User talk:Nwalbert

Welcome!
Hello, Nwalbert, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Saint John Riptide, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

January 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Saint John Riptide has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Saint John Riptide was changed by Nwalbert (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.914953 on 2017-01-09T03:20:59+00:00.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Saint John Riptide, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. ''There are sources in the article to support the connection among the various teams. If you disagree, you should explain your reasoning on Talk:Saint John Riptide and cite sources to support your side of the situation.'' —C.Fred (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Saint John Riptide. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

St. John Riptide
To make the changes you are seeking (against the consensus) you MUST provide a reliable source that claims the new Riptide organization purchased an expansion franchise from the NBLC. The NBLC has publisher this article that directly refutes your claims. Leagues have been known to be wrong, but as there has been no other evidence provided, all sources point to the Riptide being a franchise transfer (from one group or organization to another with a rebranding) and not an expansion team. As to your most recent comment, the Mill Rats franchise was a founding franchise in the NBLC and transferred over from the ABA. So yes it is still a continuation (unless you can provide a source). Yosemiter (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A "franchise" is the rights to operate a team within a given league. The consensusears appears to be that this page rather than focus on a franchise should focus on the organization that moved around to multiple franchises in multiple leagues. Since the organization never operated as the Saint John Riptide, that referanced should be removed and this page should be named the Saint John MillRats. If the consensus is that this page is about the NBLC Saint John franchise than it should only discuss the NBLC franchises that operated in those markets. I would to be part of the community and keep this page, or a new Riptide page up to date with information. Currently it is combining multiple organizations and multiple franchises which is confusing.

As to your comments about the Mill Rats organization and the current Riptide franchise, the page is about both. It is somewhat complicated, but the Riptide acquired the Mill Rats NBLC franchise, a franchise that transferred over from the PBL. It would be very difficult and likely unnecessary to distinguish between the Mill Rats organization and the NBLC founding Mill Rats franchise. Their histories are intertwined to a point that they should not be separated and that is the common usage on the Basketball Project such as what is found at Northern Arizona Suns, a similar situation where the owners of a franchise where more or less forced to give it up but had roots as an organization in previous leagues. It is not uncommon for new leagues to acquire old franchises/organizations where they keep the history (or discard it upon rebranding). The only reason the Mill Rats previous history might be separated out of the Riptide history is if a New Orleans Pelicans/Charlotte Hornets situation occurs and the league retroactively makes the Riptide an expansion team. Finally, we also do not update team or player stats midseason except on the league season page (2016–17 NBL Canada season). Wikipedia is not a stats site or a sports almanac. It is for documented published history and there are not nearly enough editors to edit the hundreds of team pages and thousands of player pages to keep everything that up to date. So the general guidelines were put in place years ago to prevent outdated "current" info. Basically, if we don't keep "current record" info popular teams such as the Los Angeles Lakers, then we definitely won't have it on a low-level minor league team. Yosemiter (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, the main reason all your edits are being reverted is that editing by deletion is 100% inappropriate and will never be allowed (if you are being reverted by a vandalism bot, that should have given you a clue). But now that you appear to be conversing instead of edit warring, a good place to take your concerns is probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball.

January 2017 cont.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Saint John Riptide, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yosemiter (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)