User talk:X96lee15/Archive 2013

Travis Bader

I know you're a big Oakland Golden Grizzlies men's basketball fan/editor, so I want to reach out to you to see if you'd be interested in creating Travis Bader's article. He is the 2012–13 three-pointers per game champ, and he just ended his redshirt junior season with 357 career threes. Assuming he makes at least 101 of them next year (which, for the past two seasons he's well-eclipsed), he will surpass J. J. Redick as Division I's all-time leading three-point shooter. In addition, he is a darkhorse candidate to be The Summit League's Player of the Year next year. I would make his article myself, but I'm backed up with 'to-do' lists (also, User:Rikster2 just indefinitely retired, making the burden of college basketball editing a lot more difficult for me). Thoughts? Jrcla2 (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look at him; Duke Mondy too (I think you redlinked him in a few places since he lead the NCAA in steals). — X96lee15 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Right! I forgot about him. If you wanted to tackle both of these guys' articles I'd appreciate it greatly. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That was fast: @PaulKampe (March 28, 2013). "Oakland's Travis Bader (@DarthBader3) is officially big time — he now has a Wikipedia page" (Tweet) – via Twitter. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good lord, that happened an hour ago! Jrcla2 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Paul Kampe related to the head coach, or is that a coincidence? Jrcla2 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, just an amazing coincidence. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Crazy coincidence. Maybe Paul Kampe can provide a free use photo? Jrcla2 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Player of the Week...

Eposty, you have to stop removing the {{Unreferenced section}} template from that section. If there isn't a reference for it (which I imagine is the case), then you can still update, but the tag should be left there. Especially since there isn't the detailed list for every season, there's no way to know if the list is even remotely accurate. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The count is accurate as I went to the links at MLB.com and tabulated each one accordingly... posty (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Octavio Dotel

I meant to press undo, but Twinkle's "[rollback (VANDAL)]" button got in the way and I did not abort in time, so that explains the lack of an edit summary. What I would have said there is that though the commas may disrupt the flow of the sentence, they are grammatically correct. Commas are supposed to come both before and after the year in a full date. TCN7JM 20:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How about that, you're right. Thanks for setting me straight. But is it necessary in the first sentence of a biography? "XXX (born MM DD, YYYY), is a" vs "XXX (born MM DD, YYYY) is a"? To me, I'd treat the date inside the parenthesis as its own sentence, thereby not requiring the comma at the end. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that in that case, you are correct. I will remove that comma. TCN7JM 22:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Novo Bojovic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philadelphia Stars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Share the Cookies

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi X96lee15/Archive 2013, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hockeytown

Thanks for cleaning up the article, looks great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmklasen (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Al Molde may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1996, where he is tied as the winningest coach in school history (62–47–2, {{winpct|62|47|2}})) and led the Broncos to their only outright [[Mid-American Conference]] [[List of Mid-American

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

HEY!!!

It IS July 1 on Wikipedia time & has been since before you started reverting articles because it was not yet July 1... GWFrog (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 1 in the timezone of the organization in question. It's not realistic to think The Summit League is going to change over at 2000 hours on Sunday, June 30. Also, it's bad form to use the "undo" button on my edits leaving the default comment. My revisions did not need "undoing". They were perfectly acceptable at the time. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of historically significant college football games may have broken the syntax by modifying 26 "[]"s and 26 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Horizon League champions

I was unaware of that rule WP:ORDINAL. I appreciate you reverting the change I made. --SportsMaster (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I just noticed it recently myself. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you know this. I have always wondered the rationale behind this. Why do they show football and basketball coaches W-L records on their profile, but not baseball anymore. Do you know why that is?--SportsMaster (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not put the ranking before the week of the game

It has never been done that way and it's not going to start now. I understand that you monitor the Western Michigan page more then any other teams season page, but that doesn't give you the right to maintain it differently then how other pages are maintained. The rank should never be included until the week of the game because new rankings come out every week. By the time of the Northwestern game they could be ranked higher or not ranked at all so to include their rank at anytime before the game is just false. And it is not done on any other page before the week of the game so you should not include it here. You do not own this page, please stop undoing my constructive edits just to forward your own agenda. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is the usage of that template documented? According to the Template:CFB Schedule Entry/doc, it doesn't say that the ranking should be blank until the week of the game. I agree, the current ranking of a future team will change, but it's still useful to include on the schedule. It's also done this way on Yahoo. It's been done in the past on CFB season articles, but maybe not on teams and seasons you've worked on. I don't own any page, but you also do not own any page. Saying, "that's the way it's been done" when that's not an agreed upon, documented process isn't a valid reason for doing something. I'm not trying to forward my agenda, I'm just trying to make Wikipedia articles as useful as possible. And I think including the future team rankings makes the articles more useful. I'm going to restore the page to include the rankings. If you disagree, we should discuss this on WP:CFB. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ronny Paulino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triple-A (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DPL bot! — X96lee15 (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

losing score first

I know that you are just going to say that there is no standard listed anywhere that says to list the score that way, but all teams pages for the last 3 years have listed the score of the team the page is about first, on wins and loses. There may be no standard listed anywhere, but it is absolutely insane to have over 120 teams listed that way and have Western Michigan be the only team that isn't listed that way. So it may not be listed, but its by far the excepted practice and thus should be listed that way. DO NOT revert it, leave it the way I have listed it unless you can actually find a listed reason to change it. You do not own that page. It should be kept up to the same standards as all other college football pages and your continuing to keep it different is tantamount to vandalism. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There have been discussions regarding this in the past (here (which you participated in) and here at least) and there has not been a consensus established. In these cases, WP:STYLE says "edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

I hate to throw WP policy/guidelines around for situations like this, but I'd say you're violating WP:OWN more than I. Just because you update all the CFB pages, doesn't mean you have the right or the duty to make sure they are all the same. There are also previous WMU years that list the losing score first. I haven't changed existing "losing score first" pages because they were established with their style that way, per WP guidelines. I'm going to change the page back per WP:STYLE. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And the fact that you don't edit very many college football pages proves that you think you own this one. I understand that there are a few pages that list it your way, but the vast majority, I would say over 99% considering there are over 120 teams and only 1 or 2 do it your way, would make it the standard way that it should be done. It is absolutely insane to list it differently just because you want to. It has become the standard, excepted way to list scores for not just college football, but also college basketball. It looks horrible to have it listed one way on almost every page then have it different here. All college football pages should use the same standards. You are completely wrong on this one. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I did read most of those discussions and It does seem that people want the higher score listed first. However, there was never a consensus or a vote thus it continued to be listed the other way. Honestly, I don't care. I will do it however the standard excepted way becomes. Over the last three years, listing it the way I list scores has become standard thus when I update pages that's what I do and will continue to do on every page until it is decided upon. And every page should use the same standard until a decision is actually reached. If you want to start a discussion or vote on it again then now would be the time before we get deep into the season and have to change a lot on every page. But until then, the score of the team the page is about listed first will be used ON EVERY PAGE to keep it standard across the board for every college football team.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You have violated the WP:3RR rule (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3).

Obviously we disagree on the subject. Consistency within an article is important, but not as important as amongst articles. And since this is merely a style issue and no standard or consensus has been reached, then WP:STYLE which I mentioned above should be followed. In all my arguments, I use WP guidelines and policy to back my statements, while you just reference "I don't like it". — X96lee15 (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you hide behind some arbitrary policy and can't just open you eyes and see how it is done on every other college football page is insane! So I will just flat ignore Western Michigans page. Make it look however the hell you want. Let me know if there is any decision on the way scores should be listed but for now I will continue to list them the way they are listed on over 500 FBS, FCS, and college basketball pages and you can run your Western Michigan page however the hell you see fit. Be different and hide behind you policies, I don't care anymore. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

editing 1981 NCAA Division 1-A football season

In regards to the number of teams you made go up to 138 in the 1981 NCAA Division 1-A football season the number truly is 137 according to the reference. It appears to be 138 because in every college football year of that reference source they add in an additional "team" called "Wild Card U" which is not an actual football team from that season (I believe "Wild Card U" is a record the teams from that season had against other opponents that were not division 1-A opponents, like Division 1-AA opponents or division II opponents). I am going to change the number back to 137 and if you check the reference there should be 137 teams plus 1 team which is "Wild Card U." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krhazymonkey83 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I missed that fact. Sorry for reverting you. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Statsheet.com

Based on your message on my Talk page, I made another request to "un-blacklist" this site. If you agree that this should happen, please add your support/opinion to the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#StatSheet.com. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes at college football game list discussion

Hello! At Talk:List of historically significant college football games I changed "deletes" to "excludes" and "keeps" to "includes" to avoid confusion. I see this as a "housekeeping" move and if you object, please accept my apologies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Domo Yasiel

soy amigo de Yasiel y es una broma que tenemos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.21.182 (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Oakland Athletics

Listen up no one cares, its wikipedia, if you want this site to be a creditable source dont let people edit in general. Plus take a joke for once, Jesus Christ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredrox1103 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Leyland

A shocker, but it's happening right now. He's retiring as manager on TV. No sources online that I see, yet. (RE: this). They'll come any second surely. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I typed "unsourced", but I really meant "unofficial". As soon as I hit submit I realized my mistake. The move is definitely official at this point, even if there aren't any sources yet. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bryan Price

Read the source. Announcing and officially naming are different. He will be publically unveiled in a presser tomorrow as manager but it is OFFICIAL that he is manager.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20131021/SPT04/310210133?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

Read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloSheriffBob (talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I did read it and again, "to be named" is not the same as "named". — X96lee15 (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, you have violated the three-revert rule. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The language says "will announce" not "will name." Those are two very different things. Also, I only revert what needs to be changed. In deference to your statement though, keep my edits for now and look at the Bryan Price talk page so we can carry on the discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloSheriffBob (talk • contribs) 03:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The key is the word "will". When it's on reds.com, then it will be official and his article should be changed. I'm going to leave your edits so I don't violate the WP:3RR, but I believe it is erroneous to keep the edits there. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Check the current wording. I think the way it stands now confirms the hire while at the same time is sensitive to the announcement tomorrow.--JelloSheriffBob — Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloSheriffBob (talk • contribs) 03:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 Western Michigan Broncos men's basketball team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquinas College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Bsuorangecrush‎ inappropriate edit summary

Deleted from here:

Thanks User:Bsuorangecrush for the civil edit summary. You need to take a step back and not let things get personal. It's OK to have disagreements without resorting to name calling. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western Michigan Broncos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division I (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Tournaments

Either reference all or reference none. Looks silly will some done and some not. Also, if we included the PSU tournament, we would have to include loads of other tournaments (Central Michigan Tournament, etc.) It would get to be too much. Mpejkrm (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

They all should be referenced. And I think all the tournaments should be included too. What's the criteria to differentiate those that should be included and those that shouldn't be? Unless there's a reference that lists only a certain subset of tournaments, it's original research to make that distinction as editors. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Future CBB rankings

I agree this is Wikipedia, not ESPN, but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources (ESPN). While not all of CBB season articles may include future rankings, I say they probably should for completeness. There's no consensus to say future rankings shouldn't be included. I'm just trying to create the most informative articles possible for people reading Wikipedia and I think the future rankings help in that. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that ESPN is a very informative site for information and stats but just because ESPN does it doesn't mean Wikipedia has to. Consensus for Wikipedia is ranking should only be update from a week-to-week basis due to the ranking changing every week. A perfect example was Michigan State which you had listed as #1 but Oakland doesn't play them until next week. Michigan State lost last night and now they will no longer be number 1. Redmen44 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is the consensus. And just because most/many articles don't list future rankings, I don't think that means all articles should do that. I'd still say MSU should still be listed as No. 1 on OU's schedule since they will still be No. 1 until Monday. The fact they lost yesterday doesn't mean anything with respect to this discussion. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure it does. Why is your page (Oakland) the only page that lists rankings of teams more than a week before the game is played? Because it is a CONSENSUS not to do that. Just because YOU don't think it's right doesn't mean YOU are correct. CONSENSUS rules on Wikipedia not what YOU think is right or wrong. Good luck to your Oakland team because you are going to get a pissed off Michigan State team. I say Michigan State by at least 25 points!Redmen44 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Classy. Stick to the discussion. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

HAHA I did and just gave your team a jab. Sorry you can't take the banter. Oakland is what 1–7? Maybe that kid should chuck up a few more three's LOL!Redmen44 (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been discussions previous about this. Nobody really cares either way. There is no information in the CBB Entry documentation regarding this. And just because YOU don't think it's right doesn't mean YOU are correct. Wikipedia isn't the forum for "banter". — X96lee15 (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Then get it right and stop making your own rules. Follow the CONSENSUS! Live and learn Golden Grizz. Redmen44 (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Try to keep your comments civil. Thanks. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

stooopid

why you do teh redooos of teh new york gaykees?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwagdaddyUSA (talk • contribs) 04:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Source for University of Miami color

Can you please open a discussion instead of beginning an edit war? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in the business of edit warring. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The user Ryulong

hes been blocked many times for his polemic episodes, like on Bleach (anime), and now University of Miami. ur best bet is undoing his blind reverts, i will report him if he doesnt stop. THANKS. 166.147.116.190 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert here

I apologize for the revert, but I am reverting vandalism by an IP editor who is now disrupting the project with me as his target after we were both blocked this past Sunday for edit warring. I am currently working with an administrator to curb his abuse.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Vandal trumps WP:TALKNO.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, WP:TPO states that the removal of vandalism is allowed under WP:TPG. I would appreciate if you did not restore the IP's section again. I mean no ill will towards you and the IP's commentary was completely unfounded and false, categorizing my reverts as "blind reverts", which is what happens when someone restores an old version of a page and throws the baby out with the bath water.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please remove his comment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2013 Bowling Green Falcons football team. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't know the definition of vandalism, I don't think. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And for posterity, here are the edits I believe Ucla90024 is referring to: [1], [2] — X96lee15 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick Kristock

Not sure if you care about OU soccer, but there is a new article on Nick Kristock (who recently won the Senior CLASS Award for men's soccer) that I just removed a PROD notice because I think there should be a discussion. That said, the article needs help and more references. Not sure if you had access to any as you are a fan of the program but I thought I'd ask. Thanks for any help you can provide. Rikster2 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has now been nominated for deletion. Please take part in the discussion if you care to. Rikster2 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Cowboys Stadium

Looks like there is some sockpuppetry going on. I'll go ahead with an SPI. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

UM color ref

Please see the continued discussion on the talk page where the reference is deemed trivial.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There are rarely any cases where at least one reference isn't desired. This is a case where it's desired and useful. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion certainly wasn't a clear consensus for removing the references and they're certainly not vandalism. Let it go, please. ElKevbo (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)