Talk:Matt Leinart

message: An administrator (Alhutch) semi-protected this page as an abuse of power because he dislikes legitimate edits. Please un-protect this page immediately.
:you have yet to cite your sources. Go ahead.--Alhutch 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Alhutch, for protecting this page... I was going to suggest it myself. This "Matt Leinart is gay" thing is becoming quite tiresome. "Sources"? Ha! - Davis21Wylie 03:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the support. the "matt leinart is gay" edits have come from several very persistent IPs. I'm not sure what's behind the whole thing.--Alhutch 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's ludicrous that this has gone on for as long as it has, thank you for the protection. IanMcGreene 20:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  abuse of power  

message: There are legitimate people that want to edit the article. Your petty squabbling over something so idiotic as this is ruining people's experience on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.12.114 (talk • contribs) 
:good point. on my way.--Alhutch 05:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy smokes!!! You're one of the IPs who kept putting in the "Matt Leinart is gay" thing. I previously blocked you for that reason! I can't believe I got tricked so easily. I'm reprotecting the page, and checking the contribs page next time an IP asks me to unprotect a page.--Alhutch 06:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: that's all well and good, but since you have the ability to edit this talk page, why don't you post the sources right here, right now? Please go ahead, I am watching the page.--Alhutch 06:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have any sources. Stop wasting my time.--Alhutch 07:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and you calling me a buffoon wasn't rude?--Alhutch 16:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I, on the other hand, have no such qualms about being rude to other (anonymous) users. You, IP 141.161.12.114 (and all the other IP's who have vandalized this page in the past few months), are disingenuous, arrogant, and infantile, and you are not a "fellow Wikipedian" in anyone's mind... you are a vandal. You will not "provide sources in due time," because you have no sources. Alhutch owes no one an apology; you, as you so eloquently put it, are the one who "owes me and every other wikipedian on this page an apology". This nonsense has persisted for months, and it needs to stop. Now. (Davis21Wylie now sits back and waits for massive amounts of vandalization on his user page...) - Davis21Wylie 15:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many a-nones are like al-Qaeda setting off car bombs, except unfortunately they don't die. Maybe that's a little extreme. Actually, they are more like crabgrass on your front lawn. Wahkeenah 18:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I reeled in the al-Qaeda comment and instead compared you to crabgrass, which I notice you did not challenge. >:) Wahkeenah 00:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Boy, that edit war was fun, wasn't it, guys? Dude must have set up an account and waited four days to start vandalising again! Committed to this whole thing, aren't they? Wishful thinking on their part, maybe? - Davis21Wylie 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what he did. I don't understand this guy's motivations at all.--Alhutch 00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unblock this page please  

message: The article is now unprotected. Editors that have violated the WP:3RR rule, have been blocked for 24 hrs. I will be monitoring this article. Note that edit wares never produce any useful results. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, I really don't think you fully understand the situation. Look at the substance of the edits that Cooldc19 and the IP contributors were inserting. We have been dealing with these people for some time on this article, and I believe the situation was quite under control already. Davis21Wylie was completely in the right in this situation, and should be unblocked immediately. I won't do it myself without your approval as I do not want to start a wheel war, but please do unblock him now.--Alhutch 03:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll take it up on WP:AN/I.--Alhutch 04:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is pretty clearly vandalism.  Familiarity with the subject matter is important here, I guess.  While it's possible that Leinart could come out, it's incredibly unlikely, adding a claim like that would require a source to be cited.  Anyway, sports articles frequently see vandalism like this... especially "golden boy" quarterback types.  Totally fits the vandalism profile, it's not a content dispute until an actual source gets cited. --W.marsh 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree. The situation with Davis21Wylie has been cleared up. Hopefully the vandals don't return.--Alhutch 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Hey Alhutch, this IS a content dispute. There is clear evidence that Matt Leinart is a homosexual. Unfortunately because I have been so busy with work, I and the other IP have not been able to get around to posting sources but we WILL in the near future. There are many sources to dig up so please give us time. Luckily we have been VINDICATED by a third party who saw that your actions were highly inappropriate, excessive and a clear violation of Wikipedia's standards and policies. Alhutch, you and your friends should be ashamed of yourself for your extreme level of immaturity in this matter. Thank you to Cooldc19 (whoever you may be) for standing up for us and facing the consequences of your courage tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.237.65 (talk • contribs) 
:I have blocked 68.48.237.65 as a vandal (see main article edit history).  Reporting this on AN/I too for full disclosure. --W.marsh 05:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked the user too, plenty of warnings on user's talk page. These edits are not legitimate.--Alhutch 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vindication!  

message: Hey guys, 
I finally got off early from work tonight and found a few of my sources. This is not a comprehensive list. I will post more when I have more time 
http://boifromtroy.com/?p=4717
Scroll down to statement that
"MATT LEINART AND THE REST OF THE TROJANS IN THE BATH HOUSE ARE GAY"
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lucero/050830
Matt Leinart winks at a freshman male, in a gay manner
http://www.mattleinartfan.blogspot.com/
Associated Press article stating that Matt Leinart came out. This in particular is irrefutable evidence of his homosexuality. Additionally this blog appears to be by a straight fan who is shocked that he is gay. 
I hope this satisfies the people who continually REVERT our fully appropriate and sourced edits. Please do not revert any longer. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.237.65 (talk • contribs) 
:Not to belabor the obvious, but the "sources" consist of A) an anonymous blog comment, B) a work of satire and C) a fake AP article. Weak trolling attempt, needs more cowbell. --W.marsh 05:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that clears up everything, doesn't it? (Sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell) You (or some other phantom IP intent on the same type of vandalization) already showed us the first two "sources", and frankly they're laughable. "Boi from Troy"'s posts are simply wishful thinking on that writer's part... the ESPN article is clearly to be taken tongue-in-cheek, as the "Do you think he's gay?" remark only serves to underscore the rampant Leinart-mania that existed on the USC campus at that time, especially among younger students. As for your third "source"... It's a blog that I'd wager you created yourself, a fabricated reference the likes of which would give even Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass pause. Oh, and that "AP Story" is fake. Whoever they are, "Jamaal Lanson" and "Jessica Lakeson" do not write for the AP (or any news service, for that matter). A google search for their names returned no results. If this is the best you've got, you should just give it up. It's over. - Davis21Wylie 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Leinart Homosexual Sources  

message: I've unprotected the page.  I don't feel that one vandal is reason enough to semi-protect a page.  Especially with the draft coming up, it is likely that anons/new users will have many contributions to make to this page.  It takes about a minute at most to revert and block the guy. --W.marsh 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wow.--Alhutch 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The cat came back. TKE 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna start blocking as soon as I see it come up on my watchlist.--Alhutch 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I mean, we could spend all night blocking sock puppets, or we could semi protect. the latter seems the better option for now.--Alhutch 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  I think his relevant QB information is there, and he is expected to go second in the draft.  With a University IP all he has to do is log off and then on again.  Shame. TKE 05:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protection 

message: Hey guys,
I really disagree with how the admins are becoming so corrupt and are inappropriately stifling a fact about leinart that they just don't like. I fully support all the many people who are opposing the admins' corruptness. Here is an additional source I found today on Leinart's homosexuality. I hope this puts this issue to rest once and for all: 
http://www.answers.com/topic/matt-leinart
*The source for that writeup is your phony entry on wikipedia, slavishly copied by that website as they do so much other wikipedia stuff. If Leinart actually were "openly gay", it would be a major news story. It isn't, and he ain't. Wahkeenah 17:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that answers.com site is a little less embarrassing to the vandal than his Jukt Micronics-esque phony blog, but still... There's no point in using logic at this juncture, just revert and block, revert and block. - Davis21Wylie 18:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm waiting for someone to semi-protect it. I'm just a lowly user with no authority to do so. >:( Wahkeenah 18:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies to answers.com. It's not a stealth ripoff. It says right at the top of the page that wikipedia is its source. Wahkeenah 18:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder where it went after being so persistent earlier today. Maybe recess was over. Wahkeenah 19:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nope, they're back. revert and block, revert and block.--Alhutch 02:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: everyone feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if there's an attack, and i'll come and block the vandals if I'm around.--Alhutch 06:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandal is up to 22 21 socks, but resistance is futile! T K E 06:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It often seems to create them two at a time, so it will usually have its sockpuppets in pairs. :) Wahkeenah 06:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's going on the sock page with W. marsh's comment. T K E 06:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what the heck is this fellow's motivation? the sock count is up to 23 with the two i just added, but who's really counting.--Alhutch 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raises Hand.  T K E 07:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder if there are any other vandals so active they have their own category? Talk about Dubious Achievements. I think the page understates the case, as I think that Leinart looney has used several IP addresses at various times. As to motivation, that would be known only to the vandal, if anyone. It reminds me of some other minor vandalism wars recently, such as with the George Reeves article. But in my admittedly narrow wiki world of experience, I have yet to run into any other vandal so persistent. Wahkeenah 06:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every sock template created makes a page; it's autogenerated. They can be found at Category:Wikipedia: Suspected sock puppets of Username.  As to prolific, there are many.  Willy on Wheels mentioned below is fairly humorous- the user adds "ON WHEELS!" to random articles.  The Communist vandal is less funny.  I find this one to be amusing in scrappiness. T K E 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I didn't link the sock thing because I'm too lazy to find the sock temp link list.  So sue me. T K E 07:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a few famous ones, like Willy on Wheels and Mr. Treason and others. I think they're detailed here: Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Unique_entities. those ones get imitated sometimes. i have never seen one so persistent as this one either.--Alhutch 07:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, it's just a singular person at Georgetown University.  But there ain't nothing to do but watch, revert, wash, rinse, repeat. T K E 07:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leinart 

message: I think it was Sports Illustrated that had stated Leinart was pushed over the line by Bush in the Notre Dame game. I just saw the replay, and they were right. Whoever keeps deleting the fairly neutral (and generous) "some claim he was pushed" is out of line. Wahkeenah 01:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please settle this dispute here; I asked the IP to come and comment. T K E 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, my bad; I thought it was another vandal. - Davis21Wylie 00:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  User IP 67.48.90.179 is not the Leinart vandal, 68.__.__.__ are. The 67 IP has only contributed with this edit; hopefully the user will weigh in. T K E 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *No one has criticized your contributions, nor have you harmed the article.  That's why I asked you to weigh in here. T K E 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further Clarification Many of your edits were reverted by accident because of the vandal, I apologize on behalf of all the other editors. T K E 05:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should keep the description of the push if we are to describe the great 61-yard pass that preceded it, but also include the fact that Weis was okay with the push, the fact that it was not reviewable, and source the LA Times and The Sporting News for the sake of documentation. Also, "some observers claim" may need to be re-written in light of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. This way, all points of view will be accomodated in the article. - Davis21Wylie 14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *So it's agreed that a mention should be in the article, which fits the Music City Miracle.  Now, wording is the last step and then the article is pretty much down. T K E 04:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal push? 

message: By basically saying he is going to be taken by the Tennessee Titans and only the Tennessee Titans when they are actively considering Vince Young is pov.  The Oakland Raiders are a possibility and the New York Jets, but the middle 1st round teams could move up as well though I doubt somebody like the Colts or the Steelers could or would move up.
63.173.47.193 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not exactly violating POV since it is attributing the prediction to specific commentators. Feel free to rewrite it, but it's probably best to cite sources. --W.marsh 14:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The information, if it can be sourced, would be speculative and would rely heavily on opinion, which is very difficult to be presented in a neutral and objective manner.  So, I don't know if it is as much a question of notability, although, it probably is not really that notable.  That he was drafted is objective and notable; that he won a Heisman is objective and notable; that he is now a backup is objective and notable; but that he went 10th when some though he should have gone higher is not objective and not notable.  QueenofBattle (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFL Draft 

message: The two are being linked together —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.2.85 (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Britney Spears? 

message: Since there is/ was only one controversial situation in his life, shouldn't the title be "Controversy" for now. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There shouldn't be any controversy section IMO.  It is poorly sourced and of dubious reference.  It calls for conjecture and opinion of judgment as to his actions, violating Wiki's NPOV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newguy34 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't every controversy subject to people's opinions?  Some people may think nothing of it, while others seriously would.  Bank robbers wouldn't think someone holding up a bank is newsworthy, but the rest of the public would.  One's opinions are clouded by their surroundings, and in a digital age, that blur of distinction is even more evident as everything is available in real-time and is able to be scrutinized easier due to accessibility.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Renforth (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversey 

message: The image :File:Jedbartlet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Jedbartlet.jpg

message: I was reading this, and saw that in the sectiona bout the 2005 season, it says that besides fresno state, USC wasnt really challenged during the regular season
ummm this is a COMPLETE LIE!
im a USC fan and i remember clearly not only the Fresno State games, but also The notre Dame game, which some people consider the best game of all time, and the Arizona state game, where i beleive SC may have been down by as many as 18 points before the half, and the oregon game, SC was down at half time (although they did blow the ducks out in the second half  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.152.87 (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I've reworded it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 season 

message: An IP editor added text to link the discussion of the 2005 Notre Dame game to the more detailed article 2005 Southern California vs. Notre Dame football game.  QueenofBattle reverted this.  I then tried to make the text more explicit, with a source, to restore the wikilink from this article to the more detailed one about the game.  QueenofBattle reverted it again.  It seems obvious to me that this belongs in the article, in some form, and I especially don't understand the resistance to having a link to the more detailed article on the game.  I don't see any policy or editorial reason to leave this out.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that BLPs should be about the person, not about what happened during a football game.  The push is covered in depth at the article that you point out, as well as at USC Trojans football and 2005 USC Trojans football team.  That seems like enough for something that comprised an very, very, very small portion of one's life.  Plus, he wasn't even the one who made the push.  So, should we have a link to every other player who made a good play while Leinart was on the field?  Clearly, nope.  QueenofBattle (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning.  This is probably the most famous play of his college career (in which he scored the winning touchdown)--what else would you put in an article about a football player?  Why would you oppose having a summary and link to the more detailed article?  If it is the phrase "Bush Push" that you don't like, I suppose different wording can be worked out.  But I can see no reason to avoid linking to a detailed article on what has been called one of the most famous plays in football history and in which Leinart played a central role. I will be interested to see if anyone else has an opinion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[Bush Push]] game redux

message: Overall this article if well-written, but there are a few places where it veers close to sounding like a fan article. Just a thought. And do we really need to know anything about his child custody arrangements? PurpleChez (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV, tone

message: As was done with the  template, I am changing the winner to say that no one is the 2005 winner, and that Troy Smith is the 2006 winner. The same is also being done for the Troy Smith article. This is the source. Please do not revert it unless discussed here. Also see the List of Heisman Trophy winners talk page. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Heisman Trophy history at end of page

message: Substituted at 23:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Leinart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080729072550/http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-1-82/Once-anointed-as-USC-QB--Sanchez-asserted-himself.html to http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-1-82/Once-anointed-as-USC-QB--Sanchez-asserted-himself.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://wonderlictestsample.com/nfl-wonderlic-scores/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified