User talk:Yankees10

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


Contents

Proposed deletion of Bo Scarbrough[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Bo Scarbrough has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not come close to satisfying either WP:COLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Safiel (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is brought to AfD, see the article's talk page. That should cover it. Lizard (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
We should delete this article, surely he'll never amount to anything. Lizard (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Marcus Williams (safety) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marcus Williams (safety) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Williams (safety) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Barry Stokes (American football)[edit]

Lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly notable. Who could forget his 1999 season with the Claymores? Lizard (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

All-Pro[edit]

Shouldn't we get some consensus for what All-Pro teams to list in the infoboxes and All-Pro pages. The recent articles (ex. 2015 All-Pro Team) have Pro Football Focus in the lead but the PFF team isn't actually listed. Someone removed them. I'm not sure what qualifies and what doesn't. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah definitely. There shouldn't be any inconsistencies with these.--Yankees10 09:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
How do we decide though? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This gets confusing on which to include or not just like the with the college football All-American teams. Personally if it was up to me i'd just stick with AP, PFWA and SN and not include PFF. PFF doesn't get the wide recognition yet as the others.--Yankees10 18:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I had added PFF a few months ago, based on what Pro-Football-Reference lists, then some IP came around claiming there was consensus not to include PFF years ago, but I never found that consensus. But I did find that the NFLPA collective bargaining agreement in 2011 (see page 101) recognized the AP, PFWA/PFWA, Sporting News, and Sports Illustrated as "veteran media". This seems to be what the "consensus" decided, but I've never seen Sports Illustrated listed. Lizard (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you meant to say PFW/PFWA. Yh, I don't see Pro Football Weekly included either. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
PFW and PFWA are basically the same. Pro Football Weekly is published by the PFWA I think. Lizard (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Cook[edit]

I thought the navboxes were only for regular season. This is a rare case indeed. What shall we do? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

He should be there as he did start. We could add a # sign and say that it was a postseason start, however I'm not sure we should be taking up space in the template for that.--Yankees10 21:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't think we included postseason before. Joe Webb just has (2010), he's missing the playoff start in 2012. I guess in the case of Osweiler and Savage, it doesn't really matter which one says "present" though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I think Dissident normally deals with these. Lizard (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
For the Raiders starting quarterback navbox? We have Matt Cassel as a "starter" for the Bills in 2015, due to him taking the first snap of the season in a trick play. But on the other hand, the NFL does not officially include postseason starts as part of a player's career start total, so if we follow how they do it, Cook shouldn't belong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't be a big deal if we included postseason because cases like Webb and Cook are very few. Most people who start a playoff game started at least one regular season game that year too. And a lot of the QB lists on here have the postseason starters. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Raiders starting quarterbacks template[edit]

Connor Cook IS NOT considered a starting quarterback yet because he did not start in the regular season. He did make a start in the postseason, but he is not considered a starting quarterback on the team. -MON5T3ER (RoyalsLife) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalsLife (talkcontribs) 21:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

La O[edit]

I think his last name is just La O (you can move it back if u disagree) and Yander part of his first/middle name. Weirdest name ever! We'll know more when he gets a MLB.com page/see alpha order. 24.162.134.57 (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

U can see in the body of this article refer to him as La O but the accompanying video is too fuzzy to see his last name on the back of his jersey. Ur opinion? 24.162.134.57 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
His B-R page lists him as Luis Yander (Camacho) Yander. I'm confused. 24.162.134.57 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Could Yander be part of his first/middle name and last name!! 24.162.134.57 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
U can see here de la O last name. But can't find just La O. 24.162.134.57 (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
"We'll probably find out that he's actually going by his third cousin's name and is 3 years older anyways." -An insightful comment someone left here. Lizard (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

These Cuban names can get real confusing sometimes. I won't make any changes until he gets an MLB.com page.--Yankees10 07:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

He is officialy signed. Listed as Luis La O. I guess Yander is his middle name. 24.162.134.57 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

References

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Unreal[edit]

I can't wait for the season to be over. I've never seen vandalism that heavy. This is what I imagine the edit history on Trump's page would be like if it was unprotected for 30 minutes. Lizard (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I wish we had a football editor admin that would right away be able to protect the page instead of having to wait until the nonsense gets this far.--Yankees10 03:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been letting them hear it. Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#1,276 admins. As expected, they avoided the actual problem and went off into admin-speak. Lizard (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's all the admins in WP:NFL: User:BU Rob13, User:Cbl62, User:Cholmes75, User:Eagles247, User:Go Phightins!, User:Gonzo_fan2007, User:Jayron32, User:Rlendog, User:VegaDark, User:Wizardman, User:Zzyzx11. And I may have missed some. I hope you don't mind me pinging all of them, because they need to be aware of what happens when a player gets called for holding in a playoff game. Lizard (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm home now, so I'm grabbing some of these. When I got this ping (and a couple others), I was on a bus home from Wikipedia Day NYC and on mobile only, so I couldn't do much. We need more admins, badly, but few editors on the "front lines" are running. We've done a better job recruiting niche editors or long-time content creators as admin candidates in the past month, but we're still struggling to get counter-vandalism editors to run for and pass RfA. ~ Rob13Talk 06:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
My intentions were mainly to point out that we had 11 admins in WP:NFL, and to suggest that at least one of them be on standby next week for the conference championships. The vandalism was insane this week, it'll be worse next week. WP:RFPP has been criminally slow lately; protection coming three hours later isn't gonna cut it. We need an admin who could respond immediately when vandalism on a page goes haywire. Lizard (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Yankees10: Have you ever considered running? You have the tenure, the edits, the experience, a clean block log (for at least seven years), and, in my experience, the temperament. I haven't the time to do a full review, but I would encourage you to submit your name here to potentially get some feedback and throw your hat in the ring. Anyway, with regard to this specific issue, I am well aware of the amount of vandalism that can happen on articles when a subject does something noteworthy (or not, in this case). It's one of the reasons I hate the MLB Trade Deadline. But, it's the price we pay for being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I'd encourage following up on the proposals discussed at WP:RFPP about noting BLPs and the number of edits made recently. I can try to be available at least for some of next Sunday evening. Go Phightins! 15:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd want to be one. It would be nice for situations like this, but i'm not sure sure i'm interested in the other responsibilities.--Yankees10 18:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Tyler Krieger) has been reviewed![edit]

A page you started (Tyler Krieger) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Tyler Krieger, Yankees10!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Does not appear to meet WP:NBASEBALL, but will provided he plays in the WBC in March, so close enough for the moment.

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Pro Bowl[edit]

Does being a Pro Bowler even mean anything. Like 75% of the league gets invited lol. Just looking looking at the AFC QBs, 13 out of the 16 teams could have had their starter be a Pro Bowler. The following list is in order of passing yards.

  • Philip Rivers (accepted invite)
  • Joe Flacco (not sure he had an invite but why not, he had the 2nd most yards in the AFC, not like Siemian's numbers are way better)
  • Andrew Luck (declined invite due to injury)
  • Andy Dalton (accepted invite)
  • Derek Carr (selected on ballot but injured and will not play)
  • Blake Bortles (same as Flacco, not like Siemian's numbers are way better)
  • Ben Roethlisberger (selected on ballot but injured and will not play)
  • Tom Brady (selected but team is in Super Bowl)
  • Alex Smith (accepted invite)
  • Marcus Mariota (injured before Pro Bowl invites started, so he could not have been invited unless he was selected on the original ballot, his numbers are way better than Siemian's)
  • Trevor Siemian (declined invite due to surgery)
  • Tyrod Taylor (declined invite due to surgery)
  • Ryan Tannehill (injured like Mariota, and not like his numbers are that much different from Taylor or Siemian, Tannehill's might be better since he played in fewer games)
  • Ryan Fitzpatrick (no invite, 12 TD 17 INT)
  • Brock Osweiler (no invite, 15 TD 16 INT)
  • Browns QBs (no invite)

For the record, the NFC side isn't as bad. The five players currently listed on the 2017 Pro Bowl page are the only ones who were invited as far as I can tell. The AFC had too many declined invites and injuries. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It's so bad. I haven't watched it in years. Where living in a world where two Pro Bowl quarterbacks threw 15 (Alex Smith) and 18 touchdowns (Dalton). Those numbers wouldn't even have gotten you in the Pro Bowl in the 1970's when they were throwing the ball only 25 times a game. In today's pass happy NFL those numbers are embarrassing...and they're in the damn Pro Bowl.--Yankees10 18:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Bridgewater last year was worse. 14 TDs, 9 INTs, lol. Also, Dalton's numbers were way better last year and he didn't make the team. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh god, I forgot Bridgewater made it. Atrocious. And somehow Stafford's 2011 (5,038, 41 touchdowns) wasn't good enough.--Yankees10 19:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
As ironically an IP just falsely added that he did make it to his infobox.--Yankees10 19:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Weird lol. Also, the bad thing is people look at Pro Bowls and automatically think it's an accomplishment. It is for the players on the original ballot most of the time. But some of the replacement's don't deserve it. But when people look back at their careers, they say stuff like "Pro Bowl QB Teddy Bridgewater" and they might not realize he only made the team because 10 people declined invites or were injured. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. It's a meaningless honor at this point. Maybe it meant something at one time, but now its so watered down and useless.--Yankees10 19:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Friendly reminder that Vince Young has as many Pro Bowls as John Riggins and Ray Nitschke combined. Lizard (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: Check out LT's non-Pro Bowl season in 2003. Lizard (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
That was his 100 receptions season no less.--Yankees10 18:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If they picked before the final game like they do now, the voters missed that 243-yarder. But here were the AFC running backs that season: Jamal Lewis who had over 2,000 yards, Priest Holmes who scored 27 rushing touchdowns, and Clinton Portis who had almost the same rushing yards as LT but played 3 less games. Also it didn't help that the Charges went 4–12. Lizard (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Advanced metrics"[edit]

Is this supposed to be football's sabermetrics? Most of this stuff is Greek to me and has no value to the average reader. That one guy's getting annoying. I always wonder what goes through an editor's mind when all their edits get reverted and they truck along continuing to make the same edits. Are they oblivious? Do they just not care? It's one of the great mysteries of the human race. Lizard (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm always amazed at that too. You think they'd get the hint. But no I guess.--Yankees10 23:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

i agree. advanced metrics are more sophisticated stats akin to sabermetrics. i'm personally interested in collaborating with User:Lizard the Wizard and User:Yankees10 to incorporate remarkable info into wikipedia's pro football player pages only when the information is noteworthy or newsworthy, particularly interesting to the average fan, and includes a trustworthy source reference. i see User:Lizard the Wizard and User:Yankees10 are doing an excellent job curating many of the pro football player pages. i love wikipedia and i love football stats. is there a specific protocol that i can follow to contribute to these pages while ensuring my work is not reverted by an established page curator?

i also noticed a reversion comment questioning playerprofiler as a source. i have yet to encounter an incorrect stat on one of the playerprofiler pages and believe it has become the authoritative source for many interesting stats and metrics such as catch radius, deep ball accuracy, yards after contact, etc. unlike much of sabermetrics, i believe many football metrics are straightforward concepts that are consumable and interesting to the average reader. for example, i believe many patriots fans would be interested to know that dion lewis leads the nfl in evaded tackles per touch over the last two seasons. also, for wikipedia users interested in learning more about football advanced metrics, i found this link, which lays out the origin and current source of numerous advanced stats: https://www.playerprofiler.com/terms-glossary/.-Mkelley78

I'll respond on your talk page, Mkelley. Lizard (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Hey, i always thought pro over college? Am i wrong? If yes (any guideline?), i am sorry. (Current roster should still be the first template). Kante4 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Kante4 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Well college comes first so that's why they are always listed as the top. As far as rosters going at the top, I've never seen that as being mandatory. It's usually the first or last depending on the article. Personally I don't care either way.--Yankees10 18:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that's logical. But pro is, yeah like ahead of college. That's why i thought it should be at the top. But ok if i'm wrong. Kante4 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
You're technically not wrong. I'm really just going based off what i've seen on other articles for consistency reasons, and most have it in this order. There's never been a formal discussion, as far as I know, about what order they should be in (and there probably shouldn't be considering how minor of an issue this is).--Yankees10 18:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Sorry if i caused any problems. Kante4 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't be. There's zero problems here. Keep up the good work with the Packers articles.--Yankees10 18:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Kante4 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you ready?[edit]

We should do prop bets with vandalism tonight. Over/under 10 instances of a player being another player's "daddy." Over/under 3 different players being the "GOAT." How many seconds between the first big hit of the game and the player who was tackled having their death_date field filled out? Lizard (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't as bad as I thought, except Malcolm Butler (American football). Single-handedly battled an idiot on that page for like 15 minutes. Lizard (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Was pleasantly surprised when I came to my watchlist after the game and the damage wasn't too bad. I thought Dan Quinn's article for sure was gonna be ugly, shocked that it didn't even have to be protected.--Yankees10 19:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Roger Clemens[edit]

Thanks for correcting me on the Toby Keith/Paul Wall sentence. I really should have put that in the sandbox and looked at it first. It wasn't very notable, I was just overthinking it.[[D-free]] (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For this. I've been dealing with this since the name change, and before that I'd been reverting people saying Johnny Unitas' jersey is retired by the Baltimore Colts. I wish they'd take a second to actually think about how it makes no sense for the jersey of a team that no longer exists to be retired. Technically every Baltimore Colts jersey is retired. Lizard (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

He did it again but I'm too close to 3RR. Lizard (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Alex Reyes[edit]

I'm not understanding your objection to having a line mentioning and linking to the other players who have had Tommy John surgery. besides Alex Reyes. If the additional information is accurate, not contentious and contains a wiki link, why do you feel the arbitrary need to remove the line, in the quote below? Could you possibly explain the reasoning or rule that has you so upset that it can't be there for those who want to see the listing? There are those who wonder if he is unusual in having it as a rookie and only 22, so the link gives them direct access to the list. That's the reason why I included it, so I hope it will explain and refute your unusual objection in smearing it ("this is silly", "still no reason to have this") as you did in your comments, which I thought was out-of-line for such an innocent addition. I would appreciate it if you would reassess your arbitrary deletion and re-add it. Thanks. "He is among many other players who have had the surgical procedure." Oye289 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If I may ask, what makes his removal of said link any more arbitrary than your addition of it? If it wasn't there to begin with, doesn't that make its absence the default, and thus its inclusion "arbitrary"? Lizard (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Your point is illogical for a reason for anyone to ever add anything to an existing article, by your definition of arbitrary. On the other hand, deletion of something added should be only for a solidly valid reason such as inaccuracy or invalid source. Oye289 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It's oddly placed and really doesn't add much. Would work better in a "See also" section.--Yankees10 07:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it the way you do as "oddly placed" or somehow a wrongful addition of information. However, I am glad to see you suggest an alternate way (that you won't delete) that I did not see, which is just another way of adding that same information that you initially objected to. Oye289 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Teddy Bridgewater[edit]

I referenced Bridgewater's college QBR (a popular QB efficiency metric) and included a link to the QBR wiki page to provide additional context. I am investing significant time into contributing interesting information, and try to be self aware, but here I don't see where/how I err'd. I sincerely concerned about wasting time and energy while simultaneously creating work for you... Can you briefly explain why the contribution was reverted?Mkelley78 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This stuff isn't notable that's why it's being removed. And that website is not a good source. All it is is a knockoff of Pro Football Focus and shouldn't be used.--Yankees10 17:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this opinion. For example, QBR is widely used by ESPN and is considered noteworthy to many mainstream sports media members and Wikipedia users. Additionally, PlayerProfiler, like Pro Football Focus, is widely considered a trusted data source by advanced stats aficionados. I believe discrediting it as knockoff is unfair as I have been using the site for years and have yet to find unverifiable/inaccurate data. Furthermore, Pro Football Focus does not make it's data publicly available, so it cannot be referenced, and is therefore not a true comparison. For this reason, I believe PlayerProfiler deserved more mention on Wikipedia, not less. What more can I do to help to ensure that my contributions that reference PlayerProfiler are not removed in the future? Mkelley78 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ruth[edit]

This interesting article is no doubt retrosheet's basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting though I think we should still keep it based on what MLB's official website says.--Yankees10 01:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

season → annual[edit]

I'm thinking of moving all the NFL's seasonal leader lists from "List of National Football League season xxxx leaders" to "List of National Football League annual xxxx leaders." Not only because it's consistent with how the NBA and MLB do it, but it's also awkward wording. You wouldn't say "he was the NFL's season rushing yards leader five times," but you might say "he was the NFL's annual rushing yards leader five times." Figured I'd consult with you since you created a few of the pages and templates for the NFL. And then we'd need to go fix the names in those template and stuff. Lizard (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Yankees10 21:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Kinda torn on what to do with List of National Football League rushing champions. While they are considered "rushing champions" it might be better to name it "List of National Football League annual rushing yards leaders," for consistency and recognizability. Lizard (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I'd stick with "annual" for those reasons.--Yankees10 03:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Joe Jiménez[edit]

I think Joe Jiménez needs to be moved to Joe Jiménez (pitcher) because there's another article of a golfer with the same name but without the accent in the E. Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 00:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There is only one baseball player with the name Joe Jiménez so pitcher isn't necessary and the other Jimenez doesn't have an accent so I disagree.--Yankees10 01:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Off-season and/or practice squad member only"[edit]

Do any other projects besides the NFL list off-season teams in the infobox? I can't find any examples. Lizard (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

None others as far as I know. Baseball certainly doesn't it.--Yankees10 01:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wendell Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Power forward (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) 10:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Be my friend MonkeyPanda1 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleting external web links[edit]

I am the manager for NFL linebacker Dekoda Watson and I updated is Wikipedia page to have links to his Facebook and instagram profile. But those links were deleted and it appears you made the last edit to the page. I am looking on visibility into why this change was made? En tourage01 (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Technically, according to a policy (that I can't think of the name of), social media links are not supposed to be used in articles. Though I have seen them added and removed by numerous different people, so i'm not 100% sure.--Yankees10 19:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft info in intro[edit]

There is no need to have it in the header, you already have it in the infobox and also inside the article text. The header should give you a quick idea of the article, not the whole story Tecmo (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Willy Adames for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Willy Adames is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willy Adames until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Onel5969 TT me 21:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Dalton Pompey[edit]

Thanks for the catch. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention. --rogerd (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem.--Yankees10 23:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What happened here?[edit]

[1]. You had it right the first time with Biletnikoff. Lizard (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

They apparently changed their minds and gave it to Andruzzi [2]. Belitnikoff is not listed on their website's list of winners [3] I tried finding their reasoning for changing but couldn't find anything.--Yankees10 16:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow that's really weird. Lizard (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I found a couple of pages listing them as co-winners for 2015: [4] [5] And they gave the award to each of them, per the ceremony videos at [6] and [7] (on the Andruzzi video, the host and Andruzzi both mention that there are two awardees). Why the website award page currently lists only one winner, I don't know.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. I can't imagine they'd just outright change their mind after awarding it, unless they rescinded it, which doesn't seem to be the case. Lizard (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

LT[edit]

This stupidity is what that IP keeps adding to LT's page to try to make a point that he played for the Chargers when they were in San Diego. Check the page history over the past few months. Yet another idiot who can't come to grips that a number can't be retired for a team that no longer exists. Lizard (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

And of course the idiot does it again.--Yankees10 00:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent Reversions[edit]

I had a great back and forth with User:Lizard_the_Wizard on my talk page regarding the general content restrictions enacted by NFL player page curators, and I have been following those guidelines above and beyond Wikipedia's general guidelines. To my dismay, I noticed a flurry of reversions rolling back many hours of notation work. I would appreciate it you could take a look at my talk page and respond with a general explanation for the reversions.Mkelley78 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

None of the info you add is notable and the source is not reliable.--Yankees10 20:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

After significant due diligence on PlayerProfiler, I concluded it is reliable. Have you read objections to its citation? Have you encountered significant inaccuracies on the site? Regarding your second objection, the information reverted such as yards after the catch is both relatable to casual sports fans and noteworthy to more sophisticated sports information consumers.

The recent reversions conflict with wikipedia's stated reversion guidelines. These guidelines ensure that editors such as myself are not demoralized and driven off the platform by having their hard work deleted by others based on acute notion of relevancy or arbitrary notion of reliability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary

Communication is the key to avoiding conflict per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring. Please engage me on my talk page before making a reversion as I am always happy to talk about the content I'm providing to ensure that it resonates as much as possible with wikipedia readers.Mkelley78 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You do a great service culling false information, opinions lacking citation, and original research from this platform, and you recently reverted one of my contributions deeming it not something the average person would find interesting. Wikipedia's mission is not to create an average information source, and as cited above, the documented standards for reverting contributions are higher than one editor's opinion of the average reader's sophistication and preferences. I will continue to strive to enhance the information on football player performances available on this platform. Mkelley78 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Rangel Ravelo listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rangel Ravelo. Since you had some involvement with the Rangel Ravelo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Spanneraol (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

whz are you reverting the listings at RfD[edit]

please explain sharpish. Discuss at WP:RFD please, don't revert. Si Trew (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You placed a PROD tag on an article that has already been nominated for deletion and kept. You can't do that.--Yankees10 23:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Kohl Stewart State Champion Deletion.[edit]

Why do you keep deleting about Kohl winning a State Championship? I was apart of that team and it should be apart of his highlights. HoustonAstrosFan97 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Because the infobox isn't for useless minor things like that. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice.--Yankees10 22:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mike Strong (baseball)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Mike Strong (baseball) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable minor league baseball player

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yaz[edit]

Comments as to why you've deleted items from his infobox would be useful. I imagine you deem them minor accomplishments compared to the others, so I'm not immediately quibbling, but explicitly stating the reason would be appropriate. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jwy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice.--Yankees10 23:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - such a link in the comment of your update would be "a good thing." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You're invited...[edit]

Note: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again) regarding the issue of whether or not the navboxes in coaching articles should be collapsed or stay as is. Please comment there and not here. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Team Colors[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if you knew how to add colors for a team? For example the St. Paul Saints have a color if you look at Mark Hamburger but teams in the Atlantic League don't have any and I want to add them in. Kingryan227 (DecreesActs) 20:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kingryan227: Not sure, sorry. I'm sure somebody at WP:baseball knows how to.--Yankees10 20:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

new images[edit]

I see you have been active in editing Mohamed Bamba, DeAndre Ayton, Michael Porter Jr. and Wendell Carter, who played in the 2017 McDonald's All-American Boys Game. At Talk:2017 McDonald's All-American Boys Game, we are discussing the preferred images for use on WP for the MCD All-Americans.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Congrats! Buster Seven Talk 03:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Chad Kelly Mr. Irrelevant.[edit]

Why did you erase it? Basically all NFL players that were the last pick of the draft have the Mr. Irrelevant 'title' in the box description here in Wikipedia. I.e Kalan Reed, 2016 Mr Irrelevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalan_Reed; Gerald Christian, 2015 Mr. Irrelevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Christian. Etc, etc, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:D701:F708:B6A4:6F6D:7170:6D78 (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it's incredibly minor and hardly even notable.--Yankees10 22:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sam Rogers (fullback), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fullback (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) 10:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

I was just wondering if you and Muboshgu had my contributions on your watch list haha because it seems like everytime I make an edit y'all are literally right on my edits. Kingryan227 (DecreesActs) 01:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I have 5,900 articles on my watchlist. Chances are a lot of the articles you edit are going to be on there.--Yankees10 01:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

John Ross[edit]

Regarding this, since when?? Do you have a link showing the consensus on the NFL project talkpage? I'm not upset I just want to see the proof that this is a consensus because I was unaware there was one.-Rockchalk717 04:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been removing those as well. Subsections should be kept to a minimum. If a player only played for one team there's no reason to have a "Professional career" section and a team section. And the "Combine" section usually only contains one or two sentences. Lizard (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Yup, exactly what Lizard said here.--Yankees10 05:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you both. I did not know we weren't doing that anymore. I will stop adding it and will remove them going forward if I come across them.--Rockchalk717 21:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Oi[edit]

I see you removing dates from infobox career award things, I've seen them being added but I'm unsure whether or not to remove them. Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Example of what you are referring to?--Yankees10 17:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Should I be removing dates like this [8]? If I see dates like this should I remove them? Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to. I only removed them because I didn't find it necessary to add the years in this case. Had the user or another user reverted me, I wouldn't have removed it again.--Yankees10 18:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Juju Smith-Schuster[edit]

I'm still looking for the others. So relax. Toeknee44 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Trevor Lawrence (American football)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Trevor Lawrence (American football) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Alexf505 (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomar Garciaparra[edit]

Why did you revert my edit of Garciaparra being World Series champion? He was with the Red Sox halfway thru the 2004 season and he has a WS ring so wouldn't that make him a WS champion? Smokiewight (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No. A player has to have been on the WS roster for it to be in the infobox per WP:Baseball.--Yankees10 02:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of D. L. Hall[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on D. L. Hall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Alexf505 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of D. L. Hall for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article D. L. Hall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. L. Hall until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Alexf505 (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)