This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bjewiki(talk | contribs) at 02:04, 16 September 2009(Removing double post). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:04, 16 September 2009 by Bjewiki(talk | contribs)(Removing double post)
Re this edit[1]: Finks' greatest post-player accomplishments were as an executive, not as coach. The old infobox showed this, the new one doesn't. I am completely non-adept with infobox manipulation; can the new one be adapted appropriately? Thanks very much.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a conflicitng statement. The roster lists him at #66 and his page it lists him at #68, but in the picture you can tell he is wearing #66 and it says underneath Seth McKinney; offensive lineman #66. Ositadinma (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No the roster lists him a 68 also, take a look for yourself. He only wore 66 in camp because players get random numbers until the start of the season when there are more numbers available.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it, it says #68 for him. As does his bio (-the picture, which is out of date anyways), so I'd say he's #68. Are you confusing the 8 for a 6 or something?--Giants27 (c|s) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The roster linked above says 68, not 66 (on my computer). I even searched for 66 on the page and there was nothing. Maybe a cached copy of the page saved on your computer?--kelapstick (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There really shouldn't be this much controversy anyway. It's obvious to anyone that just thinks about it what has happened. McKinney always wears 68. When he signed, 68 was taken by Langston Walker. Now Walker is gone and McKinney has changed to 66. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's happened and which number is the right one now.►Chris NelsonHolla!22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, the first year is always the longest. I'll turn five in about three months, and for me, it just seems that time flies by really fast. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I have a question for you, I realize you did this long ago but I just noticed it now, but why did you remove the reserve list? Again, those players are not active nor inactive, they are on a different list, which is quasi-active, quasi-inactive so they do need to be shown separately. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the reserve list is a list of guys who are active but are sort of inactive since they won't play. It's too hard to keep up with because you hear about them the day after the game so it's almost always inaccurate.--Giants27 (c|s) 11:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Waived vs. Released
To my knowledge, practice squad players are released, not waived. They aren't on the team's roster so they can't be waived from it. Just letting you know so you can write it accordingly when appropriate (ex. A. J. Trapasso).►Chris NelsonHolla!00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I mean since we've never seen a guy cut from a PS and "claimed" to an active roster, they can't be going through waivers. Claiming teams take on the old contracts and those are PS contracts, not active ones. Plus, why would they have to clear waivers anyway if they could sign with any team while on the PS? So I'm 99% sure about it.►Chris NelsonHolla!04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rob Myers, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey, stop nominate some of my articles for deletion and of course Stop bother me. Are you against me or what???? you dont help in anyhting deleting those articles.--Zta ♠talk♠ August 23, 2009 ♠Nastia '♣
Thanks for the note and the barnstar. The Lorenzen thing goes to show how incomplete a google news search can be. I have found the NewsLibary to be a good supplement. If you're interested, the link is here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Hello! Your submission of Rob Myers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
