User talk:Pats1/Archives/2007/September

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Sam Rayburn

the thing about this is that he never played a game for the 49ers, it would be like putting Johan Santana in Houston Astros players, he never played a game for the Astros or Wily Mo Pena under New York yankees players, he also never played a game for teh Yankees.--Yankees10 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it not make sense, Santana never played a game for Houston and doesnt have the Astros players category, so why should Sam Rayburn have a category for 49ers when he never played a game for them--Yankees10 23:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Its nothing alike, he ACTUALLY played a game for the Eagles, he NEVER played a REGULAR SEASON game for the 49ers.--Yankees10 23:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Santana was never on the Astros roster at all; he spent his entire career with the Twins thus far, so of course it wouldn't make sense to put that category on his page because he never played with them. Now, the question is "to play with the team, do you have to play a regular season game, or just be on their roster?" Ksy92003(talk) 23:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

NFL roster templates

I gotta say man, I think all these reserve lists on these templates, all separate, look hideous. Look at Template:Miami Dolphins roster. I just think it's taking up way more room, horizontally and vertically, than necessary. Take a look at some experimenting I did here. Obviously, this is not final and I'm open to suggestion on anything. But do you think there is something about my ideas we can work toward or implement? I think it's certainly better when it comes to saving space and not having a ton of different reserve lists with different headers. Let me know on here or we'll talk on AIM sometime.►Chris Nelson 09:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, good job on doing all the cuts yesterday. Did you get them all? Sorry I wasn't able to help out, with the block and me being out of town for the day I wasn't able to do much of anything. Took me forever just to find out who the Phins cut, even though only a couple surprised me.►Chris Nelson 09:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

In response to your comment directed towards me on this page, if you have something to say to me, please do so on my talk page. I'm not going to flood the entire page with this discussion; what I said to Chris was an exception because Chris has told me not to post on his talk page, and I knew that he can't say anything about me posting there. That's the only reason I posted there. If you have any additional comments for me, then leave them on my talk page, because that is the only place I will respond to any.

You say "take it to usertalks" so why don't you do that? Leave your comments on my talk page, please, and I'll respond there. If you don't want to talk with me about it, then don't intervene with a discussion between Chrisjnelson and I. If you don't want to talk with me about it, then don't make comments directed towards me.

Thank you, Ksy92003(talk) 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So you basically just copied what I said to you yesterday. Good job.►Chris Nelson 21:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Ksy92003(talk) 21:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

You think you're ready? Let me know if you are interested and when you have a week to keep an eye on a WP:RfA. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Browns roster

It's no problem you removed the holder denotation. It's not a position; I only included it there in the first place because it seemed the Browns had specifically chosen Zastudil to do the holding, whereas most teams just have a back-up quarterback do it. No worries. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AIM

Yo fool, AIM.►Chris Nelson 18:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Seattle Seahawks roster

Rich Gardner was waived by the Seattle Seahawks on 7/11/07. He is not listed on the official Roster, Practice Squad, or Injured Reserve.

NFL Europa no longer exists. The League was terminated following the end of the 2007 season. Therefore, any players allocated by the NFL to the NFLE are invalid. This includes any NFLE Injured Reserve players. The only current official Seahawk members are listed in the 53-Man Roster, Practice Squad, or Injured Reserve - which only Marcus Tubbs (DT) is on.

www.seahawks.com

The official roster, practice squad, waivered/injured reserved players will ALL be listed under this directory. Trust me, Travis Lulay is NOT A SEAHAWK! PERIOD! Nor is Rich Gardner. These names are not mentioned on seahawks.com, scout.com, or NFL.com for that matter. 01:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

According to [[1]]:

"7/11/2007 Signed WR Courtney Taylor. Released CB Rich Gardner." "6/28/2007 Placed QB Travis Lulay and DT Lynn McGruder on the exempt/NFLEL injured list..."

I stand corrected on the NFLEL injured reserve. Thank you for the clarification and information. As mentioned, I do realize that no team site is the hub of all intellectual property, but it is the most official and legitimate location for such information, including personal team transactions, and rosters. Dpb23 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reserve List Style...

Hey, check out the conversation on Chris' talk page User_talk:Chrisjnelson#Reserve_List_Style regarding abbreviations for the Reserve List categories on the roster templates. Bjewiki 01:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PFT

Yo do me a favor and tell Florio (I'm on his block list for serving him some shit) tat Salomon Solano is an ISP player, so the Lions have only 7 on their regular SP and Buster Davis could be on it.►Chris Nelson 15:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please see WT:NFL#Continued_discussion JmFangio| ►Chat  19:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey will you post at the discussion page that I'm not going to be able to contribute to it for the next few weeks, as Durova told me to stick to the roster templates/2007 Dolphins article in the mean time?►Chris Nelson 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Patriots

I do feel some note about the supposed cheating should be mentioned in the article, could you tell me how it's biased? Kwsn(Ni!) 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should definitely be present, it is a major news story.►Chris Nelson 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
(Pats1's response was posted on my talk) Yes, but shouldn't at least some mention be made? I'm sure there's sources reporting at least the accusation. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because something is speculative does not mean it's not to be included. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if it is false, a mention should be made, that's what I'm saying. And how is [2] un-verifiable? Kwsn(Ni!) 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Pats, that there were some POV problems with the way it went in. However, the allegations make a story of itself, and whether or not there is any truth to them (though it's likely I'd say) the Pats' 2007 season will be remembered in part by these allegations. The inclusion of this news story is vital to 2007 New England Patriots season.►Chris Nelson 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'm working on a version of it for Bill Belichick that I'll also use in 07Pats. Pats1 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd hope bias would not cloud your judgment on this one.►Chris Nelson 23:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
'Course not, Chris. 'Course not. ;). It's actually something I'm numb to but other Pats fans are jumping off buildings about. I posted a few threads about it and my thoughts, essentially that it's gamesmanship on the part of the Jets, attempting to distract the Pats in their prep for the Chargers -- just as the Pats filed tampering charges against the Jets last year when they traded Branch, which also happened to be the week of a Jets/Pats game. I'm guessing this just another one of those unenforced rules (like "collusion" that Florio mentions all the time) that, because of the Jets' stink, Goodell will be forced to enforce. And since there's probably other teams out there that do the same thing in some way or form (Zach Thomas admitted to knowing all of Brady's signals last year because of apparently some TV tape or recording method), those teams aren't going to be too happy with the Jets, as a precedent has been (or will be set). I'm not sure if I'd call it cheating either, because apparently there's something in the rules that BB thinks only makes the taping illegal if it's accessible to the coach in the same game. So it's really exploiting a gray area more than anything, which isn't necessarily cheating (except to those who will pounce at anything that can feed their jealously of the Pats). Anyway, that's a story for other times. Pats1 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's most definitely cheating and you really can't, and shouldn't, excuse that. Comparing it to Zach's comments last year are ridiculous, because all they did was watch the television broadcast of the games. That is not cheating - it's public domain and millions watch it every day. Pointing a camera directly at the opposing team's sidelines (against the rules) and using it to your advantage during games is not comparable and IS flat-out wrong. I doubt many, if any, other teams do this, and if any others do that does not excuse the Pats' behavior. It looks like they will be reprimanded severely, and rightly so.►Chris Nelson 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Get on AIM, I don't feel like giving my counter-argument here. Pats1 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That's just people making excuses. There is NO evidence this is a widespread practice, or even a two-team practice. Patriots fans are explaining it away because they are Patriots fans, simple as that.►Chris Nelson 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And everyone else is just being "holier than thou" because they aren't Patriots fans, simple as that. ;) Pats1 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It's just the way things are. Right now we know the Patriots have cheated - we don't know anything about anyone else. So the Pats are the only ones in the wrong, the only ones deserving to be reprimanded.►Chris Nelson 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Watch out in the next few days though. It seems that BB might have a decent case against the rule. But really, the Jets didn't do this for the Pats could lose picks - they did it just to screw around with the Pats before their big game. And since it seems like Mangini gathered this from when he was with the Pats, other coaches, as PFT has noted, don't have a lot of trust in Magini right now. And damn, this thing has created a media circus. Complete sensationalism. Those first two days, Patsfans almost went down about 10 times because there were more than 1,500 users online at once - we eventually had to disable new regs because there were so many trolls coming in. It's like if the NFL tells the Pats to make their field more fit (for the Colts off- I mean for football) -- everyone who hates the Pats like they do the Yankees (the Jets have a different hate, like the Sox do for the Pats) will come and use it as ammo. Anything to tarnish the Pats' dominance, right? Even in the local media. It's on the top of every news as if Belichick had stood in the middle of the field and videotaped it himself. Pats1 11:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it happened [3]. Kwsn(Ni!) 05:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Patriots

Just so you dont think im signing off and reverting your edits... my ip is 131.50.151.8 Robkehr 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you werent rreverting mine, someone reverted yours twice. on the patriots talk page and on some other page, just didnt want you to think it was me. Robkehr 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That was a horrible argument you IMed me, lol.►Chris Nelson 14:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you'll probably disagree, but "Allegations of" in 2007 New England Patriots season seems a little inaccurate at this point.►Chris Nelson 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Have you done a Wikipedia:Editor review yet? It is a good way to get feedback from seasoned RfA participants. At least take a look there and let me know if you think that you could benefit from going through the process. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, you wanna go here: Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Even if you don't do the coaching, check out the reading guides. After doing so, we'll pull the trigger. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Meh, let it play out. It certainly can't hurt nuthin'. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

64.40.108.168

Hi, I saw you gave 64.40.108.168 about a million last warnings. In that case, you should probably report the IP to a sysop. Thanks! -jj137Talk • Contribs 17:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sorry, I didn't know that! -jj137Talk • Contribs 00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but don't care

The way others behaved over the whole football issue, links, accusations of vandalism, and lack of good faith has TURNED ME OFF from even trying. Thanks for the info but I'm so done with those articles and have deleted your comments (because I have no clue how to archive) not because of you but rather because of them. Some, not you, seem to be under the impression they own the articles. Fine, let them. It's not worth it. But again, thanks for the info.IrishLass0128 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

2000 New England Patriots season

Hi there. I see you may be a bigger Pats fan than I! (hard to believe, but I'll admit the remote possibility! <g>) How about looking over the changes made in the above and tell me what you think about the stats table (first) in particular as well as other thoughts that strike your fancy. That was pretty easy to do, and might be good in the more developed articles as well. It occurs to me that said tables could also list league rankings in said line items. Reconstruction of that might be a problem without some sporting magazines to reference (The NFL site seems to not keep that for past seasons--but perhaps I looked wrongly?), but would be an interesting item to read in some cases.

Have you read Patriots Reign (forgive, I stubbed it in today, and it's way short of organization and material at the moment...)? It's a must read, if you haven't seen it, and explains an awful lot about the Pats since 2000. If you have, I'd be interested in collaborating with you on fleshing out the article. (Fiction books, I've done, more than I like actually, but in something like this, having someone to check me would be truly good.) Nicetomeetchya, Cheers! // FrankB 00:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably need a keeper when writing for content while trying to keep facts straight and rushing all at once. Looking at it again, I didn't even really make that last sentence work as a diagrammable sentence. Then browsing through news coverage and SI articles for references seems to have have caused some stylistic creep! POV I wasn't trying for! Fix it up as needed, I want to get more into the Patriots Reign stub as time allows tonight. With the wife home, that can be problematic, and I've not had diner yet this evening. // FrankB 01:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject NFL discussion

I'm probably not supposed to even discuss other NFL-related things on the talk pages per the topic ban, but I just wanted to say I think I kind of agree with Yankees10 on the Josh Miller thing. I feel that if a player has been active for a team, those years are all that are really necessary. I'd only put the asterisk and explanation if they were solely an offseason/PS player for a team. But that's just me.►Chris Nelson 01:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, its great for me and Chris to finally agree on something, that is exactly what I think to about the Josh Miller situation--Yankees10 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, OK, that's enough, let's keep it at WP:NFL - except for Chris, obviously. Pats1 T/C 01:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree upon what to do with those players in the infobox, making notation that they didn't play an NFL game. I collapsed the super-long discussion about that so we can kinda start over (for navagation). Please, let's only talk about the categories for right now, okay? Ksy92003(talk) 01:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that I do feel an offseason/practice squad membership should be present in the infobox. I like the idea of what I did at Cory Schlesinger. I do think it adds to the article. Let's say Schlesinger retired after this. I think it's worth noting he was a member of the Dolphins, especially since he was a projected starter, so that people see that he was on the team but was cut and ended up calling it a career. I just feel like if a guy WAS active for a team, especially for multiple years like Miller with New England, the offseason year is a little overkill. Obviously, I'm only talking about consecutive tenures without being on another team in between.
As for the category issue, I am still fully in favor of player being added to the same category even if they didn't play a game for them.►Chris Nelson 01:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: blocking of trolls, etc.

Even if a troll is calling names, cursing, and asking to be blocked, he at least deserves the dignity of a response to his questions. Thank you. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFT#Not_feeding_the_trolls, FWIW. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Asterisks

I've been putting them outside the parentheses lately. I just feel it looks better, I think it looks odd inside.►Chris Nelson 18:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

infoboxes

Can you please go to User talk:Louis Alberto Guel#infoboxes and respond, some user keeps changing all the new NFL infoboxes to the old ones--Yankees10 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you also go here:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#New Infobox?--Yankees10 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for responding--Yankees10 02:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

2006 season link

Grrrrr... Hey! Links are good things! You of all people! The difference is most people know the syntax to find the team, and for my part, I'm far more interested in stats, players, et. al. from previous teams than crystal ball thoughts of the current season... and a link means readers lazing around (Roman banquet style—OK, I admit I get lazy at times, but it goes with late middle-age!) reading with only one hand to type with, can get there without trouble. "XXXX New England Patriots season", is a bit much to type one handed, and it's hardly cluttering the article to give a link. // FrankB 13:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

UF Football players

If someone attended a University, then they should get included in the Alumni Category. I do not care if they are already under a players category, we need to add them to both! By not including them as regular alumni, it's like your not recognizing that they attended classes at that respective institution. We need to give them academic & athletic recognition. JerryBusser 16:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with JerryBusser. For example, say somebody went to the school and made the football team. They learned at the school and played for them. Therefore, it makes completely no sense why you wouldn't say that they attended that school as a student. Ksy92003(talk) 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe you two are mistaken. The UF football players category is a SUB-category of UF Alumni, meaning anyone in that sub-category is also in the Florida Alumni category. Both are not needed - that's not how it works. You put them in the most specific sub-cat possible.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This is correct. Pats1 T/C 22:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC
Sorry to disagree, but this is an IAR matter of taste when it comes to such fine distinctions. The fewest category philosophy is fine for straightforward clearcut technical matters, but people are geological terrain features, chemical compound types, nor areas of physics. If cats are to be useful for READER-USERS finding stubborn, contradictory, and illogical people (or those who aren't), and if the shoe fits, let them wear it. If and when the intersection tools ever really get debugged and released (They were promised for last June at the latest, as I recollect--back last February!) they may be useful enough to editors that such minimal categorization would change my tune, BUT THERE IS STILL THE READER-USER issue which would go unanswered... neither you nor I can predict how someone is focused in their thought process during their searching, and it seems not unlikely that many will overlook a subcategory if looking for a name. So being a stubborn, contrary and most of all, a believer in fitted shoes and in not forcing thoughts down peoples throats, I say as I always have, if the category fits, let them wear it. More is better in such cases. Loops in the graph of categories worries me not at all. They are not evil, but useful as such categories are really classifications organized as lists--not true categories. Categories, if useful, are an information tool. Limiting them, takes the handle from the screwdriver in many cases, making the tool LESS useful. Cheers! // FrankB 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)