User talk:Giants27/Archives/2009/November

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

Brandon Minor

If it was just those two minor issues, I have addressed them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll check back again later after I'm done working on Nathan Horton.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK conf-queuesion

Sorry about this. I am apparently the only DYK-familiar admin online right now, and Jolly asked me to do something I haven't done under the new system so I was a little confused and he was trying to help. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sign.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXXVI

Sign.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sam Loxton

Hi Giants. How is the review going? I was getting a bit itchy because I've done the remaining work for the FT and all I can do now is wait. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've been busy IRL this week. I'll see if I can get the review going (since I've gone through online refs already) tonight.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Award

Ezekiel 7:19 Guestbook Barnstar
This user has signed my guestbook and been presented with a barnstar, so sign my guestbook now if you have not yet, NOW!!!--Ezekiel 7:19 Le†'s Go Buffalo! (sign)
Thanks.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously participated in one the underlying referenced AN/Is.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or
(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

  1. RfC Conduct
  2. RfC Guide
  3. RfC Guide 2
  4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I participated in one of the discussions on ANI? I'm curious as to why I did that...--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Yep. I double-checked; it was the Simon Dodd AN/I. Just a drive-by one-liner.
But in an overabundance of caution to make sure I don't leave anyone out, I've now contacted all editors not only who participated in or who were mentioned in the Rjanag RfA or Rjanag RfC, but also all who left even one comment at one of the underlying AN/Is.
As to your curiosity as to why you participated, I couldn't tell you.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I just found it, back in July I made a comment. Still not sure why since I usually stay away from the bloodbath at ANI unless it's not editor related.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul Bako GA review

Thanks very much for the review. The baseball project seems to be largely absent at GA right now, so I'm trying to do some article content work instead of just lists. I think I've addressed those three minor issues you raised. Thanks again. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for the comment but has'nt my spelling gotten better? (at least it's better than Orangesodakid's)--Coldplay Expert 23:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It definetely has, but watch for typos and don't be afraid to fix them when you may them. Like right now.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow I still made a typo :)--Coldplay Expert 23:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That's Muphry's law. :D --kelapstick (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Haha, it kills when you tell someone not to do something and then you do it. Luckily that didn't happen to me (at least I think so...)--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey. How can I help out in DYK?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
You can either review hooks (complying with the rules on Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK, this script is really useful) or expand/create an article. Same rules apply obviously.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, ill look into it. Thanks!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Giants27! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, 15, November 2009! Keep up the great work!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!


Thanks.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm still a little puzzled on the whole Islanders27 sock thing. Clearly that person was you which is a fail I didn't relize that earlier. Still, I don't really have much a clue what is going on. Please clarify, Thanks.--Ezekiel 7:19 S†rawberry Fields (sign) 14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Islanders27, I'm just me. His name was similar, see this thread in which a respected user asked me if he could change his name to that which happened to be similar. However, I guess he gave it up to this person. But believe me I ≠ Islanders27.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:27, 16 November 2009

(UTC)

Oh, I see. Interesting. I was just saying because 1) The number was 27 and 2) They are both New York Teams. Haha, so I was wrong. So anyways what do you mean by "he gave it up to this person"? Too many pronouns!--Ezekiel 7:19 S†rawberry Fields (sign) 20:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Very understandable and I'm honestly not surprised somebody was curious if there was a connection. And whoops, basically I meant let it be usurped allowing him to take over the name.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
So this iMatthew is the puppeteer (Oh I am good)?--Ezekiel 7:19 S†rawberry Fields (sign) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
No, like I said he changed his name from iMatthew to Islanders27 before changing back. The old name was then usurped by this a unknown sockpuppeter.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Man this could go really well on my record to investigate this, but then again I don't have any clue on where to look. This is though very interesting story, OK so back on the 13th when I was talking to Islanders was it the puppeteer? Basically is there any other info you can give. I just want to know if the guy I've been talking to was a puppeteer or not. Also, your saying that Islanders changed his name back to iMatthew? This is way too confusing!!!--Ezekiel 7:19 S†rawberry Fields (sign) 23:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Haha, what I'm saying is that iMatthew is a different person who changed his name to Islanders27 long before the sockpuppeter came along. Unhappy (I'd assume) he changed his name back to iMatthew making Islanders27 an open account. Then possibly by choice or by an interaction with iMatthew during his time as Islanders27, the sockpuppeter (completely unrelated to iMatthew) registered that account. On a side note, no investigation is needed since he's just an additional sock to Wikinger (talk · contribs).--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Aw man, so how long has this bastard Wikinger had control over this account? Cause I thought I was talking to a real person and I actually liked him to. Ha, what a waste of time signing all those guestbooks. All I'm wondering is if this iMatthew guy even knows who I am, cause now I feel like I have to meet him.--Ezekiel 7:19 S†rawberry Fields (sign) 23:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, Islanders27 (the bad one) created his account on October 7, 5 days after IMatthew changed his name back. And I doubt he knows who you are since unless, he saw a comment by you on Islanders27's talk page he'd more likely than not, have no clue who you are.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Giants, I was wondering how you do DYK's. thanks. regards--Orangesodakid 19:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See a couple threads up.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Notability

I'm not looking to start a major discussion but I just wanted to check in and see if you had an example of the "consensus" you spoke of on my talk page. If so it would be appreciated, the consensus I am going off of is WP:WPBB/N but if there is another guideline or discussion that says otherwise I would very much like to view it. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at User:Kelapstick/Sandbox, you should see some links to relevant AfDs. Any discussion about the notability of minor leaguers is there.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I just thought you would have a more "to the point" reference. I'm not looking for a argument for an idea, just the guideline that says "minor leaguers are not notable enough for their own article and should be merged into the respect minor league page" as you said on my talk page. From my understanding the current guideline says "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" but there could (as there often is) a conflicting guideline I'm missing. Thanks anyway. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not written (to my knowledge) but it's agreed upon, if you ask at WT:MLB they'll point you to a discussion which I can't seem to find. Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another DYK question.

Hey. I have found this good page that was just created today and I was wondering. How does this sound?

Did You Know...

...That the Rosario class sloops were the last wooden sloops constructed for the Royal Navy?

--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Great! When you nominate it make sure you use the nomination template as instructed by the editnotice. And obviously, only take nominator credit and list the creator of the article.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad you like it! However, Im still not quite shure how to post it for a nomination and all the other stuff such as give credit to the creator ect. Can you help me?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Well all you have to do for this one is: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article=Rosario class sloop | hook=... that the '''[[Rosario class sloop|Rosario class sloops]]''' were the last wooden sloops constructed for the [[Royal Navy]]? ? | status=new | author=Shem1805 | nominator=Coldplay Expert }}. Copy this into the section for November 17 on T:TDYK and place it on top. A reviewer will be around at any time (I've had some reveiewed within the hour or 2 weeks later). At which point somebody'll come along and move it to a prep area. Hope this helps!--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It worked! thanks for all the help and I hope ill soon see it on the main page!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
how can you find a new artical for DYK? regards--Orangesodakid 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This page has some good new articles. But, it's probably better for you to attempt at creating/expanding an article since it'd be easier to accomplish than finding one from that list. Note: Article must be expanded 5x (so pick a short one) and be over 1500 characters. Same thing goes for creation, minus the 5x expansion.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Generic vs Customized "Please do not vandalize" templates.

You were the first to respond to one of the vandalous edits to Talk:Saturn and thus posted a warning on this user's page here. I just wanted to express that when vandalism is as overt and obscene as this case was - replacing a header and section with "$@#% head" - the standard "appears to be unconstructive" template message is simply insufficient to convey the severity of the misbehavior. For that reason, I recommend you use custom messages in such extreme cases. RadicalTwo (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The generic message is used because it's vandalism, no difference between "is a piece of shit" and "hahahahahahaha". They're all vandalism and aren't treated differently by RC patrollers or admins.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I have seen more impact from custom ones, but it is your perogative. RadicalTwo (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I mostly agree with Giants27. People who post mild obscenities are either children trying out naughty words or trolls looking for a rise so an apoplectic response is not the best idea. The standard responses are pretty well worked out but can, of course, be modified or replaced with custom messages when appropriate. I think this case is best handled with a boilerplate, ho-hum response. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bradon Godfrey

Why did you remove the Prod. You know and I know that that article should not exist.--Yankees10 20:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do know he's non-notable but the clear consensus at the AfD, he is notable.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
What I dont get is why you removed it. I highly doubt that anyone that said keep would even notice that it was gone.--Yankees10 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed it because the AfD came out as clear consensus to keep so a PROD deletion shouldn't be considered.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Week

Congratulations, Giants27/Archives/2009! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Week" award for this week! Keep up the great work!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: You could also recieve the top award, "Wikipedian of the Month" for this month!


The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Null edits

It may be a standard practice of a certain editor who feels that they own every roster template, but not in Wikipedia as a whole. Grsz11 18:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that, I'm just saying that it's the way we communicate amongst each other on the roster template. And if I'm correct in my interpretation of, "who feels that they own every roster template", Chris just understands the 3-4 from experience with these templates. If he knows Boiman is an ILB then it's likely already detailed somewhere on the internet.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Typically, whole convos aren't had in the edit summaries anyway. It's usually just a comment or two regarding the template. Easier than posting on the talk page because it's seen quicker and without visiting a new page.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Giants27! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, November 27th, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

December21st2012Freak Happy Thanksgiving! 00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There's too many of these Wikipedian of the Day or week things around...--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pat Murray

Hey a question, what is the current consensus about the notability of minor NFL "players" ie practice squad guys that get signed and released, and is it consistent with WP:ATH? Grsz11 02:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is completely complient with WP:ATH because any practice squad that hasn't played in a game is non-notable. Pat Murray is a special case where as he's spent time on a teams' active roster. People like Matt Kroul and Kole Heckendorf are non-notable.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if active roster preseason satisfies ATH, but of course it is open to interpretation. And the page for Murray does not indicate if he appeared in those games. Grsz11 02:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about preseason, see my argument here where I explained why preseason is not notable. Murray was active as indicated by the link I provided, if he had not been active then his stat box would not appear.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This page only shows four preseason games. If there were regular season games he was active for, wouldn't they appear on that list as well. I'm not sure if I'm understanding the page format though, so I could be mistaken. Grsz11 02:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking here where it shows his career regular season games played. For somebody who hasn't played that stat box wouldn't be there, but for Murray it is.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I saw that he was on the Denver roster at the end of 2008, but the bio contradicts itself. At the top it says he was on the active roster for three games, but further down it says he was inactive. Grsz11 02:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
See here. He was active for 4 games in 2008. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec) He spent three weeks on the active roster which IMO makes him notable despite the fact he never actually played he was marked as inactive during his time playing on the active roster.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know why I couldn't see those earlier. However, now it comes to how you view it. I'm not sure if "being active" is equivalent to "competed" per WP:ATH. Grsz11 02:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Grsz, the bio does not contradict itself. It's saying he was on the active 53-man roster, but that he was INACTIVE (as in didn't dress to play) for some of those games. There's the 53-man active roster, then there is there are the 45 that dress to play in each game. Sometimes he was a part of that 45, sometimes he wasn't. But he was always on the ACTIVE roster, as in, not IR, the practice squad, or anything like that.
Quite frankly, the fact that this confused you probably means you shouldn't be nominating NFL articles for deletion when you don't fully understand the workings of the league.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
And typical Chris pokes his head. Anyways Giants, thanks. Grsz11 02:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
And if he didn't dress, then he certainly couldn't compete in a game, and fails WP:ATH. Grsz11 02:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

But he's still an NFL player, just as much as anyone else. Jesus Christ, it's not that complicated. And no matter what you think of me, I'm right here, so you should listen to what I have to say, and just maybe mind your business unless you're knowledgeable enough to make edits around here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I created the Pat Murray article, so I hardly think I unreasonably butted into this convo.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it was unreasonable, just that it was rude, confrontational, and condescending like you typically are. But I won't carry this on at a third party's talk page. Grsz11 02:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
How was it "rude, confrontational, and condescending"?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Giants, Nick Schommer was deleted via AfD, which you userfied, and then moved back to article space. He is still just a practice squad player. Do you feel that he is now notable for some reason? Grsz11 04:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I recreated that article because A) he was drafted, maybe not notable per WP:ATH but at the time WP:NFL considered him notable, B) he was an All-American and C) he became the 25th player to be drafted from his school which I feel is notable.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 13:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Third team All-American Division IAA. And I'm not sure being an arbitrary number drafted is relevant either. A better route would have been WP:DRV. The view that being drafted automatically makes a player notable is a poor standard that isn't consistent with ATHLETE, whether the project says so or not is invalid. Like I said on the notability page, NFL has much larger rosters than any other league and the vast majority of players drafted will play and be notable, but we can't break WP:CRYSTAL and say just because they are drafted that they will be. Grsz11 15:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Clever. Sorry, the asterisk standard is stupid and completely opposite of the key directly below. Grsz11 02:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
.. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
How so?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
"*Offseason and/or practice squad member only" ... Now, maybe I "no nothing about the NFL", but to me, that means that an asterisk indicates that the player was an offseason and/or practice squad member only. Manningham has only been a offseason and/or practice squad member and yet I've been reverted for adding the symbol that is suppose to indicate it, because we "don't do it until later". That's ridiculous and completely inaccurate as to what the infobox claims. What I see is a seriously problem of WP:OWN by the NFL gang. Grsz11 02:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Nobody owns these articles. It's a standard not a "we'll revert and edit by a newcomer to NFL pages" thing. Asteriks aren't until later because he's still on the team.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
C'mon, you know exactly what I mean. You've disagreed with them that every player ever is notable and you've caught flack from it. Now I've done that exact same thing and nominated and proposed deletion for non-notable undrafted practice squad only bios, and this is what I get. It's understandable why nobody new contributes to those types of articles, as certain users have it so much under their control, and of course there's Chris' warm personality that just makes you want to keep coming back, ya right. I don't have the patience to deal with this kind of bullshit, I have other stuff to do, but you cannot deny that it is exactly that, bullshit. Grsz11 02:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I do understand what you mean. The drastic reaction from everyone is because periodically you appear to jump in and nominate articles for deletion (some notable, some not) and some of the more "welcoming" personalities take offense to it. IPs and new editors, edit an NFL article everyday and yet those edits stick up.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated and proposed deletions for non-notable individuals that is in no way against current Wikipedia policy and guidelines. It may be against some editor's randomly assumed thought of what is notable, but that's there problem, not mine, because they are the ones making things up. Grsz11 02:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with your prodding of articles or nominating of articles at AfD.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Valued pictures and ITN in the WikiCup

Hi. I am contacting you on behalf of the WikiCup judges because you were involved in our previous points polling. Though most of the polls are now closed, we have restarted polls relating to the points value for both valued pictures and in the news entries. You are welcome to submit your votes here; the polls will be closing in a week's time. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo

The photo which you uploaded for use in the Erik Karlsson article is not Erik Karlsson. It is actually Alexandre Picard. Please exercise more care in the future.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

But Picard is #45, not #65...--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are right, but this File:Erik Karlsson 11-29-09.jpg is Alexandre Picard. It is clearly #45, not # 65.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Ahh...now I see what you mean and you're absolutely correct. I feel the need to take blame for it, but if you look at the source I found the image at, it says "Erik Karlsson #65" or something of the like. And when I saw it I was like "okay makes sense since he has a 5 in his number. Can't see anything that says otherwise so it's Karlsson". But, it's obviously Picard due to the "4" I missed before. Feel free to make a move request.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox moving

Um, why are we moving everyone from infobox nflretired to active? I'm confused, seeing as how 99% of players are retired.. Wizardman 01:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Back in August, the NFLactive infobox was converted to be able to have the currentteam and curretnumber fields remove along with the addition of more stat fields, past coaching jobs etc. Upon this and a few discussions, it became obvious that the NFLretired and other infoboxes were no longer needed. However, due to some different field names and the lack of height/weight on the retired infobox, the change has to be done manually or using AWB.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giants27/Archives/2009/November&oldid=1139316136"