Talk:Walt Coleman/Archive 1

coleman was a sheridan Ar football announcer for the Jr high. I spoke with him today and he spoke of the games and everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.198.51 (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Walt Coleman.jpg

Image:Walt Coleman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

2008 Ravens Steelers

How does one submit a request for a page to be protected? One abusive user, Zzyzx11, insists on vandalizing this page by adding irrelevant and/or superfluous information that has nothing to do with the individual, Walt Coleman, such as the scores from games he did not officiate, records about the number of teams that have won the Super Bowl after winning the AFC championship, etc. It has been discussed on some other boards that Zzyzx11 is a relative of Coleman. Is it possible to lock this vandal out of this page? 72.81.181.62 (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagreements with content is a content dispute, not vandalism.Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Content that has nothing to do with the person to whom the article is about is, in fact, vandalism. Please see the Wikipedia guidelines for more details -- thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.181.62 (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And I will say again under WP:RECENT that this "controversial call" has no long term impact. No rule changes were made. The Ravens were able to recover and make the playoffs. And despite the Steelers winning the AFC North, home teams have not faired well in the playoffs for the past few years. Ask the 2007 Giants and the 2005 Steelers -- yes the 2005 Steelers. If the Ravens had taken care of business and taken the lead in the final minutes of the AFC title game instead of throwing those 3 turnovers, this page would not have Ravens fans watching this article, like any fan who wants to put undue weight on one controversial call -- just like Seattle Seahawks fans who bombarded the Super Bowl XL and Bill Leavy articles four years ago. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed on some other boards that Zzyzx11 is a relative of Coleman. That's funny. If these boards are full of Ravens fans, shouldn't the other question be, "Is Zzyzx11 a fan of a certain team who is sick of other fans using Wikipedia articles on sports officials as a free forum to complain about calls that go against them?" Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Zzyzx11: Please do not let emotion and personal biases influence your edits. It's clear that you are not in control of your emotions in this matter. Whether it's because you're related to Coleman or any of a thousand other reasons, it should not influence the edits of this living person. Adding stats about games Coleman did not officiate is vandalism. You've already been warned about this, and if you persist I will have no choice but to escalate the warmings. Please keep edits factual and please stick with subjects you have some understanding of; clearly you know nothing about football, as the Coleman call in 2008 determined the outcome of the AFC North, as well as the home field advantage for the Steelers. So whe you say "no long term impact," you're either lying or just uninformed. Please respect the rules and mission of Wikipedia by keeping your bias out of your edits. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

72.81.181.62 (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Jason

Zzyzx11: Per your statement "And despite the Steelers winning the NFC North" this would be impossible, as the Steelers play in the AFC, not the NFC. I repeat that someone like yourself who doesn't even know the difference between the conferences probably shouldn't be editing articles that relate to the NFL. Please stick with topics you know. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

72.81.181.62 (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Ban-Zzyzx11

It is invalid to assume that only Ravens fans would note the controversial nature of the 2008 call. It's true that all officials make controversil calls, but in this case Coleman clearly exceeded the "indisputable evidence" clause of instant replay. Even Mike Pieria mentioned in his coverup that this call might change the way officials are to interpret replay calls. The very fact that so many independent soures (TSN, SI, Fox Sports, et al) questioned this call indicates that it was improper: "Indisputable evidence" means everyone sees the same thing -- if it's controversial, it's the wrong call. And for the record, I'm an Eagles fan; Zzyzx11's comments are absurd. Assuming the motivations of other editors is the height of arrogance.

38.102.23.58 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)McNabbFan

• Ok, now that I've cooled down and had time to think, I'll admit I have been wrong here, as you both feel that the division title has some significance. As a compromise: I'll allow the section to stay if I can both preface both controversial calls – the tuck rule game and the 2008 Ravens-Steelers game, since both have the same traits – with something like, "Coleman has been at the center of controversial replay reversals. The following are two examples:". And I'll also like to continue working on cleaning up that entire section so it flows better since I never liked how I originally wrote the core of it back in 2008 anyway.[1] Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems fair.

72.81.181.62 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Jason

2009 Cowboys Eagles

The Eagles/Cowboys game was indeed controversial but it can't be tied to a post-season event. The "Tuck Rule" definitely belongs, the 2008 Ravens/Steelers game probably does, but I'm not sure the 2009 game does -- unless it's because the NFL VP of officiating, in a rare example, expressed doubt about Coleman's call. Is that the reason for including it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.181.62 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when I do add the preface saying, "Coleman has been at the center of controversial instant replay calls during his career. Here are examples of a few of them:", it does open the door for other such controversial instant replay calls by him, not just those tied to post-season events. Yes, the NFL VP of officiating criticized it, but also remember that it happened earlier this month when the Cowboys and Eagles were tied for first place in the NFC East. I'm also not sure it will qualify in the long run, and I might remove it after the season, but I sort of have to preempt it just in case the Eagles do finish just a game behind the Cowboys in the division when the season ends – especially if that game ends up being a factor in the playoff seeding. Remember, the call happened when the score was tied in the fourth quarter. So based on those reasons, it may be only temporary. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if the Cowboys have another consecutive bad December, this game is not going to matter... Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess it does matter now, as the Cowboys won the division based on their head-to-head sweep over the Eagles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)