Talk:Brett Favre/Archive 2

message: Favre had several records he moved up in
1. moved into 5th all-time for games played by QB, 1 behind Marino
2. 2nd all-time for both total TDs and total points by QB (to tie Marino, needs 2 TDs)
3. Favre is 2nd for points per game (10.6), tied with Marino, PManning 1st at 12.0
4. Favre is 2nd all time career victories(147), 1 behind Elway.
5. Favre moved up in consecutive games started (ref. Packers.com)...
--Billymac00 17:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies on that.  We've been having some issues here in the past week with people modifying stats back and forth, so likely someone saw that you changed it to 5,000 and didn't know they played tonight so figured it was an invalid change.  It's good you brought the discussion here, where it belongs.  Don't get discouraged, stuff like this happens on WikiPedia. :) Adam Weeden 11:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also one thing you may want to do to avoid this probalem in the future is to update as many of the stats as you can, in as many of the places as you can.  This will make people less likely to think your changes to be false and will improve the accuracy of the article.  Since you only changed completions and not attempts, people will wonder how he could have completed those passes without even attempting. ;) Adam Weeden 13:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I should have updated the others.  That was actually my first wiki post and was sort of watching to see if took. For an hour after the game no news source mentioned the completion record - and I thought the record significant.Lejonis 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the media seems to be getting Brett Favre'd out.  I get the feeling most of them just want him to retire already so they can talk about someone else. Adam Weeden 01:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record Watch (after 2006 season)

message: Second paragraph loudly proclaims that he is the only three-time MVP in the history of the NFL.  But surely that should be qualified as three-time Associated Press MVP, because:
* The league has no official MVP (is that right?)
* He only won the Pro Football Writers' MVP and Bert Bell Award twice -- both of those awards were given only to Barry Sanders in 1997 instead of the AP Sanders-Favre tie.
* Otto Graham and Johnny Unitas both got three UPI NFL MVP awards.  Otto Graham received his before the AP started their awards, and it looks like the UPI awards were pretty much the only game in town at that time.
Perhaps someone can clean the wording up so it is more precise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.50.109 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MVP Awards 

message: I'm requesting that you un protect the Brett Favre page, there are many errors in his stats, they are all off in different parts of the page and it's sort of embarrassing, this was a good page untill you protected it now stats are wrong all over, please allow me to update the stats on the page, I don't need to edit anything but his career numbers so this will be a acurate page, I'm also requesting you unprotect it alltogether, it's very unnessary, you can edit Dan Marino and Joe Montana, but not Brett Favre, that makes no sense, please unprotect the Brett Favre page, there are to many errors, or at least let me update the stats.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.121.12 (talk • contribs) 
:This article gets vandalized many times in one day. What stats are off? If you think they're off you can still edit them, you just need an account. Before this page was protected, people would have to revert about five edits a day.++aviper2k7++ 04:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, for whatever reason, Favre is much more of a lighning rod for vandals. I'd say leave it protected at least a month after he's knocked down a couple of these records. ---Jackel 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of his stats are accurate. You deleting this section and placing talk messages in the incorect place gives me an uneasy feeling that you will add incorrect stats or vandalize the page with other of your friend's IPs. If you really think the stats are wrong, say so or get an account and edit the stats that are wrong.++aviper2k7++ 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please follow talk page guidelines, thank you. If you think the stats are wrong, you can create an account and edit them. The protect is for countless vandalisms, not to prevent you from editing. You can edit the page by registering an account, a process that takes less than a minute.++aviper2k7++ 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I fixed the stats at the top. These were due to not updating the current stats. The career wins is accurate. He did not start 3 games in his career, but as a starting quarterback has 234.++aviper2k7++ 01:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: IP adress, please reply below this, do not delete this talk page. I fixed the stat, I believe it is accurate now. Please stop saying that I "no nothing" and I did not go to school. Please keep some sort of civility.++aviper2k7++ 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read through WP:TALK. For one thing, I am trying to get the stats right also. am not ignoring you, I am trying to get the stats right. It's very hard to get accurate stats, and you did not help the process by deleting the talk page and insisting the Favre page which is vandalized several times in a day should be unprotected. I ask that you do not delete this talk page any more. The stats are hard to keep accurate because some things are changed after a game and some things aren't. The stats were only a game off in a couple of places and you dub this article awful. I am letting you fix it. It's Wikipedia, anyone can edit an article. I did not protect this page. All you have to do is register an account which takes less than a minute. You not registering an account makes me wonder if you really want to edit the Favre page.++aviper2k7++ 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is it so hard for you to create an account, wait 4 days for it to be eligible to edit semi-protected articles (like this one) and contribute?  You could be doing that instead of all the comments here denigrating the work of people like me and aviper who are trying to do our best, but let's face it, the article is huge.  So in closing, if you want something changed, register and change it, please. Adam Weeden 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No 4.245.120, you need to be banned from Wikipedia if anyone. You are vandalizing the talk page and blanking this page. The stats haven't changed since I edited them yesterday. Please stop vandalizing this talk page and comment in the correct place and sign your comments by placing four ~~~~ marks next to your comment.++aviper2k7++ 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect

message: The discussion was getting pretty long, so I archived the old talk which wasn't being discussed. I think this article needs an image. If you browse "Brett Favre" on flickr, you'll find a bunch of results. I was thinking about emailing one of the users with a Brett Favre photo and asking if they'd release the image to Wikipedia. this seems like a nice one. I'm not sure how the copyrights work with players in uniform. I believe you have to get "express written consent from the NFL" or something if you want to include a player in a uniform or logo. If anyone knows anything about this, please respond. If we're allowed this, then I will email some of those Flickr users. I found an image of Favre of him golfing that doesn't include a team logo. I think emailing and getting permission would grant Wikipedia copyrights. Please respond.++aviper2k7++ 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the first one. I don't know what the NFL's policy is on showing players in uniform, however. Try contacting the user on flickr, see what's up. --King Bee 19:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I still like the idea of contacting the Flickr users to see if they'll GFDL their images. I'm a big fan of the image we have now, but I think with some more, we could try to get this article as a GA... and then as an FA! –King Bee (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's close to being GA, but not now because of the edit wars going on. A peer review would be very helpful. I can't review it because I edit this page frequently and would have a biased opinion and in return that wouldn't be much help. I'm kind of afraid (to be honest) to ask the people to release their images. They probably have a reason for their current image status. But feel free to email a person King Bee ;) ++aviper2k7++ 06:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: This articles seems to be written in a negative point of view, for example in the Atlanta section "His most notable accomplishments, aside from going 0 for 5 passing with two interceptions that year, were missing the team photo".....Coasttocoast 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good section to clean up. I'm on it.++aviper2k7++ 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too negative

message: First off, Starwars1955, could you please explain the edits you made to other users' comments (,  for starters) Also, were you in fact the anonymous editor who was making uncivil comments on this page? Shadow1 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I'm Shadow1, the mediator for the case over at the Mediation Cabal, for those of you that don't know. Shadow1 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What does my age have anything to do with this? The point was you blatantly ignored the talk page adding no edit summaries. You vandalized the talk page and vandalized my user page. You also were banned and continued editing under a different IP, you pretended you were a different user in one of your edits which is sockpuppeting, and finally you personally attacked people on the talk page.++aviper2k7++ 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure you "accidentally" change aviper's and my votes from approve to disapprove, and your various other "accidental edits" made to remove our arguments supporting our position.  It's okay though.  I'm confident that it's obvious to the admins so I will waste no more time debating this with you and get back to the relevant business of making this article the best it can be. Adam Weeden 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and Starwars1955, I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from bringing Aviper's age into this issue. It's really not relevant. Shadow1 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current event sounds like a good idea for the stats. There's only two games left (one tomorrow, I'm so excited) and his next season play is still up in the air. So a current event on the stats does make sense. And for the record (even though it doesn't matter) I'm a legal adult in three weeks.++aviper2k7++ 04:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. Adam Weeden 10:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Starwars, I'm sorry that we can't come to an agreement on this. The problem with the entire thing is that Viper and Adam both want the stats, but you don't. We can't just leave it behind us; it'll hinder future editing on the article. What do you want to do? Shadow1 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Have we decided that the separate citations on the "Second all time $STAT" thing is a bad idea? I thought that having the reference point to the particular leaderboard for each stat was a good idea, as one could click and see who was first, second, third, etc. It shouldn't just point to Favre's page at profootballreference.com. That doesn't cite that he's second, that only cites how much of "statistic X" he has. Should I put them back in? --King Bee 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think it's an easier and more suitable way of doing it. I feel as though that the user should not have to click more than once to get to the information that is supposed to be verified. Who else agrees with me? --King Bee 21:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In retrospect, perhaps it is okay, I guess I don't mind at all. I just wanted to know why it was removed. --King Bee 21:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, you should really read up on civility.  Secondly, there should be a ref (a la the ones I had for the projections) explaining that as the source of those numbers at least, though I would argue that using that logic can only be as accurate as the person who put that mentioned list into points order, since points aren't mentioned there.  Did they do it by hand?  Did they use a program to calculate it?  Did they calculate the total TDs of EVERY QB to make sure no one had more total touchdowns?  What about players such as George Blanda who were kickers AND QBs in many games?  Do we only count their TDs, or are they automatically marginalized as we do no by saying "but most of their games were as kickers" (which doesn't sound very scientific in my humble opinion)? At this point we're beginning to get strangely close to the calculations of mine that you labeled as original research. Adam Weeden 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You obviously don't know how to edit Wikipedia correctly. Sign your posts.++aviper2k7++ 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not sink to that level viper. If he wants to be uncivil, that's his problem.  Doing it back is only going to cause more problems. Adam Weeden 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I remind you again, please be civil. Firstly, the fact that the Dan Marino page has it (also without a reference) proves nothing. Two wrongs don't make a right. Secondly, it's not my responsibility to compile the list you gave me into a sorted points list. I'm asking you to PROVE that what is stated is true. I follow your calculations exactly that Favre has 2,556 points, and that point is self explanatory (though I think a reference stating how that calculation was made would benefit the article for those who may not know of the simplicity of such a calculation). My point is you must prove the claim that he is second, because as you know, rushing touchdowns don't factor into his 413 or Marino's 420. What if someone way behind him in passing TDs had enough rushing TDs to give them more total? I'd be willing to bet that there is no such player, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, so unless you can verify that no one else does with a source, it has no place here. Again for men who played as kickers and QBs where do we cut it off? If Brett Favre went out and kicked a field goal next week would he be eliminated because some of his points were as a kicker? Of course not,we would just be unlikely to count those 3 points. Similarly with Blanda and Morrall, VERIFY how many points they made as kickers vs. how many they made as QBs. Be careful for those games they did both in. Adam Weeden 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe I cited a bunch of these in the past, and a certain user removed them because they were "common sense" or something to that effect. I'll go find some again. –King Bee (talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In case I haven't made this clear, I'd like to thank the editors who stepped up on references in the statistics section. Reverts aside, it looks much better done now than it did even a few short hours ago. Thanks! Skybunny 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problemo! I'm really glad that you called out the citation request. It gave me something to do for an hour rather than study. =) –King Bee (talk • contribs) 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Star wars, please see WP:CITE. Thank you to the many people who included  references to the page (here). It's kind of disheartening when someone follows Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and the page gets reverted for who knows what here. Please see WP:V and WP:CITE.++aviper2k7++ 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Starwars1955 has been blocked for 72 hours for violating the 3RR. Block ends approximately 11:40 UTC 1 January 2007. Meantime, I'm going to try spending a little time and see if I can find another ref or two for the records. Skybunny 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sweet. I'll get started now. –King Bee (T • C) 19:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I find the Cite-Web template rather unnecessary and long, but I'll switch all of them to Cite-Web tonight. No big deal. I just wanted the citations to be consistent.++aviper2k7++ 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you don't have to just concede because two people want it a certain way. I don't see why you find it unnecessary or long, but whatever. Then just ignore it, I'll have time to switch them all over today, and you won't even have to worry about it. When you add citations to the article, add them however you want; someone will come by and put them in the cite-web format for you. –King Bee (T • C) 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Embedded citations. The cite-web should be condensed; mainly because it's hard to edit if it's on separate lines. Also the post date shouldn't be linked. If I'm working with cite-web templates, I use this Reference generator when the format for the page is already cite web and it basically does everything for you. I'm going to condense them all, because the featured articles that do (not many of them do) use the template have them condensed.++aviper2k7++ 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not a policy page, but whatever. I find it absolutely impossible to edit references when they're all in-line and not on multiple lines. I don't care enough to argue though, do whatever you want. –King Bee (T • C) 21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations? 

message: This article needs a few other citations for some stats that I couldn't find on any of the available references.  First one is Second all-time in career points by a quarterback, with 2,556 (Marino, 2,574), second one is Third all-time in career games by a quarterback, with 240 (Marino, 242; Tarkenton, 246) (Earl Morrall, 255 and George Blanda, 340 played more games, but most of their games were as kickers).  This one may need two citations, one being a list of games by these players with those numbers, another showing that some of Earl Morrall and George Blanda's games were ONLY as kickers. Adam Weeden 13:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, you should really read up on civility.  Secondly, there should be a ref (a la the ones I had for the projections) explaining that as the source of those numbers at least, though I would argue that using that logic can only be as accurate as the person who put that mentioned list into points order, since points aren't mentioned there.  Did they do it by hand?  Did they use a program to calculate it?  Did they calculate the total TDs of EVERY QB to make sure no one had more total touchdowns?  What about players such as George Blanda who were kickers AND QBs in many games?  Do we only count their TDs, or are they automatically marginalized as we do no by saying "but most of their games were as kickers" (which doesn't sound very scientific in my humble opinion)? At this point we're beginning to get strangely close to the calculations of mine that you labeled as original research. Adam Weeden 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You obviously don't know how to edit Wikipedia correctly. Sign your posts.++aviper2k7++ 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not sink to that level viper. If he wants to be uncivil, that's his problem.  Doing it back is only going to cause more problems. Adam Weeden 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I remind you again, please be civil. Firstly, the fact that the Dan Marino page has it (also without a reference) proves nothing. Two wrongs don't make a right. Secondly, it's not my responsibility to compile the list you gave me into a sorted points list. I'm asking you to PROVE that what is stated is true. I follow your calculations exactly that Favre has 2,556 points, and that point is self explanatory (though I think a reference stating how that calculation was made would benefit the article for those who may not know of the simplicity of such a calculation). My point is you must prove the claim that he is second, because as you know, rushing touchdowns don't factor into his 413 or Marino's 420. What if someone way behind him in passing TDs had enough rushing TDs to give them more total? I'd be willing to bet that there is no such player, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, so unless you can verify that no one else does with a source, it has no place here. Again for men who played as kickers and QBs where do we cut it off? If Brett Favre went out and kicked a field goal next week would he be eliminated because some of his points were as a kicker? Of course not,we would just be unlikely to count those 3 points. Similarly with Blanda and Morrall, VERIFY how many points they made as kickers vs. how many they made as QBs. Be careful for those games they did both in. Adam Weeden 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe I cited a bunch of these in the past, and a certain user removed them because they were "common sense" or something to that effect. I'll go find some again. –King Bee (talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In case I haven't made this clear, I'd like to thank the editors who stepped up on references in the statistics section. Reverts aside, it looks much better done now than it did even a few short hours ago. Thanks! Skybunny 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problemo! I'm really glad that you called out the citation request. It gave me something to do for an hour rather than study. =) –King Bee (talk • contribs) 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Star wars, please see WP:CITE. Thank you to the many people who included  references to the page (here). It's kind of disheartening when someone follows Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and the page gets reverted for who knows what here. Please see WP:V and WP:CITE.++aviper2k7++ 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Starwars1955 has been blocked for 72 hours for violating the 3RR. Block ends approximately 11:40 UTC 1 January 2007. Meantime, I'm going to try spending a little time and see if I can find another ref or two for the records. Skybunny 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Request

message: I think if we want to get this article to featured status, we should change all the web citations to the  format. Is this an issue or not? It really makes the citations appear a lot cleaner in the references, and maybe it's a help. Of course, it could just be a lot of wasted man hours, as this article has something like 70 references. –King Bee (T • C) 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. I'll get started now. –King Bee (T • C) 19:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I find the Cite-Web template rather unnecessary and long, but I'll switch all of them to Cite-Web tonight. No big deal. I just wanted the citations to be consistent.++aviper2k7++ 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you don't have to just concede because two people want it a certain way. I don't see why you find it unnecessary or long, but whatever. Then just ignore it, I'll have time to switch them all over today, and you won't even have to worry about it. When you add citations to the article, add them however you want; someone will come by and put them in the cite-web format for you. –King Bee (T • C) 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Embedded citations. The cite-web should be condensed; mainly because it's hard to edit if it's on separate lines. Also the post date shouldn't be linked. If I'm working with cite-web templates, I use this Reference generator when the format for the page is already cite web and it basically does everything for you. I'm going to condense them all, because the featured articles that do (not many of them do) use the template have them condensed.++aviper2k7++ 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not a policy page, but whatever. I find it absolutely impossible to edit references when they're all in-line and not on multiple lines. I don't care enough to argue though, do whatever you want. –King Bee (T • C) 21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite web format 

message: In the section on Atlanta there is a link to running back Tony Smith, only it points you to an Australian politician.  There doesn't seem to be an article on Smith.  Don't know if he merits one, but the link shouldn't point to him.  Perhaps shouldn't be linked at all.  I'll leave that to someone else to decide.
Chwatuva 09:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Smith 

message: This evening, Farve completed 26 passes, so he has now 5,000 completions.  First QB in NFL to reach 5,000.  The game is an hour over and yet the stats here say 3 games left in this year.  So - I posted the 5,000.  First wiki post and feel good with it.  While this says semi-protected, my post seems to be sticking. Lejonis 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA!  We're glad to have you here.  Semi-protected just keeps anonymous and brand new (only had an account a day or two) users from editing.  I know since this your edit got changed somewhat, see my response to you above.  Also for a comment like this one, if it does not have an appropriate section (which it didn't), create a new section by either clicking the + sign next to edit this page, or by preceding your comment with the new section title inside of a set of double equal signs like I did above your comment. I also applaud you for signing your comment.  Most new users don't, and I even forget half the time and i've been here for over a year. :) Adam Weeden 12:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5,000 Completions

message: Ahem, in searching for citations for this section, I found this website: . It seems to me that the record and milestones section we have here at wikipedia was yanked, word for word, from this website. What should we do about this? –King Bee (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records and Milestones 

message: Please explain why the second
* Third all-time in career wins by starting quarterback, with 146 (Elway, 148; Marino, 147)  
* Third all-time in career record by a quarterback, at 146-90 (Elway, 148-82-1; Marino, 147-93)
is a ranking.
I added in the page;
What does this even mean? Is it referring to wins? If it is, then the record for career wins is right above this. If this is included, his losses are not sourced. Do the losses include the time he was in Atlanta? Is this being updated every week? Is there even a citation that proves this record? Please keep this out, it doesn't make any sense
but you responded with;
(It means greatest record all time by a quarterback and it deserves a mention for goodness sake,it's a factual stats,what's your problem with it aviper2k7,and quit deleting the DeionSanders fact,vandal)
The stat is based on wins, and not winning percentage, so how is his record being ranked? If it's ranked by wins, it's already mentioned. If it's winning percentage, I don't think that's true and is unsourced. Feel free to add his record somewhere in the page with a proper source, but please stop calling me a vandal. Refer to WP:CITE and WP:V please.++aviper2k7++ 06:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also of note: If it is based on winning percentage, what is the minimum number of games needed for consideration?  We can't have a player play 1 game, go 1-0, get injured, and then he owns the record.  This, however, shouldn't be for us to decide as that would fall close to original research.  I say we remove it either way unless someone can provide a link to a ranked list of winning percentage for quarterbacks by a reliable source. Adam Weeden 12:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've hit the nail on the head. In the interest of simplicity, I think it's going to be easiest to leave this stat out of record comparisons, and keep to wins, which is a fairly straightforward record to maintain.  Who is 'best' by win percentage depends completely upon how many minimum games are required, and that minimum is subjective. Too few, and you get 8-1 quarterbacks; too many, and there are too few players under consideration. Since there isn't a "standard", it shouldn't be included, except as a statement of fact of win percentage, (rather than who is "better" than who). Skybunny 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third all-time in career record by a quarterback 

message: Looks good so far.  Among the things needing cleanup - the "citation needed" tags need to be sourced or the statements removed, the "Awards and honors" needs some cleanup, preferably in the prose and without trivia items like the There's Something About Mary note that's neither an award or an honor.  There's a lot of other statements I could throw a tag on, so I suggest doing another sweep and sourcing a few other things that you think might be challenged.  I'll be checking back. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one cn tag regarding Favre's dislike of holding has an explanation for the lack of a citation, though I'll see what I can do with it. The TSAM note's gone, I'll cleanup what I can on the awards and reference a few other things. Not sure who the main article caretakers are (I'm not, I just found this), but I'll fix what I can.--Wizardman 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that bit about him disliking holding the ball came from a documentary called "Favre 4 Ever", which ESPN was showing a a while back. Of course, even if someone had the DVD in front of them, would we be able to reference things from a television documentary and not have it challenged, because it can't be verified on the web? Skybunny 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to cite things to the web, people cite books, magazines, dvds, ect., all the time.++aviper2k7++ 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: COOL! Now for Featured Article....++aviper2k7++ 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suggest holding off on that for a bit.  This is GA material, but will need a lot of work for FA, including more prose checks and a better cleanup of the awards and milestones, minimum.  Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: I was going to edit a link in and I noticed the Cite-Web template being used. The template was only used on about half the article. I figured that the citations should stay consistent so I went through every reference and made them basically the same. I just did a format like "[http:// site] by Jon Smith of Newspaper. Posted Date 1, Year." Wikipedia doesn't really suggest a proper format, just that it should probably attribute the author and date. I added authors to many of the links, and dated each one. Sorry for the person that went through and added the Cite-Web template; I thought it'd be a good idea to keep everything the same and I was thinking the Cite-Web template was long and confusing. More of a personal opinion issue, but it was either one or the other. Sorry for the mix-up.++aviper2k7++ 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in the process of changing all the citations in the article to the cite-web format, as you can see in the above discussion and in my edit summary at the very end. We are doing this to get the article closer to featured article status, and because the cite-web template makes the references appear very clean at the end. I don't know what you find confusing about the template; there is simply a spot for url, publisher, date, accessdate, and title. There's probably a field for author as well, I haven't checked. I can understand how you might have missed the discussion above, but the next time someone is seemingly making sweeping changes to the article, check out the talk page before reverting their work. I just want to stay friendly here, since we both want the same thing in the end: a damn fine lookin' Brett Favre article. –King Bee (T • C) 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations/references 

message: So, no one can edit the article for 5 days, just because of one banned user and his egregious amount of sockpuppets? –King Bee (T • C) 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't be 5 days... I just don't want to see it flipping back and forth while I investigate/deal with the situation.  Someone is using nicely aged WP:SOCKs to get around the semi-protection.  Things will be back to normal shortly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick reply, and thanks for looking into it. –King Bee (T • C) 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to semi... quick 5 days eh?  :)  --Isotope23 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super protection? 

message: I just sent emails to ESPN.com, NFL.com, and profootballreference.com:
:"I have noticed a discrepancy between statistical information on this site and information on other reputable sports web sites: Brett Favre's listed passing attempts as of the end of this season are 8,223 according to NFL.com () and Packers.com (), but 8,224 according to ESPN.com () and profootballreference.com (). Is there any way to confirm which statistic is correct?"
Will follow up if I hear from anyone. --PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. Keep us posted. –King Bee (T • C) 16:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then. I full-protected the article to stop the edit war until we can figure out which is right.--Wizardman 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  I was just about to.  Frankly I'm getting a bit tired of blocking Starwars1955 socks.--Isotope23 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, there's a discussion ensuing over on the talk page for WP:NOR concerning how to address conflicting sources. While the issue being discussed there is a much more contentious issue than whether Favre threw 8,223 or 8,224 attempts, it does bring up the possibility of somehow noting this discrepancy between established, reliable sources (assuming I don't get a timely response to my emails). Since I think it's been established that the NFL statistics are what we should include in the main article text, would it be possible to also add some sort of note indicating that other sites report a different number? PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 19:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contentwise I'm not really involved in this dispute, but I don't see why it would be impossible to have a parenthetical statement at the end of the sentence that states (Source X lists 8224 attempts).--Isotope23 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the update. Is there any way to email the Falcons franchise and ask as well? At least it's another outlet to try. That's where the discrepancy is, btw; in his number of attempts as a Falcon. –King Bee (T • C) 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just sent an email to the address listed on the Falcons' site. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to add my two-pence worth - unless Mark recieves any offcial replies to the various emails (well done for doing it Mark), I'd say go with the NFL.com stats. As an aside note I can't be sure without doing research into but I'm guessing the problem could be in his first ever passing play. IIRC his first pass attempt was batted down and Farve caught it he then attempted another forward pass, is this one pass attempt, two pass attempts (or Zero beacuse of the penalty (although IIRC it is a loss-of-down penalty so the attempt would count - but would the second one)? Just my two-pence worth. --Rehnn83 Talk 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Rehnn83. This is a statistic pertaining to an NFL player. The NFL absolutely should be the recognized authority. If it's a typo, a misprint, or a calculation error, so be it, we're not in any position to extrapolate why there is a difference (because doing so would constitute violation of WP:NOR). If I don't get a reply to any of the four emails I've now sent out (seems unlikely to me), I would propose we list the NFL.com statistic with a Sources including ESPN.com and profootballreference.com list 8,223 passing attempts. or something along those lines. Indicating a difference isn't original research, but trying to figure out why would be. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with that assessment.--Isotope23 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And I as well. Good work. –King Bee (T • C) 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent! Looks great to me. Do you think this is sufficient to allow editing on Favre again, and tweak this if and when any source ever gets back to us about clarifying the stat? Skybunny 23:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should wait until there is resolution concerning the proposed community ban first, because otherwise we'll just be right back where we started. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it'll matter. It's not like he's going to automatically stop editing the page.++aviper2k7++ 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can unlock the page, but I imagine that we will see some IP and "new user" editing happening.  Still it wouldn't hurt to try it.  the page can be monitored and 3RR has an exception for reverting banned users, so I don't think that is a problem.  We can always upgrade to a semi-protect if need be.--Isotope23 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah someone already unprotected it... and looking at the userpage I've got my first abusive doppelganger: User:Isolope23.  Now I feel like I've really arrived.--Isotope23 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also  and ... Kusma (討論) 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, the clarifying notes have been added. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looked like the numbers were reversed in relation to the sources, so I fixed it.--Isotope23 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoops...good catch. I don't know why I changed that one and not the other one. Should we have some sort of note on the yearly stats table, since the discrepancy is in his year with the Falcons? PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we absolutely should. Something similar to what we have now should be fine. –King Bee (T • C) 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No objection to removing the asterisk stat... and nice job on finding that out.  I'd say just leave it at 8223 cited to NFL.com.  There really is no way to reference that email without running afoul of WP:NOR, but I'd leave it here as something that could be pointed out if a certain individual shows up again... ah, the sweet irony.--Isotope23 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sweet irony aside, sweet, SWEET work, PSUMark! That is amazing. –King Bee (T • C) 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and fixed it.--Isotope23 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks guys. I just wish there was better contact information for the sites that have 8,224 listed - it'd be nice to clear up the inconsistency once and for all. (I never thought that I would spend so much time trying to work out a discrepancy of one passing attempt that happened 16 years ago.) — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work! I am a bit surprised that they responded, but hey! It's the Green Bay Packers.++aviper2k7++ 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification requested 

message: From:    Gilbert, Zak
Sent:    Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:38 PM
Subject: Favre's attempts
Regarding your recent query, Brett's official passing attempts for the year 1991 was five until a few years 
ago, when the official league statistician reviewed tape of one of his games as a rookie and determined 
that the RFK Stadium press box had mistakenly given him one too many passing attempts.
His official total is 8,223. 
***************************************************  
Zak Gilbert  
Assistant Public Relations Director  
Green Bay Packers, Inc.
Finally a response! I'm going to see if I can pass this information along to ESPN and PFR so they might consider making the appropriate changes. Does anyone have any objections to now removing the asterisked stats? And, if so, how should we reference this "official verification"? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection to removing the asterisk stat... and nice job on finding that out.  I'd say just leave it at 8223 cited to NFL.com.  There really is no way to reference that email without running afoul of WP:NOR, but I'd leave it here as something that could be pointed out if a certain individual shows up again... ah, the sweet irony.--Isotope23 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sweet irony aside, sweet, SWEET work, PSUMark! That is amazing. –King Bee (T • C) 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and fixed it.--Isotope23 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks guys. I just wish there was better contact information for the sites that have 8,224 listed - it'd be nice to clear up the inconsistency once and for all. (I never thought that I would spend so much time trying to work out a discrepancy of one passing attempt that happened 16 years ago.) — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work! I am a bit surprised that they responded, but hey! It's the Green Bay Packers.++aviper2k7++ 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to request for clarification

message: So...on a completely different subject...what do we need to get this article to A-class?. A peer review is obvious, but what do we need done to start talking featured article candidate? This article was granted "good article", but with no positive nor negative feedback to this end. Skybunny 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to edit with it being locked :/ ++aviper2k7++ 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure? It's not showing up as locked for me. (Only semi-protected.) In any case, is it a fair discussion to have? Skybunny 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's not anymore. I think someone should go through the entire article and correct some grammar. I admit, I'm not the best English student, but I spot some absent commas and some oddly placed commas where there should be a semi-colon.++aviper2k7++ 05:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been unprotected (we'll try to deal with sock attacks otherwise). Please go ahead and improve the article to FA status! Kusma (討論) 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I wanted to ask if maybe the line, "He is of French and Choctaw ancestry; one of his paternal grandparents was a Native American affiliated with the Choctaw," could be moved into the early years section?  Just seems a little odd in the opening paragraph, which talks mainly about his career. oncamera(t) 02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me. Favre is generally known for his career more than his parentage. Skybunny 02:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Do it! –King Bee (T • C) 02:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I moved it, but edit any grammar/structure if it needs it. oncamera(t) 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After an edit conflict, I added a bit to the lead. It should be 3-4 paragraphs, and should summarize the subject clearly (and give the reader a reason to read the whole thing). The lead could use a bit more work, and it should probably mention something about his father's death and the game after (possibly).++aviper2k7++ 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the part about him drinking back in, seems rather notable due to the 16 part JS piece on Favre. Also, there's some redundant Wikilinks, so if you see repeating ones, take them out, or Wikilinks deemed unhelpful++aviper2k7++ 03:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A class article