Jump to content

Talk:Tyler Lockett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTyler Lockett has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 27, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 31, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Tyler Lockett, the only player in Kansas State Wildcats football history to return a kickoff for a touchdown in consecutive games, was a high school state champion in football and basketball?

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tyler Lockett/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 05:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revamped content

[edit]

The following discussion was moved from User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Tyler_Lockett. It became extensive and should be archived here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I have restored most of the changes you have recently reverted to the Tyler Lockett article. Here's why:

Infobox

1. He's no longer a freshman as of the end of the 2011–12 school year; he's now a rising sophomore for the 2012–13 school year.

I would hesitate to promote his class since he is coming off a season ending injury and there is a possibility of him redshirting. I generally wait until the end of August or early September before promoting class.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the grand scheme of things, this is minor. However, as of the end of the 2011–12 school year, he's no longer a freshman, regardless of his injury status. He's either a healthy sophomore who plays or an injured sophomore who doesn't play this fall. If he redshirts, he will be a redhsirt sophomore. If it's a question of timing as to when we uniformly update the class status of all CFB player bios, I will gladly defer to WP:CFB policy or consensus.Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he redshirts, he will be a redshirt freshman during the 2012 season and a redshirt sophomore during the 2013 season. I don't update players until their season begins (around early September). I don't know what policy is, but don't feel I am doing anything unusual.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His KSU roster profile says he is a sophomore. He can't be a freshman or a redhsirt freshman because he has already exhausted his first year of NCAA eligibility. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFB needs to set a policy on whether one advances classes, when the school year ends, when practice starts, when the school year starts, when the season starts or when you play your first game. This is even more important for winter and spring sport athletes, but not for CFB to worry about in that regard. Not worth fighting about. The only problem is that now I am going to forget to read his text and change it to talking about his sophomore season for the 2012 team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raise the issue at WT:CFB. I'll support a uniform time for updating class status. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

2. The previous lede was ridiculously long and overly detailed, especially for a relatively short article, and was chock full of random factoids, few of which are the actual reasons for Lockett's notability. For example, the lede prior to my edits mentions that both his father and uncle played for Bill Snyder's K State football team. Why would that be in the lede? The lede should be a brief statement of the reason(s) for a subject's notability and a brief summary of the article. The lede should not attempt to regurgitate every detail from the article or cite every minor award or honor received by the subject person. Biographical details of other family members almost never contribute to a subject's notability and are rarely worth mentioning in the lede. That's trivia.

2a. His father and uncle should be in the WP:LEAD as they are for half of the stories about him in the press. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable . . . . The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." Notwithstanding that "half of the stories" about Lockett mention his father and uncle, we still have to use our judgment as writers and editors as to what to include in the article and the lede. Lockett is a star college football player in his own right; prominently mentioning his family members in the lede detracts from the reasons for his notability and the summary of the article's major points. Ask yourself this: Is the fact that his father and uncle also played for K-State so large a part of his personal history that it deserves mention in a three or four-sentence summary of his life? Does his father and uncle's history somehow make Lockett more notable? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As evidenced in the content of my version of his article his father and uncle are a huge part of his life and part of the summary of his article. Additionally, many Big 12 fans, especially K State fans may be looking for him. It is quite common on WP to note famous relations in the WP:LEAD for this reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I would love to include a meaningful description of the important family relationships with his role model father and uncle, but that's not what your article provides. It says that his father and uncle played for K-State, notes their college records, and says that Lockett sought advice from them. Describe the substance of those meaningful relationships and how they have impacted his life and football career in the article and I will stand up and cheer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the practice of randomly including famous relatives in the lede of sports bio articles without a good reason is a bad practice. It was started by a couple of WP:NFL/MLB editors (who shall remain nameless), and I have deleted such references from virtually every one of the 3,000+ NFL, CFB and other sports bios I have edited. I have yet to find a knowledgeable editor who will defend the practice. This information invariably fits better in the "early years" or "personal" sections. Based on the article summary purpose of the lede, I would only feel right about including a family member in the lede to the extent such family member was a major subtopic of the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree (currently working on updaing Will Venable). I think it belongs in a personal section (which also needs to be highlighted in the LEAD).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at random famous sons to see what is standard starting with Ken Griffey Jr. (2nd paragraph), Barry Bonds (1st paragraph), Peyton Manning (1st paragraph), Ken Norton Jr. (2nd paragraph), Anthony Dorsett (2nd paragraph), Jalen Rose (not in lead), Luke Walton (1st paragraph), Laila Ali (1st paragraph), Mark Howe (1st paragraph) and Al Unser Jr. (not in lead). 8 out of 10 have it in the LEAD. It seems to be pretty commonly accepted that the famous relations belong in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I don't doubt that it's a common practice, but that doesn't make it a good practice. It's also contrary to WP:LEAD, which says that the two main purposes of the lede are to provide a concise summary of the article, and to establish the reasons for the subject's notability. I don't see anything about providing links in the lede for the convenience of interested fans of the subject's notable family members. If the family members play a significant part in the article, then their role in the subject's life should be concisely summarized in the lede. If the family members get a sentence in the article, mentioning their family relationship to the subject, probably not; then it's just trivia that some editors think is "cool." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly. If you believe your opinion is correct even though the majority of pages have achieved consensus with relations included, you should bring this to a larger audience to try to make this an issue that many editors try to correct. I personally believe that being related to a notable person is a part of what LEAD seeks to present. It is one of the first things a person may look for in an article. I often navigate to the page with the first thought "is this so and so's dad/son/etc?"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2b. The coach could be removed.
Agreed. IMO, adding the name of subject player's coach to the lede is unnecessary detail. If the player's coach is truly notable (and Bill Snyder is), mention of the coach fits better in the "college career" section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep in mind the primary reason for the subject's notability: he was an outstanding college football player who received consensus All-American honors. In the absence of the first-team All-American recognition, the subject would probably fail WP:COLLATH and WP:GNG and the article would be subject to AfD deletion. A well-written lede will usually include a concise statement of the primary reasons for the subject's notability in the first sentence or two. Why is Lockett notable? In one sentence, he is a college football player who was a consensus All-American as a true freshman. That's why.

2c. Reread WP:LEAD. The objective is to summarize the article not the subjects notability. There is more to the article than his consensus AA status.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I thought I was pretty clear in the first paragraph above: "The lede should be a brief statement of the reason(s) for a subject's notability and a brief summary of the article." Nowhere do I say that the only purpose of the lede is to state the subject's notability; it is, however, one of the two major purposes expressly identified by WP:LEAD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fairly standard policy of mine to refuse to promote WP:GACs that don't summarize each section of an article in the WP:LEAD. This article is not summarized without a summary of his high school career given its contents are a significant portion of the article. This is advice I got from the Director of WP:PR and have used for years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good rule of thumb. I've restored a brief mention of his high school career to the lede. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. The revised lede links to "American college football player," not "American football player" because an applicable link should usually be to the most specific subcategory for which a Wikipedia article exists. Lockett is notable as a college football player, not as high school player or professional player. This can be changed if and when he actually plays in a professional league.

You may be right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. The previous lede mentioned his second-team and honorable mention All-Big 12 honors at different positions, neither of which is a major award or honor, nor among the primary reasons for his notability. Details like these belong in body text, not the lede.

See 2c.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, see my response to items 2a and 2c above. Specifically, secondary honors are not highlights deserving of mention in the lede. The guy was a first-team All-American kick returner; there is no need to include honorable mention all-conference honors for a different position in the lede. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In order to summarize his article we need to clarify that he was good at several positions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the lede already says that he is a "wide receiver, punt returner and kickoff returner." As you know, it is not at all unusual for backup wide receivers to excel as kick returners. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to say he excelled at various positions. A lot of people play multiple positions and star at only one. In the lead, we need to summarize what he stars at and this enables us to do so objectively.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does not "excel" mean to you? Lockett was an honorable mention all-conference selection at wide receiver. There were three first-team WR selections, three second-teamers, and five honorable mentions (see [1]). Kinda-sorta that means he was among the 11 best receivers in a 10-team BCS conference; extrapolate that to the six BCS conferences, and that kinda-sorta implies he was among the 65 best receivers in the country in 2011, perhaps among the top 75+ when all Division I college football teams are factored in. Still think his honorable mention all-conference honors need to be mentioned in the lede? However you slice it, it's still very much a secondary honor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case excellence may only mean he is in the top 20% of wide receivers who get significant playing time and top 10% of those on scholarship, but that is good enough to merit a distinction in the LEAD. It would mean that as a true freshman, he was the best returner in the country and among the top 10% of scholarship wide receivers in the Big 12.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. The previous lede mentioned the fact that he failed to qualify for NCAA category-leading stat because he only played in nine of thirteen games. Why would we mention an honor he failed to receive in the lede? By including this, it read like it was written by a family member who was making excuses and did not strike an appropriate NPOV tone. This is another example of a detail that belongs in main body text, not the lede.

His most important statistical accomplishment is nearly being the NCAA leader, IMO. see 2c.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly, this is why he received All-American honors. Let's include a brief summary, without making excuses or saying what he didn't "win." Something like "Through the first nine games of his freshman season, Lockett led the nation in average yards per kickoff return." Probably should immediately precede the All-American honors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would add
  1. that he was injured and only played nine games--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. that this was higher than the eventual NCAA statistical champion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored his college statistical leader status. Further expounding his injury and ineligibility for the "official" NCAA stat category lead smacks of excuse-making; this guy doesn't need any excuses for not "winning" the official stat lead. He was a consensus All-American—everyone gets that he's a great athlete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of disagree, but I'll let this one go.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6. The previous lede also mentioned his high school team championships. While high school accomplishments rarely contribute much to a subject's notability, I could go either way on this, if a brief mention of his high school exploits is included as a brief summary of the article. Rattling off high school all-conference, all-district, all-state, etc., honors in the lede is rarely appropriate. If you want to re-add a mention that he was a member of two state championship teams in high school, I would not object.

See 2c.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I would not object to restoring a brief (probably one sentence) summary of his high school career, the most noteworthy aspect of which was the three state championships.
Agreed. However, IIRC some of your changes regarding this matter made the main body redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I've restored a brief summary of his high school career to the lede per item 2c above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't we mentioning the high school association?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"High school association?" Do you mean the OSSAA? If so, why would we insert "Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA) championships" into the lede and then have to explain with OHSAA is, and that those championships are really state championships? Those details are best left to the main body text, if mentioned at all. You've got to balance random details in the lede vs. the lede's purpose as a concise summary of the article's major points. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole LEAD is written slangily. "Led the nation" s/b Led NCAA DI. "consensus All-American" should be a 2011 NCAA DI consensus All-American.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

7. Before my edits, the second sentence of this section included "He worked out regularly with his father before fall football camp." What "football camp" are we talking about? Why is this worth mentioning? Is there some missing detail that makes this relevant? If so, please add the missing detail. As it stood, it read like it was something cut and pasted from another source. I have also added introductory detail regarding his high school that makes sense of the previously incoherent paragraph.

Fall football camp. Generally in high school and college football starts in August, fall may be a bit off. I will have to go back and check the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful, but if we're going to restore the deleted sentence, it needs to be expanded to provide missing details sufficient to explain the relevance of "football camp" to his high school career. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This content may belong in the personal section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it goes in the "early years" or "personal" section, it still needs further explanation and development of its contextual relevance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source is there. What do you think is necessary?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8. The section previously included "Growing up, he sought advice from both his father and his uncle." Well, he probably did. Got a source for that? What advice did he seek? On what subjects did he seek advice? Why was that advice relevant to his football career? In the absence of further language that explains the "advice," it's just unsourced filler. If you have a source and can explain the relevance, please include them in your own edits to the article. Remember: every fact in a BLP is subject to being removed when it's unsourced.

Everything in the article was sourced from online material. Check it out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, the major point is the deleted sentence is vague and adds no real information to the article. The minor point is that it's unsourced, and is subject to being deleted for any reason. No footnote = unsourced. It's not the reader's job to find BLP sources. If there were some meaningful substance to the deleted sentence, I would have looked for a source to add in a footnote. As the sentence stands now, it's meaningless filler. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If you think a sentence is unsourced it is because consecutive sentences shared a source.
  2. I do not find this content unencyclopedic. It is different than say Jalen Rose who never spoke to his NBA father. Not everyone has role models like that to get advice from.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I'm sympathetic to your perspective, and I understand what you're trying to do. It's similar to the reason why I always include college jocks' degree information when they graduate. Yes, kids need role models, and, yes, it would be nice to describe Lockett's relationship with his father and uncle in detail. See my last comments to item 2a above.
More personal section content, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that if you have the substantive material to describe the important influences of his father and uncle on his "early years," why wouldn't you incorporate that into the chronological "early years" section and explain the importance of these role models during his early development as an athlete and a person? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

College career

9. I have included an introductory sentence for his college career, including a statement of his university, his football team, his head coach, and his years of play. Do you really object to this?

The change was so drastic (and incorrect) that I reverted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, here is the introductory sentence added at the beginning of the "college career" section: "Lockett received an athletic scholarship to attend Kansas State University, where he has played for coach Bill Snyder's Kansas State Wildcats football team since 2011. Both his father and uncle played college football for K-State." What part of this section introduction is incorrect? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way you have added it, it remains a.) unsourced and b.) a one-line paragraph needing to be merged or expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a two-sentence paragraph, and now it has three sentences . . . and footnotes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10. In the second paragraph, I fixed the improper capitalization of two honors. If you want to cite the actual proper names of the awards, they may be capitalized as appropriate (e.g. "the Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year," and "second-team All-Big 12 selection"), but generic descriptions like "conference offensive freshman of the year," and "all-conference second team selection" are not capitalized. Presumably, you do not object to proper capitalization.

Probably meant to be capitalized as pronouns for the actual awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "pronouns" here. The most commonly used pronouns include subject pronouns (e.g. I, he, she, it, they, we), object pronouns (e.g. me, her, him, it, them, us), and possessive pronouns (e.g. my, his, her, its, their, our). They are shorter substitutes for proper nouns, and are typically used to avoid repeatedly using the same proper noun over and over again in prose. Only the first-person singular pronoun (i.e. "I") is properly capitalized. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may have my part of speech wrong. What I mean is substitute for the full title. President of the United States Obama should still be capitalized as President Obama. You do not have to have a full title to retain capitalization. When substituting use for the capitalized full name, the shorter name is still capitalized. However, president is not always capitalized—only when it is substituting for the full title. All-Big 12 Conference could be shortened to All-Big 12 or All-Conference depending on the context.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Big 12" is the short version of an easily identified proper noun. The word "conference" is not a proper noun, and could easily refer to the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal

11. Can we consider merging the substance of the "personal" section into the "early years" and "college career" sections? Separate "personal" sections usually create an awkwardly artificial separation of information and a non-chronological paragraph of random facts dumped at the end of an article. It's not the most elegant way of doing things. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments regarding considering adding additional content to the personal section. I am highly averse to reformatting away the personal section. It is difficult to build a personal section for many notable athletes. Often players with long pro careers even have sections this short. To have one this long for a college freshman (or sophomore as you say) is a good sign that we may be able to build a substantive personal section. Let's not tear it down.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's my personal preference to incorporate family information into the chronological narrative when it makes sense to do so. If you want to do otherwise in this article, that's your call. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Family stuff unrelated to football belongs in personal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, as a courtesy to you, I have taken considerably more time to explain these edits than it took to make them. If you have any problems with these edits after reading the explanations, I ask that you discuss them before reverting them again in a wholesale fashion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I have reincorporated your comments from my talk page here, so we can more easily follow this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tyler Lockett. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tyler Lockett. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tyler_Lockett&oldid=1208551250"