Talk:Tyler Palko

Swearing incident

No mention of Tyler swearing on national tv after the Notre Dame Dame I think, curius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.44.49 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

People From Wisconsin?

Just curious, why is the category Category:People from Wisconsin here? I thought he was from PA. I'll leave it here for the time being, but will remove it later if it proves to be an error. SolitaryThrush 09:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Jenna Rothrock

Further investigation of the name led to a myspace page and a vainspace page indicating that the "marriage" listed was a hoax. If her name appears again, please remove the name.IrishLass0128 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

College or NFL

The below template that appeared to indicate Tyler was still in college to the untrained eye was added at the bottom of the page below the NFL links. This leads to two questions, is it appropriate for an NFL player and will all NFL players have one (if not, none should) and, two, how do the two projects balance each other since not every college player makes it to the NFL? IrishLass (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I take it you're not a common editor of football articles. This template does not imply Tyler is in college - it says right in the middle that he was Pittsburgh's starting quarterback from 2004 to 2006. That's all it says. These succession boxes are found on tons of football player templates, all displaying similar info. There is no issue here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What I know Chris is you violated your arbcom and I'll be reporting you for both incivility in your edit summary and you 2 reverts (you have a limit of one). Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't being uncivil, and I reverted you because you were removing perfectly good and contributing info from an article because you misunderstood what it was saying. That's ridiculous.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but telling someone "you don't know what you're doing" on your second revert, you are only allowed one and you were far from civil in you comments. I've reported you and will discuss what I did with far more civil people like Pats1. He is the most reasonable person I've dealt with, you on the other hand are the opposite using words like "ridiculous" in regards to a perfectly good faith edit. The template was, after all, placed by an anonymous IP. IrishLass (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what comment of mine you think was uncivil, but the first sentence in my original post here was said in an entirely serious and non-accusatory manner. Your username looks familiar but I can't recall any specific interaction with you, so I inferred based on your edit of the Palko article that maybe you don't edit football-related articles much. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got based on your edit and given the widespread use and purpose of succession boxes. But as far as I can tell I haven't been uncivil here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the box

I bounced around the entire Pittsburgh Steelers players and didn't find it used on one player. From someone else, is it or is it not common place to include college stats when a player has moved up to the NFL or not and if it is common, why is it not on any of the Steelers players I found? IrishLass (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to reply anyway. I guess no one has bothered to put one on a Steelers' page, but that doesn't mean they aren't supposed to be here. Succession boxes are for this exact purpose - creating a sort of "mini-timeline" centered around a player based on an achievement or position held. Look at Vinny Testaverde, for instance. He has starting quarterback succession boxes like Palko's, he has a Heisman Trophy winner one, he has a No. 1 overall draft pick one. These let people easily pass through players that share an accomplishment and it provides quick info to who did it before and after the player on the article. More examples include Peyton Manning, Roger Clemens, Shaquille O'Neal, and thousands others.

Of course Palko isn't still in college - if he were, it'd say "-present" in the succession box and "TBD" in the after session. The succession box is specifically there to let readers know where he started for Pitt, who he succeeded and who succeed him. Nowhere does it imply he is still in college; it does that no more than the "College career" section.

It seems to be that you misunderstood the purpose of the succession box and I'm disappointed you felt the need to become so accusatory and defensive against someone that was just trying to clarify something for you in a civil manner.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

...Huh...? What exactly are we arguing about? Pats1 ^T/C 22:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See her edit summary when she first removed the succession box, because he's "not in college."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris is right. There are a good number of current or former NFL players that have college succession boxes (or nav boxes in some cases) on their articles (Vinny Testaverde, for example). Chris addressed this in his edit summary after IrishLass removed the succession box. I'm assuming (based off her comments) IrishLass removed it because A) it wasn't clear whether it was a college or NFL ("Pitt") succ. box -- in which case it should be just been tweaked to clarify, not removed all together or B) it was about his college career and now he's in the NFL. As to that point, just because he's in the NFL doesn't mean his college career gets wiped out (just as a page like Doug Flutie wouldn't have the Heisman Trophy succ. box removed when he went pro). IrishLass' subsequent revert (moreso its edit summary) was, to me, in the wrong, as Chris' previous edit summary adequately addressed the situation. A revert isn't a bad thing, and I think there's a false assumption out there that a talk page discussion should always come before even the thought of a revert. It's after that when a talk page discussion should ensue. So IrishLass reverting Chris' revert to make the point that discussion should come before reverting was a little off-base. Chris' second and final revert probably shouldn't have happened. Once the talk page discussion started, Chris made the comment that "I take it you're not a common editor of football articles" - perfectly acceptable, completely civil. Like I said, there's a lot of amfoot articles that do have college succ. boxes/nav boxes, and this is the first time I've heard of one being removed.

IrishLass then claimed Chris' edit summary was "uncivil" - I'm assuming she's referring to his second, "you don't know what you're doing, see talk" which could have been phrased better, but it was civil. Pats1 ^T/C 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on my talk page

Could you drop by the talk page, I've asked a question and I'd like your feedback. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do drop by there. This situation has become ridiculous, as she's decided to hurl false accusations and try to get my blocked for... drumroll please... restoring a Pitt Starting QBs succession box to Palko's page that she deleted because she didn't understand what it was for.

Man, what is it about Palko's page and controversy? Is it cursed?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not cursed but Chrisjnelson feels that if a female/lady/non-male person makes an edit to the page she must be some obsessed fan and not a real editor, as he's told me on more than one occasion. Pats1, the question asked OF YOU was about the info box put on the page and why it was there. But as some "obsessed fan" (I've never even seen him play live), I, too, was curious as to your answer as to why it's appropriate for an NFL player to have a college template and box. As I summarily ignore Chrisjnelson because I was told to, I'd like your explanation. You have always been a reasonable person where as others are not. Chris has made it clear on more than one occasion if you are female, you shouldn't edit NFL pages. And he was reported for reverting twice, against his arbcom decision. But he likes to make excuses for his unacceptable behaviour and less than civil edit summaries and comments. KellyAna (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my freaking god. That is a ridiculous and baseless accusation. This is not an issue of gender or sexism - I wouldn't have said one word differently in this entire situation (except the pronouns, obviously). I didn't assume she didn't edit NFL articles often because she's a woman; I assumed it because she removed a succession box (something found on MANY NFL articles) for a reason that didn't make sense given it's purpose.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your god does that? Wow!! Apparently according to Chrisjnelson everything is ridiculous. And it's far from baseless, you told me so yourself calling me, I believe it was "Tyler's personal ball washer" and an "little girl old chick that has a crush on Tyler Palko" and according to your favorite line "you don't know what you're doing" a phrase you apparently like then make excuses for using. You've made it very clear how you feel. Your statements then and today say it all.

Regarding the box, Pats1, could you answer the question in a reasonable manner? Thank you.KellyAna (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough. Bringing up old comments like that isn't considered civil, and I believe that you should make a good faith strikethrough of what really just bordered on a personal attack, regardless of whatever happened before between you two. Pats1 ^T/C 00:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, the similar assumptions I have made about both of you - that you're not big NFL-content editors in the way that Pats1 and I are - did not come out of learning your gender but because some of your edits have not been consistent with the way a Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League member would behave. And, looking at the recent contributions of both of you, it appears that I was dead-on in my assumption. But no, I'm a freaking chauvinist because I inferred that two female editors - who DON'T edit many NFL pages often - don't edit many NFL pages often.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

When constantly berated by individuals like you, why would I? You won't let anyone else work on it without making comments that everything is ridiculous and the only reason we edit is because we have crushes and we don't know what we are doing. Why put myself/ourselves through the treatment you ALWAYS give. You're a mean person to try and work with. KellyAna (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Same thing. This needs to stop. Chris and I do edit a lot on NFL-related articles, and so we do get to see who the frequent editors are. Chris (nor I, really) have seen you editing NFL-related articles much (which don't get me wrong, isn't a bad thing at all) and therefore tried to steer you in the right direction and inform you on common practices among the articles. This isn't an issue of sex. Please don't make it one. Pats1 ^T/C 00:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, my comments toward you were not sexist, but only included female words (chick, girl) because that's what I believed you were based on your username. If you were a guy, I'd have called you an old dude with a crush on Tyler Palko. So again, not a gender issue at all. You're making it one because that's obviously an issue with you.

Secondly, I've already clarified my edit summary on Wknight94's user page. I believe the ton and meaning is being misinterpreted, as often happens in text. I wasn't accusing her of being an idiot or not knowing what she was doing, I meant that she didn't understand what she was doing to the article because of her misinterpretation of the box's purpose.

So here's what's going to happen: I will not defend myself on this ridiculous sexist issue again. Pats1 is going to explain to you that I was right about the succession box and that is is appropriately placed. Of course, he's also not going to do it in a manner and more "calm and civil" that my explanation was because I've already done that, but you refuse to listen to what I have to say (even though I'm right) because of a misguided opinion. Ready, break.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph one: Gender asside, you never should have made the comment. It was sexist, demeaning, and inappropriate. What if I was his sister or aunt? I'm not, but what if? Your comments become sexist because they indicate sexual feelings verses the desire just for his article to be well written.

Paragraph two: Your comments were an after thought excuse but yet you've used the same phrase multiple times. I find your explanation holds very little water. I also think you mean tone not ton but I don't believe for a minute that you didn't mean exactly what you said because, as I've already stated, you've used the phrase before.

This has nothing to do with this. If you want to argue whatever was said, take it to each other's talk page and have a blast. But in the limits of this discussion, bringing up those comments will be considered uncivil. Pats1 ^T/C 00:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph three: your other favorite word. Everything you don't agree with is "ridiculous." Yes, wanting to understand something and be treated like a human being is ridiculous. But I'm just an "old chick with a crush" so what do I know? KellyAna (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are really bordering on incivility here. The personal attacks need to stop. Please. Thank you. Pats1 ^T/C 00:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Need for argument?

Are you folks really going 12 rounds over a player who will likely *never* touch a blade of grass (or astroturf) on a regular season NFL field? I understand this is about semantics, but there has to be a more worthy poster boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.95.16 (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's the backup now so clearly whatever the argument was, was worth it.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)