Talk:Chris Long/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Irrelevant content

So much of this article is made up irrelevant quotes and other crap. This article is going to be ridiculously long if we leave all these stupid draft quotes and stuff.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. just becuase he is in the news from the draft doesn't mean we need to have multiple paragraphs of people's opinions of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.153.247 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys should realize the article is becoming really good, really informative, and really accurate. Those are good things, I think. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys should read these policies: WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And you should read this article, because it blows the way 72.0.36.36 has written it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 08:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Originally drafted?"

What's the meaning of that? Why "originally drafted?" He's not going to be drafted a second time. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not what it's saying. It's not implying he could be drafted again (though actually it is possible at this point) and it's not implying he's not a Ram now. It's just saying that he's currently a Ram, and that he originally entered the league as the second overall pick by the Rams in 2008.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Drafted" by itself doesn't imply that? And without the other implications I mentioned (yes, it's possible he could be drafted again, but when has that ever happened?)? It just sounds goofy, but whatever. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but they're both correct. You're just putting emphasis on the wrong part of the sentence. "originally" doesn't go with the word "drafted", it goes with the whole sentence. Player A is a quarterback for the Arizona Cardinals. He was originally drafted by the Dallas Cowboys in the first round of the 1987 draft." And so on. "Originally" is just saying when his career began, which sounds better any time but a guy's first year. The thing is, I'm not going around to add it to every guy that's played a year, I'm just making the intros that way now. It even makes sense for a guy that hasn't changed teams. Peyton Manning is a quarterback for the Colts. he was originally drafted by them first overall in 1998.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 11:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A mediation case has been started on this topic. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) for more discussion on this subject. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size

Give evidence for tag

Wiki rules mention 400 KB, this article is not that big. Long is a very high draft pick and has a father who played in the NFL, he warrants the coverage72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy says a lot more then just how much physical space is used for any given article. In fact, wiki states that articles over 100 KB should be considered for splitting, not 400 KB. This article is very long for someone whom hasn't even played a game in the NFL. (Look at the size of Marshall Faulk compared to this article for example.) There are some infromation in this article that could be taken out to give this article more readablity. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This person happens to be quite famous for several reasons . . . however, the part of the article that might fit the bill for too long is the college section. I would like to know what information would, if taken out, lend itself to more readability. I might agree with you if it is the things in the college section. The pre-draft stuff is not too long and is interesting to football folks I think.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way I checked the Marshall Faulk article. It looks strange beacuse of all the citation needed tags. I also noted that someone things the Rams "greatest show on turf" was a "spread" offense, which it is not. So much for accuracy. Spread offenses generally mean a shotgun offense. Gillman/Coryell/Martz never used the shotgun or "spread" offense. It is this kind of inaccuracy that plagues the wiki NFL project. I would think people would be more concerned with accuracy than the length of an article. Can we please remove the tags now, they are simply not warranted everything here adheres to rules, it is verfiable, etc.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Give evidence for tag

The references need to use {{cite web}}. The over all article is very wordy and needs to be rewriten to be more clear and concise. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting may be okay, but what has been suggested (so far) is that entire sections be deleted, rather than for clearness. I would object to the substance being altered in the pre-draft area. Rewriting and editing what is there so long as the meaning is not lost would be okay. I just think there are some of have made a value judgement (and I am not saying it is you) as to the content of the article. If this is a back-door way to replace good-faith edits, then I will have to object.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#undue weight

Give evidence for tag

I can only assume this refers to the pre-draft section. Well, Long has yet to play an NFL game. He has yet to sign a contract. The things mentioned have already been dealt with. It was edited to make it shorter and more concise. However, it seems some will not be happy until they have things their own way. This was dealt with in a previous discussion. Unless someone can show how the Pre-draft section violates any rules, it can stay if an editor puts it there72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Give evidence for tag

There is a lot of opinons placed in this article rather then facts. Also it is over loaded with quotes. Examples:

"You want to talk about a chip off the old block?", North Carolina head coach Butch Davis said, "This is a young man that plays absolutely lights-out football".
Pitt head coach Dave Wannstedt said, "He's the best defensive lineman that I've seen on tape. He's a playmaker. He does it all. He plays the run well. ... "
Said by NFL scouts to have "(L)ong reach, good timing and leaping ability to bat down a fair share of passes at the line of scrimmage. Has keen knowledge of the game and his uncanny ability to read blocks and locate the ball. Scouts maintain he is a "quick-twitch" athlete who shows good quickness, agility and flexibility, and knee-bend."
Sports Illustrated writer Peter King wrote, "Chris Long has progressed from being an intelligent college prospect when he entered Virginia to the kind of high-motor, edge-rushing force that has put him in competition for the top pick of the April draft"

--Pinkkeith (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

These are opinions as to why he was drafted as to why he was noted in college and why he was drafted so high. I think saying it is overloaded is a bit overstated. When those quotes are used in the context they are it is revealing and relevant. I don;t think they warrant deletion WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While I respect that you don't like it, they are permissible under wikie rules and are put in as a WP:Goodfaithedit good-faith edit. I think that trumps any issues you may have.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said I do or don't like it, it is just a matter of placing lots of opinonated references. This would be better placed under a seperate heading such as "opinons" or the like. Also see Wikipedia:Quotations: a summary of a quote would be better. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The quotes in question have already been summarized. There was onjection prior and the sections in question were edited down to the bare minimum. That was done with the hope that would be the end of it. However, it was suspected that that was simple a piece-meal approach to having a whole section of good-faith edits deleted in time. That time seems to be now. It was the ole' "give and inch" thing. The article as written as prose. If a list of quotes were done, then someone could come along and say the list is "not encyclopedia" or something. It will never end. The issue is some don't like a few aspects of the article. well, there is plenty I don't like about a lot of NFL articles, maybe even hundreds of them. However, on this one, I am going to follow the rules and make sure I don't get run over by mob rule.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The section "Pre-draft trade rumors" - I think - violates Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Those are quotes by experts. That are what they are. No one knows how long will fare, but those quotes show why he was drafted where he was they are not part of an article meant to opine whether those experts know what they are talking about. The section is well-sourced and buttresses the fact that Long was a "hot comodity" nothing more, nothing less. My view is that this: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is the real source of the objection.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The link for "I don't like it" is for deleting an article. I'm not saying the article should be deleted, but rather approved upon. It doesn't matter if predictions are done by experts or not, it is still "crystal balling". --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware since I know you are a football fan, this type of comment by experts is acceptable and desirable. It reflects in an ahistorical way what was thought of a player and why he was drafted where he was. The point is these are not predictions, they are opinions about a player's talent in verbiage common to NFL experts. I think "crystal balling" is defined well enough to show that is not this.72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this not a forum for discussing content?

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

As mentioned above the discussion page is not a forum to discuss content. It seems the only issues people seem to have (so far) is content. Since none of the content violates wiki rules then why is there a discussion? Why is there a need for the tags that suggest otherwise? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Because rule violations or not, a lot of people would say that this article sucks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, be civil. A lot of people may say is it good. That is just your opinion. Mine is different. That hardly warrents you speaking "down" to me or saying it "sucks". Please refrain from the pejoratives. Thank you.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncivil to say an article sucks, because the article isn't a living thing.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Issues?

I saw Pink added the tags. More discussion needed. Enigma ^message 19:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, my main issue is that it has too much of what I consider irrelevant crap. All this stuff about pre-draft rumors and quotes is unnecessary. 10 years from now, what Linehan said the day Long was drafted isn't going to matter. It's not a novel, it's an encyclopedia - let's just present the facts and keep out the fluff.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem is you have little perspective about what is and is not relevant. Also your use of hyperbole clouds the issue as well. Futher, your personal issues with me also cloud your judgment. Therefore what you say here must be discounted as biased. This is not a "novel" and everything in there is fact. You may consider something irrelevant but others may consider it important. I can see now that you will (again) blow up with personal attacks on content you don't agree with. You will use abusive and incivil language and this will not be a productive discussion. I say what is there is relevant and meets all wiki standards. Any assertion to the contrary by a biased editor should not be accepted as fact, only as one person's opinion. Unless Enigma can give evidence that support the tags he posted he should take them down. They are not representative of what is here.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh... what? Enigma ^message 19:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I will tell you what. When you put all those tags on there you should be able to back them up. None of them are acurate, as per a literal reading of the rules of wiki. If you wish to have a discussion post why you think it is too long . . . the rule is 400 KB, etc. You cannot just sunjectively post a bunch of tags with no evidence. Put up the evidence.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Prove that I added the tags and we'll talk. Enigma ^message 19:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You put them up after I reverted them. So you are a party to this. What gives? Now that you have put them up prove why they are needed. You don't have a basis for them. Maybe Pinkkeith did but he must come here and discuss. It is this kind of dishonesty that bothers me about this kind of thing. I was wrong in that Pinkeith put them up, you said PROVE I ADDED THEM" then you re-add them. You could have avoided the challenge had to chosen to do so. In my view this is a couple of editors trying to inflame a situation72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you didn't then fine. My point is that if these are to be added then there needs to be a valid reason. The rules of wiki are clear . . . so I am just making sure they are followed here as they so often are not.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Pinkkeith added the tag. Secondly, my opinion of you does not cloud my judgment, because my opinion of you is the result of the crap you've added to this article.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you opinion of me clouds your judgment. You continue to characterize things as "crap" that are used on other articles. That kind of verbiage is not allowed here. You may not like it, but that is too bad.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much garbage. Chris is telling it like it is. Maybe you'd be less offended if he said "It's not really what we're looking for in terms of adding encyclopedic value." Enigma ^message 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not garbage, as you put it. That's just YOUR opinion, which is no more valid than mine. Put up the evidence. Then we can have a discussion. Also, if Chris were civil, he would not be him. He uses troll-like tactics to get a rise out of those with whom he disagrees. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no blatant evidence to provide to show this article sucks as is, it's just something you have to know as an intelligent human being. It's all sourced and factual, but that doesn't mean it's good.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, only you opinion which is biased. Further, you again cannot help yourself. By saying that an intelligent human being would agree with you insults me and my intelligence. Again, it is you pattern and practice of trolling around picking fights. What if someone said your high school education is not a strong enough basis for you to be able to determine was is and is not encyclopedic, what is and is not what an intelligent human beings' mindset? Would YOU be offended?72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm totally not going to stop talking like that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would you? You get to say what you want with no fear of consequences, so why would you follow the rules?72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't blindly adhere to rules I don't agree with.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then you should not edit NFL stuff. The NFL project should hold to the standards of wiki. Period. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh wellz.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Chris_Long_.28American_football.29 IP started a thread. Enigma ^message 00:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/copyedit

Instead of posting the comments at the peer review page, I'll post them here.

Reduction of statistics - Since there is already a statbox in the article, I reduced the amount of stats given in the article's prose. Removed were the more non-notable stats, such as finishing 7th in the country in X stat, or lengthy game-by-game stat reports.
Fact tags - Some of the fact tags were added to some of the stats/stat records that did not have any sources. Most of the others went to unsourced statements.
Quotes - In the Spygate article, a concerted effort was made to greatly reduce the number of quotes and column opinions offered on the subject. In essence, the article's focus was on the actual facts of the case and the official documents and proceedings that stemmed from it, not what some linebacker from another team or some columnist from some city thought about it. In this article's case, all of the pre-draft quotes and opinions offered about Long fit this mold. Instead of adding an opinion from everyone from Kiper to Long to Mayock, it is better, more concise, and more neutral just to stick to the facts of Long's career. This is an encyclopedia, not a novel where everyone throws their two cents in. As far as the Linehan and Devaney quotes go, that does seem to fall under WP:CRYSTAL; instead of them speculating on where Long will play and how he will play, it is preferable (and more encyclopedic) to just wait and see where he does play, and offer the facts of how he plays when that occurs.

Overall, I think the article is in great shape. If someone can go through and add a bit more to the references already there (using {{cite web}}), and help to add references to the fact tags, the article will be much improved. I wouldn't go to GA nomination yet, as the article is really just beginning. Once Long gets into his NFL career and the article starts to fill out, then you should go ahead and do that (i.e. you wouldn't nominate 2007 New England Patriots season for a GA in October 2007, when you know that half of what the article will be is still unknown.) Pats1 ^T/C 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Pats1. Enigma ^message 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to the random thrashing of this by Pats1. I have suspicions that it was not done in good faith. All he did was enforce what chrisjnelson wanted. nelson has been banned for a couple of weeks and it seems if when nelson comes back if he acts up one more time he will be gone for a VERY long time. Pats1 and chisjnelson are tight. I contend that Pats1 is the muscle for chrisjnelson. I think the excessive scrutiny by Pats1 on this article is nothing more than vengance. Therefore I will make improvements but I WIL remove some of the excessive tags and I WILL put in the quotes that follow the rules and add to the article. If there is an editor who is not biased then a review by he/she would be welcome but I my opinion Pats1 is not that editor.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, you're saying that you WILL ignore what other people think and make "improvements" to the article solely based on your POV of what belongs in the article. Enigma ^message 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not seeing it correctly. I will agree to modifications, as I just did. I put citations in (even though there are about a dozen "ibids" in it since Pats1 randomly put a tag wherever he felt like it. What I WILL NOT be is bullied by Pats1 or anyone else involved in cronyism with chrisjnelson. That would not be fair. I did not block nelson but I think he deservedto be blocked, regardless of whether Pats1 agrees or not. What we need to do is get past that. We need to be fair and that does not mean me being ganged up on and forced to compromise with people who fail to recognize I have ALREADY compromised. What is desired by the my critics is (mostly) a complete deletion of my good-faith edits. That is not fair. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Randomly put the tag wherever I felt like it?" I placed the tag where references needed to be, and as an experienced Wikipedian, I have a pretty good idea where they do need to be. I don't appreciate the conspiracy theories and the accusations of meatpuppetry, both of which can be considered violations of WP:CIVIL. You can claim "bullying" or "cronyism" all you want, but the fact is, I made a serious effort to improve the article and bring it closer to a GA status - I know what GA status is, and I know what an article needs to do to get there. Please don't insult my intelligence. You need to immediately stop your accusations of meatpuppetry and "ganging up," because not only are they false, they are seriously hindering this article's ability to make progress. As User:Friday explained to you, you seem to have this false assumption that as long as edits are made in good faith, they cannot be touched. Pats1 ^T/C 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Some form of compromise needs to be reached before more editing takes place on the article. I was thinking about requesting full-protection on the article until a compromise can be reached, but that's not gonna help because Pats1 is an admin and can edit a full-protected article. But please, can neither of you three (72.0.36.36, Enigmaman, and Pats1) edit the article until we can agree on a compromise? Ksy92003 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about this situation warrants a full protection. Pats1 ^T/C 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I will agree to that, as long as it stands now. I have filled in all the "citation needed" stuff and did cleanup, but waht Pats1 did was delete blocks of other people's edits. Somehting he threatened to block me for several months ago. So, I agree to do it as long as the others do.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I issued you a level-3 warning for the removal of content; in your particular situation, that was removing a trivia tag that had every reason to be there. Pats1 ^T/C 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. It was about content and whether a list was approrpiate. Sometimes a list is okay. However a user posted a complaint on your talkpage and immediately you came in threatenting. It seemed to me you were the muscle with the power to enforce your threats. You were advised to go your way and me to go mine. Why you are here is odd in that you were not invited. If you were BY WHO? You knew you and the banned user had a history of acrimony yet you came in and copyedited something that was quite a hot topic. Why? You acted today as you did then: In a biased way against me. This is personal with you and you posted what you think about me on your talkpage. It was personal, not professional.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. "I will agree to that, as long as it's full-protected on my preferred version of the page." Yeah, I think anyone would agree to that. If it's full-protected, it should be before the latest raft of edits by the IP. Enigma ^message 20:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What is confusing is that you failed to claim the previous tags yet now you shoe a keen interest in the article. I do not thing the lock should be post-Pats1. Pats1 was totally unprofessional in his "review". I seemed to me to be vengance rather than good editing. Nonetheless, I went in and put in all the citations, etc. Therefore, what he wanted done was done. All except the deletion of large blocks, which is not allowed. So, lock it, but in a fair way, according to the rules and not the attempted cabal here72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, deletion of large blocks of material is allowed if the material is inappropriate for the article. You insist it should be there. No one else agrees with you. Once again, you're refusing to compromise at all and insisting everything should be done your way, while ignoring everyone else. Pats1's review was very well-done and not "vengeance", as you put it. Enigma ^message 20:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if 3 people don't agree with me. It does not matter if 100 disagree. You should read the rules again. Wiki is not mob rule. COnsensus yes, mob rule, no. It is a judgment call as to whether quotes are appropriate or not. It is not Pat1's call. Further, unless you know the history between me and Pats1 and the tight conenction between he and chrisjnelson I have reason to suspect this was not professional and done out of spite. Pats1 is a heavy-handed editor who tried to come in a control others. I refuse to be bullied. That's what this is about, which is too bad. I have every right, under wiki rules, to keep quotes in if I chose to edit them in. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude displayed here is what is innappropriate. Just because a few people don't like it, that's not a reason to delete large blocks of good-faith edits.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theories are a serious violation of WP:CIVIL and must stop. I've made copyedits to articles that were in need of one in the past and this is no different. Pats1 ^T/C 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"MUST STOP". Again with the threats. Why do you find it necessary to do that? This is different given the circumstances. Different circumstances require different actions. What you call a "consipracy theory" is me asking questions. I am not the only one who has noticed a close connection between you and a banned user. So, in my view, you have lost your right to expect good faith. It is my opinion, based solely on your actions, that you may be biased against me. You don't like me and I think it is reflected in your work. I cannot be 100% sure, but I can see what to post and see what you do. It cannot be ignored. So, if there were an editor who did not have a WP:CONFLICT of interest then your copyedits might pass muster. However, with all due respect, there is a serious situation that warrants someone other than yourself to be the final judge. I think your objectivity may be tained due to your close relationship with a banned user. That banned user was banned because of uncivil behavior over these EXACT SAME ISSUES. It is simply WP:IDONTLIEKIT and iy seems, SEEMS to me, in my observation that you will do whatever it takes to keep content ( of which is used all over wiki and is 100% permissable and is bold and improves wiki) deleted. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For the final time, stop your incivility. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility. Pats1 ^T/C 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"I have every right, under wiki rules, to keep quotes in if I chose to edit them in." No you don't. That's called owning an article. You can't dictate to everyone else what stays and what doesn't stay. As Friday tried to explain on your talk page (and you either haven't read it or simply can't grasp what he said), just because an edit is "good faith" doesn't mean it HAS TO REMAIN in the article. I recommend you read Wikipedia's policies. Enigma ^message 20:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that tact has been tried. I am not owning the article. What you maybe not aware of is this went round and round before . . . and I compromised a lot. However, what is happening now is those who wanted complete deleting of material didn't get all of what they wanted before, now they are back taking "another bite ofthe apple". They will not be happy until ALL the quotes are gone. I simply contend that is not fair and that is then this the WP:OWN issues. I have read the rules and that is why I am standing firm. The rules protect all of us, not just admins. And if you don't think there is a connection between chrisjnelson and Pats1 just look [comments]. If Pats1 came here with baggage that would be one thing. But, sadly, he is invested in one user's side of a story. It is my opinion that he has come here to settle a score and I have every reason to think that based on what he's posted. Therefore I should not have to roll over because of his "lofty status" as an admin. He's the same as all of us. No more and no less.20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not using his "lofty status". Admins are the same as any other editor when it comes to forming a consensus. However, when no one else agrees with you, that should inform you a little about what the consensus is. Enigma ^message 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am dubious of his motives. What would make you happy, the article done YOUR way, deleting my good-faith edits, right? Until you and chris and now Pats1 get your way you will never give this up, right?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. obviously a compromise isn't gonna come any time soon. I trust that if the page were full-protected Pats1 wouldn't use his admin powers to circumvent the page lock. So I'm going to go to WP:RFPP. Now, that doesn't mean that my request will be granted, but nothing is gonna come together and I don't see any compromise in the very near future. Ksy92003 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I would support that as well.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"I will agree to that, as long as it's full-protected on my preferred version of the page." Enigma ^message 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What is your issue? You've never stated it. What is it? What is wrong with locking it this way? Pats1 put in a bunch of cite-edits. I put in references . . . what's the beef? I didn't leave it exaclty the way he did but it was not a butchering in any way. I put in the valid quotes and I put in every reference to every cite-edit he put in there. It was kind of a 50-50 deal. He got what he wanted, I agreed to it, but I also stood firm on an issue that was resolved months ago. Icomprimised and STILL that is not enough for you. Why? Will you not be happy until I give in? Is that what you really want?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the adding of references. Obviously, that's not what my objection is. Enigma ^message 21:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well would you are to elaorate? Also, why did Pats1 put a cite-edit on the statement that Chris Long is hte son of Howie Long? Wasthat good editing or spite? I think you onjection is the same as chrisjnelson's amd Pats1. Its WP:IDONTLIKEIT . You don't like the quotes and yu want them deleted right?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Chris Long is the son of Howie Long isn't common knowledge, especially from someone not familiar with American football. It needs to be sourced. Really, it can't be that hard to find a source that says that Chris is Howie's son. Pats1 ^T/C 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1 I found a source, in fact I found source for all your 'cite-needed' tags in around a half-hour. I think that was excessive and in my view smacked of anger. Now if you are not angry with me,then fine. Okay. Let me ask, are you angry with me? And could that anger (if, and only if, it exsists) be clouding your judgments a little bit? That is a question, not an accuasation.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This has got to qualify as one of the most blown out of proportion arguments in Wikipedia history. Here are the facts:

1. This young man has yet to play a single down in the NFL. For all any of us know, he may never play a down in the NFL. He could suffer a career-ending injury in training camp, die in a car accident, accidentally injest a poison... whatever.
2. While I agree that he is notable as the son of an NFL Hall of Fame member, that does not entitle him to an article that is longer than the articles about several established players of his position in the NFL. There was a lot of "fat" in the article, prior to my copy-edit. Per policy and plain ol' common sense, there's no reason for it. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What does entitlement have to do with it? Just because this is longer than other article does not mean this has to be shortened, maybe it means lengthen the one you think are too short. That is a pure false-casue argument. We all are aware he has yet to play a down. That really does not matter. Some guys only play college and are noteworthy. So, please add something contructive. Don't just come in and try and ramrod your views. You are again, one of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT crown. While I thing a discussion is good, coming in an creating havoc is not the way to handle this.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I love the WP:IDONTLIKEIT claim, thanks for making me laugh. Listen... I could care less about this particular player, outside of being a Rams fan myself. It is ridiculous, however, that someone whose only notability thus far is as a standout college football player that happens to be the son of Howie Long has this detailed of an article. As I said before, the version of the article that existed prior to my copy edit had an extreme amount of "fat" in it. I cleaned things up a bit. For the record, I would have been well within guidelines to eliminate much more than I actually did. I think it's a good article, but there is no need for all the extra information until this young man actually sets foot on an NFL field and becomes something other than another highly-touted prospect that turned into a first round bust. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would you care. You came in and foisted your will on this thing. You cleaned up nothing, you deleted blocks of edits that were well within the rules. You are not the final judge and jury, I don't think but because you tag-teamed with another user I cannot revery what you did for 24 hours, which I will. Talk about chrytal balling, you are limiting the length of the article as to what MAY happen. You have won the bullying session for today. What you did is not in keeping with wiki rules in my view. You took an ax to the article, not a paring knife. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the absolutely baseless accusation. I don't "tag team" with anyone, at any time. I went through the article and did a copy edit, as I sometimes do as a member of the League of Copyeditors. I'm sorry you feel that I've done something wrong, but I have certainly not been a "bully." However, if you feel that way, there are actions that you may choose to take against me, such as a complaint at ANI, if you see fit. I highly doubt you have too much of a case, but it is available. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you coming in and tag-teaming which is what you did. If you and I each reverted 3 times, as is the limit, you'd have to come back and change things later. But, with enigmaman doing the exact same thing then you get your way. That is tag-teaming. I don't know if you conspired or not but you did tag team. There was no accusation, just a desription of what happened. I will go to WP:ANI. Thanks.72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again (what is this, the third time I've responded to this accusation?), I did not "tag team" or anything of the nature. I do not know any of the other parties involved, in any way. I did a simple copy-edit, nothing more, nothing less.

Please extend the courtesy to inform me of the AN/I thread, if you choose to open one. I look forward to defending against such a baseless accusation. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This should be fun. I haven't "tag-teamed" or "bullied" in any way. I've simply tried to improve the article in question. Apparently that's a great sin according to our IP here. Enigma ^message 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, this game has a new player. Just what we needed.. Ksy92003 (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What's needed is a gargantuan cluestick. Enigma ^message 23:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what we need is a regard for the rules. What you got is one guy, whi is now judge and jury (apparantly) and you got your way. All day long you've had one agenda, to get rid of some quotes. Now, you saw the chance and you got your way. You insults will not bother me. I heard all of them from chrisjnelson. However, that does not mean I will take them like your punching bag. I think you display today is very dismaying. Funny, people keep telling me I should have anaccount, that it has it's benefits. well, with the way people with accounts behave towards the rules (and I include several editors there) wiki is a worse place today. It shows mob rules. It shows uncivility pays. It shows bullying works. It shows if you have greater numbers you win. Sad.72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am sorry to see that you feel that way. However, in my own defense, I have done nothing wrong. I have no connection to any of the parties with which you've been warring/arguing with thus far today. I have not been the least bit uncivil. I have not bullied. I merely exercised my right as a Wikipedian and made a copy-edit run through the article, trimming out a lot of irrelevant information. But, as I've already stated, if you feel that I - or anyone else involved - has done something wrong, there are proper venues for voicing those concerns. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that what you call irrelevant is felt to be relevant by others. I simply dispute that you are the final decision-maker in this. If you look at the discussion, the relevancy was discussed and then discussed again and again. I have done nothing wrong either, I simply was following the rules and there was kind of a cooling off until you showed up and did what you did. What did that help? I think it made it worse. Just because you think it was "trimming" I say it was an ax. So, we have a legitimate difference of opinion. So, what then? Well, since enigeman (knowingly or unknowlingly) do a revert, you then (knowlingly or unkowingly) did the bidding of some people here. Now, since your edits were based on the fact that Long has yet to play a down, then why didn't you post that in the discussion? We all know Long is a rookie, in fact, parts of the blocks you deleted reported that fact, so why is it an issue whether Long has played in the NFL? It's not. It was just this: WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my view. That is no reason to take a meat-ax to an article, now is it?72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: If someone else agrees with your edit, you're therefore "doing their bidding"? Ludicrous. Enigma ^message 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else find it interesting that the discussion starts heating up after we kick Chrisjnelson to the curb? <sarcasm>Here's an idea! How about we unblock him and see what happens..</sarcasm> Ksy92003 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to interpret that. It could mean that Chris wasn't the primary cause of the problem. Chris often happens to be right, he just doesn't have the same idea of civility that the rest of us do. Enigma ^message 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just a coincidence. **cough**, that has NOTHING to do with this. *cough, cough*72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough. Stop the incivility, all of you. That's irrelevant. Pats1 ^T/C 23:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to what actually matters, I'm here to talk about my peer review/copyedit, and how parts of it were reverted. Going down the line of diffs since my copyedit, my first problem comes at the pre-draft section. As I said before, the arbitrary collection of quotes from different writers and analysts is not encyclopedic. There are quotes in there from The Sports Xchange (NFL.com), Mike Mayock (NFL Network), Peter King (Sports Illustrated), Al Golden, Lane Kiffin, Sporting News, and Gil Brandt. That's excessive and unencylopedic. This article is not supposed to be a scouting report of Long, and what every major columnist or scout or analyst thinks of him is NOT notable. Stick to the simple facts of his workouts, which are provided. This section reads way too much like an audition tape or sales pitch for Long, and it simply isn't neutral. A Wikipedia article on Long should not have an indiscrinate collection of news reports and stats on him. Keep it concise and factual and you'll have a much better article. Next, I have a problem with the "Long was the first DE taken by the Rams since..." section. How is that notable? Who the Rams took in drafts 10 or 30 years ago has no bearing on Chris Long and his article in any way. Finally, the section on the Linehan and Devaney quotes do violate WP:CRYSTAL. Linehan can speculate all he wants on where Long will play, but until he actually goes out there on the field and does something tangible that can be added to the article, Linehan's speculation is meaningless. Pats1 ^T/C 23:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much anymore. You and the others will get your way. You put in a bunch of edit-ref and I went through and put in all the references. The thing is, why is your opinion given greater value than mine? What you say is excessive might not me. What you say is unencyclopedic may be 100% okay. It all comes down to the same thing. You and chrisjnelson and enigmaman just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think that is fair and accurate. A while back chrisjnelson and I went through all of this. It was semi-resolved. I went in and trimmed the quotes down and shortened it. However, it seems nothing I have contributed will be accepted. It seems that those whose venom I've fielded all day will not be happy until all of my good-faith edits are deleted. You see, I compromised back when and I compromised today, yet it still is not good enough. That is why I don't think the debate matters. I am fully able and ready to show why the article (although it could be improved) is not too long, is not WP:CRYSTAL, it not what is being said about it. However, instead of improving it, what appears to me as a "mob" is just going to roll me over. I know the rules and I follow the rules, but this is not consensus building, this is just one guy standing up and being criticized (in my 1st amendment protected free speech) because I demanded that a user be civil. I am sorry, that is what I think. So, call me a conspiracy nut, but funny, all I suggested is a conenction to nelson and people really freak. Makes me wonder, deep down, if I may be right. But steamroll away. You'll get your way I bet.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think it matters much anymore." Uh, yeah, think that sums it up. I'm trying to discuss point-by-point my edits (even more, since I already did), and you've basically told me you don't care anymore. If you don't care, then I'm going to go ahead and implement them. There is no such thing as a certain part of your contributions being entitled to stand there. If they are all acceptable edits that the editing community agrees on, all of them will stay; if they aren't, they won't - there doesn't have to be a percentage kept just because they were made in good faith. And please stop with the WP:IDONTLIKEIT citation whenever someone disagrees with your edits. You're stonewalling again. Pats1 ^T/C 01:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I didn't care I said, "I don't think it matters much anymore". Here is the difference. I don't think it should be acceptable for me to be rolled over as I have been today. I care a lot and would not stand up for myself if I didn't. What I fear is that your opinions, as you've expressed them, violate the good-faith edits I made. Since these good-faith edits have no reason to be removed they should not be removed. What I said it it does not matter and when you streamroll me you'll get you way. I put the WP:IDONTLIKEIT up there so someone will respond to it in a substantive way, which has yet to happen. Is it okay for me to say to you, "Don't put up what you think are "acceptable edits" anymore whenever someone disagrees with you". Would you like that? Are you down to censoring posts now? How much control do you want? Do you wish for full and docile subission? What there has to be is an adherence to rules and as an Admin I'd think you be the one to enforce them, all of them, not just consensus. That is valuable but it is not 100%. There are other values that compete with it. It seems when there is a majority in favor of one thing you favor consensus, when it is just you, then you couldn't give a hang about WP:consensus. In those times a dictatorship with you in charge seems to suit you just fine. It is never a two-way street with you. No?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in a semantics argument with you. I was trying to discuss the content of the article at hand you continued to bring up your conspiracy. Stop stonewalling and discuss the content or move on. Pats1 ^T/C 01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Stonewalling? I have no idea what you are talking about. Let's talk substance. There are a bunch of topics up aboce that refer to the original tags. Go up there and post something and I will respond. I put them that way sdo that each topic would have its own heading. That way issues would not be as likely to get cross, one heading, one topic. If you have other topics, make a new headng. In general this is a travesty. I say those quotes are verifiable, accurate and come from experts who are in a position to opine on such matters. In a court (just for example) they would be admitted as expert testimony. They give a flavor as to why Long was drafted where he was. They also reflect that 2 other teams wanted him, accroding to published reports. The quotes also speak to Long's versitility. ALl those things are part of a mosaic about him that tells the sotry of im. In the spirit of WP:breakalltherules this article is unique. It seems you are waningto water it down, make it the same as everything. Well, that is not what wiki is about. It's about being bold, not playing it safe. as an Admin you really should be on my side of this. However, I contend you have a personal thing with me and that prevents your from coming at this with the needed fairness. But, if you wish to debate each and every quote, chapter and verse, I will do it. As long as it is civil and you don't "dictate" all the terms of resolution. Fair enough?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, stonewalling. Every time I've tried to discuss content with you, you deflected it by crying foul with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Keep in mind I'm posting under the heading that I created, titled "Copyedit/Peer review." I don't see how this discussion isn't relevant here; the section was simply hijacked in the few hours I was out and about. But to the content: the issue isn't whether the quotes are verifiable or not. Those who are speaking on the subject may be "experts," but such a title is highly subjective. These quotes are of a highly editorial nature; that is, they are very much the personal opinions of each respective columnist/analyst. In Wikipedia, to give "flavor as to why Long was drafted where he was," it is preferable (and more encyclopedic) to let his college performance (statistics and major awards) to stand for themselves. Stats, provided without any qualifying words such as "only XXX yards" or the like, say much more (in the eyes of Wikipedia) than quotes from columns do, and also do it a completely neutral way. It may look like "watering down" to you, but the best Wikipedia encyclopedic articles are those that let their own facts stand for themselves. You can start your own Chris Long webpage and have all the scouting reports and quotes you want, but on this article, having all those "experts" weigh in with their own opinions weighs the article down. Again, just because you are following good faith and be bold guidelines doesn't mean I have to "be on your side" or can't completely disagree with your edits; it is Wikipedia's expectation that all editors will be bold and assume good faith, and yet every such editor does not make desirable edits every time. In terms of the quotes, I will again cite Spygate. Quotes are not a bad thing, but they have to be used in a particular way. On Spygate (95% of which I wrote myself, so I can speak from experience), I used quotes from Roger Goodell, Mike Tannenbaum, Arlen Specter, Matt Walsh, John Tomase, Bill Belichick, Scott Pioli, Robert Kraft, Tony Dungy, Bill Polian, Jonathan Kraft, Brian Daboll, and Michael Levy. All of them, though, were integral to the article (as basically the entire episode was press conferences, press releases, and the like) and were able to stand alone, as the quotes themselves were part of the story, not just outside opinion. I only included two such "outside opinion" quotes (in reality, there were thousands - tons of NFL players, personalities, and writers threw their two cents in on the "scandal" - but none were included in order to keep the article encyclopedic and factual, not have it turn into a novel) - those were from Jimmie Johnson (since his comments were highly publicized and essentially did become part of the story themselves, since they gave a testament to the practice being more widespread than just the Patriots in the 2000s) and Don Shula (since they tied in with the Patriots' 16-0 season and were also highly publicized when the Pats were undefeated). So, quotes aren't bad things. They can be worked in, so long as they are "part of the story." In Chris Long's case, there really aren't any that fall under that category. Maybe, someday, if Long is involved in some scandal or something, and some cantankerous Pennsylvania senator opens an investigation into him, both quotes from Long and that unnamed senator will be included in the article. Pats1 ^T/C 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hijacked? Stonewalling? What else? As for starting my own webpage . . . again, I think you arediplaying the "My way or the highway" attitude. That gets no where. It smacks of you somehow being superior and I don't but it. You're not. Anyway, your opinion of the quotes is not the way I see it. I in no way agree that the quotes "weight the article down". Even if they did, which they don't, why would you care? Why would anyone else care. Further, if you are not allowing be to be bold, if you are the one deleting large blocks of good faith edits it should meet a pretty high standard. You have not provided any rational basis, just a vague reference to "desirable edits". The reason I put up WP:IDONTLIKEIT is that your reason for deleting theq quotes is 100% subjective and arbitrary. You simply don't like them so you deleted them.

You say, "In Wikipedia, to give "flavor as to why Long was drafted where he was," it is preferable (and more encyclopedic) to let his college performance (statistics and major awards) to stand for themselves." Well, that's YOUR opinion. Mine is different. You are not a WIKI expert anymore than I am. I say the quotes fit in well and were 100% allowable, and 100% verifiable and that meets wiki stanards. Your view about what is or is not the final say. I disagree with your characterization and your analysis. I find it self-serving and biased. I reject you as the sole judge of when quotes are justified and wy the true meaning of quotes are. You always neglect the fact that I already pared them down in an effort to build a consensus. But that was not good enough. You and others will not be happy until you get your way. Still, after long last we have a difference of opinion, nothing more. You don't want the quotes because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT don't like them. That is not a good enough reason to delete them as you have done. Maybe you should start a Chris Long webpage WITHOUT quotes. You don't WP:OWN this article.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you be civil for once? I'm trying to discuss the content with you, and half of your posts are "you're self-serving, you're biased, you're muscle for Chris, you're being a bully, you're ganging up, you're just doing WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you're this, you're that." Enough already. Stop your foolish conspiracy theories. Don't discuss my actions, discuss the content itself. Stop commenting on the editor. Pats1 ^T/C 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) Pats1, you are the issue. Had any other editor come in then there would be a sense of trust. I really thought I'd been clear on this. I am required to assume good faith, however, when that trust is broken, as I fell it has been with you, I am not required to beleive something that is not true. Your actions are the issue. I think why you don't want your actions discussed is that they reflect poorly on you. The second issue of your behavior is the "Enough alreadys", the Stop your foolish consipiracis", "Don't do this", "don't do that". Honestly, do you not see that as a wee bit bossy? I have comment on your actions, yes. I have not called you names. I don't think you are a bad person or bad editor. I think, in this case, it is personal. I think there is evidence tha shows there may be a conflict of interest on your part. That's all. So, if your edits are potentially tainted by a certain bias and were not in good faith shouldn't that be discussed?

(2) Also, to the extent you have posted why you gutted the article of 100% of the quotes you have not given a good defense. Quotes are a good thing, those quotes were chosen with good-faith and good-judgment. They were the best of those available in various articles. The made various points I thought were good, that improved wiki. Not once have you shown that my edits were bad for wiki. All you've said is the same thing over and over. All you have said it WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Well, that is not supposed to be good enough for wholesale deltions. Not only did you not do a good-faith edit and work those things into the story, you deleted WHOLE sections. And MORE THEN ONE. That is the issue. You just came in and deleted it. You didn't edit it, you didn't carefully craft the edits in a way that was consensus building, you did it your and then claimed you some sort of expert. Why, WHY would that not be an issue? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk to User:RMANCIL. Really, what he said (see Talk:San Diego Chargers and User talk:RMANCIL) about one year ago is almost exactly what I'm hearing today. That user went on and on and on about how I was deleting his "good info" and how I was running "roughshod" over Wikipedia. It wasn't until I finally got him to discuss point-by-point my copyedit when he learned my only intention was to improve the article and that there were no other motivations when he "saw the light" and helped me get done what was needed to get done with the article (which did, by the way, include this user helping to fill in fact tags and remove unverifiable information). If you will, please observe before, and after. Pats1 ^T/C 21:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not of the opinion (others can differ) that you can be one thing on Wednesday and another on Thursday. SOmetimes enough is enough . Remember Wikipedia:Competence is required. I think it is fairly evident that you're biased in this Chris Long thing, that you are conflicted in that a friend suffered and injustice in your eyes and the cause of that injustice was me. It is my view that this grudge is much of the basis for your interest here. I think deep down you know that, but being proud it may be a bit hard to admit. I think the fairest thing to do is for you to back off, I really do. You showed no interest in this article until yesterday and it begs legitimate questions. You posted you don't like me. I have posted that I don't dislike you. I have valid reason not to trust you and there is a difference. I guess I am saying your cutting nearly 60% of the article is not an "intent to improve". I think I have the right to think that and to post that. I am trying to work out a resolution but nothing seems to be good enough for you. That further raises my suspicions. I know these things are tough for you to hear and they are coming from the heart, not from anger. I just think you may not be trying to understand anyone else's POV except your own and that does not help wiki.WP:IAR.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no grudge, and I feel your continued suggestions to the contrary to be violations of WP:AGF. I didn't take an interest in this article until suddenly there were blocks and ANI entries coming out of it, and instead of watching the ferriswheel go around again, I stepped in and did my best to diffuse the situation and steer the article in the right direction. That's my obligation as an administrator. Stop with your suggestions of impropriety, because they're really starting to annoy me. Either bring your (false) accusations to the right venue or don't bring them up at all. Pats1 ^T/C 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I hold a different opinion. If appropriate I will do what is needed but I don't want it to fo to that again. What is a "good faith" strikeout I wonder? Does that erase anything? Can we unring a bell I ask? I think not. The thing is: When you came in your came in with an appearance of a conflict of interest. Maybe there is none, but you had posted some accuasations at me. Then in the middle of a heated situation you escalated it by taking over. Perhaps, and I say perhaps, your duty as an Admin was to help the situation, not inflame it. That, mixed with your style of "Don't do this", "Stop that" and the like it makes for kind of a sticky situation. I think you may even agree with that. None of this makes you a bad guy or makes be mad at your but when this stuff is brought it it helps things in the long run. I mean, take you getting annoyed. Why is that my doing? Can you not be criticized and chose not to be annoyed? Another banned user here has similar traits. A "Me-first" type of attitude. I think until you learn to compromise and WP:CONSENSUS there is always be friction. Down below you have said there is no room for compromise, yet there are quotations all over wiki. At first, some over at the indicent board thought this was about the quotes. I told them it was not. It was about content and it was personal. I stand by that. That is not an attack, it is my opinion based on what I have seen and read. I think today could have been a good thing, a time to WP:CONSENSUS build. Yet up until this point you will not compromise. Not one wit. Is that proper?72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to the incivility, but as far as consensus goes, that involved a bit more than two people involved in the discussion, and as of right now, that isn't the case. Pats1 ^T/C 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Steamrolled

Pats1 had 100% gutted the article of quotes. None are good enough, huh? Kind of hard to beleive. Other than the fact he WP: IDONTLIKEIT he cannot only give an opinion as why why he does not like them. He's given zero evidence that the quotes violate any policy or that a reasonable person would think they improve wiki. Futher, this seems to me what was going to happen all along. This is what a user wanted all along. Now they get their wish. I object to the edits. I think there is a reasonable question as to wether Pats1 one is an unbiased, honest-broker in this situation. This is unlike any other situation and he may be too close to the situation to be fair. I have shown, by his words, there is an appearance of a conflict of interest here. Not to mention his telling me to go elsewhere if I don't like it. Well, I do mention it because it is important. What if others told him to start his own website, one where he is a dictator. Why does he say that to me? This is not a fair en equitable resolution. All this occurs while the issue is under a review. How fair is that? Party A wants Z. Party B wants Y. Party C does Y. Party A is outnumbered. Party B gets want he wants though the actions of C. Great. Real wiki spirit.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been posted that it is preferable to let college stats and honors speak to certain aspects of a player's ability. How does that make wiki different that a paper encylopedia. Heck, if people want stats like that they can get them many places. Why is it a good thing to make wiki the same as other places? The quotes are verfiable, they are accurate and they are by experts. There are scores more out there but I kept them to several and even cut them down. So, how is it that teh Chris Long article is better because it is shorter and all the boldness and all the WP:commonsense is taken out. It is the same as a media guide now, there is nothing that begs any questions. As far as a reader can tell Chris Long played college ball and was drafted. Nothing about why he was drafted where he was or that other teams were interested in him or how his versatility is going to be utilized by his coahces. Nothing. It is now the back of a bubble gum card. Nothing interesting, nothing innovative, just blind adherence to some kind of social order that has no basis. Nothing, and I mean nothing that has been presented in opposition has given a real reason for the deletion of all the quotes. Just the fact that some editors don't like it. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is the expectation that all edits are neutral, verifiable, etc., but just because they are doesn't mean they can't be changed or completely removed. It is supposed to be a media guide, but, of course, much more neutral than that - if Long is part of a scandal, you won't hear about it in a media guide, but you will in this article. I'm not going to re-hash the reasons why the quotes shouldn't be there; I've done that twice already. Let his recognitions and stats speak for themselves - the opinions of sports columnists and analysts do not need to be there and do not keep the article neutral (they are just one man's opinion, and at that they may be biased). And how his versatility will be utilized by this coaches is speculation, even if it is coming from Linehan himself. It violates WP:CRYSTAL. Just have patience. One day, you'll be able to say that he started X games at this position and started Y games at that position, or that he had X sacks and Y interceptions. Keep it factual, keep it basic, keep it encyclopedic. And again, stop with the "social order" and "WP:IDONTLIKTIT" comments, because they are really starting to become uncivil. Pats1 ^T/C 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So propose a neutrally worded section describing team interest and his versatility using the quotes as footnoted references (links). --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would accept that. One caveat: I would be uneasy if Pats1 were the one doing it . . . I think there is a serious conflict of interest, or at the minimum an appearance of one. However, your idea makes sense. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think you'd be the best person to do it. Just keep the text neutral and not too long and you should be ok. Suggest you propose here on the talk page first to avoid any WP:3RR issues. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I will work on it and post it here.72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed sections

Pre-draft rumors

This is written to not have quotes but to convey the same message in a shorter way. I would like to insert this in the appropriate place in article. It has been shortened and the quotes were removed:

Prior to the draft, according to press reports, at least two teams were interested in securing the services of Chris Long. Before the Miami Dolphins signed University of Michigan tackle Jake Long one of Chris Long's representatives said Dolphins executive Bill Parcells called Long's agent to express interest in drafting Long as No. 1 overall. Long's agent was receptive wanted the Dolphins to negotiate exclusively with Chris Long. Prior to anyaction the Dolphins had already signed Jake Long. ^[1] ESPN’s Chris Mortensen also reported the Dolphins would have targeted Chris Long if negotiations broke down with Jake Long.^[2]

Additionally, Gary Myers of the New York Post reported that the New York Jets pick Vernon Gholston was not their first choice. Myers wrote that Jets GM Mike Tannenbaum and coach Eric Mangini wanted Long and prior to the drafting of Long, the Jets called St. Louis to attempt to trade up but the price the Rams were asking was so exorbitant, the Jets basically declined.^[3] Sports Illustrated reported that the Baltimore Ravens were also interested in trading up to the Rams No. 2 spot to get quarterback Matt Ryan, but like the Jets, found the price too high. According to reports the Rams were tempted. However, the Rams determined that such a trade would be too risky. Ultimately the Rams valued Long to a degree that extra draft picks were not enough of an incentive to risk losing him. One Rams executive stated that had it been any other player but Long they would have made the trade with the Ravens.^[4]

I would like to insert this in the appropriate place in article. It has been shortened and the quotes were removed. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems mostly reasonable to me. Maybe the language needs tweaked some. You might make a good sports writer, but in an encyclopedia we keep things pretty bland. Since this guy is mainly notable right now for having been an attractive draft choice, it makes sense to have more details on the draft than we might typically have for other new players. Friday (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a good suggstion I am cool with it. I don't mind being edited. I am used to it. I will let you in on a little secret. I am a contributer (credited) in 2 paper encyclopedias. Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the NFL and the ESPN Pro Football Encyclopedia (and both updated versions). I have also written a stand-alone encyclopedic work on a certain subject with the NFL. I have been published in Pro Football Weekly, College & Pro Football Newsweekly and my encyclopedic work has appeared several times in Sports Illustrated, Inside Sports, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Hartford Currant and many others. My work is in many NFL media guides as well. I am a little bit familiar with encyclopedic work. (I don't say this to suggest I am better or smarter than anyone else. I say it as a matter-of-fact to show my views are a valid as the next guy's)

I am drawn to Wiki because it is not limited, it is free, bold, we are allowed to take chances. I just don't think wiki is a paper encyclopedic. I get enough of that, I enjoy writing some prose that is fun, informative, etc. I like it here because it is NOT constrained. It is not foolish consistency. There are exceptions to the rule and so much more, when it comes to edits you can "ignore the rules" that is why I fight so hard. I see how a corporate mindset, a bureaucracy can stifle creativity. So, I edit here for fun. When I get attacked for no good reason it makes it so much less fun.72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all good. Sounds to me like you can be a very useful contributor here. Only reason I mention it was, don't try to make Wikipedia too interesting. Our sources will hopefully be colorful and interesting, but our article content here is meant to be intentionally bland. It's not something that's going to change- it's just part of being a neutral encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'd say put it in. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, my copyedit did note remove the Jets section. The only part of the pre-draft trade stuff I removed was the Ravens looking to trade to #2, since that didn't have anything to do with Long (but did for the Rams in general). It wasn't removed by me. Pats1 ^T/C 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added this section in. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I copied my tweaks from the copyedit back in; if there was anything from your version that got overwritten, please feel free to fix it. Pats1 ^T/C 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Draft scouting

This is a proposed section for Long in the NFL combine section. It cuts out quotes and is more concise:

Long’s value was debated among scouts and experts, some asserting that Long didn’t have the physical necessities to be worthy of being drafted at the top of the draft. Sports Illustrated writer Peter King wrote that Long had improved from a smart prospect to a “high motor, edge-rushing force” adding that Long’s performance at the NFL combine was his chance to disprove critics.^[5] Other experts were in Long’s corner. “Chris can play low to the ground the whole game, and that’s rare for a guy his size,” said Temple Head coach Al Golden, “He just wears people out”.^[6] Oakland Raiders head coach Lane Kiffin called Long a "phenomenal effort player" who is "strong at the point of attack."^[7] The Sporting News War Room stated that Long was the most polished college defensive end prospect they had ever evaluated ^[8] Gil Brandt, who was the Dallas Cowboys’ vice-president for player personnel from 1960-89, and is now an analyst for NFL.com said Long's best traits are "strength and a quick first step".^[9] Brandt also told the New York Times, “Howie will be angry with me, but I think Chris is the better football player . . . He’s everything you want.” ^[10]

After a comment period, I propose inserting it in the article as a compromise. Of course, some may be better at a re-write to me, I would not object to being edited, but the flavor of this section (and Always was) is that there was debate as to Long's worthiness. However, it is possible the original did not convery that message so I have edited it to reflect that some experts felt like Long lacked a certain somehting.72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When I did the copyedit, I removed the individual writers from each quote, because they are not important. When you're citing from a newspaper or website like this, it is most encylopedic (and formal and neutral) to say "The Times reported that the Jets wanted to trade with the Rams." However, it is not encylopedic to say that "Peter King of SI thought that Chris Long was a pretty good player and that the Jets would probably try to take him." I hope you can see where one is factual and encyclopedic, and the other is speculation and opinion from a writer that has no place in this article. Pats1 ^T/C 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, would a further re-write without Kings' name (but includes his idea) suit you?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because that's just his opinion, "expert" or not. I think I've run out of ways to say this: it's not encyclopedic. What Peter King personally thinks about Long really doesn't matter in this setting. But if Peter King reports that the Jets think X, Y, or Z, then yeah, that is more appropriate. The set of four quotes there from King, Golden, Kiffin, and Brandt are a smattering of opinions that aren't tangible, factual reports. They aren't facts, they are just personal opinions and commentary, which don't fly on Wiki. Pats1 ^T/C 21:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so a re-write won't satisfy you? Not a re-write in the spirit of WP:IAR? We know your opinion of what the quotes are. Okay. The issue is will you accept these compromises? Does this article HAVE to be done your way and no other way?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to IAR here, so that point is moot. (There are times when IAR'ing is blatantly obviously necessary). There's really no room to compromise; four editorials are four editorials no matter how they are presented. Pats1 ^T/C 22:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case. "There's no reason to IAR here" and "There's really no room to compromise" says it all as to Pats1 attitude. Rules he likes he enforces. Rules he does not he ignores. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough. I'm getting tired of it. IAR comes into play when it's obvious a particular rule or guideline is severely hindering a specific edit or application. Don't try to use it as a catch-all during a content dispute like this. Pats1 ^T/C 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you really like to tell people what to do, don't ya? "Don't try to use it", "Stop". You also are keen of your emotions too, I see. "I am tired of it", "I am this", "I am that". Maybe you can think about the other guy in this. Maybe HE is tired of it. Maybe, just maybe HE is annoyed. Someone wiser than me said there are "I" people and "We" people in this world. This cannot be settled here. I think arbitration is needed.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me warning someone to stop doing something that could get them blocked, I don't know what to tell you. Pats1 ^T/C 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone. Civility. These are things you can work on. You can do it in a civil way. You can be better if you try.72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

St. Louis Rams

After a fair review I propose this re-written, pared down quote version be inserted into the St. Louis Rams section:

About Long, Linehan told the AP, "I don't want to use the over-used term, 'no-brainer', but I guess I'm going to have to. It's just going to be a great fit for us." After being selected Long told the St. Louis media that being selected by the Rams was the most exhilarating moment of his life and was anxious to begin working. When told Coach Scott Linehan announced that he will be a starter, Long replied, “I don’t see it that way. I will have to earn whatever I get". ^[11] Bill Devaney, the Rams' executive vice-president of player personnel said the Rams planned on using Long in a way that would showcase his athleticism, which had been questioned by critics ^[12] Rams defensive coordinator Jim Haslett also stated that Long would be used that way, but that he would also be used as a linebacker when the Rams used a 3-man front. Long said he was on board and that his versatility was one of his best assets and he'd play in any scheme the coaches asked ^[13]

Again, this has been pared down and the quotes summarized. I propose this be inserted where it was deleted and that this version, sans quotes, serve as a compromise72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that such a section will become out of date in four months and will be removed anyway (what his coaches thought he'd do before he did it isn't relevant once he does it, especially if he does something different). Try to keep everything in the past tense to maximize formality and to keep everything factual, not speculation. In this case, see WP:CRYSTAL, specifically "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." -- in other words, it's OK to say that the Beijing Olympics will take place in Summer 2008, since that's not speculation; what Linehan, Devaney, and Haslett say is speculation. Like I've said multiple times now, have patience. One day, you will be able to add a section on how Long played (keyword PLAYED, in the past tense) DE in the 4-3 and OLB in the 3-4. But for now, what you proposed here still falls under future history. Pats1 ^T/C 20:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So you object. Got it. I think your objection is unfounded, it is not crystal balling to quote experts in my view.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in Wikipedia about "experts." Expert is a totally subjective term. The fact of the matter is, it's speculation on something that hasn't happened yet. Be patient, let it happen, and then report on it. That's encyclopedic. Pats1 ^T/C 21:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Would I be wrong in assuming nothing will satisfy you on this issue?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What would satisfy me on this issue is that sometime in February 2008, a certain 72.0.36.36 makes an edit to this article saying something along the lines of "In his rookie season, Long started X games at defensive end for the team and was named the NFL defensive rookie of the year." That is factual (well, it isn't, since Jerod Mayo is gonna take home that honor :D) and carries so much more weight than Linehan saying he thought Long would have a good year. Pats1 ^T/C 21:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I take that as affirmative? You will not allow the compromise copy-edit, in any version, to stand?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, because your compromise doesn't eliminate the inherent flaws of the original version. Pats1 ^T/C 22:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you are on record as not willing to accept this compromise, even with further edits? Let it be noted. Let's go to arbitration72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't fix the problems that the original post had, so it's really not a compromise. Pats1 ^T/C 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I get it. I felt there were no problems, you did. This is a middle ground. You are choosing to not accept it. I understand72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be middle ground. If it doesn't follow the principles of Wikipedia, then I don't want to see it added to the article, and I'll stand by that. Pats1 ^T/C 23:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Crystal concerns

One of the objections that's been given here and there to some proposed content is that it violates "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." I believe these concerns are misguided in many cases. WP:CRYSTAL is not a blanket condemnation of any mention of the future- rather, it's about verifiability. I wonder if the people objecting have really read it thoroughly. If some sports commentator says "Keep on eye on Chris Long, he's going to do great things" this is not off-limits for us here, because the commentator really did say those things. I think some people have been grasping for reasons to object, and have misused "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" in the process. Friday (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I think saying a statements like "Chris Long will do great things in the near future" would be crystal balling, but saying "Many experts think Chris Long will do great things", with fully formatted refs to back it up, then that is not crystal balling. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I see it's already been discussed here and there, but I mention it again mainly because it sounded to me like Pinkkeith and Pats1 didn't understand this. We should not waste time on spurious objections when there are also valid objections to be worked through. Friday (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Those sections will quickly become obsolete. They may be well-sourced, but I really don't think they're encyclopedic. Just like Wikipedia discourages following breaking news events like it's a blog, it is more encyclopedic to keep things in the past tense where parts of the article never need updating and, since they already happened, are competely verifiable and factual. For example, once Long plays a season in the NFL, how will a section on where Linehan and Haslett thought he'd play still be relevant? Pats1 ^T/C 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a valid reason to object. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is not. However fans will be fans, and if the stuff added is of decent quality, there's no compelling reason to remove it today just because we'll probably remove it in the future. Friday (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In the future the tense can be changed. The material will still be valid. It can then be tweaked to reflect it's past tense, if you will. If a team drafts a guy as a hybrid and he plays as a hyprid, then it can me noted. If he's drafted as a DE and plays his career as LBer then the fact that he was picked as a DE will remain noteworthy. This is pretty basic. There are a lot of articles that note a position switch from college to the NFL. Just read the prose in Total Football. Position switches are among the most noteworthy things about a players' career. Nonethelss, this crytal ball thing fails, I think.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that the crystal ball is not really valid? Just because Pats1 thinks it is crystal ball does not make it so. It seems like Pats1 may be doing a little crystal balling himself predicting what will and not be valid a year from now. I say the suggested quote can be posted as a good-faith compromise, it has the quotes summarized and source but does not include them in their entirety. I think this is a good compromise, no?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, can we assume good faith? ("Can we agree...is not really valid?") Secondly, Neil pointed out WP:NOTSTUPID. If it's all crystal balling, then a compromise is just as undesirable as the whole thing. You're completely, 100% right about me crystal balling myself, because I am. I can do that. The fact is, nobody knows where exactly Long will play and how much he'll play there, because it simply hasn't happened yet. Once it does, there will be actual concrete statistics to present, not speculating quotes. This is an encyclopedia, not the 2008 edition of an NFL preview magazine. Pats1 ^T/C 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole aside, I think we are aware that this is not a preview magazine. Please assume good faith, okay. It works both ways in my view. It does not matter that "nobody knows". The fact is his coach and GM and DC opined as to where he'd play. That is noteworthy and encyclopedic. It speaks to why he was a #2 overall pick. The quotes have been trimmed down. This is a fair compromise in my eyes, why the beef?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it does read like one. Let me explain where stating opinions are encyclopedic, and where they aren't. If Scott Linehan says after last season that he thought his team "really sucked and could barely beat the Saints," then that's an encyclopedic opinion. But if Linehan says "I think Chris Long will play linebacker," that's not encyclopedic (nevermind the fact that it's a lot less notable). Do you see the difference? One can be cross-referenced to a fact, the other can't. Pats1 ^T/C 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You've said your opinion. Your opinion is noted. Your opinion is not fact, it is opinion.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pulling this out of my ass, though. It comes from years or editing articles, knowing what makes a good article, and knowing how each guideline comes into play. My text has been edited for style and grammar before, but never for it not being neutral. I've been accused of being too bland, but as was noted above, bland is what characterizes Wikipedia's neutrality. Pats1 ^T/C 21:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply said it is your opinion. I didn't specify any specific orifice. My opinion differs and I think I know what makes a good article as well. I know you are impressed with your own work. However, I am not as impressed as you are and I think my opinion is as valid as yours.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's opinion is valid, but that doesn't mean everyone's proposals are equally valid! Pats1 ^T/C 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Too bad you didn't propose anything. You just cut up something you didn't like. It is clear for anyone to see, arbitration is needed. We have differing opinions about what is proper content.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not arbitration, but WP:RfC. Another user suggested that you open one, so please feel free to do so any time. Pats1 ^T/C 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Long height and weight

Long will be listed as 6-3 and 263 pounds on the Rams roster. Do I need to wait until their website is updated? I don't want to get into an issue over this one, it isa small thing, but I will guarantee this is the case and it is verifiable (if one contacts the Rams my email). Anyway, I will wait unless someone says it is okay for me to make the change.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, go with what's most verifiable, rather than the freshest information available. It sounds odd, but it's in line with an encyclopedia not doing their own research, and relying on other sources instead. Friday (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead Links

I will be glad to find the cached versions of the links . . . I am not too familiar with how to do the references this way. I would ask for some help in property formatting them. Do I just put when they were retrieved? WOuld I use today's date?72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

By retrieved, you enter the date that you retrieved it on, which would be today, assuming you're adding a new reference. Enigma ^message 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Long played basketball . . .

Here is a link that is not dead. Could someone insert? [1] Thanks.72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking. That link is already present in the article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

On that line "Long played basketball, lacross . . " It citation comes up dead link. This link contains same info but it active. I do not know how to insert it properly and also I am still on the 24-hour 3RR thing so I was asking for somoene to use this link to fix the "Dead link".72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help

I need help fixing the references. Thanks72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out each link, and use {{cite web|url=The URL|title=Article's title|work=Publication name|first=Author's first name|last=Author's last name|date=Date article was published|accessdate=Date link was accessed to find this information}}

Put in the revised copy-edits

I put in the copy edits, the original that Neil posted and the two others. Only one person, at this point, objects. I hope this does not cause and edit war. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Would someone post a Wikipedia:Requests for comment for me on this article? Thanks72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of just listing the five or six quotes that are in the scouting reports section, consider condensing them into a few sentences of Long's perceived positive and negative attributes. Instead of saying Peter King thinks he's a high-motor player/Gil Brandt thinks he's strong, say "Long was praised by some scouts and analysts for having a high motor, good strength, had a quick first step," and then put the references that are in there. That makes it look much more neutral than just having a bunch of writers' opinions quoted directly. Pats1 ^T/C 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, try to find another source for the Butch Davis "chip off the old block" quote, because that's directly from the Rams website (i.e. their PR department), and therefore it is not considered a reliable third-party source. Pats1 ^T/C 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It does not need to be done. Why don't you just cool off, take a time out work on another article? Surely there is some other articles you can find to edit for a few days.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[2] [3][4] [5]72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The first three aren't third-party; got a third-party that gives the pass rusher/premier DL comment? Pats1 ^T/C 01:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You won, but that doesn't make you king around here. I know what you are doing. You know it and He knows it.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And can you find a replacement for this (dead) and this (non third party)? Pats1 ^T/C 01:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Second request

I could use a little help in starting a dispute resolution and I am not sure how to do it. I have requested a temporary lock until WP:DR is over so there can be a cooling down period. Wikipedia:Requests for comment 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is in dispute? Pats1 ^T/C 01:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nearly three days later, this is still being argued over? Somebody be bold and redirect this thing to St. Louis Rams until this young man actually sets foot on the field and begins accumulating statistics and third-party commentary to back up all of the crap that's being fought over, please?!? I'm beginning to think that is the only "solution" that will even remotely make any of the parties involved happy. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But then we'd have to do that to all rookies. Besides, what about his college years? :P RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Bolded part of your message above, as I am replying to that part here) But you know what, I think I'd be okay with that? It's beyond annoying that many of these draft picks have an overzealous fan of the team that they were drafted by that will come to Wikipedia and immediately write a long article touting them as the greatest thing to happen to the NFL since Gatorade. Unless they've won a major collegiate award - and I will allow that this particular subject did do just that, so he would be an exception - I don't feel that they're notable enough for an article until they actually play a down in the NFL and give themselves something to be notable for. In regard to this particular subject, my suggestion was a bit more tongue-in-cheek than legitimate, due to his status as the son of a Hall of Fame member and his collegiate honors. It might, however, save us some sanity in bypassing some of the absolute crap that has been argued over on this talk page, which is now longer than some of the project's FAs. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

..Of course then we'd have this same issue when he does set foot on the field. I'm not all for having articles on NFL players not to play an NFL game, but this is different because he had some success in NCAAF. Anyway, as far as his notability goes.. this three day-long dispute has caused such an annoyance for all involved and it has spread over to ANI.. about three times.. and Chris Long is probably more notable now than he ever was just because of this dispute.. (Did that make any sense? It did in my head.)

I know this has no chance of happening, but the best solution I can think of is to just block both the IP and Pats1 for 24 hours and keep them apart.. see if that'll help these two to keep away from each other and not stir up any trouble. By the way, can a blocked admin unblock himself? Ksy92003 (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

They would not dare touch Pats1 at this point. Admins are pissed at me72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they can't... and I'd actually suggest a topic ban of at least 48 hours to give both of them time to cool down, but that probably won't happen either. That's got to go through the ArbCom and we're not there..... yet. *knock on wood that we don't get to that point*--InDeBiz1 (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

They won't do it. Iasked for a temporary block but little by little Pats1 is carving away things. Admins won't do anything72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no trouble. There's no dispute. It's over. That's old news, Ksy. Pats1 ^T/C 18:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll see.. a dispute like this doesn't just go away over night.. at least it hasn't over the past couple nights. Ksy92003 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's over, there is nothing more I can do as far ans AN/I. I was judged personally by the Admins. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth... Pats1 ^T/C 20:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN

This is not novel synthesis of published material. No conclusions were drawn when the quotes were summarized. If I had said "A lot of people think Chris Long sucks" or "A lot of people think Chris Long is awesome," then that would be novel synthesis. However, pay close attention to the way I worded it; I only used the exact critiques that were given in the quotes and put them in a summarized, list format. To quote (no pun intended) WP:SYN, "Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." That explains exactly what I did. Nothing in there is original research, I am making no (to quote) "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Pats1 ^T/C 00:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think you and I should discuss. Given our past. I think you are too close to this to be the final judge. Frankly, you butchered the definition to suit your needs. You may have not captured what the experts said as well as you think, so I think the way i had it is fine. You don't need to go in, time after time, to make a point. There are a lot of other articles that need work, try Julius Adams or something. Great guy, good player, crappy article. Make yourself useful in that way. Good idea, no?72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to discuss with you and always have. I don't see where I "didn't capture" what was said in the quotes. Let's compare:

"After being selected Long told the St. Louis media that being selected by the Rams was the most exhilarating moment of his life and was anxious to begin working. When told Linehan announced that he will be a starter, Long replied, “I don’t see it that way. I will have to earn whatever I get."

"Following the draft, Rams head coach Scott Linehan named Long a presumptive starter on defense, a notion that Long rejected and instead felt he needed to earn."

There are no conclusions being drawn there. The original said that Linehan announced Long as a starter, thus "Linehan named Long a presumptive starter on defense." The original said "Long doesn't see himself as the starter, he will have to earn whatever he will get," thus "a notion that Long rejected and instead felt he needed to earn." I can't possibly see where you think I am drawing a conclusion or engaging in original research.

"Billy Devaney, the Rams' executive vice-president of player personnel said the Rams planned on using Long in a way that would showcase his athleticism, which had been questioned by critics. Rams defensive coordinator Jim Haslett also stated that Long would be used that way, but that he would also be used as a linebacker when the Rams used a 3-man front. Long said he was on board and that his versatility was one of his best assets and he'd play in any scheme the coaches asked.

"The Rams also announced their plans on using Long as both a linebacker and defensive end to showcase his athleticism; Long considered such versatility one of his best assets."

No conclusions here, either. The original said "...the Rams planned on using Long in a way that would showcase his athleticism...Haslett stated that Long would be used in that way, but also used as a linebacker when the Rams used a 3-man front," thus "The Rams also announced their plans on using Long as both a linebacker and defensive end to showcase his athleticism" (although I think I should re-word that to "...their plans to showcase Long's athleticism and use him as both a linebacker and defensive end." Next, the original said "Long said he was on board and that his versatility was one of his best assets and he'd play in any scheme the coaches asked," thus "Long considered such versatility one of his bests assets."

Please explain to me where exactly you believe a novel sybthesis is being made. Pats1 ^T/C 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, as I said, given our history we should not discuss. I was serious about the Patriots article needing work. Steve Nelson is a good guy, why not add to his article? Julius Adams, Steve DeOssie. You have a lot of work in your backyard. THAT would improve wiki72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop mocking my comments on why I edited Jack Youngblood, because it's uncivil. Now I'm presenting you comparisons of the summarized version versus the directly quoted version, and you said that it was novel synthesis of published material. I disagree, and I presented my side of the case. I don't see what's preventing you from presenting yours, because I want to discuss. Pats1 ^T/C 03:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, because things are still heated, it is not a good idea for us to discuss. Can we just disagree? You think "A" and I think "a", You think you are right, I think you are wrong, okay? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And what if every discussion on Wiki ended that way? C'mon, please support your position with evidence, as I did. I have no problem discussing this with you. Pats1 ^T/C 03:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this has gotten to a "I don't want to discuss it with you" point, do folks care to summarize (since this is one of the longest article talk pages I've ever seen) and get some uninvolved opinions? If so, I'll throw in my two cents FWIW. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the only current issue is over the quote summaries that I made, the discussion (or lack thereof) of which is contained within this section. The IP believes my summaries violated WP:SYN; I have presented my evidence to the contrary above. Pats1 ^T/C 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I know my opinion is by no means an uninvolved one, as I've been following this for the past week now, but I've got a new opinion. Right now, it seems that the only solution would be if one of the two sides just decides that the issue is no longer worth pushing and just drops out. I don't see how the IP and Pats1 can come to any sort of agreement, especially if they've failed to have a true discussion in the past week since this became an issue between them. Keep in mind that this was an issue before Pats1 jumped in last week after the Chris block, so this has been going on even longer than Pats1 has been involved, and we are not really any closer to ending the dispute than we were last Wednesday, the day after the dispute began. But the only way I see this dispute coming to an end is of one of the two just decided that it wasn't worth it anymore. Of course, I also can't see either of the two saying that it's not worth it, but we've exhausted every method we have, save for Request for Comment, and I'm really hoping we don't have to take that route. Ksy92003 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well what's your opinion of the content issue itself? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't made much an effort to derive a personal opinion about the content dispute. I'm aware of what the dispute is about and of both sides of the argument, but I haven't really tried to decipher each other's edits and actually looked deeply at the cause of the dispute. I'll take a look at it and respond here momentarily. Ksy92003 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely like to hear your opinion - but I have to make the point that your post is very representative of what's going on here. People are getting sidetracked by threats and edit wars and persecution complexes and just flat out personal attacks and insults, and look at this - the original content dispute itself has been lost in the noise! Not to single you out, Ksy92003 - it's a common theme at Wikipedia - but it's sad that there are people who are here commenting on the drama without having wondered, "What root-cause dispute started this in the first place?" Okay, sorry for the sidebar soapboxing... Let's get on with gaining a quorum and consensus for the actual content. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, a compromise is exactly what we need to resolve this conflict. With the text that both 72.0.36.36 and Pats1 want to insert in the St. Louis Rams section, it's confusing to me how we haven't been able to reach one. Looking at the differences between the versions, the information in both versions is, more or less, the same in regards to what aspects of his abilities the team has seen in him. While the versions aren't exactly the same, they share too much in common for me to have thought it could spark such a long content dispute; they both use the same three references and make note of his versatility. I feel that one thing Pats1 disagrees with the IP in this case is that the IP goes into great depth in talking about him possibly being used as both a linebacker and defensive end, a concern that is understandable considering he hasn't played an NFL down before.

Something else that Pats1 has expressed in the past is the usage of quotes. Too many quotes in a paragraph of text can take away from the biographical intentions of the article, but a reasonable amount can certainly add more to the article than it takes away. For example, the quote "I don’t see it that way. I will have to earn whatever I get" in reaction to being named a starter I think is one that should remain in the article because it shows what Long thinks about his coach's decision.

When you have two editors like these, I think it'd be hard for either of them to come to a compromise because they both think that their version is best. Otherwise, we wouldn't be in this position. But that's the best that I can come up with at this time. Ksy92003 (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a dumb question, but is it customary for NFL bios here to go so far into detail on a player's future? I don't recall ever even seeing a section like that in an MLB bio. I don't typically like ephemeral content like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, but as for why there isn't that much in an MLB bio, that's probably because nobody really knows anything about MLB prospects and the MLB draft. Heck, the only reason why I paid any attention to the last MLB draft is because the player who was selected 14th overall by the Minnesota Twins went to my high school and lives a couple blocks away from me. Other than that, I don't know anything about the MLB Draft, while they hype up the NFL and NBA drafts big time. Ksy92003 (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not again...

... Enigma ^message 20:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and you seem to be the instigator again.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

More name-calling from you. The one who started the edit-war would be the instigator. Hint: that wasn't me. Enigma ^message 02:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, never you.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

See #Protection requested below - let's try to stay on point. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. Not even an edit summary now. Pats1 ^T/C 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection requested

I've requested protection on this article. We need to put the personal feelings aside and stay on point. If there is a consensus on issues here, that needs to be accepted. But above all, if folks refuse to even discuss things, they are going to find themselves with the short straw. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be dispute resolution once and for all. Request for comment shoud occur right now.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I went to page to concur. I think protection is needed, as I requested it a while back. They said they don't do 'preemtive' protections. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable

Why is a speech Long (an NFL rookie) gives non-notable? Why does one editor get to decide that? If that editor is part of an edit-war then why are his actions not given ANY scrutinty? It would seem fair for this deletion of his to have a real explanation, rather than a vague, "non-notable" Wiki guidlines suggest this NOT be a resason for deletion, just like "not-encyclopedic". Those terms are vauge and open to interpretation. So, a real reason and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT anymore, that is old. This is simply arbitrary editing by an Admin who is "untouchable" in my opinion.

I have asked for comments by non involved editors . . . not the same old gang that rules here72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, policy is not so clear in a situation like this. But, in such cases, the next step is to determine consensus. That's when all of the people disagreeing with you should tell you something. But your reaction to that is to call them all bullies and untouchable and go forum shopping and start edit wars (and evade blocks). That's a sure recipe for disappointment here. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want fairness. Further, this is a specific item, a speech by Chris Long. Only Pats1 disagrees so far. What I expect from you and others is to jump on the bandwagon and support him. But, as of now, he says something is "non-notable". I say it is noteworthy enough to be in the article. What you are doing is really not that intelligent. It is illogical. It is saying since a few people diagreed on the last thing, they disagree on this. That is false logic. Also, If a group of people are going to fight me on everyhting then they are guilty of un-wiki activity. My objection is that those who are Admins get special treatment and that is true. I get punished yet Pats1 got away with stalking me. You did nothing about that. So, it is fair for me to doubtyour good-faith. We are required to assume good faith, yet within reason. You, sir, are part of a mob right now. So, that calls into question your objectivity here. Your veiled threat is proof postive that you will act against me yet you will not act against a fellow admin. That is the very definition of untouchable. IF an admin can stalk another editor and get away with it, how can I have faith in you? What evidence can you show that you still are fair and objective and not taking sides because you have a personal issue with me? I will give you the benefit of the doubt but tell me why I should trust your view on "non-notable"? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Back to the issue

Non-notable on Long's speech. It was notable and it was one freakin' sentace in the Long article and it was deleted. I contest that. I say it was notable enough to meet wiki standards. Unless someone can show me the "notable meter" I will assume Pats1 deleted it as a way to edit in a fashion as to harrass. he is not allowed to do that and he does not WP:OWN this article and he is not the final say. I will not accept the lie that "everyone is against me so therefore I am wrong". That is ludicrous. Wiki is not a democracy and it is not anarchy. So, I await evidence that this is other than Past1 pattern and practice over two weeks to follow me around and delete things I put in as a good-faith edit.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not one comment about the notability of the sentacne in question. Enigma has chosen to make me the issue. So, I will put in the sentance about Long's speech to the trainers assocation under personal. The speech was mentioned in USA today. Long may have even been chosen to bring stature to the event. No sane person can argue that this even is not notable. It is not even a close call. It is verifiable, it is neutral point of view. So, we have found when the rubber meets the road no one will take on the issue, they will just pile on me. Uncivility at its finest.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a lie. You are taking this entire thing personally and claiming others are making you the issue. You are not the issue. Your edits are. I judge the edits on a case-by-case basis, no matter who makes them. There's only one person who I don't do that by (I don't judge his edits because he's always right), and he has never edited this article. Enigma ^message 05:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

note to wknight94

You should realzie that the consensus process always breaks down because Past1 won't compromise. Look at his statements, "There does not have to be a compromise" which is found up above. On the previos things 95% if what I wanted has been deleted, yet I edited and edited several times. Even then, Pats1 had to have the the last word--- "overwirtten" or some crap. Who is Pats1 to be the king of this article? I have every right to edit it yet nothing I do is acceptable and you say I am the problem here? What you are saying to me and not to Pats1 is "go away" and "do something else" yet you do not apply that equally and you wonder why I want others to be the judge here?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying that you compromised and took out "95%" of the stuff. Sorry, I don't think that's true. Enigma ^message 22:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you figure out the percentage. Go back to before Pats1 go involved and look at it. Little by little what was there was carved away. Maybe it is not 95%, that was a guess. But how many of the quotes are still there? How much of the Chris Long sppech is there (that is easy, zero percent--he just deleted it as non-notable) He came up with roadblock after roadblock, when he was rebuffed on WP:CRYSTAL he still didn't give up. Then, after Neil suggested a compromise I edited it again, cut it down. Then, after all that, Pats1 said it was "overwritten". Who is HE to know what is and is not overwritten, especially in the middle of an edit-war that only I get blamed for. So, I will accept that it is not 95%. Let's say 75% unless you can figure out a way to measure. The point is his policy is that he does not need to compromise. He posted it. That must be what he thinks. So, while I get blamed for not doing a consensus, Past1 subverts to consensus process. Look up WP:CONSENSUS that very fact he NEVER compromised shows he is the one (along with others) that are not following the consensus process. Pats1 went in and destroyed the Jack Youngblood article when there was a lot of discussion going on THAT VERY DAY to build a consensus. He then saw my activity there then went in an took it over with all the authority of a dictator. I asked him to pause, I said there was consenssu building going and and he could join in. Did he? No way, he does NOT compromise. That is the point. SO, somehow you guys worship him but not saying a word to him, you persecute me. Anything I edit is gone over with a fine-tooth comb, there is no doubt about that. There has been more energy wasted here than anywhere. That is beacuse this is personal about me and not about "improving" the Chris Long article.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not persecuting you and I don't "worship" Pats1. I certainly don't "worship" Chrisjnelson. We've gone over and over this. If no one agrees with you, you're not building consensus. Enigma ^message 22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

False. If one of the party refuses to consensus build then that is "not building consensus". Agreement is not the standard, you are confusing democracy with consensus. Wiki is not a democracy. It is NOT mob rule. Look it up. It ia also not anarchy. Why do you refuse to see that? You are saying a majority wants it one way. Well, that it democracy. Consensus in wiki terms is a process that comes up with an outcome agreeable to all. Tell me you understand this basic principle. You see that don't you? You can understand that in wiki terns consensus and majority rule are NOT the same thing they are not even synonyms here. Please respond and please read WP:CONSENSUS and tell me where it say majority rules.72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, when you are civil and challenge my claim that 95% has not been deleted, you are not presecuting me. I grant you that. But when you say if 20 edits revert one time I say they are all the same you have mischaracterized my postion and that is persecution. When you choose to marginalize a human being, that, sir, is persecution. If I say there are 3 people doing the work of one to game a system and you call me a conspriacy theorist, then you are persecuting me. Get it? Let your own conscience decide if you've been fair and honest and if you've joined in on the piling on of me. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy theory. Three people reverting you doesn't mean that they should all be blocked. That's absurd. The only way they should all be blocked is if it's one editor using different accounts, which it clearly was not. Different people reverted you and you continued to edit war, which means you were the one in violation. I let my own conscience consider the situation, and it informed me that I have handled it justly and properly. It also commended me for not operating within the bounds of civility and not losing my temper, when I'm dealing with someone who refuses to be reasonable. Enigma ^message 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean? You seem to ignore the plain meaning of words and jump to a conclusion. A comspiracy theory in one case does not make that person a "comspiracy theorist". In terms of being civil, which we are all supposed to be, then you could, if you choose to, make an attempt to understand my point. Intstead, you mock it and call names. That is why I said you are persecuting me. It is you who are not reasonable because you are not using reason. The rules imply that more than one person acting as one (whether there is communication or not) are all involved in the edit war. That is why I used the term tacit. When you reverted an edit you had nothing to do with you were a de facto member of a community. Rather than using reason you just reverted. You are only here because you wish to engage in a fight. You could walk away, but you choose not to. Why is that? I have stated an interest in this article and that is why I remain. I also remain so that the NFL project is not taken over by a few people who are attempting to WP:OWN everything in the NFL project. That is what I see. I think you conscience is lacking since you are the one who was followed me around and it is you who have been as inflammatory as anyone. You seem to think nothing you do is wrong and if you keep your temper you deserve congrats. If you dislike me and my words then you doen have to "deal" with me, you can go away. Why don't you? You have no real interest in this article, do you? Other than reverts what work have you done here? None. You've acted as a catalyst in and edit-war and your holier-than-thou attitude is how you cover your actions. If anyone should be angry it is me. I have done nothing but defend. So, if I bother you, go away. Just leave, walk away, be the "bigger man" you can tell yourself as you never come here again. Just don't try and tell me you didn't revert my edits because it was me who made them. You were acting to protect a status quo, not to improve wiki. Face it you are caught and things would be better if you just left. This whol;e section is about the WP:CONSENSUS issue and a note I left to WKnight94. You, of your free will, jumped in the middle of it. Why? This whole round is about nonsense that Pats1 says about notability. You've not made one comment about that. Why? I will tell you why. You WANT to fight and inflame. That is your sole purpose here, just look at the lack of substance. You posts are about me, not about consensus or non-notability. Bottom line, wiki in not a demoncracy, it is not majority rule and no matter what you refuse to see that. So, just go away and leave the consensus building to those who are interested in the article. Walk away, say nothing more and walk away.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop lying and misrepresenting the situation. I didn't follow you to this article or any other article. I'm also not going to walk away and let you massacre a perfectly good article. You should walk away and work on all those publications and encyclopedias you claim to have worked on in the past. My sole purpose is to fight and inflame? A blatant lie. I think anyone who looks at my contributions will see I have done a lot more to improve this encyclopedia than you have. Your sole purpose is disruption, apparently, since you continue to ignore the fact that no one agrees with you and now are demanding that everyone else leave and allow you to butcher the article. Enigma ^message 04:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you done any of the following? You should walk away if I bother you. By saying my edits butcher an article you are again not reponding to the issue of the Chris Long speech but to me. My sole purpose is not to disrupt. I wish there had not been disruption. I wish it would stop now. You can reduce the impact by leaving. That is wiki's suggestion if you have anger issues. You, yourself said you have to control your temper. Well, walk away. You are choosing to be here. You are choosing to fight. Your own statements prove my point "I'm also not going to walk away and let you massacre a perfectly good article". Yeah, adding a sentance massacers an article, right? Quotations from experts massacer an article, right? No matter how many people disagree, wiki is not a democracy. If you want to consensus build then you are going to have to compromise, that is the consensus building process. Also, I have not lied once. Not once. You only come here to fight, that is my opinoin based on the fact you choose to come back. I suggest you personnaly reduce the impact and leave. if your concern is that the article will be masacered, don't worry, that will not happen.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not have temper issues. I have never lost my temper on Wikipedia because it's simply not worth it. "Bottom line, wiki in not a demoncracy..." "Yeah, adding a sentance massacers an article, right?" Those two sentences illustrate precisely how you cannot be trusted to make significant edits on this article. You haven't lied? If I had more time, I'd go through your statements and pick out the accusations you made, none of which were true. I have not bullied you. I have not persecuted you. I have not tag teamed you. I have not called you names. I have not lost my temper. I did not come here to fight. I did not follow you here. I came here in good faith, as I do to every article I edit. If you think I'm here to disrupt or bully, I recommend you actually look at my contributions and stop throwing around wild accusations which have no merit at all. Thanks, Enigma ^message 04:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You said you had to control your temper. I was refering to what you said. You also said this is tiring. I have never lied. You have attacked me, why not just own your own actions? You have tacitly tag-teamed and you are here to argue right now. I am talking about this article, not the hundreds of others. You can walk away. You can choose to take a break. Why don't you?

Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>You need to work on telling the truth once in a while. I don't have anger issues. It is tiring, because you make it so. I have not tag-teamed, and I have not attacked you. I have responded to your attacks against me. Own your own actions, as opposed to attempting to WP:OWN the article. Enigma ^message 05:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally reducing the impact

These suggestions may help you maintain civility in the face of difficulties. Use common sense and personal preferences to choose an appropriate option, or create a solution that better suits the specific situation you find yourself in.

Balance criticisms by providing constructive comments.
If possible forget about offensive comments without replying, and forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict.
Alternatively, respond to perceived incivility with greater civility and respect. Many editors will then moderate their tone to match yours.
Please. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project.

Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled.

You do not have to like an editor as a person to appreciate that they are also working for the good of the project. If you do not like a fellow editor, try not to hold that fact against them.

72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Who said they don't like you? Let me guess, because folks disagree with your edits, that means they don't like you, but because they don't like you, they disagree with your edits. Round and round we go. Circular straw man. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Pats1 does not like me because he said he does not like me. Do I have to go to the archives? chrisjnelson does not like me becasue he said he does not like me. enigma does not like me because he implied it. False cause. Illogical. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I implied it? So now you're making stuff up by claiming I implied things? I don't know who you are. I have had very little contact with the others editing this article and I don't really know them very well either. I judge by the edits to the article and how they've explained themselves on the talk page. Enigma ^message 05:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, be honest. You don't like me. Your attacks imply that. Any fair unbiased observer can see that. Come on, who are you trying to convince, me or yourself?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't need to convince myself of anything because I know the truth and the truth is that you have no one but yourself to blame for all of this. Quit trying to project. Any fair unbiased observer would wonder what game you're trying to play here. In fact, a few have asked you, and you've dismissed them as biased and people who don't like you. How many people have spoken to you now? Nevertheless, you remain convinced that there's a conspiracy against you. Enigma ^message 05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You still have yet to comment onthe substance of the line. If you think that about me then walk away, take a break. Also, it is clear from comments made by you and others you don't like me. Pats1 and nelson are on record. You have a series of remarks that imply it, even if you won't say it. Case closed.Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You should take your own advice about walking away. I don't talk about my personal feelings about other editors that much, because it's really not that relevant. You choose to invent things about me by things I allegedly implied. I think that's wrongheaded. Enigma ^message 05:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have walked away, before, but got steamrolled. This time I insist on consensus building. That way all parties are reuqired to compromise, not just me. If you are not interested in that, that is fine. No one is keeping you here. I choose to stay because a small portion of wikipedia can be greatly improved if rules are adhered to. If I walk away then the next time there is a disagreement the majority will think it rules, people may say "You are in the minority so you must be wrong". Well, it is important that the NFL project people know that wiki is not a democracy and there are good processes in place. I chose to participate in them. You can free to join in or not, it is your choice. However, what should not stand is what has occured here. This type of gang-mentality will eventually ruin the NFL project on wiki, there are about 1000 NFL aritcle, many just stubs, there is much to be done . . . I do a littl here and a little there. But I stay because wiki's principles of open contributions must stand. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should he have to walk away?! Don't forget, he has the great Wikipedia policy of WP:IMAFANOFTHETEAMTHISGUYISONANDYOUARENOTSOJUSTGOAWAYANDLETMEADDANYTHINGIWANTEVENTHOUGHITSNOTGOODFORTHEENCYCLOPEDIAGOSH! on his side.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't ya just loooove WP:BEANS!? A handy little policy, I think :) Ksy92003 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is forcing him to. It is a suggesting because he finds this "tiring" and he said he has to control his temper. I pointed out that it an option he can choose to do. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris was referring to you, not me. Enigma ^message 05:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I missed that. I have already articulated why I am still here. I don't have to control my temper and I desire to be able to edit on an equal basis to this article and others.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering I'm a bot and you're not, I daresay it's you who has a temper to control, not I. Enigma ^message 06:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll admit that I actually don't like him, though I think I'm probably the only one here that feels that strongly one way or the other. To be completely honest, what I actually think of the guy as a person, I'm not permitted to say here.

However, I have never made any edits to this article because of my personal feelings about this user. I came to this article because I always update NFL player articles. The article was in what I would consider a completely crappy state. Other users seem to have agreed with me on this. So I made edits to change that. But I have not maintained my stance on this because of the user who is on the other side - that's irrelevant. I don't care who the user is, I just think this is a poorly constructed article and I want to make it better. What the IP user fails to see, and would certainly never believe even though it's true, is that I would just as strongly oppose Pats1 or anyone else if they made an article into what this one has become. I can also honestly say that at one point in my life, I hated Pats1 more than I've ever hated anyone I've encountered on the internet, and thought far less of him than I do this user.

As I said before, the user is irrelevant here. My beef is and always has been with the article. If the IP user wants to be so egotistical as to think a bunch of people on the internet are plotting and scheming against him, that's his deal. My goal is just to keep the Chris Long article from becoming/staying a long-winded, fluff-filled irrelevant piece of garbage.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Okay, then. That is a fact, it is not majority rule. Consensus is a good guideline. I suggest everyone read WP:CONSENSUS and commence following the process, which requires compromise, it is not a democracy where the most votes win.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Beware of argumentum ad temperantiam. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good one. I pointed that out to another admin. He/she dismissed it without comment. I am aware of the arguement to the middle. However, the point is not that. The point is wikipedia is not a democracy. So, be that as it may, that does not exclude anyone from doing the WP:CONSENSUS process. It is pretty specific as to what needs to be done. If a party will not compromise they are not consensus building.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I say it is notable that Long gave a speech to athletic trainers. I say it is worth a sentance and a refernece. It is noteworthy, it is verifiable and is neutral point of view. If others say it does not belong it has to be more than a majority or it cannot be the opinion of an editor. If this does not work, we can seek comment on that one line72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Has anyone here violated this lately? I wonder. People kept saying my good faith edits just had to go. I call bullsh!t! :)72.0.36.36 (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZsammygoo", or someone changing "4+5=9" to "4+5=30"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.

Be bold

Is anyone ignoring this founding principle and doing so with prejudice?, I wonder.72.0.36.36 (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

Are people here throwing up roadblocks of rules which do not show common sense such as WP:CRYSTAL et al.?72.0.36.36 (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means Wikipedia:Understanding IAR

Cooling off period

I think even if this page is not protected there should be a cooling off period prior to dispute resolution. People should say what their interst in this page is and why it is under a higher level of scrutiny than say, Julius Adams, for example. Those who ADD things should be considered important. I think Pats1 should go to some Patriot article and improve them. That would help wiki. I think it is clear that there is issues here becaise it is personal. I edit Chrs Long because I am a Ram fan and am interested in this article being good. I think no one else here can make an honest claim that they care about the content. If they did they can go to Patriots, DOlphions or whatever, and IMPROVE there. Tha twould make sense. I would no follow them around to make changes, I would welcome many articles being improved. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So, it looks like there should be a cooling off period . . . those who are invloved should not edit-war until dispute resolution. Okay?72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah about that... you are not in charge, and that fact that you are a Rams fan doesn't give you any more right to edit the article than any of us. It doesn't matter if we're Dolphins fans, Patriots fans or Bette Midler fans (Pats1 is the last two). We all have just as much right to edit this article and just as much say regarding it's content. If you don't like the rules here, perhaps you should start your own online encyclopedia that only you can edit.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Same old, same old. Once it's in the state the IP wants it, no one else should edit it anymore. Last time he wanted it full-protected only if it was immediately after he edited it, so no one else got the chance to edit the article. Enigma ^message 03:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am curious to see what you can even add to the article. All you have done here is revert. Maybe you can edit something else. That would be a recommended activity for "cooling off". 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Think of it as addition by subtraction.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To the IP: You were claiming that you're qualified to make these edits because you've written for numerous publications and two encyclopedias. Why don't you go write for those instead of editing this? It's the same logic that you're using. You choose to edit this article. Others choose to edit this article. That doesn't give you the right to tell everyone else to leave your article so you can get it the way you want it. Enigma ^message 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply stated I was as qualified as anyone else. I didn't demand any right I suggested they cool off. That is in the wiki rules for dispute resolutions. However, you and a couple of others are not "into" the rules, they don't apply to you, do they? You can be as uncivil as you want, right? But if I defend myself I am the one in the wrong. Gang mentality. Classless. Further, I have had 95% or so of what I wanted in the article deleted, is that fair? Howcome only I am forced to accept that? Pats1 just goes in does what he wants and follows me around and t=then does what he wants again. Of course, he's and Admin, they are allowed to do that apparantly72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the 72.0.36.36 makes a bunch of edits to the article, then asks for protection and a cooling-off period. I mean, seriously... Pats1 ^T/C 12:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, according to the IP, if he edits an article and reverts 20 times after 20 other editors revert his changes, all 20 of them should be blocked for edit-warring, as they are merely gaming the system and bullying him. After all, since they all made the same changes, they should all be considered one person. Enigma ^message 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a lie. I say if 3 editors who all hate me revert good-faith edits then those people are tag-0teaming and gaming the system. If it is 2 editors doing the same thing then the same holds. DOn't exagerate what I say to cover your own actions.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it completely represented your position. You claim that if others disagree with your edits, they should all be treated as one person and blocked accordingly. Enigma ^message 05:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Still on this? No, I didn't call for you guys to be blocked. I called for equal treatment. IF I was blocked by an Admin then there should have been a warning and a discussion but IF I broke the rule then those acting in concert (knowlingly or not) should have too. I should not have been blocked. Neither should you, but since I was I asked the question why the spirit of the rules being broken by others was fair. Your Wikipedia:Wikilawyering 2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; is what went on. I did break the 3RR, but so did those who were a de facto team. None of you should have reverted my good-faith edits. Not you, not Pats1, not WKnight94, none of you without proper discussion. Just read the rules. Reverting is harsh. You did it without regard to good-faith edits. No?72.0.36.36 (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No one violated 3RR (Or even came close) but you. That's a fact. Enigma ^message 02:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

==RfC: Are the quotes used by IP 72.0.36.36 in violation of any rule? Is the speech Long gave "non-notable"? as Pats1 claims. Is the level of scutiny appliedto IP fair and consistent to other editors? ==

{{RFCxxx | section=RfC: Are the quotes used by IP 72.0.36.36 in violation of any rule? Is the speech Long gave "non-notable"? as Pats1 claims Is the level of scutiny appliedto IP fair and consistent to other editors?!! reason=Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article? !! time=~~~~~}}

Are the quotes used by IP 72.0.36.36 in violation of any rule? Is the speech Long gave "non-notable"? as Pats1 claims. Is the level of scutiny appliedto IP fair and consistent to other editors? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus building starts here

Not up there

Leave the personal stuff aside. Why is the line not notable? An article in USA Today is notable.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all articles in USA Today are suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The source doesn't make what you want to add notable. The issue is the content, not the source. Enigma ^message 05:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then. What is wrong with the content of that line?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I disavow any bias on this issue or any personal like or dislike of anyone involved here - and I'm not even aware of what the article used to look like. Hell, I don't even know who Chris Long is! With that said, the introduction of quotes of people predicting Long's effectiveness is total overkill. I would go a step further and say that what's left after the quotes are removed is still overkill. I'm opposed to such ephemeral content as a general rule and this is no exception. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay fine, but this is not about that. This is something else that got deleted. Perhaps that is why there is confusion. You kept saying everyone is against me but that was on another issue. So, now that you have posted something I get where you are coming from.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Further, on your point. Overkill is opinion. That's WP:IDONTLIKE it and I reject that as a sole reason to delete a good-faith edit. I think there are greater wiki principles at work here.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, what line are you talking about? I imagine my answer will be the same but I'll bite. By the way, WP:IDONTLIKE is an essay regarding deletion discussions, not content. We're not talking about deleting this article so that isn't pertinent. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you imagine your answer would be the same before you have seen it? You need to have more of an open mind than that. Also, I know where WP:IDONTLIKE came from. The principle appries because it speaks to the question of deleting content. Just as other principles apply. I will go back and get the line for you. SO I would disagree . . . removal of content, good faith edits has to meet some sort of standard and I don't like it speaks to that very well.

Recenty Long spoke at the National Athletic Trainers' Association convention in Westervile, OH. Long spoke on the need for trainers, "I had minor bumps and bruises, things that wouldn't keep me off the field, but if I didn't manage them would potentially keep me off the field," said Long, buttressing the aim of the organization for athletes to take care of the bodies by proper nutrition, proper care for their injuries and proper use of equipment.

Now this may not be perfect in form, but this is to content and notability. Remember, you disavowed any bias. Keep in mind (1) verfiable and (2) NPOV and other ruling principles of content which I can cite.

72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure what to cite here other than WP:SENSE - and maybe WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Why do you think that one particular speaking engagement by one player would be interesting enough to include? Don't athletes make speaking engagements all the time? Do you think it makes sense to list all such engagements for every player? I saw Steve Garvey at a baseball card convention when I was a kid and that was reported in a legitimate newspaper - should I include that in his article? What about the other two dozen appearances he made that year? The simple fact is that modern athletes' names appear in all sorts of news articles on all sorts of subjects, and if you recorded every such occurence in an article here indiscriminately, Wikipedia would become a very boring place. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, and with civility I say, boring to whom? But, you did not dispute that is is (1) verifiable and (2) NPOV. You agree that it meets the wiki tests. That, coupled with other wiki principles means you objection might just be you don't approve of it. No? Instruction creep is what has happened here in my view. Different editors will pull out this or that as a roadblock (and I am not saying you are doing this here) to block content. You see, those things are not absolute and the more important principles override less important ones. So, here is the rub. You ask why? I ask why would an organization get a kid who is not even and NFL athlete yet? That may be rare. Steve Garvey was a MVP, All-star, world champ, etc. Speaking at a card show when he;s making money at it is one thing. However, this is a national convention and they got a kid without Garvey's bone fides. That is notable. Even if you and the rest don't agree the argument can be made that it rises to the level of notable. So, what may be indiscriminate to one may not be to another. Then it is the ole' WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That principle, to me, should be subordinate to other wiki principles mentioned below, no?72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)What about the speech or quote do you think makes it particularly notable? I am sure you would agree that if every athlete's article included quotes from every speech he makes, the real content (bio, atheletic accomplishments, etc.) would be overshadowed by the quotes. From the quote you posted above I don't see anything particularly notable, but if I am missing something and there is something particularly notable there, please explain.Rlendog (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am simply asking that WIKI stands be applied and not the sensibilites of a warring faction. I would agree that this is not high on any scale of importance, what the issue is to me is that is WIKI going to allow open editing o nthis article or is Pats1 going to get to delete anyhting he chooses and claim "non-notable". If so then greater WIKI principles are violated because one guy thinks he WP:OWNS an article and he and his followers can "shout-down" dissenters by false claims of majority rules. So, to the substance. I don't want to overstate the importance of this, but I don't want it to be understeded either, the speech is what it is, nothing more nothing less. I don't think making comparisons to other players and their speeches suits this discussion because I could point out hundreds of things in NFL project articles that are not "notable" in someone's opinions. So, on the merits this is verifiable and it is a NPOV. It is notable because it is national press. I have never seen that conference mentioned in USA Today ever. I have read that paper since 1985 or so. Now, could I have missed it in previous years? Sure. However, I think it got national news becasue of WHO was speaking. That ends the discussion, really. A separate discussion is whether it should be in the article, but one step at a time. It is notable under wiki standards. Under wiki guidelines, yes. Is it NPOV? yes. Is is verfiable? Yes. Can it be deleted because of "majority rule"? No. Should a real WP:CONSENSUS be reached? Yes.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm listening to your argument. So why did some organization have him speak? Is that the point of the USA Today article - that some organization had a no-name kid speak for some interesting reason? If so, then maybe the problem is that you didn't give enough context. Maybe you need to add to the line - something like, "Long's uncanny ability to do X caused him to be hired as a speaker by organization Y, even though he had yet to play a down in the NFL." Suddenly, the line would sound less indiscriminate. I didn't catch what the source link was - can you give it here? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[6] [7] I have no objection to ading a line of having a better writer do the edit. But, my view is that it passes the notability test. Is it the most notable thing around? No. However, on balance, given the requirements of wiki, to me, it should not be dismissed out of hand as is was. In the fianl analysis, it is worthy of consideration.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It started to sound plausible because he "had the benefit of athletic training support in high school in Virginia" and I was thinking maybe that was some rare characteristic, but then the article goes on to say that 42% of high schools have the same benefit. So where is the notability? It's an article covering high schools so Long is a great candidate. And of course the NATA wanted him at the press conference - he's Howie Long's son and he's the 2nd overall pick in the draft. I bet everyone planning any function involving high school athletics is trying to get Chris Long. His voice mail must be chock full. But I just came to that conclusion on my own without the benefit of the one example you've given of him actually attending a press conference. Everyone who has been in Long's situation in any sport surely could go to as many of those functions as they wanted. Should we find examples of every press conference that every #1 or #2 draft pick has gone to before playing in the NFL? Why just NFL - how about NHL and MLB and NBA? Why stop at #1 or #2 - I'm sure #8 and #14 picks have been invited to press conferences. That's where WP:INDISCRIMINATE kicks in for me - there's nothing that sets this event apart from all similar events happening to successful amateur athletes all around the world - and reporting them all would be pointless. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So where is the notability? You answered it yourself "It's an article covering high schools so Long is a great candidate. And of course the NATA wanted him at the press conference - he's Howie Long's son and he's the 2nd overall pick in the draft.". Since we agree that there are things of greater import, the issue is not that. It is does it rise to the level of notability under WIKI standards? It does. Should it be included? maybe maybe not. Should it have been dismissed out of hand? Not even close. However, you exmaples of speeches by others, etc. is not relevant because you cannot hold this article to a higher standard than others, I don't think. I think everyone agrees it meets WIKI standards that it is notable, but even though it is notable it might not be the best thing for the article? Do we agree?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That is along the lines I am thinking as well. For example, was Chris Long the first rookie to address this organization? Was there something else unique about Chris Long addressing this organization? Was the function he spoke at even notable enough to be addressed in NATA's Wikipedia article? (As of now it has not been addressed in the NATA article.) Did he say something particularly noteworthy in the speech? From the quote given it doesn't appear so. If he addressed an organization of trainers and said "I think atheletic trainers are useless" there may be some notability there. But it appears that he just said made motherhood and apple pie comments.-Rlendog (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are fair points, but I you mention that there is a huge disparity in the level of scrutiny here that htere is for other NFL articles. That stems from a poisionous situation caused by editors who think mob rule is okay. You, however, seem to be fair. So, the issue is if this meets the notability standard. As I mentioned it is super-important? No, not really. Is it fitting under wiki-rules? Yes, so I would ask you review it and ask if it is verifiable and if it is NPOV.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt about the verifiability or NPOV. The question is notability. I have no doubt that there are less notable (or perhaps more un-notable, depending on perspective) in other articles. The question is whether those articles should be the standard or whether the non-notable or less notable material in the other articles should be removed as well. I understand your frustration, but I am not sure what about this speech or quote makes it notable enough for the article. That said, if including this one quote for the time being can help reduce the tensions on this article, I would not actively oppose it. But as of now, based on the information available, I can't actively support it either.-Rlendog (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

72.0.36.36, when are you going to realize that so much of the stuff you want to add would never be agreed upon by the majority of people? I can't think of one thing you want to add that you could find a consensus for. In fact, I'll guarantee you on most cases that almost no one will agree with you. Not because of you but because your idea of what is relevant here appears to be so different from what most of us think. One would think the fact this keeps happening would indicate to you that your perception of what is relevant here must be quite off.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, this is not a democracy. That is the point. We are consensus building here. Rather that just saying what you think is not relevant, say why it is not relevant and use wiki guidlines as your standard. Others are doing that, you can, too. I have proven that mob rules in not the wiki standard. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Phase TWO Consensus Buidling

I would say that it is notable that Long gave a speech and that speech was covered national for the first time (likely). Under WIKI rules that sentace meets guidelines, it is NPOV and it is verfiable. I contend it cannot be deleted by a warring editor on his own whim.

Now, I say let's discuss whether it SHOULD be in the article. I think it can be, without question. I don't think it wise to hold this article to so much scrutinty that no one can edit it without challenge. That would be totally wrong. SO, I suggest we move on from notability to real consensus building as to whether it should be in. For a lack of a better term, let's just call it "Notable-enough". Is it notable enough to be in there, under wiki rules. I have said that it is not the most important thing around. It is not. I understand that others think it may not be. But I don't think the case has been made that it is not notable, but that good points have been made as to whether is is "notable enough"

Comments

No, the speech is not notable. Just because some football player who has yet to set foot on an NFL field said x, doesn't mean that it's notable. Until he gains notability on a professional level through his own means (not just being the son of Howie Long), what does his opinion mean? I do not support the speech being included. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Invalid. You point has always been the Long has done nothing in the NFL. That means little in terms of notability. It is illogical. You cannot hold this article to a higher, arbitrary standard. Look, I understand your point. No one needs you to explain he has not played in the NFL yet. Beleive it or not I knew that before you told me. What you expresses is that a player has to meet your standard before anything he does can be coonsidered for inclusion. It simply does not wash. Your standard of "notability on a professional level" is yours, not that of WIKI.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For the purpose of enlightening me, since I don't quite get it, I would like to hear the IP address explain in 25 English words or less, what's so special about this particular speech? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this about notability or "notable enough"?

I'm anticipating about 95% of that response to be in Spanish.. Ksy92003 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious English is not his first language. That hasn't stopped him writing long, incomprehensible diatribes. That's why I'd like him to explain in 25 words or less. In English or Spanish, either one is OK. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, this real consensus building. Your incivility disrupts this process. How does this personal attack help? "obvious English is not his first language" 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You write lengthy speeches that don't make sense. Can you explain briefly what's so special about this item that you're so keen on? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we're talking past each other. "Special" is not the standard. Notability is. I don't think those terms are synonyms. The speech and the fact he was asked is notable. Now, is it notable enough? Maybe, juts maybe there is an arguemnt there. But I think the onus is on those against it to say why it is not worthy of inclusion. I add one caveat: It cannot be because he hasn't played in the NFL yet (that ADDS to its notability) and because a user who loved it that I was banned thinks it was not-notable so he reverted it WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am sure you can understand that.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

i am as far from the non-reggie (non-regsitered user) as physiologicly possile but one argument that he or she or it may chuse to use is that since the person is notable his spseech is notable too. Just like how if George W. Bush were to mae a State of the Union address this would be a notable thing to mention in his article.

I would also lik to point out that insulting non-registered people is against WP:CIVIL and that we should try not to seem as if were are being rude to the non-reggies. Smith Jones (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not report every speech Bush makes. There has to be something special about it. I want him to explain what's special about this not-yet-player's speech. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Special" is not the standard. NPOV and verifiability is. This discussion, at this point, is wither it is notable enough. If you'd explain why it is not special, maybe that's help.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to get an answer from you is a hopeless cause. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are not trying to see that answer. WP:IDHT. The onus is on YOU to say why it is not notable enough. The onus is not on ME to put it in the article. Get it? The burden should be on the tearers down not the builder. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No the burden is on the person wishing to add the material---especially when everybody else disagrees with you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He can't do so now; he has been blocked.. again. I don't know about the details, but I saw the block in my watchlist. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're gonna have to wait 3 months for that one. Pats1 ^T/C 01:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He was unblocked; he was mistaken for a troll by the blocking admin. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmph, "phase two", eh? Do I need to copy my disagreement from phase one (or whatever) or can we just count it from its current location? And seriously, if this same issue is moved to yet another location, could someone please let me know? Thanks. Funny how when someone is so loudly in the minority that the conversation moves from place to place in attempts to shake the majority. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this helpful? Wiki is not a democracy and you know it, I think. So, consensus build or not, it is your choice72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is coming together fine. Two more folks, InDeBiz1 (talk · contribs) and Rlendog (talk · contribs) have noted that they don't support the notability of this line. Rlendog and Smith Jones (talk · contribs) have said they might support its inclusion just to quell the turmoil here and I think you'll agree that that's not an appropriate reason to include the content. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

lets be perfrectly clear here. I am mnto saying that this speech actually meets WP:N or belongs here for a polciy based reason. However, it is clear that the non-reggie is specifically motifated and extremely passionate in his or her inesistsence on including this informaiton within the article. While normally I would see no problem in removing this information and exlucind it from the article, I must realize that doing so in this instance would be impossible without causing either the of us to actually wind up in some sort of revert war which would be pointless and painful. I see your point regarding consensus but I have no idea whether or not consensus can be allowed to steameroller a non-reggie who is contributing in good faith to this encyclopedia. Smith Jones (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well a properly generated consensus needs to be respected. If you want to call that "steamroller" then so be it. But this is a community and folks need to stand down when they are as far in the minority as this. Sure, it's not a democracy but that just means that a majority making a poor argument does not outweigh a minority making a good argument. That is not the case here. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. COnsensus is not majority rule. If no consensus building goes on then there is no consensus. If the so-called majority does not compromise in any way they have not, HAVE NOT, participated in the consensus building process. If no process, as outlined in wikie guides, then there is not consensus. Period. If the amjority does not play b ythe rules then there is no consensus and that phoney consensus is NOT to be respected. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

cine on, Wikikngith. You must relaize that this whole thing is as useful and sucessful as fighting a brick wall. You have polciy and consensus behind you, but the guy who disagrees with us things has the raw force of obstiancy behind him. The fact that there is consensus being establisehd against including this speech might deter some people but for others the sheer weight of disappoval for their ideas is actually a motivational factor. Smith Jones (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the content on the speech yet again. It is clearly not notable and irrelevant in the long run to Long's career. The majority agrees and that will never change because common sense is on its side.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just beacuse you say it does not make it so. The "majority" is irrelevant becasue this is not a democracy. Common sense is not on your side. Again, this is a few people trying to control everything, with nelson and Pats1 being the muscle. Unless the majority compromises and participates in the process then the "majority: cannot be respected. Consensus is a process, not a majority rule democracy. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But right now, the majority is what we have. We don't have a a consensus. Instead, we have you by yourself, and we have a handful of people that disagree with your edit. So in that case, whose edit should stand? Why exactly do you think the minority's edit should stand when no one else agrees with it? Like it or not, being outnumbered is the end of it, and you will never have the numbers on your side because nearly everyone that looks at the situation will say it's irrelevant content.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The so-called majority does not rule. You are not the king of that majority. My edit should stand for now. Being outnumbered is childish and against the the spirit of wiki. It is you who no one agrees with. It is you who is banned all the time and it is you who has Pats1 to back you up all the time. So why do you have ANY credibility? What you say does not rule the day.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask again: Why should one person's edit stand when everyone else disagrees with him? Why exactly should the minority rule? Your cannot accuse anyone of reverting for personal reasons, because that isn't true. We're all reverting for content reasons, just like you're adding it because you believe in the content.

Imagine you're out with 10 friends. There's you and 10 others. You're trying to decide where to eat together. You say "I want Chinese food." All 10 others say "We want pizza." Just what exactly gives you the right to say that everyone should go get Chinese, when you're the only one that wants it? The relevancy of your content has not been proven to be notable (and there have been good arguments made against it), therefore what the majority thinks is the most fair way to go.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

False analogy. No one has proven a thing. The one editor who has some common sense says it is WP:N but since he disagrees with you then you ignore it. How is that fair?72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything contrary to what you believe, you simply do not accept. You don't like that people disagree with your edit, so you accuse us of reverting for personal reasons in an attempt to make our reverts invalid and unfair. But it's been explained at length on this page why your content is not notable, and we've done everything we can to help you understand it. The ball is in your court to grasp why.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] Miami Herald.com

[2] Palm Beach Post.com

[3] New York Daily News.com

[4] Sports Illustrated.com

[5] CNNSI.com

[6] New York Times.com

[7] Fansonly.com

[8] Sporting News War Room.com

[9] NFL.com

[10] New York Times.com

[11] Associated Press.com

[12] Sporting News.com

[13] St. Louis Rams.com

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

Irrelevant content

"Originally drafted?"

Wikipedia:Article size

Give evidence for tag

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Give evidence for tag

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#undue weight

Give evidence for tag

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Give evidence for tag

Why is this not a forum for discussing content?

Article Issues?

Tags

AN/I

Peer review/copyedit

Steamrolled

Proposed sections

Pre-draft rumors

Pre-Draft scouting

St. Louis Rams

Crystal concerns

Long height and weight

Dead Links

Long played basketball . . .

Need help

Put in the revised copy-edits

Second request

WP:SYN

Not again...

Protection requested

Non-notable

Back to the issue

note to wknight94

Personally reducing the impact

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Notability

Reverting

Be bold

Ignore all rules

Cooling off period

The consensus building starts here

Not up there

Phase TWO Consensus Buidling

Comments