User talk:Giants27/Archives/2009/January

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, Giants27/Archives/2009! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Matt Cassel

Matt Cassel, and any other scheduled free agent, for that matter, doesn't become a free agent until the Patriots actively release him or the FA period begins in late February (2/27?), whichever comes first. Samer (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I meant to go back and change that, cause I had done it in error.--Iamawesome800 02:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

I reviewed you here, if you want to take a look.Andy (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The comments were well deserved. Happy editing. Andy (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Steven Hill (basketball)

Hi there AWESOME ONE, VASCO here,

Although i did not remove anything after your insertion, i leave the following suggestion: In Steven Hill (basketball), i think we should remove the Trail Blazers in "former teams", as it is only preseason, nothing else, as they say "no strings attached". What are your views on it?

From PORTUGAL, wishing a happy week(end) and 2009,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead remove it, I don't care.--Iamawesome800 18:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Syracuse wikiproject

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Syracuse, New York, aka wp:SYR. I notice you joined in November, while i personally was on a 2 month wikibreak. Glad to see an experienced wikipedian join up. The Syracuse wikiproject has been kinda quiet, talk-wise, but has actually been moving along pretty well on a low level. In particular, there has been consistent development by multiple contributors over the last year on the list of Syracuse neighborhoods and on two historic places list-articles: National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York and National Register of Historic Places listings in Onondaga County, New York. I wonder, can you take a look at those list-articles and see if you could add pics to either? It would be nice to bring those up to Featured List candidate quality. And, please do feel free to stir up any discussion at the Syracuse wikiproject talk page.  :) Again, welcome from a fellow member. doncram (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mike Williams

Nope. When in doubt, control+f search this.

Not sure. Pats1 ^T/C 03:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see anything saying he's officially called it quits. Still too early to switch infoboxes if that's where you're getting at.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here's what I changed on Huey Whittaker.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Years

I have a feeling this is something we're gonna have to fix on a lot of articles, but remember for players signed to future contracts do to 2009 as the start year in the infobox. For example, even though Devale Ellis signed with Cleveland on December 31, 2008, he wasn't really a member of their team in the 2008 season. His tenure with them is in the 2009 season, so that's when we start it.

Conversely, a player signed by a playoff team to the active roster or practice squad (even now and throughout the playoffs) will have 2008 in their infobox because they were signed in the 2008 league year.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Way too soon

Iamawesome800

This review is done with the thought that the candidate is contemplating an RfA in the not too distant future as indicated on my talk page/email. This is a different type of review than one might receive at an editor review. When I perform this type of review, I do so, as the thoughts come to mind:

• Get a name change. Iamawesome800 comes across as egotistical, brash, and immature.
• Start using better descriptions when requesting speedy deletions---Eg the deletion criteria A1/G3/A7/etc.
• You might want to take a look at some of the essays available on CSD. Namely: Field guide to proper speedy deletion, Why I hate Speedy Deleters, and CSD Survey. It didn't take me long before I stumbled accross Christovita Wiloto where you were tagging it for speedy per A7. A7 does not require that the subject is notable, it only has to make a claim at being important or significant. It does not require that the importance/signficance be sourced, it only has to be a claim. This is clearly claimed in the article. Of course, the article was a copy vio, so I just deleted another recreation of said article as such. The Jakarta Post
• Read my essay on How to pass an RfA
• Work on building the project, most of the edits I saw seemed to be minor ones---possibly via a tool of some sort.

You need a lot of experience and you need to broaden your experience. 3 months is not nearly enough time to consider running for adminship. You need to show that you know policy/guidelines. I wish you well, but right now, I don't have time for another coachee (barely keep up with the two I have.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

68.147.160.150

You gave a "last warning" to this IP, but it has continued disruptive editing on Animation and other articles. I'm not an admin, so I cannot do anything, except snitching... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Modesto.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Modesto.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Maristredfoxes.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Maristredfoxes.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hey Iamawesome, I see that you are making tons upon tons of mainspace edits. But almost all of them are minor edits where you are fixing something small. Please mark these edits as minor, as it is unfair that you are racking up many points for minor edits and not marking them as such. Also, I saw you nominated Eli Manning at GAN. You didn't do enough work with it to get credit for the article, and I'm not sure if it's ready yet. I recommend withdrawing your nomination and getting a peer review first. Unfortunately if you don't start marking those edits as minor, you will be disqualified. iMatthew // talk // 00:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, happy editing! iMatthew // talk // 00:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat per WP:TOV

Thanks for reporting that, but Jimmy isn't always around so I've moved it to WP:ANI for consideration there. Probably a kid screwing around, but we can't afford to take chances, and a visit from the FBI usually gets the message across. --Rodhullandemu 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I reported it cause it may have been a kid just joking but if he wasn't and it blows up, then I'd feel responsible for any death and/or injury.--Iamawesome800 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Toddcrob

Hi
User:Toddcrob is both author and topic of Todd C. Roberts, which is up for PROD. All the content is from him, so if he wants to stubbify it to try and save it from deletion, I say let him. No need to revert, even though he didn't provide an explanation for the content removal. What do you think?
Cheers, Amalthea 01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize he had created the article, so my take is that he has both the right to remove it too try and make it better and a COI since his username clearly suggests a connection.--Iamawesome800 02:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, the COI is also already noted at the article, and as you say pleasantly obvious. Cheers, Amalthea 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe Flacco

Found a reference for you:

Hensley, Jamison. - "Joe Cool - Eerie Calm Drives Rookie From 3rd String to First Postseason" - The Baltimore Sun. - January 4, 2009.

Rookie Sensations:

The Ravens' Joe Flacco and the Atlanta Falcons' Matt Ryan will become the seventh and eighth rookie quarterbacks to start an NFL playoff game since the 1970 merger. The previous six rookie quarterbacks were 2-4 in their postseason debuts:

Quarterback ........ Team ... ....... Season ... Result

1. Dan Marino ............. Miami .......... 1983 ... Lost to Seattle, 27-20
2. Bernie Kosar ..... ... Cleveland ........... 1985 ..... Lost at Miami, 24-21
3. Jim Everett .. Los Angeles Rams ... 1986 .... Lost at Washington, 19-7
4. Todd Marinovich . Los Angeles Raiders .1991 .... Lost at Kansas City, 10-6
5. Shaun King ...... Tampa Bay .......... 1999 ..... Beat Washington, 14-13 ,
6. Ben Roethlisberger .. Pittsburgh ....... 2004 .. Beat New York Jets, 20-17

• Note: Pat Haden (1976) and Dieter Brock (1985) led teams to the playoffs in their first NFL seasons. But prior to joining the NFL, Haden played one season in the World Football League, and Brock played 11 seasons in the Canadian Football League.

- Enjoy,

- 4.240.78.11 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Who says I was talking about this, I wanted a reference for any rookie qb who won a playoff not whoever has played a playoff game.--Iamawesome800 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is in there too. If you simply look at the list is shows King and Roethlisberger won their games and the others lost. - 4.240.165.191 (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: There is a difference between STARTING and PLAYING in a playoff game as a rookie DA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.165.191 (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that.--Iamawesome800 01:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Hey can we make sort of an agreement that when one of us updates some transactions, the rest of us wait maybe half an hour to update the player pages to make sure we don't get into edit conflicts with the person that did the transaction? It just happened at Shane Andrus, though I'm sure I've done it to you too.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it wouldn't have happened if I had just done it right the first time. But it's definetely a good idea.--Iamawesome800 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To avoid another, I'll just let you know, I'm gonna go create the Louis Holmes page so instead of getting in a edit conflict.--Iamawesome800 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha sorry, I just did!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Iamawesome800 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!

 Ashbey  Ӝ  has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

 Ashbey  Ӝ  01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Adopted

Hey man, sure I'll let you adopt me, you seem to be interested in the same kind of stuff as me too so yeah, drop me a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazywazy (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright man, no problem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazywazy (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, about the task, do you want me to find vandalism somewhere on Wiki or to revert what you said on that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazywazy (talk • contribs) 23:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I completed the assignment but it was a random IP so I couldn't put the warning on a talk page. Crazywazy (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to go do some stuff IRL, I'll do the assignment first chance I get. Crazywazy (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I completed the task, I think I did a pretty good review of an article, I pointed out what I thought needed to be done. Crazywazy (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert on my Talk page :) Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome.--Iamawesome800 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Redfoxes.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Redfoxes.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MAGNOLIUS article

Hello,

I'm writing in rergards an article being declined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Submissions/MAGNOLIUS

I was told to submit an article which meets the criteria.

The musical artist I submitted met more than 1 of the criteria listed

1. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country

  The article had a refrence from an international tour coverage from O'Globo Newspaper. Which is the largest National paper in Brazil.
  

YOu also ask why this musical artist is worthy of inclusion/

Not only was the duo coverd on the biggest newspaper on in international tour, but there was also featured on 3 seperate brazilian televison stations. Tve Brasil, Attitude and Play TV(featured segment).

Nominations for both the Toronto Independent Music Awards and the Ontario independent Music Awards

2 international tours with significant press, which I've included. (Cover of Arts Beat Magazine in Singapore)

Is this not more than enough to meet the criteria?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitchblack99 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Then how about resubmitting it by typing {{AFC submission|P}}.--Iamawesome800 03:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you do realize you can create the article yourself, since you're a registered user.--Iamawesome800 03:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PFW updated

I'm gonna do it so we don't get into edit conflicts.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

When updating player pages, please make sure when putting asterisk on tenures and the notation "Offseason and/or practice squad member only" that the player did NOT have any active roster or reserve list time. For example, you put the asterisk on Brandon Foster, and while he began and ended the 2008 season on the Colts' practice squad, he did have an active roster stint in there as well.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IP talk page abuse

Thanks for the info. I protected the page for 6 hours. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Iamawesome800 03:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. I'm just so very sorry

It's all good, Iamawesome800. :-) I'm not a grudge bearer and besides a lot of people were fooled just right. Best regards, Húsönd 03:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your signature

I don't know how to phrase this, so I will just say it directly: I think you need to change your signature. It is really eye-catching in a way that it distracts from what you and others write on a talk page and let your name stand out, which looks like your contributions are more important than others. Also, some people (like me) use scripts that highlight their own username to keep track of when someone replies to them in large threads and your signature looks kind of similar to what that script produces. I'd appreciate it if you considered changing your signature in a way that it removes that background-color. Regards SoWhy 08:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's not fair.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get right on that.--Iamawesome800 Talk 19:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Iamawesome800 Talk 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :-) SoWhy 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know why you changed it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cause I don't care.--Iamawesome800 Talk 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please change the color (at least to the talk page) as it makes you look as if you have no user or talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, these requests are completely ridiculous. If he wants to have a red signature, he can have a red signature. Stop trying to make him do something which he doesn't have to do. Not that he shouldn't - if he is ok with it, sure, but stop trying to pressure him over something so menial and frankly completely unnecessary to notify about. — neuro^(talk) 13:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's the last time I'm doing this, if you have any complaints about my signature keep them to yourself.--Iamawesome800 Talk 14:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your responding so quickly. & Neuro, I asked a question and explained why. I didn't demand anything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you Iamawesome800 for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

An apology and a note

Hi Iamawesome800! You said I vandalized Chinland I'm sorry about that. I thought my contribution was constructive. I tried my best to present the case as it is. Any disputed facts should be contested and that's what I did. I'm sorry if my contribution was useless. But threatening to block my IP address sounds very unfair. If I'm notified on the possible mistakes from my side, I'm ever ready to correct myself, otherwise what's the point of WikipEDITING at the first place. I can create any website and promote my views there. Thanks for notifying me though. 12:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawma (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 01:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Adopted

Hey Man Sorry I haven't done the task yet I've been busy IRL when I have the time I'll do it though! Crazywazy (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, do it when you get a chance :)--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rex Ryan

I wanted to put it as Re.Ryan if the situation comes that his Brother rob becomes the head coach in cle if Mangini gets fired in season so i don't have confusion going on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbondfan (talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But his brother Rob is not a head coach yet, per WP:CRYSTAL, so it's just Ryan as there is no other Ryan head coach.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok That Will Do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbondfan (talk • contribs) 17:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't count

It's true! — neuro^(talk) 00:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe it.

There is consensus at the talk page that this RfA should not be closed per NOTNOW/SNOW. Why do you ignore it? That's disruptive. — Aitias // discussion 00:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my bad, never looked, just figured it was the editcounter.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please undo your against-consensus changes then, please? Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, your close is a conflict of interest anyway. — Aitias // discussion 01:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for your opinion on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mixwell. I have decided that it's too early for it. I closed it by WP:Snow. Thanks! --Mixwell!^Talk 03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar, happy to fight vandalism wherever it may be! QueenCake (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Rex Ryan

He had accepted the job when I changed his page. It's all irrelevant now though. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You messaged me then why?--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

EfD

Michael Snow. WP:SNOW. Get it? I don't hear you laughing! Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha!--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Stone

The article passes WP:ATHLETE! Schuym1 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we'll see what the community has to say.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that the result will be keep per past experiences with football players. If them being professional football players are verified, then the article always gets kept since WP:ATHLETE is a notability guideline. So I am not worried at all. Schuym1 (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not this one.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Idiot. He didn't pass WP:ATHLETE because he never played. Schuym1 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said that I was responding to your comment where you said that all football players whose careers can be verified are kept, well his career could be verified but the article still got deleted. And may I suggest WP:CIVIL.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I always meant if it is verified that they played in professional sports. In this article's case, it is verified. Schuym1 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Verified.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant my article. And stop acting like I'm a newbie. Schuym1 (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is verified, but that still doesn't mean he passes WP:NOTABILITY.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That has always been irrelevant if it passes some other guideline. Schuym1 (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm done talking to you because you do not understand the notability guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

THANK GOD!--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism by some jackass to my userpage. shirulashem (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks glad to help!--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fix

Could you please explain how "fix"es like this are an improvement? It creates a link to Winnipeg, Manitoba, which is a redirect to Winnipeg and hides the defaultsort and the year of birth and living people categories, which were already properly and correctly formatted. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, man didn't realize it was a redirect, apologies on my part. But with the defaultsort thing, the lifetime template gives the birthdate and the living people categories so I don't really see the point of keeping it at defaultsort.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of using a template for categories and links that will not change. It does not follow the guidelines for use of templates either (WP:TEMPLATE). They are intended to be used for boilerplate messages and to keep styles for infoboxes and such common. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The City-state template should only be used if the city article is located at CITY, STATE. If the city has it's own article with no state in the title, then link both separately. However, with U.S. states on Wikipedia, most of the city articles are located at CITY, STATE. Meaning the City-state template correctly links both the city and the state to their respective articles. If we want Atlanta to link to Atlanta, Georgia but Georgia to link to Georgia, we can either write:

• [[Atlanta, Georgia|Atlanta]], [[Georgia]]

-or-

• {{city-state|Atlanta|Georgia}}

Both accomplish the exact same thing, but the latter is much easier to type and read when editing. You'll notice I ONLY do it if the template doesn't cause re-directs. For example, I did not do it at Kerry Carter.

Now, the Lifetime template. Once again, this template is simply more efficient because it adds the two categories of Living people and birth year (or birth year and death year) without taking up two lines in the editing box.

As far as I can see, when used in the right situations, both templates are only more efficient and haven no drawbacks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at User talk:DoubleBlue#Your edits. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should be making edits to articles such as this which make no difference to the article as it uses up resources to update the page for no purpose but this makes a somewhat negative difference to the article by changing a direct link to Detroit with a redirect from Detroit, Michigan. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know it was a redirect.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For the life of me, I cannot understand why you do these. It changes nothing for the reader and obfuscates the categories and defaultsort for the editors. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Byron Parker

Hey man, I'm gonna update this page, FYI.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The Maple Leaf Award is hereby awarded to Iamawesome800's awesome commitment to keeping Canadian football biographies and rosters up-to-date. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well-deserved. I was slacking. :-) DoubleBlue (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man!--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 03:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know then that we are mortal enemies though! :-P DoubleBlue (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah my new signature is just for you :-D--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 02:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

CFL to NFL guys

It's the offseason for both, it's not a big deal if they are still on both rosters. We can be sure once the season rolls around that they'll be moved to inactive on their CFL teams, assuming they make their NFL ones. Wake is pretty much a lock, but guys like Onatolu, Parker, Johnson, Sam and Washburn are all likely to be cut anyway and when they do they'll probably end up back in the CFL.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Another question

Why did you remove the note about off-season/practice squad only here and elsewhere? It seems misleading to me to claim he was a player with the team if he has never dressed for a game, especially when there is a note for another team that he was practice squad only. It definitely implies he played for the team. On the other hand, as Chris says elsewhere on a different topic, I don't see the downside. It adds important information for the reader. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the asterik there and on Richard Zulys because they are both still with the Argos, and they might eventually get playing time. Because I know with the NFL, we don't add the asterik until the player has left the team, which neither have done.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Zulys was only signed last month and Peoples was released in the pre-season last year and only recently re-signed. In fact, I am more tempted to leave years out from the Years as a player section in which a player never dresses for a game. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh?--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 18:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is my Canadian accent particularly bad today? :-) Chris cannot understand me today either. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No it really isn't, I'm just really stupid :-)--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My tendency is to leave off the asterisk for current tenures because they are still going on and might eventually be active. If a guy becomes active, then the page is already right and no asterisk needs to be removed.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't it actually make the current version of the article incorrect or, at the least, misleading? It is normal for bios to be only up-to-date as of the last edit date but it seems wrong to claim he is a current player if he's never dressed for a game just on the chance that he may dress for a game in the future. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not neccesarily (I know I totally botched the spelling of that) because to me it's just saying that they are under contract with that team, but it could be misleading so instead of an asterik because that means something different we could use one of these:^ and make a noticed like this ^Current member of team but has yet to play Or something like that.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could look at it that way. I just consider the asterisks for completed tenures.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Truth is, as I tried to state above, I think years in which a person doesn't actually play should not be listed in the infobox at all. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But they are under contract with them.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I have and will always be in favor of a the infobox creating a sort of timeline. I think leaving the years out only makes people erroneously think a player was out of football that year.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

They kind of are out of football that year. They are simply under contract for developmental, workout, or emergency purposes. They have no more impact on the games than does the water boy. No offence. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But like you said they are under contract thus the years should show this even if they don't play for them.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't list them if they were under contract that year to simply wash the towels, though. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, waterboys aren't notable.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And if these guys never get called up to the Active roster, I don't see how it's of interest in the infobox. I would list it in prose in the article itself that the person was signed to the practice squad or released in pre-season or whatever. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are pretty ridiculous statements. Being a practice squad player and being a water boy is like night and day.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit offside (hence my "No offence" parenthetical comment above) but the point is that the person may be under contract with the team but he doesn't play in games. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that practice squad guys get like between $100,000 and some # under a million, while a waterboy is some high school kid, who's parents know some people and got him this job where he gets paid $20 a week.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the NFL practice squad players make about $84,000 a year. In the CFL, it's crap. Even still though, they are professional athletes and their time in practice squads is very relevant to their careers. Kurt Warner did not begin his career n 1998 with the Rams, and it's very relevant to his article.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it can be relevant to the article and included; just not in the list of years played. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

CFL practice squad players make about $500 per week and their "contracts" allow them to be claimed by other teams making them, in effect, free agents. That is not really the substance of my rationale, however, just that they don't actually play for the team. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NFL practice squad players can also be claimed by other teams.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew I was way off, but anyways that's what debut year and debut team in the infobox are for, to tell you that even though the guy was on the team in 04-06, he didn't play until 05 for example:

No Name

Edmonton Eskimos
Position:	Quarterback
Personal information
Born:	(1980-12-07) December 7, 1980 Buttcreek, Kentucky
Career information
College:	Lakehead
Undrafted:	2004
Career history
Montreal Alouettes (2004-2006) Toronto Argonauts (2007)* Edmonton Eskimos (2008-present)^ ^Current member but has yet to be active
* Offseason and/or practice squad member only
Roster status:	Practice Roster
CFL status:	Import

--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't like it, don't think it's necessary, won't do it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I like the extra line to note current member but yet to be active; it seems to me to be a duplicate of the practice squad member only line to me but I understand your rationale that the asterisk denotes people who never played for a team and then left that team. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, neither do I.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 01:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jason Varitek

Don't throw WP:VERIFY in my face. Yes, it's 'verified' that there is a deal in place; hence it can be mentioned in the article and not be thrown away as some rumor. However, the Red Sox have to actually announce the deal and put him on their roster. Do you have a source that says they have done so? JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] Deal.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 22:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your source: "The new pact likely won't be announced Friday, as club policy is not to announce a contract until the completion of a physical." JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know and it also says "But when pitchers and catchers report to Fort Myers, Fla., on Feb. 12, Varitek will be there to begin his 12th full season with Boston". --Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 22:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil discussion

I think this is inappropriate. The edit was not vandalism, the insult is unjustified, and I frankly agree with the edit. Links to season years don't seem terribly relevant there. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit was the bad one, that's why I told the editor about it not the other one. --Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disbelieve you about the error of that edit but your edit comments are over-the-line and the one I pointed to above should not have been treated as vandalism. If you disagreed with the edit, explain why when reverting. Thanks, DoubleBlue (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay I agree my edit summary for the one you pointed out was not appropiate but he undid my legit edit for no reason that's why I called him a moron. And the reason for reverting was because he never ever signed with the Giants and the editor was just being an idiot because he cited Tom Coughlin saying "he's going to replace Plaxico Burress", when he 1) never said that 2)he never signed with them, so I think the edit summaries were justified but sort of inappropiate.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. I hadn't noticed that the user had reverted your edit as vandalism; that wasn't right either. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)