User talk:Giants27/Archives/2009/December

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Giants27. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

While sometimes I disagree with you with notability. I was looking at your contributions closely and I feel that you are well-qualified for WP:RFA, interested in a nomination? Thanks Secret ^account 14:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While I thank you for the confidence, I agreed to allow only my admin coach to nominate me and when he believes I'm ready and nominates me is when I'll run. But like I said, I thank you for the confidence.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I offered your admin coach if I could nominate you. Thanks Secret ^account 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have created the nomination page. Enjoy! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Now to the questions...--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know Giants, you got my support 110%! You deserve it. After all you have done wonders with DYK. (PS thanks for intoducing me to it) and you have some GA's (something that I lack) Anyway long story short, you got my !vote.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dont mention it. To be honest, the first time we meet, I thought you were already an admin.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you propose a deletion on "4th and 2". Explain why is there a reason? Thanks and Let Me Know because 4th and 2 is a memorable play whth controversy and a instant NFL lore. --Talladega87 (talk)

See my nomination statement. It fails WP:NOTNEWS and really shouldn't exist.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought cats were suppose to be alphabetical.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

All I've noticed on most (if not all) NFL pages is it's in the order I put it in. Not sure if it's standard for all pages but it is the DEFAULTSORT cats, locations, positions, pro bowls or religion etc, college team, undrafted or not and then the teams in order of when the player joined them.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing a discussion before about this being discussed before (I know how vague that sounds). If I recall correctly, it sounds like there was an importance v ABC debate at one time, but I don't have a wikilink. Looks like it is "The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first. If an article has an eponymous category (see below), then that category should be listed first of all. For example, Category:George Orwell is listed before other categories on the George Orwell page." per Wikipedia:Categorization. I'll make a mention at Tony's page in case he doesn't drop by.Cptnono (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on getting the Bears update in so quick. Thought I was going to beat you to the punch last night but wasn't even close.Cptnono (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...interesting, so there's basically no whole consensus but it appears as though there's consensus at certain wikiprojects.

Thanks, Rotoworld is really quick on that stuff.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey did you actually get to watch the Grey Cup? I read an article afterwards. Really sucks for the Roughriders. Grsz¹¹ 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, finally found it on TV. Ironic since the announcers said the Roughriders' fans were the "13th man" and they lost because of it.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when.--Yankees10 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted. Bband11th (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. I shouldn't have changed my question so long after entering it. — Sebastian 20:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I find Q4 pretty hard, because the answer requires either a crystal ball, or a lot of time for reading. I haven't read the AfDs thoroughly, but from my first impression, my reply to the Porn Star question would have been different. I guess I'll write something about that on the AfD page. — Sebastian 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo Giants, just a heads up that I've moved the DYK hook for this article back from the preparation area for public review; comments welcome at T:TDYK. Regards,  Skomorokh  23:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I just demoted a hook you promoted as it contains negative material on a recently deceased person. You may wish to weigh in at the suggestions page. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you, I'll check out the new discussion.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you have a prior RfA under a different name that you didn't disclose? I'm confused, and I would appreciate your taking a minute to clear this situation up. Thank you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was changing the infobox from retired to active on David Archer when I preveiw it the infobox didn't show up it.

For example: "{{Infobox NFLactive |name=David Archer |image=Replace this image male.svg | |width= |alt= |caption=" which is one line.

What has happened? I have no saved it and it is still currently being preview by me but has not been saved. Should I save it for you to see or what? I don't know what to do. Southwood Paul (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(TPS) Try saving it and I'll help you out. You probably formatted something wrong, it happens to me sometimes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah save it, then it's easier to find the problem.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay now its done sorry for taking so long I had to eat supper. Southwood Paul (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no problem feel free to take your time. Anyways, I found the issue the hidden comment wasn't closed (it doesn't really need to be there), and the highlight wasn't completely on the left.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Southwood Paul (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I will not be so active on the wikipedia let alone the computer. So I will not get too many infoboxes completed. I just need to spend some time off the computer. I will still be one just not as much. Thanks for all the help. Southwood Paul (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, whenever you decide to return let me know since you've been a huge help.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

E Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I will still be on. Just I have finals coming up but after finals I should be good. Southwood Paul (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You could not be cutting it much closer could you, 70%! For what it's worth:

• I hope you pass;

• I hope the bureaucrats see how illogical the oppose section are (in general) people over one diff out of countless good contributions.

Best of luck!

Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, clearly we're on the same page here. Haha--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the oppose section is in general, illogical. It's not just a concern over one comment. Less than a year ago, Giants27 edited under a different username, when he acted extremely immature. After seeing that diff, I believe that some of that immaturity has not gone away. I don't believe someone with a temper like that and who can be as immature as that when something gets tough should be an administrator. iMatthew ^talk at 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand your position because I realize my previous username showed immaturity and I acted extremely immaturely. But I disagree that I have a temper, mainly because A) I did it once, B) I had collegial interactions with the user I blew up on, within two weeks. If I had a temper I would've done it more than once and I wouldn't have contacted him politely instead it would be more of the stupid behavior I showed in that one comment.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, we should be basing a candidate on their progress since the last RfA, and previous RfAs shouldn't really be used as a benchmark for opposing unless it's a really serious concern (i.e. socking, or legal threats etc). I can't be bothered to count the actual good contributions since his last RfA, but (with the exclusion of some comments regarding CfD) there is little concern over his contributions except for the one diff. Holding one diff again someone, especially when it's been accepted by the individual involved as acceptable, seems to me illogical. But hey, we all have differing opinions on this, and I'm guessing I take a more liberal stance. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

From someone who has been a jerkoff on Wikipeida and is trying to knock it off, it looks completely possible to do in under a year. Looks like you had a single incident. Hope you don't wait 12 months. Having the balls to tell someone off and then the bigger balls to then work it out is good. Working on content like you do is 1000x better. Thanks again for your work at FAC and the Yankees suck (I'm just sad about my team). Cptnono (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you were a little rash with that withdrawal, it wasn't clearly over but it is your call to make I suppose :) Hope you don't feel too discouraged with the process; the consensus seems to be NOTNOW, not never run again. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Giants, sorry that went the way it did, but I'm sure if you continue on your current path and run again in a few months you will get a rather more positive result. ϢereSpielChequers 14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confidence from all of you but I just didn't see it passing due to opposers questioning my judgment and temperment which are valid conerns in my opinion and ones a closing 'crat couldn't overlook.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see that your RfA went the way it did: it's a shame that on WT:RFA people complain about there not being enough admins being created, yet when a candidate has made a mistake, they leap on the oppose bandwagon...with things like a one-off comment turning into "user has a temper" or is "immature", with no other evidence to support that: it's a shame that happened to you. Finally, I disagree with the notion of your RfA being a "NOTNOW" candidacy: NOTNOW applies to new, snowball candidates, which you are not. I hope you'll run again in a few months time. Best. Acalamari 17:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel like an echo of WereSpielChequers, but I'll say it anyway: Sorry your RfA went the way it did, but I hope you'll be back in a few months with better results. --Orlady (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I too hope that you try again, and am deeply sorry for how things worked out. Keep at it! Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Orlady, I am an echo of WereSpielChequers. "Hi Giants, sorry that went the way it did, but I'm sure if you continue on your current path and run again in a few months you will get a rather more positive result." (I agree with that, by the way) Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I missed it, I would have been eager to support. I was busy last week and don't get on much on weekends, but will be glad to participate should you decide to run again.--kelapstick (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Giants27. You have new messages at Coffee's talk page.
Message added 02:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Giants27/Archives/2009! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

It's funny because the only thing that is official is Lee is going to the Mariners and Halladay is going to the Phillies. You would think the IP's would know that the Blue Jays expect alot for him and it would take a couple days for this to be finalized (ie, Granderson), so why are they editing like they now what they are doing since most of them it will be their only edits on Wiki. How 'bout the Giants losing again yesterday, man that sucks. :(((

Also would it be better to get full-protection on Lackey, Matsui, Halladay and Lee for one week since auto-confirmed users can still edit it and they are making false acqusations. Ositadinma 22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my feelings, but they think ESPN is the bible for truth and knowledge when it isn't. In fact they jump the gun a lot and people bite ad "update" Wikipedia. And about the Giants, all I can say is "Goodbye Bill Sheridan"!--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, Sheridan is gone, but at least their defense played bad as well. Ositadinma 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if the Eagles were the Eagles the game could've been very ugly since Manning would feel pressured and throw some INTs while the defense would be the defense.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't notice your full protection comment so to answer it, yes but until they start doing what the IPs do then it won't happen.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have an opinion on this debate: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#All-American_in_infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I already reverted an IP editor twice adding that information without a source... do you have one? I wasn't able to locate any. All the IP provided was Twitter... not reliable. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

;).--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thx. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Your team is kicking some serious a**. Cant believe Washington tried the Swinging Gate.Stealthninja545 (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no kidding I still have no idea what that play was supposed to accomplish but hey it's good to be winning at last.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I just looked at Rock Cartwright and his page is all screwed up. Your better than me at cleaning up so can you take care of that?Stealthninja545 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Y Done--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Julian, I hope you have a very happy holidays and a great New Year.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks WereSpielChequers, you too.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Where do you think the quote that Pat Fitzgerald said about Kafka being the MVP of the conference should go? Here or here? Or neither, as text inside the paragraph? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Most preferably in the quote box but at the end since the flow and lead in to the quote could certainly be better.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to a quote box and moved it to after the final game of the regular season. Please change it if you think it would look better somewhere else. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you can make the "As player:" part in the career history section optional since most players dont become coaches after they retire.--Yankees10 18:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also is there any way to have the stats not all crammed to the right side if the height and weight are not there.--Yankees10 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Corrected now. Thanks. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What page is this happening on?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ronnie Heard.--Yankees10 19:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a crack at it but it doesn't seem to have done the job. However User:DoubleBlue should know since he made the height/weight removable when none is given.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, now the infobox is screwed up (a little): for weight it says "Weight:240 lb" without a space between the colon and the 2. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears the missing space has been corrected already. As for hiding the "As Player" part, I suppose it could be possible but it would take me some time to figure out and I'm not sure it's really worth it. It simply says what teams the person was with as a player. If you don't like the wording, I'd prefer changing "As player". Hiding it, I think, would require a long conditional switch saying that if there are both non-empty playingteam variables and, at the same time, each and every one of the coachingteam, adminteam, otherteam, and whatever other team variables are all empty. But if the playingteam is non-empty but at least one of those others are also non-empty then do display it but, of course, still don't display it if the playingteam is empty. It's just unnecessarily complicated and God help anyone who wants to make a change in the future. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured that the As player: would be a challenge to hide since it'd have to have numerous if statements with a lot of other wikimarkup. If this was a different computer language I could potentially figure it out.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly don't think that it's worth it. The "As player" should really be there for context; perhaps what's needed is a re-wording. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Though, as far as I'm concerned, it's fine. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While most players do not coach it specifies that they did this as a player and not as a coach or administrator just like with "No regular season appearances" being on Vince Lombardi, it shows he never played.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Giants27/Archives/2009,
Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;)
Love and best wishes, Meaghan - ^Merry _Christmas! - 00:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I hope you and your loved ones enjoy the holiday season as well as the New Year.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:DarrylKile.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Once again it is festive season, a time where festive decorations are displayed and gifts are swapped; but what about the true meaning of christmas? The true meaning of christmas is about the fight for freedom and how in times of hardship and misery, one person leads their people to freedom as a great warrior; for those who fight for a cause are warriors and those who fight for a worthy cause are great warriors. Such an act earns respect and honour; but most importantly, brings happiness to their people. So to achieve this as happiness lies in other people's happiness and greatness lies in how you deal with little people, we selflessly think of others in the hope that they will be happy this christmas.

Hi Giants27/Archives/2009, have a very Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year 2010!
 Set Sail For The Seven Seas 

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  3° 59' 30" NET   00:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, you have a great Christmas as well.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a notice, I saw you listed on WP:GAN as reviewing Dion Phaneuf. Because this was 16 days ago and you've not yet started, I thought you might have forgotten. if this isn't the case, my apologies. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll get around to reviewing it later today.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of a reversion and "check Rotoworld", just providing the source might be helpful. Is Rotoworld even reliable? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rotoworld can be consider reliable since they usually just use reports from other sites or reporters for example the Whitesell and Bruntlett signings were also reported on MLB.com. Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is with Chris? Mac comes from Scotland/Ireland meaning of son. Mc is an contraction of Mac, some say the difference between Protestant and Catholic in Great Britian. But that was hundreds of years ago and people whoes names begin with an Mc are pronounced; McDonald, McGee, McCargo, etc. Not; MacDonald, MacGee, MacCargo, etc. If they wanted to be pronounced with an a then their would be one in their names, since names/pronounications change over the centuries (Some names are still pronounced with an a like, McElrath, even though having no a). But, I don't know what Chris is talking about alpha wise since Mc is a contraction of Mac (and it is by a player by player basis). What I am saying is that they should be listed alpha wise in terms of the alphabet, not by pronounications/contractions. Ositadinma 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris is saying that is how wikipedia works with DEFAULTSORT, which is true, but these players names are on the templates not in categories. Ositadinma 20:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree; DEFAULTSORT is something different. Pats1 ^T/C 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WT:NFL so there can be consensus although I think that going the DEFAULTSORT way is best since mostly the "Mc"s come before the "Ma.."s.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How crazy is the draft around here? Are we allowed to start switching over top college prospects' infoboxes in preparation for the draft a couple days in advance? Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The draft is insane. Don't worry about editing draft picks until the draft is long over because 100 IPs (no joke) are busy "updating" it and saying he sucks. Wait until the draft is over (completely) to edit any page. Trust me. And I guess you could, but like I said it'd be changed so much on draft day there's no point.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I'm really excited for it anyway. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't even mess with draft prospect articles pre-draft outside of creating them. As Giants said, they are too hard to maintain with so many IP edits. I wait until they sign their rookie contract, then I fix them up.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured, but the article eases confusion between Brandon Harrison (American football, born 1986) and Brandon Harrison (American football, born 1985). Even KFFL was confused, because they reported that the Eagles signed the Brandon Harrison who played for the Texans to the practice squad. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusion is not a reason to create an article, however adding a hatnote to the Harrison born in 85' is the way to go.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can let it fly in this case. ;) Pats1 ^T/C 23:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He is a current member of the practice squad. All such players are notable, AFAIK. I have never seen a current practice squad player deleted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See Nick Hennessey, Matt Kroul, Ty Steinkuhler, Steve McLendon, Colin Cloherty, Phillip Morris (American football), Mike Rivera (American football), Jerome Boyd, J. D. Skolnitsky, Johan Asiata, Maurice Lucas (American football), James Swinton and Jose Valdez (American football). They are all currently practice squad players and were deleted via PROD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julius Pruitt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Walker and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Gant. They are practice squad players and were deleted via AfD. I don't necessarily agree with the notion that practice squad players aren't notable, but whatever Wikipedia wants, Wikipedia gets. If I could decide whether practice squad players are notable or not, I'd say they're notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What Eagles said.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How can DeSean Jackson get in the Pro Bowl for two different positions (WR and KR)? There are suppose to be 86 players in the game (43 in each conference, including a need player, usually a LS) and a need player to be filled in later (a LS). They just don't want Steve Smith in the game. There is some kind of conspiracy going on here!!!! Ositadinma 15:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no idea how that happended but I have to assume that a reserve will get bumped up to KR unless he'll do both.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He'll do both. But since the Eagles will be in the Super Bowl, Smith will be in the Pro Bowl. =) Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good one Eagles, but why not just have DeSean get elected as a KR, and let Smith get elected as a WR. Then DeSean can do the return duties and get the big receiving play that he usually gets. I don't understand why Jackson gets elected to two spots since the NFC QB's primary targets are going to be Fitzgerald/Austin anyways. When their is a key third down, who do you call - the other Steve Smith. Can't believe the NFL does not get it. Imagine the Colts and the Vikings in the Super Bowl, ther will be like fifthteen empty spots on the rosters now. Geez. Ositadinma 22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that the players, fans and coaches vote. And if they think Jackson is one of the best WRs and KRs in the game, then he'll make the Pro Bowl. I honestly think Steve Smith had a better year at WR though. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but couldn't the NFL say, wow Jackson looks like he'll get in as both a WR/KR and see that the NFC only has 41 players, instead of 42, and think why not put Jackson in as the KR and get Smith in as a WR (since he is the 1st alternate). Then you'll get 42 players. Not that hard. Anyways does this count as two trips to the Pro Bowl in one year for Jackson. =) Ositadinma 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if the NFL did that it would be called electoral fraud. As explained by Chris above, we're gonna count it as one trip to the Pro Bowl. And you wouldn't be complaining if Smith was voted to two positions and Jackson at none would you? =) Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but Smith has no chance of returning kicks. :) Ositadinma 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Userpage Shield
		I, Eagles247, hereby award Giants27 this Userpage Shield Barnstar for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like the edit stayed up for about 5 or so hours so I'm suprised no one else got to it before me.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It was actually seven hours, and I'm surprised too. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Giants27/Archives/2009/December,
I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, a Happy New Year to you as well.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)