Talk:Tim Hasselbeck

Time with the Giants

The article says that his only action for the giants consisted of two kneel-downs, but this isn't true. For most of his time with the Giants, Tim Hasselbeck was the holder for placekicks (Punter Jeff Feagles took over after he was released). The way the article is written now, it makes it seem like he contributed very little to the team when in fact he was an important player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discosuperfly (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In April 2008, Tim Hasselbeck's contract with the Arizona Cardinals expired and was not renewed. He is no longer appears on the team roster (see www.azcardinals.com) and was made an unrestricted free agent. As of the July 22, 2008 NFL deadline no team has signed Tim Hasselbeck and he was released by the Cardinals and is now effectively unemployed and no longer a professional football player in the National Football League (NFL) and should only be referred to as a former NFL quarterback and former NFL player. [source: nfl.com/freeagents] THESE ARE REFERENCEABLE FACTS: WHY ARE THESE FACTS BEING DELETED AND CALLED VANDALISM. THESE FACTS ARE IMPORANT, ARE ACCURATE AND MOST CERTAINLY ADD TO THIS WIKI PROFILE. SOURCES TO VALIDATE THESE FAACTS ARE NOTED (WWW.AZCARDINALS.COM) SHOWS TIM HASSELBECK IS NOT LISTED IN THE CURRENT TEAM AND IS ONLY LISTED IN THE ALUMNI INDEX. OFFICIAL NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE STATS (WWW.NFL.COM) SHOW THAT TIM HASSELBECK IS AN UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT AND DOES NOT HAVE A CONTRACT WITH ANY TEAM FOR THE 2008 SEASON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.7.14 (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Birth dates, ect

I have reverted to removed unneeded details, can we also get a better picture? Thanks, Tom 14:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored the info. It is data that he has shared so y not include it? 70.108.119.213 (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Because our policy is not to include personal information about non-notable minors, even if it is "out there", especially when the article is not about them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ive put back in the info. It is basic info. It doesnt go into detail like where he married & his kids birthweights. 70.108.74.81 (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

POV

Do not continue to insert unsourced POV commentary into the article. It is a violation of our WP:BLP policy and will be reverted and treated as vandalism. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

i've reverted back to 15Mar version

I just reverted back to the. If there is SPECIFIC parts that violate a wik rule. take THAT PART out. I didnt add "The following week he had the ignominy of recording the lowest possible single-game passer rating (0.0) in a 27-0 loss to the Dallas Cowboys...."but perhaps it is a term used in football ? 70.108.74.81 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See section above WP:POV. Your edit has been reverted. It is YOUR obligation to make material you add meet our guidelines, not my obligation to weed out violations. See WP:BURDEN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I will revert your edit. The info that I added is sourced. If something w/i the article that isnt sourced tremove that. I didnt add the info u referenced in your edit summary. I added family info to the article that was already present. 70.108.74.81 (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, please read the policy. It is the burden of the person wishing to add information to the article to provide reliable sources to back the statements made. WP:V subsection WP:BURDEN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I added info to what was already saved. The info THAT I ADDED is sourced. The info u have a prob with I DIDNT ADD!. So take out that info instead of just reverting. 70.108.110.22 (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

When you revert to versions that contain NPOV violations, YOU are adding NPOV violations and are responsible for them.

And again, leave the threading (the colons that indent people's comments) in comments pages to that readers can more easily follow conversations. Editing other peoples comments is also considered a disruptive act. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What I revert to is my edit that has sourced info. IF there is a violating in it why was it in the article all this time? IF there is aviolation in it take out THE VIOLATION. BUt u dont, u on purpose revert which deletes my valid edit. U wanna control everything thing. But u cant. I post how I want to post. If you'd stop stalking & actually edit wiki you wouldnt have 2 deal with me @ all. 70.108.110.22 (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your pressing the "save page" on your reversions is YOU adding the POV violation content. YOU are therefore responsible for the material in the article at that point and time. YOU are therefore responsisble for making sure that there are no POV violations or correcting them.

And again, leave the threading (the colons that indent people's comments) in comments pages to that readers can more easily follow conversations. Editing other peoples comments is also considered a disruptive act. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Really , yet when u edited the article on 26Feb9 u had no problem w the info THAT YOU ARE WRONGLY ATTRIBUTING TO ME. So if you're saying that when 1 saves they take on the responsibilty, you were responsibe before I was. It is only bc you dont like that Ive added names/DOBs that you're pursuing this. Since realising that youre wrong & names/Dobs dont violate wpblp you're now on this vendetta.Get a life.& again, indenting just wastes space. Obviously if you replying in certain section & under the last commet you're talking about that topic. 70.108.110.22 (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

When I noticed the BLP violation I REMOVED IT.

And again, leave the threading (the colons that indent people's comments) in comments pages to that readers can more easily follow conversations. Editing other peoples comments is also considered a disruptive act. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

None u didnt. U added categories and saved. It was when I added the names/DObs that you claimed "wpblp violations". Read 'rd232' words below. 70.108.110.22 (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I became aware of the NPOV issue here [1] and have worked hard to keep it out of the article ever since. You, on the other hand, have been aware of the NPOV issue for several days (including being blocked for edit warring to return the inappropriate material) and yet you have continued to make edits to return the material with the NPOV violations back into the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting back and forth - this isn't a substantial BLP issue so the edits (of which there two distinct parts) should be discussed here. The family member para is well-sourced and is constructive since they are notable, with WP articles. All the rest of the disputed additions are newspaper-style editorial and unsourced opinion (WP:NPOV, WP:V) and should be left out. Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232:Thank you. This is what Ive been saying all along! That wich I added is sourced. so what redpen has a problem with s/he should fix instead of deleting/reverting my info. THANK YOU! 70.108.110.22 (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 did not say that you could revert to a version with POV violations and leave them in the article, so I hope you dont intend to do that.

And again, leave the threading (the colons that indent people's comments) in comments pages to that readers can more easily follow conversations. Editing other peoples comments is also considered a disruptive act.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 says fix the problems in the article instead of just lazily reverting so do that. 70.108.110.22 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The problems enter the article when you blindly revert to the version with the NPOV content. What both Rd232 and Tom have said is that you should make your suggestions of what the article should say on the talk page and we will work towards a consensus on what to enter into the article and how to enter it.

And again, leave the threading (the colons that indent people's comments) in comments pages to that readers can more easily follow conversations. Editing other peoples comments is also considered a disruptive act.-- -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dont misinterprert what rd323/tom say. Heed it. You blindly revert my edits. Leave my info info which is sourced & take out what you have a problem with. 70.108.110.22 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I revert edits to versions without blatant NPOV issues. You revert to versions with NPOV issues. There is a major difference. We can start from the version that everyone is comfortable with as not having any major violations and build from there. What is your first suggestion?

:And again, leave the threading (the colons that indent people's comments) in comments pages to that readers can more easily follow conversations. Editing other peoples comments is also considered a disruptive act.-- -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to IP

Not sure what is up, but can I make a suggestion? Can you please not just revert back to a prior version of this article since multiple editors are not in agreement with this action? Can you please make suggestions here for specific text that you want added or deleted? If there is agreement, then the change can be made. Again, blanket reversion seems to be being met with revision which is getting all us nowhere fast. Again, maybe try to make a "small" edit, and if that is reverted, bring it here to make your arguments for why it should stand. Hopefully others will comment as well. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Im cool with that. What about redpen's blanket reversions? The stuff I added is sourced. So y not leave it in & take out whatever is problematic? Instead redpen does blanket reversion. Have u told him/her to not do blanket reverting? 70.108.110.22 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he is reverting, your wholesale reversion to a previously unacceptable version(also, whos on first). Seriously, start with the current version, as long as it hasn't been reverted by you in the last 12 hours, and add a comment in HERE about what you want added. The part about his footbll career or brother or sister n law or whatever. Post it HERE and let others comment and agree or disagree about inclusion. Lets start with that. ok? --Tom (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)ps, do you see how we use colons(:) to offset the thread so folks can follow along?

1)Y does s/he get to revert & then demand the page be fixed? Y not fix it? 2)I thought I was reverting to your version. Revert to your version with the bio info added. 70.108.110.22 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

References

The 3rd reference links appeared to be dead. If anybody can find a current one and update it, it would be greatly appreciated.--IGeMiNix (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

German descent

Tims father is Don Hasselbeck, Don's parents are John William Hasselbeck and Molly M. (Lang) Hasselbeck, both of German American descent. -- 91.65.20.209 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Formatting the infobox

"highschool - used to display the players' high school, can be wikilinked. As for colleges, things like "high school" or "prep school" should be dropped. However, city and state should be mentioned (unless city and high school are eponymous). For example: Breckenridge (TX), or Long Beach (CA) Poly."

Additionally I believe that Tim's time with the Berlin Thunder should be marked in his debut year/debut team fields, instead of the 2002 regular season. For other articles about players who began their careers outside the NFL, the debut year/debut team fields reflect so, such as Warren Moon, Jeff Garcia, and Kurt Warner. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No argument, it should be mentioned. However, listing it as "Westwood (MA) Xaverian Brothers" would be correct if the name of the school was "Westwood Xaverian Brothers High School" – as the two examples are "Breckenridge High School" and "Long Beach Polytechnic High School". It's not. The full name of the school is Xaverian Brothers High School, and showing the information as "Xaverian Brothers (Westwood, MA)" follows the principle shown in the guideline and includes the required information without misleading readers about the school's name.

The same place that contains the high school guideline relied on also says:

debutyear / debutteam - used to display the relevant information for when the player first appeared in a regular season or postseason National Football League game.

How it's done elsewhere notwithstanding, The Berlin Thunder games were clearly not regular season National Football League games, and in fact, unlike the CFL or the old AFL, the "spring league" NFL Europe seems to have been at least partially a farm system for the real NFL. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The pattern for these infoboxes seems to be to omit the words "High School" and include the two-letter state abbreviation in parens. Sure WP:OSE, but this appears to be the usual style, and it's a sensible one. Hence here, why should it not be Xaverian Brothers (MA)? Is there some sort of disambiguation needed because there's another Xaverian Brothers school in Mass.? I don't think that's the case. On the Berlin Thunder issue, is this considered a semi-pro or a professional team? If the latter, I'd say it's only sensible to say his career started there. In my view, we're talking in the infobox about his professional career, notwithstanding what the template documentation says about the NFL. I believe that template is going to be merged at some stage into an overarching pro football player template, in any event. It might be worth discussing whether to change the documentation at the template's talk page. --Batard0 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tim Hasselbeck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bceagles.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/hasselbeck_tim00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150120234921/http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12193621 to http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12193621

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)