User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 9

Wow[edit]

Just to let you know, Louis is creating a new template. Thanks--Phbasketball6 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha jesus...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block[edit]

For WP:CIVIL per the diffs reported at my user talk page. As I cautioned there, this block is quite short, but according to the arbitration finding you may be blocked for a month at a time if five blocks accumulate. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely ridiculous. Ksy92003 deserves the block for this incident. I take no responsibility here because I was the victim. All I did was tell the truth. Ksy92003 was unable to see what as clear - I asked if he was blind. Ksy92003 was being immature - I suggested he be more mature. So I'm sorry for telling the truth. In that regard, I am guilty.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow again[edit]

We all have been arguing with a 12 year-old, Louis is 12! Oh and his new infobox stinks, it is unorganize and it looks like the futbol infoboxes. Thanks --Phbasketball6 13:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He completly destroyed the old infobox, he wants the positions abbrivated and the years for the team that the player played for is like this
1999- San Francisco 49ers
2000
2001- Detroit Lions
2002

Thanks--Phbasketball6 13:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd tell you the IP address 207.157.181.40 used your name and claimed that he was you just using an IP address not to get in trouble for vandalizing, to see what I am talking about go here:User talk:207.157.181.40, Just thought I'd tell you just in case anybody tried to block you again for this--Yankees10 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the edit history of one of the articles he vandalized (Before I Self Destruct‎) and I saw what he wrote, so I was going to leave him a message to not vandalize anymore and I saw your name and that he was claiming he was you--Yankees10 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem--Yankees10 22:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, a similar thing happened to me several months ago. Somebody made an incivil comment to some other users posing as me to try to get me in trouble. Usually, it's just somebody who doesn't like some edits that you've made and trying to get you in trouble. Since you have had issues with him, I believe that it's quite possible that Louis Alberto Guel was the one trying to get you in trouble. Ksy92003(talk) 22:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in a checkuser to see if it was tied to any known accounts. Wouldn't surprise me.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you request a checkuser between the vandalizing anon and Louis Alberto Guel; it wasn't me (I've been at school and haven't even been able to edit until now). Louis Alberto Guel is the only user I can think of that had severe-enough disagreements with you to want to impersonate you in an attempt to get you in trouble. Ksy92003(talk) 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend making any suggestions about the person's identity. While it's clearly someone trying to get me in trouble, their actual identity could be a lot of people. Louis never came to my mind when Yankees10 first told me about it, and looking at his edit history and the IP's I doubt it was him. I know you aren't making accusations, but I wouldn't even make suggestions. If it's not Louis Albert Guel, he could be very offended by the suggestion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still could be JMfangio, don't you think its a possibility? --Phbasketball6 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It entered my mind, but I don't want to make any accusations. It could be anyone.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"originally drafted"?[edit]

Having consistent introductions for NFL players' articles is a good thing, but "originally drafted" is wrong. In the HFL, a player can only be drafted once, so the word 'originally' shouldn't be there. ("Originally signed" is fine for undrafted free agents, since players can be signed more than once, though.) I'm thinking of going through and changing "originally drafted" to "drafted". What do you think? -- ArglebargleIV 20:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to edit on my talk page.) You are correct that a player can be drafted twice -- but it's pretty darned rare, and certainly nowhere near the norm.
In my opinion, the word "originally" is not needed (unless the player went through the draft twice), and the attempt at the parallel construction doesn't work -- "originally signed" would be a better attempt at parallelism, actually. I don't think the "originally" is better writing at all.
Am I going to go on a crusade and change hundreds of articles? Probably not, but I am asking you to consider whether your wording choice is best, especially since your intent seems to be to spread that style of introduction across myriad articles. -- ArglebargleIV 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New_England_Patriots_roster[edit]

Chris, these two edits: [1] and [2] look almost like two reverts on the same page within 13 hours. The Arbitration Committee ruling was "one revert per page per week" at a maximum, to stop edit warring. Now, it doesn't look like an obvious revert, as the edits aren't identical, but they are very similar. Please take more care to remember the ruling in future - other admins might not be so forgiving. If in doubt, don't revert, and discuss with the other user or on the appropriate article / template talk page. Neil ム 12:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

As you know, this got posted about to various forums. It seems like Neil and I were looking into it at the same time, but came to different conclusions. While he was telling you why he was not blocking you I was placing a block and going to the different places this had been requested to say so before explaining here. Obviously, this was no case of massive disruptive edit warring. You had a reasonable position (I neither know nor care whether it was 'correct'), you discussed the issue, and you stopped in short order... and a few days ago at that. Without the ArbCom restriction I'd never have blocked for that. Even with it I was hesitant to do so, but the prior warning convinced me that I should. It seems to me that you are making an effort to follow the recommendations from the ArbCom case and I commend that. Be careful, step away from conflict, don't worry about what the other guy is 'getting away with'... just go edit something else. In the long run it all gets sorted out. Thanks for your efforts. --CBD 12:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. No big deal.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFLStartingQuarterbacks[edit]

Thanks for seeing what I was trying to say. When I created this template a few weeks back, I knew I was going to run into people who wanted to edit it mid-week. If you check the history of the template, I've always just reverted and posted a message on the user's talk page explaining why I reverted. If you could help me out with monitoring the template, it would be a great help. Thanks! Skudrafan1 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Thanks for the help! Skudrafan1 20:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I just simply thought that, since Lemon played last week in place of Green, he'd be the current starter for the 'Fins. Sorry Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll refrain from doing that again. I was unaware of the discussion, sorry Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

Hop on your e-mail Chris! Need to talk with you on a private issue Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you an email. No need to reply here, just check your inbox. You can also just email me anytime, no need to let me know on here, FYI.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DNIV...[edit]

...is a page you might want to read. Vandals should be treated like zombies who will simply laugh harder the more you yell at them. Similar to zombies, they should be whacked and forgotten. Anything else is a waste of time which is exactly what they want. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my bad.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 week block[edit]

Chris, the time gets longer at this phase. That's just the way it works and by posting to my own userpage I can't ignore it. Take a breather, a pizza, and whatever it takes. This isn't personal. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected this for a couple days to control the damage you're doing to yourself. Reeeeeeeeeelax. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was always relaxed. But sometimes the truth is a better policy than other policies.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, yes. But not in that case. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not if I wanted to remain unblocked. But I felt, and still do feel, that it should be said. I'm glad I did.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksy92003 - editor review - note[edit]

He has said through his editor review that, "I'm going to try my absolute hardest to keep myself dedicated to ignoring Chris in any way possible." Hopefully, this can start to end the dispute between you guys. Ok? Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by "ignoring Chris" he means "follow him around and wait for him to slip up so I can report him for something trivial again."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Apparently, "ignoring Chris" means "e-mailing him."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Thought i'd tell you[edit]

I just thought i'd tell you that I added your name to a list of Wikipedians I Respect at my user page, I know you are currently blocked for editing but when you are no longer blocked you can delete your name if you still dont like me or any other reason you want to delete it--Yankees10 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blah[edit]

Blah.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The message I am giving to Ksy92003 applies even more to you (says ArbCom). Do everyone a favor and take his page off your watchlist and stop talking to him and stop talking about him and stop with the clever little edit summaries. The edits you're making fun of had nothing to do with you and did not require a response from you. I need to be careful handling Ksy but ArbCom says I can block you in an instant if you violate their terms. In fact I have to. Break it up. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha fine, I'll take it off. But he totally deserved it. And he's not trying to ignore me. He spent last night making edits he knows I disagree with to the Miami Dolphins player articles. I realize anyone can edit any page he wants, but someone that's trying to stay away from another me does NOT go out of his way to edit the 50+ pages I've edited the most in my time here. (Most of which he's never edited before, no less.) He's doing it specifically to cause problems and fuck with me, and that's not paranoia, it's common sense. His goal is to do the most dickish thing he can without being punished and to bait me into violating something again because that's what he lives for.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Bjewiki's now-removed comments...) I tend to disagree, Bjewiki. Chrisjnelson appears to be correct in the blatant baiting that Ksy perpetrated yesterday. Edits to nothing but Dolphins articles even though he's never edited many of those articles before. The need for these two to separate must be imposed on both sides and so far I've had to push far harder at Ksy than Chrisjnelson. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, i agree that Ksy is baiting chris, and the way you've been handeling it. I was saying that Chris needs to calm down because of the use of "F***" and "d***ish" in the above post would seem to not be very civil. Bjewiki 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just don't believe in "bad words."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm crazy, but Nelson's comment struck me as more accurate than incivil. Purposely editing only the articles that a blocked "adversary" is interested in after being asked nicely to leave that adversary alone is indeed skating on the edge of m:Don't be a dick in my opinion. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling bullshit on his excuse. Even if he's telling the truth about what gave him the idea to edit those player articles, he still knew going it that it would increase our run-ins dozens of times over. So much for the "space" thing.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Hopefully he will do a better job of finding his own toys to play with from now on. I'm sure he doesn't want to hurt his reputation (any worse than he already has). —Wknight94 (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually come to think of it, I'm not sure I buy any part of the excuse. I think it's highly unlikely that he had a random NFL team on his mind and decided to make only make an edit we disagree about on that team's player articles. So I really don't even believe that he was just thinking about the Dolphins randomly. You don't need to reply, just kind of thinking out loud.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call it a weak moment. Lapse in judgment. It's not so easy to give up an addiction - and that's what this situation has become. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pats1's RFA[edit]

FYI, any user can do this. Just thought I'd let you know. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Wondering[edit]

I was just wondering where do you get your info about NFL transactions, because I use KFFL.com and it isnt always the greatest, for example it didnt say that Samkon Gado signed with the Dolphins and I saw that he signed with them today, sometimes I also use ESPN and that doesnt always have them either--Yankees10 22:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links to the sites I use:

User:Pats1 used Pro Football Weekly and they are great for the little transactions no one reports, but I pretty much let him monitor that site.

One thing to note: For some reason, Rotoworld's daily transactions pages often include transactions from the previous year. For example, take a look here. You'll notice there's a listing for Robert Ferguson being placed on IR, and it has his new team and everything. But if you look at the text, you'll see it says "Packers placed wide receiver Robert Ferguson..." So that's actually from last year. You just have to be careful because they team in the title and the logo are the current team, but the news is actually old.

Hope this helps.22:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 22:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My admin nom[edit]

Hey, Chris. I'm back from San Diego for today, visiting victims and donation items to the evacuees. Let me tell you, seeing the smoke driving up the freeway is rather scary.

Anyway, the reason for this comment is because earlier today, about a half hour ago, Swatjester left me a comment and asked if I'd be interested in him nominating me for RfA. Now, since you and I have put our differences aside in the past two days, clearing up the only remaining conflict I've had with any other user, and I'm fresh off of that, do you think I should go ahead with the RfA now while I'm coming off the resolving of the conflict with you?

I haven't made any decision myself yet, but I wanted to see from your perspective if I should go through with it since we came to a compromise recently. Please respond here as soon as you have the opportunity. Thank you, Ksy92003(talk) 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too be honest, I still don't feel you're ready for adminship, but I mean if you think you can get it then my opinion wouldn't change much.

On an unrelated note, I meant to tell you that if you ever see me do something in a player intro that is different from the compromise we reached, go ahead and fix it because it was probably a mistake. A lot of times when I'm writing them now I almost accidentally put something that I used to do that isn't what we agreed on. So just know that I'm not doing it on purpose, it was just out of habit. So if you see anything like that, go ahead and correct it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, I was just looking at your contributions only to see if you were currently active to see if I could expect a response here soon or not. Fortunately, you respond to messages more rapidly than any other user I know. Anyway, I saw that you made a page move, so I looked at that article for no real reason. The player was one of the practice squad players. I don't think this would be a "great" way to note a practice squad player, but I was thinking of something like "...American football practice squad cornerback for the Minnesota Vikings of the National Football League."

Anyway, I'm still kinda undecisive about the RfA. If I go with it now and it is unsuccessful, then I'll have to wait even longer before I can try again. But I am kinda curious to know how it would turn out if I were to try one now. I'll think about this and come to a decision soon. I'm kinda leaning towards going through with it, actually, because I think it'd be good for me to do it as soon as our conflicts were resolved. Ksy92003(talk) 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like the best form of the sentence yet. I'll do that from now on.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although, on one hand it does seem like a really long phrase to me. It creates this: "is a professional American football practice squad cornerback..." That's a whole lot of description. It just seems weird to me. Wording this a bitch to figure out.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said the wording seemed bizarre to me. I think it would be bad to have three links one after the other after the other. "[[American football]] [[practice squad]] [[quarterback]]" could get pretty annoying. While that would remove the "who is a" phrase, I'm not sure that it would be an improvement. I suggest we just keep it the way we had it before making any changes to the format. Ksy92003(talk) 03:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it which way?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "American football quarterback who is a practice squad..." format. I can't think of any true improvement and it's best to leave as is if we don't know if what we're doing improves it or not. Since all the articles you've done that for have had the "who is a" format, also, it would be easiest to leave them all in that format for the time being, at least until we can come to an improvement. Ksy92003(talk) 04:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't mean for that comment to be ambiguous... that happens to me a lot :) Ksy92003(talk) 04:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you made six reverts to edits you made in regards to what we just discussed. But now, the articles don't say that the players are on the practice squads at all. Do you want me to do that for you? Ksy92003(talk) 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw that you made six reverts all at the same time, and the only one I looked at was one where the "who is a practice squad player" part was left out. That was the only one, and I re-added that part. Ksy92003(talk) 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFFL[edit]

perfect, I read your page and it says you write for kffl.com, do you think you can help me expand the article on it--Rockies17 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could sometime. The only sentence on that article now isn't very neutral though.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleBlue is double rude[edit]

:-) Sorry. Thanks for your reply too. I recognised your response as reasonable but I still think it is unnecessarily precise when there is not another football player with the same name. Same question to you, then. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But a dab is not an article it's only a disambiguation. It clarifies only when necessary, like when you search for John Avery and find out there's a politician, a journalist, and an athlete with the same name. You only make the dab more precise when necessary, for instance, if there were two politicians with the same name, you might have (American politician) and (Canadian politician). I can't think of a situation where someone would come upon John Avery (football player) without looking for John Avery. Now we have created a great deal of double redirects without any actual benefit. In fact, calling him Canadian football is inaccurate. While calling him football player may be imprecise, it's accurate and precision is not needed or even really desirable for dab links. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We agree to disagree. Cheers and thanks again for your responses! DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Eagles[edit]

Why did you re-add spaces to the end of this team's roster template? This forces these additional, inappropriate, spaces into the Philadelphia Eagles article. Most football templates have this problem, and they should all be fixed. Gimmetrow 23:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madden Curse[edit]

There is currently an on-going discussion going on in the Madden Curse, pertaining to whether or not Vince Young should be currently mentioned in the article. Since you have contributed to discussions on that page before, please feel free to voice your opinion. Thanks. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 08:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies[edit]

See Terry Bradshaw, Orson Welles, Tom Hanks, Samuel Beckett, and J. R. R. Tolkien. It is done. Also please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. --Pinkkeith 17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "complete biographies" since the ones you gave me as examples are biographies, meaning an article about a person. If you mean there aren't sections that are not related to the person, there are the sections for external links, references and trivia. --Pinkkeith 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You![edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my home page! And, btw, you do deserve thanks for the hard work you put in on the football articles, so thanks for that too! -- ArglebargleIV 18:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adimchinobi Echemandu[edit]

How can I make it so this guy's wikipage shows up with the correct spelling then? Everytime I try to spell it correctly, it gets changed back. Isn't there a way to make it so wikipedia's data is accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.45 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work at ESPN.com (check my ip address), our stats group has been in contact with the Houston Texans, who asked the player himself, and the correct spelling is with an "i", that is why their official web page has it spelled that way, and that is why I tried to change the wikipedia page. Once our stats group gets the update from our data provider (which many other large sites use as well), ESPN.com and others will show the correct spelling (hopefully by tomorrow). Now can it please be changed to the correct spelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.45 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Williams...[edit]

How do you know they were wrong? Players DO change positions alla Devin Hester. --Cra sh U nderride 16:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because:

1. Harry Williams has always been listed as a receiver everywhere else, still has a receiver jersey number, and is listed as a receiver in the gamebooks for the two NFL games he's played this year (Weeks 5 and 6).
2. The people that update transactions for websites like ESPN.com don't know who the players are that they are writing about, so they are prone to make mistakes.

Quite simply, there is on mistake-prone source that he "is" a cornerback. There are thousands of more definitive sources that he's not. Therefore, no change should be made until it's obvious.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]