User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 14

Archives

---

1. October 2006 – November 2006
2. January 2007 – March 2007
3. April 2007
4. May 2007
5. June 2007
6. July 2007
7. August 2007
8. September 2007
9. October 2007
10. November 2007
11. December 2007
12. January 2008
13. February 2008
14. March 2008
15. April 2008
16. May 2008
17. June 2008
18. July 2008
19. August 2008
20. September 2008
21. October 2008
22. November 2008
23. December 2008

Dolphins

Damn, your Dolphins are active today--Yankees10 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hell yeah! I'm loving it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish My Pack would at least sign one guy, but I am a Bucs fan also and i'm glad they got Faine and are at least active--Yankees10 00:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about your roster info

I'm a Chiefs fan and pretty much the only one who maintains the Chiefs and their Wiki articles. I was wondering where you heard that Chris Bober was released because I can't find anything on the web about it. I know you maintain all rosters, etc. I'm just wondering where you found out about this. I was hoping to find some reference to add to the 2008 Kansas City Chiefs season page, but also just to keep in touch during this craaaaazy free agency period. Thanks. conman33 (. . .talk) 05:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[1]►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. conman33 (. . .talk) 18:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jag players

yes I do have proof its called jaguars.com go to roster. God rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagfan82 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your great work on updating players who signed with new teams during free agency Yankees10 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, sigh

Unfortunately, your reverts at Trent Green, while correct on the content, are still reverts that violate your restriction. Editors who are wrong about content are not thereby vandalizing, so the arbitration restriction applies. You need to persuade the other editor or get help. Fortunately, you are already getting the help. I've blocked you for 72 hours for violating the arbitration restriction. You can see the WP:AE thread here. GRBerry 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is messed up.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In what way? Vandalism is more than being wrong - vandalism is intentionally and knowingly damaging the encyclopedia. Had you truly been reverting blatant vandalism, I'd have let it slide. I wish you hadn't done this right now; it is high activity time for one of your primary interests. GRBerry 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a technical violation of the ArbCom decision here, but I don't think that seeking to keep clearly right rather than wrong information in the article is at the core of what the committee (I wasn't a member last year) had in mind when it told Chris that he needed to change his editing habits. The block is legitimate, and more help on Arbitration Enforcement is always very much appreciated, but there may be a good argument for commuting this particular block to time served. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Looking over the situation, Pinkkeith provided no edit summary for his deletion, which was in and of itself questionable, making it an unexplained deletion in my eyes. Even when Chris made his first revert, Pinkkeith still provided no edit summary to explain his deletion. And because of this, I might have even done the same thing myself. When a user is intent on deleting a legitimate part of an article without any explanation, I consider that disruptive. Chris' actions weren't -- they were only violated his ArbCom restriction. Pats1 ^T/C 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

GRBery - it's just the principle of the thing. I simply do not agree that I shouldn't be able to revert an edit I see that I know to be false, restoring an edit that I sourced.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you weren't subject to the arbitration restriction, you would have been fine. You did use the talk page, which is in your favor. But I understand the purpose of this part of your restriction to be to get you to engage in consensus building instead of edit warring. While I mull this over, why don't you think over how to make that reference actually work; it looks like <ref></ref> tags located after the <references/> tag generate a footnote mark but don't generate the reference in the reference list. GRBerry 04:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking this over again, actually, you reverted at least twice before you used the talk page. When you did it was the other user's talk page, which is a technical violation that is too small to care about (you were supposed to use the article's talk page). Had you filed for the RFC, instead of a third party editor doing so, I'd have considered that as evidence that you were trying to build consensus. But I can't see that you were trying to build consensus. There was no major incivility or personal attack here - so I'm feeling somewhat conflicted about this. I need to sleep tonight, so I'm going to shorten but not lift the block. Sleep well, and edit tomorrow. GRBerry 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hey Nelson, you seem to keep up with sports. Any news about Randy Moss? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW sorry to hear 'bout your block. :( Let me know if you want anythin updated. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it sucks. I have so much to do updating all the player moves and making everything consistent. No one's as OCD about it as I am, haha.

Don't know much about Moss. Have heard the Packers maybe, but who knows. I think he'd be an idiot to leave NE because that's the best place for him, but I'd love to see him out of the division. So here's to hoping he's an idiot.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Burner would love to see him go to the pack. I think I can make a prediction though; he won't go to Indy. I heard rumors about him having "talks" with the chargers, but who knows. I'm still gettin' over the chiefs releasing ty law. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sry to hear that your block, I never knew that you can get block for contributing on Wikipedia. Pretty stupid if you ask me. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Would you please comment on this? --Bender235 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Another barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Wow, you should be getting paid doing this. I give you this for your non-stop NFL free-agency work. Its not as good as money but you deserve something. Your the best. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man, I appreciate it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, great work on the player articles, Chris. Enigma ^msg! 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

Will someone let User:DragonFury know that the Bills are selling Marcus Stroud #99 jerseys (link), so he can let that IP editor's edit on the Bills' roster stand. Thanks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I undid an autoblock so see if you can edit now. GRBerry's shortened block should have ended several hours ago. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dewayne Robertson

was the report I saw. Not official, true, but it appears the trade is happening. Please revert to my version when the trade is deemed official. Enigma ^msg! 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it too. But it's really no more done than the Shaun Rogers-to-Cincy deal, so we have to wait. Anything can happen.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Player Edits.

Hey Chris. I just wanted to make sure that the player edits that I am currently doing are ok. I have been expanding Erik Coleman's profile recently so just checking that all was good? ~~~~.►User:Londonfella

Michael Gaines

NFL.com says Gaines signed with the Bills, not the Lions. Tigersfan1992^{How you doing?} 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably a typo. Gaines was on the Bills previously, but he signed with the Lions yesterday.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, yeah I am sure it is. Gaines is an improvement I assume. Tigersfan1992^{How you doing?} 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Boomer Grigsby

You guys signed boomer? Man, the 'phins get all the luck. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha can't be that lucky. You guys didn't tender him so obviously you didn't think it was worth it. Probably didn't get too much money either. But I liked him on Hard Knocks, seems like a cool dude. Also, it sounds like he's a kickass special teams guy and that's what we need. Ginn suffered last year because he had no help on special teams.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Ginn still had a break out rookie year with those kicks (even better if you don't count the penalties). But yeah, boomer really would have taken some of the load off of LJ. Too bad. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I thought Ginn had a fine year, especially as a receiver given the circumstances of the offense. And those two penalties he had that brought back his KR touchdowns were bullshit. Even the guy Greg Camarillo supposedly held didn't agree with the call.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of the three big KR's (Dante Hall Devin Hester and Ted Ginn) Ginn definately is the best catcher. Did you hear 'bout Moss? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That he re-signed? Yeah.

I mean I like Ginn a lot, but I think what separates him from Hester (aside from better special teams unit) is that Ginn seems to lack the same kind of instincts. Sometimes Ginn will run right into a crowd of people when he could take the corner and gain more yards. He's got insane speed but I'm not sure he has the instincts to ever be a returner on Hester's level. I do think he'll be a good receiver though.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's like dante hall said, "returning is all about risks. You say to yourself, "I think I'll try this" Sometimes it works; sometimes it don't." But I think that Ginn will have to learn those instincts. If you look at some hester highlights, he's surrounded by blockers and ginn probably doesn't like that cuz he like to use his agility a lot. You know what really floors me? Those stupid madden speed ratings. Why does a guy get a speed of 100 when another guy in his seventh year pro (dante hall) has the exact same 40 time but gets a rating of 96? That just doesn't sound right. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Brett Favre

How exactly would you know when he has officially filed retirement papers with the league? Would ESPN or the Packers' website post the official filing of the papers? Ksy92003 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question, I was wondering the same thing. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The NFLPA website.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It comes it handy with things like this. It let us know that Tarik Glenn retired, but that Jake Plummer still hasn't. Nor have Warren Sapp or Mack Strong.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Sapp just did today. And while he was on the NFLPA database yesterday (I checked) he's not now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think It'll be Aaron Rodgers or someone else? I'm thinking Rodgers but you never know. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd imagine Rodgers would be ready to start by now. If they drafted him in the first round, sat him all this time and then he couldn't start at this point, it'd be pretty pathetic.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be pretty pathetic. Personally, I think they'll draft someone like Matt Flynn or Chad Henne. I think they'd be idiots not go after Daunte Culpepper. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 02:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'd imagine they'll take a QB somewhere in the draft at some point, whether or not they think Rodgers will be the guy. No depth there right now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One game isn't a good indicator, but after the Dallas game, I feel comfortable as a diehard Pack fan with the team in his hands. He did learn from one of, if not the best. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as well. But now there's something else I'm wondering about. When a player retires, why don't they simply wait to make the announcement until after they make it official by filing the official papers? You'd think that'd make more sense, right? Ksy92003 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a hard decision for most guys. Even if they say they are done, part of them probably still wants to play and they cling to that for a while. Favre could easily return.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope he does return. :) Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It really surprised me when I came home and turned on ESPNews and saw that he had retired, especially after going to the Conference title game and me personally not hearing any retirement rumours, like in seasons past. And while I would personally like to see Favre come back, I don't want him to. This is the first time he's retired, I believe, and I think that his "legacy" would be greater if he stayed retired. Guys who retire and come back (like Mario Lemieux, since I only know about hockey basically) usually aren't as good in their second stint as they originally were. I don't want Favre to become another player to come back and do poorly. Ksy92003 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Warren Sapp

Hey I think Warren Sapp filed his retirement papers but I want to ask you this first before I do anything. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he did. Looks like everything's already been done though.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, you should use this article to explain to other people the difference from saying and doing. [2] Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Teams

shouldnt the teams be together in the categories, so it is easier--Star QB (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I'm no template expert but I did notice a problem with this one.

Now, my question is, why does the 'phins say vacant? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Was a mistake. I've fixed it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Brett Favre 2

With respect, this is seriously silly. The NFL has announced he's retired. He's announced he's retired in a tearful farewell address. Even packers.com, THE official site of the packers has a great big whopping entry page tribute to him being retired. I'm going to remove him from the roster, again. Unless you can find a cite indicating he has un-retired, or that his retirement statements are false, please don't reinstate him. Much as I love the man too, he's done. It's over. He's gone. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't love him. That's not whey I'm re-adding him. I'm re-adding him because he hasn't filed retirement papers with the league, as indicated by his presence in the NFLPA database. This is a 100% reliable source of whether or not a guy has officially retired. Mack Strong has still not retired, and that's why he's in the database. Warren Sapp just officially retired two days ago, and he was removed from the database.

I'm sorry, but you're incorrect on this, and User:Pats1 will revert you when he sees it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• How blatant does it have to be? Quoting Favre himself "Seems like just yesterday we were here. Well, I think we all know why I'm here. First of all, sorry I'm late. But I am officially retiring from the NFL and the Green Bay Packers" [3] That's his own words, at a press conference designed to official announce his retirement. Even HE is saying it's official. The Packers are saying it's official. The NFL is saying it's official. I don't care about nflpa.org. Heck I can't even bring up the site right now. There isn't a person in professional football who believes he's not retired. Can we please stop this now? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what has happened. But Jake Plummer announced his retirement over a year ago and it's still not official. Saying "I'm retiring" as Favre has does not make anything official. He can still undo it at any moment, and he's still on the team's active roster. To be officially retired, he would have to file retirement papers with the league. Maybe he intends to. But he hasn't yet, and he's still on the Packers' active roster. Like I said, admin User:Pats1 is exact with these rosters and he'll revert it when he sees it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Then he's doing a serious disservice. Having an edit war over something like this is absolutely silly. It's done. It's over. He's retired. Edit warring over this is like refusing to list the 2009 Superbowl somewhere because hey, it's not official yet. It's not been played! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• By the way; I note that {{Tampa Bay Buccaneers roster}} doesn't list Plummer on the list of quarterbacks. Also, plummer didn't take a single snap all this past season. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't there at least be a footnote? Like this. It does seem very silly to leave him on the active roster given yesterday's theatrics. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Plummer's on the Reserve/Did Not Report list. That's where he is on the template.
2. It is not silly to leave him there - he IS on the active roster as much as Aaron Rodgers or anyone. His situation has not changed as far as the team goes. All that's happened is he's said he doesn't intend to play next year. Hypothetically he could change his mind tomorrow and we'd be back to where we were a week ago. I'm sure it won't happen, but the FACT is he is on the active roster like every other player on the Packers.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please take the following in the happy, funny spirit it's intended :) This all sounds to me like listening to a nasal voiced civil service worker "I'm sorry sir, but until you fill out Form Q6YT-1390A in triplicate and file inverse color copies at the local planning office in the locked file cabinet downstairs in the disused lavatory with the sign saying "beware the leopard" we can not list Brett Favre as officially retired". "Ah yes", you say "And the hours?" "yes sir, we're open monday to friday in 2004" "What? What about 2008?" "I'm sorry sir, but our hours do not extend to 2008. Thank you for your call <click>". This really is absurd you know :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't accommodate both approaches. Leave him on the roster for the ultra-official viewpoint - which is correct - but also put a note for the fact that Favre has very clearly announced his retirement - which is also correct. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Officially, he's not retired. Officially, he's till on the roster as active. So, we should go by the official version and say that he is still active. Putting that he is retired is like saying that Ted Ginn returned three kicks for touchdowns even tho officially he didn't because of holding penalties. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't even want a note? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If everyone understood the situation, we wouldn't need a note. But it's the lesser of two evils.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• For my part, the man himself saying he's OFFICIALLY retired is plenty. We got it from the man's own mouth. I don't care about whatever paperwork has or hasn't been filed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Brett said he's retired, but he hasn't filed paperwork to officially retire. Until he does, we go by the NFLPA like Chris said. When he's removed, we say he's officially retired. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I understand what you're saying. Believe me. I just think it's silly bureaucracy. The NFLPA doesn't represent the Packers. They don't represent the NFL. They don't represent Favre either, except in labor contract negotiations. All of those entities say he's retired. That the NFLPA doesn't say he's retired seems pretty meaningless. It's kinda like Chevrolet announcing the last production run of Camaros, but they haven't asked the camaro lover's website to note that they're retiring camaros so it isn't "official". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying too. User:Pats1 will most likely revert it on sight if it's changed until he's removed from the NFLPA database. But officially, he's not retired until he files the papers with the NFL front office. When that happens, the NFLPA will remove him from the database. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 19:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• But "officially" is subject to serious disagreement here. Brett says he's officially retired. So does the NFL and the Packers. I don't see what special standing NFLPA should have here that makes them the final arbiter on whether someone is retired or not. The Packers have dedicated their entire website entry page to his retirement. You can't get more official than that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The NFLPA is just reporting his filing of retirement papers by removing him from the database. Until he files papers, he could return. So, the NFLPA keeps him in their database. When he files retirement papers, he no longer can return to play so they remove him from the dtatbase. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with Hammersoft. If he's going to be kept on the Wikipedia GBP roster despite his announcement of his retirement, a note should at least be left there explaining that he retired. Enigma ^msg! 19:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ok educate me here. If a person files retirement papers with them, it's impossible for them to ever play in the NFL again? Jim Brown certainly thought it possible to come back after 17 years of retirement. I don't think the distinction here should be whether Favre can come back. If he filed papers today, and decided in June to come back I seriously doubt either the NFLPA or the Packers would stop him from coming back. Filing papers doesn't make it any more or less official. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Also, nflplayers.com, "Official website of the NFL players", has announced his retirement too [4] "Favre Makes Retirement Official". This website is owned and operated by NFLPA and " is the NFL Players Associations fully integrated sports marketing company" So, the NFLPA seems to think it's official too. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Well now this is interesting. According to this article, Steve Christie "officially" filed his retirement papers in 2007...yet he just completed a one day contract with the Buffalo Bills to retire as a Bill. Seems "officially" retiring with the NFLPA didn't stop him from coming back for a day. It doesn't seem to me that the NFLPA having retirement papers is any more official than any other source, and we've got several other organizations plus Brett himself saying he's officially retired. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Favre saying it doesn't mean jack shit in this case. It means nothing. It doesn't change anything. He's on the roster just like he was a week ago. Nothing has changed except Favre essentially saying he intends not to play in 2008. This does not make him a former NFL player. It makes him an NFL player that said he's going to retire, but has not yet.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• HE said it's official and that still doesn't count? The PACKERS saying it's official and it still doesn't count? The NFL saying it's official and it still doesn't count? A website of the NFLPA saying it's official and is still doesn't count? Wow. Ok, I guess nobody ever retires from the NFL until they're dead and most definitely can't come back! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That argument is silly. Didn't Lance Briggs say he wasn't going to be a Bear anymore? Does that mean we should have removed Briggs from the roster when he said that? Pats1 ^T/C 14:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note, bearing in mind I haven't read the madness above: Chris and I usually look for one of two things in order to remove a retired player: 1) His NFLPA.org Active Player search record being deleted - this is indicative of a player officially being or not being on a roster - Favre is still here, and since they already have Lewis Sanders' records for the Pats, and he was signed yesterday afternoon... and 2) Pro Football Weekly's transactions showing Favre as Reserve/Retired - ProFW has the official NFL transaction wire, unlike, ironically, NFL.com itself or any other site. They have yet to update their transactions for the past 2 days, so we'll have to wait and see there. Pats1 ^T/C 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Steve Christie didn't file papers with the NFLPA until THREE YEARS AFTER he took his final kick in the NFL. It is madness to think that Favre could still be listed here on the roster for the Packers when every source, INCLUDING the NFLPA is saying he's retired. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Christie never even announced his retirement until this past week. He was a UFA after the 2004 season with the Giants, and not tendered a contract by the June 1 deadline, per ProFW. KFFL also has Christie working out with a few teams in 2005. Christie then went to the CFL in 2007. Pats1 ^T/C 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, I don't know what you mean about the "NFLPA says he's retired," because the NFLPA's official records still have Brett Favre, and will have him until he goes to Reserve/Retired. I don't know what's so complicated about this. Pats1 ^T/C 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pats1 wins.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am teh winnar! Pats1 ^T/C 22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I fail to see the humor here. Regardless, it seems the compromise stuck and the edit war is over. THAT is a victory for all, and the only one that means anything. As for the NFLPA saying he's retired, see my comments above. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The humor is the big deal that's being made over the issue. This issue is completely temporary - it's only matter of time before Favre actually retires. And if he doesn't anytime soon, then he'll still be on the Packers' roster and we'll proceed from there, as will the Packers. Pats1 ^T/C 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And from what you said about the NFLPA ("they don't represent Favre"), I'm not saying they do. But their database of player salaries is also the NFL's. It is, without question, an official list. Unless Favre goes to reserve/retired and his entry is removed from the database, he is as much as a Packer as he was a few weeks ago. For example, if the Packers had 80 players on the roster right now, including Favre (which they don't), they wouldn't be able to sign any more players because 80 is the limit and Favre still counts against that limit. Similarly, his salary is still on the books (as will his signing bonus amortizations even after he officially retires, unless the Packers ask for them back, which they obviously won't) until he goes to reserve/retired. Therefore, if the Packers were up against the salary cap, they wouldn't be able to sign anybody else since Favre's salary still counts. The point? As much Favre says he's retired, he's practically as un-retired now as he was weeks ago. Pats1 ^T/C 14:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask the ramifications of his non-retirement but decided I didn't care enough. Then you answered me anyway so thanks! —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor note

Just a few minutes ago, NFL.com updated their databases to give every player another season of experience. I'm not sure if they did it how they should have (only those who accrued a season advance) or if they did a mass change and then will go back and fix the inaccuracies. But it definitely just happened a few minutes ago from what I can tell. Pats1 ^T/C 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Rashad Moore, who didn't accrue a season in 2007, is accurately listed being in his 4th season in 2008, I'm cautiously optimistic that they did do it right. But then again, Moore hasn't been on the Patriots for a week now, and they might have only been updating current roster players. Who knows, I'll continue to check it out. Pats1 ^T/C 23:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since guys like Jake Nordin and Bo Schobel, who didn't accrue seasons in 2007 despite a few games active, are correct, that should be good. However, they're having the same problem as they did last year. Guys who spent the whole season on IR (Mike Richardson) are not accurate. I'm not sure about guys who played in a few games at the start of the season (not enough to accrue) but were placed on IR. Pats1 ^T/C 00:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

What's wrong with this infobox? And who said that it can't be like? You or Wikipedia? --Crash Underride 20:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At WP:NFL we voted to not link the years.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When did you vote because I cant find it anywhere?--Yankees10 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember. A long time ago. I forget exactly where it was.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Garmmar help

I was wonderin' if you could take a look at Hakim Akbar, and give me any advice on grammar problems. I created the article yesterday, it was all done in one edit, then I took a few others to fixed small little problems and to add college highlights and awards. Thanks, --Crash Underride 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have any questions about any changes I made, just ask. I'd also consider putting a retired infobox on there since he's probably not coming back.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If Akar was allocated to NFL Europe, why are you usin' the reference from the Stampeders website? Besides, I NEVER said he WASN'T, I just said that the article you're usin' said nothin' about his allocation. --Crash Underride 05:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not using that reference. That reference is for the sentence it's at the end of - not the one before it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok sorry I didn't see the second one lol. I guess I'm gettin alittle tired lol. --Crash Underride 05:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New infobox

Here's a new one that I cranked out after about 2 1/2 hours of work tonight. I know it looks like the Gridiron Person one but look closely, AFL meand Arena, not American. It's kind of an update of Dridiron Person some. Let me know what you think and I'll do my best to make it better. --Crash Underride 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I think anything that's missing from the current infoboxes can be added. We have quite a few already.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured that this one could be used for the newer players that wouldn't have been in the American football league, simply because havin' two AFLs could get confusin' and that it would save space in the syntax. --Crash Underride 05:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Bruce

Yes he will! IT IS ON THAT SAME PAGE, SCROLL DOWN AND SEE!-DANO- (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Isaac Bruce will not be wearing No. 80," team spokesman Aaron Salkin said. "We are leaving it in honor of Jerry Rice's legacy."[5] Bjewiki (Talk) 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the info, i'm been going at it for at least 6 months and still don't know some of the copright policies. Thanks anyway and nice home page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffi2k7 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NFLPA Active

Hey after they changed the site do you know if there's a new page that stats a player retired. Thanks--Phbasketball6 (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pats1 is watching for it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 13:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link someone dug up: Active Player Search. I'm not sure if it's still being updated (i.e. the database it's being pulled from), or if it's still stuck on whenever the NFLPA stopped their old site. Pats1 ^T/C 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good news: It looks like it's still being updated, if Bubba Franks and Nathan Jones are any indication. And for the record, Favre is still on there. Pats1 ^T/C 16:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the link these days?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The one about two inches above where you just typed. Pats1 ^T/C 22:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Voided contracts

Using "my sources" (wink), here are the guys who voided their contracts (or, as is the case with the Pats', had their options declined -- except Darwin Walker isn't on it, but that's probably because he was traded and thus he had no signing bonus left). We have, according to my records, taken all these guys off their old rosters, and you'll notice a few of them you thought I had missed: Anthony Becht, Brian Kelly, Michael Pittman, John Wade, Mark Brunell, Rock Cartwright, Marcus Trufant, Kwame Harris, Tyler Brayton, Jerry Porter, William Joseph, Donte' Stallworth, Kelley Washington, Damien Woody, Marion Barber, Chris Canty, Julius Jones. Of those, Cartwright and Washington have re-signed with their old teams. Pats1 ^T/C 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Kansas City Chiefs, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Kansas City Chiefs. Simply click here to accept!

Kimu 00:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's sad

I find it sad that you have to stalk other users talk pages. I only do it if I'm waitin' on an answer. But YOU no, you do it just because you think you're better than God Almighty himself. Well, you're not, and I'm sick of you treatin' me and other people like shit on here. Just because you've been on here a year longer than I have doesn't mean shit, it don't mean that you can go and not source a damn thing you add. Just because you're a journalism major don't mean that you know more than any of the rest of us. I know for a FACT that there are people on here smarter than you and who know more than you do. So why don't you just get your head outta your ass and treat other with some damn respect! Crash Underride 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris, that's a lie, you've reverted some of my edits almost as fast as I put thme up! Crash Underride 22:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here and how may I assist? Pats1 ^T/C 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He can't b bettr that God cuz he's agnostic. lol. 76.235.40.158 (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much, Pats. Crash complimented Bjewiki on his talk page for "telling me off" like half a year ago, and so then a discussion between myself, Crash and Ksy92003 ensued on Crash's talk page. And Crash and Ksy were bitching about how we undo IP edits on roster templates by saying "source?" even though I explained our behavior and why it's the best course of action. And then there's just been a bunch of whining.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New editor review

Hey. I am currently undergoing a new editor review to see how much I've improved since my first nearly five months ago. If you could, I would greatly appreciate if you could give me whatever criticism of my activity you can. Thanks for your time, Ksy92003 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen you edit much of anything that's on my watch list, so I can't really contribute much.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly looking for anything on the MLB or NFL project pages and discussions I've been in. By chance, have you had either of those pages on your watchlist? Ksy92003 (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't really recall seeing more than an occasional edit of yours for months.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pacman Jones / Anthony Macfarland

ok, also did Anthony Macfarland sign with the Steelers, because I was watching NFL Total Access and it said that he hadnt agreed to a deal yet--Yankees10 23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it appears he has not, I just wasn't going to mess with the article unless anyone else cared to so I wouldn't have to do it over again, haha.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah it will most likely happen anyway--Yankees10 23:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I guess we can just revert to my previous edit if/when it becomes official.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, your right--Yankees10 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rob Davis

diff. I'm just saying you should look at exactly what you're reverting, before doing the revert. The revert reinstated a typo. I know that was not your intent, but... Enigma ^message 03:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick Ferguson

I saw your comment on the edit explanation, do you mean the Status section?--Yankees10 17:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'd like to get that section more commonly used. I added it to the template but really I'm the only one that knows about it. Essentially, any time a guy is signed with the team in the offseason or the active roster during the regular season (but NOT on a reserve list) it should say Active. If he's on a reserve list, put that (Injured Reserve, Physically Unable to Perform, Suspended, Did Not Report, etc.). Other options, given the situation include Restricted Free Agent, Exclusive-Rights Free Agent, Franchise Tag, Transition Tag, and so on.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

sure, I'll add it--Yankees10 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)