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

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

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 devlopment , 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]