User talk:Bigmaninthebox

You gravely misunderstand copyright. The AP releases their teams to every media outlet in the world. The Associated Press is the most-cited and copied source on Wikipedia. None of their articles are copyrighted. You would have to remove almost this entire website to remove what is copied verbatim from the AP. And the AP teams are listed in sports encyclopedias such as pro-football-reference.com.

If you want to add the other teams, from the Sporting News, etc, knock yourself out. Just add them in their own section from the AP teams. --2008Olympian^chitchat 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is 2008 All-Pro team, not "Associated Press 2008 All-Pro Team". If you want to start a new one and it is not a COPYVIO, then fine. But Wikis policy is open editing so you don't own the articel. But don't start an edit war please.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DCsniper207 (talk) has been undoing your edits to 2008 All-Pro Team. I undid them and fixed the new references to proper cite web format.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DCSNiper is an awful name to use. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your additions to the all-pro articles. However, you are overlinking them. Please see WP:OVERLINK. Only one link per team or player name per article. See the NFL draft pages for examples: 2008 NFL Draft, etc. note that they only link the team and college names once in the article, all other subsequent uses of the names are not linked.--2008Olympian^chitchat 14:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for the compliment, however, while you may be right, why do you have to come in and "fix" things so fast? What I am doing is a lot a work. WHen I type them up, it is easier to get in the habit of doing it one way, then, I see you come in and just accuse me of some crime of "overlinking", whatever that is. Look, I don't particularly care for the winkilinks anyway . . . but what I don't like, either, is wokring a lot to improve the All-pro team, complete them, then have someone accuse me of "overlinking". I guess all I ask is that you talk about things before you come in and just change them. I think, in this case, you may be right. But, your attitude is troubling . . . why not let it lie for a day or two? Why not wait until more of the teams are up? You can see I am working on them . . . give it a breather. It is this type of display that prompted me to do all this work . . . you came in and changes all the All-pros on many of the players to what you thought it should be . . . even though your references were simply wiki references . . . circular . . . you then (I think) made the mistaken assumption that AP All-pro is the only all-pro . . . contray to history and common reference materiels. So, chill out --- let's get some more of these done and discuss it, maybe there are other opinions other than yours and mine. Let's go through the process. Now, wikie has many mroe all-pro teams that are "at the ready" without having to refer to pro football reference or Total Football II. That's a good thing.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with 2008Olympian that the NFL All-Pro articles (example) are overlinked. If you refer to the standards, there is clearly an exemption to the normal overlinking standards for items in a table where each row should be able to stand on its own. I believe that these articles fit that bill. Keep up the good work, Bigmaninthebox. - Deejayk (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and for the record, I like the all-pros in the navboxes . . . keep up good work. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding Alphonse Dotson, I'm concerned that the reference given does not cover all the facts stated; for example, I can't see where it says that "he was All-American in 1964", "Dotson was a First-team All-American in 1964" or "His son is Santana Dotson, himself a former All-American and 1993 Defensive Rookie of the Year.".

As this is a WP:BLP, we have to be particularly careful that all the facts are supported by verifiable, [[WP:RS|reliable sources.

Please let me know if it will be possible to correct these issues. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will able to be corrected . . . I just created it a few minutes ago and was getting references, etc. So, just give it some time and the article will be improved.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding; I'll do that, and check it later. In future, please remember that Wikipedia is live - if you need time to build the article, do so in your user area (such as User:Bigmaninthebox/mytest etc). Everything on mainspace must be supported by verifiable, reliable sources. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  09:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your spelling. Don't need to thank me, I help lots of people on Wikipedia who don't have English as their first language. For the record, while you did follow the regular form, there's an exception to the "-ing" suffix rule involving [see, like right there] verbs whose infinitives end in "e". Carry on.

so it was you who thought my previous name DCsniper207 should be changed what was so bad about it AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Graham is consensus second-team All-American with no first-team recognition according to the five lists that matter. In order that the reader not be misled, I have partially reverted your change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a section at WT:CFB for this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Brandon Graham (American football) to good article status.

Thanks for your involvement in the development of Brandon Graham (American football) which has become a WP:GA in recent months. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with all that award navbox templates! Just wanted to let you know I appreciate. --bender235 (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OBviously feel free to make changes, I tried to make colors different, but night blinding so they fit togetehr and that that each award had a different color. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change the colors, they are meant to match up with the Roster templates.--Yankees10 20:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I want to take it up with the NFL group. My way looks a lot better with the border. So, I won't change them and we can change them back . . . but there is no reason they need to match the roster tempatesBigmaninthebox (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it not match up with the roster templates, that makes no sense, why would they be different.--Yankees10 20:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to discuss it with one person. Sorry, now. Let me get a few examples to show muw much better my way looks. If your way wins out, fine. But let me get a few examples, you don't need to change everything within the next 11 seconds and follow my edits around. Let's have a discussion with the group.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said to discuss it with one person, I never said not to bring it to WP:NFL. Also all you have to do is link it to one of the revision historys. Example:[1]. And no I was not following your edits around I have these templates on my watchlist, people really like to assume things.--Yankees10 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please don't start an edit war over this. Bigmaninthebox, just lay off undoing all of Yankees' undos until a clear consensus is reached. Yankees is right though that you can just use a revision history link instead of a current link. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war Eagles247. None at all. I was making changes I thought were okay and Yankess 10 followed by edits around. It is Yankees 10 who has the problem. I just needed a few examples to take to the NFL project discussion page and he was changing things while I was trying to work. He was following me around from what I could tell and before I could get the examples I needed in the way I know how he was overreacting. He has now reverted all my edits as was his goal. He is being quite uncivil. I didn't do anything wrong. I was just trying to improve wiki. Now, I am fine with a consensus from the NFL project. It was Yankees 10 that was all over me in 2 seconds and being rude and telling me my good faith efforts made no sense. I didn't say his way "made no sense", I just let him revert all of my efforts until a consensus is reached. I don't know what else I could have done to make him happy.Bigmaninthebox

Regardless, there is a discussion started and you are both welcome to go there are discuss Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#retired numbers Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read about half of your above comment, you really need to grow up--Yankees10 20:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being civil.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) To Bigmaninthebox: I'm not worried about who was right or wrong, but you two kept undoing each other more than the maximum three times. Yankees really just wants what's best for the templates in a very passionate manner. He doesn't mean to come off like that, it's just how he is.

(Reading the comment above from Yankees): That's not very civil Yankees. This user is trying to improve Wikipedia, and even though you disagree, there is no need to criticize him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not revert 3 times. I needed to get the code so I could go to the discussion page, that's all. I only went back to the VIkigns, Titans and Packers to get code. Now he tells me to grow up. Great. I want what is best for the templates, too. I have started a discussion and he can go there. But I was not in an edit war, if I wanted to do that I would have followed his edits around and reverted them. I didn't do that. I simply was enjoying wikipedia and I got attacked for it and now, you seem to defend his actions as "passionate". Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Titans Retired Numbers history, there was an edit war. And if he wasn't passionate about the NFL, he wouldn't be arguing with you about how a template should look. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you count you can see I made a change. Then it was reverted, then while I was trying to get the code and didn't get it he reverted a second time. I then got the code to use on the discussion page and told him "gimme 5 seconds". Then he reverted for the third time. I made a change, and reverted 2 times. He reverted 3 times, vilating the 3 revert rule. I did not revert 3 times. If I went back now and reverted that would be my 3rd revert. The first one was a good-faith edit. The only reason I needed a second revert is because he was there the exact same time and I wasn;t able to get the cose I needed. I am no Wiki genius, I sometimes have to do things the way I understand how. So, now, it seems you want to act as some sort of judge and jury. Our actions were not the same, I was accepting his objection and preparing a discussion and he was reverting the very second I was trying to get info. WHy are you defending him? Why are my passions not as important as his? They should be equal? I understand his point, he wants things to be consistent with the roster inforboxes. I get it. It's a fair point. I simply disagree and think others may agree with me. Maybe you should go to the discussion page and comment. I wasn't in an edit war and I did not revert 3 times. I made one edit, reverted twice (one extra to get the wiki code I needed). I said that and it is the truth. Frankly, are you trying to take sides or somehting? Just a question.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answering all your questions in order: Regardless, orginially I was just telling you two not to start an edit war. I'm just trying to arbitrate this situation so no one gets blocked from editing by violating the 3 revert rule. I am not just defending him to you, I am also trying to defend you to him. Both of your passions are equal, since you both love the NFL. I already commented on the discussion on the NFL page. I am not trying to take sides, I am just trying to figure out if we can all understand each other's viewpoint and settle this. You are both good editors, just different. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to break the 3RR and didn't. I had and have no intention of being in an edit war over this. If my way wins out fine, if others feel differently, no problem. If the old way is prefered there will be no complaint by me. You seems to think it's a little distracting, that's a fair point, and it's your opinion. I respect your opinion and Yankees10, both your views are valid and as important as mine. If the rest of the NFL project people agree then fine. I don't think my way is the only way. It was a suggestion, I created the Rams retired number and like the way it looked, so I wanted to see what others looked like. The more I did them, the better each one looked, I hadn't even done all of them and then had a chance go to the player pages for all the players to see if they looked distracting or if they were too colorful or busy. I also wanted to see if a 1 px border might look good, or less dsitracting. So, I have no problem with any of this except getting juped like I was breaking a rule or something when all I was doing was editing and I had seen nothing in the NFL project talk pages preventing it. Maybe there is some archived discussion, I didn't check. But I am not here to edit war.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did the 1px look? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, found it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#retired numbers I put up examples so you can form your own opinion.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for my uncivil comment, the reason why I said that is because Im tired of being accused of following peoples edits. You are not the only one who has accused me of this. I have over 2000 pages on my watchlist and some times it may seem that I am following edits, but in reality all I am doing is ust checking my watchlist.--Yankees10 20:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. Everything is cool. If your way wins out, I am fine with it. I like my suggested way nd you like the old way, neither of us is right or wrong, it's just a difference of opinion. However the NFL project decides is fine by me, if your old way is the consensus, no problem on my end.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to tell you something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.154.38 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided at 2009 College Football All-America Team for the ESPN team is broken (sort of).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see that. Maybe there will be a better one. Okay, found one, it is fixed. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, why did you remove the labeling of consensus All-Americans? --bender235 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because it wasn't done on all of them. If it means a great deal to you, fine, but I wanted all the ALL articles to be consistent and since the teams the NCAA uses for consensus changes over the years, I wanted these articles to let the reader see who made what teams whoith having the NCAA tell them what is what. The article tells them what consensus is and which teams make up the consensus teams, but I think it's clear that the guys on top are the consensus ones. TI thing the NCAA has too much control, anyway and I don;t want wiki to have to follow their rules. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bender, why are you like that? Can't you see that the consensus theing is inconsistent by the NCAA over the last 100 years. . .why do you want the 2008 and 2008 teams to have bolding. but the 1967 and 1968 to not having bolding? Are you aware that the teams used b ythe NCAA changes every few years? Why is it necessary? You don't have to be so aggessive in your moves. I have supported you in several things . . . but you seem to really like to fight, I could be wrong, but man why nt discuss. The Sporting NEw s for example is new to the NCAA's official list, why is that magazine part of the consensus group now when it was not in 1969? What changed? I have a very good knowledge in research and the history of these articles, which is why I started them. I welcome you help and so forth, but let's act adult about this and not say I changed something "for no reason". There is not a need to be uncivil Bender235.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was upset by something else, and therefore reacted kinda harsh. I did not meant to be "uncivil". However, I still believe we should denote consensus All-Americans, and could do so on all the other All-American years as we go along. --bender235 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, it's in teh past. But who is willing to look up which teams were "consensus" teams 30 yars ago? Are you going to do it? The teams, for example, Sporting News, were not incluided. Some years Central Press was inlcuded ,some years it was not. Some years AP was not even included. It is a mess. Unless they are all done, I'd like to keep them the same. The reader can make the judgment. No? Let's try it this way and if we need to get a vote, we can. But I must admit, I did a lot of work creating and researching 50 years of these teams and I think it looks great, informative and clean. So, if there is a time someone must have the consensus teams then they should sit down and do them all at once, with verifiction, which is the wiki standard. Until then, poeple can look at this and see a good job with all the major all-america teams without the opinion of the NCAA. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for thought. For the player to make consensus he has to make 3 of the NCAA approved AA teams. However, those teams are inconsistent, like this year they chose more defensive tackles than ends, so for example, Derrick Morgan was not a "consenssus" pick, so in 2009 the NCAA has only 1 consensus DE and 3 consensus DTs, It is compeltely arbutrary and we don't have to follow the NCAA at wikipedia, we can write fair, unbiased articles based on verifiable criteria. Teams don't line up with 3 DTs and 1 DE.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TonytheTiger put in a navbox with the consensus chouces . . . which is a good copromise, I thinkBigmaninthebox (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's do it this way. --bender235 (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please start putting the correct links in templates. For example in the Template:Florida Gators All-Century Football Team I had a fix a bunch of the links because they were either directed to a disambiguation page or someone else. I have seen you do that a lot, so can you like fix them.--Yankees10 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you should really finish the Template:SEC Legends first before adding it to player pages.--Yankees10 17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, how are you getting the list of players that are on the template:SEC Legends.--Yankees10 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEC Football LegendsBigmaninthebox (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Im really confused then how come you keep removing the colors from the heading and changing them all to white.--Yankees10 06:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a vote and a consensus, here is he discussion and the link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Updated nav boxesBigmaninthebox (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That honestly though makes no sense, why should the V,D,E and hide/show have color but the heading does not.--Yankees10 06:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense. It shows all the colors of the team. They have black helmets, purple shirts and a little bit of gold trim adn white numbers. It looks great.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt make sense to me, considering there both something you have to read and I thought the whole point of the white was to make it easier to read, but whatever.--Yankees10 06:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "v•d•e" in the templates should always be the same color as the title (usually white). It looks more simple and consistent this way. ~ Richmond96 t • c 01:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

I dunno, I think using all the colors is better, silver is not a main color, but black is the color of their alterate jerseys, mzybe that should by a concern, no?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just think its best to keep all the font colors in the title the same because it looks better. I didn't use the black border because you can barely see it.

Another example:

It is just simpler and, in my opinion, better looking. ~ Richmond96 t • c 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, due to WP:COLOR, it is best to have white font color whenever there is a colored background. ~ Richmond96 t • c 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know I just think it looks better. Why not keep it simple?? Plus, the Eagles have a lot of silver in their color scheme in their logo and helmet. It's not just about the Eagles or even about NFL templates. Its pretty much a custom to make the vde color the same as the font color. ~ Richmond96 t • c 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the VDE aiside, you've make a good case for that. But the Eagles do not have a lot of silver, it's what is considered an accent color, their colors are green, black and white. Silver is just not in there, now, if you are talking the 1980s or 1970s Eagles, then yes, they used silver, but "not lookining good" or it "looks better" is not enought of a justification to not use the team colors. right?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its enough justification but if you don't think so, then we can use black. The main thing is the VDE which I think should be color of the title. ~ Richmond96 t • c 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to solicit your input on some improvement suggestions I've made for the 2009 All-Pro Team article and, more broadly, to all of the other All-Pro Team articles as well. I know that you've done a lot of work in this area, so I just wanted to see what you think. Please take a look and respond on the article talk page. — Deejayk (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I know you like to create templates, how about the The 70 Greatest Redskins--Yankees10 06:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THat's a good one. I will do it. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! A deserving award for your tireless work:

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I award you this barnstar for your tireless work on the editing and creating of templates, keep up the great work! Yankees10 06:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, great work on all those templates, man. Well deserved barnstar. I have another question: for the Patriots templates, what do you think the font color should be, white or grey? The grey looks good, but all other teams have white font.

What do you think? Personally, I like the white better because it matches all the other teams. ~ Richmond96 t • c 02:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I agree that the Rams and Raiders would look good that way and it is surely readable. However, I still think that all letters for all teams should be white. This is because it is consistent and there is absolutely no question about readability. Perhaps we should get a third opinion? ~ Richmond96 t • c 05:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, what I'm saying is that there should be a standard for all NFL team navboxes: white letters, primary color background and secondary color border. I think it is best to be consistent. ~ Richmond96 t • c 05:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying I am right. Your view is as valid as mine. I guess I think consistency is good, but sometimes there are exceptions to rules. Like in life, it is good to be consistent, but then there are times you have to make an exception and 2 teams out of 32 won't give any real apearance of inconsistency. Again, it is only my opinion and it's worth only what it is worth. I am not always that smart. Trust me.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we need to get a consensus on the Hall of fame templates, I don't think the blue and gold with no borber does the honor of the Hall of Fame justice. Again, just my opinion, but it looks kind of weak to me.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we can't make up our minds. I think we need another opinion. ~ Richmond96 t • c

Okay, fine by me. Also, what do you think of the HOF templates? Sould we try and get a consensus for those, or are you okay with them. The Hall of Fame logo is kind of a deep blue with a deep red, I could also see it with an old gold (Saint's kind of old gold) trim, something that looks like the ultimate . . . a blue ribbon mixed with a gold medal?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what HOF templates you are talking about. ~ Richmond96 t • c 05:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ewww, your right those are ugly. I think blue and red would do well because the logo is blue and red (Don't get the gold). Perhaps a Colts blue with a Texans red border? ~ Richmond96 t • c 05:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like this?

~ Richmond96 t • c 05:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looks good to meBigmaninthebox (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still like the first one. ~ Richmond96 t • c 15:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I do too, unless there is objection, I think the first one should be used. It looks like the HOF colors. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bills logo color is the lighter, more AFL-Bills blue and their uniforms are a darker, modern-day Bills blue. Which should be used? ~ Richmond96 t • c 06:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one I don't know. They wear theoir throwbacks twice a year . . . but the current uni is navy . . . tough one. Maybe the is someone who is a Bills contributer who has a preference, right now, I'd say medium blue to tie it to the AFl days, the 1990s Super Bowl and to today . . . but I would be fine with the navy blue, too.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the AFL blue looks better because it is in the logo and, well, it looks better. ~ Richmond96 t • c 15:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, once again, another problem. I made the changes the the Pats templates but they were immediately reverted. User:Chrisjnelson said the silver gave it a Patriots look. So... I don't know what to do now. ~ Richmond96 t • c 15:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one. But if there is a consensus. I happen to disagree on Pats but I can live with it, but I happen to agree with chris on this one and Giants 27, there is not a need for 100% unity. I think the white was a good idea for the reasons we started teh consensus, but there as stated I think there is room for exceptions, if the Pats "look" is with silver then I will go with 3 expetions, Pats, Raiders and Rams.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Patriots should be silver since there's no need for unity. The colors are to differentiate between the teams and the silver makes it 100% certain that it's the Pats. The Bills should be their color today not the past since the past doesn't matter when every color is supposed to be the colors from today. So to me there is no issue with either one.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I agree that the darker blue should be used. ~ Richmond96 t • c 16:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were involved in the page, I thought I should let you know that I overhauled it and nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 College Football All-America Team/archive1.-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting this one started

This user helped promote 2009 College Football All-America Team to featured list status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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) 19:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like being bullied as I was on 9/24/10. My efforts were dismissed and the process there wasd a joke. I do not want this userright. Those who have userrgihts abuse them, as was done to me today. No admin cared about that. So, you all are better off without my efforts.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article USFL All-Time Team 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/USFL All-Time Team 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. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 All-Pro Team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Earl Thomas (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) 11:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eric Stevens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fullback (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) 11:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have made several 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)[reply]

Template:UCLA All-Century has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Secret ^account 01:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Pro Football Writers Association NFL Defensive Player of the Year (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Joe Greene, Bruce Smith, James Harrison, Jack Lambert, Robert Quinn, Jason Taylor and Clay Matthews

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St. Louis Rams Ed Block Courage Award has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Secret ^account 20:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ethan Westbrooks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franklin High School (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) 08:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legend of the Year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 All-Pro Team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doug Martin. 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) 09:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FHSAA's All-Century 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. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bigmaninthebox, I have nominated a series of NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards navboxes, some of which you created, for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SEC Football Legends 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFL Alumni Career Achievement Award has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian American Sports Hall of Fame has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Football coaching film director, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GPL93 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Coaching film director, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GPL93 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not know, this was rejected earlier today at Draft:Video Directors by Praxidicae earlier today. Please do not try to WP:GAME the system. Also, what is your relationship with Footballclips? You are pretty clearly coordinating edits on this subject. GPL93 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Stifle, an administrator. I've changed the permissions on your account to remove the Autopatrolled and pending change reviewer rights. I have done this because your account has been inactive for an extended period, and while you have made good contributions in the past, your recent edits suggest you may not be up to speed with the requirements for new articles nowadays.

This won't stop you from creating or editing articles, but it does mean that for now, articles you create will be reviewed by a new pages patroller before becoming live on search engines.

If you become more active and feel you should have these permissions again, you can request them at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.

If you need to know more please feel free to leave a reply on my talk page, or reply here and place {{tb|Bigmaninthebox}} on my talk page. Please note I won't see replies you leave here unless you also alert me. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bigmaninthebox. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Coaching film director, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bigmaninthebox. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Coaching film director".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bigmaninthebox. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Football coaching film director, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bigmaninthebox. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Football coaching film director".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]