This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Congratulations, Giants27! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the " Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 27, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
If you wish, you can add {{ User:Midnight Comet/WOTD/UBX|August 27, 2009}} to your userpage.

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 01:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, never gotten one of these before.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! BTW, be wary of changing date formats from 27 August to August 27 per WP:DATE. Both formats are accepted in Canada and there is still blood all over the floor at WT:MOSNUM. DoubleBlue ( talk) 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can go either way, but August 27 makes more sense to me than 27 August.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 18:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a geographical thing. There's no harm in changing them if you want (and I personally believe it should be that way for an American subject, since the visitors are most likely American themselves) but if you get reverted, I'd let it go.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 18:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Chris is right. It's geographical dependent. see WP:DATE#Full date formatting. If an article is an American article, then it's MMM dd, yyyy. Other countries are dd MMM yyyy. Canada uses both forms and you keep the original author's style. DoubleBlue ( talk) 18:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, no point in reverting and yeah I just went with the Canadian/American football norm but I have no personal problem with it being dd MMM yyyy.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 19:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no. It's fine. I usually put Month first in football articles myself. Just a heads-up that people are very sensitive about date changing. DoubleBlue ( talk) 19:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same people who say Wikipedia is too "US-centric"...haha Yeah, I haven't seen any of those discussions since I have no interest in battling over something so stupid.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 19:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the end result of the discussions was pretty much that: Anyone who argues over these things is ultra-lame. Just leave date formats the way they are unless there's a good reason to change them. DoubleBlue ( talk) 20:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the dd MMM format is from when people referred to dates as "Fifth of August" or similar, but when using numerals rather than writing out the whole number, it probably lost the "th" (as typewriters would not handle superscript very easily). I intentionally use dd MMM format in corospondence within the United States, as such I also include "U" in colour, neighbour, labour etc. And use cheque, rather than check.-- kelapstick ( talk) 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting take. I'd agree with that since people may have just transferred to 5 August instead of saying Fifth of August.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 20:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It actually makes a lot more sense that way and is easier for sorting (being in order from least significant to most significant). I write logs like budgets and reports that way; you can easily glance down the column seeing the days along the left. I do also write correspondence that way as a personal preference; it saves sometimes confusing parenthetical commas as well. DoubleBlue ( talk) 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

On August 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Captain Munnerlyn, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW ( Talk) 11:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Taken on Board. Is an edit summary like "/* Neues aus der Anstalt */ Reject - Not new" ok?

P.S. Could you pass 1892 vote of no confidence against the government of the Marquess of Salisbury. It just avoids the suggestion of a COI if I do not pass an article which I started.  Francium12  18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And I'll take a look at the article.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 18:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You can update the pages if you want, I'm not doing them right now.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 18:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Working on the PFW transactions, might do it when I'm done.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 18:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done-- Giants27 ( c| s) 18:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to {{ Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. -- Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

On September 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kevin Lewis (American football), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Giants. I was looking for potential admin candidates, and I was wondering if you felt ready yet; DYK would definitely benefit from your help. Cheers, Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) ^{help us!} 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. Thanks for the consideration though.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 15:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I, too, think you have improved considerably since your first attempt and I am looking forward to your second RFA soon. :-) Regards So Why 15:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SoWhy.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that was very weird. I guess I beat you to it, but how did it happen that your edit was just a typo? haha.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 17:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I erased the "c" in linebackers and thought I got the move. I hate when the system doesn't tell you when you edit conflict and you think you get it and then look at the revision history and your only edit was screwing up the spelling of Linebackers.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 17:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Giants27, User:72.80.176.88 keeps editing Template:New Orleans Saints roster to make Drew Brees and Mark Brunell underneath Joey Harrington. I don't want to create an edit war, but I'm not sure how to warn users. Can you help me? Eagles24/7 23:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It sometimes helps if you put an explanation in the Edit summary. Not with everyone but with good intentioned users it does. DoubleBlue ( talk) 23:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Check out WP:WARN for all the different warning templates, in this case you'd use Template:uw-3rr which I just did. If it proceeds beyond 3RR bring it to WP:ANEW or to Pats1 since he can block the user.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 23:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to both of you. Eagles24/7 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Course you could always just draft your own custom note on their talk page as well. The warning templates are very helpful for escalating through the steps for vandalising users and wording things appropriately, though. DoubleBlue ( talk) 23:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt that the wording of the templates has numerous policy links that will help the user put the problems behind them if they so choose.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 23:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. They've been well-crafted and are useful but are not necessarily perfect for all occasions. In this instance, I wonder if the user didn't think the roster was supposed to be in numerical order or something. Still doesn't justify an edit war but an explanation might have sufficed. DoubleBlue ( talk) 23:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, I'll be sure to use the templates next time. Eagles24/7 23:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

not fight over infoboxes, okay. I had an edit conflict on the release and chose to use my edit since the only significant difference was the infobox change (unneeded) and I added references. I always leave the infobox that is already there and I think that's fair. DoubleBlue ( talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unneeded? Come on you know it's better. :)-- Giants27 ( c| s) 22:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely on your clearest days you can see the difference and recognise that the active box has become a bit jumbled. DoubleBlue ( talk) 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Saw your blog entry, just wanted to correct something. He didn't get signed prior to the regular season by anyone after he went undrafted. He remained unsigned until November 2007, when Miami signed him to the practice squad. He ended the year there, then his contract expired.

Also, that URL's pretty gigantic dude...you couldn't come up with a shorter username for the site? Maybe abbreviate CFL?► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 02:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks for the heads up. And I don't know what possessed me to do that full name for the url, the actual name is shorter, but the url is just gigantic.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 12:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to quickly find another hook to replace this one as it has been put in Queue 6. Simply south ( talk) 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, i just found an alternative and did it. Could you check what I've done is right? Simply south ( talk) 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh?-- Giants27 ( c| s) 01:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You moved the hook to Portuguese Fireplace over to the prep area back then and another one already existed in the Queue 6 area back then. I found a greek hook and replaced mine in the prep area. So nothing to worry about. Simply south ( talk) 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I figured it out eventually, but originally I was thinking there was something wrong (like a copyvio) if it was so urgent.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 20:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the move was a simple copyedit to ensure that the template followed the defaults of {{ infobox}} and thus looked the same as the retiree template. If you want a consensus, you could try looking at the templates for almost any other type of sportsperson, which already follow these metrics. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How {{ infobox}} is used for other sportsperson templates it irrelevant. You can't just go through and change every single infobox because "the other ones look like it" not saying I oppose the change. But there needs to be consensus at a forum like WT:NFL, WP:CFL or Template talk:Infobox NFLactive before a change is made.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 20:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Gridiron football is not a retiree template and MOS:INFOBOX suggests standard width of 25ems; I studied considerably before changing from 25 to 24 ems. Going to 22em is poor form making bad line-wraps for football bios. The name can be either in the caption above the box or in the title header section within the box just as is done in {{ Infobox Person}} and many other standard infoboxes. DoubleBlue ( talk) 20:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DoubleBlue here. And I'll say again what I said before changing numerous infoboxes because others are like that, makes no sense there must be consensus for the change.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a common fallacy, which is addressed by WP:DRNC. Reverting an edit not because one does not disagree with it, but simply because it was not previously blessed by some random group on the encyclopedia, does not advance our goals.

If wrapping is a problem then it can be resolved by the use of the white-space: nowrap CSS property. This is how {{ infobox}}-based templates handle it. The goal is to have every infobox template based on {{ infobox}} because those templates are massively easier to maintain and style; getting existing templates to use {{ infobox}}'s metrics is a good start. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Making the infobox tinier than my thumb, doesn't advance goals either. It doesn't allow some to read them and last I checked Wikipedia is meant to be available to everyone. If it can't be read be everyone it makes them utterly useless.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 20:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That {{ infobox}} is one of the encyclopedia's most widely-deployed templates at this point suggests that you're not speaking for the project as a whole here. Hyperbole doesn't really help your cause; the difference is at most two points across most of the text. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you saw the results. It is tiny, the images are smaller everything is smaller. There was no need for the change as it was fine before.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No change was made to the image size code. I am perfectly aware of the results of the infobox, which resulted in the same metrics as those in {{ infobox NFLretired}}. It is not "tiny"; this is the size used on the majority of sportsperson infobox templates used across the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You are making increasingly less sense. WP:BRDC: You think a change is a good idea and try it but you are breaking a consensus version so be prepared to be reverted and discuss your changes if everybody doesn't accept it. I agree that one ought not to revert blindly but I disagree that this was the case here. Further, you were not seeking a change, at least explicitly, to {{ infobox}} so that is a completely different argument about the metatemplates and whether it is useful in this case. There are good and bad things about them. Your goal may be to have every infobox use them but it is not a Wikipedia goal; it is not even a Manual of Style metric. DoubleBlue ( talk) 20:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing my changes. What I disagree with is the commonly-cited fallacy that one must go seeking the blessing of people's random WikiClubs before making changes. If you have a look at my track record you'll see that I've got a well-worn workflow for getting templates onto {{ infobox}}, which starts with sorting the metrics out, then getting the syntax cleaned up, and then proceeds with the heavy lifting only when it will be easy to see if any there have been any negative effects (which requires that the metrics were similar in the first place). This is made massively more difficult when people have the mentality that change is scary and to be avoided at all costs, which is sadly endemic to templatespace in some parts of the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice start. You narrow an infobox without any discussion or forethought with a misleading edit summary "match retired" when what you say now is you were trying to gain consensus for {{ infobox}}. Now you call WikiProjects random WikiClubs. Why would we have trust that a "random" editor like you would know what they're doing? DoubleBlue ( talk) 21:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects or whatever you call them are the key to changing things. They are the ones work with these infoboxes every single day and should know what's better. Not some random editor who thinks every thing needs to line-up or else all hope is lost.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 22:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The summary was not misleading: the changes were indeed made to match {{ infobox NFLretired}}, which happened to already be a good citizen. The change had plenty of forethought (if it caused fallout then that's trivial to fix, and I'm always open to fixing my own mistakes if given a friendly ping), and discussion prior to editing is not and never should be mandatory. I made a change, it was reverted, we're discussing it. It is my personal opinion that the more seriously an editor takes participation in the Wikiproject system, the less likely they are to be able to take external input in good faith and I consider that to be damaging to the project; I can't stop you from not "trusting" me because of this, but I would take it as confirmation of that hypothesis. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But you're simply on a mission from God for your infobox crusade. DoubleBlue ( talk) 22:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone here is on a mission from God of some sort. I've made my arguments as to why I'm doing it, and I'll continue to do so as the project lurches onwards to perfection. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your view of perfection on Wikipedia is clearly different than everyone elses then.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 22:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's the level the conversation has sunk to, I think we're done here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How did we go from infoboxes to server kitties? Haha nice one.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

i found it on espn.com from ap images this file here File:KazAngels.jpg is that copyright vio? BigPadresDUDE ( talk) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes because unless you took the image or uploaded it from flickr, then it is a copyvio because it is not licensed under either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 23:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

i dony have a flicker account and im screwd with the pic BigPadresDUDE ( talk) 23:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, even if you had one it would still be a copyvio since you didn't take the picture. If someone other than you took a picture and listed it under one of the licenses I mentioned above then you can use a flickr image. Otherwise you must've taken the picture yourself.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought I should just mention here to ease any confusion that most Flickr photos are not appropriate candidates to be uploaded, as most Flickr photos are listed as having 'all rights reserved'. It all depends on the photographer's preference. Nice to see you, by the way. :) —  neuro ^(talk) 15:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the easier to understand explanation, that's what I was going for but couldn't think of the words. ;) Nice to see you back editing full-time.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 16:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If I thought he was signed by BC, I would've put BC in the team param not NFL free agent. He is not a free agent in the CFL because he was drafted. I understand he'll be trying to find a spot on the PR anyway but it's misleading to say he's simply a free agent but perfectly clear and true that he's an NFL free agent. DoubleBlue ( talk) 12:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You what it's there for only a few more hours and if he goes unsigned then he'll probably go to BC so no point in edit warring of this.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 12:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But you do agree that if a team holds a player's rights, he is, by definition, not a free agent. DoubleBlue ( talk) 13:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No I don't because he hasn't signed thus he's free to sign with anybody (not in that league obviously).-- Giants27 ( c| s) 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"He's free to sign with anybody (Not in the CFL)" is my point. That's why I used the clarifier "NFL Free agent" rather than the usual and ordinary "Free agent". "NFL Free agent" is perfectly accurate. "Free agent" is inaccurate. DoubleBlue ( talk) 02:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 16:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

...for the GA review and your helpful suggestions on the Scott Feldman article.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on this?► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 17:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Complete bullshit. But they won't be deleted at CfD so there's no point in edit warring over them.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You fellows might find this CfD of interest. DoubleBlue ( talk) 06:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I like to see that.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why have you removed the category for African American players of Canadian football from Demonte' Bolden? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• In fact, I see you've removed all many of these categories? Why? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Because this is unnecessary category clutter, just because a player of Canadian football happens to be African American it doesn't mean there should be a category for it. If you have a category for that why not have a French American players of Canadian football or European American players of Canadian football? All of these players fall into the category of American Players of Canadian football and there's no need to dissolve it further.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Especially in a sport where the fast majority of the players are that race, why categorize it?► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 21:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A, African American Players of Baseball category would make sense, but I'd liken a football category to one like, African American Players of Basketball. The category's useless since most of the population of that sport is that race.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't create the category. If you have a problem with it, instead of complaining about it, why not nominate it for deletion? Or at least do me the courtesy of informing me on my talk page that you have taken it upon yourself to undo my edits and (selectively) depopulate the category. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed you had added it, I saw it on some pages and removed it from random pages and I will nominate the category for deletion, in the next few hours.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 00:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saved you the trouble Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_9#Category:African_American_players_of_Canadian_football. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To put it quite bluntly, that nomination makes you seem like the biggest asshole here. I can have a life and don't have to nominate things for deletion on your schedule. Calling me out like that was absolutely unnecessary and shows very poorly on your character.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. the template's documentation needs to be updated to include that info... RF23 ( talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The use for |finalyear= and |finalteam= should probably be communicated better, since other editors might make the same error.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, i geuss i don't really see the point of having the feild in there at all. Whenever a player retires, they are switched to infobox NFL RETIRED.. so why is that even there? RF23 ( talk) 21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not anymore, NFLretired is being removed from pages because NFLactive is now capable of handling retired players.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that makes more sense... RF23 ( talk) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

However due to one field difference (|debutteam= and |finalteam=) the infobox looks weird when redirected without those minor changes, thus it has to be done manually.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Florio may have made it big, but he's still an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. The other have he's sensationalizing little things and trying to start controversies. It's pretty sickening how popular he's got. He's found a niche, but he's truly a douchebag.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know how you feel about him, haha.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 22:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, case and point. His lack of knowledge constantly causes him to think there are deeper meanings to stuff that happens when there isn't. He doesn't know how things work, so he thinks the ordinary is peculiar.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 22:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bobby Keyes (gridiron football), which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You're better with this stuff than I am. Eagles24/7 00:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Finks

Re this edit [1]: Finks' greatest post-player accomplishments were as an executive, not as coach. The old infobox showed this, the new one doesn't. I am completely non-adept with infobox manipulation; can the new one be adapted appropriately? Thanks very much.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 00:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the field |pastadmin=, so info like this can be appropiately included. Surprised I didn't already add that.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 01:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the minor mistake I made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Gant ( [2]). When I first went to the edit box, I knew I had hit something extra on accident, but thought I had removed it via Ctrl-Z. I guess I didn't, and didn't think to check it! My bad *smacks self on forehead* Ksy92003 ( talk) 14:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no problem figured it was a mistake.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Bills website lists him as #66. Ositadinma ( talk) 21:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a conflicitng statement. The roster lists him at #66 and his page it lists him at #68, but in the picture you can tell he is wearing #66 and it says underneath Seth McKinney; offensive lineman #66. Ositadinma ( talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No the roster lists him a 68 also, take a look for yourself. He only wore 66 in camp because players get random numbers until the start of the season when there are more numbers available.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I not saying your lying but when I click on the roster he is listed as #66, plus he wore that number throughout his career. I think. Ositadinma ( talk) 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see both...guess we'll find out Sunday.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 21:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you're seeing that as the roster does in fact list him as #68.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Even when I click on your link right now I still see #66??? Ositadinma ( talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it, it says #68 for him. As does his bio (-the picture, which is out of date anyways), so I'd say he's #68. Are you confusing the 8 for a 6 or something?-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, just the actual roster it says #66 not the bio. I know the picture is out of date. Ositadinma ( talk) 21:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty strange, it says 68 for me, clearly the IP saw 68 and you see 66. While Chris sees both...-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC) -

The roster linked above says 68, not 66 (on my computer). I even searched for 66 on the page and there was nothing. Maybe a cached copy of the page saved on your computer?-- kelapstick ( talk) 21:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking happended, as I also searched for 66 which turns up nothing and it lists him as 68.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess, I could clear the cache or something and see if that fixes it for me. Ositadinma ( talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I got it know, had to clear cache and press Active - Go again to see that McKinny wears #68. Ositadinma ( talk) 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be this much controversy anyway. It's obvious to anyone that just thinks about it what has happened. McKinney always wears 68. When he signed, 68 was taken by Langston Walker. Now Walker is gone and McKinney has changed to 66. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's happened and which number is the right one now.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ref added.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Passed, good article.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 22:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Giants! According to my sources, it's been precisely one year since you joined. Happy WikiBirthday, and keep up the hard work! rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 02:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rjanag, I'm as surprised as anyone that I've been here a year. From this to this or from unsourced to restoring sources, quite ironic.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 02:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, my first edit is still there, excluding the fact tag that is now there.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 02:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, the first year is always the longest. I'll turn five in about three months, and for me, it just seems that time flies by really fast. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no kidding seems like everything in life is that way.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Rob Myers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 23:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rob Myers, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 06:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, practice squad players are released, not waived. They aren't on the team's roster so they can't be waived from it. Just letting you know so you can write it accordingly when appropriate (ex. A. J. Trapasso).► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably right...at least it makes sense.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 00:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I mean since we've never seen a guy cut from a PS and "claimed" to an active roster, they can't be going through waivers. Claiming teams take on the old contracts and those are PS contracts, not active ones. Plus, why would they have to clear waivers anyway if they could sign with any team while on the PS? So I'm 99% sure about it.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, plus PS guys are essentially free agents and just happen to practice with a team so no need to go through waivers.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 11:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing (and passing) Marty Hogan following its nomination for GA status. Your comments and recommendations were much appreciated. Sincerely, twelsht ( talk) 03:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 11:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, stop nominate some of my articles for deletion and of course Stop bother me. Are you against me or what???? you dont help in anyhting deleting those articles.-- Zta ♠ talk♠ August 23, 2009 ♠ Nastia '♣

I felt they were non-notable, not because you created them.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and the barnstar. The Lorenzen thing goes to show how incomplete a google news search can be. I have found the NewsLibary to be a good supplement. If you're interested, the link is here. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, (but just as an fyi), when you reverted me on Template:Philadelphia_Eagles_roster, the info was already posted on the official Eagles website. Just letting you know! Bjewiki ( Talk) 02:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It always helps to check the official website, haha. Thanks for the heads up.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 02:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Closed this for you. _Me t ^ty 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 17:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question for you, I realize you did this long ago but I just noticed it now, but why did you remove the reserve list? Again, those players are not active nor inactive, they are on a different list, which is quasi-active, quasi-inactive so they do need to be shown separately. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 04:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the reserve list is a list of guys who are active but are sort of inactive since they won't play. It's too hard to keep up with because you hear about them the day after the game so it's almost always inaccurate.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 11:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't change during the week. Each week the players are sent to the list 2 hours before kickoff. Thus like any transaction on a given day show up on the transaction report on CFL.ca, the next day (the CFL is slow moving when it comes to this, so rarely are transactions posted same day). Players may move off the list during the week to another roster, but no one is added until 2 hours before game time the next week. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How do we feel about this sort of thing? There are Bears, Lions and Raiders ones as far as I can see. He did it to the Dolphins one too but I reverted.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that too and I am currently working on fixing them. I posted a message to User:Draft fan22 saying I was going to do this, also. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted a note on his talk page yesterday. Personally I think the navbox is for easy navigation from page to page not for organizing by position.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Packers have it too, although it was created a while ago. During training camp in fact.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I mean it's not totally bad, but I think it might be a little bulky for player pages.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think he cared about your comment on his talk page, because he went and created the Lions navbox today with the same bad structure. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if Chris remembers a few months ago, but Draftfan reminds me of User:Alakazam, ignoring talk page messages and doing whatever he feels like. And yeah I'd say it's not horrible but like you said it's sort of large.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The design is actually pretty solid on its own, I just think it's a bit much for its use. I'd suggest maybe he doesn't know how to use/find his talk page (I've seen it before) but he did make a damn solid template so I have my doubts.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. The design is nice but bulky and incomplete (missing the p.squad guys). If this was for a non-player article I might actually support it but player article templates need to be small and compact not large and bulky.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what's the final verdict with these roster navboxes? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Change em'.-- Giants27 ( c| s) 21:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

One question, should we create roster navboxes for the rest of the teams?, because I thing Draft fan22 is going to keep on creating them his way. Also if we create them will people update them regulary like the MLB ones (the only real on that gets edited it Nelson and the Dolphins - see Buffalo Bills), because in camp there are going to be 80 guys and cuts/signing will be made daily. We can barelly keep up with the templates when the day comes for the 53 man cut. Just to let you know Draft fan22 does know where his talk page is since JustSomeRandomGuy32 posted a message about Ramon Castro on it. His reponse was blanking the page. Osi tadinma 15:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'll try to bang some out of the weekend (busy with RL, GA reviewing, CFL re-assessing, DYK reviewing and article writing) but I'll see what I can do.-- Giants 27( c| s) 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of Highly active users on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running for administratorship, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 17:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've commented there.-- Giants 27( c| s) 18:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Undid revision 314607797 by 173.50.37.225 (talk) still a pro but for Colts) (undo)

WTF? Did you even bother to read the sentence before you reverted my edit? No one was debating whether or not Baskett still plays pro football. The sentence previously read that Baskett was still playing for the Eagles, all I did was change the wording to past-tense to show that he no longer played professionally for the Eagles, not that he had stopped playing pro ball entirely.

Although judging from the comments on your talk page, I'm guessing you just make reverts and changes willy-nilly without any thought for the previous contributors' work based on your personal feelings for the contributor (or the fact that they aren't registered). Either that, or you SERIOUSLY lack reading comprehension skills. If it's the former, knock it off. If it's the latter, then God help you sir.

173.50.37.225 ( talk) 09:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct all I saw was the edit saying former and I didn't realize it was former Eagles player. Again you're right, I'm wrong.-- Giants 27( c| s) 12:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was switching over some NFLretired infoboxes to NFLactive, when I came across George Saimes. He was drafted by the AFL and the NFL but the Template:Infobox NFLactive does not support AFL draftees. When I leave it as is, it comes up as him being drafted by the team that drafted him in the AFL in the NFL Draft section. Can you fix this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do.-- Giants 27( c| s) 15:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Should work, let me know if it screws anything up.-- Giants 27( c| s) 15:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the new fields that have to be typed in for this?

|afldraftyear

|afldraftround

|afldraftpick

|afldraftteam

?

Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct.-- Giants 27( c| s) 15:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it worked, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have been motivated to get off my ass and create History of African Americans in the Canadian Football League if it weren't for the whole kerfuffle about the player category and a subsequent discussion with DoubleBlue. As it turns out, there was a preexisting orphaned article under a different name, which I have merged. So I do owe you and DoubleBlue thanks. I think we now have a very useful start article on this important part of CFL and Black history. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...might be a nice choice for collaboration when it starts.-- Giants 27( c| s) 22:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I honestly didn't think there was enough out there for what he started. The CFL Black History Month article was a great idea. Off the top of my head, there may be some refs on or for the Warren Moon, Cookie Gilchrist, Johnny Bright, Chuck Ealey articles we can use to build it up. Maybe the CFHOF has something. DoubleBlue ( talk) 03:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I was thinking since some prominent African Americans have decent articles we can use some info from there to help make the article.-- Giants 27( c| s) 18:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the opener wanted to do with this AfD, but it could well be worth a non admin closure; what do you reckon? Giant Snowman 12:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I closed it (NAC), no need to keep the discussion open, no deletion justification given and subject passes WP:ATHLETE as inclusion criteria.-- kelapstick ( talk) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - what s strange bit of editing from the nominator! Giant Snowman 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not being able to answer but looks like kelapstick took care of it. I'd agree that an NAC was completely appropiate since there was no nom statement and the AfD tag was only added to the article after I asked.-- Giants 27( c| s) 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished alt text now that the infobox has been enabled.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you put the twitter link above the players website, bios, etc.-- Yankees10 19:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just do, no rationale.-- Giants 27( c| s) 19:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think they should be below the websites and bios, what do you think.-- Yankees10 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for that.-- Giants 27( c| s) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it was just better to put it below them because theres more info and stuff on the bios and websites.-- Yankees10 19:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

But you got to remember that they are vertified accounts because the're are alot of fake accounts for players saying that they are real. Osi tadinma 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that, which is why I go through the a players' account and see who they're following.-- Giants 27( c| s) 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I put them just below official website (or on top of they have no official website) because both those things are first-hand sources.

Also Giants27, please use some common sense when adding twitter links. Take the Tony Romo link you put. Do you really thinking he's tweeting with TO and writing things like "Goodell should go to jail--not because of Vick, but because he's just a horrible commissioner"? Usually, you can tell if it's real by the picture, the things they write, etc. I think Romo's an unlikely "tweeter" anyway, given all the crap he's gotten from the media and fans about being involved in stuff outside of football.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, my bad didn't notice that, remove it.-- Giants 27( c| s) 21:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're jumping the gun on Luciani‎. I interpreted that to mean a work-out or at most a negotiation. I don't see anything official. DoubleBlue ( talk) 02:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know considering he was removed from the Als pr today and on the same day he posts about going to Winnipeg. I'm thinking Winnipeg signed him off Montreal's pr.-- Giants 27( c| s) 02:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly a reliable source but he first posted that he was leaving Montreal and going home. Then three hours later, he said he was off to the airport, headed to Winnipeg. We'll know soon enough anyway. I was just saying. DoubleBlue ( talk) 02:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...strange but we'll see soon. At the latest we'll have to wait till CFL.ca updates for tomorrow.-- Giants 27( c| s) 02:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jamaal Westerman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady ( talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't be laughing now about safeties. Just heard that Phillips career is pretty much over; it's patellofemoral arthritis and you can't fix that. Osi tadinma 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I hear that all the time, he most likely will be back.-- Yankees10 22:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He will probably have microfracture surgery and clean his knee up, but I doubt that helps. The true only way to get ride of arthritis is to have knee replacement surgery or fight through the pain. Osi tadinma 22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I hardly doubt his career his over. He's a second year guy and he's young and as you know younger players heal quicker than older guys. He'll be back. Plus, I doubt the Giants go through next year's draft without grabbing another safety for depth and possibly for starting.-- Giants 27( c| s) 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

His career might not officially be over, but he could very well never be the same.► Chris Nelson ^Holla! 23:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Today's a good day to be an Eagles fan. =) Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, his knee may lock or the pain could be so much he can't keep up with tight ends. I'd be very surprised if he's the electrifying playmaker he was on Sunday when he plays next season which is a shame considering he had the potential to be one of the best or better safeties the Giants have had in a while.-- Giants 27( c| s) 23:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

		The 50 DYK Medal
		Congrats on 50 DYKs! -- Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) help us! 01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha!.-- Giants 27( c| s) 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mike Quinn, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 04:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)