User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 13

What's your problem?[edit]

Those photo place holders DO make articles look terrible. I just made a statement. Why are you trying and start something? --Cra sh U nderride 05:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madden NFL 08[edit]

that section is so pointless, and he keeps saying I vandalized because I removed it--Yankees10 21:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Chris--Yankees10 21:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madden NFL 08[edit]

Why can alot of the other Madden games have that section but not this one? Just seems weird to me. Thanks all, --Cra sh U nderride 21:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right. If other Madden articles have sections like these, which I'm sure they do because a lot of morons play Madden and edit those articles, then those needs to be removed/condensed as well. It's all useless trivia. "Chris Henry is on the Bengals even though he's suspended?" That one doesn't even make sense, of course he's on the Bengals in the game, because he's still on the Bengals in real life even if he was suspended half the year. Might as well make a trivia section saying Tom Brady's on the Pats. It's all pointless.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not talk about how to condense it and only have legit trivia in it, on the talk page? Instead of just goin' and completely removing it. That's the way it's supposed to be done. Not trying to sound hateuful or anything, just a legit question. --Cra sh U nderride 21:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

theres no things to condense there all pointless really, specially the ones like Al Wilson a free agent on the game, when he is still a free agent in real life anyway--Yankees10 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Al Wilson reitred. I belive due to a neck injury. --Cra sh U nderride 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still irrelevant...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not officially--Yankees10 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought he offically annoucned somethin' like a year ago, huh. News to me, and mind you I watch ESPNNEWS everyday lol. That's honestly a suprise to me. --Cra sh U nderride 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For working so hard on the article Aaron Halterman I User Swirlex award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar.

Template:Super Bowl XLII[edit]

Is the template, Template:Super Bowl XLII, suppose to have the players who were on injured reserve? Apparently the person who did it included every single player. --Street20 (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, no, they only include active roster. So I'd remove them for now. However, I do think they should be added to all those templates at some point.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFLStartingQuarterbacks[edit]

on the Template:NFLStartingQuarterbacks shouldnt it say accurate as of week 17 instead of 16--Yankees10 01:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it say Week 16?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long, I dont know it says 16--Yankees10 02:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering what you thought about making it smaller and closeable like the Template:NFLHeadCoaches--Yankees10 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go for it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alright cool, Ill do it tomorrow--Yankees10 02:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, hows it look--Yankees10 23:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. Definitely better collapsible.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Ill probably do the kicker and punter one over the weekend--Yankees10 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Cox[edit]

Hi, I just removed the legal section you readded to the Bobby Cox Article and placed an edited version on the talk page for discuss. I think this info certainly is fair game to include on the page, but it needs to be carefully edited per WP:BLP and some consensus needs to be reached before it is added back.

The first sentence alleging a history of spousal abuse is uncited and MUST be removed per WP:BLP. The next few sentences are OK for the most part but they leave off the fact that the charge was later dropped which seems to me to push a POV - so it needs rewriting. The last sentence doesn't seem to really belong in a article about Bobby Cox and also seems to be POV pushing in my opinion. Perhaps it would be better placed in the MLB article?

My thoughts, please discuss on the talk page as it seems like there are several editors that might have good input. Regards. --Roswell native (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those comments. However, some mention of this definitely needs to be in.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hall trophy[edit]

hey chris,

i've been visiting wikipedia for years but just joined. the reason was to correct a few things on ken hall trophy page. i, unfortunately, don't have the time to read how to edit & insert pix... so i thought you might make the correction 'cause it looks like y'know what you're doing.

at the very beginning of the article, it states that BALLPARK is the sponsor. it changed some years back to the US ARMY. lastly, the pix should be updated for that's not ken hall handing the trophy to jimmy. i have several pix of ken actually handing his trophy over. perhaps you can insert that too, as well as doing the same for his home page!?

Wow[edit]

I can't believe this someone actually wants to delete the List of retired professional American football quarterbacks. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't say I really see the point of it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free agents[edit]

Wow, good job keeping things up to date. One question, though: what is your source on all of these players now being free agents? Have their contracts expired? Just curious. y'amer'can (wtf?) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free agency begins on February 29, and all those players will be free agents unless they sign a new contract with their team. I follow NFL transactions and always update a guy's page if he's involved in one, so if they re-sign I'll update that promptly.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Zorn[edit]

Hey, you're the resident NFL expert it seems. Any insight into my issue at Talk:Jim Zorn? Do you know how someone could call him 1976 NFC Offensive Rookie of the Year when all else points to Sammy White holding that honor? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I followed the sport then (wasn't born) but it seems if you can't source him being it there really isn't an issue.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know if maybe you had good published sources from that far back (I used to keep some old NFL registry books). A guy on the talk page there may have found one but neither of us wants to subscribe to the online newspaper to get the full story. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Smith[edit]

Even though Smith is on the reserve/retired list, I don't think he is officially retired. ESPN says that even though he missed the whole 2007 season he could still return and he wasn't taken off of the list on the NFL active site that you showed me. Even though I highly doubt he'll return, I don't think he's officially retired. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but I think him being on the reserve/retired list is enough to put the infobox on it. Guys like Sapp and Strong are still on the active rosters. If Smith ever comes off it, we'll restore the old box.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleveland Browns roster[edit]

I must admit, I've been watching your struggle with people re-adding Derek Anderson to the roster -- despite the fact that he is ALREADY LISTED in the free-agent section -- with much amusement. I must ask, have you considered getting an administrator to protect the template? Of course, if that happened, my voyeuristic pleasure would be gone, but if it's in the best interest of your sanity, I think you should consider it. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pats1 watches it and he's an admin - I guess if he felt it were warranted he'd do it. I must say, it's crazy how people miss that. I once put a giant hidden message in the quarterbacks template, seen here. Didn't work, so I removed it. It's unbelievable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you put in Derek Anderson normally then hide it? --Street20 (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well people will still try and edit it if it's not showing up on the template.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category in your sandbox[edit]

You have a category in your sandbox Category:Arena Football League. User subpages should not be included in any category. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Clark[edit]

Heres the source:[1]--Yankees10 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RC-0722[edit]

Hey, I see you don't like RC. That's good; you seem to be the only sensible person on this website. Seriously, I go to school with RC and he's the biggest jerk in school. He was named Most annoying student in our school paper. He likes to act like he's all that and a bag of chips but he's just the bag of chips. LOL. But yeah, the guy is just a jerk. 99.138.181.10 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha awesome.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could tell you stories about hime all day. Like the time we stuffed him in a locker. 99.138.181.10 (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man I hope you're not joking. That'd be too funny.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he was cramped in that thing so bad, it was hilarious. BTW, sorry it took me so long to reply, had to restart my modem. 99.139.144.251 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Chad Johnson[edit]

I presume this revert was a mistake? No worries, it happens to the best of us :P. VegaDark (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't know how that happened, when I saw the diff I meant to undo the vandalism, not restore it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Thomas[edit]

Regarding your edit from February 14, the source cited stated, Thomas...was released Thursday, the biggest move yet in Miami's massive rebuilding project. I'm sure this was nothing more than an honest mistake, but the source stated quite clearly that he had been released, not that he "will be" released. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 08:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe at the time that it did. Online articles are updated all the time. When I made the edit, every article from every source on the topic said "expected to release."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Not that it matters at this point. :) Cheers, faithless (^speak) 03:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of D. J. Fitzpatrick[edit]

A tag has been placed on D. J. Fitzpatrick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Truthanado (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinon.[edit]

I was wonderin' if you could check out Craig Kobel and tell me if you see anything I could do to make it better. I expanded from four lines to what's there now. Thanks, --Cra sh U nderride 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL infobox can be used because the team colors are available there too.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figure I'll leave it alone beacuse who knows, he may go to the CFL or back to Arena and be huge. So, atleast for now I think it should stay the same. Just as a precaution. But that's just me. --Cra sh U nderride 04:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is the NFL infobox has all those colors, the CFL, AFL, etc. Even though it's called "Infobox NFLactive" it works for those leagues too and it's kind of the "new" infobox. The other one has been pretty much phased out of current NFL players.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to create an infobox that can use all pro football leagues, NFL down to the af2, AAFL, and UFL (when it's done formin' and all tha good stuff). I just think one box for all those leagues would save a crap load of time for every one. --Cra sh U nderride 04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it essentially can be used for all those leagues. Some tweaks/additions might need to be made, but it can be used for all.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about makin' one if I'm alway and don't have to be an admin., and then let people see what they thought, which the liked better. The base formula would have contain all those leagues so all you'd have to do is put like af2titles| 2, AAFLtitles| 1, etc. That sorta thing. --Cra sh U nderride 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Williams (wide receiver)[edit]

I'm sorry, but when is it not acceptable to have a players profile NFL.com on their article? Last time I checked, it was ok, and not the job of ONE man to go an unilaterally decided that it can't be included. --Cra sh U nderride 04:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary because it's linked in the infobox of every player.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not always, some link to CBSSports.com, some ESPN.com, some to Pro Football Database, etc., but not ALL link to it. I've seen them that don't. So I think it should still be at the bottom. I mean, it just makes since that if the info box links to another site that the NFL.com link should be at the bottom. Plus, I've seen ones that link to it in the box AND the bottom of the page. --Cra sh U nderride 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they link anywhere else, they should be changed.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually tried that, I've enter the codes before and then nothin'. I don't know what the problem is. lol --Cra sh U nderride 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you do is change the field to 'nfl' and enter the number that matches his NFL.com page.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, I did that and stil nothin'. Granted it's been a few weeks, I can't even remember who it was now. --Cra sh U nderride 04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must have made a mistake somewhere then.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll just try again if I see 'em lol. --Cra sh U nderride 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samie Parker[edit]

Uhh dude, it doesn't say {{{college team}}}, it just says {{{college}}}. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you this, if you live in atlanta, why do you like the dolphins? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the field says - the infobox was my idea. But the standard for the infobox is to link to the most specific article possible. Since day one I've been trying to implement consistency throughout the infoboxes. And yes, a lot of them are off because they all got added rapidly once the infobox was created. But I'm working on standardizing them all, and right now that's the standard.

And I like the Dolphins because my dad is from Miami and I was raised on them.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we ought to rename that part of the template {{{college team (if available)}}} so it would be more specific. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would cause way too many problems and would be way more confusing. All we need to do is correct it when we see it, and let anyone know the standards that does it wrong.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that would require a lot more time and then we'd have something like the vandalism problem. People fix the problem but don't warn the user. Or in this case, people fix the problem and don't tell the user how they fixed it. By eliminating another step, we make the process easier for us and for the noobs. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make an issue out of nothing. Everything is fine with this.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who brought this up; not me. Tell me, what is wrong with my way, hmm? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it? Nothing, in itself. But the goal with this infobox has always been to have it all standardized. Your way is not going along with the standard, it does not match the hundreds of infoboxes I've fixed in the last half year. That's what's wrong with it.

And why do we do it this way? Because the goal is to provide as much info about the topic as possible. Let's take Ken Dorsey, for example. Why link Miami Hurricanes football rather than University of Miami. Well, what info is more relevant to him as a player - that he won a National Championship in 2001 for a program that has a long history of success; or, that the University of Miami currently had over 15,000 students enrolled and one of the top research libraries in the nation? Dorsey's claim to fame at Miami was that he was a football player there. That's why we link the football article - it provides more relevant information for further reading on Dorsey and related items.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a standardized infobox is like having a socialist government. There is no induviduality. Also, you just brought up something interesting. Isn't the college one attends the same as the one one plays for? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political issue, it's not about "individuality" and it's not nearly that dramatic. There is nothing wrong with keeping the infoboxes organized the same way so that they all display the same kind of information in the same places. It makes it easier for readers to find information through them.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A college team and a college is the same thing. This shouldn't even be an issue. BTW, I have to get offline now, so don't get offended (taco) if I don't reply right away. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Green[edit]

Nothing false about it, please reference your source. Thanks. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be fucking kidding me. There are already links on the page that prove that. And you KNOW it's true. Why are you just causing problems for the sake of it?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was playing in place of the injured Kurt Warner, he was not the starter for the 2000 Rams. I know that what you are think is true is actually not true. If you read the links on the page it doesn't say that the Rams made him a starter, but rather put him in to replace the injured Warner. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know why he played. But he still started. That makes him a starting quarterback.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was still the backup to Kurt Warner, and was inserted in place of Warner when he was hurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawnboy1977 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know...[edit]

It appears the recent spate of vandalism on Derek Anderson (football player) was due to profootballtalk.com linking to it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Please calm down. Just because you disagree with a change another user has made does not mean it is "vandalism". You have reverted Trent Green twice; one more and I will report you. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was removing factual, cited information. I consider that vandalism.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider it vandalism, but it's not. Vandalism is as much a matter of intent as it is substance. Someone adding content that is false but which he honestly, genuinely believes to be true (or, as in this case, removing content that is true but which he honestly, genuinely believes to be false) is not a vandal; he is simply misinformed. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will continue to restore something in such instances, and I'll defend myself at 3RR. I'm not going to let false information remain if I see it happen.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unacceptable attitude. Just because you decree something to be false does not entitle you to browbeat others trying to keep it out. If you and another editor disagree about whether or not a given statement is true or false, you are obligated to discuss it with that person, and refrain from making any edits concerning that issue until you are able to resolve the issue among yourselves. If you are unable to resolve the issue among yourselves, you are obligated to seek the input of the wider community. You do not get to simply say "I'm right, he's wrong, if you disagree with me go fuck yourself." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris, Wikipedia is just too lay back with people like this. If he was removing cited information three times without explaining himself I consider that vandalism. So what if he is even doing this unknowingly that still counts as vandalising. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. It's a good-faith mistake. An individual who makes a mistake cannot be blamed for repeating it when no one bothers to explain to him that it's wrong, and why. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "decreeing" it's fact. It's fact because it is. And my attitude is not going to change on this, because it's the right one to have.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being right does not entitle you to be rude and uncooperative towards people who are wrong. If you cannot convince the other person that you are right, well, frankly, I'm sorry. Saying you're right doesn't make it so. Try to approach the issue with an open mind, and consider that maybe you're not infallible. And, as I mentioned above, if you're unable to convince the other guy and the other guy is unable to convince you, the solution is NOT a battle of wills on the main article page. Solicit the input of the wider community, and accept whatever decision is made there, whether you agree with it or not. You're still entitled to convince others to agree with you after that, but until you can do so the article page should reflect the consensus of the community. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mistake, no citation was stated and my information was accurate. It wasn't vandalism at all, but rather setting the facts currectly. As I said on the talk page for Green, no other quarterback for the Rams is treated under the same definitions of a starter (if you started one game or more during the season, you are a starter). Rather it is set under the definition that you are a starter if you are a first string player. If one person wants to use their own definition of what a starter is, why aren't all the other quarterback pages set under the same definition? --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kawika Mitchell[edit]

Hey dude, stop messing with this page, leave the link on there to the Buffalo News story!

It's in the reference, it doesn't need to be in the external links too.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Williams as DE[edit]

I was just curious as to why you've got Corey Williams listed as a DE on the Browns roster. Everything I've read says he's a DT. No big deal, just wondering. Wlmaltby3 (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a nose tackle, he'll play end in Cleveland.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Ok. :) Wlmaltby3 (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he'll be a very good 3-4 end. I wanted him for Miami before he was franchised. We signed Randy Starks in the same capacity. He was a tackle in Tennessee, but he'll play end here. Like Richard Seymour and Ty Warren do for New England.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]