User talk:Deejayk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  ... (up to 100)

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Deejayk/Archive 1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kukini 23:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

NFL head coaches

Thanks a lot for fixing my mistakes; I was doing a lot of copying and pasting, and got too sloppy at parts. In trying to be consistent, what do you think is the best verbiage for the coaching tree?

"Assistant coaches under Tony Sparano who have become NFL head coaches:" (Which you wrote during your correction) "Assistant coaches under Dick Jauron who became NFL head coaches:" (Which I decided on late in the game, and many of the current coaches are still incorrect)

Upon reflection, maybe it makes more sense to say "Assistant coaches under <name> who later became NFL head coaches". It seems like you should only become a member of another coach's tree on the way up (e.g. I wouldn't necessarily consider Dick Lebeau to be a member of Mike Tomlin's tree despite the fact that he has worked under Tomlin and he has been a head coach). Really I don't know how much it matters, as long as it's grammatically correct and consistent.--Deejayk (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for opening it up to discussion to the broader community. As to not poison the well, so to speak, I'll mention this here. I like your idea regarding "Assistant coaches under <name> who later became NFL head coaches." I tried to compensate for that distinction with Norv Turner and Wade Phillips by including the line, Following first head-coaching job, in their tree. I think the information is still important to include, though, because it remains possible to pick up important contributions following your first head-coaching job. Phillips served under both Hall-of-Famer Marv Levy and potential Hall-of-Famer Marty Schottenheimer after his first head-coaching job, both of whom likely shaped his current work with the Dallas Cowboys to some degree. If Dick LeBeau becomes a head coach again, I feel that distinction would be enough. I think either of our three proposals are grammatically appropriate in the case of Mike Tomlin if LeBeau becomes a head coach. Is it sensical, however to include Levy in Phillips' coaching tree, while excluding Phillips from Levy's coaching tree? I get the sense that it is not, but am not sure how to resolve the latter scenario as smoothly as the former. J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am up for considering the table you created for Mike Tomlin. Personally, I think it's a little unwieldy because the information (mostly non-numerical) seems to be presented cleanly enough in list form. I think it also risks repeating too much of the "Team(s) as a coach/administrator" located in the infobox. In either case, I would like all the NFL head coaches pages to be as consistent as possible. Thanks for any input. J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is duplicative to a large degree. However, I think it adds some value to see what at what level a person worked under another. I would consider someone who was a coordinator or who worked his way up multiple rungs under a particular coach to be a closer descendant under that coaches tree.--Deejayk (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The rungs beneath any particular head coach can be broadly defined as a coordinator (offensive, defensive or special teams) or an assistant (e.g. linebackers, offensive line, quarterbacks). This information, which by its very nature is repetitive from that found in the infobox, can still be considered quite useful in the coaching tree. Although I am still not certain it is needed, could it be displayed more succinctly if we decide it is required? I'm wary of the coaching tree tables, particularly if they remain below the coaching records table, being visually distracting. J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I appreciate your addition of John Mitchell to Bill Belichick's coaching tree. (I'm relying on my knowledge and some basic research, in addition to any info currently on the pages) I don't think it's necessary, however, to include the specifics of his former service with Belichick, unless we want to do it for every connection. I didn't delete it because I wanted to see what your thoughts were. J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to delete it. I believe the information adds value, but I see your point re: consistency.--Deejayk (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the extra information, and added "assistant head coaches" to the intro line. I believe that designation was originally there before, but I deleted (perhaps too quickly) because no examples were listed. at the time. J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that my thoughts behind listing the entire "coaching tree" on these pages is to allow users to draw their own conclusions (e.g. "I never knew that Jeff Fisher worked under George Seifert) without specifically assigning them to any of the major coaching trees (e.g. Bill Walsh, Chuck Noll, Bill Parcells) or its larger branches (e.g. Mike Holmgren, Tony Dungy, Bill Belichick). That particular information about the broader NFL coaching trees is vitally important, but I feel should be included in paragraph form after the lists, using citations. Indeed, it is already included on some of the head coaches' pages. I am more than willing to work on that in the near future, but wanted to establish some baseline of the raw information initially. J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Montana

Just writing to let you know that I wrote some feedback on the talk page Talk:List of people from Montana. Hyacinth 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD Judy Blunt

Hi, your Judy Blunt article was Afd'd. I pulled some more info out of the sources to make her "notableness" more noticable. Good Luck. Thanks. Phyesalis 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mal (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Mal (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

usekeeping - cleanup per WP:SUoject workpage8

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pages created

I've done a small edit. If you don't like it, please revert it. :)

I've improved Eden Atwood too. -- 201.69.46.177 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Job

Thanks to create articles of Pittsburgh Steelers coaches and personal, please add more. You´re great. User:Nextheisman (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Category sorting

Just a reminder that the correct DEFAULTSORT markup uses a colon, not a pipe – for example: {{DEFAULTSORT:Super Bowl 43}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Super Bowl 43}}. —Paul A (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Art Rooney, Jr.

A tag has been placed on Art Rooney, Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Steelers template

It is usually customary to only put Team templates on pages are included in the template itself. Are you planning to put this template on every single Pittsburgh Steelers player page? I don't think you should. I would bring it up in the talk page on NFL Project.Jwalte04 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, after I got started with this undertaking, I began to wonder if that template was appropriate on these pages as well. I'll go back and remove it. Thanks for the advice.-- Deejayk (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 56440b36fbf4e976c9e00dc3cefe535e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token 3a0452e40ccb52e2aab521699a8a1c1e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Steeler Nation

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for the work you've done to the Wikipedia page Steeler Nation. Adding the images and giving the page some much-needed TLC is a huge plus. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I second the appreciation for the pictures. I wanted to let you know, though, that I pulled down the bulk of the names you restored in the "famous fans" section due to various problems with the sources (unverifiable, unreliably sourced, and a few with sources that didn't actually say the person was a fan). I don't know enough to say whether those people are fans or not, but I just thought you'd appreciate a heads-up that if someone's willing to do the legwork, they can probably get most of those people back up. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: B' star

Thanks dude! Keep up your great work, the project looks a lot better! blackngold29 04:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Bill Austin Joe Walton Ike Taylor Marvel Smith Tony Canadeo Matt Light Steel Curtain Bryant McFadden Steve Mariucci Deshea Townsend John Henry Johnson Kelly Holcomb Jeff Hartings Adam Archuleta Donny Anderson Ernie Stautner Tim Lewis Hank Poteat Jerame Tuman

Cleanup National Football Conference NFL on television American Football Conference Merge Instant replay Tiffin University Who Dey Add Sources Tommy Maddox Hail Mary pass Lateral pass Wikify Bobby Layne Hook Norton F.C. Super Bowl XVIII Expand Rashaan Salaam 1996 NFL Draft Aaron Schobel

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Refimprove}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 17:43 26 May 2009 (UTC).

MfD nomination of Template:User Pittsburgh Steelers

Template:User Pittsburgh Steelers, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Template:User_Pittsburgh_Steelers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User Pittsburgh Steelers during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Template NFL navbox

Since you created that template, please leave a comment in this ongoing discussion. --bender235 (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:User Pittsburgh Steelers

Template:User Pittsburgh Steelers, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Template:User_Pittsburgh_Steelers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User Pittsburgh Steelers during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Template NFL navbox

Since you created that template, please leave a comment in this ongoing discussion. --bender235 (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Deejayk! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 688 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Ralph Anderson (defensive back) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Judy Blunt - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. Added appropriate sources and removed relevant templates.--Deejayk (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

1969 All-Pro team

You did not use the correct AL ALl-Pro team, SNidow was not an AP all-Pro, he was on the Sporting News team. You may want to double check your source. You team looks good, but there are errors.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you used Pro Football reference as your source, but I have had to send thme tons of corrections. You need to go back and get a good copy of the 1969 AP All-pro team. Pro Football reference.com has too many errors for it to be reliable. Also, think about it . . . if Deacon Jones and Carl Eller are "Associated Press: 1st Team All-NFL" then how are Snidow and Andrie also "Associated Press: 1st Team All-NFL". They are not. Also, Pro football reference does not have tne Associated Press second-teams listed. Pro football reference is a fgood site, I like those guys, but they do have errors in their records and you've now put those on wiki. You need to a better source.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The second-team AP Defensive ends are Jim Marshall and Claude Humphrey. The souces is the Charloston Dailey Mail, Decemeber 19, 1969.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to the relevant article talk page. Please see my response, and add any other discussion of this topic there. Thanks. — Deejayk (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Deejayk, after seeing one of your articles at newpage patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor who contributes such interesting well written articles hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!— DeeJayK (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mitchell

After it's passed, it can be changed, yes. Just make sure to update article links from other pages when you do (I can do that if needed). I'll reread the article in the next day or so. Since it's completely revamped I'll want to read the whole thing again to make sure I didn't miss anything. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers season article

I think the page looks great, especially the "Roster moves" section. People tend to forget all the drama leading up to that season that led to those moves, kind-of like this current offseason. I don't think it needs any more improvements. Jgera5 (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 NFL Draft

Im hoping that the edit you made to the table on the 2010 NFL Draft will be done to every years draft right?--Yankees10 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that eventually it will be. — DeeJayK (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

1978 Pittsburgh Steelers Season

Hello DeeJayK-

Sorry for the long delay getting back to you. i haven't had the chance to log into my Wikipedia account in a while. What you've accomplished on the '78 page looks great -- well beyond what I imagined when I was having that discussion.

Yes -- I'd be glad to lend a hand again. Just let me know what I can do to help. I do have access to news archives from the AP going back well before 1978, so that could be useful.

Fruminous (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to pitch in I'd welcome it, there's a To-Do list on the article's talk page. Feel free to tackle any of the tasks on that list. To me, the biggest remaining item is to write up a 2–3 paragraph recap of each game. There are links to local newspaper articles in each game information section that could be used as a starting point. Thanks! — DeeJayK (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the importance of the recaps. I'll look to see what I can pull from the archives and start adding them one at a time.

Fruminous (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! — DeeJayK (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, one of your recent edits to the article 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers season, in the section "Personnel" added a ref labelled "ClackTradeResult", but without any reference text. I was thinking maybe you had duplicated from another article? Could you fix it? (I found out about the broken ref from the page Category:Pages with broken reference names.) Thanks! Salamurai (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've fixed this ref. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: History of the Steelers

Hi Deejayk, I took a really long break from editing, so that was a project I started a long time ago and then forgot about. You're welcome to use anything from it that you want. The 'Men' references are to a book called The Pittsburgh Steelers: The Official Team History by Abby Mendelson (Men being his last name). I used to do that then go back through and add the references all at once. I'd be glad to proof read anything you do or help out with references where I can, but I can't guarantee any major writing. Thanks. blackngold29 00:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Deejayk. You have new messages at M.thoriyan's talk page.
Message added 23:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you look over...

Sean Kugler for me? Thanks! thoriyan 00:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks very good for the most part. I fixed a couple of small things. I question the value of the "coaching tree" section, just because Kugler is not now nor is likely to soon (ever?) be a head coach. But as long as it's there, there's no sense in striking it. Keep up the good work! — DeeJayK (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

List of 2011 NFL Draft early entrants

I think this table should be moved back to 2011 NFL Draft. Declaring early for the draft is not notable and IMO there should not be a separate article for it. Thoughts? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you re: notability (or lack thereof). That said, I disagree with your proposal to re-add it to the draft article. If it's not notable and it's bugging you then just remove it — the draft article is already big enough without this additional table (that arguably doesn't add a lot of value). I moved it from the draft article when I did because I was trying to streamline the article. At the time (pre-draft) I felt that this information was keepable — now I could be convinced otherwise. In the end, I don't see any real problems with the status quo, and can certainly live without this article, but it would take a strong argument to convince me that it is appropriate to reincorporate it into the draft article. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Steagles

You wrote:"I can't find any reliable source that states the Steagles would be ineligible for the playoffs; on the contrary, I have seen contemporary sources discussing the possibility of the Steagles reaching the playoffs." Algeo writes on page 49: "To allow Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to merge...until ...the week before the playoff game..." I am not adding content to the article (which you perhaps might have removed). But if you did remove content and you think its relevant to the article, then you can put it back in and slap a citation needed on it. If you do that, then I will slap an inline citation on it. But I am not adding content on my own. Then you can turn around and put content in that counters that and support it with your "contemporary sources discussing the possibility of the Steagles reaching the playoffs." and that will end that. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, Algeo writes the proposed merger included a precondition that the merger would conclude before the playoffs started. That specific proposal with the precondition was accepted. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am just reading Algeo's book. If I come across something in the Steagle's article, that looks like it definitely belongs in the Steagles article, and it's not cited and I can cite it, then I cite it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking for here. Is there some action you are wanting me to take? I'm not trying to get into an edit war with you. It's just that in researching the Steagles via newspaper reports of the time (which I found via the Google News archive), I was unable to find any article that mentioned the stipulation that Algeo apparently refers to. For example, this article written the day of the Steagles final game notes that the teams championship hopes are still alive if the were to win. I'm not sure what source Mr. Algeo found in researching his book (which I have not read), but I'm not sold that his assertion is correct. I appreciate the effort you've put into the Steagles article (as well as Bert Bell), but you want to be careful of relying too heavily on a single uncorroborated source. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont want to get into a edit war. I don't even want to touch the article if you are working on it. That being said they were in a race for the championship of the Eastern Division, only. The newspaper article you pointed to was ambiguous on the term championship. The rules stated they would not be in the playoffs - which meant they had no chance of meeting the Western Division. That being said, if they won the Eastern Championship, then would they have not been allowed to play the Western Division champs?? Who knows. I was rereading the Algeo book and just putting in citations as I went along in his book. I am going to be rereading most of the books in that list again and one of the Rooney books next.

Like I said, I don't even want to go near the article if you are going to work on it within the next year. It will be a real peaceful article for you to work on. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I spent at least a dozen hours trying to glean info off the internet on Bell and I was never really successful. When I clicked on your newspaper articles you linked to, I was then magically, immediately, able to pull up a treasure trove of info on Bell. One gigantic bit was the Bert Bell NFL Retirement Plan was agreed to on May 24, 1962 and I got wonderful sources on Bert's daughter that will be absolutely fantastic. I sure don't understand why they appeared after I clicked on your links though. But thanks 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That article I linked above was but a single example, and I suppose you could read it like you suggest if you want, however if the team were ineligible to compete in the championship game (as you argue) it seems like that would be mentioned by any half-competent reporter. It doesn't seem likely to me that a playoff game would be played if only one of the teams playing were eligible to advance. Like I said, I looked at as many contemporary Steagles-related newspaper articles as I could find (from at least three different publishers) and I found ZERO mention of the team being ineligible for post-season play. When the merger was formed, there WAS a provision put in place that the merger would be disbanded at the end of the year, which might have lead Algeo to believe the team was required to disband immediately after the end of the regular season, but I don't read it that way. The way I read that was that the other owners were concerned about the team staying merged for the next season. I'm not stating that Algeo is necessarily wrong — since he wrote a book on the topic I'm sure he did LOTS more Steagles research than I have. I'm just stating that I have found multiple sources that seem to contradict his contention and none that support it. Based on that, I feel we need to be very careful in adding this "fact" to WP unless/until we can validate Algeo's source or at least find some corroboration. BTW, I'm glad my link was able to jump-start your Bell research (though it's not at all clear how that occurred). — DeeJayK (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are a Steeler fan. I am not. I kind of watch football games, but not really. I am sure what you decide, sooner or later, will work out for the best...You can do something like, "depending on sources, the Steelers were either in contention for a world championship<your citations>, or had no chance for a world championship<my citations and I should be able to garner at least 2 citations.>...That being said, I dont know why your links in that article was able to jump start me either....I honestly do not care either way what you do with the article... I just take author, publishing date, and page and put it in the article...you can always just put a citation needed in the Steagles article...its a start class article...no one will care... in that Steagles article, I did not delete anything that directly conflicted with my source...I just slapped a citation needed...and put in reason why and where in Algeo's book (I'm back up to p. 114 in Ruck's book on Rooney - which is about 1936) it conflicted. But I never deleted anything. Rephrased to match inline citations, but never deleted. But really, I could care less, Godspeed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what fandom (or lack thereof) has to do with this issue. The point is that the article should be as factually correct as possible. I don't personally care whether the team was or was not eligible for the playoffs — at any rate, the point is basically moot since they didn't qualify. Also, I don't believe that a WP article is necessarily the place to present conflicting viewpoints on such a minor issue; the article should be as definitive as possible. As I have stated, none of the contemporary accounts that I have encountered of the events state that the team would be ineligible for the playoffs, the sole account of which I aware appears in Algeo's book. Algeo himself later in his book discusses the potential for the team to reach the playoffs and the possibility of a three-way tie for the Eastern Conference that would've significantly extended the playoffs (had the Steagles won and the Redskins lost their final game). We may never know the truth about this bit of trivia, but we need to present the facts that are supported by research. Further, the rating of the article on WP quality scale should have no bearing on one's concern for the accuracy and verifiability of the facts contained therein; the length of this discussion is testament to the falsehood of your statement that "no one will care." With the evidence I have seen, I have no intention of re-inserting the statement, if that is what you are after here. Take care. — DeeJayK (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks for all your respones. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

List of first overall National Football League draft picks

I moved it to the discussion page. I think that's what you wanted me to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Deejayk. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm ^X 20:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

XCowan

He doesn't appear to have resumed vandalizing, so what point does this serve? --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It serves the point of documenting his behavior. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

His behavior is documented in the contribs. Please don't "pile on" warnings after the fact - it's a lot like sacking the quarterback after the play has been whistled dead. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for all your good work around here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NFL navbox

Template:NFL navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Lnhbm

Just a heads up that User:Lnhbm most definitely will not be responding to your message. I've left him too many messages and given him too many chances to justify his edits and he's never once replied. Feel free to revert all of his edits; you're not a mind reader and he won't tell you why he's doing them, so it's not inappropriate of you to revert all. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Since his edits aren't that severe I want to give him a chance to respond, but if I don't get a response I intend to do exactly as you suggest and revert the changes. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility reminder

I'm not trying to send no personal attacks. He was telling me to stop repeating myself and I was trying to continue my opinion that's all. I was just telling him, I was not repeating myself. There's no hard feelings. I was just trying to continue on what I was saying about the subject. I was making a strong case about the subject on what I felt about the changes regarding the word selection. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you understand on what I was saying. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I really can't say that I understand either your defense of your uncivil actions or your original point in the discussion. That said, I appreciate that you are aware of your actions and hope that you maintain a civil demeanor going forward. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Decertification of NFLPA

link=User talk:<TravisBernard>

Hello, Deejayk. You have new messages at [[User talk:<TravisBernard>|User talk:<TravisBernard>]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--

Oops, I tried using the talkback template, but it looks like I didn't do it right. I responded to your posts about the NFLPA on my talk page. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No sweat. I've never fully figured out the complexities of the Talkback template, either. I just replied to your response on your talk page and we can continue the discussion there if needed. Thanks. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, just responded again. --TravisBernard (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Pro Bowl referees sources

In this link http://www.pfraforum.org/index.php?showtopic=1986&view=&hl=NFLGSIS&fromsearch=1 the Pro Bowl gamebooks are adjunted, and there the game officials are listed. Unfortunelly, from this computer I can't update the links, I will try later. Gypaetus (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:American Football League articles by quality

Category:American Football League articles by quality, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — DeeJayK (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Radovich v. National Football League assessment

I respectfully beg to differ with this article being assessed as "low-importance", although I grant, after having read the NFL project's importance scale, I can understand why you might have considered it a subject "not required knowledge for a broad understanding of the topic".

While that would probably, alas, reflect the knowledge base of many NFL fans, I'd argue for at least mid-importance as "a topic that has a strong but not vital role in a thorough understanding of the National Football League" (emphasis mine).

The Court's holding in Radovich that professional football was not entitled to the same antitrust exemption it had upheld for baseball in Toolson v. New York Yankees just a few years earlier had profound consequences for professional team sports in general (neither basketball nor hockey would be able to claim the same exemption) and for the NFL in particular.

• Because the NFL could no longer engage in the kind of anticompetitive practices it had used to help kill the AAFC a decade earlier, the AFL was able to emerge and compete with the NFL successfully enough to eventually merge with it, changing the face of the NFL completely, giving us things like the Super Bowl and Monday Night Football. And, of course, we had the WFL, USFL and XFL—way more competition than MLB has had since the early years of the 20th century.

• Because the NFL doesn't have the blanket exemption baseball does, Bert Bell, Rozelle and all his successors have had to devote a large chunk of their time to lobbying Congress for exemptions for things like the merger and the TV contracts, much more so than any baseball commissioner has ever had to do. It's not a coincidence the current commissioner is the son of a former Representative and Senator and grew up in Washington.

• Because of the lack of an exemption, the players were able to get a court to grant them free agency in the late 1970s (which they almost immediately bargained away, a move that still hangs over the current state of the NFL's labor relations). And because of that same exemption, Al Davis was able to prevail in court and get the Raiders moved to Los Angeles despite the NFL's wishes otherwise (I can't imagine we wouldn't appreciate the significance of Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League as it was widely discussed at the time. In fact, we really should have an article on it) which led to all the franchise shifts of the 1990s and the league not having had a team in the country's second largest market for the last 18 years.

I would note by contrast that WikiProject Baseball assesses Federal Baseball Club v. National League, the case that granted the baseball antitrust exemption, as mid-importance. No one can deny that case's importance to how MLB has developed ever since.

The business history of the NFL doesn't always make the sports pages nor get adequate coverage when it does, but it's no less important to the league than more visible non-game or bio topics like NFL Films or the various stadia. Perhaps the assessment criteria need to take it into account better. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've been working to define and apply the "importance" parameter as it applies to the NFL project, so I'd love to get your input as to the criteria I've come up with. Obviously articles such as the one to which you are referring make up only a small percentage of articles in the project, so I feel that it might be best to just try to apply the general criteria for "importance" rather than try to define specific criteria for this project for these types of ancillary articles.

As I looked at this particular article, my first inclination was that the importance should maybe be "High" or at least "Mid", because it has obviously had a major impact on the business of the league. However, I further considered that I (an avid NFL fan for 30+ years and active member of the NFL project) had never actually heard of this lawsuit this article describes before I came across it on a list of articles to be assessed. I then made the consideration of how likely a researcher who is trying to gain a broad understanding of the league by reading WP would be to notice the absense of an article on this particular subject. After I applied this criteria, I determined that the article should be assessed as "Low-importance".

Please understand that an "importance" assessment is not a reflection of the quality of the article. You and other WP editors have done a great job with this article which is reflected in its B-class rating on the quality scale. Also, the assessment is not necessarily meant to be a relection on the importance of the lawsuit on the league; it's simply a judgement of how the topic relates to the NFL WikiProject.

All that said, my personal judgement on the importance of the article to the project represents just a single opinion. Your arguments have swayed me that the article should have at least a "Mid-importance" rating. Does that seem like the correct assessment to you, or do you feel that it should be assessed as more important? — DeeJayK (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it should probably be. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As an addendum to this, I highly recommend finding a way to get a copy of one of the sources I used, David Harris's The League: The Rise and Decline of the NFL, via one of the many ways linked here. One of the best business histories of the NFL, at least the period from the merger to the Raiders lawsuit. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I just added a hold for it at my library. Take care! — DeeJayK (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits at Art Rooney

Last May, you cut material at Art Rooneyregarding his attendance at Washington & Jefferson College. That material is referenced in the Tuma source: "Rooney later attended Georgetown and Duquesne universities and Washington & Jefferson College." I added it back in.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 NFL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfred Morris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:NFL predraft -> Template:NBA predraft

Since you have made a few edits at {{NFL predraft}}, I was hoping you might comment at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Template_request_for_NBA_Draft_Combine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Super Bowl

Per your request, I have updated my addition to make it a little more clear as well as adding a source. But your statement as to "we don't know if it will actually be cold", I mean technically you're right, but come on, it's New Jersey in February. But, to make it sound acceptable, I said "cold weather environment", I think that is acceptable, it doesn't say it will be played in cold weather, it says it will be played outdoors in a cold weather environment, to me there is a difference.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

My other thought is whether or not it is worth making a note of that in the header as well.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 NFL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Gonzalez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed — DeeJayK (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)