User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 6

Fair use rationale for Image:Miami Dolphins Home Jersey.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Miami Dolphins Home Jersey.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe ε 01:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Miami Dolphins Home Alternate Jersey.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Miami Dolphins Home Alternate Jersey.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe ε 01:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Miami Dolphins Road Jersey.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Miami Dolphins Road Jersey.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe ε 01:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Miami Dolphins Aqua Alternate Jersey.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Miami Dolphins Aqua Alternate Jersey.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe ε 01:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Miami Dolphins Orange Alternate Jersey.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Miami Dolphins Orange Alternate Jersey.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe ε 01:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFLE International practice player[edit]

Sorry, dude. The info I read sounded like that international players can be sign only after being activated to the 53-man roster. Doesn't this hinders the player if he is very good player and is able to earn a roster spot? Raul17 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking if an international player was good enough to play in the NFL, wouldn't the rule of not being to play for the league hurt the player? Raul17 18:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that NFLE is history.... Raul17 19:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page[edit]

You were the first person on my page! Somehow I see you taking over Wiki. LOL! Raul17 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Assistance[edit]

No, I don't have AIM. But I do have e-mail. If you wish, you could just e-mail me your comment if you wish for it to be private. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Yahoo Messenger or anything similar. The closest thing would be to go into Yahoo! Games and talk there. Do you want to do that?

But I'm not gonna really be able to talk long, since I'm going to the Los Angeles Avengers/Utah Blaze AFL Playoff game tonight and I still need to get ready.

But our best best would be to go into like a Yahoo! Pool room and talk there. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I e-mailed you my response. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your info.[edit]

Where is it that you get your information for MLB transactions? I was just wondering because you always seem to beat MLB.com to it. --Rabbethan 02:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also I just realized who you are. Your MLB 2k7 Rosters are great.

Yeah, I DL them every few weeks.

Re: Suspensions[edit]

If we're going to wait to list the suspended players, then shouldn't Pacman also be in the main roster? As far as naming conventions go, I think we need continuity. Reserve/Suspended is the technical name of the list that all suspended players are on. For simplicity, we can just use Suspended. This is the same as Injured Reserve (the technical name is Reserve/Injured) - and then there's Preseason/Physically Unable to Perform vs. Reserve/Physically Unable to Perform - something which we may want to discuss in a few weeks. Preseason/PUP is just for the guys who usually failed the conditioning run or won't be able to practice. The only way a player can get on Reserve/PUP (miss first 6 weeks or so of season) is if he's on the Preseason/PUP for the entire length of camp and the preseason. So that's something we might want to think about too. There'll also be some players who will go on Reserve/Did Not Report and Reserve/Left Camp. I personally think we should change all naming conventions to the "official ones" - Reserve/Injured, Preseason/PUP, Reserve/PUP, Reserve/Suspended etc. Pats1 21:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what about your thoughts on the naming conventions? Pats1 01:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but some teams don't know what they're talking about sometimes (see: DenverBroncos.com - "Reserve/NFL Europe?" WTF?). So I think we should have some sort of common naming system. Pats1 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonds[edit]

As an apparent future journalist, you should be careful about prejudging subjects. You are entitled to think Barry Bonds a dick. However, the reality is far more complicated, and the negative public impression of him comes largely from journalists whose prejudgments have skewed the portrait. Anyone who has actually observed Bonds for more than 20 years knows that he may not always be accessible to the media and he may have followed the unfortunate performance-enhancing drug trends in 1990s baseball, but most baseball players like and respect him, his achievements, and his work ethic.

Incidentally, I would bet you cannot tell me what natural steroids do, let alone illicit steroid compounds. Furthermore, I know for sure you can't tell me what conceivable effect any particular drug had on Bonds' performance. This whole view of Bonds is sheer nonsense. TrueC 00:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One kind word: naive! And now for the blunt truth: You clearly have a meager sense of history, American and baseball. And you don't know much about pharmacology, athleticism, and discipline. Fortunately, you should live long enough to gain a better perspective about this issue along with many other in the country. Think twice about jumping on the bandwagon with racists. Sorry to be so blunt. But you need to think, not just join in. TrueC 02:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's examine your comment:

You're making it so much more complicated than it is. (You are making it far less complicated than it is.) I'm not talking about any time, place or person other than Bonds. (Here is one analysis that needs its full historical and cultural context to have any validity at all. In addition, I find it really arrogant to profess to analyze someone you clearly know very little about. Virtually every observation you have made about him is either wrong or lacking in cultural awareness and sensitivity.) He's about to break maybe the greatest record in sports solely (Solely? How on Earth can you say that? Take HR#738 off the Cardinals' Ryan Franklin [1], a documented user of anabolic steroids. How can you say the power behind that home run did not come from Franklin? Baseball people know and readily acknowledge that the power of Bonds' home run swing derives from his ultra-keen eyesight, his knowledge of the strike zone gained over a quarter-century and his discipline in honoring it at bat, his extraordinary balance while waiting for and swinging at various pitches in various locations, and by physical strength that was developed by a brilliant workout program and work ethic. Steroids remain speculative in the equation, both in terms of what he may have taken, and what effect they may have had. You know far less about this than I do, by the way. I have studied pharmacology at a professional level and can assure you that there is no one who can demonstrate that drugs added even one home run to Bonds' total!) by cheating. Obviously he's a great player with or without, but the power steroids provided him are what got him at this number. He cheated, knowingly (What makes you so clairvoyant to know what Bonds knows and thinks?), and he doesn't deserve to break Aaron's record (Since when are records a matter of "deserving"? The same narrow-minded mentality has kept Pete Rose from receiving credit for his illustrious career. His pathology with gambling has nothing to do with his performance as a player, and yet his career hit record is wiped of stature for it.) Yeah, we're all big racists for wanting him to come up short of HANK AARON'S record. It's our deep hatred of blacks that wants Aaron's record to be protected from Bonds. THAT makes sense.

You were not there when Hank Aaron approached and then broke the record in a climate of hate mail and physical threats. You did not see Dodger 3rd baseman, Ron Cey, turn his back on Aaron as he rounded the bases. The real shame is that Aaron, who only a few years ago brushed off the steroid nonsense to maintain that Bonds was the greatest power hitter ever, pure and simple, now is succumbing to political pressure and is displaying racism of an even more troubling sort. Furthermore, this is not about Aaron. It is still about Ruth. For now two black men--one finally acceptable 33 years after his accomplishment, and one perhaps forever unacceptable because he refuses to bow!--are ahead of Ruth, rubbing in the reality that was brushed aside in 1974. You need to learn more about what racism is and how deeply ingrained racism is in our national behaviors. Learning more about Bonds and the excessive negativism about the man and his accomplishments is a good way to start! TrueC 04:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are smart, too; otherwise, I would not waste time disagreeing with you in writing. But I am not delusional. I am a trained scientist and a trained humanist, and I know how to weigh evidence and apply it both to the physical world and to the world of human relations. Obviously, I will not be able to convince you of anything I've said. But you haven't offered anything to refute what I've said either...you, and countless other journalists who react to a man who slights them rather than to an athlete who excels beyond all others at his sport. Note that I have never claimed anything about whether or not I think Bonds used performance drugs. That is a matter of some speculation, not evidence and proof. But the resulting performance is something that is even more elusive. We--you and I--are at an impasse. Let's quit before you call me something worse than "delusional" and I call you something nastier than "naive." Someday, when you "get" racism, really "get it," then perhaps you'll credit me for being a teacher who prepared you for your epiphany! Take care! And I apologize if I appear to be patronizing. I am three times your age, however, and very well educated in precisely the things we are talking about. TrueC 05:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Miami Dolphins Aqua Alternate Jersey.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Miami Dolphins Aqua Alternate Jersey.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Miami Dolphins Home Alternate Jersey.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Miami Dolphins Home Alternate Jersey.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Miami Dolphins Home Jersey.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Miami Dolphins Home Jersey.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Miami Dolphins Orange Alternate Jersey.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Miami Dolphins Orange Alternate Jersey.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Miami Dolphins Road Jersey.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Miami Dolphins Road Jersey.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames[edit]

What are you doing? There's an debate in Project Baseball's discussion page about nicknames, and I'm trying out a proposed solution. Why are you undoing my work and reverting so that there's just a spot that says {{nicknames}}?-- Silent Wind of Doom 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...[edit]

I'm sorry, but he's the only admin I know. But you can go to Wikipedia:List of administrators/#, A-F, G-O, and P-Z for a list of administrators who might be able to assist you. Sorry I can't be of any more assistance to you. --Ksy92003(talk) 16:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot about your message there. I was on a semi-breka for a couple days there. Anyway, if he keeps doig that, send it to WP:ANI. I'll keep an eye on that IP though. Wizardman 17:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make an addition to that, since it's an IP, admins can only lock it so long unless we can confirm it's static, which we don't have a way of doing that. Like I ssaid, if i catch him in the act I can block him for a good deal of time, sinc the ip appears to be just that guy. Wizardman 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshawn Lynch[edit]

Where are you getting your stats for Marshawn Lynch from? I was at this years NFL Combine and saw Marshawn get weighed in AND run the 40-yard dash. Even the nfl website shows him listed as 215 pounds and having a 4.46 40-yard dash. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

I'm not a sony fanboy like you claim, but it hasn't been confirmed by EA or sony up to this point that the PS3 is going to run at 30 frames. I'm not doubting that this story is not true (most likely it is true) all I ask is that you mention it somewhere that it hasn't been officialy confirmed yet.

Good luck in your journalism career.

Elevator (album)[edit]

Regarding this, are you saying you know anonymous editor is wrong, or merely that you think them are being wrong is a possibility, and that you choose to assume so. Your edit summary doesn't make this clear. Personally I don't know which is correct, I was just reverting because you only seemed to be reverting the change because of faulty logic regarding track and album lengths. --PEJL 07:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think he rounded them himself, I'm suggesting his media player did it for him. Most tracks are not an even number of seconds long. Unless you consider the length of an album to be the sum of the rounded lengths of the tracks (which would mean the calculated album length could differ from the actual album length by several seconds) the album length and the sum of the rounded track lengths will likely differ in many (most) cases. As for whether the info should be trusted, that's a judgement call, but I tend to not distrust changes that look reasonable and that I can't disprove. Have a nice day. --PEJL 07:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read your message, and don't understand what mistake were you referring to. --PEJL 07:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Because, well first of all, there was a time when Ken Griffey and Ken Griffey, Jr. played at the same time. Secondly, since Wikipedia also has information on Ken Griffey and Ken Griffey Jr., we would have to differentiate them. Although Ken Griffey isn't playing right now, since his son is on the active roster, if you remove the "Jr." from his name, people would look at that template and think "Oh, Ken Griffey, Sr. is playing baseball again? I didn't know he came out of retirement;" the same thing with Tony Gwynn and Tony Gwynn, Jr., Gary Matthews and Gary Matthews, Jr., etc. There are several popular father-son combos in MLB that would cause confusion to anybody who used to follow baseball in the past but doesn't follow it as much now. It could cause serious confusion to leave off the Jr. to anybody who comes here. You don't want them to look at Ken Griffey at {{Cincinnati Reds roster}} and think that it's Ken Griffey, Sr., thinking he came out of retirement to play with the Reds, when in reality it is his son. I think it is quite pivotal to include the Jr. to avoid any sort of confusion. ––Ksy92003(talk) 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can make that argument, as we don't know who checks Wikipedia or looks at any particular page on any given day. There's absolutely no way of knowing for sure if anybody would know. For example, I didn't even know that there was a Gary Matthews, father of Gary Matthews, Jr. If I went to {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim roster}} and saw only Gary Matthews listed in the template, I'd think "Wait, so that's his father playing for the Angels? I didn't know'." Do you see my point? There isn't any way of knowing for sure if somebody who looked at that would know that there was a Ken Griffey Jr. or Gary Mathews Jr. if they watched baseball in the 90's and were only familiar with their fathers. There needs to be some way to disambiguate them. There could be confusion by anybody not familiar with either the current players and confusing them with their fathers.

I don't think it's that important an issue, but we have to take the necessary precautions of anybody else being confused. Simply leaving the Jr. in the template would avoid any confusion. It also doesn't take up that much space and doesn't take up too many bytes of data to include that, so including it would do much more good that harm. ––Ksy92003(talk) 18:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion[edit]

Notability of Eric Campbell (baseball player)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Eric Campbell (baseball player), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. tdmg 19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Injured Reserve[edit]

That's the thing though. What's the nickname for Reserve/Did Not Report? Did Not Report Reserve? You'll never hear that. "Reserve/Injured" is awkward because so many have insisted on using the now-less-awkward "Injured Reserve." We can't rely on team websites either - check out BuffaloBills.com. They currently have Denney listed under Injured Reserve. I bet you'll see other websites list their NFLE injured players as NFLE Injured Reserve or NFLE Injured List or something, and I know for a fact many will neglect to even put them on their websites. ProFW seems to be plugged into the official NFL wire, so I think these may be the official terms. I only replaced "Exempt/NFLE Injured" with "Reserve/NFLE Injured" to clarify that these players are done for the season, a la the Reserve/Injured list. Maybe we can start a new trend. But relying on team sites won't work, and not having a consistent naming system is strange. The NFL system is clear (Reserve/Injured, Reserve/Did Not Report - teams can't make up lists, they have to use one of these lists), but it's the team websites who decide to tweak each name to their liking. Pats1 23:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of a general sports article. I don't think we're going to change the 15-Day or 40-Day Disabled List to "Injured Reserve" or the Inactive List in the NBA to "Injured Reserve." ;) Pats1 23:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but having that one way and the rest another looks weird. Pats1 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Pats1 03:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Poole-inspired questions[edit]

I just noticed your edit, and I don't have a really strong opinion one way or another. I was just editing some articles about Dolphins players and figured it was a good time to throw in the former on Poole since he didn't catch on with the Saints. I have a couple of questions, one general and one specific: 1) You appear to do more sports editing than I do. Is there a consensus that free agents that are not affiliated with a team are still active players? I'm suspecting that's a yes, but I'd like confirmation. 2) Are you aware of any additional developments about Poole's career? I'd actually love to see him back on the field. Thank you for your attention to these questions. Erechtheus 23:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and happy editing. Erechtheus 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn: Lost Millions[edit]

Are you questioning the source for the information on Quinn's contract and the millions lost?

Look. You keep making inconsequential changes to the article, without a real basis for the changes. I've asked you to clarify, and you have not. The article clearly lays out that Quinn has stalled on the contract process because he is trying to get more money than a #22 pick generally receives. Rumors have been out for some time that he will likely officially be holding out from training camp (and each day that passes makes that even more likely). There are plenty of articles out there to back this up. Why are you trying to ignore it?

Let's work this out HERE before you just continue to make inconsequential (and inaccurate) edits to the article.

DiNardo to A's rotation?[edit]

Hi Chris ... Where did you read that DiNardo's going back into the A's rotation. From what I've heard around here, they're not sure yet if it will be DiNardo, Komine or possibly even Lewis (yikes!). Just wondering. --Sanfranman59 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to change it. I'm guessing that it will be DiNardo, but I was just curious about where you read it. I'm always looking for new sources of baseball info. Thanks for the reply. --Sanfranman59 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol ... I hear ya! I can't believe the guy is still on the roster. I think he's gotten shelled virtually every time out this year. They might want to give Komine a shot. He's been a starter at Sacramento and I think he had one half decent start last season. --Sanfranman59 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milledge[edit]

Here's one source: [2]. I originally got it from [3]. I've found them to be quite reliable over the years, but usually look for confirmation elsewhere when they post something. In fact, they sometimes include a link in their notes. In this case, they didn't and I found confirmation at sportsline.com. --Sanfranman59 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Football 08[edit]

I semi-protected the page. I just wanted to make sure you saw this message about the meta spam blacklist. That may prompt him to stop trying. I'm off to look at the other page now.--Chaser - T 19:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help with protection in this matter. I posted on that blacklist page you told me about, can you take a look at my entry and tell me if that is sufficient in going about getting the link blacklisted? Also, please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Thanks again.►Chris Nelson 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add my endorsement of your request, but the site's already been added to the blacklist. Well done.--Chaser - T 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I noticed you moved the convo to my talk page, you can move this afterward if you want too, I just wanted to make sure you saw it. Thanks again for your advice. So how exactly does the blacklist work? What happens if someone tries to put that link on those articles now?►Chris Nelson 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if someone tries to put that link on those articles now? Try reverting to a version with the link (there's an error message, but nothing is logged).--Chaser - T 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Initials[edit]

Yeah, I know. That's just the way it is here. :) Pats1 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

I know that there has only been one anon who has been recently vandalizing your user page. However, I have your page on my watchlist and I always see that somebody is trying to vandalize it, most likely they have all been the one user who "claims" to know you. First of all, have you even the slighest clue who that might be? And second, I was wondering if you'd be interesting in semi-protecting your user page. Since I've been experiencing vandalism on my page, from a span of time stretching from June 28 – July 7, I asked to have my user page semi-protected via Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and since then have not been vandalized nor have had anything bad said about me since then (except for one troll who was giving me a hard time for no reason, but didn't vandalize any page of mine), more than a week ago. I suggest this because I know how tedious it is to always have a user give you a hard time for no reason... wait, that's what trolls are. I'm not sure if this would be absolutely necessary in your case, but I just wanted you to know that Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is always an option for you, and one I'd really consider if vandalism persists. Ksy92003(talk) 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would find it amusing, as well. I just wanted you to know that you can ask for your user page to be protected if you are getting consistent vandalism. It has stopped any vandalism towards me when mine was protected (I just now asked for it to be unprotected) and could do the same to you. Ksy92003(talk) 05:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFLretired Infobox[edit]

Thanks for getting involved. Since I'm rather new to the project, I think you might be able to find people who would have some interest in this topic better than i can. Also, I've made some suggestions on the colors, please check it out. Jmfangio ► Talk 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stats proposal[edit]

What stats proposal? Pats1 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, I got it. I think you meant on the player infobox page. Pats1 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Travis Daniels[edit]

Looks great. It's a ton of work, though. Probably could use some sources, too. But it's damn thorough. Pats1 11:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did the same thing with Scott Pioli. Should be fine. Pats1 15:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

Fine. I was just going by what I saw mostly (which was blue and red)

As for the links, do not revert those. Those are so subtle yet they make the box better. Do not remove again. There, you get one thing, I get one thing (sorry, but links DO NOT REQUIRE CONSENSUS IF THEIR THAT SUBTLE) Soxrock 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it allowed for MLB articles? They're fine in the articles. Easier to get to certain years. You're a good journalist, but I think you care too much about the subtlest of things. IT'S A FREAKING LINK. WOW! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD! JESUS CHRIST Soxrock 22:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm just saying that you have the Texans over me, I have the links over you. We're even, it's no big deal. Thanks for cooperation, I'll keep the Texans white. Soxrock 22:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to name this section, so this is it...[edit]

I just wanted to say something. Ever since last month, when I first met you because of the arguments between you and Yankees10, I'd like to congratulate you on not making any other personal attacks since then. I don't know about Yankees10's situation, but I want to say that I always had faith in you and I always knew that you could make a change. And you have. I'm proud of you. Ksy92003(talk) 23:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe I was thinking of looking, but don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really think I should give a barnstar to somebody for not doing something. You get my point? I was considering looking, but that's not something that you should get a barnstar for, with all due respect. Ksy92003(talk) 00:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MLBretired infobox[edit]

Hey, just a heads up...i "installed" the MLBretired infobox and put it on Joe Montana (an article i have been working on) and Barry Sanders. I wanted to make sure that this was not to ignore your comments on color. Rather, I am hoping to attrack more people to the discussion so that people have the ability to voice their opinions. I was thinking those would be heavily watched sites and the "new" infobox would attract attention. I would love to continue working on the box, but if i do all the work without any input, it might not be very representative of what the community as a whole wants. Jmfangio ► Talk 00:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

I'm pretty handy with them. Not awesome, but decent. Do you like my stats link addition to the NFLretired template? We can change the site, i wasn't sure if we should go with pro-football-reference, databasefootball, or some other site. But I chose pfr since the project page doesn't seem to get a lot of action. We can keep this discussion here, or on my page, i don't care which. Just let me know what's easier for you. Jmfangio ► Talk 05:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go. You can now use that discussion page. I would suggest you make some note of this on WP:NFL. Jmfangio ► Talk 05:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stats links[edit]

Yeah, I was planning on doing that for all Pats players once I finish adding the team parameter. Pats1 14:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Ugh, why is it allowed on the MLB pages but not NFL? And BOLD still exists, doesn't it? Soxrock 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a 6-6 tie. It was never yes or no. And you even said go ahead last night. Soxrock 15:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I want to be nice to you as much as I can. But I sometimes get a little sick of your smart-ass remarks. I love the work you've done here, but you just sometimes get others pissed off by your comments. Peace Soxrock 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus christ, I know about that. And I guess I can't revert anymore, but that doesn't stop me from tomorrow, does it? I don't deserve a block either, I haven't done anything bad. YOU APPROVED OF ME DOING THIS LAST NIGHT! YOU GOT ONE THING, I GOT ONE THING! PATRIOTS1 IS TRYING TO RILE THINGS UP HERE. Soxrock 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can do a boatload of things. But these kind of disputes can make me angry. Sorry, but they can Soxrock 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, how funny. You know, your saying I can't get pissed off here. I'm somewhat combustible, but this is a dispute that, based on what's already happened today, was something I DID NOT NEED Soxrock 15:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no (and was that another smart-aleck comment? Hmm..., I could take that a personal attack) Soxrock 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, peace man. Soxrock 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I'm trying to follow this discussion to get everybody's opinions. But I can't seem to find where you replied to Soxrock's comments. Could you kindly direct me there? Thank you. Ksy92003(talk) 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have read the argument. And I will post my opinions at Soxrock's and Citicat's talk pages. So please look there for my response. Ksy92003(talk) 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Hey, I'm still busy working on the other template and a few other things. I've got a local copy of this one and i've been touching it up. In the meantime, I've got that talk page marked so please feel free to mention things and again, we might want to mention this at WP:NFL. Jmfangio| ►Chat 04:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undo Infobox[edit]

First of all I don't apprecite you undoing my edits, secondly I don't understand what could be wrong to use the new template yet everything look fine, and thirdly why would you change back from the new infobox to the old one when they both contain the same information and eventually put the new one back up again anyway? --Phbasketball6 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impending WP:3RR violation at Junior Seau[edit]

The sequence of edits and reversions of the Junior Seau article are placing you at the cusp of violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. Please read the WP:3RR article. Jmfangio| ►Chat 17:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patronizing You?[edit]

I'm neither patronizing you nor willing to have any more discussions with you until you stop attacking people and start reading. You have taken a stance of WP:OWN on all templated pages. That is not good. You have ignored other people's statements (and I'm not talking about mine - although you have done that too). You have either violated WP:NPA or come dangerously close (depending on ones perspective). This is not patronizing you. You have an inability to discuss things with people. Jmfangio| ►Chat 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you've seen on the 3RR page, I've warned both you and Jmfangio about reversion warring. You are both experienced editors, and I'm sure you can find a compromise or seek out other opinions. Bucketsofg 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the dispute[edit]

I am utilizing the dispute resolution process to help hash out the remaining issues between us. Please be aware that WP:OWN is a policy, and not just a guideline. Your continued and widespread edits to the infoboxes are not going to help get this solved any sooner. You might consider waiting and letting the community chime in. Jmfangio| ►Chat 07:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLOW DOWN[edit]

I can fix that if you slow down! Please stop this madness. I have requested a temporary protection of the page so JUST WAIT and I CAN FIX THAT! Jmfangio| ►Chat 08:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can. But a) You should have said that on the talk page the first time I changed it, rather than calling it vandalism and spouting off about WP:OWN; and b) it's actually quite fine the way I edited it anyway. Lots of stuff is linked by us in the infobox, who cares which way it is?►Chris Nelson 08:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Please do not tell me about policy, considering in the very conversation above this reply, you are told by an admin that you did violate 3RR even when you say you didn't. Obviously, you're not one to be telling others about policy .

As for our "dispute", my edits do not violate any policy, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV included, and clearly you thinking they do only furthers the notion that you need to better familiarize this policy. I have sourced all such edits edits with factual evidence from reputable sources.

While I think it's obvious we'll never agree on this (and probably nothing in the future, as a result), and while I do regret asking for your help on the infobox seeing as how it's caused so many unnecessary problems, I am appreciate of your efforts on the infobox for the most part, and I think it's largely very solid.►Chris Nelson 07:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in reply to your last post on User:Phbasketball6's talk page, if you think anyone can force you to have a discussion (or engage in an edit war, which you've accused me of recently) you have some serious self-examining to do. You are responsible for your own actions. You make a conscious decision every time you post on a talk page or edit an article, so take responsibility for your actions. Not to mention I wasn't even talking to YOU with that post on Phbasketball6's talk page but rather Phbasketball6, it seems it is you who attempted to engage me in conversation there.►Chris Nelson 07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to slow down and you are ignoring that. Beyond this, I don't think there is any more direct communication can do. In order to talk to you, I made a post on your talk page. In order to talk with Phbasketball6/Phfootball6/ I posted there. Be well. Jmfangio| ►Chat 07:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the infobox is already in use on some players (whether you agree with it or not), do you think maybe you could edit your template rather than the main one, and we can keep the latter like I had it, at least until you get it fixed? I ask becsause right now it makes things look odd, and I just don't see the point in doing that to articles if we can do it on the practice one.►Chris Nelson 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until you show other editors the respect that they show you, I'm not inclined to do anything on your behalf at this moment. Neither of us should be adding any templates to athletes pages. Do not ask me to do anything for you as I will not. Since you are not able to edit templates without a great deal of help, i would suggest that you simply wait until the matter at hand is resolved. Then, through the course of discussion, new things can be added to the template. In the meantime, I am going to fix the few issues that I intended to fix. Please leave me alone until after the RFC has ended. Jmfangio| ►Chat 15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can live with it.►Chris Nelson 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF YOU CAN LIVE WITH IT THEN STOP MESSING WITH THE TEMPLATE! Jmfangio| ►Chat 16:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well either fix it now or stop undoing the edit. You know as well as I do that an active template should not have code mistakes like that, so either fix it now or work on your user page one until you've got it down. I'll give you 10 minutes, then I'll undo it.►Chris Nelson 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP - CEASE AND DESIST - YOU WILL VIOLATE THE 3RR - STOP EDITING THE TMEPLATE - YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING - AGAIN - DO NOT EDIT THE TEMPLATE! WAIT UNTIL THE RFC IS MOVING FORWARD - LEAVE IT ALONE - I'M TRYING TO FIX EVERYTHING AND YOU KEEP CHANGING IT - DO NOT - IT WILL SIMPLY MAKE THINGS HARDER TO DO -> LEAVE IT ALONE !!!!! YES THIS IS IN ALL CAPS - STOP FIGHTING WITH ME. Jmfangio| ►Chat 16:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I'm doing when it comes to the place of birth thing, so leave that alone. You already called it a compromise, and if you don't like it then take it to the talk page. As for the position, you know as well as I do why it needs to be this way UNTIL you fix it. I'm confident you can, but the fact is you haven't and therefore you don't need to be making changes to the main template. What's the problem with doing it on your user page until you get it solved? That's the only logical course of action.►Chris Nelson 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, date of birth is better than born, it just doesn't sound right. --Phbasketball6 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is too - that's why if you went and looked at the sandbox template, I'm getting this thing right! I put in date of birth before he even started with this crap. I have lost my patience with you chris. You have attacked me personally and i was polite to you. You bullied other users, and I was polite to you. You have asserted WP:OWN and i was still nice to you. I'm no longer going to be polite to you. You have absolutely trounced over others. Stop editing the live template, you don't know what you are doing. Jmfangio| ►Chat 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NFLactive[edit]

Please stop your edit warring on this template. Further reversions will result in a block for violating thethree-revert rule. Pastordavid 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Position links issue[edit]

The pipe trick doesn't resolve having to type in the parenthetical in the infobox field, but it will hide it when displayed in read mode. From your example (Hadnot?) I thought that was the issue. If the issue is having to type in the parenthetical portion in the first place, I don't think there is a solution, save naming all position articles with consistent qualifiers - i.e. (American football) - as someone else suggested. AUTiger » talk 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox - Pro Bowl[edit]

I have put my $0.02 on the NFL Infobox as it concerns the Pro Bowl year dispute. I ask that you please work constructively to try to resolve it. There were some pretty nasty things said previously - let's just leave them aside and try to reach an agreement? Jddphd 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vick[edit]

Mike Vick is nicknamed "Mad Dog" now! C'mon, you're from the ATL brother.

You like vandalism?[edit]

Yeah... this doesn't make sense. But oh well, your decision. Ksy92003(talk) 03:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... I assumed it was vandalism because it didn't look like the type of comment somebody would leave out of seriousness. Ksy92003(talk) 03:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alerting you to a newly opened wiki alert[edit]

I have opened a wiki alert here. Jmfangio| ►Chat 04:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints and such[edit]

Just because you still have issues doesn't mean others can't discuss unrelated changes to the infobox. The Pro Bowl non-issue has nothing to do with positions. If you don't want to discuss it or help fix the problem as a way to "get back at me" fine, but you shouldn't encourage others to avoid anything related to the issue in your mind.►Chris Nelson 04:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have refractored this from my talk page. If you want to discuss this, please express anything you want with regards to behavior here. I will mark this page for watching again so that we can discuss. I'm not encouraging others to do anything. What I'm telling them is that you are using them to circumvent me because you know there are outstanding issues to be discussed. Jmfangio| ►Chat 05:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated on the template's talk page, I'm not circumventing you. You're forcing me to seek outside help because you've stated you refuse to discuss those and I believe any other issues. But there will be no more "resolution" regarding the Pro Bowl issue because I consider it resolved. So if you'd like to help with the thing about position linking or making the debut section only appear if we put info in those parameters (to avoid the ugliness on rookie pages), then by all means let's discuss it. I only sought someone else because you said you wouldn't do it.►Chris Nelson 05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely are circumventing me. But you have a significant number of outstanding issues (including the Pro Bowl one). It is very difficult to hold so many conversations at one time. This is already taxing me. Most of my time the past few days has been spent discussing these matters with you. I opened a wiki alert because of the status of our "relationship". I even went ahead with a solution for the color (with anothers help as you know), even though I don't agree with it. You are welcome to consider the matter of pro bowl's resolved; however, others in the community (myself particularly) do not. You know that the conversation is going on and yet you want to move on to at least 3 other issues (and a handful of others). I'm sorry this is troubling for you, but I have spent most of my time politely discussing this with you and the same cannot be said for you. I understand you think it is "ugly", but you can avoid that very easily by simply setting the field values with appropriate information. To be determined (t.b.d.) is just one suggestion. Could I have mentioned that in the interm, probably, but with all the various issues you've raised, my thoughts are running over one and other. Please feel free to share your thoughts, but do recognize that others disagree with you, and it has nothing to do with who you are. Jmfangio| ►Chat 05:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best we never speak again. So that's that.►Chris Nelson 05:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but then you can't expect your "voice" to be heard or considered with issues I have with the NFL templates. I have no intention of leaving these article spaces and will gladly discuss open issues with you in a reasonable manner. As a note, you said "As for "canvasing ... So basically, that is the exact opposite of canvasing. This appears to be yet another Wikipedia policy you've misunderstood." I did not say anything about WP:CANVAS. What i said was you are canvasing wikipedia. Perhaps another way of putting it is: You are exploring wikipedia to find other users to have them make edits that are potentially controversial. Although, that isn't so far off from WP:CANVAS, I did not mean to confuse you. Jmfangio| ►Chat 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile[edit]

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Dickerson[edit]

Again, some team websites (and I wouldn't be surprised considering Al Davis' motley crew) don't know what they're talking about. However, ProFW does, and that's where I go the Dickerson (among many other unannounced moves) from. Pats1 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine the team websites don't work in unison - they can do whatever they want to their online roster. Most likely their PR department handles that roster, and someone didn't know what to do with Dickerson. Pats1 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox NFLactive[edit]

Hi there! I was trying out your box on the Jerramy Stevens page, but there is one problem I have. When I took the code from the Michael Vick page, I filled in the information regarding Stevens, but when I previewed it, there were Falcon colors, despite the fact that there are no color parameters from what I've seen. The code I've used is:

How do I make the colors the colors of the Bucs (red and pewter?) Thanks and keep up the good work! Soxrock 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a bunch. I was confused with the newer box (I converted a box last night that still had the color parameters) and the colors when I tried Stevens, looking just like the Falcons ones. Again, thank you and I will productively help out in changing out the boxes to the active box. Soxrock 22:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the tips. I'll try to remember to work on these templates everyday until their complete (I work on a lot of things everyday, and have a bunch of projects I work for) so I'll try to help out with the changes. As for the teams order, the last one you pointed out, that is actually my preferred method for all of them. I've been changing MLB articles to look like Az-Zahir Hakim's when it comes to the teams order. Thank you Soxrock 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know and when I see that I fix it. It should be in chronological order, and being half-way up the list ain't chronological. Soxrock 22:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL infobox[edit]

You know, I may not agree with him either, but IMO you could probably have been a bit less personal and just tried to work it out without insults or anything else. Neither of you have bathed yourselves in glory. Jddphd 22:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a new suggestion at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive ... please take a look and give your thoughts. I think {{{currentposition}}} could be changed to use parser functions and {{{currentpositionplain}}} could be added as an alternative for things like Cornerback/Safety or, the example I gave, "whip" linking to linebacker (we call our weakside linebacker a whip). --B 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL active template[edit]

Thanks for the comments! You were asking for an if statement for the debut field. I've put one in there and hopefully it will work! RyguyMN 04:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into it since it does look ugly having a bar there with nothing underneath it. RyguyMN 04:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to hold off with modifying the infobox since an RFM has been filed. Yeah, it's cleanup, but I don't want to interfere with anything right now. RyguyMN 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how this whole thing plays out. Who knows, the entire template may end up being deleted, although very unlikely. RyguyMN 04:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "trail of destruction"[edit]

What exactly are you referring to? Also, whether I've done wrong things or not (though I am anxious to hear your answer) I see no reason to talk to Jmfangio about it, considering my interactions with him have been due to his ignorance and what I would consider mental instability.►Chris Nelson 01:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no secret. I've given you my opinion in previous discussions: I agree with you just as often as I disagree with you, but I find your inability to accept the opinions of others and your belligerence toward the process of consensus-building frustrating. It's not constructive and I thought Jmfangio (talk · contribs) would be well served in his dispute with you over the the new template to see your activities at the old one. It's nothing personal—I just want to see it worked out so I can use it. —x a n d e r e r 01:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent rosters[edit]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to change the heading. Actually, I did, but I thought it was a typo. I hadn't looked at the other rosters. Next time I'll be more careful. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 02:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's fine. I haven't been around for a while. (I'm sure you didn't notice!) I've spent all my time playing Madden and figured I'd update the 2007 Cleveland Browns season page with the information about the Browns signing their picks, and I got hooked on Wikipedia again. So you'll probably see my name around here more often like it was around draft-time. But I just didn't look at any of the other rosters; next time I'll be sure not to change anything unless it's agreed upon, or unless I feel like being a jerk. Whichever. ;P Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 02:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like a lot of what you've done with the article. I think the only thing I disagree with is listing the roster moves. I'm not so sure it makes the article look all that good, considering much of the rest of the article is in paragraph form. Then again, it's also harder to write them out in paragraphs without being more redundant than a spinning tire, 'round and 'round and 'round. But I considered adding information about off-season stories (like Winslow's surgery, Bentley vowing to return, etc.), but I was against it for a while, because I wasn't sure I should. But I think I'm going to now, after seeing your article. I'll see what I can do! Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Vick[edit]

Yeah, sorry I vandalized his page, I just got mad at him and put down something stupid. I won't mess up the page again. MisterMonkey

NFL team staff templates[edit]

I've got no idea where the discussion for these templates is located, so I'm going to ask you when they were implemented. Like I said before, I haven't been around for a while, so I'm just curious. Also, from looking (actually just glancing) at them, none of them seem to be in alphabetical order. To me, it would make more sense if they were in alphabetical order. I understand that a "coordinator" is technically the one all the other coaches answer to, but to not have them in alphabetical order just seems weird to me. But I figured I'd ask for your input first before I just went ahead and started making changes myself, since I haven't been around. Please respond, and let me know where the discussion was, if any, so I can get some background information. Thank you. :) Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understood how they were laid out, it just didn't make sense to me to not have them in alphabetical order. It's no big deal, I was just curious, and I figured I'd throw my own input in there as well. :) Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 16:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest mediation[edit]

I suggest mediation to resolve this dispute with Jmfangio. He filed the previous request, so would probably be amenable to a request that doesn't include B. This would also allow you two to focus on your interpersonal bad blood and hopefully resolve that. I'm really not interested in getting involved.--Chaser - T 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your attitude, you're likely to do something that gets you blocked.--Chaser - T 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the previous RFC failed. This is a fairly new template that isn't yet on many pages. My inclination is to simply protect it indefinitely if the dispute flares up to unacceptable levels again (I will involve myself that much).--Chaser - T 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Walker[edit]

Well, actually Conman33 added the asterisk (here). However, I did include the Bills in the box when I changed to the current box. As for Cleo Lemon and Girban Hamdan, it looks good. I'd definitely keep doing it. Good distinction, it prevents the typical user from going there and wondering if they were cut or traded during the season with the note regarding the *. Soxrock 00:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do have an idea, although it'll take some research and everything. If you can, try to make it the most specific. You know, if the player was their in the off-season only but not practice squad, then I'd try to make it off-season only. Same for practice squad. I would only have the "Offseason and/or practice squad member only" if they both applied. But, like I said, that will take some research. Your current note is a good starter, it can be modified to look and sound better. Soxrock 00:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I perfectly understand. It was just a little idea I thought of, I wasn't saying you or anybody has to do it. And I did say I like the current caption. Good job with your thinking. Soxrock 00:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm OK with CBS over PFR. I only do what the template asks. As for the optional stats, where is this? I'm not aware of the new ones. I'll have to find that out tomorrow (I'm done with conversions for today unless I have extra time. Soxrock 00:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation suggestion[edit]

User:Jmfangio has agreed to undergo community enforceable mediation with you. This is a voluntary process, so you're welcome to decline this offer if you would like, but it may help to produce a resolution to the current problems the two of you seem to be having. If you would like, I would be willing to act as the mediator, if you would like to participate but do not wish for me to mediate, I can also help you to find someone else. Please let me know what you'd like to do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's my advice to the both of you. So long as anyone is unwilling to undergo mediation, that can't happen. (That's not intended as an attack, mediation is a voluntary process and anyone is free to decline participation in it.) Quite honestly, this has been made quite a mess of, and the both of you share responsibility in raising the temperature of the discussion. I hope that both of you can take a step back from the situation, and perhaps leave the issue alone for a while and instead at least come to some basic terms of civility during discussion. The level of incivility taking place on that page doesn't just affect the two of you. Many good-faith editors would come along, see a discussion like that, and walk right away, taking with them any constructive advice or suggestion they may have otherwise had to offer. As it stands now, this is heading toward blocks or arbitration. It would be a damn shame to see that happen, both of you are good faith editors who simply have a content disagreement, and I hope that you both will work toward lowering the temperature and working out the dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite honestly don't have the first clue which one of you is "right", per se, and it may be that you both of you are to some degree. Or you might be entirely, or he might be. The thing to remember is, he certainly thinks he's as right as you think you are. But civil discussion tends to get a point across far better than heated attacks and revert warring, since it doesn't get people angry and defensive. As a nice side benefit, it also tends not to result in blocks and sanctions. Have either of you considered going to the American football WikiProject to get their opinions on the issue? You're likely to get more people with specific knowledge in the area that way, and maybe they can point you to some definitive source material on the matter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you an opportunity[edit]

Why are you doing this?►Chris Nelson 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, I would like to give you an opportunity to leave the Favre (and other articles) alone. Per WP:3RR#I_have_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F, You can avoid me formally filing a dispute by putting a stop to this edit war. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the conversation here. I'm willing to try and talk through this in a civilized way, I'm tired of this game and I'm sure you are too. Though you can file the 3RR thing if you want, but I don't think I violated it because most of my edits came before you started reverting them and I wasn't aware you were doing so until the end... So now what?►Chris Nelson 03:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to continue this on my talk page as it is distracting to me and this is really a better place. If you would like to discuss this in a civil manner, I'm all ears. But you're going to have to remember that this isn't about what I want. It is about finding a solution to two legitimate perspectives. You are legitimately correct in most of your beliefs on the issue. However, so are people that sit on the other side of the fence. If we can move forward from there, then there is something to discuss. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I just don't feel that way. I feel there is far more logic to the way I've edited things on that issue, and I guarantee you I can find many more sources that do it this way than the other way. This is because, in my years of experience watching the league, that is how these things are spoken of 99% of the time. Often when you see it written the other way, as in using the year the Pro Bowl was played in, it was a mistake or it is a different kind of wording. For example, I'm not saying someone should say "Drew Brees played in the 2006 Pro Bowl" when referring to the one this past February. That is 100% a false statement. But to say "Drew Brees was a 2007 Pro Bowl selection" is equally inaccurate, because he has never been selected to a Pro Bowl by a vote in the 2007 calendar year. I look at the infobox information as the latter kind of sentence. As in, this guy was a Pro Bowl selection these years. Because we're not really talking about the game itself, we're talking about the NFL seasons in which the player earned Pro Bowl selections for his performances (or in some cases, popularity). Do you see my point here?►Chris Nelson 03:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris - This is again where we fall apart. It is factually accurate to say that the 2007 Pro Bowl occurred in the 2007 calender year. There is no way getting around that. To share with you some comments from the template talk page made by others:

"First off there is confussion with the Pro Bowl. For an example when I put down for someone that went to the 2007 Pro Bowl I would name the link as 2006, then many times afterwards people change it to 2007, I then decide for the 2007 Pro Bowl I would call it 2007 but people still change it to 2006. ...." --Phbasketball6 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)"
"1. Jmfangio has already pointed you in the direction of at least one counterexample, Sportsline and NFL.com. 2. Wouldn't listing just the number and omitting the year be just as "accurate"? Morgan Wick 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)"
"Oh crap - I've had a look around and as I see JMF has pointed out on his talk page, the official NFL site has something contrary!...http://www.nfl.com/probowl...I would have sworn that Chris' perspective on this was correct.....Now what?....Jddphd 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)"

These are just a few examples. I understand how strongly you feel. But if you look at Phbasketball's statement, you will see that other people just don't share your perspective. I think we would be doing this all wrong if we started listing the pro bowls by the years they happened - why? because it would be entirely contrary to your valid points. It's a two way street. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me this statement of yours: "It is factually accurate to say that the 2007 Pro Bowl occurred in the 2007 calender year." I don't understand why you said it, because I agree. I said this statement was wrong: "Drew Brees played in the 2006 Pro Bowl" when referring to the one this past February. The Pro Bowl itself should be referred to by its year, I think we agree on that. You wouldn't say "I'm going to the 2006 Pro Bowl" in February 2007. You'd say 2007 Pro Bowl. So I think we agree on that much.

But I think that is the thing some people don't understand. When listing Pro Bowl years in a player's infobox, we are NOT referring to the Pro Bowls themselves. We are referring to the years in which the player had those Pro Bowl performances. And if you agree that is what we are referring to (and I'd think you would) then you know what years need to be put.

I'm not saying it doesn't cause some confusion. It does and I remember seeing people change that in the past. But the confusion of some that are uninformed or have not thought it through is not a good enough reason, at least in my opinion, to avoid putting the years altogether. Rather, I think it is best to add the years because it does add something to the article, and if someone ever undoes it and changes it to the wrong years we can first revert it, then post on their talk page explaining the situation. I have absolutely no problem educating people on the logic behind the Pro Bowl year links, and I'd be happy to monitor the pages and do it.►Chris Nelson 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your second paragraph is exactly why both sides are "correct". People don't understand which is which. The article gives you plenty of space to relay the appropriate information. An infobox does not. Somebody who wants to display the year of the pro bowl is just as correct as you are. That is why there is a problem. The confusion of the uniformed is what we are trying to dispel. Wikipedia articles are here to educate people. While this might lead you to want to argue that is why it *should* be listed in the infobox by the year preceding, it does not make sense. This is especially complicated by the fact that many legitimate news outlets list the game as "2006-2007" for the 2007 game, or simply as 2007 with no mention of 2006. I would argue tooth and nail that the content can go in the article in either format, provided their is sufficent explanation. An infobox is not the place for that. It just causes edit wars. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you want to do now? I don't want to be confrontational, but I am set on this way because I truly believe it is the best way and the best thing for Wikipedia. I guess you are the same. So what do we do. Should we take it to WikiProject National Football League, outlines our arguments are let people decide? I don't know what other solutions we should seek, and it's nothing personal but I am not going to back down on this because of what I believe. So what do you suggest?►Chris Nelson 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris - I'm not siding with one of you over the other, I'm siding with both. Every editor that has come in fresh to the conversation has supported an "independent" format for the material. If you can think of a reasonable alternative to (3x), I'm all ears. It isn't about whose is the best way. You can say the best way is to display by previous season year. Another person can say the best way to display is by year of the game. Neither is more correct than the other. If you want to raise the topic at WP:NFL and point them to the discussion, you are welcome to do so. But just be aware that those people are all highly familiar with the topic and it might not be the most neutral people to consult. In the meantime, I would suggest that we (that is both of us) stop adding the NFLactive template to any players. We leave those as they are right now and we don't as others to make changes. What we do is we let the "template" lock expire and then we can politely discuss each of the issues - one at a time. This will give other's the opportunity to voice their opinions and should not result in long conversations for all proposals.[[2007|2006]] Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you have said you aren't going to back down. So does that mean you aren't going to agree to anything unless someone agrees with your perspective? I'm not sure that is in the best interest of the discussion. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if I'm literally forced to stop making my edits, I will have no choice. But just try to understand that in my view, I am 100% right and therefore see no reason to compromise. I feel like I've discussed it enough and, personal attacks and outbursts aside, I've driven the point home well enough to stand.

You said: "You can say the best way is to display by previous season year. Another person can say the best way to display is by year of the game. Neither is more correct than the other." But this is simply not true. I have proven my edit to be "more correct" than the other. Obviously your suggest is totally satisfactory, but this belief that my edit and an edit with matching years in the link are equal is simply untrue. To say otherwise is arguing against fact, and I don't know what else to say there. But like I said, I'm not going to back down because I believe this is the best way to do the articles.

If you don't want to take it to WP:NFL, what do you want to do. I'm willing to bet if we polled 100 random people something like "If you saw the infobox this way (my edit), how would you interpret those years?" the vast majority would get it right. Obviously the wording of my question there sucks, but you get the point. I just feel like that the confusion level is overblown, and if the confusion level would be very low I don't think there would be a problem.

So here's the thing - if I were able to show that the majority of people (not NFL fans, anyone) would NOT be confused, would you be okay with my kind of edits?

P.S. I commented on your recent protection requests I happened to see. From what I've seen about protections in the past, I really think you're facing an uphill battle if you expect to the get those protected. I'm going to guess that most admins what say what I said, that it's simply not warranted, especially because of the deadline. I hope you don't think I commented because they were your proposals, I would have thrown in my two cents if I had seen them written by anyone. I understand your view, I'm just saying I doubt your requests are upheld based on my experience with seeing protections.►Chris Nelson 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC) ►Chris Nelson 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to get into the trade situation, so let's leave this alone. Neither side is more correct. You are correct to say that the a player's performance during the 2006 season is what dictates the "potential" nomination to the 2007 Pro Bowl. Another person is correct to say that the game took place in 2007. Neither side is more correct. Neither side is more wrong. Neither side is wrong at all for that matter. I said you are welcome to take it to the NFL project page, however, that could provide a very biased opinion. This is why I had tried to open a WP:RFM and WP:RFC. There is a dispute over the content, and many people would probably suggest that you stop asking people to edit things in a particular fashion. I too have a habbit of linking to the specific college football team pages when possible, that being said, it is a case of neither side being more correct. The position additions allowed for multiple positions, not necessarily for one position, so it is hard to say to a user: you have to use this way over another. I have suggested it as well, but you can't tell people that is the way to do things. Both ways are viable options. The NFL project is aware of the discussions going on at the template page. If you want to raise the point again, I won't complain, but the next step is to enter into binding mediation and let and independent party decide. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I think you're missing is that it's not about the truth of the statements in general. I'm not saying the 2007 Pro Bowl didn't take place in 2007 - it did, and it's correct to say it did. What I'm saying is that an infobox of Peyton Manning's saying "Pro Bowl selection" is NOT a statement about when the Pro Bowl took place. Yes, the Pro Bowl took place in 2007, but my edits in these infoboxes are not saying otherwise. My edits are saying these players were selected to Pro Bowls during these NFL seasons. Those are indisputable facts. Manning was selected to a Pro Bowl in 2006. This is a fact. Conversely, it is 100% a lie to say he was selected to a Pro Bowl in 2007. It's just simply not true, because you're talking about the selection, not the game. I don't know how to explain it better than that, and I'm very surprised you still don't seem to get what I'm saying after all this. You seem like an intelligent guy.

But anyway. Let's have it mediated. I'm pretty confident I can outline my argument and get an objective viewer to understand it.►Chris Nelson 04:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, why don't you contact User:Seraphimblade and inform him. That would be a good way to start. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.►Chris Nelson 04:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. In the meantime, can we both agree to leave the NFLactive template status quo? I will even leave the recent changes to LJ's article. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But what do you mean exactly?►Chris Nelson 05:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in, neither of us edit infobox material on articles that "could" or "do" have Infobox NFLactive. What ever is currently in place is left (so we don't fight over Brett Favre) or Trent Green). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.►Chris Nelson 05:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, as soon as we get through this we can get back to addressing all the needs of the templates. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow up, please stop editing template that are in place [4]. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't see the problem in editing something that wasn't controversial. I've been doing things like that, like adding jersey numbers that were missing, because I really don't think it's connected to this issue. I have not added any more templates nor have I edited anything in any Awards sections that is the center of controversy.►Chris Nelson 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, it really wasn't me that changed Culpepper's stat link to CBS. Phbasketball6 added it, and I had to undo some things so I added back his edit so as not to overwrite it. So that was his edit, not mine, I was just making sure I didn't save over it.►Chris Nelson 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Dukes[edit]

I think you can put Dukes on the "Reserve/Left camp list" and I guess everyone is happy. Raul17 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lohse[edit]

It's all good. The nice thing about having several of us consistently working on the roster pages is that we can check each other's work. It's one of the beautiful things about WP. Nice deal your Braves made today (assuming it gets finalized, that is). That division is going to be fun to watch down the stretch. --Sanfranman59 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request notification[edit]

A request for mediation involving you has been initiated at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests. To indicate your willingness to participate, please sign the page in the indicated area under the request involving you. Should you have any further questions about the process, please don't hesitate to ask. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]