User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 30

NowCommons: File:Acie Law.jpg

File:Acie Law.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Acie Law.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Acie Law.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

UFL rosters

Chris, don't wanna be a pain in the ass, but the info re. Archuleta & Shipp on UFLAccess.com was based on a radio interview which Rick Mueller gave. Quote: ""Adam Archuletta, Marcel Shipp ... they are all gonna be playing for the Locos". Later on he mentioned that Michael Pittman and Koren Robinson will be playing for Orlando. Like I said before on the Tuskers roster template talk Haslett mentioned that Pittman, Robinson and Thurman will play for FL on a press conference. Don't see the difference here. Armchair QB (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The article reported Mueller confirmed the Archuleta and Shipp deals were official.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The UFLA article said "According to an interview with Rick Mueller, United Football League Vice President and General Manager, Adam Archuleta and Marcel Shipp are now officially Locs. The comments came on the Rock and Manuch Show last Wednesday." I quoted above what Mueller exactly said on that interview [Link]. So just because UFLA picked up that interview on it's website makes the signings "official"? And when the Orlando Sentinel reports what Haslett said on a pc, it's not "official"? Armchair QB (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, the UFL-Access article indicated that Mueller said they were official, which is why I didn't feel the need to find the audio of the interview to confirm that. Most other reports of players signings haven't been official or announced, they just say "Player X to play for UFL team."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So what's the quintessence now? Archuleta & Shipp will stay on the LV roster and if I add Michael Pittman to the FL roster he will be removed again (even it's coming from the same source - the Mueller interview)? Armchair QB (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what was said. If Mueller didn't indicate that Archuleta and Shipp were official, then they should be removed. If he indicated Pittman WAS official too, he should be added. But we're trying to keep things only to official reports so we have less work and cleanup when the league gets going and the teams have their own sites with full rosters.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mueller didn't explicit say that they had "officially signed", he solely said that they will be playing for the respective team. To avoid such discussions, wouldn't it be the best idea to solely stick to official press releases from the league and ignore all other media sources? Armchair QB (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's typically what we do. I just went ahead with Archuleta/Shipp because I read the UFL Access report that said Mueller stated it was official, but if that's not exactly true, then yes, they should be removed. I wouldn't bother editing their pages for now though, people will just change them back and we'll have to revert them to their current state eventually.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actual Articles

Can you stop creating one line stubs with {{expand}} tags at the top, it's not going so fast that you can't put the infobox etc. there.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't see the problem.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to create the one line stubs when you can just add all the info needed (i.e. infobox, bio links, categories).--Giants27 (c|s) 17:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That kind of logic makes no sense. We edit as much as we feel like.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And I don't know why it bothers you, it doesn't affect you. I'd come back to them in a while, I'm just doing other things first.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

See below why it bothers me, because people see the one line stub not specifying why he's notable. Then they tag it for CSD, PROD, AfD (where it'll be deleted guaranteed) etc.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jackie Bates

The article Jackie Bates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

If he hasn't played in the big time, he does not pass notability tests.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note per your edit summary when removing it, it was a prod and not a speedy tag. ;)--Giants27 (c|s) 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And I wonder how this person, or any of the players on these practice squads for which you're created articles, pass WP:BIO. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, whatever. He passes WP:BIO so it's a waste of time.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a very dismissive answer, especially considering that the many stubs you created give no suggestion that these people pass WP:BIO--have they competed at the fully professional level of a sport? Perhaps you think it is indeed a waste of time to include references that prove these people are notable, in which case there is little left to say but "whatever", I guess. Thank you for your valuable contributions. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An athlete doesn't have to pass WP:ATHLETE to be WP:BIO and be notable, as we've so often seen in AFDs. And I plan on expanding them at some point or letting someone else do it if they get to it first.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jackie Bates

I have nominated Jackie Bates, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Bates. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ^Bongo_matic 03:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Practice squad players

Hi Chrisjnelson

I have nominated one of the numerous articles you have created about practice squad players. Note that such individuals (per my deletion nomination) are not automatically notable per WP:ATH.

I suggest you consider either speedy nominating the articles yourself or referencing them appropriately.

^Bongo_matic 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

You wrote:

WP:ATHLETE . . . hould be amended to include NFL practice squad players. As the NFL is the highest level of pro football, it stands to reason that any practice squad player in the NFL is talented enough to play in the CFL, af2, UFL, etc. Practice squad players often end up playing in the NFL in some form or for another league. While many are undrafted players, the practice squad guys are the elite players of that bunch. We're not talking about guys that are signed in April, cut in June and never heard from again. A guy who spends the year on a practice squad, and especially one that spends multiple years on them, should be notable for that alone.

That may be true. But a more productive way to go about testing your views against community consensus might be to start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Notability rather than create more than 40 stubs about subjects that per current guideline are not inherently notable. ^Bongo_matic 05:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't create them based on WP:ATHLETE. I created them because they are notable anyway.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If they were notable, why did you not bother to provide any suggestion of notability whatsoever? As currently written they (at least the most recent 10 you created) don't even assert notability unless being a member of the practice squad is thought to give rise to inherent notability. ^Bongo_matic 07:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't gotten around to it, was doing other things. Knew they passed WP:BIO.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 11:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What one editor "knows" isn't sufficient for the articles to withstand speedy. No notability is asserted. As written, these squarely fit under A7. ^Bongo_matic 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What's currently in an article doesn't change whether or not a subject is notable. If no one cares to edit Obama's page, he'd still be a notable subject. Notability is inherent in the subject, not whether or not the page explains why at a given moment.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's right. But to withstand speedy nomination, and article must assert notability. Review WP:CSD. ^Bongo_matic 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

An article will likely be deleted if notability isn't asserted within the article. If a player passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO, but the article doesn't establish the reasons, then it will be speedied or AFDed. To prevent this, all that is necessary is to assert notability, or else users that might not be entirely knowledgeable about sports or football players will come across a newly-created page, see only what is in the article, and see nothing that would indicate the person is notable enough for his/her own article. Whether you know an article for a player passes WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant to somebody who might now know and only has what's provided to them. Ksy92003 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Crap, does this mean that all of my created player pages are going to get deleted? Even the one that got a DYK? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I doubt it considering you put effort into making those longer than a stub. ;)--Giants27 (c|s) 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Phew! Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Should the "Deathdate=" parameter be used on Marquis Cooper and Corey Smith articles? I'm pretty sure they've been declared legally dead by now. If not, should the deathdate parameter be used for people presumed dead? RF23 (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source that they've legally been declared dead, then yes. I haven't kept up with the situation.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris is right. Presumed dead and legally dead are two different things. Are they dead? Of course they are, but they there are no death certificates and therefore they are not officially dead. Legally, this may take months or years. This is the same thing that happened with Steve Fossett. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, i see. I did a google search, but found nothing about them being declared dead, yet. Here's the question: will it be a big deal when it happens, aka, will we know about it, or will this be one of those things that quietly happens and we have to search for it. RF23 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Steve Fosset, how about doing the Smith and cooper articles like his is (his is listed as April 22, 1944 – c. September 3, 2007))RF23 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible it won't really be reported when it happens, which will make things difficult. One piece of evidence I do have that Cooper has not been declared dead is that he is still listed in the NFLPA database on the Raiders. The NFLPA database is updated every few days, adding/deleting guys who were signed or cut or retired or whatever. They would remove him from this database if he had been declared legally dead. There's no Marquise Hill, Korey Stringer, or Thomas Herrion in the database, for example, because they are legally dead and their contracts become void. Obviously, this has not happened with Cooper yet, even though we all know he's dead.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Edward Gant

A tag has been placed on Edward Gant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ArcAngel (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Clifford Ray

I have been charged to managed the publicity of Clifford Ray. Please take this photo down and/or replace it with this one: http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs160.snc1/5971_118247972504_86780917504_2110350_4909810_n.jpg

Autry P. Brantley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.80.91 (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I just fumbled with the mouse and misclicked rolling back your edit at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) ‎ (and undid it immediately). Thought I'd let you know.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

DL

I know one might take priorty over the other but I don't want to put DE/NT when you can put DL when they're playing both. If they're playing both why can you put DL like Seymour or Canty since those are the only to positions at DL (end or tackle). Ositadinma (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Because what if they primarily play one and can also play the other a bit? Then it shouldn't be DL, it should list one before the other so it's made clear they are primarily one of the two.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris Houston

What do you call the big gap in between the College career header and the writing. It looks stupid. I can understand if it was a closer picture of him, but its not, you cant even see the name on the back of the jersey. The picture serves no purpose at all.--Yankees10 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"It looks stupid" isn't a good enough reason. It really doesn't cause any problems and it would be remedied if the article were of proper length, which it will be hopefully one day. Plus, the image itself is quite large and is certainly worth having on wiki.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How it does it not cause problems. It leaves a huge gap between College career header and the writing.--Yankees10 15:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not in my browser.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I had the large gap too, until I made it so the image appears on the left.--Giants27(c|s) 19:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They look better on the right when the articles are long enough, because the paragraphs begin at the same place horizontally.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It can be moved back whenever it's expanded but for now leaving it on the left makes most sense.--Giants27(c|s) 19:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifetime

Can you just stop? The bots are going to change em' back everyday there's no point in changing it back. Just leave it with DEFAULTSORT, since it does the same thing as Lifetime.--Giants27(c|s) 00:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. The discussion on Template:Lifetime indicates there isn't a consensus against it, therefore the bots likely won't be doing that all the time. In the mean time, I'll undo them because I prefer the template. You have no right to undo my edits because they are completely within the bounds of the encyclopedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No they're not there's barely any pages using Lifetime anymore. Start a discussion to the template talk for it to be implemented fighting over it on five pages, is just plain stupid.--Giants27(c|s) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Was nominated for deletion last year and voted to keep, and from the research I've done I've seen absolutely no consensus against it. Therefore, you have no right to make your edits undoing mine. I'm not going to back down, bud.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

See here, where editors determined that a user what needlessly using Lifetime. Plus, do you really think the bots would continue removing Lifetime, if there was a problem with?--Giants27(c|s) 00:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Read it. Doesn't change the fact the template is still active and is not under review for deletion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact it's being removed and is not at deletion since some users still insist on using it.--Giants27(c|s) 00:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

When it's nominated for deletion again and deleted, I'll stop using it. Until then, I'll add it, and undo you as well. The end.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you guys are fighting over this. Most people who are on WP don't know the difference anyway. It is a stupid argument since they both do the same thing. I heard that Lifetime hides some of the categories and it won't be sorted thr right way and DEFAULTSORT does'nt. There is a reason why bots are undoing it and keep undoing it. I at first thought that Lifetime was better even when bots undid the template, and I corrected it and found out later that the bots changed them back. You are not going to win with is and I don't see why you have such a problem over this since the people running the bots see an error eith the Lifetime template. Just my thoughts sice you two have been at each others necks with is. Ositadinma 19:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jake Long

I am going to assume that now that I have begun to fill in the text at Jake Long, you no longer think the pictures are in the way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. I just didn't think they should be all crunched together in one box, especially horizontally.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Edits

It appears you do massive re-orgs of pages and make your own decisions as to what stays and what goes. Then you don't even leave a comment to indicate why some content was rewritten or removed with your flavored opinion. What you are doing is simply wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.114.120 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Way to be specific.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this applies to almost every edit you make, you are a Wikipedia bully and you should be prevented from further edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.154.202 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Give an example.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Thigpen

I trust you and fellow Wiki Dolphin fans to keep the Tyler Thigpen article I expanded and got to good article status. You guys got the best QB that the Chiefs had on their roster! Here's to our two team's 0-3 starts! Haha conman33 (. . .talk) 23:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm pretty happy with the trade. I'd definitely give up a mid-round pick (which I expect it was) for a decent young prospect like Thigpen.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)