This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eagles247. 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.
Are the Browns website and NFL.com trying to say his rookie season was last year because he had a mini-camp tryout with the Saints? That shouldn't count as an official NFL contract unless I'm missing something. And his playing in the AAF should definitely not be under consideration since it's an entirely different league. I'm gonna undo my edit for now, but will try to contact an NFL spokesperson or the Browns to see what's going on. Eagles24/7(C)18:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Antonio Brown
Hey. Was just wondering if you could look at Antonio Brown real quick? Are we supposed to put an asterisk next to Oakland Raiders or are we not supposed to? I am unsure of whether or not a player is still considered an offseason player if the NFL regular season has begun but the player's team hasn't played a game yet. Jetrex3 (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
You're most likely correct, still, your source also says: One thing that's not clear is what number Brown will be wearing if he plays on Sunday. In two practices this week, Brown has worn two different numbers. During Wednesday's session, he showed up wearing No. 1, however, he's not allowed to wear that in a game due to the fact that receivers have to pick a number between 10 and 19 or 80 and 89. You edit in the NFL areas much more than I do, so I'll defer to your choice, it's just that it all seems a bit of WP:CRYSTAL to me. — Ched (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
When the Patriots gave Jarrett Stidham number 58 to wear in training camp, we reflected that here as well. Even if his number will be something else in a regular season game, his current jersey number is 17, and I think that's good enough for now. Eagles24/7(C)23:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yea - I can understand that. Likely to be moot in a couple days anyway. Doesn't look like we play your Eagles in the regular season - so best of luck, maybe see you in the playoffs. — Ched (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Post Super Bowl issue
If you look at the rest of the page you will understand that it does not make sense to add this sub section. Look at Greasy Neale era 1941-1950. There is no Post 1949 section and it is not necessary. If you look at the paragraph after the 2017 season.....It starts by saying "2018 season". Any reader will understand this. A sub section as we have outlined already should only be reserved for Championships and Historical facts i.e. "Steagles". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealfredprice (talk • contribs) 04:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
NFL Football: Use of 'Unanimous' and 'Consensus' for All-Decade selections
For the 1980 NFL All-Decade Team, WR Jerry Rice, OT Anthony Munoz, and OLB Lawrence Taylor were the only three players to receive all 26 first place votes. Why do you object to listing this information?
These players are arguably the best at their position in the history of the NFL.
Moreover, discussion about NFL player's greatness is more closely tied to First-team All Pro selections than Pro Bowl selections. The terms used to distinguish layers on the All-Pro Teams are 'Unanimous' and 'Consensus'. What is your objection to these designations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byrongammon (talk • contribs) 16:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's notable for the body of the article, but for the infobox it's just a bit too cluttered. Everyone knows these guys are some of the best at their positions, that's why they were named to the All-Decade teams. The infoboxes for these players have links to their Pro Football Hall of Fame bios but "first-ballot Hall of Fame" is not listed for the same reasons. I'm not sure what you're referring to in regards to the All-Pro selections, you never added "unanimous" or "consensus" to those but I would say for consistency purposes we shouldn't do that either, especially since many of these players were not unanimous selections for every single year they were selected. You can check out the helpful guide at WP:NFLINFOBOX for how the infoboxes should look. Thanks for your contributions! Eagles24/7(C)17:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt response Eagle247.
OK...I accept your response. The reason I asked is, for example, Lawrence Taylor received a 1987 1st-team All-Pro nod as well as a 2nd-team nod. But he only gets credit for the 2nd-team election. In Lawrence taylor's first 6 years in the NFL...he was Unanimous 1st-team All Pro in each of those seasons. Then in 1987, like I mentioned earlier, LT received one 1st-team nod, one 2nd-team nod. In 1988 he received 4 out of 5 votes for a Consensus 1st-team selection and in 1989 LT received 3 out of 5 votes for another Consensus 1st-team selection.
Moreover......the NFL officially recognizes Pro Bowl selections even though they are essentially popularity contests. So although the All-Pro designation isn't carrying the official imprimatur of the NFL it is favored by the sports writers and coaches for determining elite positional play and the Unanimous and Consensus distinctions carry weight.
Just my opinion.
Oh! One last thing...thanks for the mention of WP:NFLINFOBOX. According to this guide.....if a player receives both a First-team All-Pro selection and a Second-team All-Pro selection.....it asserts that the player is a First-team All-Pro. That has not been applied consistently. As stated before....Lawrence Taylor doesn't get the credit for the 1987 selection.
Yes, you are correct, LT should be listed as a first-team 1987 All-Pro as well. Sometimes editors go through and make those changes without knowing the guidelines at WP:NFLINFOBOX and no one notices. Good catch, thanks! Eagles24/7(C)17:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Re: NFL vandalism report
My bad! I didn't know these transitions were officially announced! I will double check the next time I see something like this before reporting it. Jdcomix (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Eagles247, I don't think a rangeblock is a bad idea here - but as a heads up, there do appear to be several active users on that range. It may not be a bad idea to reduce the timeframe a bit. SQLQuery me!23:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw that you reverted the ip who added Buck to the list. I had seen those edits, and it appears that Buck was born in St. Petersburg. Was there something I missed? Onel5969TT me14:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The IP has an extensive history of adding incorrect and unsourced information to articles, and the reference they added was a dead link. Feel free to add it back with a reliable source, I was being cautious. Eagles24/7(C)14:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't care one way or the other. I was simply wondering if I had missed something. I wasn't aware of the IP's history. Thanks for clarifying.Onel5969TT me14:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Snavemarc89: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, I removed most of it because it lent undue weight on recent events that, in the scope of Gordon's career, likely did not warrant an entire paragraph in the lead of his article. In general, we also do not add speculated future events to articles (such as Gordon likely being waived after he is healthy) as we do not try to predict the future here. Lastly, as Gordon is an American, the date format should read "October 23" instead of the non-American format "23 October" per WP:DATETIES. (The blue links I added here can point you to more detail about those policies.) If you have any other questions, please feel free to message me here again. Thanks! Eagles24/7(C)19:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to say no
Hey I need some help, advice, a comment, just anything you can do with this situation. I’m coming to you because you’ve helped me in the past I trust your judgement and/or advice. I had an issue on Wembley Stadium, as you can see in the edit summaries, with another editor. That issue spilled over into my talk page. It started with me adding the NFL International Series to the tenant list, which I did because I was told by another editor in the past annual events at a stadium are ok to be listed in tenants, and when you go through most stadiums that host a college football bowl game, the bowl game is listed. I advised the other editor of this. We went back and forth a little bit and before we both broke 3RR he posted on my talk page. In the edit summaries and on my talk page, he had what was, in my opinion, a complete and total lack of civility. After I advised him to stop or I’m taking the issue to ANI, he decided he wanted to start ignoring me and had backed out the conversation completely with the issue unresolved. I’m not sure really what I should do here, so as I mentioned earlier, help, comment on the issue, whatever you’re able to do will be very helpful. Thank you.--Rockchalk71704:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rockchalk717: Thanks for coming to me for help instead of escalating the situation further. I can see your frustration, as the other editor reverted you twice without an edit summary or explanation and once with an edit summary suggesting you don't understand a common English word that means the same thing in both American and British English. However, the discussion on your talk page is not a great look for either of you. Your tone is not particularly constructive (I think he knows he's not your father), and when you start off responses by telling someone their attitude stinks, the rest of your response might fall on deaf ears. We are all on this website as volunteers, contributing our time and energy to what we all believe is a good cause. When you get upset as you did in this situation, remember to breathe and maybe take a few hours off of the website to clear your head. If you've been reverted once or more in future situations, I'd advise you to go to the article's talk page and explain your rationale there rather than explain in edit summaries, especially in circumstances where you are the one adding something that was never previously there.
As far as the actual content dispute, if there isn't already a written consensus for having events listed in the Tenants section and another editor challenges your addition, you'll have to gain a consensus on the talk page. Personally, I could see a case being made for either position, so I'd leave it to other editors with stronger opinions.
For what it's worth, the other editor is actually the only one who violated WP:3RR by reverting you thrice, you only reverted twice. Since it's been over 24 hours since the edit war I do not feel inclined to take administrator action. Since the editor is no longer engaging with you on your user talk page, the article talk page should be your next venue. Hope this helps! Eagles24/7(C)17:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you I appreciate it. I’m still kinda irritated by the comment so I’ll give it another day or two then I’ll probably post on the talk page. Since it’s partially regarding NFL, do you think it would be a good idea to post to NFL project talk page to get more editors involved but just refer to the article talk page?--Rockchalk71720:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I note that you thanked Salamandra85 for reporting at AIV another user with whom they are in a content dispute. Salamandra85 has just returned from a block for personal attacks (reviewed and declined by another admin), and has gone straight back to the same behaviour at the article. They have now also opened an ANI report on the blocking admin, the reviewing admin and the editor they are in conflict with. Frankly, I don't see that thanking them for their behaviour is helpful and I hope you will agree with me. --RexxS (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I assumed it was a template – it's all very well being nice to new users, but sometimes we need to be frank with them. I see they've been indef'd now, which doesn't come as much of a surprise. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Doug Baldwin
Hello,
You asked me why I removed the top section of Doug Baldwin's page without explanation. I apologize. I'm new to this. In the edit space there was a box that asked what the rationale was for substitution of text and I explained it there. The current text is old and sparse and there is a more current source that I did cite in my edits that reflects more accurately and substantively. I did cite the source page in my edits, along with an explanation. If there is something I did incorrectly I'd be happy to correct it if you can let me know. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathfinder166 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
You wrote, “was not on a team when he came out and has not been signed since coming out, so not factual to say he's a current NFL player”. I have sources that he’s the only out LGBTQ player in the four leagues, are they just mistaken? Or should we quote one directly? Or maybe it’s fine as is? Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gleeanon409: Yeah unfortunately those media sources didn't fact check that statement, he hasn't been on an NFL roster or signed to an NFL contract since September 1, 2018. They might be under the impression that "NFL free agent" means he's under contract to play in the NFL but not currently on a specific team, but the NFL does not work that way. He's a free agent and can be signed by any league without restriction. I think the current wording is okay for now, but if he doesn't sign with a team after coming out, it'll probably make sense to remove it entirely as unfulfilled speculation. Eagles24/7(C)22:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
In the ESPN article that broke the news, Russell even states "But judging from the fact that there isn't a single openly LGBTQ player in the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball or the NHL, brings me pause." Eagles24/7(C)22:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, why did you undo my revisions to that page? The results table was screwed up by another user, so I fixed it and updated the info as well. Jewel15 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can. I just do not like losing progress on certain things on bigger edits but that is not a problem. I can do content/reference separately. Thank you for letting me know. Red Director (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
ChiefsFan2000
Hi, This user named ChiefsFan2000 just randomly messaged me about putting Terrell Suggs back on the Chiefs. Thus there was no official announcement from the Chiefs themselves. I noticed he/she has been also cussing out other users when they told him to stop disruptive editing. Please do something about this. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@TheBigMan720: Suggs is officially on the Chiefs as reported in the NFL transactions wire yesterday. As for that user, if they further disrupt Wikipedia I will block but they haven't done much since they were last warned. Eagles24/7(C)13:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas, Eagles247! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.CAPTAIN RAJU(T)07:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Greg Knapp
You have reverted my change to Greg Knapp's profile that he is currently married to Charlotte Knapp. Greg is a coach on our staff and we are updating the bio while also working to correct the Google knowledge panel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbassity (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Dbassity: Hi, thanks for your message. We have a policy on Wikipedia regarding biographies of living persons, in which information added to biographies must be supported with references. I reverted your two edits as they did not cite a reliable source when they were added. I have now re-added the information you wanted to add with a citation to the Falcons website. I see the Google knowledge panel incorrectly states a different person as Knapp's spouse, but as far as I am aware that is unrelated to Knapp's Wikipedia page. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to message me here. Thanks! Eagles24/7(C)16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Charles Tuaau to the St. Louis BattleHawks
Hello!
Thanks so much for your edit to the Charles Tuaau article about him signing with the St. Louis BattleHawks. I've been searching the Internet for a while now, and I can't find a news source to prove that he was indeed signed this month. Could you add it as a reference to the article? Thanks in advance!
@Michael Barera: Hi, thanks for the message. He's listed on their roster in the December 26 update (there have only been two roster updates so far, on December 2 and December 26). The XFL has not been particularly transparent about their roster transactions so far, as only two teams have announced mini-camp moves, so the best I can do for now is cite the current roster on the team website. Hopefully in the near future the league will maintain a transactions report for public consumption, and if that happens I will go back and properly cite the articles. Eagles24/7(C)16:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Michael Barera: Well that's embarrassing, looks like they've already removed him without changing the date or announcing the moves. According to an XFL forum (here), the website was updated yesterday with the removal of eight players including Tuaau. I'm not sure we can even include the BattleHawks on Tuaau's page now that there's nothing verifiable that he was ever even on the team. Eagles24/7(C)20:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping me accountable for some edits I made on that page. Normally I try my best to stay unbiased but with a political article like that one, I think I let my emotions get the better of me.
I saw the template talk page, and I hear you, but Miami and Cleveland are different - celebs owning a small vanity piece of the team are not the same as being part of family ownership (setting the kids up for down the road)...apples and oranges. And yes, I am a Browns fan (long and suffering) and I tend to agree with your analysis (this next coach will be the 7th under the Haslams' watch, which began midway through the 2012 season when they officially took over). Vjmlhds(talk)16:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: It is strange to see they list them as owners on the Browns website, and JW's additional title of Executive VP would merit inclusion on the template. I'm going to change the format a little on the template, and if you're okay with the changes I think we're good. Eagles24/7(C)16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
All good. The reason (I think) that the kids (and even Dee) were added was due to the legal issues Jimmy was having with Pilot Flying J a few years back, and if worse ever came to worse and Jimmy had to go to the Grey Bar Hotel, then the team would still be in Haslam family hands and they'd continue to run it. Obviously that doomsday scenario never played out, but they wanted to make sure their ducks were in a row just in case. And even though I'm a miserable Browns fan, as a show of goodwill, I'll leave you with this - Fly Eagles Fly. Vjmlhds(talk)19:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. My theory is that Jimmy is pushing his wife, daughter, and son-in-law into the spotlight to make the Browns seem more family-oriented and marketable. It's not working. Eagles24/7(C)19:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
2019 Baltimore Ravens season
Happy New Year!
As you may have noticed I have contributed regularly to 2019 Baltimore Ravens season. I noticed during one of my edits today that the format (chronology) of the Ravens' 2019 page was different from those of all the other NFL teams 2019 season pages (including your Eagles). Those pages, after the section for "Current Roster" are followed by sections for "preseason", "regular season" then "postseason" with the schedule and game summaries included in the respective sections. I thought that made sense, so I changed the 2019 Ravens page to be consistent with the rest of the NFL. (Of course if John Harbaugh used that logic we probably wouldn't be in the playoffs) Anyway, my changes were reverted by another editor because he felt that the page should be consistent with the 2018 Baltimore Ravens season page. Am I nit-picking or should all the 2019 NFL teams seasons pages be consistent? (I'm not an edit war kind of a guy, but I do like consistency.) «Marylandstater» «reply»19:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Marylandstater: Hi, thanks for the message. Personally, I like to see all of the schedules in the same section, then all of the game summaries in the same section. As a reader, it's very frustrating when these are separated and I have to scroll past 16 long game summaries just to see the postseason schedule. I don't usually edit the team season articles, at least not the schedules or game summaries, so I can't say for sure why there are discrepancies with the format. I think it would be a good idea to discuss on WT:NFL to see what other editors think. Eagles24/7(C)20:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi sack y was not available and therefore I requested a comment or designation should be made for my comments as the career stats still needed to be done. However, you marked by edits as unessesary. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcuzz26 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eagles247. 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.
