Talk:Michael Vick/Archive 1

message: The article titled "Ron Mexico" is an exact duplicate of this. If someone would care to redirect Ron Mexico to here it would probably be a good thing. I don't know how and would rather not screw it up. Thanks.
:It already is redirected. --B 22:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  --daunrealist 23:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And done again. GeorgeC 20:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old comments 

message: Why is it that there is NOTHING in here about MV7 (from Nike Gridiron) and The Michael Vick Experience ride in Atlanta?  I don't know enough about them, so don't tell me to write anything about it.  --daunrealist 23:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of it. GeorgeC 20:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MV7, Michael Vick Experience 

message: He's listed as two different contradictory weights.  one of them is outlandish.
Youdontsmellbad 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight

message: I'm going to put the receiving table back at some point, a QB having 2 career catches (especially since they were both to himself) is notable in some way, surely? I know that Elway had three catches, but they were on HB option plays, etc. Cryomaniac 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume there are no objections to this? Cryomaniac 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Receiving yards

message: Vick's collegiate career is noteworthy (Heisman finalist as a sophomore, leading his team to a National Championship game) and should be mentioned. Nick.dilallo@gmail.com 07:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a redshirt freshman. Arkon 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: College Career

message: Also, it was a minor edit (which I forgot to tick, sorry). I wondered why it wasn't already added. Bkid 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good add. I noticed in the edit history that reference to this incident keeps being taken out. I hope that won't continue. IronDuke 04:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited with the donation to charity for Vick's obscene gesture 

message: I am responsible for updating most of Vick's rushing statistics ande current accomplishment on this page as a running QB. I need to access the page for weekly updates until January -- when the regular season is over. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by No1vickfan (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  As long as you don't break the rules, you have access to the page, as does everyone else on the planet.  ;) BigDT 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind ... I see what you are talking about.  This page is "semi-protected" because there was a lot of vandalism.  Within a few fays, you will be able to edit it, even if nothing happens.  There had been an orchestrated effort to vandalize Falcons pages ... ironically from Falcons fans themselves  ... but I think it's been long enough that we can request unprotection - the place to do that is WP:RFP and I'll go ahead and make that request. BigDT 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFL STATS 

message: why isn't this in the article? --E tac 06:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bottle with a hidden compartment, Vick now claims it was to hide jewelry... --E tac 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: marijuana water bottle

message: Several new entries seem to be outdated and subjective. There's a line in this category about Vick becoming a bonafide star worthy of MVP attention, after just his first year. While that statement may be true, it does not belong in this section. Also, several of his milestones set in 2004 and 2005 have since been surpassed and are no longer applicable, in my opinion. I will delete them as necessary in the coming days. (No1Vickfan) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.2.186.10 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records and Milestones Clean-up 

message: All the images that were in this article belong to the NFL or another Publishing Company; Thye cannot be used without proper consent, fair use rationale, or purpose. One cannot use an image just for the hell of it - especially own with a strict copy right. The image is not only being used without permission, but also unlawfully. An Admin is not needed to remove the image, but only to properly delete them. 
Additionally, several claims in this article push Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies. Additionally there are no sources to back up the claim. While they content may be true, Wikipedia requires legitimate sources back up the article's claims. There's no concrete evidence that shows this article was written by a supposed professional and collegiate educated individual; leading one to believe that the article's claims could have been written by anyone and could contain anything. See WP:Verify, WP:OR, WP:Cite and WP:RS - That's WP Five Policies that this article's claims do not meet. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fairly Well-Done --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images, POV, Clean-up

message: Vick passed for 16 TD's in 2002, not 8.  FYI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by APOSMUSIC (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: STATS

message: I think it's relevant to Vick's life and career and replaced it. GeorgeC 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be placed in Vick's personal life. I hardly think it deserves its own section since Vick was not directly involved in the incident. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is relevant. Many, many important people have reacted to it, and we do not include all their reactions in their articles. Unless Vick somehow become part of the story, I think the section should go. I see why people think it should be here, but it makes this article read more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia entry. IronDuke 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I posted this on GeorgeC's page and I posted it here:
I've already explained in detail why it is not relevant enough to be on Vick's page, and I've yet to hear a sound argument for the opposite side. Some of my reasons:
1. Vick offered no insight. He said he was shocked and saddened. This is not newsworthy, as anyone with a conscience was shocked and saddened. I think we can all assume Vick wasn't happy with the event without adding it to his biography.
2. Vick was not involved directly. He was not there, he did not know anyone there that we know of, and he offered no insight into the situation. If Vick had a relative or something involved, that'd be one thing. But he didn't, so that's irrelevant.
3. It is not an important aspect of Vick's life. When Vick retires and someone does an hour-long show on his life story and career, they won't go "Oh by the way, he was shocked and saddened when the Virginia Tech Massacre happened." 
Basically, think about it like this: If Vick is not mentioned on the Virginia Tech Massacre page, which he shouldn't be, then the massacre shouldn't be mentioned on his page. It's either relevant on both ends or on neither, and I'm confident it's the latter.
In conclusion, I feel that UNTIL this issue can be explained as relevant in regards to Vick, it should remain off the page. Once you supply a reasoning that can satisfy a logical person, I'm all for it.Chris Nelson 04:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction to Virginia Tech massacre section

message: A little sloppy, could use some work. I suggest we down size it or we move the entire controversies section to it's own page. The Controversies section is nearly biggest than everything else in the article. Semaj137 03:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should do that after the current event is resolved. Right now, IMHO, the investigation in Virginia is using appropriate space. It is hard to keep up with the developments in the article. Keeping that section accurate is the best use of WP editors time right now. According to the sheriff quoted in the June 6 Daily Press, more witnesses against Vick are apparently coming forward. It isn't clear yet whether they are credible or not. I will try to update the article with this information. Vaoverland 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am having computer trouble, but have outlined at home how to purge stale portions, stuff which was current when it was added, but contrasts with better more current information. I will try to get this cleaned up and streamlined in next 24 hours, assuming no new developments are announced before I do so. Vaoverland 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Major developments as of 3 PM EDT on June 7, as feds and state police apparently took over this afternoon, and were conducting a search at the property in Surry County per current online of USA Today. I am working on an update and re-write off line. Also, cousin reported to interviewed by WAVY (Norfolk-Portsmouth) which will be on tonights 11 PM news cast. Anyone wanting to help, let's collaborate and keep this emotionally charged and volatile part of article both NPOV and accurately referenced. Vaoverland 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just watched the WAVY broadcast.  The most interesting thing was an interview with Davon Bodie (Vick's cousin who lived at the house).  There was nothing earth-shattering - it's all a conspiracy and nothing happened, but if it did, he apologizes to Vick for putting him in the spotlight. --BigDT 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The interview is accessible from a video on the left side of http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6629536 ... I'm not sure how to cite it as a source, though. --BigDT 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Watch that video again. Davon Boddie essentially confesses to being involved in drug activity, but has "no idea" why 65 dogs besides his french poodle were at the home where he lived in. This guy obviously has no lawyer, or if he does, he is blindsiding him/her; IMHO, the worst criminal lawyer in Virginia would not have knowingly allowed a client to give such an interview. Vaoverland 06:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's the story from WVEC - http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_060807_vick_property_update.29fbf67a.html.  Anyone editing the article needs to be EXTREMELY careful in what they claim this implies.  People breeding large numbers of dogs are going to have plenty of attrition, even if they only engage in legal activities - it doesn't mean that they died fighting - everybody dies at some point.  In other words, if I keep 100 dogs for a year, some of them are going to die regardless of how well I treat them.  Merely the fact that dead dogs were found does not mean anything in and of itself and it is important that this article not draw conclusions - we need to stick to the facts.  --BigDT 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Several of us of WikipProject Virginia are working on it, and we agree. Striving to be fair and factual. Vaoverland 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 2 cases in point of the above: After events of June 7, some media described feds as "taking over" the investigation. While local authorities seem puzzled by federal investigation, they stated the opposite: feds told Poindexter they were welcome to continue local investigation, and it now appears that there will be parallel activities. That's clearly not the same as "taking over." On another matter, Vick's Football Camp for youth at Christopher Newport University in Newport News has been canceled this summer. However, there are differing statements about who made the decision. The University says it was Vick people and they say it was the University. Thus, we don't have clear references yet to add this to the article, although it is  big disappointment to the youth who were to attend, and is probably (but we don't know this factually) fallout from the dog fighting investigation. We are watching news daily here (nearby), but will continue to strive for responsible edits for the WP article only. Comments or help in accomplishing same are welcome by WikiProject Virginia working to this end. Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: per this comment on Talk page, no correction in the Wikipedia article is necessary. We have not added anything about dog remains from any media-only source(2) unless and until we have better information such as quotes from authorities. It appears that our caution has served WP well in this instance. Vaoverland 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dog Fighting Controversy Needs Work

message: This article has way too many sections, every season or phase of his life doesn't need a section. Trevor GH5 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at an article like Lawrence Taylor for a good example of an NFL bio good article with the appropriate number of sections, it's actually longer (in terms of numbers and KB of prose) but not bogged down with 30 sections. Trevor GH5 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: In view of the most recent developments (as of July 6, 2007), it may become appropriate to split off the dog fighting investigation and related matters. Instead of naming the resulting article for Vick, who at this point seems to be criminally only potentially culpable as the property owner, a likely violation of state dog fighting law, but not necessarily federal, perhaps Bad Newz Kennels Dog Fighting or something like that would be a better title than has been suggested. Thoughts, comments? Vaoverland 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we need all that info about every little aspect of the investigation. Certianly, the article as it stands now is grossly overweighted. If others feel it's important and should be somewhere on WP, then it could go to a daughter article. But I will be removing large chunks of the text within the next 24 hours per WP:BLP and WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. IronDuke 01:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the above, I have moved the text to talk. If someone wants to make an abbreviated stab at this, go ahead, but the amount of space devoted to one incident that may not even come to directly involve Vick grossly distorts the article and violates WP:BLP. IronDuke 12:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I agree about the size problem. Let's move the dog fighting investigation content as it current stands to a new article which we can name Bad Newz Kennels Dog Fighting for now anyway. There is no question that Vick is involved in this mess, at least as far as being the property owner (and perhaps no more). To what degree (if any) he was more involved, and whether he is to face any criminal charges, either state or federal, is still unknown. We will just have to follow events and see where all this goes. Vaoverland 13:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split article?

message: Original version:
Vick is a spokesperson for many companies; his endorsement contracts include Nike, EA Sports, Coca-Cola, Powerade, Kraft, Rawlings, and Hasbro.[26][27] His contract along with his endorsements had Vick ranked 33 among Forbes' Top 100 Celebrities in 2005.[26] However, on May 8, 2007, Vick's contract with AirTran Airways expired and was not renewed; he had been a pitchman for the airline since 2004.
Edited version:
Vick is a spokesperson for many companies; his endorsement contracts include Nike, EA Sports, Coca-Cola, Powerade, Kraft, Rawlings, and Hasbro.[26][27] His contracts along with his endorsements had Vick ranked 33 among Forbes' Top 100 Celebrities in 2005.[26] However, on May 8, 2007, Vick's contract with AirTran Airways expired and was not renewed; he had been a pitchman for the airline since 2004.  Additionally, his relationship with Kraft Foods ended in 2005.
I made a spelling correction and added a statement to clarify his current relationship with Kraft Foods Corp.  This information was provide to me by the Associate Director of Consumer Relations for Kraft.
--J e calvo 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: J e clavo, welcome to Wikipedia.  Please note that Wikipedia asks that article content be attributed to reliable sources.  In other words, the statement that he is no longer with Kraft needs to be more than just hearsay.  Can you provide a reference from a news article or some such thing discussing the issue?  Thanks. --B 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, folks, I now have found a news article reference to all this. 
I am editing the  article to include the above and will be citing the sources: Atlanta Journal-Constutution and MS-NBC.   Vaoverland 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kraft

message: I can't find a "character" (assuming it's actually an NPC) named Kasamoto in any WoW database, nor any reference to an NPC mentioning Vick. As any WoW player will know, if the NPC existed it would be very easy to validate. If it's really a "character" like the alleged trivia says, that's a player of the game and not a reference at all. So - what's the real name of the NPC, name, race, zone and position, and links to thott/similar database entry for such NPC. Otherwise, delete it. //
:The information about WoW was entered by an anonymous user, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Vick&diff=138709311&oldid=138515440
::Removed. (At first, I was wondering what Michael had to do with Willy on Wheels.) --B 13:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WoW reference, "Kasamoto"

message: is/was he married? does he have any children? is he bisexual? Kingturtle 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not a general discussion on the topic of Michael Vick.  Unrelated discussion can and will be removed.  (I believe, by the way, that the answers are no, yes, and no.) --B 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree mildly with B that this isn't the place to discuss whether such things should be in the article. Better here than in an edit war in the article. However, I respectfully disagree with your statement: such information should be added to the article.  Just because you apparently would like to know doesn't raise such personal information automatically to the level of tight WP standards for articles about living people. Despite the extensive publicity MV has had, especially recently, I cannot find any published sources which address the personal items you want to knwo about. CBS News did a story named: Mixed Signals For Gay Athletes: Gays Try To Find Their Place In Sports World in 2004. It states: Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick felt compelled to go on the radio to debunk an Internet hoax claiming he was gay. "Everybody who knows me knows how I get down," he said.  I think you have to agree that even that published item doesn't provide answers to your question, although it seems to imply that he considers such matters less than public. His website is silent on your questions. Since the news media also seems to find those matters not pertinent to his notoriety, the fact that our article lacks such content seems correct at this time. Vaoverland 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A statement that he's not gay does not need to be in the article - that would be silly.  I'm 95% sure that he has a son and that could be added if it can be well-sourced.  I stand by my removal of irrelevant conversation  - this question was not phrased as something to go into the article - it was general discussion about Vick.  Wikipedia is not a message board and talk comments unrelated to the development of an article should be removed on sight. --B 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  personal life? 

message: Michael Vick may not be a current event, but a current event is described in the summary of the Michael Vick article, in addition to later in the article.  Thus I would argue that the current event tag should remain, or the discussion of the allegations of Vick should not go into as significant of detail.  Leebert 00:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really what the tag is for.  Having the section tagged properly categorizes the article for those who patrol that category for vandalism.       If the intro is being rapidly edited, then that's a problem - it's going beyond the scope of what should be in an intro. --B 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged it without reading the talk, but I do believe that the "current" tag is needed for the duration of this scandal.  There have been some wild accusations and rumors going around and this article is bound to change relatively quickly for the foreseeable future.  As this article will more than likely be vandalized off and on, the current AND protection tag should stay for at least a few months.--Hourick 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event? 

message: On Saturday's Atlanta Journal Constitution: http://www.ajc.com/news/report-man-supplied-vick-281772.html  Add where appropriate please. --Mjrmtg (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There it is. I used the Dallas Morning News instead of the AJC because they're who Jacobs talked to, and the AJC article kind of comes off like a game of telephone. And to nip it in the bud, I caution against anybody mentioning details of Jacobs's death, since they're not relevant to this article's subject. Şłџğģő 06:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added the same info to Jacobs's page. Şłџğģő 06:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vick received steroids 

message: The fisrt and third paragraphs of the lead section contradict: one says he served 19 months the other says 23.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.90.98 (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, neither number was right. Fixed, I think. Şłџğģő 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead section contradiction 

message: Allocate Proper Weight Regarding Section.
Request & Topic Details:'''
I'm requesting the development of information and placement of a proper term with definition to be inserted into the page under the proper section regarding either the legal matters or another appropriate section regarding victims and killing involvement by Vick. The request is for the part notating information regarding mention of victims [dogs section] please notate the term and dictionary definition information below linking proper placement. Below you will find provided the dictionary term references. The term by definition upholds proper placement and accuracy regarding incident matters and should be addressed by notating it. 
Please note, all other negative convictions and issues have much weight but this subject has only been briefly addressed seemingly lessening the actual event in history. This subject section lacking information and attention doesn't seem developed enough considering the national weight factually held due to the government's Federal Agency involvement versus the other issues highlighted more in depth. 
Last request, maybe more information pertaining to Federal Information, Media Coverage, Widespread Reaction, etc... can be explored in addition to my suggestion above. This would then fairly depict the entire pages balance covering both past positive accomplishments (e.g. charitable contributions to organizations) vs. past negative accomplishments (mass killing, convictions, & FBI)as well. Perhaps there should be a standard template dedication section highlighting a secondary table as well for Legal/Convictions, Media, and Societal Impact.
Sincerely,
Juliet
Definition According To: [Dictionary.com, ]
serial killer  
n.  A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 
Reference Link: [Dictionary.com, ]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serial+killer
serial killer
noun
someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval 
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. 
Reference Link: [Dictionary.com, ]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serial+killer
--Julietkiss (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  One additional category for accuracy. 

message: Why isnt there any information on the shooting investigation that Vick is involved in? It is all over the major news outlets.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.203.101 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  shooting 

message: Spuds67 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing requested. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Spuds67, 3 October 2010 

message: In his dog fighting incident, let's not forget it was reported that many cats were killed as well. There were reports that the cats were thrown at the dogs and were ripped apart and malled as practice for the dogs. Later, any underperforming dogs were killed as well. This should be in the article as well; not to make him look bad (I think he handled that himself), but because it's true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog fighting 

message: vick is left-handed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.93 (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-handed