Jump to content

Talk:Brett Favre

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flashback1990 (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 6 November 2007 (Ilegally remove my comments if you want, but don't call me a banned editor cause I'm not and you have no proof that I am, cause I'm not, and your breaking rules). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Moved sections around

I moved some of the sections around because I believe it flows better and makes more sense the way I have put it. If you don't like it then feel free to rev it back, just please have a good reason for it.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 08:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment by banned user)
The problem I had with the article was that all of Brett's records and awards come before his stats. It makes more sense to me that his stats come first to the reader, and then the records that come from those stats come after. The order does not make sense, as every website with his stats always show his career stats first, reference [1]. And saying that something should not be changed because it has been like that for a long time is anti-wikipedia. Wikipedia is based around evolution of an article.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 08:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment by banned user)
First and foremost, to say that the outline of an article is the "right way" extraordinarily subjective and could never be proven, it is your pov. Second of all, if you are citing the GB Packers website as your source, and say that we should follow their order, then the wikipedia page would look completely different. If you look at the page, there is very little in common, we would have to greatly change the layout and content to even get close to the gb page. I really don't care, I just thought the layout i did looked and flowed better for a reader. My main point to you is that changing a Wikipedians edits 5 minutes after they edit a page, without discussing or leaving a post on the talk page will make a lot of wikipedians angry, which goes against wikipedia. Next time just leave a message and discuss the problem, don't just revert back to the original, especially when the wikipedian doing the editing is a good member. Hopefully you learn these things.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 09:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say go ahead and try the reorder you were thinking of. I saw it in the history, and it didn't look unreasonable. If nothing else, you're likely to get rational discussion on the talk page from other editors if there are concerns about it. I believe consensus has reached a firm point that User:800 Home Runs's opinion on your edit is no longer relevant. Skybunny 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, i'm just now finding out about User:800 Home Runs and that he is banned and all his edits, no matter their merit can be reverted. I just thought it looked better but i guess we can have a real discussion now, hopefully.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment by banned user)

How hard is this to understand? It is no longer a matter of what your opinion is. You are BANNED. Which means that you cannot edit Wikipedia and any edits you do make can automatically be reverted. This is Wikipedia policy, and the community has identified you as a vandalizer and thus has banned you from editing. Getting new account names and then editing the pages is also against wikipedia policy, because YOU are banned, not your account. Please understand that. If you wouldve just discussed this first a couple of days ago on the talk page as wikipedia says we should, this wouldve all been diverted. Please understand that I will revert any edits by YOU on any page.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment by banned user)

It would appear the person who has over 20 sockpuppets on a encyclopedia website just so they can edit one article about a football player is, the person who has got banned on many accounts and has angered many many people, that is what is sad and speaks for itself. The fact that your account is completely new and you just happened to step right into a debate and know all the ins and outs of the said debate gives you away. I truly hope you grow-up and learn understand that wikipedia is based around everyone, not only one. Please get a life or learn how to be productive on this website.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did Sara Aulepp actually sign in as yet another sockpuppet in PackersMania, and sign the wrong name? Snowfire51 07:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah :-) I sockpuppeted that account too.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More apparent sockpuppetry about whether or not Favre holds the record for touchdown passes, or is a co-leader and should not be given credit for it. It appears to be being reverted by a new group of fresh editors. Snowfire51 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be semi-protected?

I think this page should be semi-protected. There has been multiple vandalizations and this whole thing with User:Starwars1955 makes this page an excellent candidate for protection. It would stop all the anonymous users from vandalizing and make anyone who wanted to edit it make an account and wait a couple of days. What do you guys think? --Josh Matthews (Talk ♦ Contribs) 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all comments by our community banned user. Since being banned means having no voice on Wikipedia, this seems a more than reasonable thing to do. In this spirit, I might suggest that future edits placed here by them be removed without comment and not responded to in any way. Gonzo_fan2007, did you want to try your article reorder now? If it is undone as it has been in the past, it will be fairly obvious who's doing it anyway. Skybunny 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm it really doesn't matter to me. I just think this page really really needs to be semi-protected for the length of the season. There has been so much vandalism and edits by anonymous users, and with Brett about to break the TD record, the attempts record, and maybe later the yardage record it would make sense to protect this page so that people cannot just come on here and vandalize. I also think a checkuser would help for our favorite editor and maybe a rangeblock if possible. I think if we can do a checkuser, protect the page, and a rangeblock would cut down on the vandalism by an immense amount. I dont know much about requests for the preceding three items, so any help would be great. On the matter with my edits, it doesnt matter to me, if you feel like it you can look back in the history and revert back to my changes, but its no biggie. Thanks for everything. --Josh Matthews(Talk ♦ Contribs) 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Facts

In the first paragraph, it states: "He became the Packers starting quarterback in the third game of the 1992 NFL season."

In fact, he became the starter in the 4th game (VS Pittsburgh). The 3rd game was VS Cincinnati, a game in which he didn't start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and, fixed. Skybunny 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another record

Brett Favre is tied for Most Wins against one team: 22 against the Chicago Bears ( Dan Marino vs. the Indianapolis Colts ) (1981willy 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Get a reference and throw it in. NyyDave 17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full Protection? Preposterous.

The latest in a string of sockpuppets of Starwars1955 has figured out new avenues to screw with us. First, he keeps sending requests to wikipedia to change my password (a claim I can corroborate with evidence), and next, he has figured out that if he asks for page protection and lists a complete bullshit reason, the admins will give it to him because no one can be arsed to actually investigate a claim before thinking it is true.

Can we get an admin who will watch this page closely, and just block sockpuppets as they arise instead of fulfilling every request they have? –King Bee (τ • γ) 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the latest round (I think... Brandi, Brandon, 4Brett... let me know if I missed one). The thing is, even when I'm around more, I'm not on the clock 24/7... no admin is. I'm leaving this protected for now whilst I dig a bit to see if I can shut some more doors on our tenacious friend.--Isotope23 talk 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that no one's going to be around 24/7, but this nonsense of him cajoling naive admins into doing his bidding is getting on my nerves. Maybe that's a problem that goes deeper than just this article, but whatever. Thanks for your help.
P.S. Did you get User:Teri Kosman? –King Bee (τ • γ) 12:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got him. Thanks for pointing it out. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the protection down to semi... let me know if socks become a problem again and I can adjust accordingly.--Isotope23 talk 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got a password change request by SW1955 as well, in the same way I'm sure that King Bee did, and the ultimate result is that it was changed.
I also received a password change request last night from the same IP address. Apparently making six new sockpuppets a day (by his own admission) isn't enough for him, now he wants our accounts, too. If anything can be done, please let me know. Snowfire51 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two dozen sockpuppets, a 3RR admin noticeboard post, password changes, and heaven knows what else over how many yards Dan Marino had in his career. It would be funny if the whole thing weren't so damaging. Can someone else take this and take care of it? Skybunny 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it.--Isotope23 talk 13:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suppose he's Dan Marino? 'Cause that would be funny. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be absolutely hilarious... actually, I think Marino has a home somewhere near San Fran... and the underlying IP range is very, very close to that area.--Isotope23 talk 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, the 3RR violation submitted by now-banned User:Brandon Gibson came back as 'malformed request'. So, knowing the history of the editor, do I 'fix the malformed request', so an actual decision comes back, or let it go? This is about the fourth time this community banned editor has tried to make a claim of a violation of 3RR, which doesn't even apply to reverting banned users. I haven't decided yet whether a 3RR written decision is a useful data point, or even further waste of everyone's time. (I'm also internally debating whether our editor will just come back and attempt to resubmit it every night for the next week, so the question is if one 'good' submission is better than eight 'bad' ones.) Skybunny 20:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Wolf was not the GM of the Jets.

He was an assistant to Dick Steinberg who was the GM as it states in the referenced article. This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southpaw330 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Table for Statistics

I created two new tables for his statistics. I think it is more eye appealing but everyone can check it out and see what they think.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice, but I think it's a little too... decorative. The dark green on black doesn't really work.►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like it if the colors were changed, say to some neutral colors, see Ted Williams for an example. I'll wait until there are more responses but that is a possibility.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think neutral colors might be best, with alternating rows. Maybe light blue and white or something.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, I really don't mind either way, I like the table format better than the other though. I'll wait for more consensus on what to do. Did you look at Ted Williams because that's where I "borrowed" the formatting from. Those colors are neutral, although I am sad because I thought the "Green and Gold" looked cool... :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and if we do go with neutral colors, we have to use really neutral colors, blue doesnt work, cuz thats the color of the Detroit Lions, that just gives off the wrong vibe :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I meant like a really light blue, just to distinguish it from the white. One could argue the Ted Williams' colors would be Oakland's. A very light blue wouldn't make anyone think Lions.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand you, I guess that was just a lame excuse for a joke on my part, haha. Ill give it a little bit and maybe tomorrow work a little bit to see what it looks like and see if anyone else has an opinion on it. If you feel like messing around with the tables, just click here. Feel free to play around with it.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I like the table itself, but I like the idea of the colors being something neutral (the blue and white idea was a good one.) Skybunny 03:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How bout this (when i wrote this post i had only finished the regular season table, but you get the picture). The blue just looked weird, so i decided to go with the always neutral gray. Tell me what you think. I also was contemplating, when I get these tables done, to create a {{Template:Brett Favre Regular Season Stats}} and a {{Template:Brett Favre Playoff Stats}} since the article is huge with the tables. Tell me what you think, remembering that these templates would have to be protected also because of our o so favorite editor :-).
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was Bold and did what I said above. I created both templates and think that they should be semi-protected since they were under the Brett Favre article but are no longer protected. I think it looks good now. :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Looking for a record

I realize this is discussion about the article, but I can not find my answer anywhere on the net.

What is Brett's record for throwing yardage in a single game?

If you could answer me, or forward me, I would appreciate it, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.110.145 (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe his most passing yards for a single game was at Chicago on Dec. 5, 1993 (36-54, 402 yards, 2 touchdowns, 3 interceptions) http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/news/favre/milestones.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

    Confirmed, Favre has the 3rd highest passing yards in a single game by a Packer with 402 at Chicago in 1993

http://www.packers.com/history/record_book/individual_records/passing/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cool, thank you very much. In fact, he has the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 11th most passing yards in a single game. I asked that question on Sunday, because he had about 240 at the half, and I thought he might be on pace for a record. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLinden16 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Sockpuppet Possibility

User: 500 Touchdowns has popped up, with no edits except to Brett Favre and requests to revoke Page protection on Favre. Snowfire51 02:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment by banned editor)

You also have the same sig problem the last sockpuppets did. Looks pretty obvious now. Wizardman 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other two that showed up tonight are obvious socks as well. I'd fully protect the page but it may be a detriment to other editors. Wizardman 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse a full protect on game days each week, extreme I know but this would stop any and all vandalism on the most busy day, which is Sunday. We could just get a trusted admin to update the regular season stats each Sunday and then un-protect it for the week until the end of the season. Then after the season is over the stats should be settled and there would be very little to dispute. I dont know if this is a viable option but it would definitely help. Just my 2 cents.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got one more sock, User:Jurassic Park 1993; tagged and reverted edits.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and one more, User:Sncwfire51. This is very close to trusted User:Snowfire51 so watch out and look closely.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this user is ever going to figure out that the only thing they accomplish, as a community banned editor, by trying to update the page every week is automatically ensure that the statistics won't be updated for days, while a) we are forced to tag, block, and deliberately see that things aren't updated as long as they are around because automatic reversions come into play, and b) wait several days to eventually get around to updating them. My money is on "no", because they are more interested in causing disruption than actually seeing the page updated by editors that are actually allowed to edit the page, while they are not. It's been six regular season games, and almost a year of being blocked. It's sad, but more or less established fact at this point.
I can bet even more predictably that this will garner a response from said editor, despite the fact that they do not have the right to make one on this page. Skybunny 05:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting tactic

Just to let everyone know, there is been a request for full-protection from one of the socks here. Thought everyone should know.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment by banned editor*

*Deleted comment by banned editor*
I have to go, but will someone please just update the stats, if they arent done by tomorrow i will work on them, but I have to get back to hw.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a few statistic claims as OR

I removed a couple statistics from the main page. They were aggregates of statements made on websites (which is okay), but combined with mathematical figuring to figure out "where Brett Favre is now". Example: for stadium passing yards, there is a reference that states that Favre is second in that record category, and that he was just over 25,000 yards at the end of 2006. However, there is no source which says that his current total is 26,662 (which was put in by User:Larkworb). To arrive at a total like this requires a synthesis, and has already been established by consensus here, this is original research.

A significant percentage of this article is becoming statements of statistics. Are we reaching a point where we are treading into what what Wikipedia is not, including "Long and sprawling lists of statistics"? Is it worth considering trimming the records section down to say, a dozen of the most significant ones? Doing so would make the list a lot more compact, and probably more meaningful to a casual reader of Wikipedia. Skybunny 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point on the statistics. I'd be in favor of paring it down to the really important, relevant stats. Anything more is overload. Snowfire51 17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact a source which states: "Need one TD pass at Lambeau Field to extend the league's single-stadium passing record to 200" and "Needs 1,228 passing yards at Lambeau Field to surpass John Elway (27,889 at Mile High Stadium) for the single-stadium record. Farve has 26,662." These statements are contained in the weekly updated bio at the second source I added: http://www.packers.com/team/players/favre_brett/. However, considering the length of the page, it would be a good idea to list the major records and but not every years statistics. Those are widely available on sites like nfl.com and they don't need to be repeated here. Larkworb 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the deletion of some of the repeated stats and statements would be good, but Larkworb, you stated that the stats "are widely available on sites like nfl.com and they don't need to be repeated here." Isnt that what wikipedia is, I mean all the info in all of these pages can be easily read on multiple websites. Thats what wikipedia is. I mean I could go to 4-5 sites and find all the info on Brett Favre, the point of wikipedia is to bring all this info together to form one complete page about a person, so someone doesnt have to hunt around the internet looking for info, they can just come here. Of course I oppose deleting the Career Stats section (since i created it :P) but it is more than that, I agree that repeated stats and statements and less important records or stats can be deleted but many people look for career stats, they are basically the definition of what a football player is. Any site that is supposed to be a biography of a sports player should include his career stats, thats just a basic ideal of a sports player. Just my two-cents, hope it helps.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Painkillers

Shouldn't this article say something about Favre's painkiller addiction in 1996? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.37.3 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does. See the "Beginnings in Green Bay" section, or just search for "vicodin". Skybunny 15:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ties the 2nd longest touchdown overtime pass in NFL history

10/29/2007 Monday Night Football vs. Denver Broncos. make it happen?

source? Zervas 04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is ESPN on tonight's broadcast. They said it. I second it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Tirico, if you wanna get specific.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is stuff being reverted

Hi, this my first wikipedia account, before I just edited with my IP address, but since Brett Favre is protected, I started this new account. Anyway, my edits keep being reverted by a Snowfire51 so I came here to discuss it. I only updated a few things. First, I just moved around the stats a very little bit to have the bigger records like completions, attempts, TDs and INTs closer to eachother. Second, I updated the points scored by a QB to 2,622 to 2,640, he has 427 pass TDs and 13 rush TDs, that's 440 total TDs times 6 points a TD, that's 2,640. Third, I included the number of Lambeau Field TDs, it's 199, if you look at the number 4 link, it states he had 195 TDs at the end of the 2006 season, add the 4 he has at Lambeau this year, that's 199 total. Fourth, I added the yards at Lambeau Field, if you go to the number 67 link, it states that he had 25,765 yards at Lambeau Field at the end of the 2006 season, add the 1,085 yards he has this year at Lambeau and you have 26,850 total yards at Lambeau Field. The other 2 minor things are the First in wins and second in record for most wins regular and postseason combined, well it's just most wins, we arn't going by win percentage or overall record. That would apply to the regular season record as well, because Favre has more losses than Elway in the regular season also, but we are going by wins and then just showing what Favre's overall record is, we arn't going by win percentage or record. Last is the second longest pass in overtime history, that should be a statement in the NFL records section and not in the Favre is closing in on several NFL record section, because it's not something he is closing in on. It's something he has accomplished and should be regarded as a accomplishment, not a record he's closing in on. Anyway my changes are very minor and I've explained them all above, so I don't understand why I'm being reverted by Snowfire51. I don't know if it's because I'm a new account, but I use my IP address to edit other pages, this is the only one I edit that's protected, but I was told to explain my edits in the discussion area and then it would be fine, so I've explained everything above and thank you Gonzo fan2007 for welcoming me to wikipedia, this is my first account and I'm glad to be here and contribute. Packers1992

Other Records

Two more records that Favre is approching that could be added to the Favre also continues to close in on several NFL career records section is Most games 300 or more yards passing. Marino is First with 63 and Favre had his 52nd Monday night against Denver, that puts him second place all time ahead of Dan Fouts at 3rd with 51. The number 4 link states he had 48 at the end of the 2006 season, and he has 4 this year and the number 71 link states the stat with Marino at 63, Fouts at 51 and Warren Moon at 49, Favre now has 52. The other stat that could be added to the same section is most consecutive games played in NFL history, not starts which is already listed on the page, but just consecutive games played. First is Jeff Feagles at 312 and counting and second is Jim Marshall at 282, Third is Morten Andersen at 248, Favre will be 247 when he playes against Kansas City Tomorrow, so he stands at fourth at the time being. Because he played in the 2 games before his first start with Green Bay, that's why he will be at 247 consecutive games played, but 245 consecutive starts after tomorrow's game. This stat is listed at http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/indiv/service . Morten Andersen's 248 consecutive games played streak was broken in 2002, even though he's still a current player, only Jeff Feagles streak and Favre's Streak are current. It should be noted though that Jeff Feagles is a punter and even though he holds the record, it's mostly considered to be Jim Marshall's at 282, because Jeff Feagles isn't a position player and his chances of getting hurt as a punter is slim to none, and the only thing that prevents a punter from playing would be whether teams want him or not. Anyway, as long as a punter continues to be soughtafter for work, he'll never miss any games. So, I wanted to list those 2 stats that could be added to the Favre is closing in on section because I wanted to pass them by you guys here first and I would post them myself but I never done that before and I don't know how to do the cite web and all that. I've been editing at wikipedia for a while, but I don't know how to do stuff like that, I'm still new when it comes to that stuff. Hope this helps. Packers1992

Another New Sockpuppet Possibility

User: Packers1992 has popped up, with no edits except to Brett Favre, and made the exact same edits that a banned user has made. He denies it, but has exactly the same style and difficulty signing his name that the banned user did. Any thoughts? I'll defer to your judgement. Snowfire51 07:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite skeptical of the legitimacy of this new user. I suppose we should WP:AGF for the time being, however, and see what happens. –King Bee (τ • γ) 15:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you this is my first account, I only have 2 total. I also don't know how to sign in, I hadn't even heard of it until yesterday. I'm just trying to contribute and I explained my edits above. I always used my IP to edit and this is my first account. Your saying that by dialog is like someone else, that's impossible, this is my first account. You also sad that there is consensus on the order the stats are in, I checked the discussion page and there is nothing about that, I was just putting the more important stats like comp, att, TDs, Int, etc. together at the top. I guess I can't edit here, or anybody else for that matter. You've taken away the privilage of editing on wikipedia. You've taken away from what wikipedia is all about, contributing to pages with verifiable information. I've never had any trouble on any other pages, this isn't nice and it's a shame that this is happening. This isn't what wikipedia is about. Packers1992

The only 2 accounts I have is the Packers1992 and Packerslove. I don't know what's wrong with my edits and why your treating me like this. I'm not whatever you're calling me. Do you want me to post on the talk page with my IP address, will that prove your mistaken. If not I'm going to report you here, everybody else gets to contribute, why am I being treated this way. Packers1992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packers1992 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd quaterback to have beaten 31 teams

I'm questioning the validity of the statement "he became only the 3rd quarterback in NFL history to have won a game against every single team in the NFL." There is no citation for this claim. It's my understanding that he's the 3rd quarterback to have beaten 31 teams, not the 3rd to have beaten every team in the NFL. This assertion can be misleading for two reasons; one, I'm pretty sure other quarterbacks have beaten all their opponents before the NFL expanded to 32 teams and two, Favre hasn't beaten every team in the NFL as he has never beaten the packers. Any thoughts on whether this should be removed or clarified? Zervas 08:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was made by Joe Buck during the broadcast of the game on November 4, 2007, where the Packers beat the Chiefs. Buck and Troy Aikman mentioned it several times, so that's where all of this is probably coming from. I noticed it's mentioned twice in the article, but only properly referenced once so I added it to both. I guess to be accurate, it should say he's the third quarterback to have beaten all 31 other current NFL teams. With everything else Favre has done and as long as he's played, this individual factoid isn't really the top of his hitlist to me, what do you guys think? Snowfire51 08:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. With the proper source, maybe it could be mentioned somewhere, but it's completely inconsequential in my opinion. –King Bee (τ • γ) 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably notable if it was any other QB other than Favre, Manning, or Brady. I think this article is getting very listy and way too statistical, I wish there was some way to place his records and stats in some sort of a table. It doesn't really look like an article right now. Just my two cents.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following the article and discussion here on the talk page. I think I might have a suggestion to offer... How about spinning off the records into a separate article, a List of Brett Favre records or somesuch, and just include the biggest/greatest/best in the main article? Imzadi1979 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our banned editor's latest edit summary, 'they are Brett Favre stats so they belong on the page' gets me thinking; I'm not convinced that's true at all, and Brett Favre statistics wouldn't be inherently notable by WP:NOTABLE standards, would it (looking at WP:NOT#INFO, statistics)? Wikipedia is not meant to be a regurgitation of statistics, I believe, but here's another suggestion; what if we cut out of the article records that are merely copies of lists of records? In other words, the career touchdowns record is likely to make the cut of 'notable', because you could find discussion of the record itself in a newspaper, but 'consecutive 20 touchdown seasons' is less likely, and at best I've only seen it on pages with large lists of 'career achievements'. Thoughts? Skybunny 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a banned editor and I have several other pages to attend to so I could care less. But they are worthy of notice and they are all factual stats with cits and refs and belong in the Record and Milestones section. I was just trying to help by verifying and contributing. I mean Favre's factual records and milestones can't be on the page because of you guys, that's Brett's loss that his acchievements can't be honored here. I'm moving because I could care less and I'm not getting in to the craziness that goes on on this page. Flashback1990 03:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brett_Favre&oldid=169548176"