Jump to content

Talk:2006 San Diego Chargers season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]
This discussion was previously posted on Talk:San Diego Chargers regarding a disputed paragraph on the upcoming 2006 season. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006

[edit]

This is the passage that TheTruth2 is adding to the 2006 season section, even after it is continually being removed: "Expectations for the Chargers are not high for the 2006 season LT's declining skills and Rivers starting at QB is not a good position for this team to be in. Merrimam and Castillo are solid but must prove themselves not to be flukes"

Are there any sources for this other than your own opinion? I have not seen a single preview which brings up "LT's declining skills" as a negative for this team. While I think something could be written about the expectations for the upcoming season, it should be worded and cited better than this. Ixnay 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOu are in violation of the 3RR rule. If you have been paying any attention (which it appears you have not) I have been reverting it back from when trolls come thru and change it.TheTruth2 20:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Enforcement:

If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

I currently only see three by Ixnay on the edit history of the page regarding the disputed paragraph within the past 24 hours. One more will require a block. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason in particular why you reverted the changes made yesterday back to your version, TheTruth2? I'm curious as to why you keep insisting that LT is injury-prone considering that he's missed only a single game in his 5-year career. Ixnay 19:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person whose edit was reverted, I'd like to say that what I've written about the Chargers -- their primary concerns being along the offensive line and in the defensive secondary -- are based on Kevin Acee's article in The Sporting News' 2006 Pro Football Preview, which is not available online, but is no less authoritative for that. Viewable online is the following, noting the section entitled "Problem Spot":

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=118683

I've yet to see an article that questions Tomlinson's durability. It's true that he was hampered by minor injuries last season, but that's true for virtually all running backs in the NFL -- it's a physical position. He didn't miss a game, and continued to put up All-World numbers -- indeed, he increased his rushing total from 1,335 yards in 2004 to 1,462 yards in 2005. There's no evidence to suggest that Tomlinson is any less durable than any other premier back in the league; indeed, Tomlinson's status as the consensus #3 RB in most fantasy football drafts suggests that, among those whose money is riding on it, his durability is not a major issue.

I've also seen no sportswriter seriously question Merriman's ability -- defensive rookies of the year tend not to be "flukes". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Defensive_Rookie_of_the_Year_Award.) Barring injury, Merriman promises to be no different. As for Castillo, note the following, under the section entitled "Scouting Report":

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=116740

What *is* easily seen, however, is where the penalty-prone Quentin Jammer and the very green Antonio Cromartie might run into some trouble opposite the steady Drayton Florence. And quick, name the Chargers' starting safeties. I'd be surprised if all but the most diehard Chargers fans could do so.

In light of this, I'd like to ask in what way the reverted version is superior to mine; in the absence of explanation, I would favor some version of my take on the Chargers' 2006 prospects.

  • I see that, once again, without explanation and without discussion, TheTruth2 has chosen to revert the San Diego Chargers page to express his unfounded and solitary opinions. Ixnay and I have worked in good faith to cite the sources of our information -- professional journalists who cover the San Diego Chargers and the National Football League for a living; TheTruth2 has done exactly nothing of the sort, yet stubbornly insists on foisting his poorly-written and unsupported opinions on wikipedia users. Again, I ask for an explanation as to how his assertions about LaDainian Tomlinson are in any way supported by fact. In the absence of that, his reverts are thoroughly unproductive, and indeed detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia, and should be brought to the attention of an administrator.

Incidentally, for one who has resorted to attempting to get another user banned for violating the three-revert rule, let the history page show that TheTruth2 has made five entirely unproductive reverts within a 24-hour period:

18:51, 25 August 2006; 18:50, 25 August 2006; 05:26, 25 August 2006; 18:55, 24 August 2006; 18:53, 24 August 2006

I would much prefer, however, a fair comparison of his work to that which he continually reverts on the basis of quality and sourcing. That would be far more useful to wikipedia and to us than banning on technicalities.

  • What is up with this editing war? It's not even a legitimate dispute. One point of view is well-supported, well-reasoned, and well-written, and the other is an error-ridden conjecture that seems to based solely on generalities that veteran running backs must be "injury-prone" and sophomore players must be "unproven". This continual reversion is unhelpful, and I implore this "TheTruth2" guy to desist immediately. (And, no, TheTruth2, reverting the page anonymously is not going to make it appear as though more people agree with you.)

Edit war

[edit]

THis page has had no problem until Ixnay showed up and his anonymous IP addys.TheTruth2 05:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other anonymous IPs that have been changing your reverts are not mine. Ixnay 15:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are yours or you have some friends helping you. THis page had no problems until you showed up.TheTruth2 16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the anonymous editors (the latest in a long line of persons who has attempted to improve the 2006 prospects paragraph), I would prefer that TheTruth2 refrain from impugning Ixnay's integrity or mine. A simple review of IP addresses will reveal that my IP does not belong to Ixnay. I encourage you, sir or ma'am, to produce one shred of evidence to support your assertions -- and there will be no such evidence, since your wild accusations have no basis in reality. I would suggest confining this discussion to the merits of the article's content, instead of straying toward baseless ad hominem attacks. Thanks. 71.135.117.135 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "THis page has had no problem until Ixnay showed up and his anonymous IP addys." shows exactly the kind of problems this page was having. Certain people editing it were poor writers making unsupported claims.169.237.207.178 21:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with it until he came along TheTruth2 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, TheTruth2, what those of us who are editing the page are saying is that it could stand improvement, which seems to us to be the entire point of wikipedia. To that end, we have stated our reasoning here on the talk page, searched for and cited sources both here on the talk page and in the article, and attempted to start a conversation here over the contentious edit. You have failed to state your reasoning or cite your sources, and refuse to discuss the issue constructively, instead preferring to accuse other users of sockpuppetry (see above) and attempting to get various users banned over spurious charges of violating 3RR. (See above; also [1])

I've tried to assume good faith with you, but every action you take seems to demonstrate incredible, flagrant bad faith. You have attempted to circumvent a legitimate page protection by creating the copy "San Diego Chargerss" (see above), a clear violation of policy. You have vandalized your own talk page by removing legitimate warnings from administrators. You have issued what I would regard as a veiled threat [2] to the aforementioned administrator. I really want to believe that you are interested in being a constructive editor, but there are limits to my credulity and good humor.

All of the reasoning and the sources that I have used, I have explained and listed above. If you require further explanation, I'm glad to provide it. I invite you one more time to state your reasoning and cite your sources, in the absence of which it is very difficult to accept your edits as definitive. 71.135.100.80 02:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you register your account?TheTruth2 05:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that *I* was the one that kept trying to neutralize the clearly biased and unfair section 'THE TRUTH2' had written. I am not even a Chargers fan but that section was unsubstantiated and poorly written. At the minimum it brought the quality of the work down to the level of conjecture and at worst simply substituted a biased opinion for information.

What does this response even mean? Go away...like, I should leave my computer? That seems dim. Get real... as in become less virtual? or what? Done with this, clearly your edit will not be posted. That's enough for the rest of us.

  • Just be realistic.

TheTruth2 20:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC) As I said, there are limits to my credulity and my good humor, and you've reached them. Whether I do or do not register my account is totally and entirely irrelevant to this discussion. What is at issue is your insistence on reverting the logically reasoned, well-explained, carefully sourced work of other editors to a poorly-written, totally unsourced couple of sentences that are, for reasons already explained, completely at odds with the facts. Your attempt at diverting the discussion into (yet another) vaguely ad hominem channel is merely the latest in a long line of evasions, and is taken as such. 71.135.100.80 05:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Register. I know who you areTheTruth2 05:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely relevant. YOu are afraid to register.TheTruth2 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time, by my count, that you have issued what I regard to be a veiled threat to a wikipedia user. I encourage you to stop; this practice is more likely to earn you a ban than to persuade anyone to listen to you. This is also the umpteenth time you have evaded an attempt to discuss edits on the San Diego Chargers page on the merits, which is all the evidence of your good faith -- or lack thereof -- that I need. 71.135.100.80 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what a threat is?TheTruth2 14:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)\\[reply]

Just in case

A threat can be an unwanted (deliberate or accidental) expression of intent to execute action that may result in harm to an asset. The threat can have a form of an explicit or implicit message.

Another meaning of a threat is a person who is regarded as a danger. Often, the threat is exploiting one or more known vulnerabilities.

Examples are a robbery, kidnapping, hijacking, extortion, lawsuits, or blackmail.\\

Where was the action? TheTruth2 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't patronize me. I regard comments like "I know who you are" as an (entirely idle) attempt to threaten my anonymity, and I don't take it kindly. If it does not rise to wikipedia's definition of a threat, then I will simply call it the uncivil, ad hominem behavior that it is, and note that your most recent comments, for the umpteenth-plus-one time, have absolutely nothing to do with the San Diego Chargers or with finding reliable citations for your assertions. Refusing to discuss the subject at hand does nothing to strengthen your case, and on the contrary shows you to be more interested in petty personal attacks than in constructive editing. 71.135.113.159 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem behavior? You don't even know what that is. Threaten your anonymity? you need to register and have a talk page.TheTruth2 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm through with this subject. I had hoped that you would try to find some sources, discuss reasonably, and edit in good faith, but I see that some things are too much to hope for. I regard your assertions about Tomlinson and the Chargers as invalid and unsupported by evidence, and your continual refusal to find proof as evidence that you are uninterested in doing so.

The logical fallacy ad hominem refers to an attempt to discuss the person, the bearer of the message -- in this case, me -- instead of discussing the matter at hand (the San Diego Chargers). Your behavior is a textbook example of this, and the fact that you don't recognize it as such leads me to believe that it is you who is unclear on the concept. I won't say it again: Whether I register or not is irrelevant. I will register when I wish to do so, and not at the say-so of an uncivil revert warrior on a wikipedia talk page. Have a nice day. 71.135.113.159 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have been trying to discuss it with you. You are Ixnay in disquise. .TheTruth2 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, he is not, and you have absolutely no evidence of that. Please refrain from bringing me into situations that I am not involved in. I do, however, agree with all of the points that he has brought up regarding your behavior here. Ixnay 22:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, TheTruth2, I have absolutely no desire to revive this tired, essentially obsolete edit war, but I really cannot see why you continue to revert valid information without any explanation, citation, or evidence. I could dredge up the statistics to show that Tomlinson and Gates have produced yardage and touchdowns at a rate paralleled by very few players in the league. I can point out that Jamal Williams' backup at nose tackle is starting end Castillo, or that the LB replacing Foley is untested Shaun Phillips. By your unexplained deletions, you seem to imply that Tomlinson and Gates are not elite players and that depth is not a concern in the front seven, flying the face of the facts. Have you any reasoning behind your continued reverting on this page? 71.135.113.159 19:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheTruth2, you've been told that deleting information that you disagree with amounts to POV editing, and is not acceptable. I've put forward my arguments. We're still waiting for whatever evidence you might have that Tomlinson and Gates are not top players at their respective positions. Being familiar with your past behavior, however -- behavior that got you blocked -- makes me pessimistic that such evidence will be provided. In the absence of that evidence, I'm reverting your deletion. 71.135.113.159 23:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what a "context issue" is. I do know, TheTruth2, that you been offered opportunity after opportunity to explain your reasoning or cite your sources, and you have bothered to do exactly none of that. The fact is that Tomlinson and Gates are at the top of the league in yardage and touchdowns produced year after year, and insisting that these are not elite players is a ridiculous refusal to acknowledge stone-cold numbers. You've been told that your actions amount to imposing a point of view on the article; you continue to do it, while refusing to discuss on the talk page. That sort of behavior plainly fails to rise above the level of vandalism, and will be regarded as such until you choose to edit within the rules of the encyclopedia. 71.135.113.159 09:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Context issue not vandalismTheTruth2 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, just the sort of reasoning-free response we've come to expect from you, TheTruth2 -- that is, when we get a response, which is rarely. As long as you fail to explain why Tomlinson and Gates are not elite players -- and there will be no such explanation forthcoming, because it's quite simply false -- you are deleting valid information. And deleting valid information purely because you disagree with it is POV vandalism, plain and simple, and will be reverted as such. Please, stop wasting our time with your unexplained, anti-factual edits. 71.135.113.159 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Context. not vandalism.TheTruth2 14:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

[edit]

This article is almost entirely unsourced, thus the best way to resolve this difference in opinion to to cite reliable sources. I have added a number of requests to sentences that, i believe, are couched in subjective and POV language. If these opinions (or facts) can be attributed then lets keep them, if not, i will delete them per WP:CITE. Rockpocket 23:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned that up.RMANCIL 16:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

Please keep your edits neutral. I shouldn't be told that it was fortunate that the Chargers scored. Please think how a neutral fan would add a game summary. Right now there is tremendous bias toward the Chargers. Please help keep these game summaries neutral. The page is for all of Wikipedia, not just fans of the Chargers--aviper2k7 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. Don't turn it into a fansite.--Swuster 06:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Someone wrote "Chokers" instead of "Chargers" in the scoreboard for the playoff game. I'm fixing it. Also, neutral POV goes both way. I don't think the comment about Merriman needing steroids to recover is exactly neutral. --Maestro876 19:57, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Also someone completely threw slander at LT saying he was a baby and that he should fall down a well. --Lightpaste 7:30PM, 16 January 2007 (PST)

Steroids

[edit]

I don't personally know enough about the Chargers or the circumstances, but it stinks of POV bias to have the entire 2006 season article not ONCE mention one of their biggest stars suspended for a quarter of the season for a steroid testing violation. If someone could add that, it would be for the better for everyone. I still can't believe how overlooked this story was, and how quickly Merriman became an icon in the media all over again, shortly after. He cheated, plain and simple. Oh, and I wasn't responsible for the comment someone discussed right above me. Vandalism is juvenile, people. Knock it off.President David Palmer 10:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Merriman did continue to put up almost equal stats even with the four week suspension. Not that it's a complete good thing, though. However, people should take into account that he was suspended for "substance abuse," which doesn't 'necessarily' mean it was steriods. It could go either way, but it should be posted as substance abuse in order to avoid POV bias.

ESPN reported, as did Merriman's own attorney, that it was Nandrolone, which is a steroid.
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2006 San Diego Chargers season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2006 San Diego Chargers season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2006 San Diego Chargers season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_San_Diego_Chargers_season&oldid=1196487569"