Talk:2006 Denver Broncos season

Contributions

I'm under the impression that wikipedia is open to all users, and sights aren't "squatted on." I'd like to see some discussion on who contributes to this and other pages. My belief is that who ever posts first is the one whose post sticks. Edits can be made for sure, as well as links. But to delete a whole entry to substitute it for your own seems too territorial, especially since it's all style, not facts. It gets rather annoying to spend time posting an entry, only to have someone delete the whole entry because they like theirs better. Since I can switch the entire entry back to mine, and then the other person can return fire, it seems pointless. Thus, man rule time: who ever posts first is the submission that remains. Edits can be made, but not entire rewrites.

Thoughts?

Sorry bud, but it's just the way Wikipedia turns out to be sometimes. Even though you didn't mention it, I know you are referring directly to my edits. I'm going to be brutally honest about this: I like mine better. It's true. The way the synopses are written isn't very fun to read for me. If I want a drive-by-drive synopsis of the game, I'll read the play-by-play log. Or the recap. The way I write them can present all of the same facts, while improving the style and giving a more concise, easier-to-read synopsis. Sorry if I sound harsh about this, but it's the way I feel. Your versions also omit overall game stats, which would have to be tacked on in another cumbersome paragraph.

Also, Wikipedia doesn't have any rules against rewriting original entries, since it is open to everybody, and it encourages you to Be Bold. I'm glad you brought this up for discussion, and since I'm a fair person, I'm alright with whoever writes the first entry for that specific game to be the one that stays, but note that I will probably still be making significant edits to it. bob rulz 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

End

• The season is over, and the Broncos didn't make the Playoffs for the first time in years. I'm taking down the current event tag, and adding various things that happened. WizardDuck

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 Denver Broncos season. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427200547/http://www.denverpost.com:80/broncos/ci_4931937 to http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_4931937

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)