User talk:Giants27/Archives/2011/August

You've got mail
RevanFan (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Solder signing
I know it happened, but can you provide a source? Go back and revise that and in your notes provide something like this: http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&p=9&c=2&cid=1092214&nid=5395927&fhn=1 Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't add links in our edit summaries when adding moves to the template. It's completely unnecessary and just clutters up the history.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  19:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your GA Review
Hello Giants. I'm sorry if that comment offended you, again, not at all my intention. Apologies on that point. I'm sorry, but not even the references are properly formatted. None of the news sources are in italics, none use the "Cite news" template, and most are missing publishers and accessdates. If you want clear examples, #11 and 12 are not in italics, have no accessdates or publishers. Additionally, they use the "Cite web" instead of the former. These are basic issues that need to be addressed before a nomination. Trust me, I've been through these a million times, having written almost 50 myself. These are basic GA requirements. Good luck!-- CallMe Nathan  •  Talk2Me   07:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Maybin
He was waived and it has been reported by numerous reliable sources. It's not like he can be pulled off waivers and he is no longer a member of the Bills. On top of this, it is not always reported when someone clears waivers, unless they were claimed. So, the move is official and he is a free agent (well, on waivers, but since he has no team, he is listed as a free agent). Cheers,-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  19:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is now 4pm ET and he has been waived and is subject to waivers. Prior to now, there was only a report he would be waived. No matter how reliable the sources are, transactions do not take place until 4pm ET. Furthermore, he is not a free agent unless he clears waivers, which will not be known until 4pm ET tomorrow. Just because reliable sources indicate something wil happen does not in fact mean it has already happened. Even if reliable sources indicate the Panthers (the team first in line to claim players on the waiver wire) were to report that they had indeed claimed him, the transaction would not in-fact occur until 4pm ET. Sorry for being such a stickler over this, but reporting events before they happen as if they have already happened, regardless of how certain it is they will happen, is simply inaccurate. Bhirsch (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While that may be true, the "regular" editors of roster templates and player pages here have never followed this "after 4PM thing" because right now, all transactions are official once announced, which means that no matter the deadline, it has gone through. So, please cease reverting articles because it is not after 4PM ET, unless there is a source saying it hasn't happened. If numerous reliable sources are reporting something as done, it is done.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  20:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedic record of facts. By all means, let's continue to claim something has happened in the past tense before it actually happens because reliable sources claim it will happen. I wonder if the article subjects themselves would mind being called free agents when they are in-fact not. I guess you could explain to them that reliable sources indicate that they will clear waivers. Bookmakers have NE as the odds-on Super Bowl favorite. Perhaps Super_Bowl_XLVI should list them as the winner. Bhirsch (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. He was waived, thus he was placed on waivers, so he is no longer a member of the Bills, so based on your argument of being accurate, he should be listed as being on waivers, but since we don't do that, he is listed as being as a free agent, which is far more accurate than listing him as a Bill. I also never said that he cleared waivers, but rather that he was waived. There is no listing that works for describing this in the infobox, other than "Free Agent". Plus, as I said, reliable sources have said that he was waived, not that he cleared waivers, but that he was waived, which is true.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  20:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * He was a member of the bills until 4pm ET. I stopped reverting at 4pm ET. There are at least two times in recent memory where reliable sources indicated a player would be waived, but he was not for several more days. Wikipedia erroneously noted those players as being free agents when they weren't and one was subject to waiver claims upon release anyway. Reliable sources claiming something will happen are not the same as reliable reports that something did happen. Did Vince Young's article indicate he was a free agent when Bud Adams announced he would be waived, even though it was months before the transaction occurred? Just because everyone who edits player pages puts inaccurate information in does not dictate that such information is accurate. But, like I said, my mistake for treating wp like an encyclopedia. By all means, please continue to insist on including information known to be inaccurate. Bhirsch (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, if he isn't a member of the Bills nor any other team he has to be considered a free agent. I've only seen one instance in which a player was waived and subsequently recalled from waivers by the original team (Martell Mallett by the Eagles last year). The Eagles did not hold his rights after he was waived, however. The  parameter, when blank, gives the reader the assumption that he is a free agent, as does "Free Agent" in the parameter. It doesn't really matter IMO right now.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  22:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Teams technically have the right to claim players they placed on waivers -- I believe they are last in line if they were to submit a claim. Although this may have changed with the new CBA. Until a player clears waivers. he is more a member of the team that waved him than he is a free agent. Omitting a roster status is far better than listing the wrong one. Bhirsch (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Rypien
I provided a link that cited Rypien's home as Crowsnest Pass, Alberta and not Coleman, Alberta. I realize that Coleman is a more local area, but all references regarding his death has his home listed as Crowsnest Pass. Jasonstru (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with deaths and more important events, usually citing multiple references for further confirmation is a good idea.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  01:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Todd Carter
Hello! Your submission of Todd Carter at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
 * It's a small issue, and I'd fix it myself, but I'm not familiar with the term "street free agent", and it's not explained at free agent. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Todd Carter
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ArenaFan.com as a reliable source
You are invited to join the discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. NThomas (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)