User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 8

Sockpuppet allegations

I recently noticed this and I am appalled that someone would think this is me. I am willing to discuss this with anyone. Is there not a way to tell where the IP was located and to look at my IP, proving it's not me? I realize I am on the fast track to being blocked and I still wish this doesn't happen. It is not in my character to do something as pathetic as vandalize or create sockpuppets, and I plan on doing everything I can to avoid digger myself into a deeper hole.►Chris Nelson 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is a "checkuser"?►Chris Nelson 05:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a checkuser is exactly what you describe. A small handful of users (including the arbitrators) can run a checkuser to see what IP addresses a registered username has edited from, and if other accounts have edited from the same IP. If those weren't you, you've got nothing to worry about, checkuser will show no relation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, good. I think it's obvious that the one user name, the one similar to Jmfangio, is definitely related. I suspect two possibilities. 1) Someone acting in support of me, although I have no knowledge of such a thing and would never enlist someone to do something like that. Or, 2) someone that is against me and is purposely doing things like that to make it look like me and get me into more trouble.

I hate to ask this, but there is one thing I think should be made sure of. While I don't believe it to be true, it is possible someone is doing it to make it look like me and make me look bad. For that reason, I am wondering if there is any way to see if there is a connection between either of their IPs. If either of you guys are reading this, please know that I do not believe what I just suggested is true. But I would completely understand if this vandal is doing this to hurt me and I wouldn't blame you for thinking that. So please don't blame me for thinking of this possibility, I just want to be sure. Obviously, if neither of you is connected as I suspect, you'd have nothing to worry about in regards to having it checked. I just don't know who would be doing it in support of me which makes me think it's quite the opposite. I'm not saying it's you - just that I think it might be someone doing it to make me look bad.

Anyway, thanks for the info, Seraphimblade, and I hope this checkuser thing can take place ASAP.►Chris Nelson 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the accounts were socks of someone else, yes, checkuser would show that as well. If you do want to speed the process, you might want to consider making a comment under the section for parties' comments that you do not object to the checkuser being done. Editors' IP information is given protection by the privacy policy, but you can choose in this specific case to waive that protection if you wish to do so. (Your IP would still not be disclosed publicly, of course, just looked at by the checkuser who looks at the case to determine what's going on.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well unfortunately I'm blocked for about another day. Is there any way someone can be directed here and see that I have no objection? I'm going out of town for the day, so between that and the block I probably won't be around until early Sunday morning to respond to anything. I'd like to have that stuff all cleared up by then. If this is possible, I'd just like to say right now that I have NO problem with anyone looking at my IP information and am willing to do whatever it takes to speed up the process and show that I am in no way connected to this vandal.►Chris Nelson 05:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post the diff of your comment in the appropriate section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it.►Chris Nelson 06:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Scott on Eagles Roster Template...

Should a new category be created on the template? He's actually not on the "Injured Reserve", but on the "Minor Injured Reserve". I had actually never heard of it before, but apparently the difference is that if he gets healthy, Scott can play again this year (just not for the Eagles) [1]. Just seems like that's a difference (between minor IR & IR) big enough warranting a distinction, since all the other players on the IR are out for the season. Bjewiki 20:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Trotter

I would delete the category if he was released by the Bucs before the first game--Yankees10 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you got to do and say what you got to say, I dont care about this category bullshit anymore--Yankees10 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained what I would do, by deleting the category if he doesnt play a game for the Bucs.--Yankees10 20:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because people are going to forget to add the category, In about May of this year I went to all the baseball players that signed with new teams, and they didnt have the category of there new team, I went to players like Alfonso Soriano, he didnt have the Cubs players categories, Greg Maddux didnt have the Padres players categories, I went to numerous players and they didnt have the category of there new team and it was May already! meaning people didnt add the category, thats what I didnt want happening to Trotter--Yankees10 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im over this now, I dont have to explain my reasoning for doing something to you, really who the hell are you--Yankees10 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dou what you have to do, check my edits if that pleases you--Yankees10 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contracts

Do you have any info on the contracts of the undrafted college free agents and recent waiver claims? Raul17 20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can basically be sure they are practically all league minimums.►Chris Nelson 20:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the contract expiration. I think there is some rule about two-year minimum comtracts during certain time of the season. Raul17 03:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve List Style...

That's fine...I think we should go with abbreviations...you guys are alraedy using "PUP" on some lists, from what i've seen. I just think the fully written out ones look pretty cluttered right now.

I propose:

IR - Injured Reserve
Minor IR - Minor Injured Reserve
PUP - Physically Unable to Play
Susp. - for Suspended? Not sure about that one.

Bjewiki 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and that's the reason we shortened PUP. IR is probably the most common one anyway so I'm not sure Pats1 would have a problem with that. One shortening issue is that there is both a Non-Football Injury and Non-Football Illness. Although it wouldn't do much, I think maybe we can shorten the last words to Inj. and Ill. or something. I dunno, let's see what Pats1 thinks just to get another perspective. Not too many people care about this "issue" so it shouldn't be hard to agree among us.►Chris Nelson 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding my edit summary, I know how to spell 'write'. I'm just retarded, haha.►Chris Nelson 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking: "Non-FB Inj", and "Non-FB Ill" for those categories... Bjewiki 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's as far as I'd go. It's really striking a balance between not stretching the page and not confusing the undereducated. Looks good. Go for it. Pats1 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like the FB abbreviation though. The other abbreviations we use (IR, PUP) are the common ones - FB is not a common shortening in NFI.►Chris Nelson 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 week block

This account has been blocked from editing for gross and persistent violations of WP:POINT. If you have evidence to submit to arbitration during that time you may e-mail the case clerk. Durova^Charge! 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, can you please elaborate on what I was blocked for? I do not get this at all.►Chris Nelson 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond.►Chris Nelson 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chrisjnelson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe this block to be totally unfair and unwarranted. Durova said I've violated WP:POINT but I have no idea how and she has yet to explain it to me in detail. From a post on her talk page, it seems she blocked me for replying to a comment of User:Jmfangio. However, my comment was entirely civil and I was only trying to be friendly. I cannot possibly conceive of how I warranted a block today. This is flat-out wrong and if this block is not lifted before its duration it will be an injustice.

Decline reason:

Looking over your behavior, prior warnings and block history, the ongoing RfAR you are involved in, and the exchange below, it seems you were given ample warning to cease your incivility and misconduct. A one-week block seems warranted. — krimpet ⟲ 03:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Editor has deleted the explanation I posted to this page a few days ago that described why he was exceedingly close to a one week block for WP:POINT. He would have gotten it sooner if two other administrators hadn't stepped forward to block him during the interim. He continued wikistalking another editor today.

The immediate lead-up to this particular block was this exchange in which he repeatedly interrupted a conversation at my user talk page that had nothing to do with him in order to goad the other named party from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. Jmfangio had been making sincere attempts to disengage from the dispute and Chrisjnelson refused to take no for an answer. For a fuller explanation of why this editor is a chronic violator of WP:POINT and several other policies see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Evidence#Assurances_by_Chrisjnelson_cannot_be_trusted. Durova^Charge! 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, this is ridiculous. I didn't stalk anyone - I had your talk page on my watch list from previously posting there. As for interrupting a conversation, you can't say it didn't have anything to do with me because it was a complaint ABOUT me. I posted on your talk page, both in reply to Jmfangio and in front of you, to tell you both that I was just trying to be friendly and ask him if he'd reconsider joining a discussion at the NFL project talk page. I was unaware I was not allowed to speak to Jmfangio under any circumstances and I was only trying to make peace. To say I was goading is just plain wrong - I was trying to be friendly and civil. Show me something I said that indicates otherwise.

So now that we have established that I wasn't wikistalking and that I did not goading, WHY was I blocked. This is completely unwarranted and you cannot backup any of these claims. I've already ruined all your points you made here, so why ELSE was I blocked?►Chris Nelson 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions fit the definition of Wikistalking and you refused to take no for an answer and disengage voluntarily. Now you're being disengaged involuntarily. This is the third userblock you have earned while arbitration is ongoing. I've already advised you to seek mentorship and bring your conduct into alignment with site standards. Your response was indignant - basically a continuation of the same behaviors that racked up your prior block history and sent you to arbitration in the first place. If you see nothing wrong here, plenty of others do, and refusal to accept that feedback hurts yourself more than anyone else. Have a week to think about that - I hope it dissuades you from continuing on your present course. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it wikistalking edit something you saw on your talk page? It was related to me so I felt, and still feel, I had every right to post. I was trying to be friendly and courteous to Jmfangio, and whether I should have avoided talking to him altogether my demeanor at the time was nice enough you could have just said "Don't speak to him" rather than block me. I was not uncivil but quite the opposite, and I made a request of Jmfangio based on a post he made in a discussion I was already in at the project talk page.

So let's recap. Myself and a handful of others were in a discussion at . Jmfangio posted there and said what he had to say, then said he was done discussing it. I then posted on his talk page, respectfully asking him to reconsider, as I had asked him a question there and was hoping to continue the discussion. He goes to your talk page and complains about my comment. Now perhaps at this point I should have left it alone. Obviously he didn't want to talk to me. But I did not want him to think I'm be angered if he did not reply to me (he said I'd call him rude); I wanted him to know that this was not true and it was just a request on my part which he had every right to decline. That would have been the end of it.

So maybe I shouldn't have made that reply. But I was not stalking (proven), I was not goading (proven) and I was only trying to be friendly. So how on earth can you feel I deserve to be blocked for that? The better thing to do would have been to say something like "Hey Chris, I know you were trying to be nice but given your recent encounters and Jmfangio's lack of interest in discussion I think it'd be best if you dropped it." That's what I'd expect from a mature and reasonable admin, one that can understand the situation with any kind of clarity.►Chris Nelson 05:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...I've worked with Durova quite a few times, on a good number of things. Whatever you want to say about this situation, "mature and reasonable" describe her very well. I might suggest you actually listen and look at where the problem is, both to help now and to avoid the situation in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her past isn't relevant here, just like mine isn't. In THIS case alone, I did NOTHING wrong and she is WRONG for blocking me. That's all I care about, and there is no lesson to be learned here on my part. Unless of course that lesson is that not even admins at Wikipedia can always be trusted to to the right thing.►Chris Nelson 06:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you presume that your past isn't relevant here? Editors who have a considerable track record of recent userblocks lose the assumption of good faith by demonstrating the opposite, and blocks normally get longer as they accumulate. You've refused to suppose your actions might be out of step with site standards and adamantly refused to seek formal mentorship, insisting that you can function on your own when in fact your behavior is rapidly placing yourself in peril of a full siteban. Slow down and suppose for a moment that experience in seventeen arbitration cases has taught me something. I'm attempting to put some brakes on your cart before you careen off the cliff. Durova^Charge! 13:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So did you randomly block me yesterday for past incidents? Or did you block me for something I did yesterday? Because I can tell you without a doubt that I did nothing to warrant a block yesterday. I can't imagine one attempt at a friendly post, even to someone that has previously stated they wished to disengage, should warrant a ONE-WEEK BLOCK. A warning, perhaps. A suggestion that hey, even though it was well-intended it might not be best right now. If I had gotten into it with him again, if I had made personal attacks, edit warred, violated 3RR or acted rude or hostile in any way - I'd say yeah, I deserve a block. I have no more wiggle room, and that's obvious and understandable. But to block me when all I did is try to be nice and ask a simple question is ludicrous no matter what I've done in the past. Your actions yesterday were irresponsible and unwarranted. You clearly lack a great deal of understanding about the situation, which becomes obvious every time you twist innocent actions or words on my part into some kind of violation. I try to be friendly and civil and patch things up, you call it goading. I throw my two cents int to a discussion ABOUT me on a talk page that was PREVIOUSLY ON MY WATCH LIST, and you call it stalking. You misinterpret obvious actions on my part by an unbelievable amount.The difference between us is that I'm aware of my mistakes, while you are still oblivious. And you are the reason I'm leaving here for a long, long time. So thanks for that. There's just no point in being here if I can get blocked without reason, as I've been twice now within the past week.►Chris Nelson 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. In my personal opinion, this block should be undone. But I don't know enough about the entire situation to make that decision myself. Anyone who thinks your actions constitute stalking might need to re-read that policy - err, guideline - again. ugen64 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other part of the block, as I understand it, is this: Myself, Ksy923003, Yankees10, Pats1 and Jmfangio had all previously been in a discussion at the NFL WikiProject talk page on Categories. Jmfangio, who has expressed a desire to disengage with me based on past altercations, made one last post on the discussion and said he didn't have anything else to say. Because I had asked him a question in the NFL discussion and wanted to continue discussing it with him, I posted this on his talk page:

Juan, I urge you to reconsider leaving the discussion at this point. It is far from over, especially since these types of players currently meet the criteria for the categories (ex. Pass to Texans). If you feel I become uncivil toward you, then by all means leave. But the issue is not as cut and dry as it is in your opinion - in fact right now it seems to be the facts lean more toward inclusion. Therefore I respectfully ask that you re-join the discussion. In my second-to-last post there I asked for a clarification on your part.►Chris Nelson 23:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I know he really didn't want to talk to me, but I thought I'd ask for the sake of the discussion and hopefully you can see I was attempting to be civil and friendly. After my post on his talk page, he went to Durova's and posted:

And he still won't leave me alone: [1] I just don't know what to do here. I was pointed to a discussion and made one post - it could not have been more clear. Yet he continues to try and engage me directly. If i don't respond he calls me rude, if i do - well you know what happens. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Having previously posted on Durova's page and having it on my watch list, I saw Jmfangio's comment and wanted him to know that I wouldn't think bad of him if he didn't want to discuss, that I was just asking and I'd understand either way. So I said this:

I wouldn't call you rude, though I'd be disappointed. I was just respectfully asking you return to a discussion that is far from concluded in order prevent any incidents at player pages down the road. I think I was civil in my whole comment.►Chris Nelson 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Durova sees this and now here we are.►Chris Nelson 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The yellow bar was annoying, I have removed it. Burntsauce 22:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, how can you vandalize my talk page because you find a color annoying? If you find it annoying you just shouldn't come here...►Chris Nelson 23:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, none of my many warnings have had the intended effect of curbing your behavior. You even had the chutzpah to come to my own user talk page and post that you expected no blocks at all for continuing policy violations after my warnings. Yes - when editors refuse to heed warnings, swifter and longer blocks follow. Durova^Charge! 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I. Did. Not. Do. Anything. Wrong. When. You. Blocked. Me. How complicated a concept is that?►Chris Nelson 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple, and equally mistaken. Durova^Charge! 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were able to actually tell me something I did wrong the other day - something I couldn't totally debunk - I'd be more inclined to believe you. To date, you still haven't given me a good reason for the block. So considering in the past week I've been unfairly blocked twice, had a personal attack by an admin and had my talk page vandalized by an admin, I'm pretty much done here. Have fun wielding your awesome power.►Chris Nelson 14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right: I've been patient long enough. You vowed to avoid all sports-related articles and templates with the exception of two pages when a topic ban was imminent. The evidence I've already set forth at arbcom is more than sufficient to demonstrate the sequence of events there. As of the end of this block you are welcome to return to those two pages. I hope you raise them to featured status and earn barnstars for your work there, because until the day after the Superbowl those are the only sports pages you'll be editing. I'll block you for WP:POINT if you touch anything else. Durova^Charge! 15:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned with the unfair block than anything that occurs after it. I'd have no problem with an enforced limitation, but I do have a problem with not even being able to edit those things until the end of my block considering my block is unfair.►Chris Nelson 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an explanation. Every time you (Durova) and Ksy92003 try to post something against Chrisjnelson's point of view, I read it and become more inclined to agree with Chris (because, like most people, I am inclined to agree with people who, you know, use logic...). A few weeks ago, I looked at some of the edits Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson were arguing about, and indeed I agreed with Chris's point of view on most of them (if not all), but I have no intention of getting in an edit war or, even worse, an arbitration committee case. Maybe you can block me for violating WP:BOLD ;-) ugen64 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm certainly guilty of my share in the relationships between myself and Jmfangio and Ksy92003. But in this specific case, I feel that a one-week block for a civil and friendly question, even to someone that wished to disengage, was a little harsh. I was only trying to do good, and I feel my good intentions should carry some weight in this case. Harassing someone that wishes to disengage is one thing. But that is not what I did.►Chris Nelson 18:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is just lovely isn't it? Per User_talk:Pats1#Discussion, Jmfangio has decided to re-joined the discussion I asked him to re-join a few days ago and got BANNED FOR. In case you're reading this Juan, I don't blame you and I'm really glad you at least decided to comment so maybe we can make progress. So I'm all good in that regard. I just still think Durova's one-week ban was unwarranted. Somehow, I think the people I've gotten into it with might even believe that on the inside, or at least believe it's a little harsh given the lack of a malicious intent.►Chris Nelson 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugen64, what do I have to do with this current situation? You say "Every time you (Durova) and Ksy92003 try to post something against Chrisjnelson's point of view, I read it and become more inclined to agree with Chris," but I have no idea why you need to say something about me when I have nothing to do with this discussion. Ksy92003(talk) 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about Chrisjnelson's point of view. It's his conduct that concerns me. Ugen64, if you believe my logic is flawed you are welcome to post evidence to the arbitration case that exposes its flaws. Durova^Charge! 02:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And although it isn't related to the Arbcom between Chris and Jmfangio, I too would like to know how my point of view is "illogical," Ugen64, as you implied about Durova and I. I contend that my opinions are perfectly logical in every sense of the word, and that my logic isn't "flawed" in any way. Ksy92003(talk) 02:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that none of my conduct that day warranted a block, Durova.►Chris Nelson 02:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Chris, I don't understand why you were blocked for WP:POINT, either. Although I still would say that you should've been blocked for WP:CIVIL. Ksy92003(talk) 03:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to debate with you why I shouldn't have been blocked, especially since I know I'm right and I've already explained this to Durova at length despite horrible explanation (or lack thereof) on her part. But I will say that I was being civil that day, so unless WP:CIVIL means don't me civil, I didn't violate it the say of my block. I was intentionally being civil and respectful in my message to Jmfangio that day. I wanted to make things better and work toward a resolution. And I got blocked for it.►Chris Nelson 03:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive yellow bar

Is there a reason you keep adding this back? It is annoying and disruptive. Burntsauce 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't add it back this last time - another admin did. Secondly, it's none of your business what color the bar is - it's only annoying to you if you come here, so don't. What if I found those three quotes on your page annoying? Could I just go and delete them on my own? Removing the bar from my talk page is nothing short of vandalism and your behavior is ridiculous.►Chris Nelson 16:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen discussions on UI spoofing, however, I don't think any consensus came of it. Additionally, it says "Leave a new message". If it said "You have new messages" I might find it disruptive, since it does not, I don't find it disruptive. But this is my point of view on the yellow bar, others may have a differing view. Regards, Navou ^banter 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there's no consensus, an admin certainly shouldn't just come and remove it. Talk to me about it, tell me how to make it a different color. Something other than just doing it on your own like you own the freaking place.►Chris Nelson 17:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and I have very little patience with people significantly editing other users' talk page layouts without their permission (or, shall I say, vandalizing them). That's why I undid Burntsauce's edit. ugen64 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pats1

Yo Pats1 IM me!►Chris Nelson 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo!►Chris Nelson 02:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...

The first good news you've heard from me

WP:ANI#Blocked_User:Jmfangio_as_a_reincarnation_of_User:Tecmobowl. Thought you might like to know. Durova^Charge! 14:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... that's very interesting.►Chris Nelson 14:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, when I posted to your talk page last week I hoped you'd have information to help with that investigation. A lot of the work is barely visible from my contributions onsite. The checkuser request was the tip of the iceberg, and it does help set things at ease to know a third party was responsible for the impersonation account. That leaves me with a different dilemma: just because Jmfangio was a banned sockpuppet doesn't mean you're a boy scout. You earned blocks for 3RR before you ever crossed paths with him.

So I'm going to unblock you in the hope that you'll collaborate better without that antagonizing influence. Go over to those two football pages you said were your main interest. If you do good work there and get along with other people then contact me in a couple of weeks and we'll reevaluate that pledge you made to avoid the rest of the topic. For the present I'm holding you to that vow so edits to other football-related pages would get you a WP:POINT block. You'll still need to earn your way back to good standing - I'm willing to let your actions convince me. Durova^Charge! 16:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for unblocking me and giving me the chance. I have no problem with a topic ban for the time being.►Chris Nelson 16:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and that IP vandal dogging you both probably made the whole thing worse. Go prove what a good editor you can be. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 16:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jmfangio as sockpuppet - I was just going to add that to your talk page. Very interesting. (You two had a brief argument on my talk page). Cheers tharsaile 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text copied from other websites

Chris, we have a serious problem. I just noticed that most of the article Marquay Love was copied nearly word-for-word from his University of Houston team bio. After looking at just a few of the other articles that you have listed at User:Chrisjnelson/Created, I found similar overt copying at Kerry Reed and Courtney Bryan, and conclude that this is a widespread problem in your contributions. Looking through your talk page history, I'm suprised that this has gone unnoticed for so long (though I did find a message from me, last November, asking that you not tag others' photos as your own).

Here is the essential point: you must only contribute your own words to Wikipedia. Copying others' work without their consent is dishonest and makes our project look bad. Worse, it violates the original authors' copyrights, and could expose us (and you personally) to legal risk. Changing a few words in a sentence does not make it your own, nor does rearranging the sentences of the other work, and nor does rewritting an entire essay sentence-for-sentence. You may use the information from other people's work, but not their prose.

I need you to do two things. First, if you are still writing articles in this way, stop immediately. Second, I need you to take the lead in helping us purge all of the plagiarism that you have contributed from the project. This probably means going through your entire contribution history one by one. You have been here for quite a while, and made several thousand edits, so this will be a major undertaking. Nevertheless, it is extremely important, so please make it your top priority. All copied content should be removed, or rewritten from scratch; making changes to the text in place is very dangerous, and is a common trap for plagarism. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any help. ×Meegs 07:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed a large bit of content from Brandon Fields‎. I'm not going to look any more for the moment, but it is already apparent that I won't be able to identify many of the less obvious instances of copying. Also, there are cases like David Sutton (American football), where the source bio pages have been taken down. Only you will be able to find identify your copying in those. I hope that you will begin your search ASAP. ×Meegs 07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chris. I got your message on my talk page. Your MO seems to be to reply to messages here, though, and that is fine with me. Let's keep our conversation on this page.

I accept that you didn't know that what you were doing was wrong, but really, a lot of what you've written is word-for-word, whether you cut-and-paste or not. You really should know that this is not just some crazy Wikipedia rule; plagarism is frowned-upon universally, and in the real world it can get you fired from a job or expelled from college. If you are thinking in terms of "changing enough", you're going about your writing in the wrong way. You really need to choose your own words and arrange them in your head from scratch. If this is hard, try this: read the source material, take notes (no prose, just words and numbers to remind you of the facts), and then put the source out of sight before you sit down to write. If you do use the same words as the original, as is sometimes necessary (but probably not with these football player bios), be sure to put them in a quotation marks and indicate their source. I'm sure there are lots of good websites about avoiding plagiarism on the internet.

In any case, will you review your contributions? ×Meegs 11:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will go through them all. I wouldn't say they are word-for-word though because most of the college bios don't contain complete sentences.►Chris Nelson 12:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, some of them are full of elipses, but that doesn't make a difference. You've still copied long strings of words from the fragments, and, by merely converting each of their fragments into a sentence in-place, you've also copied the overall organization of the essays. Anyway, thanks for taking responsibility and agreeing to clean-up. Let me know how it's going, and if I can be of any help. ×Meegs 13:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as bad as this makes me look, I actually have an NFL-related topic ban in place because of a past dispute with a now-blocked user. For at least the next few weeks, I'm only allowed to edit NFL roster templates and 2007 Miami Dolphins season. So I can't really touch any of those Dolphins player articles right now.►Chris Nelson 13:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was quite good of you to volunteer to stay away from football articles, and it may still be best for you to continue the ban even with jmfangio gone, and even without it being mandated by arbcom. That said, I think, and I'll ask Durova if she agrees, that you have the self restraint necessary to limit your edits to just the removal of your own copyright violations. ×Meegs 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Since you were quite open about the topic ban, Chris, since the identification of Jmfangio as a sockpuppet of Tecmobowl, I would like to ask you something. Since you are very willing to undergo this topic ban, as evidence of one of your comments you have made here on this talk page, I was wondering if you would allow me to monitor your contributions, just to see if you are following the ban or not. I will not do this if you don't want me to, and I feel it is appropriate to ask you before doing anything else. Ksy92003(talk) 22:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to look at whatever you want. I plan on reporting back to Durova in a few weeks as she suggested though, so I don't plan on editing anything that would violate the topic ban. You'll notice from my recent contributions I've undone two instances of vandalism on NFL-related pages - one on J. R. Reed and one on Jason Taylor (American football). Other than that I've onnly edited things I'm allowed to edit. Hopefully this is okay with Durova, although I plan on pointing it out to her when I speak to her in a few weeks.►Chris Nelson 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the topic ban doesn't forbid you from reverting blatant vandalism; if it does, well, then that's just dumb. But anyway, I hope that you do follow through on your pledge. If you were punished for any reason, I think it would be best if it were because of Arbitration or something similar as opposed to violating your own pledge... if you had a choice.

Secondly, I know you had discussions with Jmfangio (under that name), but did you either ever have any contact with Tecmobowl during his time on Wikipedia, or ever suspect that Jmfangio was a sockpuppet of anybody, including him?

And lastly, sorry that the Dolphins lost Week 1. Watched the OT game on CBS after the Pats/Jets game. That was tough. Ksy92003(talk) 05:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be silly to consider a topic ban to force someone to leave an article vandalized. If it's obvious, blatant vandalism (not just a poor edit or the like!), go for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Mahe RB/PR

We used to do it that way a while ago, but then got away from it, because being listed as RB/XX under a heading that says "Running Backs" seems kind of redundant, doesn't it? One could make a case that ff Mahe has a "RB" distinction, then so should Westbrook, Buckhalter, etc. I think the "RB" portion is already implicit, given that he's listed under the running backs heading, and not the special teams. 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm just doing it the way we do it.►Chris Nelson 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFC East

Sorry, I am aware now. It was when I originally updated the 'Fins page did I put in T-4th. Obviously I know it's T-2nd now, I was just doing it at the time I updated it, I didn't know what the Bills, Jets and Patriots scores were. My apologies, I'll be sure to update the pages ASAP. Thanks Soxrock 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smoltz

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Prodego ^talk 02:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent you an email about this. That IP edit was not me, therefore I did not violate 3RR and should not be banned. Please request a checkuser, as this will prove it was not me. Me being blocked for something I did not do would be wrong.►Chris Nelson 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Actually...

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Checkuser proved IP has no connection with you. Request handled by: - Penwhale \| ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is a supplemental tool, editing pattern is the first determinate. It is entirely possible to fool checkuser, nothing can be "proved" by it. Editing pattern is much more definitive. Here we have an IP that made its first edit using the undo button, on a page you had been reverting someone exactly 3 times on, only 3 minutes after you were reverted by Street20. That is too much to brush off as coincidence. Prodego ^talk 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocking me on an assumption when a checkuser would prove it's not connected to me. That is wrong.►Chris Nelson 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. Blocked for 3RR when some random IP made the fourth revert. Thanks for the help, guys.►Chris Nelson 02:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisjnelson has been targeted lately; it's possible someone was trying to get him into trouble. I do think a checkuser might be in order here, if only because a 3RR violation and lying about it would be relevant to his pending arbcom case. Newyorkbrad 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(update) I have asked a checkuser to look into this situation. I need to sign off for the night, but another admin should follow up here shortly. Newyorkbrad 03:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still totally fine with a checkuser - add it to the arbcom thing if it shows it's me. I can say that because I know it's not. Only problem is I should be unblocked until it is performed, otherwise it probably won't be done until my block is over and I will have been unblocked unjustly.►Chris Nelson 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any problems here, but by looking here, ~~I think that both Chrisjnelson and Street20 (talk · contribs) both violated WP:3RR here, regardless of the IP~~ Sorry, Chris' first revert actually came more than 24 hours before the following three, which negates WP:3RR for Chris (4 reverts weren't all within a 24 hour span), but Street20 still violated it and he was blocked for it. However, I still feel it is my responsibility to step in. The IP address was, in reality, me. I saw the edit and agreed with the version that has been used throughout all baseball player articles, and I made the revert from my laptop, not knowing that I hadn't logged in. After all, does it really make sense that Chrisjnelson would make one revert, log out to make another, then log back in to continue reverting? Ksy92003(talk) 06:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the unblock, and am glad I pushed for a checkuser to be run here (although the situation turned out to be that the IP actually agreed with Chrisjnelson's edit, not that a mischief-maker was trying to get him into trouble as I first feared). Please resume editing, but I do urge that you stay away from edit-warring anywhere near the borders of 3RR in the future. Newyorkbrad 08:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Per the MOS: information regarding links per the MOS Internal links Items in Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles that provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic. This can be done directly ("Ant", which results in "Ant"), or through a piped link ("five new species", which results in "five new species" in the text, but still links to the article "Ant").

Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.

Links add to the cohesion by conveniently accessing other article. Therefore, linking to non-existant pages detracts from cohesion and convenience. Do not undo edits that have been made in regards to this style policy unless you are going to create an article for the person or subject you have linked. IrishLass0128 18:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. I don't know specifically what this is about, but in general terms, a red link encourages article creation and if there should be an article on a subject, it should be linked in the text just as though it already exists. You don't link to random people and things that we will never have an article on (like Michael Vick's second cousin or Peyton Manning's mom), but if an article on a topic would meet out notability requirements, it should be linked. --B 19:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about Template:Pittsburgh Steelers roster and Template:Pittsburgh Steelers staff. He wants to remove links from players that don't have articles. That makes zero sense to me, as it's clear that a link to a nonexistent article encourages it's creation. An article for an NFL player is far more likely to be created if people see there is not yet one from the roster template.►Chris Nelson 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Players should definitely all be linked ... as for coaches ... are minor NFL coaches (strength coaches and the like) considered notable? If so, they should be redlinked. This is the practice everywhere on infoboxes ... pick any coach of any team, go to their article, scroll down to the navigation box that lists all of the other coaches and you will see a lot of redlinks. --B 19:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most have long histories as college and NFL coaches and many progress up the ranks, so I would say they are all potentially worthy for articles. I plan on doing articles for all the Miami Dolphins coaches eventually, and I think eventually people will do them for the teams they follow.►Chris Nelson 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HE? Named Lass? Try again. There is nothing in what I have added that says anything about notible. I was referred to the link MOS which explains why links are there. And it is NOT a practice everywhere. Everywhere includes all pages and this is not true. While you are trying logic, I used the MOS to strengthen my position. Please so citations to an MOS regarding "redlinks." IrishLass0128 19:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation didn't prove anything...►Chris Nelson 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IrishLass0128, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Red link to help understand what redlinks are for. If an article should be created, we link to it. If it shouldn't, we don't. --B 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks B. You've been helpful, unlike so many others. IrishLass0128 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson closed

The above arbitration case is closed. Jmfangio has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Tecmobowl. You are restricted to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page for a duration of six months. If you exceed this limit, fail to discuss a content reversion, or make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, you may be blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 15:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undrafted in infobox

Thank you for added back in, I still don't understand why some people would like to have NFL Draft: 2004/Round: Undrafted/Pick: it just looks unprofessional. Thanks you are the man. Thanks--Phbasketball6 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Jmfangio was the only person deranged enough to flip out over something like that.►Chris Nelson 14:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverting infoboxes

Hey, User:Louis Alberto Guel keeps on revert players infoboxes like Daunte Culpepper and seems to not understand the there is a new infobox box, can you help me out with the situation? Thanks--Phbasketball6 11:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Louis won't stop reverting the infoboxes, so I started a discussion on Wiki NFL Project. Thanks--Phbasketball6 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Dawson

all right I understand know, I undid my revision--Yankees10 15:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 New England Patriots season

Since the section heading dispute is between you, me, and Pats1 (talk · contribs), and myself and Pats1 have already posted comments about this at Talk:2007 New England Patriots season, I think it'd be best if you'd do the same. Ksy92003(talk) 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]