Talk:Pete Morelli

message: :Image:Morelli pete.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Morelli pete.jpg

message: I'm questioning whether this will have a lasting effect. All the other incidents have had a long term impact (either a change in rule or procedure). I don't believe there's a case for removing it yet as the lasting effect may take some time to determine, however I feel this section has become to long and wordy and appears to be more in the style of an online newspaper reporting current events (which Wikipedia is not) Rehnn83 Talk 11:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lasting effect and recentism really cannot be determined until at least the league's spring owners' meeting, when they propose and vote on new rules. The current length is more of a practical and temporary WP:IAR and WP:DEADLINE situation while it is still in the news, and currently under semi-protection. This, like the other NFL referee articles, become massive vandalism targets whenever there is a controversial call, especially during the playoffs. The goal is to preempt possible and numerous edit requests, asking to post recentism edits (which would normally happen if this page was not semi-protected) -- especially ones that would likely be requests that are either vandalism or violate WP:BLP, WP:POV or WP:OR. IMO, it also looks better if there is factual, cited and Non-POV content there to discourage (and perhaps inform) such vandals too. Most of these vandals are usually fans of the team that got jobbed on the call, and are taking their immediate anger onto these articles. Then, during the offseason when the news spike dies down, we can make WP:10YT cleanup. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also point out that "lasting effect" may not necessarily result in a rule or procedure change. I do not recall something like "Bottlegate" (which is mentioned in several articles) resulted in a rule change. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Zzyzx11 I can't disagree with any of the points you make, and that's the main reason I've not edited the main article. I'm putting down a marker that in future this section may no longer warrant inclusion (and as you suggest that future may well be months or years off). Rehnn83 Talk 10:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone else created a stand-alone 2015 Lions–Cowboys officiating controversy article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lasting Effect of 2014 NFC Wildcard game 

message: He stopped officiating in 2019, not 1994, as it states at the top of his page. 174.21.29.99 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year he stopped officiating