User talk:Pesposito7

Welcome!

Hi! Welcome to the English Wikipedia!

Hello, Pesposito7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction

5 The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help

Tips

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

Be Bold

Assume Good faith

Keep cool

Share your knowledge

Get adopted

Neutral point of view

And here are several pages on what to avoid:

How to avoid Copyright infringement

How not to spam

Make sure not to get blocked, which should be no problem after reading this

The Three-Revert-Rule and how to avoid breaking it

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I think that you might be interested in the adopt-a-user project, where advanced editors can guide you in your editing; so check it out if you want. Again, welcome! Gman124^talk 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Richtner

Hello There!!!

Please do not revert the edit by GrimyMeatloaf, GrimyMeatloaf is the original editor of the article, so by blanking the page he may wish the article to be excluded from Wikipedia. As it already holds Speedy Deletion Tag.

Hitrohit2001 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]

I have restored the page because it is partly my writing, GrimyMeatloaf can verify this. We had argued over whether or not to keep the article, and we have agreed at this point to do so. We feel that Richtner will be notable after the release of his new book. Even if he is not presently "notable," what is the issue? No one is being forced to look at "non-notable" pages, but if someone wants information on Michael Richtner, it is available here. We are simply attempting to make a page about someone whom we feel is known in the area and will be known nationally.

Pesposito7 (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Tulowitzki

As I just stated in the edit summary, Troy Tulowitzki is NOT retired; so, please stop changing his status in the infobox. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is currently on the DL, his last game was July 4th. Brett Favre is listed with his last game in 2007, although that may change. When it changes, change it. Same for Tulowitzki.

Pesposito7 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I also just stated in another edit summary, just because he's on the DL doesn't mean he's retired. You don't change his status to retired just because he's on the DL. There's a difference between being on the disabled list and being retired. Brett Favre is perceived as retired, that's why he's listed as retired. Just because Tulo is on the DL doesn't mean he's actually retired. Before making any further attempted reverts, please discuss the matter here, as I'm sure you and I don't want to be blocked for 3RR. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't currently on an active 25-man roster in Major League Baseball. He can still be on the DL and a retired player. Pesposito7 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't fill out any official retirement papers. How is he retired? As I just said, just because he's on the DL doesn't mean he's retired. Just look at the retirement article. As it clearly states: "retirement is the point where a person stops employment completely." Tulowitzki hasn't officially stopped employment completely. He's on a temporary hiatus, as he's on the DL. And just like I said, being on the DL is much different than being retired. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your citations for him not filling out any official retirement papers? I understand that it is part of retirement process but you have yet to prove to me that he isn't retired. Without sources saying he didn't retire, where's the basis on your argument? Mine has some validity because he isn't currently on an active roster. For all we know he's already filled out his retirement papers. Pesposito7 (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And where are your citations that he DID retire? I'll reiterate the point once again, just because he's on the DL doesn't mean he's also retired. They're two completely different things. Please show me where it's shown he's retired and not just on the DL, otherwise, that infobox change is not warranted. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my citation: http://i38.tinypic.com/207sxms.jpg

Pesposito7 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fake. In any case, being on the DL does not equate to retirement. Favre announced his retirement. He's retired. He could still come back if he decides to, but for now he's retired. Unless Tulo has announced his retirement, he's still active, just on the DL. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's fake then I apologize. It was sent to me by a close friend yesterday, I am a big Troy fan and this is a huge letdown that it is fake. He could have gone out of the game on top. I truly believed that he retired. Agree to disagree?

Pesposito7 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned you in to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Wikipedia editors (and by extension admins) are a diverse lot. There are not only a variety of cultural norms represented, but differeing levels of maturity, educations, etc etc etc.

So don't judge everyone by your first experiance. We're all strangers in a strange land here, struggling to get along. - brenneman 01:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

Stop already with the "retired" stuff. The DL is medical leave. It is not retirement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey

Hockey is a great sport. I like it better than basketball, though not as much as baseball. And I remember Phil Esposito, old number 7 for the Bruins, very well. He would plant himself in the slot and when the puck came near he would slam it home. He was called a "garbage collector", particularly by fans of teams who couldn't figure out how to beat the Bruins. He was a great player, a prolific scorer by whatever method. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're aware on how to browse Wikipedia. Pesposito7 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started following hockey around the time the Bruins became very strong, in the early 70s. My team was the Blackhawks, who were pretty strong then too, but the Wirtzes wouldn't pay Bobby Hull what he was worth. The WHA was born, Hull went there, and the Hawks turned into hulks. Nowadays I root for the Carolina Hurricanes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Tan | 39 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ma'am. Pesposito7 (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 20:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Pesposito7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All I said was "Yes Ma'am and I was blocked. Immediately after getting that warning I didn't make any other edits.

Decline reason:

Cut the crap. You were warned over this edit, which is blockable, and then you make a sarcastic, disrespectful response to Tan, who doesn't look like a female on his userpage. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2009 (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.

I didn't block for the "ma'am" comment; I couldn't care less about being called names by this editor. It was this edit that came immediately after that, a clear vandalism edit in the wake of the Harry S. Truman issue. Any further disruption - at all - and an indefinite block will ensue. Tan | 39 19:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Pesposito7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What sort of response did you want me to make? It was a response that came with etiquette. I was trying to amend my stupid edit with a respectful comment. I didn't take the time to look at Tan's page to notice that it wasn't a female. I just assumed it was a female by the way that he typed and the way his name was written. I think the warning was definitely deserved but a blocking? I feel like I've refuted that.

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the vandalism, which is the official reason for your block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:27, 18 February 2009 (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.