Talk:Brett Favre/Archive 3

message: Do not trust any edit summaries on the page, many of them are fake summaries by sockpuppets of banned user Starwars1955, sometimes made by accounts that try to impersonate administrators. Kusma (討論) 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I noticed that I edited right after a sock, not paying attention to the edit before me. –King Bee (T • C) 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And a total of 72 users and anons later, I think we may be past all of this. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it sad that that the socks keep coming back every so often? I've indef'd two more.--Wizardman 03:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch out for socks 

message: Does his personal life really belong in the intro? I'm just saying that as you don't usually see it: I mean it's not what he known for. Trevor GH5 05:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, shouldn't Family tragedies be re-named Personal life and deal with all aspects of his personal life and not just his family tragedies? Trevor GH5 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Is it notable to put that Brett Favre was addicted to vicodin in the '93-'95 seasons? I've ready his auto-biography, and about one-third of it was about his addiction to vicodin. Pbroks13 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already there, somewhat.  From the "Beginning years..." section: "While being treated for various injuries, Brett Favre developed an addiction to painkillers. This became known when he suffered a seizure during a hospital visit. While the NFL investigated, he went public to avoid various rumors. In May 1996, he was immediately forced into treatment by the NFL and remained in rehabilitation for 46 days." Adam Weeden 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicodin 

message: As such, I am going to revert all of his edits. –King Bee (τ • γ) 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't... I'll elaborate on your talkpage.--Isotope23 talk 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BarryBonds800HomeRuns is clearly Starwars1955 

message: * Most seasons with 20 or more touchdown passes: 12 (1994-2005)
* Most seasons with 30 or more touchdown passes: 8 (1994-1998, 2001, 2003-2004)
The reference here doesn't explicitly state that 12 & 18 are the records.  I've removed these for now with no prejudice against them being added if a good cite is found for this being the record.--Isotope23 talk 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not done going through the Milestones yet, but I'm concerned that some of them are not explicitly supported by the references; i.e. the numbers are correct, but that fact that that is the "most" of that particular benchmark by anyone in the NFL is not a claim that adequately sourced by the existing cites.  In these cases, even if it is true, it should be removed until it is verified.--Isotope23 talk 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Milestones removed

message: Similar to the situation with the Peyton Manning and Michael Vick articles, WP:LENGTH and WP:SS discuss what can be done when articles become "long".  As there is already a category for this material (:Category:Career achievements of sportspeople), it is clear that this has been discussed before and there exists WP:CON supporting the move.  If someone would like to discuss why this material should not be spun off, I'm all ears. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't too long. It doesn't need to be split off.++aviper2k7++ 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, as I said before WP:LENGTH and WP:SS say otherwise.  It's not an obligation, but it certainly isn't "inappropriate".  I fail to see how an extensive list included in this article helps. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is 22.7KB, I have no idea where you're getting this. Please check before making false statements.++aviper2k7++ 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Jmfangio, from the discussion at Talk:Peyton Manning, has said that he has reached a consensus supporting splitting it up.  However, he said that his consensus was that a couple other articles had split up, as well.  WP:CONSENSUS isn't about doing something just because a couple other articles do, which is what Jmfangio continues to give as his support for having the awards split off.  There is no need for them to be somewhere else, and the argument that the article is "too long" doesn't apply here; 22.7 kilobytes isn't what I'd consider long enough to remove a significant portion of the article elsewhere.  Ksy92003(talk) 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I gotta tell you guys something, I'm about done with this discussion.  Stop attacking me.  Either discuss this politely or move on.  If you don't have the patience to discuss matters, then this is not the website for you.  WP:CON is not simply established by the fact that an article is created.  However, WP:LENGTH and WP:SS are results of consensus.  Several other articles have been created by several other editors, so clearly, there is consensus.  You may not like that, and it is possible that consensus can change, but your guys insistence on "Jmfangio said this" and "Jmfangio said that" is not rubbing me well.  I don't care who said what to whom on what date, I care about the content.  If you want to keep going down this path, we're going to end up exactly where Chrisjnelson and I are right now.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards spin off 

message: Why are the sections named by years? This is sloppy and not very prose. I've changed this loads of times and nobody has a reason why they should be sorted by years. You can actually tell what the section is going to be talking about and if you name them by years, it could refer to anything and not just his football career.++aviper2k7++ 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I know several people have differences of opinions on this.  I for one, do not like the "verbose" section headings some people use in articles.  I think they often fail WP:NPOV and are sloppy.  Not surprisingly, I did raise this issue with at WT:HEAD yesterday.  WP:HEAD doesn't really address this issue (at least as far as I can tell) and it is something that would enhance the WP:MOS. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloppy? It's prose. A date is sloppy! How can you have a section title that is just a date? What does a date tell you? It doesn't tell you anything. You'd have no idea what you'd be reading about. What if I came to the article looking to read on his Super Bowl victory? Do we assume we know what date that was? What about when he first started? The information isn't about dates, it's about what he did during that time.++aviper2k7++ 19:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * It tells you exactly what the content of the section is about.  I have seen things in the past (not on this article necessarily) that say "Rise to stardom", etc...etc..  Also, remember that these are level 3 headings not level two. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see your argument. If it's not happening here, why is it wrong everywhere? And a date is just a date. It gives no context. If I was writing an article on my life, I wouldn't put "2002-2007" as a header. I'd put "High School Years". What does a date tell you?++aviper2k7++ 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I would like to know in this edit what "per WP:HEAD means? Please actually check these things before citing them as your main reasoning.++aviper2k7++ 19:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I fail to see your argument. If it's not happening here, why is it wrong everywhere? And a date is just a date. It gives no context. If I was writing an article on my life, I wouldn't put "2002-2007" as a header. I'd put "High School Years". What does a date tell you?++aviper2k7++ 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I am confused by the "if it's not happening here, why is it wrong everywhere?".  Again, we are talking about level 3 headings not level 2 headings, so i think that makes a significant difference.  But, I also think it can be problematic at the level 2 section.  Early years is certainly acceptable, but "Beginning years in Green Bay" from this version seems fairly problematic... It's a level 3 under the Green Bay Packers section -> that seems fairly redundant.  I'm not sure the Beginning yers in green bay is really informative since it's already under the GBP section.  It seems to be an issue that has not been addressed at WP:HEAD, so it certainly is worth discussion. If you want to continue to make uncivil statements, you are not going to have an easy time with other editors.  I'm not arguing with you, I'm discussing this with you.  It's a very interesting point that you have raised and I'm saying it is worth discussing.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's rather rude to make false statements in your arguments. I haven't even replaced the information we are discussion, which is what a lot of other editors would have done. Your argument seems to be that it's a problem in some other articles. What makes it wrong here? You never really said why it's problematic here. The level argument doesn't hold much weight, level three headers should be just as informative as level two headers. I think we can all agree that a date isn't informative. The sections in order now would be "Early years", "Super Bowl years", "Post-Super Bowl years", "Final years". Can we agree on this?++aviper2k7++ 19:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * This information is already under a level 2 heading though.  This is a very interesting topic and I'm not sure what the consensus is.  For me, I would rather know the years or descriptive information that places things in a time line.  Take a look at Oakland_raiders#Franchise_history.  Aside from the explicit problems (things like The for example), I think the section organization needs to be addressed on a widescale basis.  Al Davis coming to as a section title seems very "prosaic" and not very effective. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Thanks for the appology, I promise I'm not against you guys.  I think this is a very interesting topic.  Personally, I think that Level 2s should be a bit more "open" on bio pages for people (even outside of sports).  Franchises/teams/etc... is a whole nother ball game.  This is a pretty big issue and i'm surprised that nothing has been done about it on any of the WP:MOS pages.  I might have missed something, but I'm pretty sure this is fresh territory. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we are talking about this article. A person is much different from a professional sports organization. Can you agree on the names I listed? We have to agree on something. And what does the level heading matter? Why doesn't a level 3 heading need to be informative?++aviper2k7++ 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * As far as I can tell: none of us is under the impression that headings should not be informative.  I think the question is What is considered to be an appropriately descriptive heading? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've never explained why a date is informative. It doesn't explain what's in the section or even why it's grouped that way. Why would one section be 1996-1997 and another 1998-2004? If it was listed solely on dates, shouldn't it go in five year increments? Well no, that wouldn't work because it would disrupt the flow of the article.++aviper2k7++ 19:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The name of the sections is dependent on the content within.  If a player has a number of significant events that take place in a 2 years period, then the section title will reflect that.  Similarly, another player may not have enough information to warrant inclusion in a section without adding information for other portions of their career.  Thus, a 5 year span would be appropriate.  Certain athletes have individual seasons that are of particular interest and that might consitute enough information on its' own.  That is really more an issue of section management and section titles. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why it's grouped the way it is now is because someone decided it flowed nice together that way (and it did) and then named the section after what he grouped it as. Can we agree on the section names? Can't we do both for now? Are you skirting this?++aviper2k7++ 20:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I am completely lost.  Stop making uncivil statements - nobody is skirting anything here and you guys really need to stop with those comments.  I do not want this to end up at WP:ANI because of personal attacks. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, Chris Nelson.  Nobody has left a single personal attack here.  Aviper2k7 and I are trying to help improve the articcle, and we're trying to discuss it with you, Jmfangio.  I don't know why you are taking these statements in an uncivil manner...  Ksy92003(talk) 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Okay guys - i'm done discussing.  I didn't say you personally attacked me.  I said these comments are drifting toward personal attacks.  Your edit summaries and your comments are creating a hostile environment.  All three of you do the same thing.  I'm not going to put up with it anymore.  Either discuss the content or move on.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just...wow.►Chris Nelson 20:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discuss the content? That's all I've been doing. I haven't reverted or changed it or anything. I'm trying to get an agreement and now you're done discussing this? I assume you agree with my section titles after ignoring them the past four times here, so I'm adding them to the article.++aviper2k7++ 21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I don't agree with anything, I'm removing myself from this conversation because you have an inability to discuss things without saying things that are down right uncivil and rude.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jmfangio, saying things over and over doesn't make it true. Neither of them have been uncivil or rude at ALL, and saying it over and over isn't going to change that.►Chris Nelson 22:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for not replying yet, CJ.  I've too much on my plate recently, as I'm certain you're well aware of.  Currently, I have one huge issue with the current format:  Years after Super Bowl, and Post-Super Bowl seasons never mind; this was edited as I began typing this comment.  I, for one, am at a complete loss of thinking of a reasonable, logistic format of labelling these two sections.  With the current format, the one that was just changed to, I think that the latter, "Post-Super Bowl seasons", is worded in an unusual way as correlation to the flow of the article, and I think this one should be modified slightly.  There's something about its current state that doesn't seem to flow well in the article.  Maybe something like "Final seasons" or something to that effect.  Ksy92003(talk) 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section names 

message: I think this page should be semi-protected.  There has been multiple vandalizations and this whole thing with User:Starwars1955 makes this page an excellent candidate for protection.  It would stop all the anonymous users from vandalizing and make anyone who wanted to edit it make an account and wait a couple of days.  What do you guys think?  Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed all comments by our community banned user. Since being banned means having no voice on Wikipedia, this seems a more than reasonable thing to do. In this spirit, I might suggest that future edits placed here by them be removed without comment and not responded to in any way. Gonzo_fan2007, did you want to try your article reorder now? If it is undone as it has been in the past, it will be fairly obvious who's doing it anyway. Skybunny 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Umm it really doesn't matter to me.  I just think this page really really needs to be semi-protected for the length of the season.  There has been so much vandalism and edits by anonymous users, and with Brett about to break the TD record, the attempts record, and maybe later the yardage record it would make sense to protect this page so that people cannot just come on here and vandalize.  I also think a checkuser would help for our favorite editor and maybe a rangeblock if possible.  I think if we can do a checkuser, protect the page, and a rangeblock would cut down on the vandalism by an immense amount.  I dont know much about requests for the preceding three items, so any help would be great.  On the matter with my edits, it doesnt matter to me, if you feel like it you can look back in the history and revert back to my changes, but its no biggie.  Thanks for everything. Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page be semi-protected? 

message: In the first paragraph, it states: "He became the Packers starting quarterback in the third game of the 1992 NFL season."
In fact, he became the starter in the 4th game (VS Pittsburgh).  The 3rd game was VS Cincinnati, a game in which he didn't start.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, and, fixed. Skybunny 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: Brett Favre is tied for Most Wins against one team: 22 against the Chicago Bears ( Dan Marino  vs. the Indianapolis Colts ) (1981willy 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is another record