User talk:NYYankee2684

Your changes to the YES Network page are full of redundancies, and are making the article as a whole sloppy and overly lengthy as well. The article was fine as it was after I re-reverted back, but you undid all those changes -- not once, but TWICE, without identifying it as a revert. That's two reverts in less than 24 hours. One more will have you blocked.

Once again, Mike Francesa and Chris Russo may be on YES, but they DO NOT work for YES directly. Thus, they DO NOT BELONG in the personalities section. YES, to my knowledge, is paying WFAN for the video rights to the Mike and the Mad Dog program. Nets radio announcer Chris Carrino (somehow I don't think he's on YES very much) works not for WFAN, but the Nets. This is also incorrect. Unless they work for YES on an original YES production, these names should not be in the Personalities section. On that note, Tom Verducci, who writes for Sports Illustrated, is a questionable addition as well.

Also, non-YES productions like NBA TV and The White Shadow deserve a passing mention but should not be listed along with original programming. This article DOES NOT have to look or read like the MSG Network of Fox Sports New York articles word-for-word, format-for-format.

And, we know YES is the home of the Yankees and the Nets, so mentioning "Yankee Baseball" and "Nets Basketball" as separate programs within their own section is REDUNDANT. Please stop making unnecessary changes to this otherwise fine article. Rollosmokes 15:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war involving the YES Network article have been forwarded to an administrator for further review. DO NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER CHANGES TO THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION OR TO THIS TALK PAGE. Rollosmokes 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NYYankee,

Because of the recent edit war on YES Network, a content dispute which you are involved in, I have protected the page from further edits. Note that protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the article. I hope you will discuss things rationally on the article's talk page. Please use some civility and please refrain from enciting edit wars. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you stated below...

18:02, 21 February 2007 Firsfron (Talk | contribs) protected YES Network (Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)))

Protection was supposed to end on the 23rd today is the 24th can you please check into this. Thanks.

Just checked. I had left the tag, but you are free to edit the article. Please make sure your edits agree with the consensus. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted yet again to your version, which is very disorganized, full of redundancies, and is just plain poor. This article was fine until your insistence on over sectioning it ruined it became an issue. I have explained my reasons for changing it back, but you wouldn't take anything into consideration and reverted back at the first opportunity after the article was unlocked. I have brought this back to the attention of an administrator. Rollosmokes 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want that many e's in "Yankeees"? DagnyB 02:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just changed it, via the "Move" tab at the top of the article page. Let me know. DagnyB 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! DagnyB 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is a conflict of interest when you post a comment in an AfD on an article you created. Of course you want your three articles to stay, because they're your babies. But it's best for you to just wait this out and see what happens. Also, I wouldn't add any further "information" while the AfD process is ongoing. Rollosmokes 04:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can weigh in on an AFD discussion, even the creator of an article. This is not a true conflict of interest, because the user is still a member of the community, and we try to base our decisions on community consensus. As a member of the community, NYY has a right to weigh in ("Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page" doesn't exclude the creator of the page).

That said, I don't understand why seperate pages are needed. Can't the pre-game show and the post-game show be merged into the show itself? Each article must establish notability, and it's much more difficult to establish the notability of three subjects than it is one. Just my opinion, here. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we merge the pre-game and post-game insted of deleting them beucase I feel they add more to the overall YES Network Coverage.NYYankee2684 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the AFD discussion page. I think a merge may be in order. We can also remove material that isn't encyclopedic or cannot be verified. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NYY!

Please do not blank AFD discussions as you did here, or remove AFD tags. Please let the discussion run its course, OK? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your addition of YES Network to the group AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankees Baseball on YES, and have remove the AfD tag from the article. You're free to nominate the article for deletion if you want, but please make it a separate nomination rather than trying to "piggyback" it onto an already ongoing group nomination. Thanks, —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Kilgore was an AFD. And it was never deleted.NYYankee2684 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NYY,

Thanks for the head's-up. It's deleted now. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you re-creating articles that were already deleted? Remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankees Baseball on YES, which resulted in the deletion of four redundant, non-notable, and very crufty articles in June? Your three articles are up for deletion again, and if you re-create the fourth that one will be added to the AfD nomination as well. Rollosmokes 16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaranda (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to redirect the articles 2006 Kansas City Royals season and 1980 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season. I've saved them and put the underconstruction tag on them, but enough has been said, he's going with the non-notable card. Just an FYI that he is trying to redirect them. Soxrock 23:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Buffalozoo.GIF. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Buffalozoo.GIF. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article This Week in Football has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable television program

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article CenterStage (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable television program

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]