User talk:Chainclaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Chainclaw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] userpage

Hey there. I'd like to ask that you create for yourself a userpage, for the purely selfish reason that when I'm doing New Pages patrol, and I see a page created by someone whose userpage has a redlink, I think it to be the work of a newbie, and it takes me an extra minute to check it out and validate it as being genuine. DS 16:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Super Bowl articles

Although I do not entirely 100% percent agree with every single detail such as the ones you mentioned, I will try to keep them (after correcting the spelling and the grammar of course). After all, most of those plays are covered on those 30-minute Super Bowl highlight shows of NFL Films. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah pluss some of them are just downright funny. The second quarter of Super Bowl XXII and the first quarter of Super Bowl XXVI played out like slapstick comedy--Chainclaw.

[edit] I need a favor

I just created a poor stub on the former Washington Redskins player Mark Murphy, I can't find much info on him though. I know you are good in expanding football profiles, Can you expand it. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 01:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the problem is that I checked goggle and there was too many Mark Murphys mostly about a jazz singer with the same name, and I also checked Pro Football Refernce and they only had the Mark Murphy who played for the Green Bay Packers. Thanks again --Jaranda wat's sup 02:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For defensive players, you should check databasefootball.com, not PFR. Though I gotta admit Murphy was a little hard to find there because his name is spelled wrong for some reason

--Chainclaw

[edit] Bengals

Good catch on the second Bengals-Niners super bowl correcx. That's what I get for copy editing at 5 am. I'm a Bengals' addict, so I'll be tidying the page up a bit. No major changes, just grammar cleanup. Hope you don't mind. --docsophist 22:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] than

Please use than for comparison, and then for chronological reference (e.g. less than, more than, instead of then). 204.113.242.78 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK nominations

Just a friendly reminder to make your DYK nominations at the bottom of the relevant date, per the instructions. BigHaz 22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 10 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Max McGee, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Pete Johnson

You added to the Archie Griffin article that Griffin's 1973 breakout was in part due to Pete Johnson's blocking. However, Johnson did not become the Ohio State starting fullback until 1974. In 1973 the OSU fullback was Bruce Elia[1]. (And in 1974, Johnson was still splitting time with Champ Henson.)

Furthermore, singling out the contribution of any fullback minimizes the contribution of the terrific 1973 Ohio State offensive line, featuring All Americans Steve Meyers and Kurt Schumacher, and Heisman runner-up John Hicks.

  1. ^ http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/osu/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/records2

-- 24.95.65.142 16:10, 4 Sept 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl III Excessive Commentary

Chainclaw,

I'm new to Wikipedia and still "learning the ropes." I wonder if you could give me some guidance on what should be in the Super Bowl articles, and what constitutes "excessive commentary." I was trying to put things in context (maybe that should be in a separate section, not in the game summary?). The only deletion I take exception to is the reference to Hill's success against Braase, which I feel is critical to explaining the success of the Jets' running game, which in turn was critical to their victory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65tosspowertrap (talk • contribs) 21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Rice/Poindexter Case

Hey, the link to the Fraternal Order of Police's statemtent about this case is down. Do you know if the page can still be accessed? I couldn't find it on the Way Back Machine, but it would be nice to have as the article is hard to NPOV. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl XLII

While your enthusiasm is to be commended, it helps if you check your sources/facts before adding large sections; there were numerous errors in the info you posted on the Pats. Just to name the ones I saw off the top of my head:

  • Moss did not lead the league in yardage (he was second).
  • Jarvis Green is not a full-time starter on the DL; he held Seymour's place until Seymour was ready.
  • The Pats play in a 3-4 defense, not a 4-3, so they have inside linebackers, not a middle linebacker.
  • That fact aside, Mike Vrabel is an OLB, not an ILB. He can play ILB if the situation calls for it, but OLB has always been his natural position. [And, come to think of it, why mention Seau, Vrabel, and Thomas, but ignore Bruschi (and Colvin)?] Samer (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, let me reiterate: accuracy is important. Before you add material, especially if it was deleted, you should check to make sure that it is, in fact, correct and appropriate. As an example of correct: the Pats gave a 2 and a 7 for Welker, not a 2 and a 6 (you also misspelled "acquired"). As for appropriate: What does "immediately" mean in describing Moss' improvement? Is that material actually relevant to the article at hand? Samer (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
(1) You're assuming that I listed everything that needed to be changed. I didn't (for example, the proper link is to Benjamin Watson, not Ben Watson). (2) I also added several pieces of factual information, which you removed in your revert. (3) The other reason for the heavy editing is that the tone should be more encyclopedic. Samer (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm the one that keeps removing it. My basic objection to that is the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc--"after this, therefore because of this." In other words, just b/c the Pats acquired Welker and Moss doesn't necessarily imply that they had anything to do with the Pats' improved passing game. I know that the obvious response is "How can you argue that?", but from the standpoint of verifiability, it's something that needs to be addressed. Samer (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)