User talk:Rockchalk717/Archives/2020/January

Dude, What?

The changes you’ve made on the ‘Big East–Big XII Alliance’ page have got to be arbitrary; start times remain there, along with arbitrary semantical “corrections” - what is that?! Unless you can prove to me - by providing the ‘Wikipedia’ standard that states this - there is a viable reason, it’s not recommended at all. Bl1tzkrieg1940 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bl1tzkrieg1940: WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Not just that but relevance. How does a start time hold any relevance to an event that’s already passed?--Rockchalk717 00:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Going back to the relevance part, when was the last time you heard someone say “Oh I wonder what time (insert past sporting event here) was played at?” I probably should have linked that policy in my edit summary but honestly I didn’t really expect anyone to dispute me doing that.--Rockchalk717 00:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Your stance is just that: Arbitrary. Nowhere on this information repository website are there any trappings of that. Refer to the A.C.C.–Big Ten Challenge, the Gavitt Tipoff Games and even the former S.E.C.–Big East Challenge. All times, in Eastern or Pacific time zones, have remained there in either the recent past or years prior. I will tell you what is advised, however. Anytime you see many articles of the same contents, it is definitely advised that someone or community deduces and thereby forms a consensus on what should or shouldn’t be found on certain articles. With the aforementioned articles, you can see that they contain start times. This one surprisingly (because of your adamance) was the only one that had been altered, evidently. I would assume they would all have been corrected by the same person, considering your supposed vigilance of this... because they are far more popular than this recently-created one. Semantically what you have changed is an entirely different complexity. Bl1tzkrieg1940 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bl1tzkrieg1940: Don’t lecture me on what you are and aren’t supposed to do. It very clearly says “Wikipedia isn’t an electronic guide” as in tv listings. In addition, I’m not sure why college football doesn’t (on college basketball it messes up the template) do this but look at literally every past NFL team season article, literally every past NBA season article, literally every past MLB season article. Times are removed at the end of the season. You have also yet provide one solid reason other then other articles why times should be maintained. I’ve never said nor acted I was vigilant on it. I noticed there was an article for it, went to check it out, saw the times and decided to take them out as part of my clean up.--Rockchalk717 02:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Don’t infer “lecturing” in text, guy. That’ll only guide you down an inflammatory path. Let’s not. I’m simply trying to resolve this, just as you should be. Honestly, if you had thoroughly read my response it was all cogent enough to understand where this could meet the said consensus. N.B.A., M.L.B. and N.F.L.-related articles aren’t strictly related to these annual events I mentioned, hence the “consensus“ logic. Article congruency isn’t necessarily precise on ‘Wikipedia’, but it appears as though here, this is what has been decided. So, by all means, remove those portions if that is what you meant. In lieu of being “vigilant”; have consistency, if that is something you predicate removing. And, by the way, I read the hyperlink you provided, and it redirected me to nothing of the sort - I didn’t find it within there. Nevertheless, remove those to maintain the consistency that apparently matters to you. This is what I truly have been alluding to. Now, you also altered or completely removed semantical portions of text in the ‘Format’ subsection. This is an entirely different matter. That revision, or lack thereof, seems to be quite purposeless and NOT an improvement upon what was previously there. What compelled you there? Bl1tzkrieg1940 (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bl1tzkrieg1940: Aesthetics. If you don’t align a post on the talk page to the far left it looks weird. Use a colon instead of a space to space it away from the previous post.--Rockchalk717 05:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh well. Neatly formatting it will be done regardless. Aesthetics = subjectivity. Concentrate your activity on those articles I notated in my initial response. By all means, persist. Let’s now discuss the semantical portion you “revised”. Bl1tzkrieg1940 (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bl1tzkrieg1940: Are you referring to the handful of rewords I did in the article? For the most part it was just simplifying what was said. Too often browsing through Wikipedia I find articles that have unnecessary extra intricate detail. And please make sure you keeping to the formatting template I have going here in your response. Please put it in one paragraph right below the end of mine and use a colon before you start typing your response.--Rockchalk717 08:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Does it really matter THAT much? Is there some kind of coding error that it causes? Nonetheless, I hope it worked and it’s consolation to you. The semantical portion in contention didn’t involve that much intricate detail at all. In fact, more could’ve been said about the format of it than already documented. This is a perplexing one. I have reviewed several times and could only find minor syntactical errors, and possibly a questionable semantical one. What was the problem? Bl1tzkrieg1940 (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t find any formatting errors on it. It was literally just rewords because the felt the wording could have been improved. Let me review each thing specifically “by a tally of 8-2”, saying by a tally is unnecessary, just like with a final score of a game just say “winning 8-2”, speaking of which it doesn’t say that I’ll need to fix that. Then under the format section that was almost completely just simplifying the wording. The same basic point of the section is the same, I just felt it needed better and more simplified wording.--Rockchalk717 05:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I know you haven’t found any formatting errors. That wasn’t the matter. Nor was the “tally of 8–2” — that’s just fine to change. Your reasoning for doing so to the ‘Format’ subsection isn’t adequate. It’s just not. I was going to revert any changes made, but I know that would just cause immediate vindictiveness. So, I suppose it will just remain a stalemate until someone else takes upon themselves. Bl1tzkrieg1940 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s not “inadequate”. Don’t take this the wrong way because I don’t mean anything mean spirited or spiteful by what I’m about to say. What this seems like to me is with you creating the page and being responsible for 14 of the 24 edits on it, is someone came into the article that you see as “your baby” for a lake of a better term, changes wording of it, and you get hurt that someone didn’t like the way you worded it. I can say this as a possibility because I’ve been guilty of this in the past and have done exactly what you are doing, defending your edit and while doing whatever you can to try to make the other person’s edit seem unnecessary. Truth be told, you don’t really have a good argument against my edits other than your personal opinion that me simplifying the wording is an “inadequate” argument. But I digress, sounds like your gonna leave it alone, so I’m gonna back out of this. In the words of the immortal Fez, I said good day.--Rockchalk717 18:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Without dissecting your word choice and syntax within that, it wasn’t adequate. I’ve posed a sound argument throughout. So, while you’ve insinuated that my intent - really, another inference of focus of intent - has been everything about the fact that I formed the ‘article’; the corollary with that it is, yes, I did create that article, and changing the semantical and syntactical contents leads to a precipitous discussion about who has done the better job. I shouldn’t have to lend you examples. You need to understand that I’m bothered by that ‘cause even with examining it like I have, it still appears to be meaningless. Now, this needs to be said despite there being no change impending, and pertaining to your claims; me feeling peeved or “hurt” never occurred, man. I genuinely didn’t see that you made any improvement, but relegating it, and I *genuinely* embrace the enhancements, supposed or otherwise. That is bothersome. Bl1tzkrieg1940 (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)