User talk:Eagles247

Please add your comments at the bottom of this page. If I leave you a message on your talk page and you reply there, please {{ping}} me and I'll respond there. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C)

IPP active roster count

It is objectively false to claim the active roster is 81 for teams that include an IPP player. Surely there can be a better way to explain their status on a team than misleading people? Maybe by including an additional note saying that they do not count towards the active roster on the abbr template? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Was just about to post on your talk. The Washington website roster shows Bada on the active roster, with the other 79 players. When the Eagles were at 83 players (82 active + 1 international exemption), their website said they had 83 players on the roster. The Giants worded it as they reached the roster limit of 80 players, and then later said "The Giants' roster count is currently 81, which includes running back Sandro Platzgummer of Austria, who does not count against the roster as an international pathway exemption." We could get creative with the roster templates and add a separate count for exempt players, but wouldn't that include Commissioner's Exempt List players too?

Somewhat unrelated, I'm not sure if "(IPP)" is the appropriate denotation for international exempt players. IPP stands for "International Player Pathway" as you know, but there are other players from the IPP that are on active rosters without exemptions, like Jordan Mailata and Moritz Boehringer before he was cut today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I assumed that the IPP designation only lasted for that season or if they were involved in another type of transaction before then? "Exempt" players are on a reserve list so I wouldn't group the two, as this international status isn't "except" in the same way. As for the IPP denotation, it could instead say "international/int." while still linking to the IPP article. In any case, I still think it's misleading to state 81 active when its really 80 active + 1 special designation. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the adjustment to the designation, hopefully this is acceptable (and more understandable) now. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: You can't just remove the international players from the count entirely, they still show up on the roster and they still act as active roster players in every other capacity. It's also confusing for readers to look at a list of 85 players and see the counts only add up to 84. I've added to the {{NFLplayer}} description of the exemption, noting that it will carry into the regular season for practice squad players as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Eagles247, for one, who is even actually counting the lists besides the people who maintain them? (IE people like us who understand the roster stuff more than the casual fan) And even then, clearly stating they are not to count against the 80-man active roster due to their special status should be enough to clear any confusion. You can usually convince me after a few debates on things we don't happen to agree on, but unless I'm misunderstanding the entire IPP thing (which is possible), then I just see this as misleading and incorrect. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Would this change work for you? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Eagles247 Honestly no because there should only ever be a single IPP player on the roster (and only select teams/divisions even have access to the program). This is still just overcomplicating it IMO. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: So your solution instead is to pretend the player doesn't exist for the purposes of the counts but leave him on the roster template? Why should this type of player be different from guys on the Commissioner's Exempt List, who we count as "inactive"? Those players' official roster designation is "Exempt/Commissioner's Permission" whereas the IPP players' official roster designation is "Exempt/International". Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: If their official designation is under the exempt tag (where exactly do you see that?, team rosters just list them as active) then they should be moved to the reserve list like we do with the active/PUP-type players. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I saw the designation on the NFL.com transactions page before they switched up their layout (and now I can't figure out how to find it through the Web Archive...), but here I added it to Jakob Johnson's infobox using the exact notation from the transaction listing. Now that I'm thinking about it, "exempt" means "active roster exemption" so maybe Commissioner's Exempt List players should go on the active roster along with the international exempt guys? They may not technically be "reserve" lists. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK sorry, I just now noticed your formatting change in the template and I fully support that. As for the Commissioner's Exempt players, would we have to also note that in the same way? (so for Washington, the template would say 80 + 2 active exempt) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Great! So that's one thing to cross off the list (pinging @Jrooster49: if the change makes sense for him too). So with the Commissioner's Exempt players, we would move them onto the regular active roster, and I'd change the count coding so that Washington's would say "80 (+2 exempt) active, 5 inactive" at the moment. When the regular season arrives, I added a practice squad exempt parameter so we can denote the practice squad/injured and international practice squad exempt players since that was an issue with the count last year too. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: That works for me. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would look better to have "active" before the exempt count. So in Washington's case, it would say 80 active (+2 exempt) instead of 80 (+2 exempt) active. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I'm fine with that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

oops

Thanked you for the wrong sig on User talk:John Pappas. Oh well, you get the idea. Meters (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Marc-Antoine Dequoy

Since Dequoy was waived by the Packers and drafted by the Montreal Alouettes, does that make him a member of the Alouettes? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: Good question. With NFL draft picks, it's safe to assume they are members of the organization before signing their contracts because the values of the contracts are so lucrative and it's rare for NFL draft picks not to sign with their drafted teams. However, CFL draft picks frequently do not sign with their drafted teams, so I think in this case, it will be better to wait for Dequoy to sign his contract with the Alouettes before changing the infobox and lead. As a quick example, Geoff Gray was drafted by the Winnipeg Blue Bombers in the first round of the 2017 CFL Draft, but did not sign a contract with the team until October 2018 because he wanted to explore his NFL opportunities first. CFL contracts are also hard to get out of once signed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Executive vs administrator

In your opinion, what roles and/or titles qualify for the administrator parameter for the infobox? Purely business titles like CEO/COO? I'm asking because I'm not sure which a team president falls best under. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I'd say team president is an executive, but there could be debate there. Administrator is usually reserved for team owners and commissioners, and we really need to specify the usage of that parameter within the documentation at Template:Infobox NFL player. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

But both those roles can be considered executives too. And don't most owners and commissioners use another type of infobox as well? I'd personally just get rid of the parameter. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: This is probably a better question to raise at WT:NFL, as I'm not overly familiar with the rationale when these parameters were originally added. It appears many commissioner pages were changed to Template:Infobox officeholder, which I don't agree with. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, WT:NFL leaves a lot to be desired. You try to garner consensus for something and usually get ignored unless you specifically ping people (I'm guessing they don't watch the page or something?) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Hello, Eagles247 (talk), I just wanted to apologize and say that I am deeply sorry for trying to force through unwanted color code changes for the Denver Broncos, Los Angeles Chargers & Miami Dolphins over at Module:Gridiron color/data. Is there any way you would please take a look at my latest edit request over at Module talk:Gridiron color? Please? Also, is there any way you could put in a good word for me in order for me to re-gain my WP:TPE rights? I really am committed to doing better and to seeking out consensus from other editors like yourself before I try to unilaterally force through changes that go against the established consensus. I'm sorry. Please help me re-gain my WP:TPE rights? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: I have added {{Edit template-protected}} to your request on the talk page so TPEs can find it easier. If you show substantial reform in the next several months when it comes to template edits/requests and seeking consensus, I would be happy to support your receiving TPE privileges again. However, I do not think you should get them back immediately, since it's been too soon since they were revoked. Please stop pinging me every time you post on someone else's talk page about an edit request, and please do not canvass editors to perform your request. The changes you are requesting to make to the modules are far from urgent, and posting the request on three user's talk pages to perform the request is excessive. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK, but how else do I go about building consensus if I can't canvass other editors? Also, why not? Why must I wait several months? If I can demonstrate substantial reform and willingness to seek consensus, and then proficiency in editing the sandboxes within a reasonable time frame, then shouldn't I be allowed to submit another request for WP:TPE over at WP:PERM? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

John Pappas

Hi. I've pinged you about this, but I just want to make sure you don't miss it: John Pappas has made some comments about you on my user talk page that you may wish to respond to. (Sorry to bother you, but I felt you deserved the right to reply even if you choose not to do so.) YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 17:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@YorkshireLad: Thanks, I've read through his comments and I don't believe it's worth my time to try communicating with someone who refuses to read what many users have tried explaining to him. The user seems WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia and I'll start an ANI discussion if his disruption continues. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, 100% understandable; I made one last attempt with my reply but I don't want to waste any more energy after this either. Thanks for such a quick reply! YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 19:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alabama Pitts

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alabama Pitts you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Roster navbox question

Is there any reason why we aren't using NFLPlayer templates within the roster navboxes? Doing so would allow the extra code (such as abbrlink and rookies in italics) to be shown. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I think it would be overkill. {{NFLplayer}} was designed specifically to replace the tedious formatting that used to go into the main roster templates (here for example). Abbrlink probably shouldn't be used on the navboxes per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL anyway, and for the most part navboxes aren't even visible for >50% of readers because it doesn't show up on mobile. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Protected PS player elevations

Would you consider these practice squad elevated players for game days to count over the 53 or would they fit better as exempt? If the latter, then they have to be noted in some way or else it would just look like 54 players without any reasoning if you weren't aware of the transaction. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: They officially count as 54th and 55th members of the active roster per the CBA. They are not exempt players, and I don't think we need to explicitly explain why rosters are allowed to be up to 55 starting this season. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Eagles247, got it, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I also had a question about this. Should we be adding this to the player pages and updating the roster templates? It seems tedious to add them to the rosters them remove them the next day. Jrooster49 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jrooster49: I think we should be doing them for the templates and player pages, but it affects up to 64 players per week so I'd understand if you chose not to update them. The weekly practice squad protections are definitely something that can be optional, many teams don't announce them and it may be hard to find who was protected. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Waived vs. released

Hey I see you have been changing a lot of players pages to say they were waived rather than released. I always thought it was the same thing. What's the difference? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: A waived player is subject to waivers, in which any of the other 31 teams can immediately claim his contract the next day. A released player is usually a vested veteran who is not subjected to waivers and can be signed to a new contract immediately. Typically “released” can mean both released and waived, but “waived” is specifically only players subjected to waivers. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alabama Pitts

The article Alabama Pitts you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Alabama Pitts for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Falcons 2010s

Falcons2010s

There are clearly 2 articles below.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcaholic (talk • contribs) 10:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Eagles247 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 07:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Avonte Maddox

Maddox is on IR per [1]. The others may have been reverted to practise squad. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: "Arnold's promotion is not a surprise considering the fact that the Eagles will be without starting cornerback Avonte Maddox (ankle) and backup Trevor Williams (rib) was placed on Injured Reserve." Re-read that sentence, a comma would likely have been useful but Trevor Williams was the only one placed on IR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, I read that wrong. Pretty confusing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Hart

Bobby Hart (American football) is receiving a fair amount of IP vandalism lately. Perhaps a semiprotect is in order? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: Sorry for getting to this late. The majority of the vandalism was from one IP address, and it appears they were only warned once. If the vandalism persists, please notify me or other admins at WP:RFPP. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

About Shannon Dawson WP:G4 decline - your thoughts about this?

@Eagles247, NuclearWarfare, Paulmcdonald, Drdisque, and Bigmike2346: I have declined the speedy deletion of this article here. In my opinion, the article did not meet the outright WP:G4 speedy deletion criteria, but - as mentioned in the 2010 deletion discussion - in 2020 may not pass the WP:NSPORT/WP:ANYBIO/ and so on tests for notability. I would appreciate your opinion about this. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really look like a "speedy" deletion to me... there is a claim to notability, it doesn't seem to be a hoax... 10 years ago an AFD came to the conclusion to delete. Normally I'd recommend follow-up with the original deletion discussion admins and participants. But there's no rule on that that I know of. The article was re-created, it looks like it was re-created in good faith, it looks like it was nominated for speedy in good faith, the speedy was declined in good faith. If someone is enthusiastic about its deletion, I'd suggest AFD for discussion (rather than plain ol' PROD). As the article is written, I'd personally likely still land on delete... but that's only after a cursory review and no in-depth study. It could be a keeper. But it seems like the traditional procedure has basically been followed and there's nothing of bad faith in the works. So I would likely have opposed the speedy myself and allowed it to go to AFD if not nominating it myself (with no prejudice to sticking me with a delete position once it gets there, things change). If I would have deleted it per speedy (which is a possibility), and if someone were to contest the speedy I wouldn't interfere and would be okay sending it to AFD. This is kind of how things are supposed to work on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Shirt58 and Paulmcdonald: I generally agree with Paul here. The subject seems to have become more notable since the AFD 10 years ago, and the article should be taken to AFD again if someone believes it still does not merit an article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Blogs

You reverted my edit to the Thornton article, pointing out that the source I added (here) reprinted a press release and was from a blog. I am not sure about the first point, but the fact that a source might be characterized as a "blog" does not disqualify it. The "Scratching Post" is actually a publication of the The Hamilton Spectator, a major metropolitan daily that covers the Tiger Cats as part of its news coverage. Accordingly, and even it were appropriately characterized as a blog, it would still qualify as a reliable source. Many editors are under the erroneous assumption that all "blogs" are per se unreliable, and that is simply not the case. See WP:BLOGS. Cbl62 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Thanks, I did not realize it was part of a major publication. At brief glance, after determining it as a reprint, it appeared to me as a fan blog. It is still a direct reprint of this, however, which was already referenced in the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Edit and immediate self-revert from 2600:387:1:813::84 re rvt edit summary.[2] UW Dawgs (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: done. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Bryce Hall

Hello - would you mind reverting the RM close of Bryce Hall? A contested RM like with multiple options discussed should have a more experienced closer. I went to ping the closer, but it says they have retired (which is weird in itself). I saw you had engaged with them about this page, so thought I'd bother you about it. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: I've reverted the closure and closed it myself. I believe there wasn't enough consensus to make Bryce Hall (internet personality) the primary topic, but I wouldn't object to a new requested move discussion at Talk:Bryce Hall (internet personality) to see if a consensus can be formed there. It appears with the original move discussion, there was no move request tag placed at Bryce Hall (internet personality) or notification of the discussion at Talk:Bryce Hall (internet personality), so anyone with vested interest in that page may not have been aware of the original discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Rodney Ferguson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rodney Ferguson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Ferguson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)