User talk:Chrisjnelson

			]	]
Talk (message)	Awards	Contributions	Edit Count	Logs	Subpages

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Shouldn't you wait until the physicals before posting the change? Raul17 (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. Shut up, and leave me alone. RevanFan (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't be an idiot.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You stop being such a jack*** and treating me like garbage. RevanFan (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Although one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, we would like to remind you not to undo other people's edits, as you did to the page Template:Detroit Lions roster, without explaining why in an edit summary. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Thank you. Also please be civil. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Derek Morris (American football) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, notability not claimed or asserted

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CutOffTies (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's done now...except Oakland. They "announced" 21 cuts, but said there was still one to come, so keep a lookout on that. Otherwise every team is at 53 except for the Seahawks/Eagles (Andrews trade - 54/52) and fhe Texans, who announced 24 cuts/IR from 75, which is 51, plus Ward minus Cushing. I've moved all the suspended players over to the reserve lists and double-checked that there's no active/X players left. Obviously, tomorrow is practice squads. We can worry about returners/positions/numbers next week. I'll check out Ourlads/PFW for the waived/injured guys we missed tomorrow, along with anything else (IS's) that we missed. Pats1 ^T/C 01:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

53 players listed as active on Raiders.com, might wanna double-check with template. Someone's on it that isn't on the site.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Rob Rose (American football). The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How the frick do they have 10 PS players? RevanFan (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously two weren't signed or have been cut. Keep an eye out.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. RevanFan (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change the staff template, the team infobox, and Parcells' infobox, or has nothing changed titularly? Pats1 ^T/C 02:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's a "daily consultant" but I don't know what has changed as far as his title. I think we can assume his pay hasn't changed haha. And he's still watching every practice like always. I assume it just has more to do with giving Ireland more final say. But until the website changes something (or he leaves, which will probably be soon) I guess it should stay how it is.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CJN, my compliments on your handiwork in creating the Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer. Nice work. Would it be possible to modify the template coding so that the team field links to the player's football team page (e.g. "Florida Gators football"), and not the generic athletic program page (e.g. "Florida Gators")? I have seen this done for other college football templates, but it is beyond my meager wiki template editing skills. Obviously, it would be preferable to link to the football team page. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American football punt returners, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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.

Hi Chris, Earlier this year the community decided that all new biographies of Living People must have a source. As you are still creating unreferenced BLPs I'm afraid I've had to remove your wp:Autopatrolled flag as that has made it difficult for newpage patrollers to spot your new articles and tag them for referencing or deletion. We really appreciate your contributions, and if you would just start citing your sources I, or would hope any admin at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled will happily restore that flag. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His NFL.com profile says "Cord Howard", as well as his Georgia Tech bio. The only place where he is called "Cordaro" is at the Bills website. I thought the NFL.com stat pages were considered to be the most accurate? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Went by the Bills website.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I wasn't sure what to name it when I created it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jonathon Amaya has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Derild4921☼ 22:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moss has not been waived yet. Childress announced he would be waived yesterday, he was not waived. Childress has said he would be waived today. He has not been Waived yet. Zygi Wilf is working on the situation. Thinks may change or they may not but as of right now Moss is still on the Vikings roster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballguyca (talk • contribs) 15:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Moss has not officially been placed on waivers yet. You want to think he has yet you can provide no proof other than a statement from Childress dated yesterday that said he WOULD BE WAIVED. He has not been waived yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballguyca (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Matt Kopa has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 23:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's pretty much an automatic tagging of an article: any biography created now which does not cite any reliable sources is subject to tagging for proposed deletion as an unsourced biography of a living person. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jermaine Hardy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Current NFL GMs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 Atlanta Braves season game log has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Casey Hansen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP for over a year. Did not play a game in the NFL or Arena Football League, so fails the American football section of WP:NSPORTS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dominic Douglas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP for almost a year. Subject has not played a professional NFL match and therefore fails the American football criteria of WP:NSPORTS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ronald Talley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Although currently on a team roster, he hasn't played an NFL match (or a match in any other professional league) and therefore fails the American football requirements of WP:NSPORTS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove Ben Garland? RevanFan (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't there before, I just reverted the most recent version.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's on their Reserve/Military list. RevanFan (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't before today's IP edits. Pats removed him a while back.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was on there as of December 30. The edit before the Pats edited for the pre-offseason conversion. RevanFan (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't you be talking to Pats1...?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 13:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will. RevanFan (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly landed on Chris Frome, an article you created. It doesn't look to me like it passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Am I mistaken? If not, I'll propose it for deletion.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I don't think "it's a biography, it happened" remotely justifies restoring this content to the Cade McNown article. BLPs absolutely do not include everything that "happened," and I really am having trouble understanding why you think this information belongs in our article. I'd appreciate it if you could respond to the points I make on Talk:Cade McNown in the "Legal History" section. Thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing since I left the above note but have not discussed the issue so I have reverted your recent edit, in part in the hope that you will discuss the issue on the article talk page. It's much better to hash out the matter on the talk page rather than trading reverts. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't really care.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right then. You reverted me twice so I figured you cared at least somewhat, but if you want to let the matter rest then I obviously have no problem with that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dorian Brooks has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kudpung (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You insulted me again, so I have to notify you that I reported you to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. RevanFan (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, you are a bitch.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot express how little I care.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Julius McClellan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CollegeSecondaryColor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CollegePrimaryColor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this page. It has a lot of apparently signed UDFAs, and it is constantly being updated. RevanFan (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean he's a street free agent? All I know is that all free agents, minus undrafted ones, cannot sign until Friday. Plus, he has only agreed to terms with the Colts, so from what I can tell, it's not official.--Giants27(T|C) 17:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This report also says that he cannot sign until Friday.--Giants27(T|C) 17:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was signable before the league year began because he was cut by Seattle. He's not a UFA in the new league year.

Also, I just don't care.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, whatever.--Giants27(T|C) 17:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waivers aren't even open until Thursday. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think that you may be interested in weighing in on this discussion about "offensive guards". Cheers,--Giants27(T|C) 01:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You happy about Taylor coming back to Miami? RevanFan (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I mean even if you ignore the sentimental stuff, the Dolphins needed OLB depth like crazy and he's still very capable of that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dorian Brooks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT, has never made an appearance

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Giants27(T|C) 21:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that he was on the active roster? NFL.com has nothing.--Giants27(T|C) 22:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was promoted to the active roster with Maurkice Pouncey went on IR.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW he wasn't even activated for the Super Bowl. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was on the active roster, plain and simple.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not help him pass WP:NSPORT or WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the policy should be changed. If he'd been on the Packers' he'd bee a Super Bowl champion. Being on the 53-man roster of a Super Bowl team is a bigger accomplishment than being the most prolific player in arena history.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he played in that game, yes, but he didn't. And no, the most prolific arena football player would still be more notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wouldn't. The NFL is the top level of the sport, and for a person in the AFL, no matter how good they might be, to have never reached the NFL, they can never be as accomplished as someone that has. Brooks is an AFC champion and was a full pay-scale member of the Steelers during their Super Bowl appearance in February 2011. The simply fact is ANY player EVER on an NFL active roster during the season is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start a discussion at WT:NSPORT, go ahead, but as of now, the policy states only players who have actually played in an NFL game are notable enough for inclusion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can just use are heads and behave that way now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll use my head and my fingers and nominate the article (or should I say, sentence) for deletion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're better than that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nate Ness.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#www.arenafan.com. NThomas (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I have no right to revert the removal of messages from a talk page, but what you were doing was removing the original block template and rewriting it, which could be considered disruptive editing. Currently, both the original block message and a rewritten block message are on your talk page. I suggest you remove the rewritten version and keep the original, as the rewritten version is distracting to editors that come to this talk page. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 04:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well after reviewing WP policy, I see that notices on bans should not be removed by users. So I restored it. But think of the one at the top as "decoration." I don't think my talk page (especially while I'm serving my lovely ban) will garner much traffic and lead to confusion. I doubt anyone here is dumb enough for that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the talk page guidelines, you should not alter another editor's comments, and I'm sure this applies to block templates, as well. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 04:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the blue-on-black renders the linked phrases unreadable anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that depends on the computer's resolution, since I can read them perfectly fine. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 04:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally unreadable, just difficult. If I drag the mouse over a link, it converts to light blue, which is much easier to read. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that he reworded the block notice and placed this reworded message on top of his talk page. Again, I suggest removing that message. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 05:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving it be, for the short term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Frome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Frome until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Giants27(T|C) 02:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dorian Brooks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian Brooks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Giants27(T|C) 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are now blocked indefinitely for evading your block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chrisjnelson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 22:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Utah Thunder roster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Keon Lattimore has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Never played an NFL match, so fails WP:NSPORTS, and doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You already have contested your block, and that alone is sufficient to bring it to admin attention - there's no need for an additional help request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be willing to do that. I've been blocked because of what I consider to be speaking my mind and being truthful, although this obviously violates rules about respect, profanity, insults, etc. I really just want to be able to contribute and I don't anticipate any altercations that could result in further offenses of my behavior.

Yeah but no response!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to post a new unblock request that addresses the issues posed to you previously, else an admin won't take action. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AN request is at Wikipedia:Ani#User:Chrisjnelson unblock request. If you wish to add any comments, please place them here and I, or someone else, will copy them over for you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting at ANI. I can't excuse anything I've done in the past and I realize the block log is extensive. But I would ask that I not receive a lifetime ban after all my contributions to the encyclopedia, but rather just get one more chance to show I can be a positive member of the community, not just in contributions but also in interactions with other members. If this is indeed not intended to be a permanent ban, then I'm saying now that I am ready for that chance to return and prove that I can avoid the sort of behavior that got be blocked in the past. I just want to keep football rosters up to date and help shape player article--not fight with others or be abusive. Thanks for listening.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the support for my unblock on the ANI board. I am unsure what email from 9/2/11 that User:Drmies is referring to, however, so if he could be asked about that I would appreciate it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email in a couple of seconds. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I briefly engaged in sockpuppetry because I wanted to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia, but I realize that I was the one that lost that privilege and that the intentions of my edits are irrelevant when I've already received a block. I do not anticipate being blocked again if I'm reinstated (I'm more mature, married now, ha!) so sockpuppetry would not be an issue.02:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• So, I'm not a cock? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I take it back!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Chris. Congratulations on your marriage also. Let me give you some advice: she's always right, and taupe, or mauve, whatever they may be, is the color you've always wanted in a house. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome back, Chris. Obviously the drama creeps are gonna have you under a huge microscope from now until forever, so be sure to keep the nose to the grindstone and the verbal to yourself. Best wishes! Carrite (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you or visa versa... Just wanted to say I agree with you 100%. I was writing to add some facts to make him even less important. I'm just conservative about a speedy (probably seeing so many newbies doing speedies) and my saying "I don't know" is just that, I don't know... I'd be fine if it was speedied or Proded. If the article doesn't get speedily deleted, I will vote delete at AfD. Irregardless, good catch on seeing that article and tagging it. Bgwhite (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't mean to sound combative, I realize you essentially agreed. I was just expounding.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were not combative at all. I was just unsure of the meaning of your comments. It's Sunday, so I was with my wife all day... which means I was wrong all day log and second guessing my words all day. I guess it has spilled over into Wikiland. Crap, she's coming, I need to go and give my sorry speech :) Bgwhite (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahah.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you removed the speedy? Bgwhite (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like some didn't think it was worthy of that. I'm not entirely sure about this process.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem in you requesting a speedy delete for the article. Personally, I don't know what I would have done, but I completely understand anyone requesting a speedy on the article. Next time, leave it up for an admin to decide. Another editor has started an AfD, so I guess it is time to go vote delete.

I see the block messages up above, so I'll say it again in case an Admin is reading this... You have done nothing wrong and you have been wonderful to work with. Bgwhite (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but don't underestimate my ability to be a tremendous asshole from time to time.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alabama Vipers roster 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. Jenks24 (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Corey White has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article's subject fails WP:ATHLETE

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SudoGhost 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Will Billingsley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:FOOTBALL Notability guidelines. Never played in a professional game. College career not notable either.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 12:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Brown (fullback) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Brown (fullback) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing it back. In the English you say it phonetically M-I-C, not M-A-C and aplehbetically it is McC so even if you took out the small C there is another C. And putting in speculation saying "We'll see if he is a FB" I am pretty sure is against the rules. Please refer to this: "The Patriots signed veteran DB Derrick Martin and veteran FB Kareem Huggins today" http://www.patriots.com/news/article-1/Patriots-sign-two-Veteran-G-Robert-Gallery-retires/bcba3166-5242-416d-a655-1cd44903dc3b They list him as being signed as a FB, so he is a FB. Plus common sense says he will eb a FB replacing Fiammetta who is leaving the team because of a family emergency. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect--Mc gets sorted as Mac. As far as Huggins goes, he's never played fullback before and he's vastly undersized for the position, so I'm not convinced. I understand he's replacing Fiammetta on the roster, but they do have two fullbacks remaining and Huggins just doesn't fit the profile of the position, so it's possible the press release is mistaken.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who else say Mac, but since it's a preference between people, it shouldn't take over for alphabetical order. And it doesn't matter what his tangibles say, or what you believe, when all reports are saying FB, it is a FB. Wikipedia is a not a place for speculation Wikipedia:Speculation. Please also refer to this (rules of alphabetical order http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/recmgmt/forms/FilingRules.pdf?mswitch-redir=classic) and this (http://www.mhhe.com/business/buscom/gregg/docs/appc.pdf) if you would like to learn how to properly alphabetize. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, those don't look like Wikipedia links.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No but those are the proper rules. Also, please refer to Eagles247 user talk page at the bottom as he said this "He's tried to do the "McCourty goes before Mailei" thing several times before, and several discussions (which went nowhere) were started. I'm on your side in that debate." So please stop flipping his name or I'll report you and this time, you won't be able to beg yourself out of another ban. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me--I'm not getting banned for doing nothing wrong.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. I am just simply stating that you are getting into an edit war. And you are wrong, so what you are doing is considered spamming. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes absolutely no sense. I didn't do anything you didn't do. I had evidence to back up my edit just as you did. We were simply on different sides. But my edits had support and you were edit-warring just as I was, so don't talk to me like I'm at risk of something.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dan Burks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

He never played a professional game. Not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 15:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're changing colors for the Dolphins on the NFL color template. I don't have any issue with that, however, you accidentally changed the Patriots colors. I undid the action. Srsrox (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mean to change the Dolphins. (And I was actually on wrong template, meant to change AltPrimary.) Thanks for fixing.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! Here to help. Srsrox (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddie Pleasant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Safety (American football) (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) 11:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's an unrestricted FA?! I always thought that players coming off their first contracts were restricted. Raul17 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the type of UFA that you are depends on accrued seasons. An accrued season is 6+ games in a season on 53-man roster or IR. 0-2 accrued seasons = ERFA. 3 accrued seasons = RFA. 4+ accrued seasons = UFA. Smith has four since that was the length of his deal, so he's a UFA.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Raul17 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are practice squad players free agents after the season ends? In other words, should they be removed from the roster navbox/have their pages changed to read free agent? ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all practice squad players become free agents when the team's season ends. It is impossible to have a multi-year contract with a practice squad player. They are free agents until signing "future" contracts with a team, usually their old team that wants to bring them back for camp.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for all those transactions, as far as who they've signed? I'm not saying they didn't happen, but giants.com isn't reporting it, neither is espn.com. They're not listed on either roster either. Kjscotte34 (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Press release from NFLMedia.com.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw something earlier, but it was for Reserve/Future contracts. Do we normally do a different column for that? Kjscotte34 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only with teams that are still alive in "2012" season, like the Colts. For the Giants, "the future is now" so to speak so they can be with everyone else under contract in 2013. Only guys we sort out are the free agents--guys with expiring deals this offseason.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ryan Dougherty has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability guidelines. Never played a professional game.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I wanted to follow up regarding our previous discussion. I have been reviewing the formatting of infobox honors for players who were Pro Bowl selections during the past five years, and conforming the formatting of their infobox honors to the established consensus practices and the examples provided at Template:Infobox NFL player. Contrary to our conversation, most of the Pro Bowl alternates are not distinguished from the Pro Bowl primary selections. If you want to maintain the distinction, you may want to review the alternates listed in the Pro Bowl articles and add the word "alternate" to the infobox Pro Bowl honors as appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USA Today All-Joe Team has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ZappaOMati 00:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Miami Dolphins logo 2013.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the upload of the new Dolphins logo. However, it's very helpful to include the replaced logo in the article, with the relevant information (e.g. it's era of use within in the Dolphin's franchise). Failing to do so results in the former digital artifact being orphaned, and thus tagged for deletion (and sent to the digital graveyard).Opertinicy (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your input on the Josh Bellamy situation, I doubt you asking a Chiefs player about it will help but was the inquiry on twitter perhaps maybe to a player who's account is verified? If it is post a link to the inquiry on RevanFan's talkpage. I doubt it will work but it's worth a shot because the ones that edit those pages are stubborn.--Rockchalk717 18:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm friends with one of the players. I just asked him.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Branden Ore has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on E. J. Cochrane requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chad Johnson (cornerback) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence he meets WP:ATHLETE, never played 1 NFL game, lack of sourcing for GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article DeMichael Dizer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:Athlete

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ibadibam (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Van Pope is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Pope until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wizardman 23:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article USA Today All-Joe Team has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this award meets WP:GNG, non-notable sporting award, tagged for notability for two years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Secret ^account 15:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walter McFadden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter McFadden until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jacona (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]