User talk:Morry32
This is long overdue
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For all of your work related to the KC Wizards. No MLS club is better represented on Wikipidia than the Wizards. Great job! SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC) |
Grant.Alpaugh
[edit]Thanks for the kind words, and I look forward to working in a much more productive capacity with you. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with my proposals, edits, or behavior, I would appreciate it if you could either bring it up with me on my talk page, propose alternate solutions, or simply participate in the discussion for more than a few minutes before suggesting that I am banned from the encyclopedia merely for disagreeing with you. Thanks. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest you be banned, you were banned and I now am questioning why someone who was permanently banned is now back in the community to simply pick up where he left off, if you have an opinion on that subject feel free to address it.Morry32 (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was discussed by a group of experienced admins and some editors that had participated in some of the conflicts with me over the last year, and there was broad consensus to give me a second chance. I grant that I am still against some of the changes that were made to the MLS season article last year, as is my right, but I promise that I will advocate changes to articles I care about in the appropriate way. The change that you've taken issue with was proposed at WT:FOOTY and Talk:2010 Major League Soccer season as you have now seen. A consensus of five or six editors agreed that at the very least my compromise solution was acceptable and preferable to the format used in the 2009 article and the 2010 article to that point. The only editor that was against my proposal, SkotyWA, engaged in a discussion with me that went back and forth several times, but he ultimately agreed to concede that consensus supported my third way proposal, and I made the changes. I'm sorry that you didn't weigh in until after that, but even SkotyWA admitted it was unlikely that other editors would weigh in. Either way, as I have tried to remind myself since being readmitted to the editing community, nothing on Wikipedia is set in stone. If my format is really so clanky and awkward to use, the truth of that will prevail in the end. I'm sorry if you feel I've been disruptive in the past, and I realize that it will take a long time to win back over some of the people I offended months and months ago, but I hope that with my explanation you can see that I really didn't push anything through unilaterally. I hope to work with you on improving American soccer articles in the future. All the best. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry when a former sock puppeteer claims consensus in 60 hours based on a discussion that was rehashed from a HUGE discussion, well how would you view the incident? I just looked over your plead for being unbanned, you claimed you were no longer addicted to Wikipedia, are you sure? I also noticed you didn't bring up the sockpuppetry, where is this discussion with the admins?Morry32 (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, but I suggest you reread my "plea" as you call it if you think I didn't discuss sockpuppetry. The bottom line though is that I hold an opinion that is different from yours, so you've chosen not to assume good faith and assume that the only way people would support it is if I was socking again. In the process, you've made not-so-thinly-veiled accusations of sockpuppetry against a group of editors with very lengthy résumés. I realize that I've made mistakes in the past, but assuming good faith means that I should get the benefit of the doubt if at all possible. I didn't rejoin the encyclopedia under the conditions that I would leave the MLS articles alone. Far from it, I made clear my intentions to pursue improvements that I thought should be made. I did agree that I would conduct my pursuit of those changes in the correct way by seeking consensus, discussing things civilly, and refusing to edit war to accomplish my goals. So far I have done exactly what I said I would. It seems to me that the problem is that we disagree, but that and being a disruption are not the same thing. Again, I hope that we can work together to improve American soccer articles, even if we occasionally disagree. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion of my unblocking at WP:ANI can be found here by the way. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I remember you fought hard to not have a template at all, when the consensus was to have a template your first task was set to make it complicated to prove that it was not user friendly. I respect how you politic and there is little doubt of its importance in this community but this goes further than not agreeing on an article or a template- I don't value the things you have done in the past, they were low grade and against the spirit of the community.Morry32 (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I've done things in the past that you disagreed with. Please know that I am ashamed of them as well. Nevertheless, that does not absolve you of your responsibility to assume good faith. While I disagree with you on this small issue, I respect you as an editor, and I respect the contributions you have made to this encyclopedia in general and American soccer articles in particular. While I work to prove that you should feel the same way about me, please do me the courtesy of not thinking the worst about my every action on the encyclopedia in the future. I think that if you give me a chance, you will see that I have turned over a new leaf and will be a benefit to this community going forward. All the best. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I remember you fought hard to not have a template at all, when the consensus was to have a template your first task was set to make it complicated to prove that it was not user friendly. I respect how you politic and there is little doubt of its importance in this community but this goes further than not agreeing on an article or a template- I don't value the things you have done in the past, they were low grade and against the spirit of the community.Morry32 (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion of my unblocking at WP:ANI can be found here by the way. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, but I suggest you reread my "plea" as you call it if you think I didn't discuss sockpuppetry. The bottom line though is that I hold an opinion that is different from yours, so you've chosen not to assume good faith and assume that the only way people would support it is if I was socking again. In the process, you've made not-so-thinly-veiled accusations of sockpuppetry against a group of editors with very lengthy résumés. I realize that I've made mistakes in the past, but assuming good faith means that I should get the benefit of the doubt if at all possible. I didn't rejoin the encyclopedia under the conditions that I would leave the MLS articles alone. Far from it, I made clear my intentions to pursue improvements that I thought should be made. I did agree that I would conduct my pursuit of those changes in the correct way by seeking consensus, discussing things civilly, and refusing to edit war to accomplish my goals. So far I have done exactly what I said I would. It seems to me that the problem is that we disagree, but that and being a disruption are not the same thing. Again, I hope that we can work together to improve American soccer articles, even if we occasionally disagree. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry when a former sock puppeteer claims consensus in 60 hours based on a discussion that was rehashed from a HUGE discussion, well how would you view the incident? I just looked over your plead for being unbanned, you claimed you were no longer addicted to Wikipedia, are you sure? I also noticed you didn't bring up the sockpuppetry, where is this discussion with the admins?Morry32 (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was discussed by a group of experienced admins and some editors that had participated in some of the conflicts with me over the last year, and there was broad consensus to give me a second chance. I grant that I am still against some of the changes that were made to the MLS season article last year, as is my right, but I promise that I will advocate changes to articles I care about in the appropriate way. The change that you've taken issue with was proposed at WT:FOOTY and Talk:2010 Major League Soccer season as you have now seen. A consensus of five or six editors agreed that at the very least my compromise solution was acceptable and preferable to the format used in the 2009 article and the 2010 article to that point. The only editor that was against my proposal, SkotyWA, engaged in a discussion with me that went back and forth several times, but he ultimately agreed to concede that consensus supported my third way proposal, and I made the changes. I'm sorry that you didn't weigh in until after that, but even SkotyWA admitted it was unlikely that other editors would weigh in. Either way, as I have tried to remind myself since being readmitted to the editing community, nothing on Wikipedia is set in stone. If my format is really so clanky and awkward to use, the truth of that will prevail in the end. I'm sorry if you feel I've been disruptive in the past, and I realize that it will take a long time to win back over some of the people I offended months and months ago, but I hope that with my explanation you can see that I really didn't push anything through unilaterally. I hope to work with you on improving American soccer articles in the future. All the best. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest you be banned, you were banned and I now am questioning why someone who was permanently banned is now back in the community to simply pick up where he left off, if you have an opinion on that subject feel free to address it.Morry32 (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
RE: Good Faith
[edit]Hey, I apologise for that in the KC Wizards season article. My intent was to copy and past the collapsible football box into the 2010 AC St. Louis season article. The only difference would be the win/lose thing so i just changed it so I could copy and paste, but i guess i accidentally saved the article. But some good news, I'll post the additional information about the match (attendance, referee) onto the KC page. Cheers Dylant2011 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
MLS Stats
[edit]Hey thanks for catching my mistake on the Ryan Smith goal and assist last week. I misread the match report on the craptastically bad new MLS website. At first I thought (Smith, Auvray) was "Auvray Smith" who didn't exist, so I thought they made a mistake on Stephan Auvray's first name. It never occurred to me that there were two assists and that Ryan Smith was the other player. My bad. Thanks for catching it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
MLS tiebreakers
[edit]Here's the way MLS tiebreakers work:
- Head-to-Head (Points-per-match average)
- Overall Goal Differential
- Overall Total Goals Scored
- Tiebreakers 1-3 applied only to matches on the road
- Tiebreakers 1-3 applied only to matches at home
- Fewest team disciplinary points in the League Fair Play table
- Coin toss
If more than two clubs are tied, once a club advances through any step, the process reverts to Tiebreaker 1 among the remaining tied clubs recursively until all ties are resolved.
So in the San Jose, New England, and Kansas City situation, once San Jose goes through with 3 points in Head-to-Head games, you go back to number 1 with the remaining teams. This actually means that the ordering of teams can be different from one conference's standings to the Overall standings if games against out of conference teams change the tiebreakers. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. Believe me, it took me some time to figure it out correctly as well. Have a good one. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"Some fixes, article is still pretty poor"
[edit]Hi, I apologize if I sounded like an ass. I probably should have said "still needs work" as I did not mean to insult any contributors but was trying to say that there are still more things to be done to improve the article. My only aim on Wikipedia is to make it better. --Spartan008 (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 5
[edit]Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Sporting Kansas City season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Daniel Hernandez and Ricardo Villar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Invite to the African Destubathon
[edit]Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Morry32. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!