Talk:Geoff Schwartz

Coaches HS Baseball

http://twitter.com/#!/GeoffSchwartz74/status/129762062292357120 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.84.87 (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring; POV vs RSs

An editor has now edit-warred twice in quick succession on this article. Removing material clearly supported by RSs, and considered appropriate by the RSs to reflect in RS articles. Material that has been in the article for a considerable period of time. Because the editor thinks his POV trumps that of RSs as to what is appropriate to reflect. The editor has also removed RS refs, which are necessary not only to support the facts in the article, but to avoid any possible view of copyright infringement. Plus -- it has been through the DYK review process with everything included that the editor has now twice deleted ... because he finds it to be of no interest to him personally. We don't substitute his personal view for that of the RSs, and the community that has reviewed the article. Finally -- oddly, for an editor who is deleting appropriate refs -- the editor has now twice added an unnecessary ref to the lede. I would ask the editor to stop edit-warring, reconsider his approach, and discuss the matter here if he is still upset with reflecting what is in the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not intending to edit war and in the future address me personally on my talk page as opposed to calling me out on the article talk page. FYI, I had every intention of discussing my issues with article if you reverted again to avoid violating WP:EDITWAR with a 3rd revert in 24 hours.

Anyway, an itemized list the reasons behind my edits:

• 3-5 sources for a given statement, WP:CITEKILL, for a statement that easily proved like "Schwartz signed with the Kansas City Chiefs on March 15, 2013", Only one maybe two sources are needed and there was 4 for that one one of which was twitter status update
• "He is 6 feet 6 inches (1.98 m) tall, and weighs 340 pounds (154 kg)" Height and weight do not get put in the article body unless they are exceptionally tall or short (ie, 6'10" or 5'5") That information goes in the infobox. Featured articles should be taken as a guideline for NFL player articles and Jim Thorpe and Tyrone Wheatley are featured articles neather of which feature height and weight.
• "...weighing 9 pounds, 7 ounces (4.3 kg)", His weight at birth is not needed and an irrelevant fact unless he weighed 12/13 pounds plus it's unsourced.
• bPicture of his brother, a picture of his brother would be relevant if Geoff was in it
• "...an inch taller, 20 pounds heavier, and has a shoe size of 19 compared to his younger brother's size 18 shoe" None of these facts are relevant to an article about Geoff.
• The listing of Jewish football players, adding Gabe Carimi is acceptable being he's the same position but listing every active Jewish football player is unnecessary.
• "Schwartz holds the Pac 10 record for rushing by a right tackle, at 3 yards." This is a non notable record considering how rarely offensive linemen run the ball and the fact it was only a 3 yard run. It would be like recognizing single game records for their first year or two of existence.
• "...and tweeted the news on Twitter" Twitter updates aren't notable unless it's something that's controversial, like Rashard Mendenhall's comments on Bin Ladin's death.

Anything I didn't list, I changed my mind on further review. I am very willing to come to compromise and avoid needing admins stepping in.--Rockchalk717 02:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Focusing first on your first comments -- I recognize that I've made over 100,000 more edits than you, so I've received input from editors on many more edits than I imagine you have. So I can understand that your natural thoughts might at times differ from what I've learned at wp, and indeed from what I thought was logically the case 100,000 edits ago.

That said, why in the world do you think it is inappropriate to discuss this article on its talk page? It's an entirely appropriate place to discuss editing to this article. What is your basis for asserting otherwise?

And as to edit warring, please note that one can engage in edit warring even prior to a 3RR violation. The three-revert rule is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without even coming close to breaking the three-revert rule. Whenever you are mass-deleting longstanding RS-supported text and RS refs, multiple times within a short period, I would urge you to bring it to the article talkpage.

Third -- are you aware that an essay is simply the advice or opinion of one or more Wikipedia contributors? And that essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. They are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. And in this case, I think there are flaws with this one (or more) editor's opinion, and I (another editor) have a contrary opinion. These are my initial thoughts, on your initial comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You may have a higher numbers of edits, however, look through my edits, I have made more edits to NFL pages then you and I know what is the norm for the NFL pages. Most of my issues are your edits that go against WP:NFL protocols. And for your arguments about those edits being accepted? There's been 164 edits in the 5 years this article has existed, most of which were from you, it's averaged 63 views a day (Peyton Manning averages several thousand for comparison). Translation: He's not a popular or a very well known player and most people viewing it aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies so your argument is invalid for the facts being "accepted"--Rockchalk717 22:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)--Rockchalk717 22:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The issues here are not NFL-specific issues, but Project-wide-principle issues. And project-wide-principles are controlling. Further, my comment simply goes to the input I've received during that time. And from what I can see -- not that it matters -- I've edited far more sports articles, let alone articles in general. But that is only at all relevant as to the input I've received -- as I've edited those articles, from other editors. Including articles I've brought to GA and DYK. And articles I've started. My point here as to DYK is that during that process many editors look at the article as approval is pending, with a critical eye (those editors are the opposite of what you assert when you write: "most people viewing it aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies"). Plus, as the article is at DYK, many readers -- more than usual -- read the article (though those are of the more general wikipedia readership type). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geoff Schwartz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614215032/http://www.espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=1250 to http://www.espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=1250
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130318052039/http://www.1500espn.com:80/sportswire/Geoff_Schwartz_leaves_Vikings_to_sign_oneyear_deal_with_Kansas_City031513 to http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Geoff_Schwartz_leaves_Vikings_to_sign_oneyear_deal_with_Kansas_City031513

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)