Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:04, 18 June 2008

To start a peer review, choose an appropriate topic from the list below and click on the link to create the review page. Arts Language and literature Philosophy and religion Everyday life Social sciences and society Geography History Engineering and technology Natural sciences and mathematics General topic or List If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. College football Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Virginia: University of Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject University of Virginia. Template:St. Louis Rams projectPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. National Football League This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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 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 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 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 11:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A mediation case has been started on this topic. Please see Misplaced Pages: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)

Article Issues?

I saw Pink added the tags. More discussion needed. Enigma 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags

1. I didn't add the tags
2. You have now edit-warred with three users over the tags, reverting three times in the process. Enigma 20:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You did. Pinkeith did them however did not put up any reasons why. I reverted them. You then reverted my edit. Therefore they now belong to you. This little "I didn't do it" refrain is really tedious. If you have an issue then go down below and post what you issue is and then we can get this resolved and overwith.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't. It's really that simple. Using your logic, if A writes an article, B blanks it, and then C reverts B, C wrote the article, not A. Enigma 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A writes article, B blanks it, C then reverts it, all true. However, A writes article, C posts comment that tags are nedded, C THEN reverts mean C and A have same agenda. C is then responsible for tage. Now it seems C has no comments on why tags are needed. Come on. If you have anything to add to the discussion do it. Now all you are doing is disrupting wiki to prove a point. That's not cool. You have now reverted tags for a second time yet you have made not a single comment in the appropriate section. I could give you a lesson in intent, but I think it will fall on deaf ears, that is your choice but playing a little game to deny that you want the tags makes no sense. You have twice put them up and yet you have given no reason for them . . . this is simple disruption by you and I find it pretty immature, how old are you? Are you about the same ages as chrisjnelson? A rage age?72.0.36.36 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is you who kept edit warring. The tags are unjustified and are not necessary for persons to discuss things. That is what a discussion page is for. What this appears to be is a tag-team effort to control content. It would be nice if you would say WHY the tags are there, why you put them there then we can get to the substance and apply the Wiki rules to the discussion72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is a case of the pot attempting to cast darkness on everything around it. Enigma 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this, Lord of the Rings? "Cast darkness"? I am simply asking you to contribute to the discussion rather that what you are doing which is *trying* to make some kind of point72.0.36.36 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The tags should remain because it is the best way to let visitors know that there is discussion going on here. You (the IP user) are taking them personally and you should not. Let the tags stay, the discussion happen and when it's resolved them they'll be gone.►Chris Nelson 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your belief that a discussion taking place means tags are unnecessary is completely wrong. You see buddy, other people may wish to join such discussions if they were aware of them, and that's what the tags are for.►Chris Nelson 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't call me "buddy". Please remain civil I would appreciate it.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your dense behavior warranted you being spoken down to.►Chris Nelson 20:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My "dense" behavior, huh? Why is it you cannot ever be civil? Why is it you are compelled to hurl insults at me? You have no right, under wiki rules, to speak down to me or anyone. Who are you to determine what is "warranted" anyway? I think you should remain civil, it would be best for everyone here.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior qualified as dense because you failed to see the obvious reasons why the tag should remain. In cases like that, sometimes it is necessary to speak to someone as you would a child. It's not my fault you didn't comprehend the obvious need for the tag.►Chris Nelson 02:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What's obvious to some isn't obvious to all.. Ksy92003 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well in this case, it should be obvious. If it isn't, that's an intelligence/logic/comprehension problem with that person.►Chris Nelson 04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a difference of opinion. I don't have a learning disability, I don't lack intelligence, I think logically and I comprehend well. You just have a different view and when you express that you hurl insults rather than debate the issue.72.0.36.36 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 02:21, 17 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 /C 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Pats1. Enigma 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 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)

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)

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)

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 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 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)

"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 Misplaced Pages's policies. Enigma 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 . 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 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 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 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)

This has got to qualify as one of the most blown out of proportion arguments in Misplaced Pages 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)

• Peer review requests not opened
• Requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class college football articles
• Low-importance college football articles
• WikiProject College football articles
• Unassessed Virginia articles
• Low-importance Virginia articles
• Unassessed University of Virginia articles
• Unknown-importance University of Virginia articles
• WikiProject University of Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• Start-Class National Football League articles
• Unknown-importance National Football League articles
• WikiProject National Football League articles