User talk:Stismail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Stismail, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela

Hey...does the "S" by any chance mean "Samer"? (I notice you were editing quizbowl so I thought I would ask!) Adam Bishop 00:21, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re: Gostkowski

There's statistics links in the infobox on the right. Since it is unlikely someone will be there updating the stats after every game, they won't be up-to-date. The links obviously will. Pats1 00:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina

Please find a reliable source that talks about it. It's synthesis. Also, you can't say inexplicably when it could be explicable. Just because the guy on the blog couldn't figure it out doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation. I don't know what that explanation could be, but that really doesn't matter. --Onorem♠Dil 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeopardy!

Hey Samer, I just reverted your addition to the Jeopardy! article... The long and short of it is that Jeopardy!-related articles get accused of being fancruft and expose themselves to AfDs when they don't stick to sourceable hard facts. The article is already pretty bloated and the thrust of work on it, I feel, should be to make it tighter, which would require excluding the sort of analysis that says what things "sometimes" or "often" happen on the show, however true they might be. Thanks for your understanding and for helping to keep the Jeopardy! family of articles lean and mean. Cheers, Robert K S 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duel - Marco

I added Marco to the leader board so that we could have a final ranking for each player. Even though that the show doesn't show Marco, I think that we should leave him on there so that it is shown that he was challenged and ended up in a lower rank. Right now he'll be in 4th but after tonight he will easily go down the ranks. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Should we stick him under 24th for now? - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duel

First, I would like to thank you for discussing this rather than getting into a revert war about it. I think the multiple games fact may be mild original research, true, but if there is going to be presumption (which there was - presumed that the shootout is only one question, which it can't be limited to). The fact is we don't know that that it's one question either if they both get it wrong, or tie. It makes no sense for that to be the case. They can't stop the tape and retape the same question... it's already been answered. If both players put down chips on two answers and get one right, are they supposed to replay the same question and expect one of them not to just put their chip on the right answer? Or if they both are wrong using 3 chips, are they supposed to expect the players not to put a chip on the right answer if they replayed the question? Saying it's a one-question round is only right if the one question is determinative. If you want to change it to "it is unknown what would occur if the question is not determinative" I suppose that would be more wikifriendly; but saying it's one question can't be any truer than saying it can be more than one. I'll see if I can tweak it to be slightly more appropriate.

To your "they" issue, there is no concensus to use one or the other (or another option), but there IS consensus that "they" is an acceptable usage, and it exists all over wikipedia. Thus Meta article notes that the option "they" is viable, as is "he or she" (but I don't think "he/she" is considered appropriate), and while "he or she" would be acceptable, it is my belief that other than a single occurance (eg: if there was an article about... Greece, and it mentioned something like "any traveler coming to Greece would find that he or she enjoyed it"), rather than an article in which the subject of a whole section is the contestant and their actions. Then it becomes a mesh of he or she, his or her, him or her, etc. It's simply cleaner to use they, and it is accepted syntax. I suggest that it remain they.

I also would suggest that for a post like this, you would be better in the future to post it on the article's talk page, and just make a little note to the editor that you brought it up there, so that other editors can weigh in on which option they think is best. Thanks. TheHYPO (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenberg has also said "the duel will end on this question" last night when one contestant said A and one said B and D. If it had been C, the game wouldn't have ended, but clearly the producers told him that C wasn't the right answer.
If both shootout contestants chose B and C, and C is the right answer, for example how could the game possibly end on one question? And as I said before, if both chose A B and C and the correct answer was D, how can you have them redo it and expect them not to both choose only D?

It doesn't add up. Either they will play another question and delete that question from air, or they will say "we goto a second shootout" and show it on air. Either way, it is unknown right now what would occur, and I have added that to the article.

I'm not asking you to remove "he or she"; I'm simply stating that to keep the article easier to follow, I'm going to stick with "they"; Particularly in a popculture 2000s TV show article; just as in a UK article one would be using Colour and Favourite as the local text, I suggest that in a modern 2000s topic article, there is no issue with using a contemporarily accepted usage. If the topic was something more formal antique like, say "Ancient Rome", perhaps there would be an argument for the more fomalized structure (not saying it would or wouldn't be appropriate, but I could see a stronger argument). It is the exact same issue as the serial comma (1, 2, and 3 - or 1, 2 and 3?) - some prefer one way, some the other - but a standard should be used amongst a whole article in the way that is easiest to read for the reader. TheHYPO (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Your latest edits look good. I think the article is now well on its way to being a good article (not wikipedia "good article", just... "good" article, heh) TheHYPO (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 NFL Draft

I messed up calculating Atlanta's SOS, but as to the Buffalo/Denver tie, NFL.com is ambiguous. The website states "If any ties cannot be broken by strength of schedule, the divisional or conference tie breakers, whichever are applicable, are applied." [1] Not "conference record tie breakers", but "conference tie breakers" which would seem to include head-to-head. Do you have a source for it merely being conference record? Jonpin (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Patriots-Giants game

Hi. Sorry that I was unaware of the discussion on the talk page you mentioned. I redirected your article to the section on the main season page because it was longer and had references. If you don't mind I was going to merge some information from the season page to your article. Also, I think it could use a more precise title, maybe 29 December 2007 New England Patriots-New York Giants game? --Merovingian (T, C) 15:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean you want to include the week number in the title? I suggested the date disambiguation because that's the usual way to do it. Also I'd like some disambiguation because New England and New York played a pre-season game in 2007 as well; of course it really doesn't matter, either in real life or here (because a pre-season game isn't going to get its own article) but somebody pickier than I will probably point it out eventually. I will move the article to include the teams' full names, though. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 NFL Draft/Patriots' pick

Please stop changing the seventh overall pick to San Francisco. It is New England's and they will utilize it. The pick they are losing from the league for spygate is their OWN first-round pick, not the one they acquired for the 49ers. The latter is still theirs.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the entire first chart is completely unnecessary. Two separate charts aren't needed and it's confusing to the common reader. The current chart is all that is needed, with any explanations in prose or in a list.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now it just reads like a giant lesson on how draft order is determined. All that's really necessary, at any time, is the rules for determining draft order, the current draft order, and a couple paragraphs explaining any unusual circumstances (Pats' forfeiture of the pick, any trades, etc.).►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would you delete the one that's accurate as of today? That is the most important piece of info right now. How the picks were acquired or lost is something that should follow the current draft order table in prose or a list. There's simply no need for a table of how things would be if stuff that's happened hadn't happened.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: WELKER PIC

Feel free to crop that down Michigan10 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welker link

No problem. I did notice some overlinks in the article, though (the second one to Oklahoma City even points to a redirect), which I'll clean up sometime here soon. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for fixing the location of the ref on that quote. I had it there but it was dropping to the next line. I realize now it was because I put it after the </blockquote> instead of before it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl XLII

I appreciate you pointing out whenever I make errors, but you don't need to re-write entire sections because of 1 or 2 inaccurate words. For fixing my last edit, all that was needed was switching the word "sixth" to "seventh" and removing the word "immediately". Chainclaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When you look at the difference between how Brady did before getting Welker and Moss and then how he did after, their effect seems self-evident. I understand if you want it verified, and I guess I'll have to go looking through old SI or NFL.com articles for citation. I was just hoping to avoid going through the process of citation for something that obvious. Chainclaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Record in schedule

Could you also do the same to the 2006/5/4 Pats articles, since I'm well, a little too lazy right now to do so? Thanks :) Pats1 T/C 00:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wilfork fines

Fair enough. I know you have a certain interest in the Patriots organization, but I was just trying to give a full picture here and not make it look like a "fawning" article. Yes, he was in the Pro Bowl, but he also did some things the league didn't like (being fined four times in once season is unusually high). I rephrased it so that it gives both instances equal weight, the good and the not-so-good, while still being concise (the first time I revised it, I gave a little too much weight to the fines and was being too verbose, after all, it may not need to be "fawning" but it's not supposed to be "bashing" either). My point is, all I'm doing is trying to build a neutral article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 New England Patriots-New York Giants game

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2007 New England Patriots-New York Giants game, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of 2007 New England Patriots-New York Giants game. Buc (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: NFL Draft

Are supplemental compensatory picks not used to fill that gap? Pats1 T/C 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deal or No Deal (3/1/08)

Would you please explain why you undid my edits? Most of my changes consisted of wikifying the content, in particular: (1) Making the tone more encyclopedic. (2) Removing the repetitive links to Howie and the models (they don't need to be linked every time they are mentioned). (3) Fixing the formatting (the title is not supposed to be boldfaced every time it appears). (4) Removing extraneous formatting (someone confused proper nouns with titles). I'm not going to get into the argument of what belongs and what doesn't, since to a large extent, I don't care. But I think that whatever is there should mirror the rest of Wikipedia in terms of style. (And, for the record, the argument that the tone doesn't match won't work, because the rest of the article has been flagged for non-compliance with WP standards to begin with.) Samer (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you want the alter the boldface or italics doesn't bother me that much. What bothers me is that you think you have the authority to decide what stays on the article and what goes. I don't go around altering other articles to fit my personal taste. What makes you any different? How would you feel if some Colts fan did a huge number of your precious Patriots article? I’m sure they have a lot of scandals they can write about, especially with the head coach. Now that wouldn’t be nice now, would it? Also don’t take this the wrong way, but I found a lot of run-on, spelling and grammar errors in your edits. And another thing, WHAT STYLE??? I understand copyright laws and all. In terms of style, there is no clear cut definition of style regardless of what any editor or administrator say. I'll be franked; these so-called styles and standards are a big fat joke. And the encyclopedic part, if I wanted encyclopedic...I would just go to the Encyclopedia Britannica website instead of this. Or I can just go to the library and read the encyclopedia there. If wikipedia wants to more encyclopedic, more than half of the articles on here would be gone, and editors like you and me would not be able to contribute. This fact is... this is wikipedia, and readers here want to know more about the extra trivial information of a certain subject than the encyclopedia would ever offer. Those who say they don’t pretty much have bigger issues than they give out. I'm not saying that I'm the type who throws all convention out the window and put whatever I want to put on here. You're attacking the wrong editor. You're basing your judgment that this article was flagged from an obnoxious editor who basically went around to every single TV article and flagged them all. You seem like an intelligent person to know which editor I'm talking about. It's that editor you should be attacking, and she has her share of fights with other editors after she flagged articles they were passionate about. This is the same editor who pretty much spends 20 of her 24 hours on wikipedia watching over it like a hawk. The articles she flagged, chances are she doesn't know anything about it. A little tidbit for you, I tried to do what you did and fix up the DOND article a few weeks ago. The article that you see right now, it wasn't like that two weeks earlier. Truth be told, this editor reverted all the edits, grammar checks, spelling, and valuable information back to the unorganized clutter than you see right now. So if I were you, I would just let these edits be, because chances are you will be extremely disappointed when somebody undoes all you have worked on. Until the day when this editor is block from putting up red flags left and right and reverting everything back to trash would the wikipedia world be a better place. S3884h (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I must confessed at times even I questioned myself over the redudancy of the Howie and Model links. S3884h (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: A proposal

If you want to go ahead and standardize the schedules back to 2003, which is how far I've gotten with them, feel free to as soon as you want. Just make sure to keep it Giants Stadium, because, well, Giants Stadium is Giants Stadium. It's the same place as the Giants' Giant Stadium, so I don't think we should create the illusion that it's not (I know the NFL tries to do so, but having both Giants Stadium and The Meadowlands in a schedule where, say, the Pats play both the Giants and Jets in the same season, can be rather confusing to a novice reader). There's really no need to disguise one - they're both at the same stadium, it's the same article for both. "The Meadowlands" is never a stadium and never has been -- Giants Stadium doesn't change it's name for the 3 hours the Jets are playing there. The NFL simply chooses the use the broader name of the complex and the region. As far as the draft footnotes and such, we can get into that later. Pats1 T/C 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spygate

That is presumed, but the NFL's statement suggests otherwise. Pats1 T/C 11:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, we all know the penalty was for everything back to 2000. Still, Goodell didn't even say that the conduct dated back to 2000 until February after the meeting with Specter. Before that, the most he said was that a few of the tapes they destroyed were from "late in 2006." We know the truth (everyone does), but it's still original research. Pats1 T/C 14:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Program links

When you get a chance, could you also do that for the drafts on the Pats season articles back to 1996? You're well-versed in which of those articles exist and each team's nicknames; I'm not. Pats1 T/C 15:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you also de-link multiple wikilinks in the draft positions/colleges while you're at it? Thanks. Pats1 T/C 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft refs

Can you do one for a more complex trade (i.e. that whole Bills/Ravens Bledsoe/Wilson/etc. trade from 03-04?) Pats1 T/C 21:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the parentheses system was a bit crazy, and this method seems to preserve the necessary details too. So definitely go ahead and get started -- the good thing is this style consolidates things, as there used to be a separately-worded ref for each pick acquired in the trade. Pats1 T/C 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)