User talk:Eagles247

Welcome to Eagles24/7's Talk Page!

At the end of every month, this page will archive unless the thread is less than a week old.

Please add your comments at the end of this page. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C)

Archives

Prods

Why did you remove the Prod tags off of Michael Moore (wide receiver) and Ladi Ajiboye‎. They are not notable enough to have articles and arent top prospects for the draft. Moore is the 59th ranked receiver according to NFLDraftscout.com and is expected to go undrafted[1] and Ladi Ajiboye‎ is only projected to be a late round pick.[2] Not all draft prospects deserve articles yet, just projected first, second, or third rounders. If they improve their stock later on than yeah they deserve articles but not now. I saw you copied them to User:Eagles247/Michael Moore and User:Eagles247/Ladi Ajiboye‎, you can always just remake them.--Yankees10 21:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take it to AfD then. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why waste time and the chance of them being kept if they dont get drafted, they do not meet WP:Athlete.--Yankees10 21:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their not notable now and waiting to see if they're drafted appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL. AfD won't be a bad option.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think AfD is the best option right now in order to gauge the opinion of mulitple editors. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind starting them?--Yankees10 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but why couldn't you do it yourself since I don't have a problem with these articles? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im currently on vacation and dont have enough time to start them.--Yankees10 02:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Have a good time wherever you are. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Yankees10 15:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisk

Is there a reason you're reverting my adding the *, which is appropriate given the key below, or are you all just blinding reverting me because you're all pissed off? Grsz¹¹ 01:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that typically we don't add the asterisk until they are no longer on that team in case they get added to the active roster at some point during their tenure. And don't be so quick to assume I am "pissed off" at you, because I am not. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Currently, he isn't on an active roster. If he is added in the next five or six weeks then it certainly can be removed, but right now it is blatantly inaccurate and misleading. Grsz¹¹ 02:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to piss me off? Because it's not going to work. This is the standard NFL procedure, and all of the main NFL contributors (Chris, Giants, Pats, Osi, Yankees and Myself) follow this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If stating legitimate issues pisses you off, than that's your problem. I understand if it's "standard procedure" even if I think it's wrong. I'm not pushing the issue. Grsz¹¹ 02:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, and kudos for catching that. It wasn't as subtle as yours, which is a neat trick. Grsz¹¹ 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it is typically used in Wikipedia articles instead of a big, bulky key for confusing acronyms and abbreviations, like I did here for the article on Mike Kafka. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Milkbaba

If you're offended by User:Milkbaba, feel free to leave a uw-npa series warning on the user's talk page. As for the question, I've already replied on his talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a three-way conversation, nominally, all further replies from me will be there. —C.Fred (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I warned User:Milkbaba. By the way, good job tonight on deleting articles. You've already deleted seven of the articles I nominated for speedy deletion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give Milkbaba the benefit of the doubt with his comments on his talk page, since he was talking about the tagging and not the editors themselves. (As a football official, there's about 15 yards of difference between "That call was horrible" and "Ref, you're horrible." :) ) However, I'm keeping an eye on the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Harper

You know, he does pass WP:N. The fact he had no pro career is irrelevant, because he was a well-documented and (at times) successful ACC college quarterback who was once projected as a potential NFL first-round pick. All that makes him notable regardless of how his pro career turned out.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I see some sources from Giants, I'm going to withdraw it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's closed. And I could care less if others wanted to discuss it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan9456

In regards to your recent deletion of my starting lineup posts on the 2009 philadelphia eagles site, I must say that, while I acknowledge your hard work on this page and devotion to the Eagles, it seems a little micromanaging. I, personally, would rather go on Wikipedia and see any starting lineup I wanted rather than to have to go to each individual game on NFL.com. Notice there are the starting lineups for every Super Bowl and such. I guess some people just need to feel powerful by controlling and vetoing others' contributions . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan9456 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. However, comments like "I guess some people just need to feel powerful by controlling and vetoing others' contributions" can be considered a personal attack, and here on Wikipedia, we do not tolerate personal attacks. I will ask around the NFL WikiProject to see if it is acceptable for starting lineups for each game, and ask other editors' opinions. Thanks again for contributions, and we'll see what happens. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't realize that Wikipedia had something against a large amount of information. It could be argued that anything on the 2009 Philadelphia Eagles season page is "unneeded" or superfluous as any of this information is, indeed, able to be found on NFL.com or Philadelphiaeagles.com. I am failing to see what makes the Eagles' starting lineups (available on NFL.com) any less relevent than, say, the score of the last game (also available on NFL.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan9456 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You crack me up

I thought I might say that you crack me up when people try to tell you that you are wrong. Even though you are right! BTY, I'm a Colts fan. 11-0. Can't beat that since Saints are probebly losing right now. (I hope). :)

P.S. Thanks for all the help on the infoboxes. I will keep working on them as I have time.

Southwood Paul (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your a Colts fan and you want the PATRIOTS to win--Yankees10 02:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love the irony there, too, Yankees. Especially with you, how you're an Eagles fan and a YANKEES fan. Anyway, if I were to root for either the Colts or Saints, I would 100% go with the Colts. See Week 2, 2009; Week 16, 2007, here and the killer, here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Saints are winning 17-10. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Siants ~~won~~ killed the Patriots but I think that they will have a harder time against the Vikings. Oh, and from now on I want the Patriots to lose. Southwood Paul (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, but I'm still having trouble with a citation. Can you help me format footnote #5 on the Eli Whitney Students Program page so that it reads like all the other footnotes. Thanks!