Talk:Michael Vick/Archive 2

message: (content removed) I wish to remind everyone that we are striving to follow WP criteria on this article and the talk page. Emotions are running high with many folks, but this isn't the place to express them. Most of us hate to censor and you can help avoid that action. Please only use this space to help us maintain WP standards. Thanks. Vaoverland 19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Content removed) 

message: I think at this point, his mugshot would better than a snapshot of his rear-end. --293.xx.xxx.xx 03:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't think that would be appropriate.  That being said, an image that better displays him would be good. Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nobody understands good sarcasm anymore. Sheesh. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Surely there must be some photo that actually has his face?  As it stands, it's ridiculous 79.75.191.137 07:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you do not believe in contributing to this Free encyclopedia then you can either work to change our fundamental ideals (good luck with that) or contribute elsewhere.  --ElKevbo 01:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not believe in making this encyclopedia the best, most informative encyclopedia it can be - which would include the legal use of fair use content, then YOU can either change our ideals or go elsewhere.  The fact is that the majority of Wikipedia contributors and a vast majority of Wikipedia readers would prefer to see more fair use content since it makes for a better encyclopedia.  Wikipedia did not start out as a "free content" crusade.  It started out as an encyclopedia.  Recently, a small handful of people have subverted the project into an open source crusade and have lost focus on making this the best encyclopedia it can be. Johntex\talk 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're moving/copying this to my Talk page was a good idea so let's keep this discussion over there as it has little to do with this specific article.  --ElKevbo 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a better pic of Vick?? 

message: If Wikipedia was really cool, they would let the people decide what they want on it about Michael Vick. Instead Wikipedia is so afraid of Vick, they are enabling a man who enslaves then tortures dogs to in some strange way, enslave this website so people can't get at it. Doesn't make Wikipedia look too cool.
::Please forget Mike Vick for a moment, and step back; Wikipedia is not a place where people can say what they want about anything, period. It is a collaborative effort at an online encyclopedia. Neither this man, nor anyone else, can control what we post about them so long as it is factual and follows WP policies and the laws. You may not think the content of this article is the way you would write it, but I think most people would agree that if the subject was controlling it, a lot of the facts presented wouldn't be in it, and it wouldn't be anywhere near as NPOV as it strives to be in the other direction either.   
::There are plenty of places on the Internet where you can express your opinions. A lot of people are doing so. The Internet is a great way for people to have a voice. But, not every site on the Internet is the right one to be a soapbox. It not fair for your to expect Wikipedia to be something it is not. It's hard enough for us to try to build and maintain it the way agreed and intended. About contributing, and any problems you may be having with access, please see next thread. Vaoverland 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia afraid of Michael Vick 

message: If we are missing facts, please share, with credible sources. If you aren't allowed to edit, because this article is semi-protected due to vandalism and you haven't registered, why not register? Alternatively, you could leave your content and source information here, and be assured that one of us will tend to it, and advise you. But don't expect opinions and original research such as speculation to be allowed. I just removed some original research speculation, as another WP editor did yesterday, about when MV might play again. Vaoverland 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think it was original research to state when Vick could play again--Blank has said repeatedly that he doesn't want him playing again until this is resolved.  Maybe if I mention that according to reports on ESPN, the bail terms theoretically leave him free to play, but the Falcons don't want him on the field ... Blueboy96 17:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content, access, and original research

message: A cleanup of this article, and a major one at that, is needed.  Right off the bat, there introductory leaves a lot to be desired.  I respect the fact that there is a desire to add content about the current events in Michael Vick's life; however, that does not mean that ever single aspect needs to be put in.  First and foremost, Michael Vick is notable because of his athletic career; and not because of his run ins with the law.  This article does not give that impression.  A good cleaning in the spirit of WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT is a necessity.  I'm going to start some minor cleaning with the headings so that they are more inline with WP:HEAD. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Taking a break from this, a particular user has worn out my patience, hope you guys can pick up where i left off. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  12:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I don't know that anyone would argue that the content is not worth inclusion.  It certainly is.  But i do not agree with the fact that his notability is significantly increased because of recent events.  I'm sure there are people who had not heard of him previously, but those numbers would probably be less than "a lot".  This article is not very well balanced, especially considering that he has not been convicted of anything.  This is not to say that I believe he is innocent or guilty, rather, it is that the article is not very encyclopedic. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and this is noteworthy for Wikipedia in what way? Mark in Historic Triangle 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of this Article: Not Good 

message: I will be providing a two paragraph summary of the situation with a  link to this article.  In the meantime, I have stored an exact copy of the section on my user subpage at User:Jmfangio/bad newz.  This content is better suited for the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation article.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and this is noteworthy for Wikipedia in what way? Mark in Historic Triangle 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Newz content 

message: In the first paragraph, there seems to be a factual error (more likely a typo).  The page is locked, so someone with more than 5 days will have to fix it.
The sentence reads: "He became one of the highest-paid NFL players with the Atlanta Braves, drawing record attendance at the Georgia Dome." Atlanta Braves (a baseball team) should be changed to Atlanta Falcons (his actual team).
SimianLogic 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.►Chris Nelson 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Error 

message: I appreciate this is an online encylopedia but if it is the people's encyclopedia, then I wish the people could put in the topic area what they want. By that I mean I wish if people wanted to put stuff that some may view as controversal or what have you, that such be allowed. As long as everything else can stay, I would like to see people allowed to add their own views on the subject at hand. Thank you.
::The problem you feel is fundamental. There are lots of places on the Internet where people can express their views. But an encyclopedia by definition is not a forum. Be assured we are not all about censorship; we are about sticking to the goals of WP. Even the highest ranking of WP editors and big wheels, right on up to Jimmy Wales, are not allowed to add their own views in an article. I (and I am sure many others working on WP) hope you can find an appropriate forum to express yourself.  Mark in Historic Triangle 18:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add to the subject, I wish we were not monitored 

message: >>>>>"First and foremost, Michael Vick is notable because of his athletic career; and not because of his run ins with the law."<<<<<<
What one may first be well known for can change. Ronald Reagan was well known as an actor but that changed. I would submit the same with Vick. This piece in Wikipedia is all about his prowess as a football athlete but things change so I don't think the above statement is true anymore.
Yeah I agree, Vick is now more well-known nation wide as a dog killer than a football player.  If you polled American's one year ago and ask if they knew who Michael Vick was, then did the same poll now, the results would likely be 30-40% to 80%, respectively.
-Joe
I'm another person who never heard of him until he recently became noteworthy.  Though, I became aware of him after reading about him being sued for 63 billion billion dollars for stealing dogs to use for fighting: 
rather than directly because of the dog fighting.  On the other hand, he probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as noteworthy as a dog fighter if he hadn't already been somewhat famous.  Not every animal abuse case makes national headlines, after all.  I'm trying to decide if that lawsuit against him deserves inclusion in the wikipage on Vick.  It's quite funny to read, but the accusations are dubious at best...  Forkazoo 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OJ Simpson was once considered an all-time great running back, but now he's most famous for being a murderer.  Now, had OJ not been famous before, his trial woldn't have gotten any attention (same as vick), but like OJ, I think eventually Vick will be remembered more for his crimes than his play.  New England Review Me! 01:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The tide changes 

message: Similar to the situation with the Peyton Manning and Brett Favre 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  08:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm a deletionist, so I'm all for removing bad content (such as this), but I'm just saying - a lot of people seem very argumentative right now and I just want to try and keep as many people happy as possible. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Oh that's so much nicer.  If you want to look at Brett Favre, i'd be curious to see what you'd remove.  I'm trying not to agetate the situation. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards spin off 

message: I have concerns about speculative content being posted to this article, even if it is clearly labelled as purely speculation. I would remind everyone that the reliable sources aorund July 7 were certain that Vick would not be indicted, based upon confidential information sources close to the NFL and/or Atlanta Falcons. IMHO, it is hard enough to do a good job keeping this article updated with facts, and we should concentrate on that. Mark in Historic Triangle 14:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  speculation 

message: ESPN put together a decent timeline here that could be useful for additions/tweaking. --Bobak 22:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  good source from ESPN (timeline): 

message: One might be mislead by the massive deletions and edits to the lead into thinking the legal situation is resolved, or what follows now is merely formalities. That is perhaps wishful POV thinking, but the reality is far from it. I believe that we do no one (whatever their POV on this) a service to misrepresent the big picture. The details contained in sections below should not completely vary from the impression of the lead, so oversimplifying the lead in an unbalanced way is just plain misleading to our readers. If we cannot agree on lead content, then simply a title would be fairer. That would force anyone looking to read details, and at least, not mislead them.  
 
The only things that changed today were 1. Vick has announced he will also enter a plea agreement 2. we have a date for him to appear before Judge Hudson and 3. He is officially acknowledging some guilt through his lawyer's statement. If anyone has anything else new besides opinions, I haven't read it. Please advise. 
We can revise the lead as is was a few hours ago to reflect these new things, and condense some content since now there are 4 men who are in plea agreements with the feds, apparently won't face more federal indictments, and will be awaiting sentencing. Nothing has changed regarding possible (likely?) Virginia indictments, no one had indicated any deal which will limit Virginia actions against any or all of those involved in any wrongdoing in Surry County, and there is nothing new about the NFL or Falcon situations. Speculation, opinions and comments are not needed in the lead. 
It has been revised AGAIN as per the above. I see no reason to sweep the brutality allegations, sentencing power of the judge, the state investigation, the reaction of product endorsement companies, and the NFL and Falcons away from the summarized lead as if they are no longer significant. 
The Lead is supposed to summarize important parts of the article in 4 paragraphs or less. Details can be saved for other sections, as has been done, but the lead is intended to be more than just a title. 
I do understand that many people would like to see all the current stress and uncertainty resolved. It is very painful locally, but at WP, we are merely compiling and reporting, not controlling events. We have (jointly) been doing a pretty good job on this article. Let's stick with integrity over emotions, please.  
Mark in Historic Triangle 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro really needs to be trimmed.  I know that the WP:LEDE suggests 3-4 paragraphs max, but I think we should keep the first sentence, use one para for his football career, and another for the dog trail things.  We need to keep the lede simple, there are other places for those details, including later on in the section of the article and the page for the dog ring as well, not the lede. Biggspowd 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is there absolutely nothing about the dogfighting trial in the lead. He is obviously more known for that right now than his football accolades.--E tac 05:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead: here we go again 

message: This article - not surprisingly has taken on a lot of content and is way to long.  Per WP:LENGTH, I'm about to move some of the achievements content back to an article i created some time ago (List of career achievements by Michael Vick.  There was a contentious debate about this at the time, but i believe the circumstances have changed significantly.  I'm going to go ahead with this - but please feel free to discuss this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achievements 

message: For those of you that think the years should remain "2001-present", I ask you this question - let's say, theoretically, a player goes to prison for life. Let's pretend this would happen to Vick, although we know it's not. Let's also say the Falcons never released him, which is certainly possible considering they wouldn't be paying him anything and he would have no involvement in the organization. Theoretically, he would remain under contract his whole life. So let's say he dies in... 2060. Would you then put his years in the infobox as Atlanta Falcons (2001-2060)? If your answer is no (and I assume it would be) then you have just shown there is no reason to keep "present" in the infobox years as is. Just because he is under contract doesn't mean we HAVE to put present. The years should be when a guy played, or at least was present (i.e. on injured reserve, practice squad, whatever). Logically, it makes the most sense to put 2001-2006, and then add his next team if it ever comes to that.►Chris Nelson 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question regarding years in infobox

message: Once more, we have deletionist attacks on this article. The lead of gutted of most of the significant albeit negative facts. Worse yet, an entire section about how community leaders who worked with Vick are handling the recent developments with the local youth, properly sourced, was eliminated as supposedly "unencyclopedic". Even Micheal Vick himself acknowledged and has spoken of that aspect in his sole public statement recently. In what way is that matter unencyclopedic? If it is poorly written, improve it, but don't try to just make it go away. It is a significant aspect of the article.    
In general, this article cannot be NPOV and be just about a sports figure, outlining his athletic accomplishments, and have a brief mention of an "investigation" and no mention of the impact upon his former mentors and community. We passed that point a day or two after April 25. 
The fact is we don't know how the future will go, but to entirely fail to mention the felony conviction and gambling issues, the fact that he awaits federal sentencing and the fact the he is facing attempts by the team to recover some of their money in lead at all makes that section glaringly POV. 
Personally, I hope he will take more steps to mitigate the bad stuff with his future actions, but we are reporting this historically significant man and the circumstances surrounding him as events occur, not trying to rewrite the past more favorably, or distort or influence the present. We are covering the same issues over and over in a kind of slow motion edit war; I think we will need to get some more formal help from WP if this foolishness and irresponsible editing continues. Mark in Historic Triangle 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this is downright in appropriate - in fact, i even went to your talk page - the lead was gutted because it read like a series of current events on the Bad News kennel.  More work is need to it but the edits were right on. Most of the content in this article is horrible - in fact the style of play section was a joke.  The content that was in there was falsely sourced - and one of the sources was an associated content link written by some fan that was not a verifiably reliable source.  Just because it is sourced doesn't mean it should stay.  That section reads like a list of quotes that don't say much more than "vike has screwed up.  What he has done is dispicable in my mind - but this is not the place for soapboxing or anything else.  The article checked in at just around 83k when i looked at it tonight.  I'm not trying to rewrite this and make him look like a nice person, i'm just getting rid of the poorly written information so that well written information can be put in it's place.  If you look at the edit summaries - you will see that there were several notes with regards to the temporary nature of the edits.  You just reverted without looking at any of that stuff.  Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it goes in an article.  This thing is in horrible shape! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's why expunged much of the material. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again POV

message: Vick is no longer on any roster or being paid or employed by the NFL, so he "was" an NFL QB, not "is".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetaco (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is still on the Falcons' roster, listed as suspended.  Until he's released, he is an NFL QB.--Kubigula (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So if he is "suspended indefinitely", is he still an NFL player as long as his contract is valid or he is released?  Couldn't this go on for years?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetaco (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was

message: I know this information is critical to gain an understanding of his background, but isn't it a little overkill?  Details like his mom working at K-Mart are unnecessary.  I think this could be covered in about three paragraphs:
:Vick was the second of four children (including older sister Christina ("Niki") and younger siblings Marcus and Courtney) born to Brenda Vick and Michael Boddie, then unmarried teenagers of modest finances. His mother worked two jobs, obtained some public financial assistance, and had help from her parents, while his father worked long hours in the shipyards as a sandblaster and spray-painter. They were married when Michael was about five years old but the children elected to continue to use their "Vick" surname.</p>
:The family grew up living in the "Ridley Circle Homes", a public housing project in a financially depressed and crime-ridden neighborhood located in the East End section of the port city, an area known in hip hop culture by the slang names "Bad News" or "Bad Newz". A 2007 newspaper article published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch noted "not much changed" by observations of local people almost ten years after Michael Vick left. One resident interviewed, who said that there is drug dealing, drive-by shootings and other killing in the neighborhood, suggested that sports was a way out... a dream for many.
:In a 2001 interview, Michael Vick told the Newport News Daily Press that when he was 10 or 11 "I would go fishing even if the fish weren't biting, just to get out of there" and away from the violence and stress of daily life in the projects. Even though the area is, by all accounts, troubled, several people interviewed were disbelieving that dog fighting was a local activity there.</p>
(Obviously putting back in the proper citations...)
Maher-shalal-hashbaz 20:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teenage parents?

message: Okay, I concede that it is now appropriate to give more weight to the dog fighting charges than before (my statement that this would never rise to the level of O.J. seems a bit naive now, eh?) However, the current lede is way, way too long. What are the basic, critical biographical facts that need to be presented? Marijuana use and the Bank of Canada seem rather insignificant (now) in the story of Michael Vick. If you have any issues with these edits, please state what they are here when you revert. Thanks! Cmprince 21:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better.  Cheers.--Kubigula (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That is still speculation, and should not be placed in the article and presented as fact.  The introduction looks very unbalanced as it stands right now, because it spends several paragraphs going on and on about his dogfighting involvements, pot smoking, etc.  He is notable for being a football player, and the introduction should discuss him as such.  His other activities deserve to be discussed there, but they should not take over the intro as they do now. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lede, redux 

message: I removed information from the section under "1st Bank" pertaining to the city of College Park.  Several sentences described the city, who lives there, what it's known for, etc.  None of this had anything to do with Michael Vick directly, except that a failed business venture was located there, and that mention should suffice.Kingsley911 02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored only a small portion. The locality information about these investments is important because Vick told the AJC in March that he was engaging in a plan to invest in the community and improve his public image. From the AJC on March 15, 2007:..he is the main shareholder of three investors. "It's good for people to see that I'm giving back to the community, where people can see me trying to do something that's positive. There's a lot of people speculating about things I do that are not so positive."...Opening this restaurant and an adjoining wine store with business partners Earnest Greer and Frank Jenkins, in an area Vick deemed as "underserved" is part of a plan to establish a better relationship with the local community.  Of course, you may already be aware that College Park and East Point are adjacent localities. Mark in Historic Triangle 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  College Park? 

message: The first paragraph of the article claims that Vick is being held in jail awaiting sentencing, but the second paragraph says that he's out on bond awaiting sentencing.  I don't know anything about it myself.  -- Creidieki 18:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: he was and is currently in jail as of Dec 3, turned himself in early apparently to start getting credit for time in custody. I think we have fixed that snafu. Thanks. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts in introductory paragraphs 

message: Can someone edit the article and put todays sentencing in, please?
Yahoo News  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.234.67 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SENTENCING: 23 months in jail 

message: Does anyone have anymore information on the Kankakee tax situation?  It seems like the staement that this somehow keeps him from paying taxes in Virginia or Georgia is incorrect.  As this link claims, the agreement allows cities in Illinois to refund some of their revenues to the business owners.  There is nothing in this that would prevent Vick from paying taxes in GA or VA.  Thoughts?  http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=18683&seenIt=1  67.79.126.173 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kankakee Tax 

message: THAT REFERENCE SHOULD BE REMOVED. URBAN DICTIONARY IS A DISGRACE AND HAS NO PLACE IN WIKIPEDIA - EVER.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.43.103 (talk • contribs) 
: Done --B (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Urban Dictionary 

message: I agree that the removal of the Overview section is a good move.  However, there are so many items in those 3 paragraphs that would be best served if they were redistributed among the topic areas in the remainder of the article, that I question the decision of simply removing the Heading without doing the redistribution work.  There is so much duplication of content that this article is becoming unnecessarily long.12Dorsa152 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Overview Section  

message: micheal vick is a sadistic douche bag... actually i'm pretty sure thats what he's used for in prison, douching other mens asses, his new profesion other then taking it like a man is farting cum, as you read this article right now he's probably got his boy friend bu-bu carving his iniials in his back. my adavice to mr.vick is DROP THE SOAP!!!! because thats all he's good for  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.15.244 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to go out on a limb here, and I might be wrong, but this seems like WP:OR. Do you have any WP:RS? If not, it might not be able to be included without a Template:Fact tag because of WP:BLP.--Shakeyhandzzz (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  why he's gay 

message: "Observers have speculated that Michael Vick could be released from prison as early as late 2009 or not until 2019."
I am guessing the info in the introduction is incorrect? Marcel VanDalfsen (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In prison until 2019? 

message: Portions of previous Talk have been archived, but are available for review. 
Staying accurate and NPOV on this article and policing vandalism has been an exceptional challenge for Wikipedians. My thanks to all who have collaborated in maintaining the integrity of this Wikipedia article, which has been getting a massive quantity of hits and needs to be maintained to our highest standards. 
Vaoverland (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: STICKY NOTE PLEASE

message: Added one-sentence scouting report, and removed some details of his legal proceedings that can be found later in the article.  This shorter intro lets the reader get a faster snapshot of his situation, and should improve overall article flow.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.39.209 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup of intro 

message: rivals.com just named him the 10th worst #1 pick in NFL history. should this be added?
http://nfldraft.rivals.com/photofeature.asp?SID=1164&fid=22666  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvk41 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so... but the question is where.  I'll try to fit it in somewhere tomorrow.  Let it grow on me.  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 22:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  10th worst #1 pick 

message: The owner Arthur Blank has not ruled out letting michael vick return to the team. Can we get this added by some one who is good with making these updates? ? 
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/falcons/stories/2008/04/01/blank_0402.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwardj (talk • contribs) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Return to the falcons 

message: i must say, this article is very well put together and lengthy. it should be nominated for Feature article or something. LukeTheSpook (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think its anywhere near ready... maybe GA or a independent review... feel free to take it there if you wanna.  Oh, and thanks.  ;)  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article

message: *—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.225.9 (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Vick 

message: "In March, 2007, an Atlantic Wine & Package store and adjacent Tasting Room restaurant at 3560 Camp Creek Parkway opened in the suburban Atlanta town of East Point.[72] (A primarily African American community, East Point is home to R&B and hip hop groups such as TLC, OutKast, Coolbreeze, Organized Noize, and Goodie Mob, as well as an alternative rock group, Seven Envy). [73]
What is the relevance of the part in parentheses?Drakon09 (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question about the paragraph above. At the end it has Master_Doc12-05-06.pdf as reference, but the only thing in the paragraph that I can also find in the reference is "Atlantic Wine". The reference doesn't seem to mention any of the bands listed in the paragraph. The paragraph talks about Tasting Room opening in East Point while the pdf talks about proposed location in Sandy Springs, Georgia. --EarthFurst (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wachovia Bank 

message: Micheal Vick was also drafted in the 30th round of the 2000 mlb draft  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.206.72 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 draft 

message: Someone placed a rewrite flag in November 2008 in the dogfighting section. I have gone though a condensed many of the items without eliminating significant content or any sources. I am removing the flag, since no one has listed the specific concerns here as required by WP procedures. Whoever placed the flag, please advise if your concerns have not been adequately resolved. Thanks. Vaoverland (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag for rewrite

message: Another user (apparently new to our efforts on this article) has opted to move almost all of the legal and financial troubles content, including the portions which are current events and ongoing, into a  sub-article. I feel that move is inappropriate. I would agree that some of the many details could be moved if we don't lose the big picture in the primary article, but what has been done as of now is unacceptable. I will wait a few hours to see comments before proceeding. Vaoverland (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move most of legal troubles content

message: Ref the preceding thread, the article entitled Legal problems of Michael Vick was essentially created as a major chop and paste of complete sections and references, all of which have since been restored to the main article. Since the new sub article was created, duplicative portions in the main article have been updated, and neither the creating user nor anyone else has made any attempt to update the sub. Alternatively, we could simply delete the sub at this point. 
If the growing size of the main article Michael Vick is an issue we must address, I have suggested above how we might go about condensing the main article, and/or creating subs for major topics such as either his past athletic accomplishments (a static situation) and the legal issues (which are ongoing) into sub articles. As I previously stated, maintaining the integrity of our article(s) involving a living person is challenging for the difficult and dynamic situation, and we need consensus and collaboration on major changes such as were undertaken a few days ago unilaterally by a single editor without any discussion here in this instance. Thanks to all of you who have been working over such a long time on this article. Vaoverland (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ACTION: This was completed by another User on March 25, 2009, and the former legal problems article (with duplicative content)  was changed into a redirect to the main article. Vaoverland (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to Merge Legal problems of Michael Vick

message: http://www.vickdogchewtoy.com/
Can we find a way of adding this into the article? Green Squares (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Vick Chew Toy

message: Since this over half the article and this article is way too long, how about making this it's own article?
--Levineps (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Recentism" is an invented term by some Wikipedians; I (and many other Wikipedians I believe) am of the thinking that some recentism is not necessarily an undesirable thing, as this is a dynamic enyclopedia which seeks to be a credible and balanced source at the time it is accessed. (i.e. This article is one of the top Google search hits currently for searching "Michael Vick"). As the current events are simplified into history, and as legal issues and bankruptcy move to resolution, we can condense details which will be of much less interest at that point. Please note we already followed that routine with details of the investigation and open issues, as the plea bargains made those much less significant in the longer view. Case in point, much of the earlier content about the Virginia charges (finally settled in November 2008) has been condensed into basic summaries as all that was resolved. Currently, some of the details about specific debts not in dispute can be condensed more into simpler summaries, and I'll work on that if no one else gets to it first. If sports-oriented editorss want to improve this article, why not get better references for his past athletic accomplishments to help balance the quality and presentation of that portion of his overall story? Vaoverland (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't there be a mention of his Mansion that was on auction that nobody baught? Source. RF23 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  new article - [[Legal Issues of Michael Vick]] 

message: For such a big article, this is lacking any recent pictures. Sure there isn't any pictures of Vick walking out of a courtroom or something? RF23 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish the same. However, it seems that even the news media haven't been able to get photos of him during the most recent proceedings. The best I saw was his shadow inside the heavily tinted windows of a WTRJ SUV, and his mother and fiancee walking away from their parked SUV's near the federal court at Newport News. Many news sources are running August 2007 photos from his appearance in Richmond to submit his guilty plea. Vaoverland (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some pictures from commons that fit in, and added in external images templates... I think in a couple days i'm gonna go through and rewrite the entire athletics portion of his life, properly sourcing it this time around. RF23 (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I am working on some general reorganization, especially of the portions currently listed under the broad category of "Legal". I believe these can be properly separated as falling into the categories of Criminal and Financial matters, which will help us move toward consolidation of unnecessary details as they appear to be progressing toward resolutions. This is mostly moving of existing content, with very little if any substantive change. Vaoverland (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: I think at this point a lot of the details which are in various sections listed by major creditor can and should be condensed and summarized without losing the overall content. I see a few items in the bankruptcy papers which should be added, but bottom line, this section can end up a lot briefer. I will begin working on that unless anyone feels otherwise, and if so, please elaborate here on the Talk page. I am also trying to keep up with the developments in this regard (i.e. bankruptcy case, fraud claims against 3rd parties, etc.) and will try to keep those portions as current, balanced, and accurate as possible. Glad to respond to comments, thoughts, volunteers to collaborate on all this work, etc. Vaoverland (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial troubles

message: the 'link to external content' that purports to link to a courtroom sketch of vick actually links to a picture of someone (presumably a court officer) pushing a cart of file boxes.....  could someone fix this?  24.124.89.105 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a courtroom sketch of vick at one point, but CNN must have gotten mixed up in their image filing management, because it still links to the same image, the image has just changed. I removed it for now. RF23 (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to courtroom sketch 

message: ITD BE NICE TO SEE A FACE INSTEAD OF STARING AT HIS ASS IMO  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.100.173 (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to wikipedia. We have to use free-use pictures. When dealing with football articles, most free-use pictures suck. The only times they are any good if it's a picture of a player signing autographs or something, a closeup without a helmet off or something. The picture in the infobox is the best free picture available. RF23 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PICTURE 

message: Anybody else remember this? Foxx was on a talk show and was asked what he thought about the Michael Vick dog fighting thing, and Foxx said something to the effect of how in his neighborhood when he was a kid, people picked on/tortured dogs all that time and it was "normal", basically trying to rationalize Vick's behavior. I cannot possibly be the only person who remembers this. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that Tony Dungy is now parroting the same line, I personally don't think it needs to be pursued. It's a rationalization & has racial overtones that this article does not need. Djeaux (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jamie Foxx's defense of Vick

message: 
Under "Suspension by the NFL" 
It should include,
"There is currently a petition to Commissioner Roger Goodell which asks Commissioner Goodell to reinstate Michael Vick to the NFL at ."
: Let me run this by another editor before I commit the change.. not sure about the link at the end. — Deon555talkI'm BACK! 12:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   Done Well I can't find anyone at the moment, so I'm going to add it but without the link on the end for now. Have a read of WP:EL regarding external links. — Deon555talkI'm BACK! 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 
Under "Suspension by the NFL" 
It should include,
"There is currently a petition to Commissioner Roger Goodell which asks Commissioner Goodell to reinstate Michael Vick to the NFL at ."
:Once would've done it . As above, I'll check with someone else first. — Deon555talkI'm BACK! 12:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the more neutral language, with a citation tag.--Gloriamarie (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Currently, there are only statistics for Vick's years at Virginia Tech listed in the article. Why not the stats for his NFL career?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.100.29 (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: People are lazy. Feel free to add them in with a source.RF23 (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, just realized IP's can't edit. Post the stats here, and i'm sure someone will be glad to add them in.RF23 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Under 'Incidents, criminal troubles' there is the following sentence: "He is no free to sign with any club that will have him and participate in all team practices." - it should read "He is NOW free to sign..." 93.152.158.178 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo edit request 

message: I would suggest splitting this article as the size of this article is getting too big. I noticed the financial troubles total about a 1/3 of the article. Can we make an article out of this?--Levineps (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My computer almost died when I edited it, this should really be split up.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if it might not be a good idea to trim some of the stuff out? I noticed that the legal and financial troubles section really are a lot longer then they maybe should be, and going into a bit too fine of detail. Not that I think they should be excised, just trimmed down. I'm not sure if a splitting article is reasonable without putting undue weight on the negative aspects of the person. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  split article 

message: ESPN just announced during the Steelers-Cardinals game that Vick signed a two-year deal with the Eagles.  Here's an article  if anyone is watching this page and feels like doing some rewriting... FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philadelphia Eagles 

message: Philadelphia Eagles
On August 13, 2009, Vick signed a two-year contract with the Philadelphia Eagles.[28] He will earn $1.6 million in his first year and $5 million in his (team option) second year. Vick will be able to participate in all team practices and meetings, as well as the Eagles' last two preseason games. He will then be eligible for reinstatement in week 6.
Note Vick will be eligible for reinstatement by week 6 "at the latest" not in week 6 as stated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rydewnd2 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error.  Someone Please Fix!  

message: The second sentence says that Vick served 23 months. Actually, Vick was sentenced to 23 months, but only served 18. Source: this Washington Post article. Note the third sentence of the third paragraph: "He was sentenced to 23 months in federal prison, and began his incarceration in November 2007". 23 months later takes him to October 2009. Also, note the first sentence of the fourth paragraph: "Vick was released from prison to home confinement on May 20, 2009". 97.124.198.207 (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was 23 if I remember correctly. You're right he spent 18 in jail; but he served five in home confinement.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Error: Sentenced to 23 months, but served 18

message: According to the eagles roster this morning, Vick will be number 7. I'm adding it now. http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/team/Roster.asp 98.114.4.38 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, glad to see that he is finally able to play again. I think that everyone should get a second chance, so long as they are truely sorry for what they have done. Lets just hope he is still as good as he was. I am also glad to see the Eagles are big enough to stand out and give him the chance. 12.177.80.3 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text: No he's a quarterback.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vick's Number as an Eagle

message: can someone add the transcripts to the 60 minutes interview aired last week?
:I don't think that's a good idea, why does it really matter what he said on 60 minutes and the transcript would be too long and unneccessary.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  60 minutes interview 

message: In this text:
Vick and teammate RB Warrick Dunn (1,140) became the first quarterback/running back duo to each surpass 1,000 rushing yards in a single season, and one of only five teammates to accomplish the feat in NFL history, with the latest being New York Giants' running backs Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward in 2008.
Delete:
, and one of only five teammates to accomplish the feat in NFL history, with the latest being New York Giants' running backs Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward in 2008
Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward aren't a quarterback/runningback duo they are both running backs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Myfakeaccount84 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 20 August 2009
 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of the article. I think that is meant to be that way, though. To paraphrase: they are the first and only QB/RB duo to each surpass 1000 yards, and one of only five sets of teammates playing any position, the latest being RB/RB duo Jacobs and Ward. Celestra (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An error in record nfl holders 

message: This is a ridiculously long, and repetitive article. (23 pages of A4).
It shouldn't be more than 5 pages.
I'd suggest either breaking it up into sub articles Based on his Biography, Sporting Career and Dog Fighting Incident; and/or cutting about 50% of the text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.123.23 (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's too long but Wikipedia has no rules saying how long an article can be based on justification.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree as well, the area on the criminal investigation is just huge and should probably be condensed and then have the bulk of it moved to a separate article, if anyone even feels the need for all of that information to be here.--JD79 (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this entry's length justified? 

message: Under the heading "Future in football and conditional reinstatement" the second paragraph mentions bankruptcy under "Chapter 13." That should be corrected to "Chapter 11."
Davesbpc (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit correction 

message: This section looks like it may be misleading:
"On August 24, Vick filed plea documents with the federal court. He pleaded guilty to "Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture". He admitted to providing most of the financing for the operation and to participating directly in several dog fights in Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina. He admitted to sharing in the proceeds from these dog fights. He further admitted that he knew his colleagues killed several dogs who did not perform well. While he admitted to providing most of the money for gambling on the fights, he denied placing any side bets on the dogfights. He denied killing any dogs.[35]"
Reference [35] does not state that he denied killing any dogs.  On the contrary, it states, " According to the statement, Vick also was involved with the others in killing six to eight dogs that did not perform well in testing sessions in April. The dogs were executed by drowning or hanging."
"Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts" of Vick and two of the co-defendants, Phillips and Peace, the statement said."
The reference clearly states that Vick, collectively will Phillips and Peace, destroyed a handful of unsuccessful fighting dogs.  
Instead of stating the facts, this section seems to downplay his actions (e.g., "While he admitted to..., he denied..."), and is factually incorrect.  I'm going to modify it to accurately reflect the contents of the reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.70.132 (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vick involved in destruction of dogs