User talk:The Writer 2.0/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome!

Hello, The Writer 2.0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! — Ed! (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Do you want help
With the Jets articles? I am a PSL holder, for all the good that does anyone and more to the point, have over 20 FAs. The articles are well referenced, but probably could use a bit of cutting and editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate any help. Thanks for the offer! Is there anything else you have in mind as far as getting it up to par goes? The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would look at other "History of" sports team articles that have made it to FA. I'm thinking some cutting is in order, at first glance.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have access to the NY Times archives which I gather you don't. But there is no hurry, let us wait and see what comments come up at GA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your correct I do not have access to those articles however that would be great if we could put some of them to use. Looking forward to finally getting this all straightened out.--The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are also supposed to put a template on the article talk page indicating that the article is at GAN, see the GAN instructions. I think I also have a book on Super Bowl III somewhere that may discuss the Jets' late 60s history.  I may work on this in a couple of weeks when I hit the road ... let me know if you think photos from the new stadium will be helpful, though I will not be going again until opening night.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get right on that. As far as the pictures go, I really have no preference as to what you do. If you want to take some that would be fine and of course appreciated.--The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to work on the history article gradually over the next month, and hope to get it to FA this fall in collaboration with your own efforts. I've started by rewriting the lead, it is a little rough but it will do for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. I'll be happy to help in any way I can. I also read your introduction and I thought it was very well written.--The Writer 2.0 Talk 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your help will be needed.  I'll keep you posted.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your GA Nomination
 Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 16:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that the major concern regarding New York Jets is the lack of diversity within the sources. Would the "Logos and Uniforms" section happen to be the culprit for that? It was difficult for me to find links regarding the changes in the team's designs through the years and the website conveniently provided those details. Sans that section, IMO, the rest of the links are pretty diverse but if you could give me a general idea of what other sections may need other references please let me know. Thanks! The Writer 2.0 Talk 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your position and after researching the issue more thoroughly I see what you mean. I will add to that. Yesterday though I also added wikilinking as an issue. As stated in the MoS (Manual of Style) you only need to wikilink something once, I see you have several terms including Super Bowl III Wikilinked more than once. They only are wikilinked on the first appearance. After fixing that please let me know on my talk page and I will re-evaluate the article. Thank you.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Your article New York Jets has been names a good article. You can view it here. The final review is here. I am also reviewing History of the New York Jets. I encourage you to review a good article yourself. If you need guidance please contact me or another editor. I also present you with this userbox Code   Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

History of New York Jets Initial Review
Reasons:
 * Broken Wiki Links

Link To Article: History of the New York Jets

 Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

History of the New York Jets
Your article History of the New York Jets has been names a good article. You can view it here. The final review is here.I encourage you to review a good article yourself. If you need guidance please contact me or another editor. I also present you with this userbox Code

Your NFL edits
Thank you for your edits to the Jets' roster, but please remember to edit the count to reflect roster changes. Thank you. RevanFan (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. Sorry about that. The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Don't apologize. RevanFan (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Check the edit summary I just left on the Jets' roster. RevanFan (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks! The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

O'Connell
I just wanted to let you know, when a player with a single-digit # is on the roster, &nbsp has to be placed in front of the #. RevanFan (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

History

 * I'm sorry I've been so slow on my work on the article. I have it top of my list now.  I am hopeful of getting it under 100K before we get it to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's alright, I understand life can be a bit hectic. Don't worry about it, we have plenty of time to get this worked out. I also saw your message on the HOTNYJ talk page, prior to your taking it off, do you think it would be easier if we split it into two articles? --The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it will be OK. Why did you change some of the cite news to citation?  I don't particularly care which we use, but it has to unanimously be one or the other, either citation or cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. I'll fix it so it reads "Cite" --The Writer 2.0 Talk 14:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think it is ready, I'll nom it in both our names. It doesn't have to have a peer review, and I am past master of adjusting articles while at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and nominate it. I should be finished fixing the citations/making corrections in a bit.--The Writer 2.0 Talk 00:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. FYI, even when titles are in all caps, we pretend they aren't.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks.--The Writer 2.0 Talk 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nommed. here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you talk care of the publishers as in the FAC commentary? I will go through the prose with a fine tooth comb tomorrow. If that is not enough, we will have to get someone outside. Also, I'm going to doublecheck the "Year in Review" refs against the facts they are said to support, just in case. You might also want to doublecheck.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I will except the citation order has changed since Giants2008 review of the article so it may take me a while to figure what goes where. I'll doublecheck the YIR but I think they are okay. There was only one problem I saw but I corrected it earlier. I'll begin work tomorrow.--The Writer 2.0 Talk 04:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I took care of the too close tracking on that one cite, if you notice something close obviously change it. After the recent plagiarism scandal, people at FAC are sensitive.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Once you are done with the cites, I will have a go at tightening the language. Geez, a Giants and a Patriots fan as reviewers ... well, that's the Jets for you.  They make valid points though.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean but your right they do have their points. Give me about 15 or 20 minutes to finish up. --The Writer 2.0 Talk 15:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your time. I'm working in my sandbox on an upcoming article and will return to this a bit later in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you add the archiveurl for the sources I added? Thinks are not going so well, but I've asked Brianboulton to look in on the article to see if he thinks it is salvageable as a FA candidate, if so, he will lend a hand, if not, we may pull it and send it to peer review for more advice before submitting it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. I will also do some editing myself so we can perhaps speed things along. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be greatly appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It almost certainly will not pass, to my annoyance, because I think some of the comments are questionable. I suggest that once it fails, we put it at peer review (we have to wait two weeks) and spend a lot of time taking every informal idiom out of the article.  What's a formal way of saying "blew a ten-point lead"?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Once the FAC closes, perhaps you could list it for peer review. I presently have two open peer reviews and although the limit is four, I prefer not to impose too much on them.  I can see a clear tension between what the opposers want and good writing.  There are limits to how far I am prepared to go to satisfy cricket fans who will never look at he article anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked the rules, we can nominate it for Peer Review on December 15. My, you are lucky to be going to that game.  In my opinion, it's the most important regular season game the Jets have ever played.  I will be in an airplane for much of it and hope the pilot will be announcing the score, or I will have to wait and turn on my iPhone when we land at 11:55.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It strikes me that we should update this article Sunday night, win or lose. If they lose, then obviously updating is needed.  If they win, we will have two weeks during which people would be surprised not to see the Jets' 2010 season in the article.  If it is OK, then I will get to work sometime this week preparing "win" and "lose" versions of the lede and Ryan/Sanchez era section.  In the "win" scenario, the Super Bowl III section may also need updating.  In the "win" scenario, we might want to renominate and try to ride the interest to push it through FAC.  There is just a chance that we could get it through in two weeks, though based on past precedent, it could not run on SB Sunday, but presumably there will be some sort of gathering in the event of a "win" "win" scenario, and it could certainly run then.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have some language and notes to myself ready to go. Win or lose I will update the article right after the game and will also nom for FA as soon as Laser Brain promotes either of my articles currently at FAC.  As I add references, could you add archiveurl's?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hopefully Neutralhomer's support will start a wave, there can be a bit of a pack mentality at FAC sometimes, which worked against us last time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

History
Ah, a nice new talk page to despoil. AaronY has left a number of suggestions at FAC. I will be working on them as time permits, if you get a chance, anything you can do would be a Good Thing. A couple of reviewers are querying the use of the Jets web site, I don't know if the objection will get legs, so to speak, but if you would like to weigh in on that question, it might be a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are now a reviewer and rollbacker. Please read up on these features.  If you do not want them, ask me or another admin to remove them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir! Much appreciated. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Very hopeful we will pass now. If Laser Brain supports, it is all over but the opposing team running back a fumble for a touchdown and two plays later after a successful onside kick scoring again on a play when the Jets thought time out had been called ... (shakes head).  Sorry.  Take nothing for granted, take nothing for granted ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Amen on all counts. I also noticed the new image you uploaded. Glad to see the article won't be as bland as it was. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 23:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we made it. Finally! Usually my articles are a few days of sustained effort and then ride the momentum the rest of the way. This one took all your work, and then both of us. For months. Whew!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw you left me a note and then deleted it. Do you still need help with that? I am sorry, I was only online very briefly the last three days.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * AP selects best, worst draft picks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

DoctorHver
Just saying thanks for cleaning up the Jets page after that dude got done messing things up. Some people just don't understand the confusion behind the first four super bowls. He did the same thing to the Colts and the Packers page and I fully expect an attempt at the Chiefs and Raiders pages as well. So again, thanks for the help. Zoro   1234  17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you an admin by any chance? I contacted someone who I know is an admin but if you are also maybe you could re-block doctorhver. He seems to think I have a personal vendetta against his edits when really I'm just trying to keep things in line. Zoro   1234  21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not. But don't worry, I'll keep an eye on him myself. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletions of RS-supported material
Please do not delete RS-supported text, with its refs. Please also do not make contentious edits without using an edit summary. Such edits are disruptive. Many thanks. I will watch this page, in the event that you have any comments, but I should also point out that this could well constitute edit-warring.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will respond here to your note on my tp, to keep conversation in one place. I fear you do not understand what speculation is appropriate to reflect, and what is not.  You seem to be applying a personal view, not grounded in any wp view, based on OR and POV.  The fact that these predictions are from RSs is indeed the key.  It would be verboten to report them as fact as to what will happen.  It is, to the contrary, completely appropriate to report them as RS predictions as to what will happen.  The fact that they can change is not reason for your to delete such RS-supported text and RS refs.  I have no great concern as to what you title the entry -- feel free to retitle it as you wish, though another approach (the more typical one at the project) is to title it to reflect what is in the subsection, and then alter it as you indicated once the subsection encompasses more than what it presently covers.  But I view that as a point as to which reasonable people can differ, and will not revert any change that you may wish to make to the title, along the lines that you mention.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my defense, I did not realize until it was too late that I had forgotten to add a edit summary for which I do apologize and furthermore, I unintentionally deleted the changes you made to the Refs which I have no issue with. In regards to the predictions, while we may disagree over the issue I will leave them as is however I do recommend they be placed under 2011 New York Jets season as a I stated previously; it would seem more appropriate considering the "Franchise History" covers a broader period of time whereas this new information will be more focused under 2011 however I have not moved anything yet in fear that you may believe this to be an edit-war which I feel it is not - it is a difference of opinion that we are now working through. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 02:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries as to the edit summary -- only an enormously irritable person would say "be more careful" (though I have met one or two of those at the project. To make the change to the title that you suggest more clearly one that I defer to you on, I will make it myself.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the change I was referring to was physically moving the information to the article 2011 New York Jets season not titling it that because the article focus' solely on the 2011 season. If you click the above link you'll see what I mean. In any event don't worry about it; the information will be kept but it will be moved to the aforementioned article. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 14:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing I just noticed, the information is completely incorrect aside from Bank's prediction about Liuget. Carimi is not slated to go to the Jets as the Madison.com article states. When I visited CBS' website it stated that he will be selected by the Bears which makes more sense considering the Jets already have a left tackle in D'Brickashaw Ferguson. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 14:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. You say it is "completely incorrect".  Do we have an RS for it?  (I had thought so).  Are you suggesting that you've done some research, and found contrary information (also in an RS -- perhaps the primary RS for one of the entities?).  Or that perhaps one RS was correct, at the time written, but another RS is correct (actually, "verifiable is the proper phrase, I imagine) at another time period?  Just want to be clear as to what you are thinking.  Thanks.
 * Whether or not it was different at another time, I am not sure. But the Madison.com article stated the Jets would select Carimi however as of today when I visited CBS' website where the Madison.com article retrieved this information it stated that Rang had Carimi going to the Bears while the Jets would select DT Phil Taylor. If you want to verify this, I encourage you to look at the Madison article and click the link to CBS Sports where it will take you to the 2011 mock drafts where Rang proclaims the Jets will select Phil Taylor. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it (I think). I may have to take a day to look at it, but if I understand it appears from what we know (and what you are saying): 1) an RS said x, on date y; 2) at a later date, the info on which RS was based said z.  If that is the case, while the initial statement was notable at the time, it is less so now (historical non-current predictions are rarely of interest in sports articles, even if by notable persons/experts), and even though verifiable I would fully support its deletion.  Feel free to delete it immediately if you like, as I don't have time to double check all of this, and I will only come back to you on it if research suggests something more.  Any other "current" predictions by notable persons/experts would continue IMHO to be appropriate to reflect, as discussed below.  But any non-current ones (and, as you know, these can change) would IMHO be of sufficiently minimal interest, though verifiable and passing wp:crystal ball, as to not be worthy of reflection.  (btw -- no need for talkbacks ... I will watch you page for a week or so). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see if we can really clear this up: Here is the link to Madison: http://host.madison.com/sports/blog/article_506892cc-2af9-11e0-9b0e-001cc4c03286.html; towards the end of the article the author has listed multiple websites and the one that states Carimi will be taken by NYJ at 30 is CBS Sports. If I'm to click on that link to CBS we end up here: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/mock; scrolling down we see Rang has Phil Taylor at 30. So your initial statement is true: Madison said X (Carimi) on Y (Jan. 28) date however Rang now says Z (Taylor). Hope that clears things up. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes -- thanks for that. If you look at the date of the Madison article, it is 1/28.  The CBS Sports link reflects a more recent prediction -- specifically on the more recent date of 2/13, in which Rang's prediction is that Carimi will be picked before the Jets have a chance to pick him.  So I think it is appropriate to replace Rang's prediction with his more recent prediction (Taylor).  Good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing. I have moved the information to the article 2011 New York Jets season under the subheading "2011 draft." As I mentioned somewhere in the jumbled mess above I believe it is more appropriate there rather than on the mainpage because the mocks reflect this season not any upcoming seasons as you well know. Here is the link to section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_New_York_Jets_season#2011_NFL_Draft -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect. That's one of those "six of one/half a dozen" issues for me.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sourced or no, doesn't WP:CRYSTAL apply?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my original thought. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes -- the relevant part, relied upon by all manner of sports articles, indicates that predictions stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. Which is precisely what this does.  True, from time to time an editor only reads the title of that guideline, and jumps to a contrary conclusion (the sort of reading that is endemic at AfDs, for example), but all considered discussions of it that I've seen have always reached the same conclusion as to the plain meaning of the language.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

+1 barnstar

 * Thank you, much appreciated! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 14:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Question
There was something you wanted me to look at, but I have forgotten what it is. Can you remind me?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was my sandbox; I was hoping you could do some copy-editing to the new version of the Logos and Uniforms I want to put in place. I haven't finished adding the references but it is nearly complete. By the way as to your first edit about Wismer having a "relationship" with Notre Dame, I did find a link to that here (tenth paragraph in): Wismer-Irish -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 16:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll read it over and ignore the referencing. Incidentally, the Jets, in common with the rest of the NFL, wore a commemorative patch for the 1994 season as the NFL's 75th.  Don't know if you want to mention that or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, done. I'll give it another read through before you take it live, please drop me a line so I'll remember.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done about half. You need to write a short lede. WIll finish up later.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Once you are done with this, might not be a bad idea to work on the articles about the Jets' 1968 season, they could be made FA worthy I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How long a history do you think you need for the team article, and is it with or without citations?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there The Writer 2.0, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:The Writer 2.0/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another set of eyes?
Hello there! Wehwalt pointed me your way, he suggested you as someone with the skillset to help me out on an article I've been working on for a while, 1962 National League tie-breaker series. It's up at PR and some editors have voiced concerns that it's written somewhat casually (like journalism, not an encyclopedia). Any chance you could give it a once over and perhaps some advice? Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 00:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I'm currently a bit busy but, I should be able to give it a look through sometime this afternoon. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 10:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good. I threw them a few comments in conjunction with Brianboulton's review but it wasn't something I could commit to doing.  You might want to check the comments the article's received at Peer Review (I think that's right?)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I'll take whatever sprucing up you have time for. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the look-see! FAC is a minefield, but I may take another shot at some point. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it. Between that minefield and the other stuff that goes on, it can be stressful. I wish you the best of luck! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 01:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

History
Although one or another Jet seems constantly in the news, I do not see anything yet that needs to be added to the article, nor likely to be until the labor dispute is settled.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Mark Sanchez PR
Will try to take a look at it tonight. If I don't get to do it, tomorrow looks shaky because of real-life commitments. Hopefully that won't be an issue.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 21:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I will review it as soon as I am done with other pressing commitments, I see it crowding my half dollar article at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm watching the FAC, and will review as soon as you clear things up with Giants2008. Legacy text, as I call it, is a danger to the article improver!  You live and learn!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Greg McElroy
Do you think this addition to Greg McElroy should stay in the article?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it should. Don't get me wrong, getting a co-sign from your starting quarterback and a Hall of Famer will certainly brighten anyone's day but, realistically, he is the (projected) third backup on the team, when and if this lockout ends, and has yet to prove whether he is a career backup or future star within the National Football League. And with Sanchez the designated starter, I feel this isn't a necessary piece of information in his bio at this time. That said, you could use the article the IP provided to talk about McElroy's smarts and add in a generic sentence about that—regardless, it needs to be changed whether you remove it or keep it. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Idea for images
It strikes me that many Jets/Titans programs, yearbooks, and similar published before 1978 were likely not copyrighted. Once the NFL got savvy, yes, but I'd bet good money that most of the AFL stuff does not contain a copyright notice (possibly even Super Bowl III program!) as, if there is no copyright notice in a pre-1978 US published-work, it's PD (the images contained inside may not be, though, that's trickier). I may be passing near Canton in mid August, it may be a good opportunity to consult the HoF archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent! HoNYJ could use some images and the SB 3 images would be a nice bonus. On a side note, I've started working on re-writing the history of ESPN and I must their history, just prior to launch, is something else—I'm curious about what comes after September 7, 1979. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 00:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, September 8, 1979? --Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7th, 8th, I was close. Oh and interesting story behind Berman's nickname. It involves a portable toilet and fog. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 00:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not correcting you, I was saying that the 8th followed the 7th. I gather you read that book on the history of ESPN (I have not gotten around to it yet).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Sorry, I completely whiffed on that one. It has been quite a long day! I applaud your humor! I'm using Those Guys Have All the Fun which just came out and with that article in desperate need of repair, I couldn't pass up the opportunity. Plus I have to pay homage to my home state where it all started. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 01:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you want me to copyedit it. I spoke with the HoF archives, it seems that they do not like scanning which is unsurprising as most of the NFL happened in the copyright era, although they hinted a limited number could be done by them. However, I do not see that as a difficulty, AFL Jets and Titans program covers show up regularly on eBay, I shall download the covers and then leaf through the actual programs in their archives and look for copyright symbols. I have one day, tops, in Canton (where, as Relient K said, "you cant-en joy yourself" and then have to move on for a convention in Chicago and a wedding. Busy week.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm nowhere near done yet—I haven't even gotten to the 90's but when the time comes, I would apprecitate your comments and insight. As for the images, I'm not surprised by their attitude but, hopefully they will manage to get over themselves for a moment just for a few images. Anyway, good luck that week, sounds tiresome! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be interesting ... I'm also going to the Deshler, Ohio library for back issues of the local paper in connection with "Bring Us Together". I was there once for images but did not think to stop in the library ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I ebayed a program from the 1967 game against Miami (home), the good news is that it is free of copyright, the bad news is it's by Leroy Nieman. May raise some eyebrows.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It can't hurt to give it a shot. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also bought one from 1964, also non-copyright. Jeez.  If this pre-1978 loophole hadn't been affirmed by so many people, I'd be suspicious as hell.  This is from the Houston game, October 17, 1964.  Their second game at Shea.  Cartoon picture of Larry Grantham on the cover.  Top ticket price $6, sigh.  Sigh.  Sigh.  I may keep doing that for a while, especially with a likely credit card charge in the next few days!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both programs are now uploaded. The Super Bowl program, I've seen an image of the copyright page and it is copyright, unsurprisedly.  I'll keep downloading images from eBay and plan on checking them against the real thing in Canton.  That is, of ordinary game programs, perhaps the playoff program against Oakland.  There's also the question of the player photos inside the programs, which I understand to be a more complicated issue.  While the SB3 program may be copyright, there may be ticket applications, media guides, and other literature in the Canton files which is non-copyright and that I can get some scans made.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nnamdi Asomugha
Nnamdi Asomugha is currently a free agent. He does not play for the Oakland Raiders any more. He'll be on a new team shortly, but the listing for him is even wrong for the interim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.190.98 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanchez
I'll work with you on the prose, it's not bad, and I think you'll be able to pick up what I'm getting at and need less comments next time. I think that will satisfy Malleus. I was thinking, btw, that we could nominate History for September 12. We can't get September 11 for obvious reasons and the game starts after midnight Universal Time, which Wikipedia uses. Since you've never had an article main page, you could nominate at WP:TFA. A preformatted blurb to submit is here but feel free to alter it (ignore the date, I had thought of the Super Bowl anniversary). It should be one point for date relevance, one point for rookie TFA writer (you), but to get the second point, you have to be the nominator. Slots are presently open.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. By the way, Canton on Monday. I've downloaded about half a dozen program covers from eBay, including the AFL championship game against Oakland, just need to examine the hard copies.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Enjoy your trip and try to get plenty of rest where you can. I'm going to continue working on Sanchez—hopefully by the time your return it will be in fair shape. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk
 * Have laptop, will travel. I'll finish up Sanchez before he throws his first pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to your comments then! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to work on it today, it's not a particularly long article. Unlike the other guy from Whittier :P  I'll get any 1968 to 1969 news clippings I can as well as confirming the status of those programs and looking for a noncopyright Super Bowl publication.  We had discussed at some stage working on the Super Bowl III article or perhaps the Oakland playoff game, or the '68 season article.  Why was that at Shea when Oakland had the better record and beat the Jets in the regular season thanks to a little Swiss girl?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I remember that conversation. Perhaps we should work on all three articles, that will complete the circle! Don't worry, the Jets are paying for having played at Shea by visiting Oakland practically every season. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have an interest in working on Heidi Game together?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly! Looking forward to it. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is going to be an interesting article, part sports (we will need to give a detailed account of the game) and part television broadcasting. The articles I've gotten from the H of F, some of them argue that the Heidi game changed television, in that sports broadcasting was thereafter put ahead of having programs air in full at the stated time.  Images will be a problem, of course.  I do have the program cover, but beyond that it will be random photos of personalities.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've started a background section here, mostly from paper sources. I bought Jeff Davis's bio of Rozelle as an online book. Feel free to whatever, it is not fully sourced or written yet. My concept is Background, Game play (all the way to the end), Network and reaction (might have to be split depending on length, and Aftermath. Cut out most of the present article.  The Jets were pretty upset about the officiating and were eventually fined by Rozelle, which had nothing to do with the television.  Michaels and Dr. Andrews were pounding on the official's locker room, Walt Michaels was shooting off his mouth, and they called the reporters in midweek to show game film of "blown" calls by the officials.  The Jets stayed in Calif as they were playing San Diego the following week; well mostly:  Namath headed to Vegas.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, the game is much more tame today—thank heavens Rex Ryan came along. Based upon what you have written so far, it looks very well done (check please!). I'll look into it more later on. Before I forget, do you want to keep the quotes portion of the article? I'm certain there are plenty we could find but I'm not certain if it adds much to the article itself. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know as it is, just not as blatant ... of course if Goodell gets his way, it will be touch football. No, no separate sentence for quotes, we have Wikiquotes for that.  We could give them our quotes and then put in an interwiki link?  And yes, thank God for Ryah, a coach who is both confident and backing up his words, and a rising young quarterback.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Interwiki link would be great. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Archiving
I shall need you to modify the image descriptions as I upload game program images that I screenshot off eBay so they have an archive url. The eBay links will rot in a few months. The first is. I think we shall have a well illustrated article by the time it runs main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. The archives are going to look a bit messy but at least we'll have a record of them. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I care not about the mess. Thanks.  I have a few images up, more coming but I have to get back on the road!  By the way, I saw a source that said that the 1968 AFL championship was to be played at the East Division Champ.  Alternating divisions.  The NFL did something similar for many years.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a bit of a laugh out of this (snatched it off a 1962 ticket order form). Ample restrooms?  I guess they were counting the ramps.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 12:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I put a mention of ample restrooms in the image caption in the History article, and Jets fans should get a good laugh. Images are up, I stopped because I did not want to crowd the article.  I'll keep uploading later.  I will substitute in the Namath shot, unless you have a better idea (from the four page newsletter, Jet Stream they used to send to season ticket holders, I think they did so into my tenure as a season ticket holder (since 1986).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have built up a very impressive collection and the article looks great! The images will help make it easier on the eyes for sure. The Namath shot is fine besides, he was an important part of the team's success and should be depicted. Some brief thoughts: After this season we'll have to re-visit the article and, in all liklihood, split it at the 90s, I would say. I'm still determined to capture the elusive photo of Rex in his element as I return to Foxboro in October, here's hoping my camera will function properly so we could add that to the article. We may also be able to grab something from the Commons for Sanchez if I can't capture him either. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about a split at 1969, right after the blockquote I just added. The AFL material is more detailed.  Next time I go to a day game I'll bring my camera.  Maybe even a night.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea actually. Makes the most sense. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 15:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

if they win it all this year, then I say end it with 2011. Or have 60-69, 69-2011 and 2011 on. I dont' know how you deal with the baby article, but it must have been done before. There is no way to write an article about the Heidi without using a tremendous amount of jargon. We will simply have to take a position that History and Ryan are Football 101, people can wind up there without much football knowledge, but that can't be true of Heidi Game. It's a Football 201 article, or possibly 401. However, we shall go to pains to write the TV portion of the article in a very accessible way, to cater for the people interested in that aspect of things. How it happened that The Simpsons might start a few minutes late if the game goes into overtime.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just love me a challenge! I'd take a look at the New York Giants history, I think there are four seperate articles for them. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look. There are two new books out or arriving on the Jets, one by Cannizzaro who wrote the Tales from the Sidelines which is part of the Illustrated History of NFL teams series, another out September 1, an oral history of the Sack Exchange (hopefully it will stop them from making PSLs for good behavior by fans at Jets games, when they are ones to talk).  I plan to order them, but I am in no huge hurry to do so and will wait until they are both out.  I will also be in Oakland and the Bay Area in early September and will drop by a library.  I have no real interest in buying Raiders books so I will bring my camera in and do some copying.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have to go out and buy those books myself and I know the New York Sack Exchange article could use some sprucing, to put it mildly. I smell new projects following Heidi! In regards to photos, that is excellent news perhaps we won't have to crowd the article with personalities after all. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just meant copy pages from books on the Raiders, it is cheaper than a library copier or buying the books. Images generally work out and people are understanding.  You have to understand one thing I am doing, I wrote that football background section as strongly as I could in the hopes of drawing people into the article on the football side.  I saw a Dave Anderson quote in that article saying that the Jets/Raiders rivalry diminished after 1969 as they did not play every year and not in the playoffs until the 2000s, except that one game in January 1983.  Do you want to take a shot at the gameplay section?  Writing a description of the game itself?  I'll jump in with details as needed and I expect we'll both go over each other's prose a lot.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, as you said, I'm sure it'll all work out. You did an excellent job of capturing the football-minded audience there and I feel you'll have them at hello once it's up. I can take a crack at the gameplay, though it would be helpful if I had a link to a play-by-play. Suggestions? -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a play by play for the first quarter. The Hall of Fame had some press box handouts, but nothing for the last three quarters.  That's where I got the time of drives, they have a running box score I used for that.  I could email you photos of them if you send me an email using the Wiki "Email this user" (I can't do that for you as it will not let me send attachments, that can only be done on a reply.  You might also want to check Google news archives.  When I get home, I'll check those old books like Sahadi and so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The local library where I am had a copy of Eshkenazi. He really didn't have much to say, about three four pages about the Heidi game, most of which we already knew.  Nicholas says he was asked by an official before the game to examine his back, and that is why he was at the officials' dressing room.  He says he went in and gave the official a piece of his mind while treating him.  I'm a little dubious.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

useful info
I'll send you those articles later on today, but here's something interesting: this--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, this will certainly be helpful! I just wish they had kept a record of play-by-plays. Oh well, good old fashion detective work will get this done ... eventually. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a very rough sketch of the gameplay here but, unless I obtain more detailed information, this will essentially be the length of it. I don't think it is too bad though, thoughts? -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me an hour to get an article ready for mainspace (coins) and then I'll be with you on this. I don't think we have to kill ourselves over the game description, except the final two minutes.  I'll send you the papers I have.  I screwed up the HoF's copier and did not notice until I left so there is missing text in a few of the articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well believe me, the final two minutes are well-documented here. Even with the link you provided, I was able to make an adequate description for the entire game so hopefully the documents will enrich just a bit more. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 23:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hopeful that the old books that were written just after SBIII will help out there. OK, Indian Head gold pieces is in mainspace and I'll work on a couple of final images and dispatch it to GA later tonight.  It's part of a set of nine FAs (eventually) on the Great Coinage Redesign of 1907-1921.  Six FAs so far, Standing Liberty quarter is at FA and I haven't done Walking Liberty half dollar yet.  Back to Heidi.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is quite impressive—Malleus is right, you are an FA charm! When I have some time, I'll look over the article. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 23:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's taken a year to do six ... if you want a true FA charm, talk to Brian, he never has one fail. Of course, American Football is not his big thing.  Check your email.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 00:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll send you more stuff once you've absorbed that, less about gameplay though. More contemporary news article, which I find don't add much to what's out there on Google News Archive.  And btw NBC didn't want to leave the game, it was defeated by the dead hand of the orders done in midweek as no one could get through jammed telephone lines to countermand them!  Half the nation was calling to ask (or demand) what would be on at 7.  While I think we will lose some of the subsequent event stuff, for sure we will mention that this led to the "Heidi phone" to ensure a call could get through, a secret number not even on the same exchange that only five or six people had.  Sort of like the big red phone on the President's desk, and long since made as obsolete by better technology.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm working on reaction in the sandbox. I'll concentrate on the game reaction and let you write about the championship game.  Mind you include the lateral which made that game nearly as weird as Heidi, but try to keep the description of the game to a paragraph, tops.  I will send you an article I hope tonight from USAToday in 1988, which contains nice quotes from Namath and Madden that I think make a nice closer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to cut and paste into my sandbox. I think the article structure is becoming clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I lied. To write only one paragraph about the game is quite difficult given the storylines and Namath's vivid description of the game is even more compelling. I'm sure you and I will find a way to cut it back but it's a shame, to leave out so much about a great game but we are talking about Heidi! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, all of us tell green and white lies ... two will be fine. We have to be careful to avoid a two Jet-centric point of view.  That's why I want more Oakland stuff.  I'll be there in two weeks and can pillage the public library (this is Oakland we're discussing).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should take the hyphens out of things like 3-yard pass and so forth. Maybe it is sort of MOS, but I think common football writing overrides the MOS!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done and done! I think the extended version of those two paragraphs could be quite useful if we decide to take on 1968 New York Jets season or even SBIII. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Let me do a little editing now there.  We will probably have to source the game play but that should not be hard.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually used that source you gave me above so I can reference the specific articles with that. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. It may look a little odd, but I think we should finish the television story before we talk about the Jets/Raiders rematch.  I think it's asking too much of the reader, the cliffhanger way the last section ends.  Instant gratification is important here!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall we go live? The article is still rough, but it's better than what's there now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is significantly better than what is currently in place and we have plenty of time to make changes as needed. Let's go for it. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll write a lede for it, if it is OK. Then it is just add any good stuff, polish, find images, and start the ball rolling, so to speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. I'll start reviewing and I'll also tidy up the references as needed in a bit. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm done for now. We need to give a little more info from the Oakland side of things, but I'll take care of that in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was skimming through Sahadi's book and I found he makes note of the scoring of the Heidi game if you want to reference him rather than the records from Canton and Strother's book. It will also make for some nice information if we decide to pursue the 1968 AFL Championship game idea. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the box score?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the article but, yes, it could be used for the box score as well. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly like citing to the Canton records, but it is the only source we have on drive lengths.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True. I am a bit confused though. According to Sahadi, Parilli's pass on the two-point conversion started as a fake kick not a bad snap as we stated. What to do? -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then I would say that the conversion failed and put a note in saying sources differ on whether it was a failed fake kick or a bad snap, and source that. I am off to a wedding and probably won't be on much rest of today.  There are also lots of discrepancies about the sequence of events on the television, and NBC's motivations.  Forty odd years of careless reporting hasn't helped!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How I loathe careless reporting. Enjoy the wedding! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you fudged it appropriately! Wedding was fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The box score still has "25-yard", and similar usages, I think the hyphen should be removed.  Also, we need to be careful that we are consistent when it comes to "AFL" rather than "AFC" and I note that the infobox, pipes "NBC" to "NFL on NBC", which seems a  little odd.  Another good thing to check is that we are not overlooking basic knowledge, I noticed (and fixed) that we had failed to mention the game was on a Sunday.  It looks quite good, though, though there are holes to be filled in.  Shall we invite Giants2008 to informally give us his opinion?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is not much we can do about the hypens in the box score because that how it was designed for that template. I'll make sure to be on the look out for the things you mentioned and I'll change the infobox link. Yes, I feel it is time we invite Giants aboard. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 00:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the other stuff, I hope. Do you want to drop him a line, or shall I?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can do the honors. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 02:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cookies!

 * Why, thank you! It's greatly appreciated. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

couple of things
I really don't think the newspaper publisher field is very helpful, and I've taken it out. I don't think Newsday was published by Cablevision in 1968 anyway. If you feel strongly about it, I'll yield, but I really don't think it aids the reader. Another thing, news article titles should not be in caps.

I'm in Oakland and spent a couple of hours at the Library. As you might expect, the coverage in the Oakland papers was rather more restrained. I learn to my surprise that the game was blacked out in Oakland anyway! I think we might as well go ahead and nom it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with your changes to the refs and the caps thing was an error that went unnoticed. No wonder there is a lacking Oakland perspective! Their loss. Anyway, I'll give it another look through and I'll nom it at FAC tomorrow. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 01:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Giants last game at Giants Stadium
FYI, the Giants played their last game at Giants Stadium on December 27, 2009. The Jets played their last game there on January 3, 2010 for a playoff game. Richiekim (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a playoff game, they beat Cincinnati in a Sunday night game which put them in the playoffs. I was there, freezing my butt off.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I must have absent mindedly changed during the course of my editing. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Super
I looked it over, it desperately needs an aftereffects or something section where we can put stuff like how it helped the AFL going into the merger, plus the Jets getting applauded in Buffalo. Sorry for the "reminder" crack. Wasn't thinking.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And don't worry about the "crack". A lot goes on here and in the real world but I didn't take it the wrong way either. With over a year of working together, I've come to understand "our" language/sarcasm, etc. And you know if you need some time off, take it, I am in no rush at this point. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit of reaction after Nixon passing. I'll start digging out my Jets books in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

True Facts
The arrest in Cleveland was all false accusations, and that's why it was an agreement and closed!

The speeding ticket two days later was closed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalj32 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These are notable events that have happened in his life and the fact that you are removing them including that he has a child (during the course of blanking the entire section completely) is irresponsible. That is why the arrest in Cleveland states he allegedly assaulted, not that he did. Furthermore, you claim the speeding ticket was closed two days later? Fine but, it is still a notable part of his life. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 10:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And Can I Ask?

What Are Some Notable Things That Happened In Your Life, Both Positive and NEGATIVE? O and Make Sure Highlight the Negative Very Clear. Or Does Your Life Consist Of Getting On the Internet To Gossip About Other Professionals Because You Obviously Do Not Have One. No Person Is Perfect And Never Will Be, But All That Happens Does Not Need To Be Announced. With Both Arrest There Were No Conviction But The Media Does Not State That; Only That It Happened Right!!! Also, they did not write about how the dirty bouncer was never punched in-fact shoved away because he tried to rush him with no probable cause-thats why there was not one single medical report- thinking that he might get lucky and get a pay day, trying to make it look like a similar altercation that happened with Braylon Edwards. Crabs in a Bucket Always Trying To Get A Piece. Always two sides to every story, what you heard and then the truth!! How about find out the Truth from the main source, Not a Lie from a dumb article, and POST THAT!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalj32 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where to begin? For starters there are a couple flaws in your arguement. We aren't here to talk about my personal life, your personal life or anyone else's personal life though since you clearly would like to know, I haven't really done any thing that bad, I'm actually hardpressed to think of something on the spot like this. Give me time on that one. Anyway, moving on, yes, both positive and negative events are often noted in one's Wikipedia page (e.g. Braylon Edwards, Ray Lewis, Plaxico Burress, Michael Vick) but it just so happens that Jennings has had more issues than positives and we cannot help when one side outways another, that is on the individual. And by positives, did you mean the child he had that you decided to remove from the page in the course of your editing? Because I'd call that a positive but maybe I'm wrong. Oh and since you brought it up, I do, oddly enough, have a life and a very blessed one as a matter of fact; the short version of this is: no I'm not just here for funsies but I don't eat, sleep, breath and crap Wikipedia if that is what you're inferring, nice try though, commendable effort. In regards to the club assault, it has already been written in his article that he allegedly assaulted the bouncer but nothing came of it as he wasn't charged with assault after the doorman did not even sign the complaint. It explicitly states he was not charged with anything and yet you're still harping on it. If you can provide me with a reliable link from the web that states everything about the medical reports and what have you and I'll gladly use it but until that day comes, I have to use the sources at hand. In regards to the speeding ticket, that is a bit trickier. Rather than recycling the source already in the article, please provide me with another, reliable source that reported the outcome of his Sept. 7 court appearance because that article only states he was scheduled to appear in court then. Before I end this bit, I do need to praise you for not using caps for most of your arguement, you did get a little sidetracked towards the end though. I should remind you that it is often a good idea to state a reason for blanking content because then when you don't editors start to wonder and that is how you get banned from Wikipedia—and no waiting weeks before you finally talk about it, as you are doing now, is not the best course of action if there is an issue with the content. Oh and one more thing, the crack about no life, best to refrain from personal attacks. They frown upon that here. Cheers! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Response and Good sense of humor: O and excuse me I did not know the writer 2.0 was God. Just frustrating that people, like yourself, are quick to throw posts and articles up and not even seek such positives notables that have taken place or even such to balance the negative "One Sided Story" about the young man or really any individual. To top it off it does not the help with knowing we live in such a judgmental world. Let me note you on something said, " Oh and since you brought it up, I do, oddly enough, have a life and a very blessed one as a matter of fact; the short version of this is: no I'm not just here for funsies but I don't eat, sleep, breath and crap Wikipedia if that is what you're inferring, nice try though, commendable effort. " Lol you say that but delete an edit every hour of the day. Contradictory right! My response to you was not an attack; It was a honest question " Asking you if your had any importance to even take the time out the day to google or look up". Was a simple question. God Bless You Sir!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalj32 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Never said I was God. If you looked at my edit history more closely, you'll notice that while I may make multiple edits in a short period of time, I'm not on here every hour. Besides, today is Sunday so obviously I have more free time—but honestly I have no clue where your pulling the hour everyday garbage. And if there are positives about Jennings then by all means add them but we can't ignore the negatives just because. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We did it again!
Heidi Game passed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WOOOOO! Let's go again, let's go again! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I'm slow to get moving on SBIII, but don't worry I will.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm actually going to be busy this next month so my input might be little. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * Thank you, much appreciated! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

NFLPA
Hey, we spoke earlier on the WP:NFL talk page. I finished my first draft of the article, which can be found here. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a quick look tonight and continue tomorrow afternoon. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Folks, can we go to the NFLPA and start editing that article. All three of us are hot on this topic. And all three of us are making good faith edits. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am just going to write on Travis sandbox discussion page henceforth. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not want to come back here. But all internet sources used as a citation, that I have checked so far, in that article do not substantiate the statements they are attributed to. Unless you are the one that put them in they should be treated as non grata.66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, then we are in agreement that nothing in that aricle can be trusted. I do not have access to Arensen; so I can not validate the statements from any citations from that source. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Super Bowl, Heidi
I'm slowly starting to gear up on the Super Bowl article, distracted by real life a bit. As this is an Oakland week, there is every possibility of an article about the old days with jets/Raiders. I'll run some Google News searches and keep an eye on the papers I read.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm getting nowhere on the Super Bowl. I think this can't be treated as a normal football game article and needs a lot more on what it meant to the AFL. So I am going to lay this aside for a week or so and then come back to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The team has left me a bit uninspired lately anyway and then of course there is a bunch of other things I'm contending with in the real world. I have other smaller projects to keep me busy anyway so I believe a break is in order for the time. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the schedulemaker hates the Jets.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's that and the fact that the offensive line reminds me of the days of Adrien Clarke. Yikes. As usual, I'm making another trip to Foxboro to see the team in person this Sunday, hopefully, if they lose, the scoreboard will be a bit kinder to me than last time. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:66.234.33.8
Hey, thanks again for the help with the NFLPA article. I wanted to touch base with you regarding User_talk:66.234.33.8. I always assume good faith when someone is making edits on Wikipedia, but I don't think the speed and editing process of this user is the most beneficial to the community. Without scaring him/her off, I think we need to nudge him/her in the right direction. For example, it would be very helpful for him/her to create a user name. I appreciate most of the edits he or she has made, and I think it would be helpful if we both tried to help him/her out with the Wikipedia process and guidelines. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea but s/he did make some valid observations regarding the article. In any event, this will all get sorted out in due time. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you guys are totally underestimating this article. It's going to be much, much harder than History of the New York Jets or Bert Bell. That being said maybe 3 is a crowd? If you want me to not edit, I honestly do not care, then I will not. It is possible 3 is too many :) Thewriter, you were successful with only one other person, so maybe it is wise just to go with one other person again. However, I want certain things in that NFLPA article because it will allow me to delete stuff in the Bell article - that is far and away my greatest concern, and not bringing the NFLPA to GA or FA. :) You have to understand, w respect to the NFLPA between 1940 and 1957, I am up to speed. I will not take it personal if you ask me not to edit nflpa as a group. Whatever makes you guys feel comfortable is fine w me. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not underestimating the article by any means. Anytime you undertake any project on here, a lot of time and effort will go into it and this is no different. That said I think the main issue is the communication or lack thereof. It would seem there are seperate issues between the both of you and I'm just sort of meandering in the middle of it all. Here are my thoughts: While three isn't necessarily a overwhelming crowd, if we are going to do this, we need to condense our conversations to perhaps one or two talk pages and narrow it down so we can track each other. That said, your interests lay primarily with the early history of the NFLPA which I personally have no problem with and would welcome you to add any material/sources. As for beyond that point, Travis and I will handle that but since this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, I would love to hear any input from you. I know sources were an issue and I can say with certainty that will be addressed but for now, we need to go about this article with baby steps. Get the source formats up to date, find the right sources then worry about nit-picking through the content (e.g. wording, etc.) later. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why the IP can't edit. It looks like this is in good hands, so let me know when you are at the stage of needing a copyedit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mediating here. Now that the draft has been merged to the live article, I think most of these issues can be avoided.  As you mentioned, I think the problem was communication, and now that the conversation exists in one place, I think we're good to go. Thanks again. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll continue to keep a friendly eye on the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Condolences
The Jets have been trying to get me to go back to Foxboro for years, since I'm 3-0 there (though twice at the old stadium) (on the flip side, I'm 0-2 in Miami). My condolences. Just as a thought, don't you think Al Davis would be an interesting article? Not for immediate use, I'd probably want to go back to Canton, which I don't see happening until after Thanksgiving. I certainly have no affection for the Raiders, but I always liked Davis.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. At least this time it was a respectable loss instead of that 45-3 blowout I withstood for 3 quarters before I said enough. I'm 3-3 at Foxboro, let's hope next year will bring better memories. Anyway, I do like the idea of working on the Davis article, he was very instrumental in bringing the NFL to where it is today. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 12:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let's look at it next month. Canton in December is no fun (it was no great shakes in August) but perhaps I can work on a list to research while there. And I'm guessing some of those early Raider programs can be mined for PD shots of Davis. There are bios of Davis, though none recent, but he has not done much recently.  I am just struck by the unanimity of the mourning, which usually makes me cynical, but not this time. And of course it shows that we are not just Jets fans ... if I were in California right now, I'd go to any public event they had to honor Davis, and there are very few in football I'd say that for. Maybe Namath.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So true on all accounts. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 14:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Super Bowl III edit
I agree it had to go. An additional concern is when you start throwing Al Davis's quarterback raids into the mix, it's kinda irrelevant. None of the quarterbacks Davis targeted (at least prominently) played in that game. I'm actually thinking I am going to have to rewrite and condense that section. It doesn't feel like the right place to tell that story. I really need to make another trip to Canton and I doubt if I can go until the winter, which is no time to go to Ohio.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets be honest, the entire article needs work...I'm already getting a headache. Anyway, as I've said, no hurry here besides, we can't have you getting lost all that snow! Though it might make for an interesting story at parties. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 00:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a difficult story to tell. The game is the easy part.  The Jets only Super Bowl victory happened to be an event that changed pro football.  Deciding how to tell that story to a high standard is not as easy as it looks.  Deciding where to put the goalposts.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am back and looking at a possible visit to Canton next week. It is a two-fer, my McKinley project is entering the research stage and he was from Canton and there is a museum and "presidential library" (run by the local historical society).  So Al Davis, more SBIII stuff, you're doing Sack Exchange?  Anything else you can think of?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If they have anything on Curtis Martin that would be appreciated unless of course they felt he was unworthy, yet again, to get even so much as his name on a piece of paper. Anyway, I believe that is all. Thanks you for taking the time to look for all of this. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I do make these visits, it is nice to be able to help out other people. If I have time, I will ask about other current Jets and Ryan as well.  Probably Monday, though I am waiting for confirmation from Canton. As Relient K put it, "In Canton, you can't enjoy yourself" (say it out loud).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very generous of you. I thought of one more: perhaps Ralph Wilson? I was combing through his article and there are no references at all. He does deserve something for his troubles. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but if I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't go. I agree on Wilson.  Wilson got thrown into the mix at the last moment when the Minnesota AFL franchise jumped to the NFL through.  He's done well in a lousy city.  I was up there once for a game in 1987, the Jets barely won at a time when Buffalo was improving.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a box of stuff in my car. I need to get the Sack Exchange stuff to you somehow, can you email me a postal address?  Got stuff on Davis, didn't do Wilson.  Been busy with my historical articles, but will get to this soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject New York Jets
I recently added the quality parameters to WikiProject New York Jets, but most Jet-related articles aren't tagged with the project template. Are you good at using AWB for a big task like that? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that, it will certainly make life much easier! I'm not familiar with AWB as I have not used it before but I would be willing to give it a whirl if that is of any help. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if you knew it or not. I could try it if you don't know how to use it. I tried using AWB once or twice but haven't fully gotten the hang of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As tedious as it has been, recently I've been adding quality of unassessed NFL-related articles manually. I'd just assume do the same thing until one of us or someone who has knowledge of AWB can help us out. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll keep doing some manually as well, but I'll also play around with AWB and ask people who know how to use it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured it out and started tagging. A bit over 300 down, a bit more than 5000 to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Mind showing me how it's done? -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My advice is to play around with it to figure out how to make it do whatever it is you want to do. To add the Jets project template, what I've done is under "Make list", chose "Category (recurse user level)" (to capture all the subcategories) then typed in "New York Jets", figuring the category will hold all relevant NYJ articles, and click "Make list". Then on the list menu, I chose "convert to talk pages" so that I'm not tagging article mainspace. On the second pane on the bottom, where it says "More...", I chose to prepend " and under "Skip" said to skip the pages that already include it. Then under "Start" you type in the edit summary you want to show up and start clicking save to save each edit, one by one. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Be aware of Neutral point of view
Please be aware of Neutral point of view when referencing or editing Wikipedia pages as you did with Rex Ryan. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. You may also reference NPOV Dispute if you have futher confusion. Thank you. -- schase02
 * Don't template the regulars. You should be aware that The Writer 2.0 has two FA stars and is very well aware of policies.  If you got a beef with him, engage, don't patronize.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are now three editors who disagree with you adding that bit to the page because it does not represent a neutral point of view. To use your own words "find how it is [accurate] in any shape or form". I'm confused as to how you believe his strategy has them consistently behind New England. Multiple factors go into a team's success and failures not any one thing as you claim. That's like saying the Jim Caldwell's strategy has the Colts ranked last in the NFL. No. It's multiple factors such as Peyton Manning being out, the poor performances by their offense and defense, etc. To single out any one thing would be preposterous and irresponsible. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 16:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited National Football League Players Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baltimore Colts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Papers
What do you want me to do with the papers I got on the Sack Exchange members and so forth? It is too much to scan. I've been so busy with the McKinley stuff I haven't had time to go through the box of papers I brought back from Canton. Thanks for the Hobart support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm enjoying the side articles you have been working on before tackling the likes of McKinley, Nixon and Roosevelt. In regards to the papers, that is an excellent question. At this stage, I have to decipher the interviews in the book and figure out what will help or hinder. From there any additional information within those papers could come in handy but I honestly won't know until I get my hands dirty which I don't expect to happen until late January. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nixon's done, got him in September, TFA 9 January 2013 I hope (centennial of his birth). Cross of Gold speech is at PR, it will be the next to FAC, then the 1896 election article (which will be a very long one I think) and then McKinley.  I am not sure about TR, I may stay with McKinley for a while beyond the main article working on people like John Hay, George Cortelyou and perhaps John Sherman (Ohio).  Anyway, let me know when you are ready.  Glad you like the articles, they are fun and also educational for me.  I really knew very little about McKinley when I started this.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

We should also discuss language to add in case the season ends for the Jets today. Something like "Ryan and the Jets entered the 2011 season with the slogan "Bring it Home", promising the first home playoff game since 2002. Instead, the Jets missed the playoffs with a @-* record."--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Knicks task force welcome
Hi, and welcome to the New York Knicks task force! We are a group of (mainly) Knicks fans who help to improve coverage related to the New York Knicks on Wikipedia.

Looking for somewhere to start? Here is a few suggestions.
 * You can check out topics on the main page.
 * You can add to talk pages of New York Knicks-related articles, and assess them as well.
 * Check out the to do list for the task force, and opt to try and complete some of those tasks.

If you have any comments, suggestions, or would like to talk about the project in general, feel free to leave a message on the talk page. A belated welcome and a Happy New Year! NYCRuss  ☎  15:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Jets article
this was only a partial revert of this  Enigma msg  07:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's embarrassing, I cannot believe I missed that. Thank you correcting it and letting me know. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 23:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Logos and uniforms of the New York Jets
I just noticed that with this edit, you made Logos and uniforms of the New York Jets a GA. Was there a GA review for this article? I don't see any evidence of one. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There wasn't. I'm not sure how that happened, I likely wanted to change the status but mistakenly put GA instead. That was also back when I was first starting out, a long lasting rookie mistake! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 00:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike Smith
he has made another coaching change - not exactly sure how to do this - so I will let you edit it. (is SBNation an approved source?) Mike Smith to WVU Thanks RazorDog (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it. The Daily News has a source I will add later. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 12:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 NFL Lockout
Hey, thanks again for your help with the NFLPA article. I made some major changes to the 2011 NFL lockout article over the past month and a half, and I've been having trouble getting feedback on it. Is there any way you can glance over it for major issues? I spent a lot of time on it, so I think it's in decent shape, but it never hurts to have another set of eyes look at it. Also, if you need help with any of the articles you're working on, let me know. I'd be happy to help. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I took the NFLPA to Peer Review and I'm waiting for some feedback so hopefully we can get that promoted. I'll take a look into the lockout article this weekend for you. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
I'll do it but it may be as much as a week.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. But I don't want you to feel forced either so if you don't want to or can't don't stress over it. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is the article again? Thank you for your understanding, but I'll do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * NFLPA. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for a peer review or just for me to wade in? I'll get to this shortly, just tell me which you prefer.  I would leave hidden comments for anything I was uncertain of.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes down to it I suppose a bit of both. I want to make sure the prose is in good condition and there are no major slip ups before I go anywhere with this. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll start work tonight or in the morning, depending on how things go. I've come to the conclusion it's the only game in town.  However, I'm establishing branch offices at the help channels, which is very socially acceptable and if there's aggravation, no one holds grudges from five-year-old articles.  I've got a box full of papers from the Hall of Fame we need to do something with sometime.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, it's done, let me know if more is needed there or if you take it to FAC. Regarding the History article.  We should probably mention the Jets-Giants game on Christmas Eve now that it has taken on such great significance, and how once again the Jets were left a bridesmaid while the Giants did something meaningful in white.  I will look for an appropriate article.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated and I will let you know once I get some of the issues cleared up over there. As for the Jets, I agree, begrudgingly. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review limits changed
This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Curtis Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Hackett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

MOTDs (This space for rent)
You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

MetLife Stadium
Good Morning! I made a small change to the edit you reverted on MetLife Stadium. Somewhere in the shuffle, ALL of the Wrestlemania information was removed. I added it back into "Other Events" and left it off of the sidebar under where it sayd "Tenants". That seems to be the way it was before someone messed with it too much. Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that. I was under the assumption that the information was in there and the IP was just mindlessly reverting it. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 13:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Rex Ryan
The article appears structurally similar to what it was the last time it was at FAC. I see the number of citations to his autobiography has been cut considerably, which is a positive; see if it can be reduced even further. I'll see if I can take care of some of the picky prose comments I'd usually make (hopefully tomorrow), and have a few pieces of general advice. First, the lead could be expanded to three paragraphs considering the size of the article. Second, the 2011 description is shorter than the ones for the other seasons; a particular concern of mine is that the Super Bowl predictions are mentioned in passing, but not elaborated on in any way. Third, I'd be interested to know if anyone in the media has commented on how Ryan's predictions etc. affect his players, whether giving them confidence or weighting them down. Finally, I'm not enthusiastic about the foot fetish stuff being in here. It's tabloid-like content, and I don't see how this has much relevance now. I'd rather see something on how his weight impacted his early career, as that is more important to his career. Anyway, I wish you luck with the article and hope it does well in its second FAC, if you decide to go there. Keep an eye out for my edits and please fix anything I mess up. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 01:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Greatly appreciated and looking forward to it. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 01:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The new additions look okay, and I made a few tweaks to them; please change back anything you don't care for. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Continued vandalism
VideoGamePhenom's talk page has had multiple warnings since your warning a few months ago, yet the issue with this user persists. Zepppep (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Bill Parcells
Not sure why you reverted my edit. Is there something I'm missing out on? The years and the teams do not line up one bit. Every decent coach article has the line breaks respaced so the teams and years line up, so I fixed it. -- undefined21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has to be your monitor. Mine line up perfectly on my monitor, and I don't have any special resolution settings or anything. I think we might have to see which one works for the most people. -- undefined05:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Congrats!
On Ryan! Well done! I am glad you have another star to hoist.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your support these past two years. Now that I've gotten one under my belt, I can continue on. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured you wanted a solo one. Let me know what to do with those papers I got at the Hall of Fame for you last November, I still have them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. The papers. They were mostly on the Sack Exchange and the...Super Bowl? I'm aiming to start and finish those projects in 2013. How many pages are there off hand? -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have to go get them, they are in the box with the Davis material. Let you know this week.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)