User talk:Stismail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello Stismail, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela


Hey...does the "S" by any chance mean "Samer"? (I notice you were editing quizbowl so I thought I would ask!) Adam Bishop 00:21, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Re: Gostkowski[edit]

There's statistics links in the infobox on the right. Since it is unlikely someone will be there updating the stats after every game, they won't be up-to-date. The links obviously will. Pats1 00:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Katrina[edit]

Please find a reliable source that talks about it. It's synthesis. Also, you can't say inexplicably when it could be explicable. Just because the guy on the blog couldn't figure it out doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation. I don't know what that explanation could be, but that really doesn't matter. --OnoremDil 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy![edit]

Hey Samer, I just reverted your addition to the Jeopardy! article... The long and short of it is that Jeopardy!-related articles get accused of being fancruft and expose themselves to AfDs when they don't stick to sourceable hard facts. The article is already pretty bloated and the thrust of work on it, I feel, should be to make it tighter, which would require excluding the sort of analysis that says what things "sometimes" or "often" happen on the show, however true they might be. Thanks for your understanding and for helping to keep the Jeopardy! family of articles lean and mean. Cheers, Robert K S 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Duel - Marco[edit]

I added Marco to the leader board so that we could have a final ranking for each player. Even though that the show doesn't show Marco, I think that we should leave him on there so that it is shown that he was challenged and ended up in a lower rank. Right now he'll be in 4th but after tonight he will easily go down the ranks. - zachinthebox (UserTalk) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Should we stick him under 24th for now? - zachinthebox (UserTalk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Duel[edit]

First, I would like to thank you for discussing this rather than getting into a revert war about it. I think the multiple games fact may be mild original research, true, but if there is going to be presumption (which there was - presumed that the shootout is only one question, which it can't be limited to). The fact is we don't know that that it's one question either if they both get it wrong, or tie. It makes no sense for that to be the case. They can't stop the tape and retape the same question... it's already been answered. If both players put down chips on two answers and get one right, are they supposed to replay the same question and expect one of them not to just put their chip on the right answer? Or if they both are wrong using 3 chips, are they supposed to expect the players not to put a chip on the right answer if they replayed the question? Saying it's a one-question round is only right if the one question is determinative. If you want to change it to "it is unknown what would occur if the question is not determinative" I suppose that would be more wikifriendly; but saying it's one question can't be any truer than saying it can be more than one. I'll see if I can tweak it to be slightly more appropriate.

To your "they" issue, there is no concensus to use one or the other (or another option), but there IS consensus that "they" is an acceptable usage, and it exists all over wikipedia. Thus Meta article notes that the option "they" is viable, as is "he or she" (but I don't think "he/she" is considered appropriate), and while "he or she" would be acceptable, it is my belief that other than a single occurance (eg: if there was an article about... Greece, and it mentioned something like "any traveler coming to Greece would find that he or she enjoyed it"), rather than an article in which the subject of a whole section is the contestant and their actions. Then it becomes a mesh of he or she, his or her, him or her, etc. It's simply cleaner to use they, and it is accepted syntax. I suggest that it remain they.

I also would suggest that for a post like this, you would be better in the future to post it on the article's talk page, and just make a little note to the editor that you brought it up there, so that other editors can weigh in on which option they think is best. Thanks. TheHYPO (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenberg has also said "the duel will end on this question" last night when one contestant said A and one said B and D. If it had been C, the game wouldn't have ended, but clearly the producers told him that C wasn't the right answer.
If both shootout contestants chose B and C, and C is the right answer, for example how could the game possibly end on one question? And as I said before, if both chose A B and C and the correct answer was D, how can you have them redo it and expect them not to both choose only D?

It doesn't add up. Either they will play another question and delete that question from air, or they will say "we goto a second shootout" and show it on air. Either way, it is unknown right now what would occur, and I have added that to the article.

I'm not asking you to remove "he or she"; I'm simply stating that to keep the article easier to follow, I'm going to stick with "they"; Particularly in a popculture 2000s TV show article; just as in a UK article one would be using Colour and Favourite as the local text, I suggest that in a modern 2000s topic article, there is no issue with using a contemporarily accepted usage. If the topic was something more formal antique like, say "Ancient Rome", perhaps there would be an argument for the more fomalized structure (not saying it would or wouldn't be appropriate, but I could see a stronger argument). It is the exact same issue as the serial comma (1, 2, and 3 - or 1, 2 and 3?) - some prefer one way, some the other - but a standard should be used amongst a whole article in the way that is easiest to read for the reader. TheHYPO (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Your latest edits look good. I think the article is now well on its way to being a good article (not wikipedia "good article", just... "good" article, heh) TheHYPO (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 NFL Draft[edit]

I messed up calculating Atlanta's SOS, but as to the Buffalo/Denver tie, NFL.com is ambiguous. The website states "If any ties cannot be broken by strength of schedule, the divisional or conference tie breakers, whichever are applicable, are applied." [1] Not "conference record tie breakers", but "conference tie breakers" which would seem to include head-to-head. Do you have a source for it merely being conference record? Jonpin (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Patriots-Giants game[edit]

Hi. Sorry that I was unaware of the discussion on the talk page you mentioned. I redirected your article to the section on the main season page because it was longer and had references. If you don't mind I was going to merge some information from the season page to your article. Also, I think it could use a more precise title, maybe 29 December 2007 New England Patriots-New York Giants game? --Merovingian (T, C) 15:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean you want to include the week number in the title? I suggested the date disambiguation because that's the usual way to do it. Also I'd like some disambiguation because New England and New York played a pre-season game in 2007 as well; of course it really doesn't matter, either in real life or here (because a pre-season game isn't going to get its own article) but somebody pickier than I will probably point it out eventually. I will move the article to include the teams' full names, though. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 NFL Draft/Patriots' pick[edit]

Please stop changing the seventh overall pick to San Francisco. It is New England's and they will utilize it. The pick they are losing from the league for spygate is their OWN first-round pick, not the one they acquired for the 49ers. The latter is still theirs.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the entire first chart is completely unnecessary. Two separate charts aren't needed and it's confusing to the common reader. The current chart is all that is needed, with any explanations in prose or in a list.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now it just reads like a giant lesson on how draft order is determined. All that's really necessary, at any time, is the rules for determining draft order, the current draft order, and a couple paragraphs explaining any unusual circumstances (Pats' forfeiture of the pick, any trades, etc.).►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would you delete the one that's accurate as of today? That is the most important piece of info right now. How the picks were acquired or lost is something that should follow the current draft order table in prose or a list. There's simply no need for a table of how things would be if stuff that's happened hadn't happened.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: WELKER PIC[edit]

Feel free to crop that down Michigan10 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Welker link[edit]

No problem. I did notice some overlinks in the article, though (the second one to Oklahoma City even points to a redirect), which I'll clean up sometime here soon. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for fixing the location of the ref on that quote. I had it there but it was dropping to the next line. I realize now it was because I put it after the </blockquote> instead of before it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLII[edit]

I appreciate you pointing out whenever I make errors, but you don't need to re-write entire sections because of 1 or 2 inaccurate words. For fixing my last edit, all that was needed was switching the word "sixth" to "seventh" and removing the word "immediately". Chainclaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When you look at the difference between how Brady did before getting Welker and Moss and then how he did after, their effect seems self-evident. I understand if you want it verified, and I guess I'll have to go looking through old SI or NFL.com articles for citation. I was just hoping to avoid going through the process of citation for something that obvious. Chainclaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Record in schedule[edit]

Could you also do the same to the 2006/5/4 Pats articles, since I'm well, a little too lazy right now to do so? Thanks :) Pats1 T/C 00:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wilfork fines[edit]

Fair enough. I know you have a certain interest in the Patriots organization, but I was just trying to give a full picture here and not make it look like a "fawning" article. Yes, he was in the Pro Bowl, but he also did some things the league didn't like (being fined four times in once season is unusually high). I rephrased it so that it gives both instances equal weight, the good and the not-so-good, while still being concise (the first time I revised it, I gave a little too much weight to the fines and was being too verbose, after all, it may not need to be "fawning" but it's not supposed to be "bashing" either). My point is, all I'm doing is trying to build a neutral article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 New England Patriots-New York Giants game[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2007 New England Patriots-New York Giants game, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of 2007 New England Patriots-New York Giants game. Buc (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: NFL Draft[edit]

Are supplemental compensatory picks not used to fill that gap? Pats1 T/C 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal (3/1/08)[edit]

Would you please explain why you undid my edits? Most of my changes consisted of wikifying the content, in particular: (1) Making the tone more encyclopedic. (2) Removing the repetitive links to Howie and the models (they don't need to be linked every time they are mentioned). (3) Fixing the formatting (the title is not supposed to be boldfaced every time it appears). (4) Removing extraneous formatting (someone confused proper nouns with titles). I'm not going to get into the argument of what belongs and what doesn't, since to a large extent, I don't care. But I think that whatever is there should mirror the rest of Wikipedia in terms of style. (And, for the record, the argument that the tone doesn't match won't work, because the rest of the article has been flagged for non-compliance with WP standards to begin with.) Samer (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you want the alter the boldface or italics doesn't bother me that much. What bothers me is that you think you have the authority to decide what stays on the article and what goes. I don't go around altering other articles to fit my personal taste. What makes you any different? How would you feel if some Colts fan did a huge number of your precious Patriots article? I’m sure they have a lot of scandals they can write about, especially with the head coach. Now that wouldn’t be nice now, would it? Also don’t take this the wrong way, but I found a lot of run-on, spelling and grammar errors in your edits. And another thing, WHAT STYLE??? I understand copyright laws and all. In terms of style, there is no clear cut definition of style regardless of what any editor or administrator say. I'll be franked; these so-called styles and standards are a big fat joke. And the encyclopedic part, if I wanted encyclopedic...I would just go to the Encyclopedia Britannica website instead of this. Or I can just go to the library and read the encyclopedia there. If wikipedia wants to more encyclopedic, more than half of the articles on here would be gone, and editors like you and me would not be able to contribute. This fact is... this is wikipedia, and readers here want to know more about the extra trivial information of a certain subject than the encyclopedia would ever offer. Those who say they don’t pretty much have bigger issues than they give out. I'm not saying that I'm the type who throws all convention out the window and put whatever I want to put on here. You're attacking the wrong editor. You're basing your judgment that this article was flagged from an obnoxious editor who basically went around to every single TV article and flagged them all. You seem like an intelligent person to know which editor I'm talking about. It's that editor you should be attacking, and she has her share of fights with other editors after she flagged articles they were passionate about. This is the same editor who pretty much spends 20 of her 24 hours on wikipedia watching over it like a hawk. The articles she flagged, chances are she doesn't know anything about it. A little tidbit for you, I tried to do what you did and fix up the DOND article a few weeks ago. The article that you see right now, it wasn't like that two weeks earlier. Truth be told, this editor reverted all the edits, grammar checks, spelling, and valuable information back to the unorganized clutter than you see right now. So if I were you, I would just let these edits be, because chances are you will be extremely disappointed when somebody undoes all you have worked on. Until the day when this editor is block from putting up red flags left and right and reverting everything back to trash would the wikipedia world be a better place. S3884h (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I must confessed at times even I questioned myself over the redudancy of the Howie and Model links. S3884h (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: A proposal[edit]

If you want to go ahead and standardize the schedules back to 2003, which is how far I've gotten with them, feel free to as soon as you want. Just make sure to keep it Giants Stadium, because, well, Giants Stadium is Giants Stadium. It's the same place as the Giants' Giant Stadium, so I don't think we should create the illusion that it's not (I know the NFL tries to do so, but having both Giants Stadium and The Meadowlands in a schedule where, say, the Pats play both the Giants and Jets in the same season, can be rather confusing to a novice reader). There's really no need to disguise one - they're both at the same stadium, it's the same article for both. "The Meadowlands" is never a stadium and never has been -- Giants Stadium doesn't change it's name for the 3 hours the Jets are playing there. The NFL simply chooses the use the broader name of the complex and the region. As far as the draft footnotes and such, we can get into that later. Pats1 T/C 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spygate[edit]

That is presumed, but the NFL's statement suggests otherwise. Pats1 T/C 11:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, we all know the penalty was for everything back to 2000. Still, Goodell didn't even say that the conduct dated back to 2000 until February after the meeting with Specter. Before that, the most he said was that a few of the tapes they destroyed were from "late in 2006." We know the truth (everyone does), but it's still original research. Pats1 T/C 14:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Program links[edit]

When you get a chance, could you also do that for the drafts on the Pats season articles back to 1996? You're well-versed in which of those articles exist and each team's nicknames; I'm not. Pats1 T/C 15:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you also de-link multiple wikilinks in the draft positions/colleges while you're at it? Thanks. Pats1 T/C 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Draft refs[edit]

Can you do one for a more complex trade (i.e. that whole Bills/Ravens Bledsoe/Wilson/etc. trade from 03-04?) Pats1 T/C 21:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the parentheses system was a bit crazy, and this method seems to preserve the necessary details too. So definitely go ahead and get started -- the good thing is this style consolidates things, as there used to be a separately-worded ref for each pick acquired in the trade. Pats1 T/C 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Danny Amendola[edit]

Oh, ok. I apologize, I just assumed you were talking about the one directly after the sentence. I guess the Cowboys bulked him up a few pounds. Well, there still might be a chance, Amendola hasn't made the team yet, but he hasn't been cut yet either. I'm not much of a Cowboys fan, but I hope he succeeds there or anywhere else that picks him up. I'm pretty neutral when it comes to the Patriots too, but I sure did watch them as much as I could mostly to see how Welker did. Anytime you have a star NFL player come out of your university, it's pretty exciting to watch them progress from college to the pros. Almosthonest06 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your changes[edit]

2007-08 Boston Celtics season[edit]

I have updated this page throughout the season and have put a lot of effort into it, and now you decide you'll have it your own way. Here is what I don't like:

  • You changed the lead part although there was absolutely no need for a change.
  • In the section "key dates" you talk about past events in present tense, and add the excessive words "the Celtics" before each sentence.
  • You improperly (leaving "]]") removed a picture of Garnett, which was not necessary.
  • You shortened the section "awards", although each award needs to be mentioned seperately, as this is a list, not an article.
  • You added the word "awards" to sub-sections.

I am positive that we can work this out without any problems, and I would like you to discuss with me any changes you make to this article, because I wrote it with my own blood. ● 8~Hype @ 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ray Allen[edit]

First you describe my edits as "poorly worded"--which is risible in and of itself--but now you claim "underhand" [sic] removal of info? Would you please tell me precisely what info I actually removed that is relevant to this article? (That the All-Star game was played in New Orleans this year does not count; it makes no difference where the game is played.) Samer (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You poorly re-worded the All-Star and 40th Anniversary part, which was totally redundant, and although I reverted it yesterday, you still had it your own way. You added the same information while performing other changes. That's why it is underhanded. ● 8~Hype @ 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If not quotes or italic text, how should we else point out the official name of the award? ● 8~Hype @ 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick Kaczur[edit]

i noticed that you removed some info on the Nick Kaczur page, posted by 66.41.182.153 about Nick having sisters and kids. I can guarantee that this info was absolutely wrong. I know Nick and his family VERY well (his mom and my dad were together for quite a long time), and I can verify that his only siblings are his older brothers Chad and Jim. He has no sisters, and no children. I also do NOT believe that he was involved with this Oxycontin thing, it's a case of someone trying to become famous off of him. Jru Gordon (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

there was a story about Nick on TSN here in Canada right before the Super Bowl, and they stated that he was engaged.

All-Star coaching[edit]

Let me be clear why the extra sentence needs to be there. I'm not arguing that you are incorrectly quoting the source, but rather that you're leaving out the context needed to make sense of that information. (This is why the very next paragraph in the source you cite contains the same facts that I added.)

That sentence aside, I again note that the original sentence contains grammatical errors (e.g., it's not "earn the honor to coach", but "earn the honor of coaching"). Samer (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a grammatical error. ● 8~Hype @ 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop reverting my edits. I am quoting the first two paragraphs of the source. This is enough. I am going to report you if this happens again. ● 8~Hype @ 15:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

David Berkoff[edit]

If someone is clearly notable, don't speedy delete for copyvio if you can reduce to a noncopyvio stub that still shows the notability. See WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Tom Brady and the cart[edit]

Well, it would have been better suited for the article if he was on a cart, but the fact that he wasn't isn't really notable. Now, if you could find a way to insert that he was able to walk off the field under (mostly) his own power, then that would probably be notable. RC-0722 361.0/1 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lurita Doan edit[edit]

Hello, I noticed you stopped by the Lurita Doan page and made an edit to a section of an article currently under an NPOV dispute. While your edit is appreciated, I would invite you to contribute your thoughts on the talk page, where a lively discussion and a significant edit have been proposed. Do have a look, at your convenience. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Todd[edit]

FYI, you may be interested to see that Ashley Todd was speedily deleted using CSD:G10 as the justification: "exists primarily to disparage its subject." I happen to disagree with this decision as the article was neutral and nothing on the AfD page implied it as an "attack" page, and content that this is out of process. I encourage you to chime in if you have an opinion either way at User_talk:Orderinchaos#Out_of_order_deletion_of_Ashley_Todd. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

xXx: State of The Union[edit]

Can I ask why you placed a cleanup tag on this page? I spent some time on it a while back and don't see any glaring issues? Thedarxide (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Schedule[edit]

Sounds good, just remember I'm a stickler for continuity (nah, really?!?), so make sure you apply it to the other schedules on 2001 and 2003-2007. Thanks. Pats1 T/C 21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 NFL Draft[edit]

Why are you removing the references from the draft? If you look at the featured articles, 2007 NFL Draft and 2001 NFL Draft, they both have the references in the draft table. There was discussion somewhere to have a section for pre- and post- draft trades this year, to avoid the textual explanations from being buried in small text in the refs. That is accomplished. But the references themselves can easily be referenced in the table as well as in the new sections. If consensus is to do otherwise and just have the refs in the new sections only, then you should at least move the refs rather than deleting them.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. I'll move them to the textual section until the new tables are inserted.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if the team names are spelled out or not. But what does need to happen is that they need to be uniform. Either spell them all out or shorten all of them.

Yes, see [2]: "Acquired by New Orleans Saints from New York Giants, 7/21/08 in exchange for second- and fifth-round 2009 draft picks."--2008Olympianchitchat 05:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Shockey trade is covered by the article cited in the Vilma trade. And the picks for Washington, Cleveland, and New Orleans should be set through the third round, no matter what shuffling happens later in the rounds.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gostkowski[edit]

Hey, this information is very important. ps. don't reply on my talk page. 83.31.117.170 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Draft table[edit]

Thanks, I just felt that the single blue color made it feel like it was only grouping the blue ones. And you're right, it could be used for the 2010 draft (if anyone remembers!). --Pbroks13talk? 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Draft Order[edit]

"FYI, the draft order doesn't work the way you have it (sadly, my Patriots will pick after the Cardinals unless the Cardinals make the Super Bowl). Samer (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2008"

Just find this kinda funny now. Dudeyall (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: 2009 NFL Draft[edit]

Oops, my bad. It seems like every time I touch the article, I've made one error or another. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll get it right one of these days. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What's your final opinion about the grouped references? I think it'd be really helpful to have them grouped, with references that jump up to each part of the trade. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's a test run User:IanManka/NFL_Draft. Feel free to edit and play around with it. First, unfortunately, having multiple group names for a reference was not possible. However, after the draft, we can point to specific picks (like I did with one of the picks involved in the Cutler trade). During the draft, the links change so rapidly that it would be near impossible to implement. However, after the article is more stable, we can add-on this improvement to the grouped references. I must stress, however, that the grouped references should be added before tomorrow. Let me know what you think, as well as propose some changes (e.g. edit and save to my user subpage so I can see some of your ideas). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
As I was getting ready to go to bed, I had a last-second epiphany, and overhauled the references on the draft page. It took awhile to do, so I ask that a massive revert before the draft. The system of references allows it to be split by rounds, with URL anchoring to jump to other rounds that are pertinent to the trade. It's not as extreme as the first overhaul of the trades I did earlier in the week, but stays closer to what we have currently. I think all of your concerns have been addressed in the new design.
I didn't know what to call each group name, but those can be easily changed with a find and replace. Also, if separating the trade references from the other references in the article is not desirable, you can merely remove the group name or add noid="noid" within each of the <ref> tags. Let me know what you think of the redesign! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 12:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo[edit]

Thank you for your exellent work redoing the mess into which the 2008 All-Pro Team had turned! For that and for your work on the draft page:

Wikiproject NFL Barnstar.png The WikiProject NFL Award
I, 2008Olympianchitchat, hereby award Stismail
the WikiProject NFL Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject NFL.
Awarded 06:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


Comments on NFL Draft lists[edit]

I made a comment here and was told you'd be the one to ask. Any response would be appreciated.—NMajdantalk 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

NFL Draft table format[edit]

I just responded to the suggestions you made here.— DeeJayK (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Chris Hayes (journalist), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Andy Shaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Stabat Mater (Poulenc), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Shaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Brian Hoyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill O'Brien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bill O'Brien (American football)[edit]

ESPN posts articles citing "sources" all the time. It's probably for the best that we wait until an official announcement from Penn State before making the changes to the article. --Kevin W./TalkCFB uniforms/Talk 04:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I emailed Chris Price of WEEI to straighten this out on his statement of contracts expiring at start of playoffs. I should get an answer by tomorrow. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Aaron Hernandez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puerto Rican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Amazing Race 20[edit]

I understand what you've been trying to do, but you've been jumping the gun on the placement of the penalty note and you changed the wording of the note to be completely out ofline with the other articles.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Nate Ebner, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rugby and Walk-on (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Food Network Star (season 8)[edit]

Please be careful when adding a new week to this article. You overwrote Week 3 when you added Week 4 rather than copying Week 3, then editing it. --Drmargi (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Casey Pachall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rehab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geoff Fox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WTIC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

challenge by removal[edit]

yes, I cannot think of a bigger " challenge" than complete removal (twice) and a link to WP:BURDEN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

that there are multiple options and you would have taken a different one and that you are unhappy to the fact that I took a different one, is so noted. but I am still going to require that any additional content added is appropriately sourced as it it added. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rob Gronkowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Gonzalez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clarinet concerto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ebony Concerto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brandon Kaufman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KREM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Taste[edit]

I really like how you added color to the Finalists table to make it easy for readers to quickly see who's in and who's out. So I was surprised to see that another editor reverted your helpful change with no consensus, even though you were nice enough to start a talk page thread. I reverted the revert. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golden Boy (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graveyard shift (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geno Auriemma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big East (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

House of Aaron Hernandez[edit]

Why is the house of Aaron Hernandez and its value irrelevant? It is mentioned by the media.--Gciriani (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done[edit]

Nice job, expanding the lead on Murder of Odin Lloyd! I have heavily reworked the article and its nice to have some help! Well done, and thanks! AlaskaMike (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angela Corey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burden of proof (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nate Ebner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Carter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 NFL Draft may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

James Maslow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Charlie White, Frozen (film) and Let It Go
Peta Murgatroyd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Charlie White

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Malcomb Butler[edit]

Whether you agree or disagree with my removal of that content, everything on wikipedia must be referened. - Galatz (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Empire[edit]

Hi, just a quick note to tell you that I have responded to your Empire topic. I would also like to apologise for any misunderstandings. If you feel you have something significant to add to the lead besides 'after just two episodes' I'll leave it alone, I promise. Thanks. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)