User talk:72.0.36.36 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uriah923 (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 13 January 2008 (→External links: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:52, 13 January 2008 by Uriah923 (talk | contribs) (→External links: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

You have to establish the noteworthines of that award you're adding. Quadzilla99 03:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be hard I can look for a source to help out if I have time. Quadzilla99 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK72.0.36.36 04:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NFL player

See that page for the standard format for NFL players, this was decided by consensus. Also see here for the decision for retired players. Quadzilla99 16:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pro Bowls are listed by year that's the consensus format used here see WP:NFL and the instructions on the infobox. Also please don't get mad at me. Quadzilla99 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

okay 72.0.36.36 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)72.0.36.36 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't mean to take out the height weight and the Halas trophy on LT. Oops! Quadzilla99 02:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

no problem72.0.36.36 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Team colors on retired players

Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Quadzilla99 11:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

72.0.36.36 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 02:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, including:

The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
The use of your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed.
The ability to create new pages.
The ability to rename pages.
The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
The ability to upload images.
The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

I also see that you've edited an article related to Georgia Tech. If you're interested, there's a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Georgia Tech, called WikiProject Georgia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can create an account, and then visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Again, welcome! —Disavian (/_contribs) 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks72.0.36.36 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

All-time University of Texas team

Could you provide a link for this (if you have one) so that we can cite it properly in the article? Thanks. ~ João Do Rio 10:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

72.0.36.36 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)okay, we'll do.

72.0.36.36 01:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)I put in the refernce date. .

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets

I don't think the "all time team" is relevant to the subject. It's just a list of players, and the section makes no attempt to explain itself. Also, notable Georgia Tech sportspeople are already covered in List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. If you'd like to make other additions to the page, try to focus on:

Prose instead of lists
Content that is verifyable
And be sure to provide sources

Thanks. —Disavian (/_contribs) 23:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the All-time team is relevant. It is not "just a list of players" but an organzied team under Georgia Tech football. However, I will agree with your verifyable point. I will provide the source. thanks. Please do not delete again. 72.0.36.36 00:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

72.0.36.36, please refer to the discussion on Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets. Those are my thoughts on the GT All-time team. I have a pretty good idea of GT Football history and I'd like to think some guys since 1991 deserve to be on a better all-time list (rather than completely excluding our 1990 UPI Title team).--Excaliburhorn 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you are deleting the All-time team beacuse you have an ax to grind. Just because you disagree with the timing of the release of the team does not make it invalid. That is a lousy reason for deletion. It is noted that the team was chosen in 1991, those who have some intelligence will understand that those who played after would not be included. That is the way all-time teams are chosen. It does not make any kind of value judgment on players who were not eligle. Your understanding of GT football history is not relevant. Nor is mine. What is relevant is that i nthe GT football media guide they continue to honor the All-Time GT team. It is noted that it was picked in 1991. That's the end of it. It is relevant by it's very nature and by listing in the GT media guide. I note that you now don't think it is a "list of players" but you think it does not select guys you like better. Well, get on the phone and call GT Sports Information and tell them to remove it from the Media guide or tell them you think there should be a new team selected, one with guys you like better. Until then, the team is relevant and I would appreciate you leaving it alone. 72.0.36.36 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we're just saying that it isn't relevant to the article - it doesn't significantly contribute to an understanding of the topic. If you want to edit constructively, you should write prose, preferably about the history of the athletic program. —Disavian (/_contribs) 01:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to again disagree. Although prose is preferred there is a time and place for charts and for an all-time team. The all-time team IS part of the history of the altheltic program. Not all wiki-pages are 100% prose. But I have to point out that now it is that this is an all-time list that bothers you, that is it not prose. Well, before it was that it was "dated" and that certain of your asn Excal's favortie players were not included. So, I have to beleive that the real reason you wish to exclude this is that it does not feature more recent players. To me, that is not a vaild reason for deletion.72.0.36.36 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Bulldogs, Miami Hurricanes, Clemson Tigers, Duke Blue Devils, NC State Wolfpack, Maryland Terrapins, Virginia Cavaliers, Virginia Tech Hokies, North Carolina Tar Heels, Boston College Eagles, and Florida State Seminoles do not list anything like that. Wake Forest doesn't have an athletics page. None of those teams list "All-Time Teams" and most of them are much better than this page. This is an Athletic Department article not a football history page. We NEED a GT Football page and this can be something we put on it. Until another ACC team or ugag lists an All-Time team, I think we should leave it off.

Secondly, I think that there are some people that are far more important to GT football that are not listed in that list. To leave off Clint Castleberry is an injustice to GT football (the only retired number and Heisman finalist). Shawn Jones and Joe Hamilton destroyed all of GT's QB records and were All-Americans. Shawn WON a national title. Joe was a Heisman runner-up. Calvin Johnson destroyed all of GT's receiving records and was consensus All-American all 3 years. That list in the media guide is just bad listing Scott Sisson over Luke Manget (most prolific GT kicker ever) or Jim Preas (222-0 kicker). These aren't people I think are more important. History, statistics, and the rest of the world think they are more notable but some GT fan poll in the early 90's is more important than what everyone else in the college football world thinks about GT (for all we know that poll could have 10 voters).--Excaliburhorn 03:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay after a little research, I found that this list really doesn't appreciate GT's rich football tradition but is rather a tribute to Bobby Dodd's players. The oldest player on the list is George Morris of 1952. So we're automatically excluding every player from Alexander and Heisman's coaching days, which includes two of our National Titles. 10 out of 24 of the players are from Bobby Dodd's tenure. 6 are from Pepper Rodgers' reign. 8 are from Carson, Curry, and Ross' tenures. Historically speaking, this All-time list is terrible in that it crops out 60 years of pre-Dodd football and does not include any of O'Leary or Gailey's players. Hence, it is dated and it lacks a true historical nature.--Excaliburhorn 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is not what YOU think of it, but what the SCHOOL thinks of it. If you were writing a book you could leave it out. Your "hence it is dated" is not a logical conclusion. You didn't like it at first, you don't like it now. However, you and the other opponent keep changing the mark. Flaws can be found for anything. You didn't like this before your research. Therefore I question the integrity of your research. In any research you must factor in the bias of the researcher so you won't get cooked details. Just beacuse your favorite guys are not on it does not make it invalid. When a new team is chosen when your guys are eligble, what if someone who thinks new rules or something helped Johnson break all those records, that the modern game is differenct that the Dodd era? What if they object because of the same things you state now. I would like you to be honest. You didn't like it from the beginning and now you are trying to gin up any reason to get rid of it. Guys who were not eligble in 1991 were not elible. Unless you have s9olid proof that pre-Dodd players were INELIGBLE then your research is false. Leave it up. It does not disrepect any player you like who was not elible. People who read an encyclopedia understand that. Why you are being so obtuse is a mystery.72.0.36.36 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see the list as a very respected and encyclopedic list. It doesn't include modern players and their achievements and it excludes players before Bobby Dodd's Era. Do I like the list? No, I don't like the list but it's from a sheer encyclopedic perspective. An obscure GT Fan poll is not encyclopedic. Personally, I think the list is a way to flatter older alum and keep them donating when they see their favorite players from the Dodd Era still mentioned in the media guide.

To me, All-Americans, Heisman finalists, etc. are voted on by national media and widely accepted players of prominence. I also cited the fact that NONE of the ACC wikipedia articles have any such All-Time teams in their ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT articles. Are my favorite players in the list? Well, most of them are. I respect history but I think you are overrating the credibility of this fan poll. As I said, you can put this list in to the GT football article (when it's created), if you want but I'm going to continually delete it from the general athletics article because it does not contribute to the understanding of "An overview of Georgia Tech's athletic program."--Excaliburhorn 03:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am neither overrating nor underating. It is what it is. Created for a reason and publised for a reason. The constant moving target is hard to meet. First, use prose, then it was the attempt to discredit the poll, then it was it does not represent the full history (which you frankly lied about) the all-era teams prove that. Now it is the poll was done by dip shit-cracker Georgia Tech fans and not the "national media" who would I guess have oh so much more knowledge. Come on. Get over it. None of your arguments holds water. You simply don't like the results of the poll and are censoring it.72.0.36.36 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the lists to the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football article. It is where it should be now. Thanks for adding the all-Era teams. One thing though: you keep forgetting Bobby Dodd as the All-Time Coach according to the media guide. I'll fix that.--Excaliburhorn 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are right. I did leave off the coach. My error. A new article seems to be the best idea72.0.36.36 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football

We decide things by consensus, and the consensus, I'm sure, is that the list goes and stays away. I'd like to reiterate that the list doesn't serve a useful purpose, and including it is probably a copyright violation. It's just a fan poll that doesn't accurately describe anything; the article lists non-neutral statistics, including specific awards, and particularly notable players are covered in the prose where relevant. It takes more effort to contribute than copying a list and formatting it with wiki-markup.

While I appreciate that someone's contributing to the Georgia Tech sports articles, you haven't actually written any prose, or provided any references, or uploaded any free use pictures; those three things are what the articles really need. You could even write or expand a game summary - we have several yearly articles that could use help, as listed on Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football#Current regime: 2002–Present. If you're much of a basketball fan, then you could expand Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's basketball (esp. the History section), which is rather short at the moment. Articles need to be written on every person listed on List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes.

Each of those are a lot more constructive in the long run than copying some poll's results. If you continue to ignore consensus by pasting your possibly copyvio list into the article, then there will be consequences, and I'd prefer to have you as a constructive editor than someone who could have contributed, but didn't because they couldn't learn Misplaced Pages's rules. —Disavian (/_contribs) 20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not be honest. Your "consensus" is 2 people, maybe three. The list is not a copywright violation. It is from the Ga Tech Media Guide. Were you to be honest you'd abmit the reason you don't like it is you do not like the results. All awards are polls of some sort, like All-Americans and all-time teams. The purpose of All-time teams is to honor performances of players and that poll, along with those others does just that. I challenge your authority do delete anything you see fit. Just because I have not written prose (yet) does not disqaulify my from anything. If you threaten consequences again, I will do the same to you. I say it is you who is not following the rules and other precedents. You have given excuse after excuse for deleting valid data. It changes every freakin' time. It appears as though you and a couple of guys who liek to control your "turf" are grasping at straws. I challenge your objectivity---you are not using anything but a personal bias to stop valid information that Misplaced Pages users may very well enjoy seeing.

Finally your dismissal of the validity of the All-time GA TEch teams is, as it always was, illogical. Leave the all-time team up. I will report any attempt by you to delete it again as vandalism. That is what it is. There is no valid reason to not have that information in the appropriate context, which it is. Your continual reaching for straws to censor information you do not like, that 100% meets Misplaced Pages standards, is very ammaturish. Leave it alone. You are not the "boss" of that article. If you don't like my posting-----follow the Misplaced Pages advise, quit posting yourself. The rule is that articles will be edited and as long as those articles are verifiable. You false accuasation of posting copyvio is not accurate and unappreciated. It is not.

--------This ^ was the compromise, Disavian, the consensus. Please leave alone or I will be forced to report you deletions as vandalism.72.0.36.36 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Voice your concerns via the discussion page. When 4 editors discussed the removal of the material, you didn't make your voice heard. Address their concerns rather than simply re-adding the content and calling people bullies and whatnot. I'd also suggest that you contribute more content to GT stuff besides the All-time lists. It would be helpful because a lot of the other GT sports articles really need work as well. If you're particularly interested in the Bobby Dodd Era of football, fill out some of that section in the GT Football main page. Stuff like that'd help everyone out. --Excaliburhorn 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the constant deletion of my lists are unfair and constitutes bullying. I would contribute more in the future if my wrok was not copnstantly deleted. The accuasations leveled at me are false. The copyvio and the accompanying threat breakes Wikie rules and I ahve requested arbitration to resolve it. There was a solution to this, a compromise everyone agreed to. That was not having the list on the athletic page but rather on the football page. That made sense. Then it was deleted again. This, sir, is wrong. This sir, constitutes bullying. I define bullying is someone (Wiki editor) abusing power to get his/her way. That is not a personal attack in an unreasonable way. It is a description of tacts used in this case. I would love to contribute more, but nothing I have posted has been left alone for 11 seconds. I have contact Ga Tech SID and Athlon. I will have them answer the false accuasations by Wiki editors who seemingly did so to remove conttnet they don't like, but conforms to all Wikie rules. Lists are often in encyclopeidas, all-pro teams, all-time teams, etc. It is valid and accurate and verifiable. 72.0.36.36 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess my issue is that if you're so passionate about this list, then you should add more content in other places. This list is really trivial compared to some other stuff we can add to Misplaced Pages about Tech athletics, particularly Tech football. Look at all of the red links in the lists. We could easily fill in some of those guys that had pro careers.--Excaliburhorn 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should calm down

Your accusations at Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football are unfounded. If you continue to make personal attacks, you can be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --B 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The accusations were aimed at me, sir. I was accused of copyvio. I simply stated ny opinion.72.0.36.36 23:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody accused you of anything. If someone claims that you plagiarized content, that is an accusation, but you did cite the source and you didn't copy someone else's text and claim it as your own, so that's not an issue - nobody is making an accusation against you. The question was (and is) whether or not we can use that content under our non-free content policy. Point #8 of that policy is that we only use copyrighted content when "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." In other words, is it possible for someone to have a good understanding of Georgia Tech football without seeing that particular list? If it is, then under our policy, we do not use the list even though legally we could. --B 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was threatened. I was told if I put up the list again it would constitute willful breaking of laws. That was an accuasation and it was false. As to the content, I will await the arbitration. I will not debate the merits with people who have a personal bias against the content and a friendship with the editors who seemingly abused power by making the copyvio charge72.0.36.36 23:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DR describes the dispute resolution process. You are, of course, welcome to take whatever steps in that process you would like ... but to be perfectly blunt, your attitude and willingness to work with others leaves something to be desired. People disagree with you about adding this content. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with them and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone is abusing any power. You have to be prepared for the possibility that there aren't too terribly many people who find it appropriate to have lists of this kind - that doesn't mean that there is something wrong - just that people disagree from time to time. --B 23:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I am free to go through the arbitration process. I treatment I have received by you and others here is why I have to do that, to ensure some fairness. I have stated I understand that people disagree. Reasonable people can disagree. What reasonable people cannot do it abuse their power and position to get their way. The content has always been the issue. It is not a list, it is not copyvio, it is not "unencyclopedic", it is not consensus (an agreement was reached and then broken). Inm short, the "powers that be" on this article didn't like the content of what I posted because it didn;t include their favorite players. That is not a reason for censorship. All the other things were smoke and mirrors in order to cyber-bully me into backing down. People can and do disagree. What they do when there is a disagreement is what is at issue here and what I hope the arbitration process will help solve.72.0.36.36 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

With regard to your comments on Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Disavian (/_contribs) 05:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the personal attack policy and although I was upset I didn't use slurs as defined by the policy. I refered to those who I felt were bullying as "bullies". However, this is not a slur. That being said . . . I will stay cool now that I know that I had every right to be offended and that there is recourse and accountability for those editors who broke the rules.72.0.36.36 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan Hampton Infobox

Do not change it again, this is the correct infobox--Yankees10 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Or what? Is there an "or what" with your threat? I frankly am a bit tired of people using bully behavior here. It is my understanding that there are rules about such things. There are polite ways to do things and this is not one of them, in my opinion. 72.0.36.36 00:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Youll be blocked tough guy--Yankees10 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC

Why the anger? I don't think it is right for your to be making threats. I think name-calling is also prohibited. Your "tough guy" remark is one of anger and I think is inappropriate. 72.0.36.36 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah your right, I overreacted sorry, I hope we can put this behind us--Yankees10 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We can, I consider it over72.0.36.36 03:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make the All Pro bold anymore, there isnt really a reason why it should be bold--Yankees10 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it be bold, I also want the second teams in there. There is no reason not to have them. Eventually, i will get more and more of the second teams in there.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

first of all the bold makes it stick out for NO reason, and also the infobox will get way overcrowded if we continue to add the 2nd team--Yankees10 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Second teams are important, very important and there is no rule against it. They are verifyable and encyclopedic. I will compromise and not do the bolds, but please leave the seond teams in, which is reasonable, I think72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Randy Gradishar

the way you are writing is way too unconsistent with other infobexes and the infobox is being way overcrowded, I suggest you just write under a highlights section in the article like this:

the infobox is for information and my format is acceptable. We just have to disagree on this. I do respect your work and your desire, however, many articles are different . . . highlights by the year are fine and don't overcrowd. . . they just make the box longer . . . that is all. The way I do it looks great, I think, and there is no rule against it72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It isnt supposed to look great, we are trying to make the articles consistant, along with Chrisjnelson we are trying to make all NFL players pages consistant--Yankees10 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is consistent, that is why the infoboxes are templates. It looks great--is my opinion.We cannot agree, let's call in duspute resolution, okay?72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No its not consistant at all, you are making the letters small--Yankees10 (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

first, consistency is not "identical". second, Ralph Waldo Emerson, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines". third, as long as I am following wikipedia rules, it is okay, fourth, we clearly cannot agree, so let's call in dispute resolution. fifth, you are breaking the "3 revert rule". 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to ask you why the hell do you think it looks better small, seriously it doesnt at all--Yankees10 (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My view is that with the new infoboxes, all the fonts, the same size, is not serving the purpose. The font's are jammed into the infobox so the eye does not capture what is there. Ask a graphic designer if using all the same typeface or font size is "easy on the eye". With the pale color, the large (in relation to the narrowness of the box) is a real problem. However, since a majority like the new infobox, I have backed off my objection. However, on this, it is important to me. I do a lot fo editing of substance which adds a lot to the articles. I should have as much say as the next guy72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to see what another user thinks first before we get the duspute resolution--Yankees10 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

well, if that user is ChrisNelson, I don't agree. I think dispute resolution is better because I don't think Chris is a neutral observer72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to see his opinion about the situation--Yankees10 (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris will likely agree with you. I repsect his work as well, but in my opinion he is not one to be really reasonable. He sees things his way. I notice he's been suspended before. Question: on the different sizes of fonts, do you get what I am saying about samller fonts that use "white space" to allow the eye is discern what it is seeing? I am not sure I was expalining it as well as an expert might.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary to list the Pro Bowls and All-Pro selection seperatly, its just too long and annoying for me to read. If what I ask would be done then making all the highlights small would also be unnecessary. By the way great work on Randy Gradishar's article. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem however. There are levels of "All-Pro" recognition that are found in the NFL Enclyclopedia, NFL Record and Fact book. If one is imporatant, than all are important I think. Pro Bowls are really all-conference teams, not All-Pro teams. Other all conferecne teams are recorgnized by Total Football, the Official NFL Encyclopedia. Since the infoboxes go down, then the reader has the option of reading the honors or he can ignore them. Things that are too long, if I understand wiki rules is not an issue, not is things that are annoying. What if it is annoying to have a great tool like wikipedia and those who are involved in an "NFL project" thinking that less information (when it meets wiki critera of verifiable) is better than a more complete accounting. On a football card, maybe there is an issue of length, here, it seems that the freedom is that compelteness cannot be denied because of "space issues". No? Further, with Pro bowls, there is a built-in flaw. That is the fact that some guys get to a pro bowl when a guy ahead of them gets injured. Howie Long, who is a favorite of mine, did get t o play in 8 pro bowls, but his last two he was a replacement. So, are is 8 pro bowls the same as a guy ho was voted to the team 8 times? In the way they are listed now, there is no way to place the context in which a pro bowl was made. It simple says "8x". With a more complete listing readers who are not experts can see a guy's career, no? If a guy was all-pro but didn't go to the Pro bowl he would be shorted. So, I will work with everyone, but I think an intelligent, fair, complete accounting of a guy's career is warranted so that questions can be answered, instead of raised. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you look at Randy Gradishar's infobox and see if you like what I did. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Highlights

All AFC, Pro Bowl, etc
All AFC, Pro Bowl, etc
All AFC, Pro Bowl, All Pro, etc

--Yankees10 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Links

Can you plesae put the links to there sacks in the article, not the infobox, and also when saying 1/2 a sack can you write .5, for example 78.5 instead of 781/2--Yankees10 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that. I only used the "1/2" and the link in the box for your benefit. I will put the link in the article where it is mentioned. 72.0.36.36 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I just thaught it would be better if we put it in the article--Yankees10 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also do you think you can add the career sacks to Manny Fernandez's page, I had to put 0 career sacks because there wasnt anything else I could think to put in his career stats section, and I dont no where to find his sacks--Yankees10 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Dolphins have his career stats in theri wbsite, I will put them in, and any more you canthink of, just leave a note.

alright thanks, I have a couple more if you dont mind, Jim Marshall (American football), Jack Ham, and Joe Greene (American football).

Nor Problem

thanks for telling me--Yankees10 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you do Deacon Jones please, since he had a lot of sacks that were unofficial. Thanks --Phbasketball6 01:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Oh never mind its already been done.

Shouldn't Bobby Bell be placed on the 20/20 club? Thanks --Phbasketball6 13:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you add Gary Larsens career sacks in the infobox, thanks--Yankees10 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, can you change Harvey Martin's info box? thnka72.0.36.36 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I'll do that--Yankees10 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the infobox for Harvey Martin, can you just add the Sacks--Yankees10 18:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that, thanks--Yankees10 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you do Marty Lyons sacks--Yankees10 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, can you do Mark Gastineau infobox?72.0.36.36 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the infobox, you just have to fix the sacks and it will be all good--Yankees10 22:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

done

Sacks

I got some players who you can add there sacks to once I create there infoboxes:Ernie Holmes, Greg Buttle, Brad Van Pelt, and Rosey Grier--Yankees10 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks--Yankees10 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All-Pro

Do you think you can improve the All-Pro article I created, it needs work BIG TIME!,thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks, now we can have the links to All-Pro in the infoboxes--Yankees10 (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you add Doug Atkins career sacks. thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sacks

Can you add the career sacks for Doug Atkins and Dwight White, thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can add Dwight White, but I cannot find a verifialeb source for Atkin yet, since he played in the 1950's maybe they Bears don;t have that, White had 55.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

alright thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ted Ginn Jr.

I would like to ask you to please stop changing the section header "Trivia" in the Ted Ginn article to "Notes". Regardless of what you call it, it'll still be a trivia section. Please comment on the Ted Ginn talk page before changing it again. Thank you. :-) Burner0718 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is personal information and can be notes or whatever. It seems like this is a personal thing about Ted Ginn, Jr. I think it should be left alone. Reasonable people can disagree about what is or is not trivia. WIth an athlete those could be considered important notes. Thank you72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, my bad. I am a big fan of his and in a way I guess you are right. BTW, have you ever thought about creating an account? Let me know on my talk page if you decide to join. I wouldn't mind some help fighting vandalism. Also, if you have any questions let me know. :-) Burner0718 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, I don't respect Pats1 at all. Burner0718 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sacks

can you please add the career sacks for Ernie Ladd--Yankees10 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

can you also add the sacks for Lamar Lundy and Bill Willis, I am guessing you couldnt find Ladds sacks--Yankees10 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Willis played too far back, I cannot fins anything72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

thats fine, thanks for Lundys--Yankees10 (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Ted Ginn, Jr., you will be blocked from editing. Pats1 /C 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is vandalism.02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I have called for arbitration in this matter. If you are not the arbitrator I don't think you should be making the judgement. Mr. seems to have violated the 3 revert rule and ignored the cooling off period.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Ted Ginn, Jr., you will be blocked from editing. Pats1 /C 03:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an unfounded threat. It is rude and ugly. From what I can tell, you were contact by Chris Nelson, who you can read his history, to do somehting about me. This was after, I repeat AFTER I called for dispute resolution. You now are threatening me with banishment when I have played by the rules. I ask you to contact and administrator who is not a "dude" of Chirs Nelson to resolve this. I will show my posts, you can show yours. I htink you have abused your power. You have the duty to post something in words, I think, rather than a threat. You are threatening me. For the record. The trivia tag is unwarrented in the Ted Ginn, Jr. article, I believe. You did not use any due dilligence it determining whether the contect was trivia or just a difference in style. Finally, I find you behavior rude and against wikie policies. I want you to contact an administrator as soon as you are able. I won't let this stand because a few people who are not acting in good faith, which you are not in my view, should not be able behave in bully-type ways. I think you'd agree.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reported Pats1 behavior to dispute resolution. I told what I thought went wrong and you may tell your version.

Ted Ginn, Jr. I request an dispute resolution on this issue. I found an artice that I had reason to think had an inappropriate tiuvia tag. It was disputed. The three onjectors have a track record of being rude and ugly. One of them, a Chis Nelson, then contacted an administrator who now, rather than be a reasoned authority, I think, threated me ability to edit. When he did this, I had already requested dispute resolution and he did it anyway. he did not post a note explaining any rules that I was breaking. I think this editor, Pats1 may have abused his/her power by taking one person's side in a matter of moments, when he/she had little time to investigate. I may be unfamailair with some things and admit I am not perfect, but one I understood there were rules, I have been able to get along with folks. This, I think was abusive but a person who has the power to block me (as he'she claims). He should have looked and at least seen if my claims were valid before acting. Further, there was what lookied like a familiarity between Pats1 and ChisNelson. One that makes me question the objectivity of Pats1. It made me feel like it was "his way or the highway". I don't think that is the way disputes are supposed to be handled in WIKI, no? I thought there was consensus, there was dispute resolution and a 3 revert rule, a cooling off period. I posted this to Mr. Nelson and Pats1 but seemingly it was to no avail. I wish this matter to be looked into. thank you.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ted Ginn, Jr.

I request an dispute resolution on this issue. I found an artice that I had reason to think had an inappropriate tiuvia tag. It was disputed. The three onjectors have a track record of being rude and ugly. One of them, a user:chrisjnelson , then contacted an administrator who now, rather than be a reasoned authority, I think, threated me ability to edit. When he did this, I had already requested dispute resolution and he did it anyway. he did not post a note explaining any rules that I was breaking. I think this editor, user:Pats1 may have abused his/her power by taking one person's side in a matter of moments, when he/she had little time to investigate. I may be unfamailair with some things and admit I am not perfect, but one I understood there were rules, I have been able to get along with folks. This, I think was abusive but a person who has the power to block me (as he'she claims). He should have looked and at least seen if my claims were valid before acting. Further, there was what lookied like a familiarity between Pats1 and ChisNelson. One that makes me question the objectivity of Pats1. It made me feel like it was "his way or the highway". I don't think that is the way disputes are supposed to be handled in WIKI, no? I thought there was consensus, there was dispute resolution and a 3 revert rule, a cooling off period. I posted this to Mr. Nelson and Pats1 but seemingly it was to no avail. I wish this matter to be looked into. thank you.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the above message that you posted at WP:AN3, that is not the appropriate place for such a request. WP:DR gives our dispute resolution process. I'm going to take a look at the article history and I may have a few things to say, but I at least wanted to point you in the right direction (WP:DR) first. --B (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you. I am not 100% sure of how all these things work. I just wish to be treated with respect and that adminstrators don't wield their power to block an IP user without valid reason. I appreciate your help and am willing an answer your questions. I am not here a lot . . . I don't know all the rules, but I am trying to learn.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to add a warning to a user's (or IP's) talk page, you most certainly can. The practice is not limited to administrators. Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. Pats1 /C 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, until the second part of my complaint is considered, I'd rather not have any contact with you. It seemingly took me going "over your head" until you made a decent contructive post72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... I've taken a look at the article history. First off, you should know about the three-revert rule. Unless you are reverting simple vandalism (things like people replacing the page with nonsense or writing "MATT C IS COOL"), you will be blocked if you revert a page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. You are well over this limit, but if you will stop reverting and discuss the issue with them politely, there is no need to block you. (Blocks are preventative, not punative.) Second, trivia sections are discouraged and the other two users are correct to add the tag. "Trivia" text should be incorporated into the article in prose rather than bulleted form. Pats1 does not appear to have used any of his admin tools on the article, so there is no abuse of administrative privileges there - in other words, he has only made edits that any editor can make. Does this make sense? Please talk over the issue with them on the article discussion page. My suggestion is to try to find ways to work the trivia text into the article itself. --B (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Which ChrisJNelson has gone ahead and done, thankfully, so the show appears to be over. Pats1 /C 04:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this make sense? Yes and no. The abuse was his threat on my talk page--He threatend to block me without explanation. That was the abuse of Admin I meant . . . not the edit. I also think that others are above the 3RR. I can accept your opinion on that, as long as it is fairly adminster to others . . . as long as I am not the only one who is reminded about the 3 RR. It is my view that they are the ones who violated it-- (drew first blood) but, that does not mean I shoud have either, Further, when you see the profilers of those who were objecting---they all had a recent history of this kind of thing. In fact, Pats1 threatend to ban someone else it what looked like a personal thing about the New england Patriots. You can also see by his comment that the "show" is over displays the attitude I objected to. It connotes a true lack of respect and is not in keeping with this community. That is why I reported this. I don't think a threat---when not discussed (as you rightfully point out) is appropriate. I was dubious that those involed with the volation of the 3 RR would be reasonable, absed on recent actions. Then when the Admin came in as the "muscle" for chrisjnelson, I was truly concerned and that is why I filed the complaint. So, since you pointed me in the right direction . . . I have posted my abuse of power complaint. I accept you rulign here about the trivia tag. I dispute it, but will accept it and I thank you for your kindness and reason I have learned from your comments, especially that banning is not punitive but preventative. If youready the posts by Pats1 you could not discern that in any way at all.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, going through and quoting a bunch of discussion from another article and using it to "prove" that another user (or IP) "has a history of ____" is not considered to be civil. Secondly, if user warning templates violated Misplaced Pages's policy on threats, they wouldn't exist. The fact of the matter is, the Misplaced Pages policy was clearly explained in both the comment section of the article, and on the talk page of the article. Yet, you persisted in deleting the trivia tag, violating 3RR in the process, thus the warnings were issued. Whether the trivia section was named "Notes" or whatnot isn't of any consequence. If you wanted me to explain the situation to you (although it was already explained in edit summaries and on the talk page), you shouldn't gone through my contribution history and find "evidence" that I was "abusing" my admin powers, and then begged me on my talk page to "find an arbitrator." Unfortunately, that's not how it works. And if you're not sure about how things work, it's not a good idea to make posts like this. At that point, I was forced to step out from the situation, and just let you cool down. In the future, I suggest you cool down well before things get to 3RR, and try to work to resolve the situation instead of seeking revenge. Also, I see that you've been around Misplaced Pages for quite awhile and have made quite a few edits. It wouldn't be a bad idea to register an account and receive those privileges. Finally (but along the same lines as above), there was absolutely no reason for the whole thing about Chris being my "bud." When a user or IP gives me a heads up about a conflict on an article, I am obligated to check it out. I hope you can understand and learn from this. Pats1 /C 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not get kindly advise from someone who threatend to ban me under false pretenses. I maintin no one forced you to do what you did. Sadly, I think it took me going over your head to cool down. When you were supposed to communicate, it seemed to me you chose not to do so. Now, when maintain a possible, potential abuse, it seems to lines of communication or open.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're not the only one Pats1 has bullied. I think he should be recalled, comments? 63.18.205.193 (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know all the rules, but when someone abuses power they need to be held to account. I will post a response on your page where you can comment where I have already filed a complain and we can let the highr-ups decide. What happened in your case?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators is not the right place to go either - that is the place to discuss improvements to the Misplaced Pages:Administrators page. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the place to report an incident that requires immediate intervention, but that is not a part of the dispute resolution process for content disputes. That process is discussed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. But I really don't think any of that would be a useful process as there isn't really an issue to resolve. One thing that is extremely important when editing an article is to always use an edit summary. When you blank a section with no edit summary, someone looking at your edit doesn't know what you are thinking and has no way to know that it isn't vandalism. That appears to have been the assumption that Pats1 and Chris made and that is why you received the message stating you could be blocked. It's important to always explain your article edits, particularly if it isn't obvious. --B (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will follow your advice. However, Pats1 and Chris likely knew what was going on. it WAS obvious. But I will take my complaint where you suggest. Thanks.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, and it does not qualify as "administrator abuse" either--that term is reserved for real abuses of discretion, and those do happen. But this was not even a block,but just a warning about a possible block. Content disputes should not be escalated. 16:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said this? It is unsigned. If one were to carefully read the "possible block" you will see that it was done in an abusive manner, not stating a proper reason, in fact stating an incorrect one. I agree, content disputes should not be escalated but when an Admin threatens to block over content disputes, he has escalated it. This was about content. Not about style, which is what the trivia tag was about. Some did not like the content, it wasn't the style. They did not know hte rules out guidlines about trivia, they though they could be the sole judge about what is and is not trivia--as a matter of content not style. An Admin, who should know better and who was familiar with past behaviors of those who were objecting to content leaped to thier defense as the "muscle" to shut me up and block me out. My views are just as valid as theirs and I shouldn't have been bullied. All one need do is read the tone of the posts of Pats1. As long as you are unbiased you will see even now his attitude is pretty ugly and clearly is punishing in his tone and attitude. I think he should know better. If he is allowed to do this again, why would good faith people come here and contribute? If there is a content dispute, this guy may just threaten to block them. Rememebr he had the ability to block, not just threaten. He had the power to make his thrat occur, that is the same as a block. Also, you say "possible" block. No, it was going to happen and he made it clear but was not clear as to why. That is abuse any way you slice it. Thanks. Please sign your statments. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, this wasn't a content dispute. If the trivia section was being deleted, that would be. But removing a common tag applied to where it belongs isn't a content dispute. Removing an appropriate tag is an unacceptable removal of material on Misplaced Pages. Your argument about me warning you about deleting material as a "threat by a bullying admin" holds no water. Any IP or user can "warn" any other IP or user, including "threatening" a block. Quite simply, you were given the Misplaced Pages policy on trivia sections in both a hidden source-code comment, in the edit summaries, and on the article talk page. Trivia sections are to be tagged with a {{trivia}} tag. There's nothing you can argue about that, and therefore there was no "dispute." Pats1 /C 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have grasp of what happened and you, based on you constant tone, are remaing angry. Look, this matter is under review, let the process work. If it has intergrity then we can livve with that. If you look at your own posts and try and be unbiased you will see that my complaint is justified and you and the others, who in my view, did not show the utmost in maturity. In my view, this continues on your part. I am sorry you seem to remain angry, that is not my intent. My intent is to be treated with respect. FYI--The fact that a tivia tag was there was the problem. It was placed there because a couple of young men didn't like the content. They posted that. It had nothing to do with style. Style, is the issue with the trivia policy, not content. You keep trying to twist this into that so you can justofy your actions, which, I am sorry, I don't mean to be ugly, constituted what I consider bullying behavior. I had, and still don't know, if you actually had the power to ban me. From what I gather you did. Now, if "Any IP or user" can warn and not follow up with action, the warning is not really worth much, no? You, however, had the ability to make that happen. You said you WILL be blocked. Perhaps if you showed a bit of contrition rather than what I perceive as combativeness, perhaps I wouldn't have reported what I think was an abuse of your power. Just because I reported your action before you followed through from your threat does not mean you wouldn't have gone ahead and done it. I think it is reasonable to beleive that you would have. It seems you are not maintainting that your "threat" was just that---no, you had the POWER to make it happen and based on your terseness, I think you would have and I would have had no recourse. I stopped you, I think, from taking the next step in the abuse of power. That does not mitigate the initial threat, does it?72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My account was blocked because the username (RC-0722) was "found inappropriate". In reality, I think it was because my views differed from his on the length of the "Week 17" section in the 2007 New England Patriots season article. 63.18.154.70 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, I'm the dude who said he's a bully above.

All I can suggest is that you report it. Now that you have posted it here, I am sure it will get noticed. If the "higher-up" admins think there is a pattern and practice of potential bullying behavior---perhaps they will take note and do something, there must be some kinds of reprimands if, indeed, someone possibly abused his admin power, although I don't know. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

63.18.154.70, log in to your RC-0722 account and put {{unblock|why you think you should be unblocked}} on your account talk page. (You can edit your own talk page even while blocked.) The block message says that the account was being used by multiple people. Is that the case? --B (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Per both his user page and this comment, yes. Pats1 /C 13:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... RC-0722, you and your brother need to have separate accounts. If you post an unblock message on your talk page saying that you have done so or saying that you will no longer permit your brother to use your account (and that you will log out when you are done editing Misplaced Pages), your account can be unblocked. Shared accounts are not permitted for reasons of GFDL attribution and for security. I will leave this note on your talk page. --B (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

more sacks

can you please add the sacks for Gino Marchetti‎ and Willie Lanier, if you can find them--Yankees10 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have look for Marchetti--no dice--should be easy.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Best of 75 Years of SEC Football Super Team

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Best of 75 Years of SEC Football Super Team, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Howley

I got tired of calling every section sacks, lol, so I decided to call this one Chuck Howley, can you add his career sacks--Yankees10 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pats1

Hey, I saw that you have had problems with Pats1 as well. Did you report him at all?

Politik426 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. DOn't know what'll happen. I am in wait and see mode.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 /C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) nobody? Besides Pats1 this conversation is between myself and Politik426. What exactly is the purpose for you to comment? That is another example, I think, of your bullying behavior and it is not civil and is yet anotehr example of you flaunting the rules in my face. I don't get why you do that. Perhaps you think you need to hold it over me that you have more power and connections in WIKI than I do, I don't know. I think you and I should take the advise of "nobody" and go our separate ways. I have documented your actions, someone has reviewed them and please go your way, I'll go mine.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ksy92003 can read it or respond to it all he wants. You quite simply have a false assumption of how Misplaced Pages processes work and I've tried to help you fix that, but to avail. This is going nowhere. Pats1 /C 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

I put the 2007 NCAA Record link in external links because it was an external link. My understanding is the See also section is for internal links only. --uriah923 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.