Talk:Stanford Routt

Ninth fastest 200 meters?

this page sounds like he wrote it. he ran the ninth fastest 200 meters as a junior? wowzers! cant one of you wikinerds fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a reference (his Raiders bio) to support that statement. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello All,

Thanks for your assistance on this matter. I will be posting entries per section for your approval before I go back again and edit. This is new entry (Below) to be included in Professional references. My initial dispute with the original moderator-aside from being blocked for his misinterpretation--- was that the ORIGINAL entry from last year that was deleted was copyrighted material and unsourced. I have since edited, re-edited and re-written in original words Routt's 2010 accomplishments.Thanks in advance.Please specify what is wrong is written text as every accolade stated is verifiable via Stanford Routt's NFL.com page (stats) and reputable Wall Street Journal. Thank you again and your assistance is appreciated.

2010

Routt was thrust back into the starting lineup in 2010 after being tendered at the highest level (1st and 3rd round level) by the Raiders as a restricted free agent. He had his best statistical year to date with 55 tackles, one tackle-for-loss, 15 pass deflections, one forced fumble, two interceptions, and one touchdown. Statistically, this was Routt’s best year as he was matched up against NFL top receivers Chief’s, Dwayne Bowe and Steelers’ Mike Wallace due to Nnamdi Asomugha’s high ankle sprain that caused him to sit out several games. Routt played well against the Chiefs in Week 9 while covering Dwayne Bowe who earned 3 catches for 24 yards. The Raiders finished the season 8-8- the team’s best winning record since 2002. According to WSJ, Routt and Asomugha finished the season as the #1 CB Tandem in the NFL. Together the two gave up an impressive 38% completion and 4 TD’s. This stat placed them above Jets CB tandem Revis and Cromartie 43% and 10 TD’s. Routt also finished the season with the #1 Burn Rate in The NFL and lowest QB completion (69%) and 2nd lowest QB completion % in among all corners behind #1 Corner, Jets Darrelle Revis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The WSJ article is from the midseason, not after the season, so it says nothing about Routt finishing the season with any of these stats. I see no reference that he "played well" against the Chiefs, only the assumption that limiting Bowe to three catches is considered "playing well." Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just searched for the UPDATED and here it is- He finished #2 Burn rate http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Higher-Education-Burn-Rate-for-Cornerbacks?urn=nfl-wp2995

I will RE-edit sentence to say ... "Routt finished the Season with #2 Burn Rate in the NFL with that as a link, followed by those stats.

I'm assuming those are the only 2 things you have a problem with? Per observation- I've looked at your edits on wilkepedia and other posts you've made can also be viewed as subjective based your interpretation. By NFL standards, limiting a great receiver like Dwayne Bowe to 3 catches is considered "playing well". I believe the line has to be walked by some based on interpretation. You jumped the gun in banning me because you completely misinterpreted my sentence to mean something else. Please keep that in mind.

It's never my goal to break the rules but being fair is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll add the burn rate stat to the article, but the rest is original research. Who is to say Bowe is a "great receiver"? What if those catches were crucial in the game? I still see no citation for that claim, irregardless. By the way, you keep persisting in saying I "jumped the gun" because I "misinterpreted" what you said. When you say things like "Our team is working deligently to fix the copyright issues by professionally writing in OUR words", it is difficult to misinterpret your intent. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by original research......Isn't the point of Wilkepedia to pull up data and facts that people wouldn't ordinarily know supported by documented news and articles? I wasn't asking for you to add. I want to get back to the original format which is separate his stats into several different years- 2005, 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2012. I stated that in the beginning. This is how I see it on other players Wilkepedias.

My intent is to approve of the wording and get back to editing as the person who unbanned me suggested I do. So I ask again, you have a problem with separating the years and why?

As for your misinterpretation- I just think you should've gotten a second or third opinion before you did it. They perhaps would've been able to see or even ask me what I meant by it- if you felt confused by it. As the other editor stated, you made a mistake.

I would appreciate if other editors join this conversation please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's purpose is not "to pull up data and facts that people wouldn't ordinarily know supported by documented news and articles". Please see WP:V. Everything on Wikipedia needs to verifiable and backed up by sources, especially biographies of living persons. And I stand by my decision to block you initially. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you done with your thoughts on what I edited in this 2010 section because I'd like to separate it by year as stated. I didn't get your (eagles247) response to that.Nflfacts2k2 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Five paragraphs (including three which are one sentence long) is normal for one section. No need to divide into separate year sections. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this your personal opinion or can you direct me to the rules where it states such a thing? I've browsed players pages and they are separated into years as they see fit and what happened during the particular season. I'm asking that Stanford be give the same consideration. Here are the pages I can think of right off the top of my head http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne_Bowe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrelle_Revis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Marshall Nflfacts2k2 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And take a look at what is contained in those articles' year sections: numerous, long paragraphs. If this article separates his seasons into sections, you'll have one-paragraph sections and one-sentence sections. There's not enough content here to split the section into a few sections. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Each player is different nonetheless. Again I ask, Is this your personal opinion that something is too long or too short? Because certain players have shorter entries on some years, medium on some and long on others. If this is anywhere in Wilkepedia rules- please direct me to the link so I can be better acquainted with those rules. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Common sense tells me that choppy one-sentence sections is inappropriate, and the article would look (and read) much better if this section is not divided into redundant subsections. Do you have a legitimate reason to have these subsections, besides "other articles do this" (even though they aren't good comparisons since their sections have much more content)? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Common sense? And the judge of the common sense will be? I'm sorry but the first time you reedited the Stanford Routt entry last week, you a 2 misspelled words. Is that common sense? The entries I'm submitting for Stanford Routt do not have 1 sentence subsections. I simply stated that because other players Wilkepdias do and I don't see common sense removing or flagging them.

Each of Routt's subsections consist of 2 or more paragraphs. Some of which if broken down to words are 425-500 characters. You appear to have a problem with certain things as you've just stated you stand by you 'judgement' to block me again. Perhaps you're not the best person to discuss this with because the same entries I re-wrote, you managed to add them in again. Including the 9th fastest time in NCAA tidbit. I will wait other editors because what you have stated appears to be a personal opinion and Routt needs the same treatment as other players entries on Wikepedia. Fairness all around. This is not a dictatorship.Nflfacts2k2 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't respond to users who throw around personal attacks. This website is Wikipedia by the way, not Wilkepedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am not attacking you. I didn't attack you last week and I'm not attacking you today. My mission has remained the same from the beginning. My questions were still not answered, and per your response, I take it you are removing yourself. So I'm looking forward to reading the opinions of others and their approval. . Thanks for your time eagles247. Nflfacts2k2 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)