Template talk:Dallas Cowboys roster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American football Portal
This template is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.

I propose that the colors on the pages be reversed. Anyone got a problem with that? Thanks Soxrock 01:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The silver on blue is just as readable. Soxrock 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tank Johnson's Number...

Note: I copied this conversation from User_talk:Ppw1148, so that it would not have to clutter his talk page:

Do you have a source for that?►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed correct (#66). As a side note, you (Chris) shouldn't be reverting things just because you haven't seen it yet. For instance, in this case you could've done a 5 second google search, and seen multiple stories showing Tank Johnson took #66. Reverting something just because you haven't seen it yet borders close to WP:OWN. Bjewiki 02:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It has zero to do with WP:OWN. I've tried to find a source for it but couldn't and he was a new user so I really didn't know if he had a source or if he was messing around. Since the latter was a possibility, it was best to undo it until a source was found.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, no need to fight here. If y'all have a dispute between each other (Bjewiki, Chrisjnelson), take it to either one of your talk pages. No use crowding up an innocent user's talk page with your issues.
For the record, Chris, you are too rash when reverting. If somebody says something that you don't know if it's true or not doesn't mean anything. Just because you don't think something is true doesn't mean it isn't.
Somebody makes an edit. You don't have a source, and you revert them. I haven't ever seen you provide a source for all the edits you've made to those roster templates, so should I just revert every single one of them because you didn't provide a source? Since you think you can do this, I suppose I can too, right? Ksy92003(talk) 06:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Holy hell, I haven't seen an edit dispute not involving you where you haven't shown up. Honestly, maybe editing and improving articles would be a better alternative than constantly monitoring Chris' (and mine, as made evident by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JerryBusser) contributions. Bjewiki, the first thing we turn to when checking edits made to the rosters is the team's website, and Tank (and by extension his number) isn't listed there. Most newspapers will have the transactions before they get to the team websites, but they rarely have the jersey numbers. Also, Tank is on suspension, which means he essentially cannot be at the team's facilities until his suspension is over. So initial logic would say that he hasn't been assigned a number yet. Finally, if you or a couple other of the editors who update the rosters frequently had made the edit, it probably wouldn't have been reverted. But believe me, there's at least 3-5 newbie or vandal edits a week to the roster templates. Sometimes it's by users who try to turn the roster into a depth chart. Sometimes it's by users who just go in and screw up the code for whatever reason. And sometimes it's users who add players to the templates who haven't yet signed, make roster moves that haven't yet occurred, or try to guess on player numbers. There's even an editor to the Ravens' roster who every once in awhile will edit it (as well as a few other pages), insisting that Matt Stover and Ray Lewis were released in 2003. So we've seen everything, and when we see a number for Tank, we're skeptical. Chris and I take a lot of pride in the roster templates and keep them updated daily. The last thing we want to see is inaccurate information going into them, so that's why we like to see confirmation. Pats1 T/C 13:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Pats1, I saw the post that Chris left Bjewiki and followed it here because I was curious to see how Chris got into another dispute.
Secondly, the only reason why I wouldn't revert Chris ("You don't have a source, and you revert them. I haven't ever seen you provide a source for all the edits you've made to those roster templates, so should I just revert every single one of them because you didn't provide a source? Since you think you can do this, I suppose I can too, right?") is because this would violate WP:POINT, something that Chris has been blocked for before. Ksy92003(talk) 13:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to repeat what I just said. Before reverting anything on the roster templates, I (and presumably Chris) will double check the edit against an official website or other source. We'll also think about the edit logically (i.e. if someone removes Tom Brady and Randy Moss from the Patriots' roster template, or changes Brady's number to 73, there's no point in researching.) But logic says that Tank is barred from the Cowboys' facilities and doesn't yet have a number, and this was backed up initially by the Cowboys' website. In fear of having inaccurate information on the template, we're going to ask for a source instead of searching for an obscure blog post or web page or article. But let's be realistic here. Chris and I have both made well over 1,000 edits to the roster templates, and how many times have we posted inaccurate information? This user, ppw1148, had made none (and only a handful of other edits) before this. We did assume good faith and made an effort to find the number on the Cowboys' website. But it wasn't there so that's why we (gasp!) asked for a source before the info was consummated. Pats1 T/C 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You should be assuming good faith. Bjewiki 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so even after I confirmed that #66 was indeed his number last night, and stated that there were several articles out there verifying that #66 was his number this still got reverted this morning by Pats1? And then Pats1 goes back and makes the same edit (changing the number to #66) with "found source" as the comment? I thought this all started because someone made an unsourced edit. So, what we're saying is that it's okay when Chris or Pats1 makes an edit without providing a source, and we should just believe them. But if someone else makes an edit without providing a source, it's free-reign to revert them?

On the topic of checking if the edit was correct. The time stamp of Chris' revision is 21:59, while the timestamp on Ppw1148's revision is 21:57. That means the revert happened almost immediately, so it would appear that there was little or no time spent actually checking to see if it was true or not before the edit was reverted.

And as I mentioned before, there were various sources that could've easily been used to verify the edit: [1], [2], [3] Bjewiki 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A question for Pats1. This morning you reverted Ppw1148's revision, and then 2 minutes later you made the same exact revision, when you found a source. Why didn't you go try and find a source before you reverted Ppw1148's revision? Bjewiki 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
After seeing the edit I checked the Dallas Cowboys' website for any change. I'd previously looked for Johnson's number, because every few says I click Control+F, type in the two dashes we use for missing numbers, then go through everyone with a missing number and see if there's new information on them. I guess I somehow missed Johnson's in the news, but I can definitely say that I'd searched many times for the information, as I always do.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
After seeing the edit I checked here, here, and here. I then saw the whole debacle on the user's talk page and read that you "did a Google search for it and found it." So I Googled "Tank Johnson number" and didn't get anything, then Googled "Tank Johnson 66" and found this, the only source I could find at all. Pats1 T/C 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I previously posted a couple more above. Just letting you know that they were out there. No problems. Bjewiki 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like Chris reverted Ppw1148 almost immediately after Ppw1148 made the edit, which does suggest that Chris failed to look for a source. But I also have something to point out. Chris, Pats1, I'd like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

Chris, you said "he was a new user so I really didn't know if he had a source or if he was messing around." Just because a user is relatively new doesn't mean anything. New users deserve just as much respect as long-time admins. It isn't right to revert somebody's edit just because they are new. Remember, you were a brand new user in April, 2006. How would you like it if somebody reverted one of your first edits just because you were new?

Pats1, you said "Chris and I have both made well over 1,000 edits to the roster templates, and how many times have we posted inaccurate information? This user, ppw1148, had made none (and only a handful of other edits) before this." So, are you saying that because you have been around for two years that you can do whatever you want? I haven't seen you provide sources when making your edits, either, so how do we know if they are right or not?

It seems really unfair that both Chris and Pats1 can edit every single roster template they want without providing sources, but if somebody else does, it's reverted at first glance just because the user is new? This just sickens me. I really can't believe that two long-time users would be so hypocritical about this.

And Chris, I just saw a comment you made at Template talk:New England Patriots roster. "To clarify on team websites - they are often not quickly updated, missing people, don't have guys in the right place, etc." So you say that you won't be able to see it on the team website right away. So, as Bjewiki says, the team websites are good sources when they have the information that you want to put on the templates. But the team websites are bad sources when they have the informatino that somebody else wants to put on the templates. I'm sure this violates some policy, but I don't know which. If it doesn't, then it should. Ksy92003(talk) 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not listening, and I don't care to explain myself anymore to you. Go find something else to do.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What am I not listening to? Maybe you just don't understand. You don't provide sources for any of your edits, but you expect us to leave them alone. Somebody doesn't provide a source and it's the end of the world. I'm sorry, but these seems to be extreme "hypocriticism". Ksy92003(talk) 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Boy am I glad "hypocritism" isn't a word. I wouldn't want to be guilty of it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
So does that make us "hypocrotics"? Pats1 T/C 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I know it isn't a word, but I'm sure you know what I meant. If you didn't, then what I was trying to get you to understand is that you seem to be acting hypocritically by reverting somebody who doesn't provide a source but expect us to believe you (and we do) when you make an edit without providing a source. Ksy92003(talk) 21:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, it's all about reputation. If you see an established user make a minor edit to a page on your watchlist, you're not going to be as skeptical as you would be if, say, an IP or redlinked user made it. Pats1 T/C 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to keep hassling me about nothing, then fine, I'll source them all. It's no problem. The reason I don't source is because Pats1 and I are basically the only consistent editors of all 32 roster templates and we know each other has a source whenever we edit.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You're the only consistent editors of them in part because you bully other users away by constantly reverting their edits. Bjewiki 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to say something similar to this. It's really hard to edit articles/templates that other people don't want you to. If I made good edits to an article, and you always reverted me, then I wouldn't want to edit that article, either. Ksy92003(talk) 00:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So because you and Pats1 have more experience and have been around much longer than somebody else, you feel you are exempt from WP:V and that somebody else needs to source every single edit? You don't deserve special treatment for any reason. All people are equal. Ksy92003(talk) 21:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is incorrect. Pats1 and I are royalty.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
So why do you expect us to give "King Chris" and "King Pats1" special treatment? Ksy92003(talk) 22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Depends. Do I get a castle and moat? Pats1 T/C 01:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
How about I respond to your sarcastic response to my rhetorical question with a non-sarcastic response: no. So, I guess that means no special treatment for you. Sorry, all your special treatment (which you somehow granted yourself) is gone now. Ksy92003(talk) 01:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to crown my ass, crown it. Pats1 T/C 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You had 'em! And you let 'em off the hook!►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really feel like "crowning your ass." I don't feel you deserve it. Ksy92003(talk) 06:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And Chris, what exactly does that comment mean? Ksy92003(talk) 06:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
We're both quoting former Arizona Cardinals' head coach Dennis Green's post-game tirade last year, when the Cards blew a huge lead to the Chicago Bears late.►Chris NelsonHolla! 06:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay... but once again, neither of you two are royalty, no matter mow much you think you are. Sorry to break this to you again. You can't decide the rules for everybody else just because you've edited the templates more than anybody else and your reverting and "source?" edit summaries, which are again hypocritical, bully everyone away. Sorry, but you aren't in charge here and you need to follow the same rules as everybody else. Ksy92003(talk) 13:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You. Need. A. Sense. Of. Humor.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange... I recall you telling me that I should do stand-up comedy once in an e-mail.
Anyway, this isn't about having a sense of humor. I take everything on Wikipedia really seriously. If you want to use your sense of humor, then go somewhere else. But I take everything seriously. Ksy92003(talk) 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and when I said that I was being sarcastic because I felt what you said was extremely lame. See? That's another example of why you should work on the sense of humor thing. Life's not wort living without it, in my opinion.►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh, so you lied... to me... again. You see what I mean when I said "you always lie?" You just proved that statement. Ksy92003(talk) 15:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. Sarcasm isn't lying. It's intended to be understood by all. If I say 12 x 12 = 144 but you don't get why, does that mean I lied to you? No...►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the definition of "lie?" Here it is: "To speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive." That was an "untruth" and it was "knowingly" and I was "deceived." You have to keep in mind that with written word, it is hard for somebody to tell if you're speaking sarcastically or not. Is that not a lie? That's why whenever I say something sarcastically, I type "(sarcasm)" or something similar so the other person knows that it is sarcasm. Otherwise, I don't know. Ksy92003(talk) 15:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh. My. God. It's really amazing there are people like you in existence. Unreal.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And it's amazing that there are people like you in existence. Ksy92003(talk) 16:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh man has this rocketed up on the unintentionally funny scale. Pats1 T/C 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well that started when he thought an epiphany was a personal attack.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a personal attack. I said it sounded like one because I didn't know what "epiphany" meant. Ksy92003(talk) 18:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)