Jump to content

User talk:Chrisjnelson

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chrisjnelson (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 7 March 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Leave a new message.
NOTE: If you leave a message on my talk page, I will reply here. If I leave a message on your talk page, you should reply there and I will do the same.
User talk
Awards
Contributions
Subpages
Talk
(message) 		Awards Contributions Edit Count Logs Subpages
  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)[reply]

Hell yeah! I'm loving it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1]►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. conman33 (. . .talk) 18:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is messed up.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NelsonHolla! 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 NelsonHolla! 04:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer

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

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)[reply]
Thanks man, I appreciate it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, great work on the player articles, Chris. Enigma msg! 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 NelsonHolla! 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 NelsonHolla! 07:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tigersfan1992How you doing? 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a typo. Gaines was on the Bills previously, but he signed with the Lions yesterday.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yeah I am sure it is. Gaines is an improvement I assume. Tigersfan1992How you doing? 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer Grigsby

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

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 NelsonHolla! 00:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NelsonHolla! 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NelsonHolla! 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good question, I was wondering the same thing. Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 02:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NFLPA website.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 02:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 NelsonHolla! 02:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Sapp just did today. And while he was on the NFLPA database yesterday (I checked) he's not now.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 NelsonHolla! 02:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 NelsonHolla! 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 NelsonHolla! 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope he does return. :) Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 03:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yep, he did. Looks like everything's already been done though.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Teams

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

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)[reply]

Was a mistake. I've fixed it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. RC-0722 communicator/kills 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 NelsonHolla! 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 NelsonHolla! 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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 NelsonHolla! 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are you saying you don't even want a note? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 NelsonHolla! 20:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chrisjnelson&oldid=196611351"