Gonzo fan2007 (talk)Check out the Green Bay Packers WikiProject!

This is Gonzo fan2007's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Archives: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

Archives Archive 1

Randy Moss

I thought Jerry Rice's record was 21 touchdown instead of 22. Thanks for correcting it. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

It's really not that big of a deal, I've done that a few times. Basically, if an FLC has three supports but no opposition and has been there for 15 days, and I think it meets the conditions, I'll support it solely so that it can be passed. As for your closures, both had recent comments, and I try to give nominators a few days to address those comments before I close it, because the FL process is supposed to make a list as good as possible, and if there are concerns then we should give them a chance to be addressed. In fact, based on a few recent comments, I'm likely going to start being a bit of a harder judge when I close FLCs, and I will likely start failing them even if they only have 1 oppose "vote". -- Scorpion 21:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Early closures

Early closures of FLCs are a HUGE no no. You closed List of works by William Monahan when it had one day left, and you closed List of ammonites when it also had one day left. And even if opposition isn't being addressed, generally such FLCs should be given a few MORE days, not a few less. -- Scorpion 13:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indy Colts seasons

What happens next? Does it just wait for an admin or somebody to approve or what? Sorry I'm new at FL/FAs. HoosierState 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for info, I didn't really know how this whole process worked. I'm going to take a look at your nom and more than likely give it support since you helped me so much through my process! HoosierState 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, Colts/Packers Super Bowl XLII! Colts 27 Packers 13 :P. But in all seriousness I'm pulling for Green Bay in the NFC. I really can't stand either of the number 1 seeds. If someone questions my reason for support I'll tell them the article looks really good and deserves to be a FL, because it does. I just added the extra part because I didn't just want to say great work (kinda boring). Go Colts! --- HoosierState 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like doing this because it makes me feel selfish but I do believe Indy Colts seasons has passed nomination. It's been there for 10 days and it has 5 supports and 0 oppose. I would promote it myself, since you said anyone can promote but I no idea how to. I saw you knew how to promote so thats why I came to you to ask if you could. Again I don't like asking others to do stuff for me especially something I've worked a lot on but if you could I really appreciate it. Thanks, HoosierState 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I knew it was a bad idea to close it myself anyway, thanks for all your help the last 2 weeks. HoosierState 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

McGill University

Please do not interfere if you do not know what you are talking about. The accusation to Snowfire is not absurd or baseless as you claim it is. Read the history for this article dated December 31, 2007 (21:23). You will see there that Snowfire offered a compromise (which he now denies) and that he offered to put the college rankings on the lead paragraph itself (which he now does not want to discuss). So what is absurd there except your note?

Thanks.Editorhwaller (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with my talk page. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New NFL Template

I fixed/merged the new templates that Fruminous created. I think combining the two leagues would be ok since they are seperate. I fixed the links the best I could, check it out now and see if it is any better. HoosierState 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait what do you mean by I think it would look a lot cleaner and go in line with the other NFL season by team templates. they look the same formatting wise. HoosierState 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gonzo fan --

It's a confusing situation. I've been working on the Steelers' seasons, putting the NFL templates that I created at the bottom of the pages. I've really been stuck as to what to do for 1969 and before.

I created the first template using the "season" moniker, but realized that it wasn't the proper title, because truly the two leagues were playing two "seasons." Not being an administrator, I couldn't delete the first template. That said, from the 1966 season to the 1969 season, the two leagues were definitely separate, but did play a world championship in the Super Bowl. I created the template believing that, even though there were two different leagues, any visitor would be interested in what was going on in both of them.

I can certainly understand an argument that we should create two templates, one for the AFL and the other for the NFL. This would make sense especially for the pre-1966 seasons. Call it a personal preference, but I'd rather see something along the lines of combining the two leagues, as their fates were intertwined.

What's important to me is that we, as a community, create a strategy to deal with the seasons by team between 1960 and 1970. If that means creating separate templates, so be it. If it means creating a combined template, that's fine by me too.

Fruminous (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gonzo fan--

Your templates look good. I cannot help but think, however, that if I were coming to these pages, I would want some way to navigate to what was happening in the opposing league.

Basically, we have three periods that we have to cover:

• 1960-1965 Seasons: Leagues are in competition with each other
• 1966-1969 Seasons: Leagues have an agreement that leads them to merger
• 1970 Season: Leagues merge

We have the third case covered, so no problem there. Your solution works for the first solution -- so again, no problem. I propose that we put (maybe in italics) a link to the other league's season page for the 1966 to 1969 seasons. During that period, the two leagues weren't quite like Major League Baseball, in which they were administered by the same commissioner, but neither were they like MLB and Japan's professional leagues, who only play exhibitions against one another. Beginning in 1966, their fates were definitely intertwined.

I'll take your 1969 NFL template and put it on my sandbox to illustrate my idea.

Thanks for your ideas.

Fruminous (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Gonzo fan--

Take a look at case 4. Let me know what you think. It's my favorite right now.

Fruminous (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant!-

This is a much better solution. 'Twas good working with you. I'll make the edits.

Fruminous (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay we need a 3rd party. Frum wants to use nicknames in the templates but I think since they are in different leagues (AFL/NFL) nicknames are not nessecary. HoosierState 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there were the Dallas Cowboys in the NFL in 1962 and the Dallas Texans in the AFL in 1962 Frum wants to use nicknames (Cowboys/Texans) in the templates to specify. They are in completely different leagues so I say no nicknames. HoosierState 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all an interesting point similar to what we discussed earlier today and one that we need to vet with the larger community. The AFL/NFL merger does introduce some complexities!

Anyway... I've managed to do what I said that I wouldn't and went ahead and created all of the templates back to 1960. I'll spend a final few minutes adding them to the team season pages. Take a look at them, if you would, and let me know if you see anything that I've missed. I'm sure that there's a year here and there that needs to be corrected.

Fruminous (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New Orleans Saints picks FLC

Seems a bit unfair to Oppose just because I don't agree with your advice. Buc (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! so you were hoping we come reach a middle ground a compromise if you like. You should have said. What did you have in mind? Re-nom BTW. Buc (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally renominate straight away. Ok I'll concede the use of the Reggie Bush image since it show him before the Saints drafted him but not the Stallworth image because it shows him after his Saints career had endded. Also the images in there curent form look a bit ugly so how about if I make Reggie Bushthe only image? Buc (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to show support now? Buc (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of another sourse for Draft Transactions? Apprently NC Systems isn't good enough. Buc (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Not much we can do then and the FLC rules do say "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." Buc (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

All I could find was this: Buc (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Got a reply today. He's not interested in helping us. Buc (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've had an idea of how this issue could be resolved. this site says what team the pick was aquired from so if the footnote are re-phared to say something like "aquired from x details unknown" we could use this as a sourse. Buc (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I've been able to sort thing out by using another ref and repharing the footnote. May want to take note of this for furture FL nomination for First rd draft pick lists. Buc (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fring htc.jpg

Gonzo - this image is being used in an article I am preparing about fring for wikipedia. The image is not copyrighted as i took the picture i control the copyright and have released it under creative commons. I have also been in contact with the copyright owner who has given permission for the image and its use on wikipedia and anywhere else on the internet.

Please put the image back where it belongs.

regards

Goplett (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Packers HoF image

I have responded to your reply on my talk page to keep it all together. Would you give your opinion about the other 2 images that I have uploaded to flickr for consideration? I don't mind having an admin image expert review the situation since I would contend that it is a picture of the location. That way everything should be safer. To me it's just like taking a picture outside of Lambeau Field: the logo happens to be at the entrace to the place. It's a part of the location. It's not a big deal to me either way. I agree that the potential problem should get resolved immediately. Royalbroil 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:)

Second time today :) Rudget. 21:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't move it (I think that's what you're saying :)) - But yeah, hopefully that's the end of those sneaky deletions. Rudget. 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

In the last month, you have created 3 new WP:FLs. From what I can tell, they are your first ones. Congratulations! You may not be aware of WP:LOTD. We are experimenting with selecting Lists of the Day so similar to the current WP:TFA and WP:POTD features that run on the main page. I invite you to participate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:

It's been sorted and is running again :) . Mønobi 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry.

I rewrote it again like 4 times.(Fight Club) then i read the emssage, thought soem idiot was editing it, and make it all... loopy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubis God (talk • contribs) 07:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Re: Sorry

I changed the Fight Club thing like 5 times cause i though people kept changeing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubis God (talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice Game There!

Gonzo fan -- nice game. I'm rooting for you guys.

Fruminous (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AFL Template Proposed Merge

There's a proposed merge on the 1960 AFL Season by Team template. You might want to weigh in on the topic.

Fruminous (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Merv Pregulman

You rated the Merv Pregulman article as a "stub" today. That appears to be a mistake. The article is eight pages long with more than 40 in line citations. I'd appreciate your taking a look at this again and revising the rating.Cbl62 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to make the revision.Cbl62 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Indianapolis Colts first-round draft picks

Hey there again, I just recently created that new article. I would eventually like to raise it FL class as well. If you wouldn't mind I would really appreciate it if you would evaluate it and make any suggestions you would like. That way we don't go through the same issues that we had with the Colts seasons, haha. Thanks in advance. HoosierState 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I fixed all your suggestions and nominated it. Once again you've proven as a huge alley! HoosierState 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I noticed that some of other featured "List of first-round draft picks" used the same website that I did but were promoted anyway. Then I read through almost all the arguments against that website. I'm concerned that the list I nominated will be failed because of it. I have searched the internet thoroughly with no luck of other references for this. What should I do to fix this if it comes up in the discussion? I don't know, it just doesn't make since that other of these lists use the website but were promoted to FL status, except the New Orleans Saints list, it was failed. Once again I look to you for advice, sorry I keep bugging you, haha. HoosierState 18:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course somebody would bring it up at the last possible time, haha, my luck. HoosierState 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hey just letting you know the Nomination can be closed now :). HoosierState 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gonzo. You know what's funny, Gimmebot had already done all of that before you even sent me your message. HoosierState 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Yes, it's been an interesting few days. I see that Starwars1955 hasn't show up lately? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: I'm a bit surprised he disappeared, especially since the season is still going. Hmmm, better knock twice... I've thought about semi-protecting my user page. I almost did it when I hit 200, but I decided against it. Maybe when I hit my two year anniversary. There's a scary thought. =\ How time flies. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the revert on my talk page this time. So much for today being calmer. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least I got one day of fairly quiet editing done. I guess it was too good to last. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. I've seen your work around plenty (basically just Brett Favre, I've had that watchlisted for years now due to the sockpuppets), and I think that you would make a good admin. If you'd like, I can nominate you over at WP:RFA. Let me know of your decision. Wizardman 17:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just have to get the nom form ready, then you just have to answer the questions and transclude it. (Sorry I didn't respond at first, my noms haven't been going as wel of late so I'm trying to look at my candidates closer now) Wizardman 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it's ready for your part now. Wizardman 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gonzo, Just wanted to say congrats on being admin without any opposes or neutrals. Good luck.--Pookeo9 (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats becoming an admin! I'm glad to see you made it. Good luck and happy editing. Burner0718 (Jibba Jabba!) 18:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR 09:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article on '61 and '62 NFL Championships

Gonzo fan-

There's a good article in today's New York Times on the '61 and '62 NFL championships (with a lot to say about the Packers.) It might help with your efforts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/sports/football/16giants.html

Fruminous (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PACKERS

Just wanted to say you've done a great job with the Packers WikiProject. I just added my name to the list of members, and I'll be trying to help out.   jj137 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can help set up the newsletter or the collaboration at some point, if you want. (I set up a newsletter for another WikiProject.)   jj137 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't work on the collaboration part yet, because I'm not really sure what sort of set-up you would like; I could probably try to make a template for the newsletter, though.   jj137 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I'll get to work on it ASAP.   jj137 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: have you thought about making the navigation (in the Main Sections part of the main page) into a template? (or is it already?) That way you can just transclude it onto any pages you need to.   jj137 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I created a basic template here. You may want to change the pictures and definitely the huge "Newsletter" (possibly put another picture there); those were just the first three things I found/thought of. :)   jj137 22:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I roughly based it off another template; I'll be working on it more later.   jj137 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sorry

nvm it.

-Anubis God-

Football

Sorry about your Packers, I know how you feel. So much for our plan of Colts/Packers XLII in the Desert, both of our teams fall short. At least the Packers/Giants game was a good game. There's always next year for what its worth. At least 1 Manning made it, now he needs to win it! Could you imagine? Back to back Manning winners!! Anyway see you later. HoosierState 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, talent wise. The Colts have had talent like no other but never do enough. Our best free agents are a couple of o-lineman, Jake Scott and Ryan Lilja, so we should have most everyone back plus a few newbies from the draft. So maybe our plan can be pushed back to next season, can't wait (lucky I have college basketball to keep me happy til April)! HoosierState 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of career achievements by Brett Favre

I mass-protected about 4000 non-existent pages to deprecate an old system. You should contact the deleting admin. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

San Diego Chargers seasons hopeful I can make this a FL. I know I need to eliminate the red links. Anything else you think I should do?

Bad luck yesterday BTW. Buc (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

San Diego Chargers seasons now having a PR. Buc (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whats up?

If you'd like to know some about me you can go to my page. But yeah, what I mainly do on here dealing with the Packers is that I frequently go to Ryan Grant's page to make sure nothing is vandalized, I also make sure that the correct and up-to-date information is on there. Once in a while I will update other Packer players wikipedias with new information about them as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y5nthon5a (talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to try and find more information on Ryan Grant and add it to his wikipedia. He has some, but since he is obviously going to be running all over teams next year like he has the final 10 weeks of the Packers season and the postseason, people need to know who he is...Lol ;). Also I am not sure if you knew, but Javon Walker stated at the end of December he would like to return to Green Bay. What do you think? I hope he goes back, although he needs to get his head out his @$$ because when he left he said that he didn't want to work hard for a team that he didnt like(the packers) yet after being with his current team for a couple years(which he said he loved when he joined) he wants to leave and come back to the Packers. I mean, he is good, but he is stupid for thinking that people do not know what he is trying to do...He wants to get fame by going to the packers since they are in such a good stage right now of the franchise. Y5nthon5a (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We need more information on Chad Clifton as well, his page barely has any information on it. Y5nthon5a (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Thanks

No problem. If I need anything I'll let you know. :) Burner0718 (Jibba Jabba!) 18:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on becoming an administrator. I know you will use the tools wisely. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. I did not see any opposes. A sign that the community trusts you very much. Thank you, I will probably need assistance in the future. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, man! Best of luck to you. :) Definitely take a look at the new admin school, it's really useful. Drop me a line if you need any help! GlassCobra 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Congratulations. =) If you need any help, do feel free to ask. I suspect that you will get the hang of things fairly quickly, though, and won't need my help. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: I know what you mean. The "delete" button sitting on the main page still frightens me from time to time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Just be careful editing protected pages. You lost me a little on the proper length part. Do you mean the length for protection or account/address block length? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Ah, okay. With blocking, most admins start short with 24 or 31 hours and then progress for longer blocks more or less down the pop-up list. For IPs, I usually go 24/31 hours, 1 week, 1 month, 6 month, 1 year. For logged in accounts, the progression scale varies depending upon what they've done. Some get a short day long block and others go straight in indef or get an indef after they return. If you watch others, you'll get the hang of it. =) Also, after awhile you will get a feel for when a short or long block is required. You'll begin to recognize the troublemakers who will never do any good versus those who just need a short break.

Protection length is a bit harder to do. You have to look at how long the vandalism has been going on. If it's just today, then maybe a short protection will work. If it's been going on for awhile, a longer one might be warranted. Also check the past protection history to see what has been going on.

If you really want to see some action, watch when during school hours. The kids are out in force. Vandalism all over the place, blocks and protections are flying. Oh, what fun. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: If it's the same account recreating the article, I tend not to protect the page as I will block the account instead (after issuing a uw-create4, of course). I will protect recreation of the page if multiple accounts are creating the page after around the fifth or sixth recreation. The reason I favor account blocks is that some editors have discovered that they can just recreate the article with a slightly different name like "Gonzo fan2007", "Gonzo fan2007 (football fan)", or "Gonzo fan2007 (Packer fan)". Instead of protecting a bunch of pages, the account gets blocked and that's the end of that nonsense. That is until they create another account and then you're back to page protection. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA

sa'right. BTW, would you be interested in joining the kansas city chiefs wikiproject? RC-0722 /_kills 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. About the project, we're really just trying to recruit people right now. RC-0722 /_kills 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Administratortude

Congratulations on your RfA. 37-0-0. You are the New England Patriots of admins, my friend. It couldn't have happened to a better editor. Good luck! Snowfire51 (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

help - protection

Hi Gonzo fan2007, remember me? you were my first contact on Misplaced Pages. Anyway, I have a semiprotection request that needs to be applied right now - not sure if you are awake If you can please take a look at it, and the history of edits. It's getting ridiculous. thanks ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gonzo, thanks anyway. The page only needed semi-protection during the match, for like 2 hours. But I think the constant adding of live scores stopped later in the match so it was ok. But also admins said the edits were in good faith, they weren't bad vandalisms, so I guess it worked itself out. It was a good match and the article is fine now, I think. Take care ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Veeksha

Request for unblock from above, seems reasonably. Good day to you, SGGH 12:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, sleep is good SGGH 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality

You know, the quality of like 70 % of these edits is not very good at all. Sometimes I wonder if it makes wikipedia worse. I constantly have to undo or clean-up people's edits due to either poor writing, incorrect info, or vandalism. It's starting to get annoying lol. From my user page, you can see I like to revert vandalism, but for how long can I go on! ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)