User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 28

Creations

Why are you are you creating all those UDFA articles I thought that we determined they were non-notable unless they had prolific college careers which I interpreted as having won awards.--Giants27 ^T/C 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only created handful I deemed notable based on a combination of media coverage to pass WP:BIO and rankings as draft prospects that indicate to me they're good enough to at least stick around on practice squads if not rosters. I'm leaving more of the UDFAs uncreated, I'm actually almost out of ones left that meet my criteria.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the quick response.--Giants27 ^T/C 02:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm definitely not creating them en masse. Martin and Favorite I deemed good enough players to create (plus Favorite got a pretty big signing bonus for a UDFA and was heavily sought after) and Marion had two fantastic years at Tulsa and set an NCAA record for yards per catch.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UDFAs John Halman and Devin Frischknecht were released I can't find anything that would make them notable but would like you to double check. Cause these two stories [1], [2] about their signings don't mention anything really notable or extraordinary like awards or amazing college careers, but like I said I could be wrong.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They never should have be created in the first place. Leave the creating editor a message about his methods of creation and nominate them for deletion if you want.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just put both up at AfD.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article creations

We're trying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zta (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oK, I´m not going to create more articles of undrafted free agents , but i tell you something to you and your "Mayor editors" :stop bother me...Nastia —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Just one thing, allow other users do something like you do, i don´t want to have some problem with you or anyone. Nastia comment added 4 May 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Big contributions--Zta (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Nastia [reply]

THANKS!!!--Zta (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Nastia [reply]

Jay Cutler

Hey, I just want to apologize for my actions on our disagreement on the starting QB succession box from a few weeks ago. You were right, and in the end, I should have handled the situation better. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. I'm sorry too.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Current NFL long snappers

Template:Current NFL long snappers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Malone

At what point, exactly, was Tom Malone an active member of the Patriots? The only time he was ever signed to the active squad was on January 23, 2007—two days after their 2007 season ended, and he was released before the regular season started. As near as I can tell, he is the classic example of an "Offseason/practice squad only" player. Samer (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFL.com doesn't list years/teams on a player's page unless they were active roster. Since they have 2006 NE for Malone, either he was on the active roster for a game or they made a mistake.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, he was signed to the PS on 12/20/06, signed a futures contract on 1/23/07. Pats1 ^T/C 18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Pats' punters in 2006 were Miller, then Walter, then Sauerbrun. Malone and Baugher were on the PS, not the active squad. Samer (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. NFL.com obviously made a mistake then.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roster Positions on NFL teams

Where are you pulling your positions for the Chicago Bears roster? The Bears official website lists positions that do not reflect changes you have made on the template. News reports right now are speculative and cannot be verified. Rgoss25 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the changes you're making are things we do not do, such as listening returners in the offseason and listing NT over DT on 4-3 scheme teams. That's just not the way it's done and we're keeping things consistent across the 32 templates.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you again. Where do you pull your information for OL, DL, and DB positions i.e. G/T/C , DE/DT , CB/FS/SS Rgoss25 (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasoning for KR/PR makes sense, however you are not being consistant if you list FS for a CB who may play safety or may not same for a listed T who is speculated to start at G. Rgoss25 (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with using updated articles on the team's actions to adjust positions. If a team says they're moving a guy from corner to safety, and if he's done it in a minicamp, then we put it. These rosters are better than the official websites.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this subject, the CFL roster templates have a bunch of "LB, DL, OL, DB" stuff can you take a look to see which ones can be changed to "DE, DT, CB, ILB etc."?--Giants27

T/C 02:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHy are all ILB listed that why when in a 4-3 the have MLB and OLB. For a 3-4 they have two ILB and two OLB.? Here, which it seems we pride ourselves on "These rosters are better than the official websites". Well that could very well be, except for the obvious points that dozens of MLBers are listed as ILBer when they are not. Urlacher is a MLB, Bears play a 4-3. Ray Lewis is an ILB, he plays a 3-4. Simple. There are a coulple of teams that play hybrids. Those can go the 3-4 way. It usually spelled out on the NFL media website so we cam get the best available infro. Anyway, just curious about it. Not looking for a unvility, juts an answer. 12:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

MLB and ILB are interchangable. An MLB is still an ILB, there's just one of them instead of two.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that part is simple. A ILB is like a DL. A DL can be a DE or A DT or a NT. But ther point is why isn;t wiki more specific? If a team uses a 4-3 defense and has a MLB, why not call that guy a MLB? That was kind of what I was asking. It's like like "MLB" take up more room . . . I was asking for an explanation as to why we do it that way when it is just as easy, and a bit more accurate, to do it the right way., That's all.19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's for consistency across the templates. Inside/Outside linebackers on every template. Pats1 ^T/C 02:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that important? I am not saying you're wrong. There could be a good reason, but why is consistency better than verifiable?. I agree that in a general sense they are similar but they are not the same but, help me, what is it about the template's "consistancy" is more importnat than accuracy? 2:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There's simply nothing unverifiable or inaccurate about calling a 4-3 MLB an ILB. All 4-3 MLBs are ILBs. They just happen to be the only one.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 09:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing an ILB to a DL is inaccurate anyway, that comparison should be LB to DL or ILB to DT. An NT is still a DT as an MLB is an ILB. Sticking to ILB and OLB makes the most sense to keep the templates consistent. Teams change from 4-3 to 3-4 from season to season and some teams use a combination such as New England. Keeping track of MLB vs ILB would be a challenge. Rgoss25 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. 15:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know they're actual positions like G/C/T instead of OL.--Giants27 ^T/C 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would I know them?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback appriciated

here. RF23 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Luke Drone

I have nominated Luke Drone, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Drone. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wizardman 18:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Jessie Daniels (American football)

I have nominated Jessie Daniels (American football), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Daniels (American football). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wizardman 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

holla.

Fernando Bryant

Can you check if I did this page right. Thanks man.

footballstats

I saw you created the template at Template:Footballstats. Good work! I added a function for databasefootball.com. Just wanted to tell you that it was a good job, and that I am using that template often. What a time saver. --GrapedApe (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MLB Trades

Players CAN be trade after the deadline, as long as the two clubs or more agree upon the trade and let the commissioner know about it. It is an hour after the deadline ane the Padres just announced they traded Peavey to the White Sox. It takes hours maybe even days before the trades become official because they have to settle all of the differences. Just wanted to let you know. Ositadinma (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]