Hi Ccui123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).
Yes, I'm taking it from Bob Gill and Tod Maher (who are "Pro football Researchers"'s leaders of the field of "minor-leagues") book- "Outsiders II: Minor League And Independent Football, 1951-1985". They wrote a short info about the league, but published some of the league standings (until 1976) and some of the "All-league" teams. I'm still waiting for your other seasons standings, because they had some discrepancies in the 1963 season, and still not verified the 1967 season (as some of the records you wrote includes non-league games). I'll try to add more info when I'll be sure. --Ccui123 (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Could you provide page numbers for the information you've added, and I'll put them in citation format to include on the page? If there are discrepancies between the newspapers I've cited and Outsiders II, I'd be happy to discuss them with you and see if we can figure out a solution. Eagles24/7(C)22:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pages numbers are 113-116. The discrepancies for the 1963 season for Cedarville Spartans and Lansing All Stars, but I think that in this case the newspapers are correct (they printed their records opposite to the newspapers). In the 1966 season I think the book has the right record for Dayton, as it impossible mathematically to have 3 teams with 1 tie game... --Ccui123 (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found one newspaper article that talked about the possible formation of the Association of Minor Football Leagues, then the one about its formation that's in the Wikipedia article now. I believe two years later there's another newspaper article talking about possibly forming another association, so it appears the first one didn't last very long. Eagles24/7(C)23:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the 1963 season, you added an asterisk and a note for the Detroit Rockets record. It looks like a 4–5–1 record would be 10 games, which all the other teams played that season. What's the reasoning for the asterisk in that case? Eagles24/7(C)23:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those standings seem pretty off. I'll leave it as is, but I added some notes to explain the discrepancies with Lansing and Cedarville. I agree that the Detroit Rockets record is likely incorrect, but I cannot find any other sources for their record so we'll have to leave it as is unless/until something else comes along. For the Bears that season, I think they should be listed in the standings as the "Cereal City Bears". I ran through newspaper searches for that season, and many of them refer to the team as the "Cereal City Bears from Battle Creek". Cereal City is the nickname for the city of Battle Creek, and I believe the team name is "Cereal City Bears". Eagles24/7(C)00:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagles247: I think it's worth mentioning that after the 1976 season the league was essentially scale-down version of the league (closer to amateur, or semipro as we now call it now). Bob Gill regarded to those seasons as such, the article you added ("A new MFL returns") is saying it without saying it, and we can also see which league the departing team are joining, but I wouldn't want to add it without your Insight on this matter.--Ccui123 (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure about that. We could add something about the 1977 and 1978 seasons being "scaled-down" but some of those early seasons were smaller too, and there were some seasons mixed in that players were not paid either. When researching early on, I included some player salaries, but I quickly stopped paying attention to those since they varied so much. I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement about the league without definitive sources backing it up. Eagles24/7(C)16:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagles247:I understand your position. Even Bob Gill stop short on saying it wasn't a pro-league (he used expressions like "not on par", "scale down" and "different"), but didn't include any listings on the 1977 and 1978 seasons. From my personal research, and I'm reading between the lines here, it was closer to semi-pro then pro, but you're probably right on you're assessments. --Ccui123 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Filling in sources
Hello Ccui123, I have noticed you have recently been adding good content about the finances of several arena/indoor football leagues, which is great. However, it would be very helpful for referencing and archival purposes if you filled in the source location/website/publisher, publication dates, and access dates (such as I did here for your addition here). It greatly aids in re-finding these sources if the url is moved and archival purposes, as well as being able to quickly know when the source is referring (such as the financial references you added to the AFL, they do not say as to when source referred to when the contracts were written). Parameters and examples can be found at Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web. Doing so make a more complete bibliography. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Ccui123! Your additions to The Spring League have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Minor league football (gridiron) into American football in the United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Ost (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into United States Football League (2022). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically attribution is not needed if you are the sole author. Sorry I did not realize that was the case with this edit. So it might be useful for patrollers such as myself if you had included the attribution edit summary regardless. — Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any affiliation with Silverstein, but I trust him as a football historian (and he's also very respected in the football community) and all of his articles are well cited after thorough research, so I believe it could be an exemption to the SBN Blogs rule (as we can say the same thing about the fame Rick Gosselin who's writing in a self published site).
In the bottom line, those citations enrich the articles I updated and follows the rule of the community. Furthermore, in some cases, those links are better then the ones on "verified" websites, as it includes better information/background (like in the Charles Tillman example). Another example is Sid Luckman article, which I was able to add the record without any citation (as it linked to another wiki article), but chose to add it for further reading.
Thank you for the reply. Self-published sources may only be used as sources of information about themselves. Blogs are generally unacceptable.
"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (WP:SPS) In other words, an article written by Silverstien should only be used in a Wikipedia article about Silverstien himself.
"Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites." (WP:CPC)
I’m not disputing that Silverstien’s expertise or knowledge, but any content he adds needs to be from a reputable source, not a SBN Blog. There are some minor exceptions and one-off exceptions for an SPS, but, there are more reliable/reputable sources out there than Windy City Gridiron. Again, nothing personal against WCG, I read it often, but it should not be used on Wikipedia, let alone show-horned into articles to verify information that already has other reliable sources. Thanks, StarScream1007 ►Talk 15:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to be sure not to repeat the same mistake again, what is the rule about sports historians, as most of them are publishing it on blogs, self published site etc. oppose to books, which where more common 20 years ago? Again, Rick Gosselin (former journalist and HOF voter) or even Silverstein (former journalist and published author) as an example.
No worries. It would come down to if a reputable source directly references something Gosselin or Silverstein says. There's an assumption that major sources conduct fact checking before anything is published vs Junk food news. There's also a tid-bit about it under, "WP:NEWSORG", "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact".
I'd say to try something like the Chicago Tribune, LA-Times, ESPN, or Sun-Times etc if possible Twitter (or X?) is considered acceptable so long as it comes directly from the subject on an article - ie the Tweet by Tillman about the Peanut Punch memo. For Luckman, there are a few sources out there for his record 7TDs, the LA Times.[1] and St. Petersburg Times[2] Hope this helps. Please let me know if you need any other questions. Thanks, -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 16:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying @StarScream1007. One more question. Let's take Luckman for an example, does the St. Petersburg Times source is "better" than the WCG one? I admit it's reliable source, but does it "add" to the article as much as the Silverstein piece? There's no refuting the idea that he holds the record, it just adding a little more background.
As I think about that more, according to your last response, Silverstein does meet the criteria of a reliable source, as he featured on the mainstream media multiple time to discusses his WCG articles (1, 2, etc.) Ccui123 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of sources is to verify content. It's actually not to provide any further information or enrichment, and are only chosen by how reputable, un-biased, or verifiable they are. It's a bit a grey area, if a reputable mainstream source discusses something Silverstein worked on, the content may be added to Wikipedia - ex: "In an interview with 670 the Score, football historian Jack Silverstein explored Halas' exclusion of black players" or something along those lines. The reference used to support that statement would need to be the 670 the Score video/article, not the WCG since that is self-published. I could see other editors challenging the material since the ultimate source is WCG, but I personally probably would not challenge it. I hope this helps, -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 18:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ccui123! Your additions to Halas Hall have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Also, do you have a source for the cost, $20 million, and the replacement of the original Halas Hall? [3] Thank you. TailsWx17:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tails Wx, I thought I edited enough for it to be ok, but I accepting your opinion about it (although it was a general description by the team PR). Regarding the $20 million - It wasn't my original edit, I just edited the text that was already there.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 USFL season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 XFL season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
2024 National Arena League and American Indoor Football seasons
Hey @Ccui123 I was curious if you could create a Wikipedia page for the 2024 seasons of both the National Arena League and American Indoor Football’s seasons?
I would not mind keeping them up to date but I just need someone to give me a template to use for years going forward
Both leagues have announced their schedules and teams for 2024 so if you want to add those that would be awesome!
Again it would only be for this year because I could then use a similar template for every season going forward.
I wouldn’t mind helping out if you want but I don’t know what it would take for the pages to be approved or what should and shouldn’t be included in the page ParkerLyme (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ParkerLyme, First, thank you for your updates, you're doing amazing work! Second, I think that the "See also" section should only include Indoor leagues (if the reader is interested in other leagues that played in 2024 he can go to "2024 in American football" category). What do you think? Ccui123 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would probably be best, the only league they would have to go out of their way for is the 2024 CFL season since that isn't listed under the 2024 in American football section. ParkerLyme (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi @Leoneix, thank you for taking the time to mention this. I wasn't sure if I should mention it, since it's only a "draft". I'll make sure I mention it in the future :) Ccui123 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 The Arena League season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KYTV.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Lakes Arena Football until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello, Ccui123. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chicago Bears stadium, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
