User talk:Pats1/Archives/2007/November

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Requesting a move 2 When you get a second... 3 Sean Jones 4 Template 5 Template:RedskinsCoach 6 Bill Belichick's record with Tom Brady edit 7 Mikell's position... 8 POV edits? 9 Saints colors 10 Deletion 11 Jimmy Farris 12 Travis Williams 13 Deletion 14 congrats 15 Videotaping sections 16 Edgar Jones 17 tuck rule entry change 18 Move of Kyle Johnson 19 Category move 20 Your joke 21 Kareem Brown 22 Jack Lambert

Requesting a move

Hello almighty admin, I am in need of your awesome powers. Take a look at Anthony Thomas - it is simply a re-direct to Anthony Thomas (American football). I tried to move it to the regular Anthony Thomas page, but it won't let me. Seems to me there's no point in disambiguation if the original page just re-directed to it. Might as well just be at Anthony Thomas.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

When you get a second...

Could you delete Image:Sasha call2.jpg and Image:Sasha Call.jpg. Recent events have led me to come to the conclusion having pics on here may not be a good idea. Thanks. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else did. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Now my pic is the only thing worth seeing here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sean Jones

Hey, can you move Sean Jones (football player) to Sean Jones (American football)? The latter just re-directs to the former but I can't move it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Same goes for Alvin Smith (NFL) to Alvin Smith (American football).►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

What do you think about this? I based it on the MLB template. It sure is pretty with two - count 'em, TWO - colors!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to shoot it down, by the way. I was just messing around.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you do the text thing? I don't really know what I'm doing.

And yeah, I was thinking that about the third column.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Got it actually. I implemented it on the Dolphins template. Take a look and see if it needs any tweaks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:RedskinsCoach

Hi. Congrats on the recent RFA. Re: Template:RedskinsCoach, the category was part of the template (and not in a noinclude section) so that the category would automatically be added to every coach's article just by adding the template. The disadvantage is that it can get added to too many articles. I made my edits this morning because Washington Redskins was in the Redskins coaches category which is obviously silly. My edits were to make it simple to include the template but not automatically include the category in the few exceptions. Your edits to put the category in a noinclude section means the category is not automatically added to any articles, even the actual coaches'. Thoughts? I imagine someone has done what I did but in a better way. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Two of them didn't (but do now). Take a look at William Henry Dietz. He has four college football coaching templates and all four of them transclude a category automatically. Apparently we're lacking a standard. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill Belichick's record with Tom Brady edit

I think this is a totally valid addition to his Wikipedia page. The statistics are completely founded and completely validated. If you want to do it the easy way, go to Tom Brady's wikipedia page and substract his record for Belichicks current record and you will get the same statistics outlined in this edit.

I respect the time you put into Wikipedia and being an admin. But seeing how you are an admin I would ask you allow that submission to be held up there. It does share factual information that is tainted by no human bias. --Airiox 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Mikell's position...

I'm find with listing Mikell as just "S" (instead of "FS/SS"), but then to be consistent, shouldn't all LBs who have "OLB/ILB" be changed to just "LB"? Bjewiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

POV edits?

Pats1, I do not know why you find my postings against wiki policy. They are factual and reasonable (i.e. Dallas being "the most successful NFL team" is not a judgment call; 3 teams have met the ultimate success (winning the Superbowl 5 times) Of those teams, Dallas has a tiebreaker advantage in having reached the Superbowl 8 times (8 conference championships). Earlier I undid my OWN edits to NE Pats, which were "The Patriots are the most successful team of the past decade" (3 Superbowl wins in that period and a thus-far undefeated season) and that "their success from the earlier part of the decade to the present has many viewing them as a dynasty". undid those edits because if my Dallas posts could be considered "non-neutral", then so would the Pats contributions I made. Didn't want to get blocked . . . Anyway, I won't bother with this anymore. I will leave you and others to decide what you want to be shown on Wiki pages. BTW, despite my nickname, I am not a 49er "homer". While I enjoyed the Niners when Joe Montana was playing, football is my passion, whether it be the Niners, Cowboys, or New England. I always had a special place for New England because to me they represented America better than almost any other team; both because of their nickname and their location, where our country was born. I used to watch them when Steve Grogan was quarterback. And I was really disappointed that our own (UT player) Kenny Sims didn't turn out to be the player he could have been. Well, anyway, hope all is well up in your part of the country. I can't imagine anyone else but NE winning the Superbowl this year . . . . have a good one,

J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49erJoe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pats1,

Thanks for your reply. Hope all is well with you. Since you say that the most Superbowl wins cannot be a qualifier for calling a team the most successful, then neither can you can you consider Dallas (or any other team) "one of the most successful" teams based on this criteria. "Successful" becomes a POV term and cannot then be used unless you specify successful at what. Therefore, "one of the most successful" should be edited out or edited to read, "one of the most successful when it comes to Superbowl and conference championships". As far as my edits being 4 minutes apart, I was trying to undo edits that I had made days earlier. My computer was slow for some reason and I did not see that the edit had been undone the first time so I tried again a few minutes later. I have no desire to play tit for tat. I also have no wish to be argumentative or engage in internet debates. Accuracy and factualness are what interests me, and I believe that is what you are most interested in also. I want to leave this discussion on good terms and in good faith. I wish you and your team good luck this year and will be watching the Pats play every chance I get, as it is always a pleasure to watch any great (my POV) team play. Have a good day,

J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49erJoe (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Saints colors

Every time I change a color, you lowercase the letters. Now when I did it I lowercased them, and you capitalized them. What gives?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

...what?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Will you delete Template:NFLAlternatePrimaryColor and Template:NFLAlternateSecondaryColor? They are no longer being used, as I feel most of the team colors just don't look good with the alternating.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd like this, btw.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Farris

Farris was signed on January 10, 2002 according to his KFFL page. I realize it was the 2001 season, but it feels weird writing 2001 when he never was actually under contract with them during the calendar year.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Was it not the 2001 NFL season? ;) Pats1 ^T/C 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to keep convos one-sided now. I have your user page watched so I'll see if you reply.

Anyway, yeah you're right, it was the 2001 season. But unlike the Pro Bowl issue, nothing took place in the 2001 year. Pro Bowl selections are made during the calendar year of the season, in November of December or whatever. In this case, nothing with Farris and the Pats occurred in the 2001 year.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But anyway, you wouldn't put a guy that was on the Pats for one year, let's say 2006, as (2006-2007) because they made the playoffs. You'd just do 2006. In this case, it should just be 2002.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is though, are the infoboxes representative of calendar years or NFL season years? Pats1 ^T/C 22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well by that logic, we'd only put 2001.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't cut until August 27, 2002. Pats1 ^T/C 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. But in the past, anyone that was on the team during a season and didn't make the team next year only got that one year. Let's take Reche Caldwell for instance. We only list him as on the team in 2006, as we should. But with Farris, doing that same thing (listing him for the only NFL season he participated in, which would be the 2001 season) we would actually be listing a year he was never a member of a team, and instead leaving out the ONLY year he was on the team.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So if it's done that way, do it here... Pats1 ^T/C 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Only listing 2001? Just feels weird since he was never on the team in the calendar year.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but we have established that he wasn't on the Patriots for the 2002 NFL season. Pats1 ^T/C 00:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Well I guess in this unique case, 2001-2002 might be best. Not like anyone but us about Jimmy Farris' infobox too much, lol.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Travis Williams

What do you think is the deal with that jersey number? I didn't get it either. Why would he have to give up 52 just because he went back to the practice squad? It's like "Get his #52 practice jersey out of here, he's on the practice squad now, he doesn't deserve it!"►Chris Nelson^Holla! 12:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey can you delete User:Chrisjnelson/Template:NCAA Football Player and User:Chrisjnelson/Sandbox/test? I want to make a college football player template similar to the NFL one, but I'm gonna need help figuring it out so I can't do anything with those pages.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 09:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

congrats

Congrats on your successful RFA. I was checking the results of the ones that I commented on and find that you have won! Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Videotaping sections

Sometimes I worry about your ability to be neutral when it comes to Pats-related things. That's at least been the case at times when discussing the football aspects of the Patriots with you. In this case, your reasoning for removing "Illegal" from the section title is entirely flawed, as a violation of rules is one of the definitions for the word. Sideline videotaping does not convey any kind of idea what happened, whether it was negative or positive. If a totally ignorant reader came to Bill Belichick or 2007 New England Patriots season, for all they know the section title "sideline videotaping" could be a brilliant innovation on the part of Belichick's. It sounds silly because we are familiar with the situation, but really it should be made clear from the start that this was viewed as a negative, as it was something the team and Belichick were punished before. The key is, there is nothing "un-neutral" about the word illegal - it's simply a fact, as your edit summary even showed. So I'm not sure it's exclusion can really be justified.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'm trying to figure out a more concise way to put it than "Sideline videotaping rule violation." But the editor was right - there was nothing against the law (i.e. illegal) about it. It obviously was a violation of NFL rules, but Noah Webster never thought of that one... Pats1 ^T/C 13:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well as I just said before, the second Webster definition for "illegal" is "not sanctioned by official rules." Therefore, "illegal" is 100%, undoubtedly an accurate and correct word to use. Saying it wasn't illegal, that it was just a "a violation of league rules" is a serious reach that makes it look like it's coming from a biased place. It's a like a really fat chick saying she's not fat, she's big-boned.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Edgar Jones

I see what the depth chart says, but as we all know they are unofficial and run by PR guys. The depth chart is set up in the 3-4 and that's what we have the entire template and positions set up as (Ngata at DE, Suggs at OLB, etc.). But you and I both know that Jones will never play DE in the 3-4 at 260. He is a prototypical 3-4 OLB. So if we are going to have the rest of the positions set up for the 3-4, as we should, we simply should not leave Jones as just an OLB because of the depth chart. We know better. At the very least, he should be in the linebackers section with OLB/DE. But the positions have to remain consistent with the scheme, otherwise it makes no sense.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I think they'll have to switch something around with Pryce done. They play the Pats next week, so I'll look closely at what they do and chart it out or something. Pats1 ^T/C 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. I think it's obvious they run both, we just have to decide which is best for the template in terms of what columns to have guys under.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

tuck rule entry change

The entry in question:

"The league reviewed the call and deemed the call was correct."

If I am not mistaken, before your recent changes, "the call" referred to the original call on the field. That is why I clarified that the "original call" was deemed incorrect. To clarify, the original call was: fumble, turnover. Before my changes, the entry was misleading and ambiguous as to which call was deemed correct. I attempted to clarify, perhaps I was unsuccessful. As it stands right now, "the call" is used somewhat ambiguously, but it is better than it was before any of todays changes. This is a language issue, it has nothing to do with the teams involved. You could change "the call" to "the final outcome of the play" and then it would be perfectly unambiguous as to which "call" was being referred to.

"The league reviewed the final outcome of the play and deemed that it was correct."

What are the implications of you citing my IP address with "vandalism?" --128.223.57.215 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. "the call" is ambiguous.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Move of Kyle Johnson

Hey can you move Kyle Johnson (American football) to Kyle Johnson? The latter is just a re-direct anyway so it's unnecessary. Happy Thanksgiving.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category move

Hey, can you move Category:CSU Buccaneers football players to Category:Charleston Southern Buccaneers football players? I just created it, but on second thought I think it should be spelled out. Thanks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you misspelled the name of the town. It's Charleston, not Charlestown. Please move it to the second link in my original post. Thanks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I usually pahk my cah in Charlestown. Pats1 ^T/C 13:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Your joke

You know, we are the only two people on earth that would both a) get it; and b) find it funny. Haha.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Kareem Brown

Maybe you were just joking with your comment, but do you really think there is a sinister reason Mangini signed Brown? You know as well as I do that coaches often sign players they are familiar with. That'd be like saying Jason Garrett or Scott Linehan were obsess with the Dolphins for signing Berlin.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a kind of a joke. Losing Brown obviously isn't going to hurt the Patriots at all, but I think Mangini still has this complex where he wants to try and screw the Pats. He just sucks at it. Pats1 ^T/C 01:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

When are Pats fans going to stop being paranoid and egotistical jackasses? No one is out to get the Pats. You think Mangini is trying to "screw" the Pats by signing Brown? That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. He signed him because his line sucks and a player he's familiar with from a similar system became available. That's all. Get over yourselves.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Never said he was doing that by signing Brown, simply that he's tried to screw around with the Pats before. The grievance before the Branch trade in 2006. "That Incident." Bringing in Hawkins and Caldwell before the Pats game this year. Pats1 ^T/C 02:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the Pats would never stoop to such things. Where do you think he learned it all from?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone who can do it a lot better than the penguin. Pats1 ^T/C 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So, so biased.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack Lambert

Now that you are a Admin, can you move Jack Lambert (American football player) to Jack Lambert (American football), I dont think the "player" part is necessary--Yankees10 (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)