User:Zzyzx11/Archive30

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	Archives 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34
Current time: Monday, November 25, 2024, 16:45 (UTC) Last edit: May 14, 2022, 19:43 (UTC) by MalnadachBot (talk · contribs)

Question Regarding NFL Starting Quarterback Stats

I have brought this up on the NFL WikiProject talk page also, but haven't gotten a response yet. I am relatively new to this WikiProject. There is a user, Frobishero, that is going around to a lot of different starting quarterbacks, particularly ones in the NFC and changing the format of the stats in the main infobox, like Aaron Rodgers and Jay Cutler for example. I have reverted him a few times. He claims to be starting a new standardization in the summary of his edits without even going to the talk page first and he is marking them all as minor. I am not sure how to handle this. Thank you Rlchambliss (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not actively participate in the player articles, so I cannot help you on what the standard is, so you should still look for comments by others. I do know that you should not get into edit war and constantly try to revert Frobishero for now. The question is if Frobishero is going to constantly update these QB articles every week, or even during the offseason when most of the activity dies down and when the real cleanup of these pages should occur (see also the Wikipedia essays Wikipedia:Recentism and Wikipedia:There is no deadline). It is not really a standard if only the 2013 QB articles are modified, right? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I left him a message, and hopefully he will try and get an agreement between people on the player talk pages before continuing to change the formats. Either way, I am definitely not going to clog up the history with reversions. Thanks for the help. Rlchambliss (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OTD Stats

Did you notice Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Stats?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am no longer active in OTD. ‎Howcheng seems to be the most active admin doing it now, so probably best to ask him. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

infobox road and embedding

I just saw that you had requested the change, and then implemented it. I've lodged an objection to how it's implemented, and I would like you to discuss making a change before you continue using it. Please see template talk:infobox road for details, but in short, the location of where the secondary box is shown in the order of the other items is the problem. Imzadi 1979 → 16:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ansered and done. Apologies since that talk page was not on my watchlist for some reason. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page

Good try, but it was doomed before you even hit save. — Scott • talk 11:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you misread who actually started the requested move conversation on Talk:Main Page. I only started the background section to give some historical perspective on why it has been named that way, and the fact that this issue has been discussed numerous times without consensus. I am actually neutral on the proposal (although I am not surprised how the discussion has gone so far based on the previous proposals). It was actually User:Rcsprinter123 who first started that discussion.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Super Bowl

I've started a thread on the talk page of the article where your reversion edit summary asked me what part of MOS:FLAG I was relying on to delete flags for broadcast stations in a particular country. I appreciate a reply, with the hope of coming to consensus. Of course, if I've been stunningly persuasive (which is, I'll admit, nearly unprecedented - but even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut), you could just reinstate my edit.

Either way, thanks for the good work you do. We've never interacted before, to my knowledge, but I've seen your edits occasionally and disagree with you here with a bit of reluctance. David in DC (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

California State Route 1

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page California State Route 1 has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake as I was accidentally edited and saved from a previous version. Is that page timing out whenever you make an edit? Seems to be an issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was having the same issue. I assume it's caused by too much use of complex templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Set index articles

I'm a bit concerned by your addition of infoboxes to set index article pages - generally, they do not have infoboxes, as they are not intended to be articles. --Rschen7754 08:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No idea why this comment got my attention but I am fascinated out of all proportion. I have absolutely no idea what it means to set index article pages--or how it might be accomplished through the addition of infoboxes.

I'm sure I have no right to ask, but I'm trying to imagine how this might possibly comprise objectionable behaviour--anyone got time to link to an example?

Patronanejo (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines for set indexes can be found on WP:SETINDEX. This "issue", involving a disagreement between two experienced admins on how to deal with what was about to become a peculiar 3RR situation between me and an unregistered user with a changing IP address, was resolved on Rshen's user talk page. My original position to avoid an edit war was to temporarily restore the unregistered user's strong intent on keeping the infoboxes on those pages, before it was pointed out that it may be in fact a suspected sockpuppet. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Circle 7 logo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Circle 7 logo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle 7 logo (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I created this article way back in June 2005, when Wikipedia:Notability was not even a policy yet (what was there back in 2005 is now an archived, inactive essay at Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments). I abstained in the first deletion discussion, and I do so now in this second one. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

NHL 2000-01 season vandalism

I saw that you reverted edits on this article 2000-01_nhl_season the other day. There is a persistent attempt by a couple of IP users to vandalise NHL articles like this one. They've been going around marginally changing scores, seedings and standings on obscure pages. The users are: [2] and [3]

I've reverted some of these and originally got the second IP banned (but temporarily and now they've just come back and started doing it again). I suspect it's probably the same user as they both edited that 2000-01 article in somewhat similar ways. I don't use Wikipedia anywhere near enough to keep on top of this, but I mention it as they've more or less ruined several articles as far as I can tell. Bandanamerchant (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Forwarded your message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. [4] Due to real life, my access to Wikipedia may be limited in the next few days. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Report

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject NFL for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Hope you have a great day! -buffbills7701 01:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carl's Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardee (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) 09:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zzyzx11. You have new messages at Talk:Passer_rating.
Message added 05:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 05:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on that talk page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Muppets protection

Thanks for fixing that. I'm still getting accustomed to full-prot being #4 on the pulldown now instead of #3:( DMacks (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I noticed that because I was about to edit that article, adding something unrelated to the content dispute. Since my addition is not immediate, I'll wait until protection ends. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@DMacks: probably the best way to remember (which I do) is that full protection is the last on the menu, unprotection is the first, and all the other levels are in-between. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Super Bowl XXXIII edit

I noticed my edit on the Super Bowl XXXIII page concerning the switching of the "field judge" and "back judge" positions was reverted. I see now my edit was in error. Thanks for straightening me out on that. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the league usually makes major changes like that during the off-season, not just before the Super Bowl. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you review my case and consider unblocking?

Hi Zzyzxx11. Excuse me for IP block evading, but my access to my own talkpage and email function were cut off, and I've no other choice really to seek an unblock. I come to you semi-randomly, I just decided to ask an administrator with username beginning "Z." I then looked for an active one and passed by one whose activity was entirely reverts. I see you are into the NFL. My favored team is the Redskins (oh well, for this year).

Would you consider unblocking me? It would be controversial as you'll quickly find as you look into it. My position is that I was non-policy and wrongly handled almost from block day #1. I've fought it, and a great number of administrative participants have piled on against my uppityness. The one thing you may rely on is that I am blocked for socking but have never socked. I began at Wikipedia like seven or eight years ago. I was generally a content creator. I contributed lightly to development a couple policies, but I didn't even know what WP:AN/ANI or Arbcom was until last year. Then on- and off-Wikipedia circumstances made me concerned about online privacy. My account was vulnerable, so I abandoned it never going back and started a new one[5]. My honesty in that first edit has ironically worked against because people have used it to call me "sock." I say it represents the no-fault account change type outlined at WP:CLEANSTART.

Timotheus Canens no warn/no discussion/no diffs permanently blocked me in May 2012. I have always said such a block cannot be other than abusive because it's evidence-free and WP:ADMIN mandates a communication duty. However a great number of administrators (and "administrative participants" of the variety that enjoy the drama boards) have piled on.

What else should I tell you know without writing a novel at your talkpage? You will see it all soon enough if you research my case. I appealed to Arbcom when I learned what it was, but was rejected by Silktork without explanation (he did say "hand over your prior account," but that is a demand not an explanation, he ignored my protests about privacy concerns). He revealed much later he was chasing some notorious sanctioned user he suspected me to be, but didn't tell me so how should I defend on that score. I later emailed Jimmy Wales, who was the first to offer me confidentiality on my prior account. My prior account was never warned or blocked or sanctioned or anything, but to my shock, Jimbo then broke his agreement to treat my unblock appeal favorably and said "you told me, now you must tell Arbcom." These are caution flags surely for you, but my position is that while Arbcom and Jimbo have declined to lift my block, this does not prohibit any individual Wikipedia administrator from researching and discussing it and doing so. This is also what WP:UNBLOCK says. Lastly, I will answer any questions you have and cease IP block evading if you unblock me at my talkpage, a less controversial move. Should you undertake this, I ask that you allow me to explain or give context to any edit of mine you find problematic. Thanks for reading. Colton Cosmic.

Apologies, but I am going to have to decline. One of the first things they teach you in first aid/CPR training and the like is not to jump in and attempt to save a person if there is a chance you also may get killed -- otherwise it makes matters worse because it leaves two dead people instead of one. In the eight years I have edited here, I have interacted with some of those who supported re-blocking you. I have interacted with some who are now on Arbcom. And I may have on one or two occasions interacted with both Jimbo and Silktork. Rightly or wrongly, they apparently had strong feelings about leaving you blocked. And most of them discourage any admin from going against the current consensus and unilaterally undoing such blocks as yours. Therefore, I'm not willing to attempt such a controversial move, especially when I am rather busy in real life (if you noticed, I only edit in limited periods during weekdays, not several hours straight like the more active admins do), and thus do not have the time and energy or the patience to deal with the "wikidrama" or the "wikistress" that this would possibly generate. Call it peer pressure, or the so-called "politics of Wikipedia". I hope you understand that if you were in my position, with those previous established long-term relationships, the limited time I login here, and knowing fully well how consensus and Jimbo and Arbcom works, you would feel the same way. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm glad I don't need you to actually give me CPR, hero man. Funny, I don't remember that part of the class. I dispute that I'm blocked by "consensus." If I were in your administrative position I would stand up to the peer pressure and politics of Wikipedia, work to do what is right, and to help the common editor badly treated, at least that is my hope of who I am. Colton Cosmic.

Maybe if it was eight years earlier, and I had more free time. But it is not 2005 anymore. Because most of my time in 2013 (and beyond for the foreseeable future) is now dealing with real life, I'm mostly like those other admins whose activity is entirely reverts: I primarily only have time doing non-controversial admin actions for now. Again, apologies that I can't help you, based on those strong comments about you by others. Now I suggest you find something else to do than worry about Wikipedia. The IPs you have been using have been blocked by others on grounds of block evasion. Your attempts to remove your IPs and Sinebot's autosign here is apparently useless because my talk page is currently watched by over 130 other people -- no doubt by some admins, and perhaps some that supported your original block. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

He's been forum shopping and IP hopping for months now trying to get an unblock, just so you know. --Rschen7754 06:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am also well aware of that. That is what is implied in his first paragraph above, and it also did not take long to find evidence. Thanks for checking up. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Zzy, well you say apologies for lack of time and too much stress, and that is one thing. I'd walk away from your page without much exasperation based on that. I don't say you owe me any apology anyway. But your CPR metaphor was a bit outrageous, that's what I reacted to. And now you go to "strong comments by others," well I can only answer for what I've done, not what others say about me. If you refer to Jimbo he didn't explain his breaking our agreement. If you refer to Silktork he's in Silktorkland chasing some phantom menace like I said, not even allowing me to defend it because he won't say whom, and his "investigative" processes so riddled with error he had to correct his accusation three times already [6] (below comment Giant Snowman). Re: Rschen7754, I've sought a fair hearing. If my plea posted at WP:HELPDESK is wiped out by one of my serial reverters without comment, it is not "forum shopping" to retry elsewhere, because I haven't received that fair hearing. Re:Sinebot, it's my prerogative to sign my posts as I see fit, not have some bot stick on stalker-friendly hotlinks to Geolocate and TracerouteIP and so forth. I'm well aware my IPs are in the page history, but let them go there for that. I am totally open about prior appeals and anything you want to know, Rschen7754 isn't telling you anything I thought to withhold. Colton Cosmic.