User talk:X96lee15/Archive 2010

January 2010

 * You don't own article too. The consensus is by. Bband11th (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently
Apparently an anonymous editor thinks I am you. I am of the belief, however, that this anonymous editor is simply User:Bband11th. Best of luck on the 2010 Rose Bowl article. I'm here if needed. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Looks like the IP is wikistalking me now. I agree with you about Bb11th. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This person Bb11th has made it his personal goal to try and sabatoge the correct way of listing sporting lines on nearly all of 2009's football bowl games. What he doesn't seem to understand is that if a wiki article is going to include a sports betting line, then it needs to be notated in the same style as the sportsbooks which set them.  The argument of "it was done this way in the past" simply does not hold water.  It's unfortunate that the template was created incorrectly from the start and that no one really noticed it until this year, but that fact remains that going forth it should be listed in the standard notation of betting lines which is "-" and "+".  I have tried to make this very clear in the WT:CFB discussion, but he and some others simply don't get it.Tigerman81 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

u.m. bball scandal
If The University of Michigan forfeited its 1992 and 1993 Big Ten Conference basketball championships, then why is that not listed in the records and titles they forfeited? The fact is, they didn't, and those should be counted.VictorsValiant09 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those titles are listed as forfeited because they never won them, cheating or not. Page 69 of this document. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Um...yes we did win them, and we did finish in first both years. Even before everything, we had banners in Crisler for many years commemorating them. They were listed in media guides, and likely recorded in photographs and news articles. I'd going to go dig up a photo of the Crisler rafters from 1994, and I'll prove it to you. Hell, they're even listed on the men's basketball Wiki. I guess I shall have to prove you wrong.VictorsValiant09 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Detroit demolition.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Detroit demolition.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page edit
You're seriously going to remove my text I posted on a talk page, merely posing a question? What is your problem?VictorsValiant09 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change because you removed the Ice Hockey Wikiproject tag and I couldn't see any way possible your comment was serious. Sorry if I caused any grief. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Closer (baseball)
You don't have to have a source to have a list of players at a position (which is why your revert is hideously uncalled for) but I put one in anyway. You also don't need a source to place an image of Broxton, but if you're interested, ESPN, Yahoo and MLB.com project Big Man Brox to be the best closer in MLB this year Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 01:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What criteria did you use to list those closers? "Well-known" is too subjective for Wikipedia. It should be removed. You could list something like the "current saves champion", but to list "well-known" is obviously original research. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not original research. It is cited.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 01:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The source provided says nothing about the closers being "well-known". And why didn't you list Joakim Soria?  He's the #3 rated closer according to the source given. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, add him. Also, I would not have deleted half the article like that.  By the rules you're using, we'd delete half the content of sports articles  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 01:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I moved the discussion to here: Talk:Closer (baseball) so more people will see it. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe lists of players who play positions should not be included in articles, mention it at the Baseball and Basketball projects Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 06:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just read OR, and it does not support your argument about images. It says nothing about what images are chosen by editors. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 05:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

?
Are you, like, stalking my pages? In fact, I believe it is you whose edits are "unsourced."VictorsValiant09 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not stalking "your" pages, but I did look at your contributions to see if you were continuing to add incorrect information about u.m. in relation to the NCAA sanctions imposed on their basketball team (in this case you removed and changed information that was sourced). — X96lee15 (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Concensus All-America basketball team not OR
Lee- the consensus teams on the 2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans page actually isn't original research - it's the application of a standard scoring system used by the NCAA to determine consensus teams. I am looking for a reference for the scoring (the actual 2010 teams probably won't appear in print until the 2010-11 NCAA men's basketball record book comes out in October). I did find reference to the system for consensus football AA teams (which uses the same scoring as basketball):

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/8339/spartans-jones-a-consensus-all-american

I also have an email into the NCAA record book contact to ask for verification. Just wanted to let you know this stuff isn't made up. We've been posting these teams the last couple of years as the individual teams are named. Rikster2 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Good enough for me. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Favorite team
Why do you continue to change the point spreads? Especially you said you don't care. Favorite team has been listed this way for many years, therefore the articles should be left the way they were listed consistently with prior years. Bband11th (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You got suckered into an edit war. You think you won, but just what did you win? Spending time here doesn't do you any good. Be smart! 12.40.50.1 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines softball
In regards to this Wikipedia page, the team has recently won six consecutive Big Ten titles, from 2004-2009, looking at both charts on this page (21). Whether you consider regular season or tournament, a championship was acquired in each season, with the possible exception of 2007.

We can go from there.VictorsValiant09 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A regular season championship and tournament championship are two different things. From 2004, Regular season titles: 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009. Tournament titles: 2005, 2006.  It's pretty straightforward, even from your source. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove 2010 from the Big Ten Championships and NCAA Tournament appearances? VictorsValiant09 (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Armando Galarraga almost perfect game
It is already located on the perfect game page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_game#Perfect_games_spoiled_by_the_27th_batter), I would think that should be sufficient since it isn't a perfect game because of a bad call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eposty (talk • contribs) 18:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think it's notable to put in the 2010 article, especially since there were already two perfect games thrown. Maybe we add a "Notable events" section? — X96lee15 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Tigers game log/Galarraga
Why do you think we need to add the link to the article twice in the same line of the game log? It just seems excessive since its already in the article twice. I for one think its not needed in the game log at all since there's already a small section with a main article link as well. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The link needs to be in the game log; there's no doubt about that. There is no reason why it can't be linked twice in the same line. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just link the entire line to the same article then? (date, opponent, WP, LP, attendance, record). Doesn't make a difference right? Maybe if the article gets linked 1,000,000 times they'll overturn the blown call and give him the perfect game! TomCat4680 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The game # and the score are the only things that make sense to link, IMO. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic obviously but I still think its excessive to link it twice in the same line. Why not just link it once? Or do I have to get a RFC? TomCat4680 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care, do whatever you want. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sports related curses
Added a link to a reference to end of Winter Classic section. I wouldn't have added this if I was the only one talking about it. I couldn't figure out how to add my link to the reference list below, so if you could make that appear, I would appreciate it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.237.230 (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes
On the WPCFB talk page you said something about looking for a guideline a few weeks back. Did you ever find anything? I'd like to move forward on that discussion if possible. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike, I think this is what I was referring to: WP:Navbox. However, it really isn't a policy or even a guideline.
 * For a series of articles whose only shared characteristic is that they hold the same position or title, such as peerage or world champion sporting titles, consider using succession box.
 * Not sure if it helps or not. I'll post this on the CFB page too. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Please do not edit or remove hatnote of Backstop. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The hatnote is not needed per WP:NAMB. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:ConnecticutBasketballCoach listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:ConnecticutBasketballCoach. Since you had some involvement with the Template:ConnecticutBasketballCoach redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). –Grondemar 23:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bband11th
Hey X96lee15, we both seem to have an issue with this user. I myself do not care how the odds are displayed. Yet, it has become ridiculous to have my watchlist filled by Bband11th's reverts when it really has no major basis on the accuracy of the project. I know the user has ignored multiple warnings, so how do you think we should respond? Bcspro (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in the same boat as you. I did attempt something at WP:ANI here, but only one aspect of my issue was addressed. I think a checkuser operation could also be performed with all the single purpose accounts that are only modifying the same set of articles.  Seems to me another WP:ANI would be appropriate though. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User:The Cleanup Kid
The user is in violation of WP:3RR. WP:PW will keep an eye on the situation. I'd also like to thank you for your assistance. Much appreciated! -- Unquestionable Truth -- 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - Also be advised that you are also currently in violation of WP:3RR @ Pontiac Silverdome. You should cease from editing the page for the time being. It is never good to engage in edit warring regardless of any sound justification. If an issue relates to vandalism, revert as necessary but also report it through the proper channels. If the issue concerns more than that then make an attempt to contact a Wikiproject related to the page in question.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and warning. I left the page in a state with a compromise (I think). I'm done editing for the time being. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization/Win-Loss
I'd think about talking about this on WT:BASEBALL. – Michael (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh really?
I see. And what gives you the authority to decide this, Western Michigan Bronco?

I'm sorry, I don't trust online sources, I trust tangible things, such as actual books and libraries. I know it doesn't matter anymore to most people, but I would suggest giving it a try. I thought the whole point of Wikipedia, was to approximate an actual encyclopedia, not frivolous sources.

VictorsValiant09 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice for another user
I have reported Bband11th at the the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Any additional thoughts and diffs would be helpful. Hopefully this goes further than the last one. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

NFL roster templates
There is nothing special about the Detroit Lions roster, but it is very helpful to have a link to the navbox, since both templates should be updated at the same time. Considering the Detroit Lions roster navbox hadn't been updated since after the first cuts, it might have been updated sooner had there been a link to it.

There doesn't need to be consistency between all the roster templates. I have a feeling, however, that if I made the same change to all the templates, you would revert all of them. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll bring this up at WP:NFL, but I don't think it's necessary. As I said, consistency between templates isn't necessary, especially for the portion that isn't visible when the template is transcluded. FWIW, the Detroit Tigers roster does the same thing, and it's not consistent between other MLB templates.

Also, be aware that you are in violation of WP:3RR. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, when I go to look at that template, it just doesn't look right. The template link is off (as in it looks weird), and it just feels like it doesn't belong there. RevanFan (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I'll add it back in then? Your reasoning for not including is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I don't really give a frick. I've got too many more important things to be concerned about. RevanFan (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one that brought this whole thing up. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP CBBALL debate
X96lee15, WikiProject College Basketball is having a discussion on the use of navboxes vs. succession boxes, and as someone who may feel strongly one way or the other, would you please chime in? We would like if you read the discussion before opining, but it is getting long, so when you do find the time to weigh in it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Devil Rays
The Devil Rays and Rays are the same team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBDR92810 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are, but WP refers to them by their current name. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

UM Ice Hockey
Kind of hard for you to be an objective contributor, when you seemingly have some vendetta against all pages UM, right?VictorsValiant09 (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am 100% objective. Every edit I've made has been backed up by a source.  I'm only modifying your incorrect edits to those pages. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 699 is correct. @ Victors please assume good faith. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Detroit Lions roster
If that's the way to know it's a template and not an article, then it should be switched to that on all NBA team templates as well, don't you think? RevanFan (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

En dashes or em dashes for null fields?
X96lee15, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football for a discussion regarding Template:Winning percentage and head football coaches lists. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Zac Robinson
It is not possible for him to have #13, because Nate Burleson has it, and they are both active, and they are on the same side of the ball. Also, I provided a source that, according to every NFL editor here, trumps official team sites, because team sites are wrong quite a bit more than they're right. RevanFan (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just post the link the first time around and there won't be an issue. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never had to before. ChrisJNelsoon, Pats1, and Eagles24/7 seem to trust me. RevanFan (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)