click a stat and then click sort on the names? Why would you have the names sortable at all then? Why would you rather sort it by first name, rather than last?++aviper2k7++ 05:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at Help:Sorting? If it's so much of a hassle, why don't you just use Template:Sort instead?++aviper2k7++ 05:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't want it sorted by first name. If you look carefully, you'll see that I had them sorted by surname.
Second, what I simply don't understand is that if we are already sorting it by surname, why do we need to put something else in there to sort? It's like... I don't know. I can't think of another example right now. Maybe tomorrow morning I can think of one. But anyway, it's already sorted by surname. Why have we got to sort it by surname with two separate methods? Isn't manually good enough without having to do it manually AND have the computer sort it for us? It just doesn't make any sense to include the "" to sort if it's already sorted in the first place. It's really redundant. They're already sorted by surname. Why include more symbols and characters that would become confusing for new editors (or me for example)? They're sorted by surname. Nothing else needs to be done about it. It's like... it's like Francisco Rodríguez throwing the game-winning strike 3 in today's Angels/Yankees game, but wanting to redo the pitch for no reason. (This is just hypothetical, but it's something you can understand better I believe.) It's like he already threw the pitch, got strike 3, and won the game, but for no reason at all wanted to throw the pitch again. If something is already done, then nothing else needs to be done about it. --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not understanding me. The way it is right now, you see the names sorted by last name first. Then if you sort by, let's say RBI's it sorts by RBI's. Now if you want go back to the names, it sorts by their first name. Nothing real major, but if you think it's hard, I will just add template:sortname.++aviper2k7++ 06:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it now. It makes perfect sense to me now. The way you had it is perfectly fine, now that I'm aware of that minor error. You don't have to change the way you have it. Honestly, I completely understand. Please forgive me, sir, for my error in understanding. I apologize. --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, it's fine it was just hard for me to explain, I'll add template:sortname to all the names++aviper2k7++ 06:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. I'm glad that I was finally able to "squeeze" an explanation out of you :) Now I understand and I don't have to wonder about that anymore. I do admire that you knew about the sorting trick and implemented that; I didn't go about it in a right way to find out if that was truly necessary or not. It is necessary, but I didn't know how or why until I just got the explanation from you. Thanks for the explanation, and I'm sorry. --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do?

[edit]

Here is the comment I most recently left at Talk:Chicago White Sox. I'm bringing it here because I want to make certain that you are aware that I'm leaving this comment for you.


I honestly have no idea why you are acting the way you are towards me. I'm trying to resolve a conflict, and you're telling me to stop? That isn't right. --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to constantly argue with people. We're trying to build an encyclopedia.++aviper2k7++ 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I simply don't understand why you're telling me to stop doing what I'm doing. I'm trying to do what you say, build an encyclopedia. To build an encyclopedia like this, there needs to be some collaboration. And most likely there are going to be people who disagree about its contents, am I right? I'm sorry that you don't value my opinion. But that doesn't mean that I have to stop discussing articles. You say, "How bout you start focusing on editing articles instead of talking about them all the time." You don't have the right to tell me not to discuss an edit to an article after you've given me so much crap about the edits that I make to the articles. --Ksy92003 (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just advising you to stop getting into so many arguments. You get into more arguments than any editor I've ever seen. And your tone is not helping anything.++aviper2k7++ 04:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How am I the cause for the discussion at Talk:Chicago White Sox? The discussion, itself, was created because of edits that Soxrock made. I got involved in the discussion because I was monitoring Soxrock's edits and I saw that he was removing information. I joined the discussion, not an "argument," to weigh in on the situation. I was simply giving my input. And because I'm trying to contribute, you have to begin an argument with me. The discussion that we're having right now is because you commented on me in what I consider a rude manner. I was giving my opinion, which I'm 100% allowed to do. Then, you come yelling at me telling me to edit rather than talk all the time. Excuse me if you don't like the way I'm trying to contribute. If you don't like me so much, then don't get involved with me. Don't say things to provoke me, like you did at that discussion page. Would you much rather me just sit back and let a conversation go nowhere? If you saw a dispute and had an opinion, would you not give your opinion because other users might yell at you for discussion an edit? No, you'd give your opinion like everybody else.
The one thing that really ticks me off about this whole thing is at first, some months ago or something, you were all yelling at me because I was making edits that you didn't like, namely those to 2007 Milwaukee Brewers season. You said that I should discuss the edits on the talk page before making the edits, am I right? Now, I'm doing just that; I'm discussing the edits on the talk page and now you're yelling at me for that. It seems that no matter what I try to do, you're never satisfied. I suppose the only way you'll be happy with what I do is if I leave Wikipedia altogether. But that's not gonna happen. So in the future, you should try to avoid telling somebody to do something just so you can yell at them about doing what you told them to do. --Ksy92003 (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about you using the discussion pages, that's encouraged. What I'm concerned about is your tone and your stubbornness to change any argument you have. Thus, I think it's best that you focus on editing articles, rather than arguing with people about them non-stop.++aviper2k7++ 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get into arguments because users like you complain about every little thing I do. And I don't argue with other people about the edits in the articles, rather I discuss them just as you would. And I only discuss them when necessary, not non-stop. Then tell me, please, what exactly I said that has a questionable tone in it. --Ksy92003 (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't discuss them as I would. That's the problem. You use a threatening tone and threaten to ban people.[2]

As far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the discussion. I've said what I thought would help the project, but you seem rather uninterested.++aviper2k7++ 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that we discuss the same way. I simply meant that we both discuss them. And I don't threaten to ban anybody. I don't have the admin power to be able to block another user. I only warn the users when they violate rules. And I don't use harsh tones on the discussion pages for articles. Give me one example (I mean quote) of where I once used a threatening tone. You'd be hard-pressed to find one. I don't use harsh tones when helpfully discussing edits to an article. --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers in NFL infoboxes

[edit]

Here's what I wrote on User:RyguyMN's talk page: I'm glad you like it. Numbers can play a big part of players in the eyes of fans as far as identifying them, and I think it should be included in every active player article rather than just some. Hopefully people won't have any problems with it. I know it's not the way the template intended it, but it's very similar to the way it's represented in MLB infoboxes, and I don't think anyone can say it's a bad addition. Right now, I'm going through and adding it to guys I have on my watch list so at least it's out there in a lot of places.Chris Nelson 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NFL team colors

[edit]

Please see Template:Infobox NFL player/doc. Unless you can produce some type of color guide on the team's website, the colors that will be used will be eyedropped from official teams logos. Pats1 21:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have linked to the Packers'. Those will be corrected in the template. Can you find something for the Redskins? Pats1 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Template talk:Infobox NFL player. The colors from the Redskins were taken from their media guide I believe.++aviper2k7++ 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find an online link to verify. Pats1 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better and it was agree upon. I'm sure the guy who found the colors wasn't lying.++aviper2k7++ 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox jersey number poll

[edit]

Hey, please vote in the infobox jersey number poll at Template talk:Infobox NFL player.Chris Nelson 00:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Milwaukee Brewers season

[edit]

First of all, I didn't revert your hard work, aviper. All I did was change the sections' headers. Second, you're once again contradicting yourself. Earlier, about a month or so ago, you were all yelling at me for no reason just because I was discussing an edit with another user. The comments I left you about that subject are still on your talk page now, so look back if you need a refresher.

Anyway, you're really starting to annoy me for no reason. This is what you said on that talk page:


So, I made one very small edit to 2007 Milwaukee Brewers season, not only a very minor one but one that keeps this article consistent with the others. Notice I said "consistent," not the exact same format, so don't mention instruction creep to me again. The point is, I made a very minor edit that improved the article as other articles like 2007 New York Yankees season and 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season have the sections simply labeled by month. I made a very minor edit to improve an article and you revert me for no reason. Even look at the edit summaries. Here is my edit summary, with yours below that:


I gave a reason in my edit summary to the reason why I made that change. When you reverted me for no reason, you implied that you only did it for two reasons: 1) You didn't want me to revert your edit and 2) because I made the edit without discussing it first. Again, this contradicts what you said earlier, when you said "How [a]bout you start focusing on editing articles instead of talking about them all the time[?]" Then, you said that I should edit an article instead of always discuss it. Now, you revert me for doing just that, editing an article, and now you say that I have to discuss it on the discussion page. Make your mind up.

I mean you no disrespect, but if I do, then honestly I don't apologize. But you need to get your opinions straight. You can't contradict yourself and revert another user's hard work because he didn't discuss an edit and also tell him to make an edit without discussing it.

I also feel that if it were any other user who did it, you wouldn't have reverted him/her. You've got to learn to get over your hatred towards me, as all that does is prevent another user from making good-faith edits. You reverted me for no reason and contradict yourself in what appears to me to be an attempt of preventing me from editing altogether. --Ksy92003 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sections aren't divided by month. You didn't even read my changes. I grouped them into logical sections that go along with the season. And yes, I think you should focusing on editing Wikipedia instead of playing admin to all these pages and you finding one thing that isn't "consistent" and undoing everyone's changes. If you would've read my changes, that would be one thing, but you disruptfuly changed the headers because it was different from some of the other articles you administrator over. I know how to edit Wikipedia; it's serious business.++aviper2k7++ 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i left a comment at the talk page as you suggested

Alright, the sections weren't grouped by month. But it was only a sentence off. One sentence in the third section was in May. And if the sections are organized month-by-month, shouldn't the headings reflect that?
It doesn't make me as mad the fact that you reverted me but because you didn't even give a reason behind it. You reverted me for no reason, telling me to discuss it rather than edit it, again, contradicting what you said to me some time ago. You're really annoying me and... you've really got to stop holding this grudge against me. If it were any other user, you wouldn't have reverted them, I'm almost certain.
You also seem to be somebody who reverts anybody when they make any edit to any article you edit. This can be seen as WP:OWN, as you reverted me for no reason because you are so "in love with" the way that you had it, you don't want anybody to mess with it. I also know how to edit Wikipedia. And I know the rules. And I know that it's not right to revert somebody for absolutely no reason. I know that discussion is a way of compromising and resolving conflicts. You don't take somebody to a discussion page because they changed an edit that you made. That's WP:OWN. And I saw the comment left at Talk:2007 Milwaukee Brewers season by 4.232.171.246. He/she's right; I am pissed right now. I am angry and frustrated. In my opinion, you've got to learn how to resolve conflicts and how not to anger other users for no reason. You're assuming ownership by reverting me for no reason because you didn't want me to make an edit to your article. And I also agree with 4.232.171.246 in that you should give me an apology. But to be honest, I don't expect one from you. You've never apologized to me before for all the problems you've caused me, so why would you now? --Ksy92003 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I do not like you. I do not like you because you're one of the most disruptfull editors I've ever came in contact with and show no good faith when discussing an article, which in your case comes in the edit summary. But that's not the reason why I reverted you. I reverted you because you changed the headers which were already written to follow the format I put in. It makes no sense to label a section "May" when there's a good portion of June in it. And if you're sock-puppeting, please stop.++aviper2k7++ 17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not mad at you because you reverted me. I'm mad at you because you reverted me with a reason but didn't tell me. That really frustrated me. I don't blame you for reverting me, but you should've given me a reason in the edit summary explaining why you reverted me. All you said was "revert," then told me to go to the discussion page. I was given no reason for why you reverted me, so how was I supposed to know why?
And I'm sorry if I'm being disrupting... but not for the reason you think. I'm sorry that my trying to contribute is being a problem for you. But you've got to learn to deal with it. I'm not gonna just go away and stop editing. I'm gonna stay here to edit for a long time. You're going to have to deal with me. I'm trying my hardest to contribute. And all my edits are out of good faith. You may revert me for whatever reason, in this case because I had changed the format the way it was but not completely. That's understandable. But when I make my edits, they're out of good faith. I don't intentionally damage any article. I always try to improve the article. It might not work out the way I plan, but I am trying. I might unintenionally mess something up, but I am trying. I try my hardest, and am on Wikipedia almost all the time, making changes when I see that they are needed. I am very dedicated to Wikipedia and it's always open on my computer. I look at a different article about every minute or so and make a change when I see that it is necessary. I have never done anything in bad-faith, nor have I ever been warned of violating any rule. I know I'm not perfect, but I am trying my hardest. I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for you.
And I said this at Talk:2007 Milwaukee Brewers season about the Brewers winning the World Series in that opening paragraph. Please look at 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season and look at the season summary that I have written for that article. --Ksy92003 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the "season summary" section on 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season has 1,702 words, 9,623 characters, and 19 paragraphs. I believe that's a lot of information that I have included in the article. It may be too much and I'll trim it down after the season, when I'll know what's notable enough to remain included.
Again, that's another example of all the hard work and good-faith edits I've made. Of the last 66 edits made to that article since April 28 , I've made 87.9% (58 of them). --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soxrock's userpage

[edit]

Hello. I am leaving you a message regarding the edits that you and Soxrock have made to User:Soxrock. I have told him that, per WP:USER, that you are free to edit his userpage at will and that he can't assume ownership over his userpage. It's not his userpage; it still belongs to and is a part of Wikipedia. Per WP:USER, you may edit it as frequently as you want. For the record, I do believe that he shouldn't have that userbox and you have my support should you have a discussion with him.

In short, you may edit his userpage if you want. Don't let his edit summaries scare you off, as you are free to edit his (and anybody's) userpage as you wish, except in the case of vandalism. Again, you have my support in this matter. --Ksy92003(talk) 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thanks. I know that conversation I had with Chrisjnelson was starting to go too far. For the record, this began because I was warning him not to make a personal attack on another user and it escalated to him using that kind of language towards me. I was trying not to react harsh towards the other user, and I'm not sure if I avoided that or not. But thank you for your concern. --Ksy92003(talk) 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. I mean this in a good way, but hopefully we won't need your help. Hopefully, this conflict will be resolved soon. Thanks anyway for your concern. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what everyone is arguing about.++aviper2k7++ 22:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It all began when I warned Yankees10 for making a personal attack. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, but did this come from an actual article?++aviper2k7++ 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. About a week ago, I warned Yankees10 for making a personal attack towards Chrisjnelson on Talk:Reggie Jackson, in which he called him a moron. Then, he told me that Chris had made several personal attacks towards him. I talked to them both about it and it appeared as though everything had relaxed. But then, on User talk:Yankees10/Milestones, Yankees10 called Chris an "asshole" because he was giving his opinion on something (you can see the discussion on that talk page if you wish to see the whole argument about that). I gave Yankees10 another warning, and then Chris Nelson said that his subpage was pointless, I told him he could have that subpage if he wants, and Yankees10 took offense to that. Soxrock came to my talk page to talk to me about that (well, actually the comment itself was directed to them but on my talk page because they've both gone there to talk to me) and now Chris Nelson is saying that other users weren't bothered about this because of him and... it just goes on and on. It's hard to explain the rest of it. I just hope it stops soon. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People get too worked up over Wikipedia.++aviper2k7++ 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So true. Interesting how these stupid arguments arise. This has been reaally disturbing. --Ksy92003(talk) 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image rationale

[edit]

Yo, thanks for taking care of that for me. –King Bee (τ • γ) 11:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always got your back++aviper2k7++ 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aviper2k7/talkarchive2&oldid=1060713665"