Jump to content

Talk:Brett Favre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gonzo fan2007 (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 20 September 2007 (→Should this page be semi-protected?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Moved sections around

I moved some of the sections around because I believe it flows better and makes more sense the way I have put it. If you don't like it then feel free to rev it back, just please have a good reason for it. --Josh Matthews (Talk ♦ Contribs) 08:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current order is fine, it just needed a new headline to separate the Career awards and the records and milestones, the way it was the records and milestones was under the career awards section, so I've added the new record books headline to separate the two, Thanks, --800 Home Runs 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)800 Home Runs800 Home Runs 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
The problem I had with the article was that all of Brett's records and awards come before his stats. It makes more sense to me that his stats come first to the reader, and then the records that come from those stats come after. The order does not make sense, as every website with his stats always show his career stats first, reference [1]. And saying that something should not be changed because it has been like that for a long time is anti-wikipedia. Wikipedia is based around evolution of an article. --Josh Matthews (Talk ♦ Contribs) 08:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we have article first and then the numbers at the end, read about it and then the stats last. Pro football reference, espn, fox sports, yahoo sports are all mainly about posting stats only, wikipedia is a encyclopedia, the order makes perfect sense, it's not about the it's been like that for a long time quote, I take back that remark. It's in this order because it's the right way, here is my reference [2] , the article and discussing records and milestones is first, then stats last, Thanks, --800 Home Runs 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)800 Home Runs800 Home Runs 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
First and foremost, to say that the outline of an article is the "right way" extraordinarily subjective and could never be proven, it is your pov. Second of all, if you are citing the GB Packers website as your source, and say that we should follow their order, then the wikipedia page would look completely different. If you look at the page, there is very little in common, we would have to greatly change the layout and content to even get close to the gb page. I really don't care, I just thought the layout i did looked and flowed better for a reader. My main point to you is that changing a Wikipedians edits 5 minutes after they edit a page, without discussing or leaving a post on the talk page will make a lot of wikipedians angry, which goes against wikipedia. Next time just leave a message and discuss the problem, don't just revert back to the original, especially when the wikipedian doing the editing is a good member. Hopefully you learn these things. --Josh Matthews (Talk ♦ Contribs) 09:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say go ahead and try the reorder you were thinking of. I saw it in the history, and it didn't look unreasonable. If nothing else, you're likely to get rational discussion on the talk page from other editors if there are concerns about it. I believe consensus has reached a firm point that User:800 Home Runs's opinion on your edit is no longer relevant. Skybunny 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, i'm just now finding out about User:800 Home Runs and that he is banned and all his edits, no matter their merit can be reverted. I just thought it looked better but i guess we can have a real discussion now, hopefully. --Josh Matthews (Talk ♦ Contribs) 04:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither way breaks wikipedia policy and it's so rediculous to have the stats first, then the records and milestones below, you should read about it all and the have the stats at the end for people to view, it's so much better and smarter that way, that's what they do at packers.com at this link [3] . You should be able to read about his honors and awards and records and milestones and then view his stats at the end, article first, stats at the end to view, Thanks, --Sara Aulepp 05:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Sara AuleppSara Aulepp 05:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

How hard is this to understand? It is no longer a matter of what your opinion is. You are BANNED. Which means that you cannot edit Wikipedia and any edits you do make can automatically be reverted. This is Wikipedia policy, and the community has identified you as a vandalizer and thus has banned you from editing. Getting new account names and then editing the pages is also against wikipedia policy, because YOU are banned, not your account. Please understand that. If you wouldve just discussed this first a couple of days ago on the talk page as wikipedia says we should, this wouldve all been diverted. Please understand that I will revert any edits by YOU on any page. --Josh Matthews (Talk ♦ Contribs) 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your talking about, I've not been banned and if the only thing you have to do in your life is revert my edits, that's sad and speaks for itself, and I haven't vandalized anything, Thanks, --Sara Aulepp 06:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Sara AuleppSara Aulepp 06:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by PackersMania (talk • contribs) [reply]

It would appear the person who has over 20 sockpuppets on a encyclopedia website just so they can edit one article about a football player is, the person who has got banned on many accounts and has angered many many people, that is what is sad and speaks for itself. The fact that your account is completely new and you just happened to step right into a debate and know all the ins and outs of the said debate gives you away. I truly hope you grow-up and learn understand that wikipedia is based around everyone, not only one. Please get a life or learn how to be productive on this website. --Josh Matthews (Talk ♦ Contribs) 07:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did Sara Aulepp actually sign in as yet another sockpuppet in PackersMania, and sign the wrong name? Snowfire51 07:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah :-) I sockpuppeted that account too.--Josh Matthews (Talk ♦ Contribs) 07:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be semi-protected?

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?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brett_Favre&oldid=159094671"