User talk:RMANCIL

Welcome!

Hello, RMANCIL, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Quadzilla99 09:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Refs[edit]

There's no one way to do it. I'd recommend at least surrounding your link in ref tags: <ref>[URL]</ref> tags. From there, there are a bunch of options. Check out WP:CIT for templates. I usually just go with <ref>[URL TITLEOFARTICLE] WEBSITE/COMPANYNAME. Accessed TODAY'SDATE.</ref>. Pats1 15:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I've taken some time to familiarize myself with the circumstances of the situation. I think the best way I can help out is to discuss with you content and how to improve upon what's out there in the WP:NFL "article space". Speaking to content, what are your major concerns? If you want to discuss certain aspects of the Chargers article, that's fine. However, we might want to focus on content in general. I am a HUGE fan of WP:BOLD, which encourages people to simply make changes that improve the content. But, if you are going to adhere to that, you might want As a quick note, I think we'll be best off to keep this aspect of the discussion centralized here. Going back and forth between talk pages makes it very hard to have a cohesive discussion, so posting to mine might not help. That being said, if you see that i haven't responded to you in some time, feel free to drop me a note there to check back in. Jmfangio| ►Chat 12:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy making contributions and I am bold however I also have made mistakes. I am working to improve hopefully basic information will be stored on this subject matter for others to look back on in the future and find it to be interesting. I know from personal experience that a lot of history gets lost with the sands of time and I feel we have a obligation to try and correct that to some degree I do look forward to having a good dialog on content and page development , please look at 2007 San Diego Chargers season and San Diego Chargers and share your thoughts.RMANCIL 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh - we all make mistakes. The only way we get better is by discussion. You might want to spend time reading up on policies and guidelines before you get to heavy into editing. For example, I'm not sure that the 2007 San Diego Chargers season won't be deleted at some point. WP:AFD and WP:NOT will talk about the issues involved. If every sports "team"/franchise/club/etc..etc.. has an article for every year - people are probably going to get up in a tizzy. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that this might help you out. I too am facing my own difficulties with getting focused discussion but I will give you some advice that i *try* to stick by: Content trumps everything else. When in doubt, forget who you are talking to, and simply focus on content. Jmfangio| ►Chat 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen one NFL season article put up for deletion yet. In fact, pages like New England Patriots seasons, in order to get to FL status, were asked to create separate pages for each season. So its not a big deal. And I'm not sure that's the best advice as far as content goes, or at least in an some way. From what I've seen from RMANCIL he (or she) tends to want to have as much content on a single article as possible. Rather, what I've been trying to tell him (or her) to do is create separate, more specific articles when there is large amounts of specific content. That is simply how Wikipedia works (and has grown to 1,000,000+ articles). Also, he (or she) tends to also give a very personal, POV slant to many of his (or her) edits. Man of them are also unsourced and/or unverifiable as well. So that's what I've been trying to work with RMANCIL about for the last month or so. Pats1 19:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what relevance your comments have to this discussion. The user has clearly asserted a willingness to explore wiki guidelines and such. All this does is fuel the fire. I have seen you give a very POV response to a similar issue, so let's not start casting stones. Jmfangio| ►Chat 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, does RMANCIL own this page or something? You asked for the discussion to be centralized here. I'm simply weighing in with my opinion, and I've worked with RMANCIL much more than you have. So I don't see any reason to spite me here. Pats1 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as a quick post script: I'm simply pointing out to a user how many people tend to react to the creation of those articles. I'm neither asserting their legitimacy or saying they should be deleted. Jmfangio| ►Chat 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the problem. You have just cited a policy that has nothing to do with what I said. You asserted some fairly argumentative statements into this discussion. They have no purpose. Furthermore, as you have a more extensive history with this editor, it can't hurt to get a fresh perspective in here. While I'm not fully versed as to what happened before I showed up, I will say that this user has done a number of very good things since I showed up. Give this a chance to develop before you cut it off with more accusations toward him. Spite has nothing to do with this. This is simply an attempt to help a frustrated user. Jmfangio| ►Chat 20:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes since to me that all of the team pages would have a similar style and feel however exactly what that style is or should be is not totally defined imop. I also think that discussion on conflicts where several parties are involved helps calm the waters and should lead to a better understanding of what expectations everyone has. I also know that you win some and you lose some and the rest are a compromise. The key is to follow consensus and allow progress to be made. If Pat1 requested the Charger page to be unlocked it would as he is the lone dissenter however he to this point has not. Moving on.

As I understand it references are very important and should be used to support the material or content. The key should be to do that in a non redundant way when ever possible. They should not be used as a weapon to discourage involvement. I just referenced the same articule about 8 times in a row in order to please another editor when in fact I think it was over board. The result is a reference section that seems a bit redundant. I think reverence sections and I am just understanding the proper link process thank to Pat1 is in it self a source of more in depth coverage of a topic when it is in order.

Ownership of articles and perhaps in this case a project leads to conflicts. I know that time and passion can and does create a bit of ownership in all of us however all of us must resolve to work together as a team. RMANCIL 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general here's a good rule of thumb: Focus on what the editor did and not who the editor was. WP:OWN is a huge problem. Aside from individual editors, it seems most projects take ownership of articles they feel fall under their "jursidiction". Guidelines and policies exist to guide others. But there are two types - behavioral and editorial/content related. I have issues with the behavioral, but the content related are what we are talking about here. I think it's important to clarify though that article ownership is not a forgone conclusion. It is highly likely, but I often times find myself in situations where i don't like something, but i recognize it's viability amongst the community. I have run into many projects where they think that WP:CON is reached, when, by that articles standards, it has not been.

The behavioral related wiki docs (as i like to call them) have some real shortcomings in my honest opinion, but they are representative of the community attitudes and beliefs. So if you choose to break WP:3RR and WP:NPA as I have done, just be willing to accept the consequences.

Perhaps we could discuss the structure of team articles here and then raise the issue on some other talk pages? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

Happy to help out. I'm actually involved with a major dispute that involves another editor, so i know how much a third person can help situations. I'll drop in and address your recent post here in a bit, I saw it a day ago, I just haven't had a chance to respond. Jmfangio| ►Chat 07:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I haven't forgotten about you, I'm being harassed out the wazzoooo. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to take back that barnstar.►Chris Nelson 04:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris you need to step back and take a little break you and Jmfangio have allowed a edit question become a personal attack which is unfortunately some what common place these days. We all have similar interest other wise we would not be here. Lets try and work together and the best place to start may be with a little distance for a week or two. As for as the star he earned it for helping resolve a dispute where others preferd to steer clear.I see where you have a few stars indicating your a class act as wel,l seems to me all of us should find some common ground. RMANCIL 15:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChargersTrainingCampTURNER.jpg[edit]

Did you actually take that photo yourself or did you find it on a website? Pats1 14:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my photo. RMANCIL 14:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, that's a damn nice camera. Pats1 14:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chargers article[edit]

How are things going over there? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like pulling teeth. I am done with it for a while. Pat1 acts like he is some Nazi with every issue that comes up and never does any work but he bust my balls every chance he gets. I don't think he wants the Chargers page to get done. In fact I think that he is going out of his way to create problems. Who needs the grieve. RMANCIL 17:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The civility is overwhelming. Pats1 18:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pats1 you are a jerk and that is all there is to it. I am done with trying to be civil with you. You wish to have a problem it seems you live for one. You don't try and contribute you just stir the dam pot. It takes a lot to get under my skin but you have worked at it for a long long time.RMANCIL 18:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was looking to nominate the article for good article status once you were done with the sourcing/referencing. But hey, if you don't want that happen, that's your decision...

Pat1: When and why does incivility happen? During an edit war, when people have different opinions, or when there is a conflict over sharing power. When the community grows larger. Each editor does not know all the others and may not perceive the importance of each individual to the project — so they do not worry about maintaining relationships that do not exist. Covering up a bad reputation is easier in a larger community than it is in a smaller community. Sometimes, a particularly impolite user joins the project. This can also aggravate other editors into being impolite themselves. Most of the time, editors use insults in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. Insults essentially end the discussion. Often the person who made the insult regrets having used such words afterwards. This in itself is a good reason to remove (or refactor) the offending words. In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize. Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact. Other editors are prone to ruminate for many days or months over past slights and injustices and seek resolution and revenge.

That is what is going on here.RMANCIL 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Pats1 19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constant harassment on the Charger articule and when he is invited to do the research and edit himself he declines, says he does not have time yet he can edit every word and every post I make and revert my work on and on. I have been tempted to do to his work what he does to mine but I have decided not to lower myself and indulge in that type of moronic behavior. RMANCIL 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Harassment?" Silly me, I thought I was following the Wikipedian rules governing copyrighted material. My bad. I also thought I was adding proper formatting to every reference in the article to conform with WP:CITE. My bad. I also thought I was adding the appropriate tags to unreferenced material in the article. My bad. I also thought I was properly formatting every edit (or at least 90% of them) to conform with WP:MOS. My bad. I also thought I was removing/fixing/rewording biased material to conform with WP:NPOV. My bad. I also thought I was staying civil even while you threw a few personal attacks at me. My bad. I also thought I was engaging in a now-almost 10,000 word, month long discussion. My bad. Pats1 19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(BREAK) Okay guys, come on now. This is a big part of the problem I'm having with my "situation". Let's not get into who said what to whom and when. I'll jump over there and see if you guys can't catch me up on the content aspects of the discussion. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RMANCIL, just wanted to let you know User:Jmfangio has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Tecmobowl. Pats1 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification[edit]

Per your cursory involvement: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania in Atlanta![edit]

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]