User talk:Giants27/Archives/2009/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dawkins

I actually think User:Miles Blues is correct the Dawkins signing isnt official yet, according to Adam Sheffter.--Yankees10 01:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is official per this.--Giants27 T/C 01:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Espn is reporting its official so, I guess its official--Yankees10 01:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, it appears the page has been protected from IP editing, finally.--Giants27 T/C 01:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

ESPN was reporting a rumor, and all official news sources at the time of my edit said no official deal was made. Just because you assumed the rumors to be true did not make it true, and it was wrong for you to revert numerous edits. Please take this into consideration in the future. Thanks. --Miles Blues

(*Sarcasm*)Thanks for that you're right ESPN was wrong sorry for questioning your greatness.(*/Sarcasm*). Seriously when Rotoworld, CBS, ESPN and every other news source said it was official with your 2 favorites say it's not that's it, so it wasn't a rumor it was misreported and where do you think they got it from? Dawkins' camp, the others never cover sports so they didn't get told so they guessed and were right.--Giants27 T/C 02:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi...when you create new articles on Canadian football players, could you subcategorize them by city whenever possible instead of filing them directly in "People from Province"? For smaller towns it's okay to use the province category if you're not overly inclined to hunt down what county or division the place is in, but almost all of the larger cities already have their own dedicated "people from city" subcategories. Just in case you didn't know that. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure.--Giants27 T/C 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice

Where did you get all these photos of the dead football players--Yankees10 00:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Google, when they die (I know that sounds harsh) there pics become sort of like logos, they just need the license saying their dead (again I know sounds harsh).--Giants27 T/C 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, it's because a free photo cannot be taken anymore. If a guy is dead, there are no more opportunities to take photos of him and add them to the public domain.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
What I was gonna say except for my reasoning is that Joe Krol played in the 50s and I'm assuming anyone old enough to take pictures of him is not on Wikipedia cause they don't know what a computer is, but same thing.--Giants27 T/C 01:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Orlovsky

Link for his number?►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No link, but I did see it on Sportscenter. I know I'll go revert.--Giants27 T/C 01:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
What could you have seen on Sportcenter? Video of him with Detroit...►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
What I saw was his name, his picture with the Texans logo in the background and next to his name the number 6.--Giants27 T/C 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Canty

and the basis for this is.....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What I said in the reasoning, we go by position if there are two players in football, with the same name.--Giants27 T/C 01:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Who is "we"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We is the people at WP:NFL, at least that's what I learned (CFL goes with "football player"), NFL goes with "American football", or if two play the position "cornerback", "running back" etc...--Giants27 T/C 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly you said. But regardless, would you by any chance have some sort of link to this discussion/consensus at WP:NFL? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't put the league the guy currently plays for in the article name. You just put what you need to in order to distinguish from the other guy of the same name. In this case, that's position. Canty is still a former NFL cornerback so he shouldn't have AFL in his article name.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this your opinion or the conclusion of a consensus of editors?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It's how disambiguation at Wikipedia works. Putting in "Arena Football League" violated policy. A position does not.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Please point out the exact policy wherein it states that disambiguating by league violates policy and disambiguating by position is perfect. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Not my problem.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Chris is that you or your little brother editing on your acccount?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:QUALIFIER and WP:NCSP.--Giants27 T/C 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for responding maturely. I perused the provided links but was unable to discern any policy/guideline indicating that disambiguating by position is preferred to disambiguating by league. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because I don't care to go perusing policies I already know of doesn't make me immature. You can find them on your own too.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No Chris, it's more how you interact with other editors that defines your level of maturity, not what you care about. I'm still hoping you would be kind enough to point out the policy which states that one cannot disambiguate by league when possible. Although I'm sure you're right about WP football naming convention policy, it's another policy which I think you're not that much of an expert. To comply with WP:CIVIL, if you revert another editor you should give a reason, not just say "that's policy, you can find it if you want to". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

What do you think about getting a new picture of Darrell Russell (American football) or Andre Waters.--Yankees10 05:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'll go do that.--Giants27 T/C 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Marquis Cooper

He can't be listed as dead, with or without a date of death until a reliable source refers to him as such and that means until a body is found. Until then he can only be listed as missing presumed dead. Mfield (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, I thought it was when the Coast Guard ended the search, my bad.--Giants27 T/C 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the odds are, as an encyclopedia we have to stick with the facts and what has been reported. It is fine to report that the coast guard has called off the search, but not to state that he is dead or list his date of death. Until a confirmed report these remain BLP articles. Mfield (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah you'd have to have him declared legally dead first. Just because the search is called off doesn't mean he's legally dead. I'm sure it will happen at some point if he's not found, but theoretically he could still be alive out there or have been picked up somewhere.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So even though I just heard that at 6:30 if they're not found they will be presumed dead, that means nothing right?--Giants27 T/C 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't mean nothing, it means he what it says, he is "missing presumed dead". It is OK to put that in the article as that is what the sources say. Until they confirm death he is only missing. Mfield (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The source used does not even say presumed dead, it only says that they are not on the surface of the water. That statement can mean many things, although it usually means that the Coast Guard assumes that they are no longer alive, but wikipedia needs acurate citations.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:DoubleBlue

Hey, I noticed you moved a couple pages from (football player) to (Canadian football) because of DoubleBlue war against the "Canadian football" dab. I really am not the edit warring sort, but I can't stand to see those pages at that awful disambiguation. A couple of requests: could you patrol DoubleBlue's contributions and revert any move changes of that sort, and second, could you read my user essay (found at WP:FBNC) and see if there is anything wrong with it. Thanks in advance. Tavix (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that your read the WP:NCP and the WP:QUALIFIER subsection in particular if you are truly interested and am sure Giants27 is far too wise to blindly revert anyone. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Side note, I'm not an admin so if he moves pages I can't move back and plus see this.--Giants27 T/C 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: This does not mean I agree with Tavix or DoubleBlue, consider me neutral.--Giants27 T/C 00:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at WT:NFL#Naming conventions to see if we can quit naming our articles as if they are about soccer players. I think that at least three editors have spoken out against the way DoubleBlue is naming these articles, yet he persists. Now I have an admin telling me to get a consensus on a talk page. Please come weigh in.--2008Olympianchitchat 00:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Football does not mean soccer. It is the umbrella term for a large number of sports. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Morgan Trent

Can you vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Trent--Yankees10 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I put the article in my sandbox in case it gets deleted.--Giants27 T/C 22:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I did the same, thanks for the support--Yankees10 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:FredLane.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:FredLane.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

typo?

What was this about? DoubleBlue (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I was feeling lazy instead of saying "no that stays here even if he didn't play", I just felt like typing "typo", as in mistake or error.--Giants27 T/C 16:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Please take the time to explain your edits in the edit summary and don't mislead that it's a minor spelling correction. I disagree on having him in the category of Alouettes players. He has never played or even dressed for a game. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That's true but he has been a member of the team.--Giants27 T/C 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of team members who don't get put in the "players" category. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I just feel the players category should be added only to those who at least dress for a game. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, go ahead and remove it, oh and per this edit, that's not my IP but I'm curious how do you know if it has a free license cause I'd be willing to upload a few photos of living people for a change.--Giants27 T/C 16:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I won't revert your reversion. http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ You can occasionally find stuff licensed cc-by-sa at flickr but you have to search for it. Be careful though that it isn't licensed "nc" or non-commercial as that isn't allowed. I have found a few nice pics that way but too few people license their stuff that way unfortunately. Good luck. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks, one more question that leaves the sections "Attribution", "Attribution-NoDerivs" and "Attribution ShareAlike", if I'm correct and all of those are okay to upload, what license shown here do I use?--Giants27 T/C 16:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
"Attribution" in Flickr's creative commons sense just means the "by" section of cc-by. No Derivatives is apparently considered not-free use and not permitted on en-Wikipedia; so Attribution={{cc-by}} and Attribution ShareAlike={{cc-by-sa}} are the aceptable ones. The particular image on flickr should have the creative commons licence tag on it. I sometimes use Flickr upload bot to simplify the process. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:SantonioHolmes.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SantonioHolmes.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


{{Information}} is usually good for satisfying this with a link to the source of the pic. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This one looks suspiciously like a {{Non-free television screenshot}} however. May not be able to use. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Shit!--Giants27 T/C 18:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna go try and find the link for the other two I uploaded.--Giants27 T/C 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that link and the the author are needed to satisfy the "by" attribution part anyway. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Did I get it right now?--Giants27 T/C 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you can make a fair use case for using SantonioHolmes or not. Probably not. The person who took the photo on flickr was mistaken to claim it as their work even if they took with their camera. The photos of Ray and Boreham look great! Good job. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I've recently added photos to Dwaine Carpenter and Shannon James (football player), also about to add/replace photos on Henry Burris, Markus Howell and Damon Duval, man I like the Flickr upload bot.--Giants27 T/C 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it takes away several annoying steps out of your hands. Plus if it's on commons, then other projects can use it too. Those Iceman photos are awesome, eh? I've used some of his before too. So glad he's nice enough to license his photos with creative commons. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I know some great photos and a great bot. :-)--Giants27 T/C 19:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I wrong saying this?

Wikipeida is mostly contributed by cracks and crooks. Its so-called admins are typical idiots. Wiki can never be an alternative to encyclopedia. Don't take any contents from here for scientific reference. 59.92.43.194 (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong for saying that because people on Wikipedia, tend to be friendly and I'm not a crackhead. Plus calling people that is considered a personal attack and against policy.--Giants27 T/C 23:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Free agents

I wasn't sure about whether some of those recent practice roster players removed from the roster were really officially free agents so I just removed them from the roster. I'm not too clear on the rules there. I think some of them are on specific team's negotiation lists but, on the other hand, once released, it's true I believe, that they can be freely picked by other teams. They were still listed as Montreal's property on cfl.ca but that site is notoriously slow (though better this year). DoubleBlue (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they are free agents because the teams site would move them to the inactive list on the roster page, instead of completely removing them.--Giants27 T/C 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that you're correct but thought I'd explain that I wasn't so much being lazy or stupid not putting them as free agents just that I was awaiting the "free agent" tag at cfl.ca. though stupid enough to not completely understand the somewhat complicated free agent rules :-P DoubleBlue (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Not your fault it's pretty hard to get since most of the guys added were on the practice roster and I didn't see it on any transaction wire so I pretty much guessed that the websites were right and up to date, so you're not the only one. ;-)--Giants27 T/C 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Officially cut but http://www.canada.com/sports/football/Alouettes+three+imports/1360814/story.html "In keeping with team policy, the Als failed to publicize the transactions". DoubleBlue (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the point in hiding it?--Giants27 T/C 19:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Division All-Stars

Hi. I'd like to discuss whether it's a good thing or not to add the divisional all-star years to the infobox. My reflex is to say no in that it is either a second place to the CFL All-Star or the person is also the CFL All-Star that year anyway but I'm not completely closed to the idea. I've occasionally added the designation to the career highlights section when there were few or no other great accomplishments but often left it out of the infobox entirely, leaving it simply in the context of the article. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the NFL we have Pro Bowlers and All-Pros but there are also NFL All-Stars and AFC All-Stars which I compare to divisional all-stars since the CFL is so much smaller. I mean would I mind seeing the designation removed? No. Do I think it should stay? Kind of.--Giants27 T/C 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's where some of my NFL ignorance shows. Pro-Bowlers are those who play in the Pro-Bowl? What are All-Pros? Do you mean NFC and AFC All-Stars? Those are not listed in the infobox. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right with the Pro Bowlers, All-Pro, and then NFC and AFC All-Stars, are the guys who make up the Pro Bowl teams, and I assumed that the CFL All-Star game if that exists and the East plays the West, so probably wrong.--Giants27 T/C 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no all-star game in the CFL. I'm trying to read through the NFL articles and they're not too clear to me on this. So, NFL All-Pro are basically equivalent to CFL All-Stars, then? And does that mean the NFL All-Pro is either the chosen NFC All-Star or AFC All-Star like the way the CFL All-Star is selected from the divisional all-stars? And then, the Pro-Bowlers are all the NFC and AFC All-Stars? Are there first team and second team NFC all-stars in the pro bowl? Exactly how many players get to call themselves probowlers? DoubleBlue (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
All-Pros I believe are similar. And NFC All-Stars and AFC All-Stars are all Pro Bowlers but there are also alternates and the amount changes every year because some choose to play in the Pro Bowl and some choose not to.--Giants27 T/C 02:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Undecided still. The fact that we recognise so many players who simply play in the NFL all-star game compels me somewhat that you are correct about recognising the divisional all-stars but I still consider them "runner-ups", if you will, and think they can often be left off players infoboxes who have more outstanding achievements. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Guillory. I actually checked carefully on the number thing because it's rare to have a number immediately upon signing but cfl.ca and ticats site both had him with the TiCats and with his number 42 at the time I wrote it and there were no other TiCats with the number so I figured they gave him his old number automatically since nobody else had it. Apparently, they changed their mind since I see it's now changed to №: 0. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I figured cause when I saw that and since you're not an IP (with IP's I almost assume it's wrong ;)), I checked the TiCats site and CFL.ca and both had 0, but what might of happened is exactly what's going on with the Buffalo Bills their site has both Ryan Fitzpatrick and Geoff Hangartner with their old #s but both are taken. So probably just an error on their part.--Giants27 T/C 22:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, what's the point of linking the date in the roster? A link to March 10 or any particular date of update is pretty damn useless and deprecated for WP:UNLINKDATES.
All the CFL and NFL templates have them linked so I was just making them the same.--Giants27 T/C 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably just a hold-over from the old days of autoformatting when all dates were supposed to be linked. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably, now excuse me while I go update said templates.--Giants27 T/C 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!

download has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

-download | sign! 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Giants27 T/C 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Milk!

Mmm - Milk!
As you wish.  :) -download | sign! 02:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Haha!--Giants27 T/C 02:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Davidwr RFA

See User:I'm_Spartacus!/RFA-Davidwr. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Football players

Just a couple of quick categorization notes for you when you create articles about football players. We're supposed to keep the "People from (Province)" categories as close as possible to being completely empty of individual articles, with most or all articles being filtered into subcategories instead of the main category, so:

  1. Use "(Province) sportspeople" instead of "People from (Province)",
  2. Almost all major cities and some smaller towns have their own dedicated "People from (City or Town)" categories as well. All 13 provinces and territories have a subcategory in the format "People by city in (Province or Territory)" if you need to double-check whether such a category exists and how it's named. If possible, people from towns that don't already have their own subcategories should be categorized by the county or district or region that their hometown is located in, but that's not absolutely essential if it's too much work to figure out where they belong.

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ok.--Giants27 T/C 19:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Halfback (Canadian football) :-) DoubleBlue (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bannister thing?--Giants27 T/C 22:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw you switched between rb and db. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah when I did the offcon in January, it looks like I put him as a RB since I had no idea as to why a halfback would be a defensive back, since in the NFL the term RB and HB mean the same thing, then again there is no SB which is replaced by the TE and by the way on that point why is there a TE listed on CFL.ca's prospect list?--Giants27 T/C 22:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I scratched my head on that as well. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Tell me if I'm wrong here....when I created his page like a week ago, I made him a wide receiver, I'm right there, right?--Giants27 T/C 01:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know. Obviously, in American football, he's a tight end but he's not much of a prospect in Canadian football at that position and I assume he would convert to something else. WR or SB possibly. It might be best just to leave him at TE until he is converted. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:SantonioHolmes.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SantonioHolmes.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware, just go ahead and delete....--Giants27 T/C 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bearcats.gif)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Bearcats.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. fuzzy510 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, its that whole png's are better than gif's.--Giants27 T/C 19:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Did you ever get huggle to work? I meant to ask you a while ago. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no forgot all about that....--Giants27 T/C 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

mlb template mass-revert

Sorry i did a mass revert like that... but that is the reason why there is a main template... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk)

No problem...should have realized that.--Giants27 T/C 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Boston (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WP:RTV

I am indeed a former user. I have merely exercised the right to vanish.  :) Jouer au Fat (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Roy Oswalt

I know the World Baseball Classic is a BS tournament, but Oswalt is playing in it and it should be reflected in his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.136.191 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah sorry you're right, thought you just added info about the game against Japan which on its own is not notable. Sorry for the confusion.--Giants27 T/C 02:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
YEah, my initial edit was probably trivial. I made it more encyclopedic. Of course the WBC still remains a BS tourney! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.136.191 (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Walter Spencer (football player)

Two things: 1) If you are with my change, why did you revert it? 2) the discussion at WP:NCSP is not ongoing anymore as the last arguments ended two weeks ago, with DoubleBlue being the only one with any real opposition. Tavix (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm...yeah it is read this either it hasn't been updated which I highly doubt or you are editing without consensus to do so. The consensus for now is to stop moving pages, until the discussion ends in favor of either side you can't move these pages. And I moved it back even though I agree with it because there is a discussion going on, thus I can't and shouldn't encourage against consensus moves. Now of course consensus will go in your favor but until it's final, don't mve pages from "football player" to "Canadian football".--Giants27 T/C 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I personally think that section hasn't been updated yet, but I'll go along with you and wait longer. It has been two weeks since anything happened, how much longer would we have to wait? Tavix (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, since I'm too lazy to read the whole discussion, I just went off of that and since it pointed to the discussions, I just interpreted that as, not done yet.--Giants27 T/C 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The recent request for discussion has not really been organised and readied yet and has not been posted for wider input as per User:MSGJ's message at WT:NCSP#Framework for discussion. Honestly, a little cooling off period is welcome. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Giants27 T/C 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • All right, I won't worry about it then. Tavix (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New mesgs

Hello, Giants27. You have new messages at Fr33kman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

fr33kman -s- 04:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

42 (answer)

Interestingly, Lofton appears to have been #42 before as well. I wonder if they'll draw straws! DoubleBlue (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What a messed up situation that is, my pick is Mays to win the straw picking, then whoever wins between Lofton and Hewitt gets 43, then the loser gets 44. Haha.--Giants27 T/C 22:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Forgot about that danged roster navbox ;-) and I see that Lofton even wore number 42 at practice last year. Though Mays was wearing 42 when I snapped him last October. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, wow, so I'm assuming Mays was signed after Lofton went to deferred so then it became available? And for some reason they gave him that #. So he'll probably keep it and Hewitt and Lofton get diff. #s. But since it passes WP:VERIFY, I'm okay with keeping them all with 42 for now.--Giants27 T/C 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Arizona Adrenaline players

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so: 

[[Category:American Indoor Football Association players]]
[[Category:Hypothetical second category]]

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, huh didn't know a parent cat. existed for that one. My bad, I usually add parent cats. but I must of felt lazy and didn't look for one.--Giants27 T/C 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That's understandable. I took care of it for you. Gnomishly yours, --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you take care of Category:Hartwick Hawks football players and any similar categories you've recently created? --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure all have cats, but you can check for yourself at User:Giants27/Pages I Created#Categories if you want. PS added cat to the Hartwick Hawks one.--Giants27 T/C 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll trust you for now. I'm working through uncategorized categories in chrono order, so if you missed any, I'm likely to find them eventually. --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stonehill Skyhawks

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stonehill Skyhawks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable athletics program at a division II program

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TM 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not 100% sure, why I created that.--Giants27 T/C 22:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to delete it; it's reasonable for someone to seek that information. If it is not notable enough that there are sufficient reliable sources to write an article for it, why not merge and redirect it to Stonehill College? DoubleBlue (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If you think it's notable, then remove the PROD tag. I tend to agree with you on the fact that it is notable.--Giants27 T/C 02:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea. I don't understand the American athletics divisions but deletion seems completely useless. I see only two reasonable options. Keep it and source it or Redirect it back to the parent article. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Like I said I have no idea why I created it. I mean they're a DII (not the lowest level but not the highest either), but I still think you are dead on, it shouldn't be deleted but merged and redirected into Stonehill College.--Giants27 T/C 02:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, deletion is undoubtedly the wrong answer so I've denied the prod. I don't know enough about the subject so I've tagged it with merge suggestions for those who know the subject better to debate. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
What does you think about this? Same school but just basketball.--Giants27 T/C 02:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If I had come across the article, I would have simply redirected it to the team or college rather than bothering with AfD but now that it's there, I don't see much of an argument to keep it. There are currently no significant, independent sources. I see that you had moved it to be an article more generally about the basketball team but it was reverted back to precisely this season, which is even less likely to have enough sources for an article. I'll throw a suggestion to just redirect it to the college just to remind people that there are quicker, easier, and better methods to resolve these issues for articles that have some, even if only slight, potential. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Haha

Isn't it fun having fans? :P He could've at least spoofed my name correctly, though. Not a very good fan. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 02:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

More laughs from this guy. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 02:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Haha, that rejection was the most epic thing I've seen yet. Actually, despite popular belief, vandals love me! Beware for my life! Inferno, Lord of Penguins 02:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
That one was my favorite. Haha, it really is amazing what vandals come up with! Inferno, Lord of Penguins 02:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pitt-Villanova

Wow did you watch the Pitt-Villanova game, great game.--Yankees10 01:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, oh my god what a finish.--Giants27 T/C 02:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah great finish.--Yankees10 04:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Can you check these out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Nordgren‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Killebrew‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ausberry‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travon Patterson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Carter.--Yankees10 21:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just did, thanks for the heads up.--Giants27 T/C 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah thanks for participating, I dont get these peoples reasoning for keeping these articles, I thought these articles with out of doubt were goners.--Yankees10 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No kidding, but most non-sports editors, go to WP:ATHLETE as a bible and never cross it. While people who actually edit these articles realize they have to use common sense.--Giants27 T/C 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Creating articles for undrafted free agents

The NFL Draft is less than a month away, and with dozens of undrafted free agents signing with teams following that, I thought we should talk about how we'll handle creating articles.

In the past, I've gone a little crazy creating articles for guys as soon as they got added to NFL roster templates. Last year for the Dolphins, I created articles for guys like Kory Robertson, Aaron Lane, John Dunlap and Selwyn Lymon, and none have ever become anything and were never notable enough to create in the first place. That was my mistake.

That is why I propose this:

  • Only guys with very productive college careers should be initially created (like in April or May). Guys like Davone Bess perhaps, who was clearly a high-level UDFA, or maybe someone like Jayson Foster with a bunch of college accolades.
  • We refrain from creating articles for most undrafted rookies signed with NFL teams until at least August. This ensures the guy has at least survived camp and is competing for a spot, therefore more likely to make a roster or get on a practice squad. Essentially, more likely to have an NFL career.
  • Then, once a guy makes an active roster after the preseason or a practice squad, we create immediately. No problems there.

What do you think?►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you dont mind that I enter the conversation Chris. I agree with everyting you said, the only problem is tons of other users are going to create these articles like they did after the 2008 Draft, so what should we do about that.--Yankees10 02:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have no problems with that cause I really don't feel like wasting 20-30 minutes putting together info on a guy, realizing I have no idea when he was born and struggling to find it and then come to find out, I didn't have to do any of that. So yeah definetely only create if they make it to August cause as you said they have a better chance to make something out of their careers. And response to Yankees10, AfD spree, have fun with it, we can have like 10 at a time. :-)--Giants27 T/C 02:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah the only problem is some people will want to keep these articles, and it could turn into a big mess like it is with Robert Killebrew.--Yankees10 02:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
True, but the closing admin should have a head right? And realize that none of these guys (only in special cases they are), but if not, then I guess we just have to live with it. Unless someone takes it to AfD again.--Giants27 T/C 02:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah if they are seriously borderline as pro prospects and didn't have particularly notable college careers then nominate them for deletion.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giants27/Archives/2009/March&oldid=1139316099"