User talk:Yosemiter/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Carolina Thunderbirds

Hey, sorry about those errors, I had when back to add on info for the second night of passing thee record and you had already added on to it and when I added my other part I remade the same errors. Sorry I will try to avoid them in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.183.125.162 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No problems, less errors than many other IPs. Most outsiders do not know how to make other dashes instead of hyphen as described in MOS:DASH. Thanks for your contributions. Yosemiter (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

90 vs 85

All other sporting infoboxes use 85 font, that's standard for all infoboxes regardless of the subject. Hence why when the bodystyle parameter is removed, it automatically sets text size at 85%. TrailBlzr (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that just because other sporting infoboxes do it doesn't mean the hockey project does it. Each sport treats their infoboxes differently than other sports. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@TrailBlzr: On a side-by-side comparison, I viewed Template:Infobox NHL team vs. Template:Infobox NFL team, Template:Infobox NBA team, and Template:Infobox MLB. The hockey text was noticeably smaller, which I noted breifly in my edit summary (and in fact the NFL one has the same parameter used). Maybe there was another adjustment in the template that could fix it? I should also note, the hockey project chooses to keep the infobox less cluttered to make it more readable and useful. Since there are less parameters used, it is also possible smaller text is not needed in this case. Yosemiter (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox hockey team uses 85%, which means NHL teams are out of step with every other hockey team that exists. Also worth noting the layout of the NFL infobox is completely different. Closest comparison is NBA, which uses 85%. TrailBlzr (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@TrailBlzr: You'll notice I noticed between your two recent revisions (this with 85% and this one without the parameter), the text for the 85% is noticeably smaller again then the one without the parameter at all. It seems your claim of "it automatically sets text size at 85%" is somewhat incorrect, at least in this case. Yosemiter (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC) (edit: it seems to vary depending on which monitor or screen I'm on. Probably something to do with how the formatting parameters function with various screens. Yosemiter (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC))

@TrailBlzr: (I'm also not seeing where the ice hockey one or the NBA one uses 85%, they just doesn't use the parameter. And as I have already shown, not using the parameter does not look the same as using 85% in the parameter). Yosemiter (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Wild

I'm posting here since you were the editor who started this AfD. As you can see, the article or at least an article with the same name has been recreated. I can see who created this latest version, but not who created the original version deleted per the AfD. Is this pretty much the version you nominated for deletion? I cannot tell because page history has not been restored. If it is, then tagging it with WP:G4 probably would work. If not and you still feel there's just not enough to support a stand-alone article, then redirect or AfD are to remaining options. The problem is that the only viable redirect is to International Arena Football League which itself seems to be of questionable notability per our previous discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Same team (now in their third season, but first with what appears to be an actual home schedule vs other pro teams) and same page creator. Since my previous AfD on it, the team's coverage seems to have gone from one announcement (which was about them playing in H-E-B Center, and they never did) to two announcements. Maybe meets GNG per multiple (2) independent sources, but arguably not WP:SUSTAINED coverage or simple WP:TOOSOON. At this level of play, it is impossible to presume that teams will generate independent coverage. Some are good at it (West Virginia Roughriders and has not even played under that name yet still gets 200+ GNews hits) and others are not (Rochester Kings played two-ish seasons and gets 7 hits) Yosemiter (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My concern is mainly about the non-free images being used in the infobox. I can deal with those, but just wanted an idea as to whether the article was a G4. If the article is deleted, the infobox images will become orphaned and end up deleted per WP:F5; if the article ends up being kept; then two non-free infobox images are not really needed per WP:NFCCP and their non-free use can be discussed at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah

I'm not gonna change it back, but like, what do you think it might be that makes the climate so warm? -MostlyTexasArticles (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@MostlyTexasArticles: Yes, being further south in the United States means warmer. However, the 35th parallel, as a link and data point, is trivia for the lead. Leads should be precise and concise. Your changes noting the climate are good, just vaguely referencing the 35th is not. (Although a citation would be nice if climate is truly what the AAF was targeting and not demographics. As is, it still reads a bit like original research.) You'll notice the the 35th parallel north article does not even talk about climate, it is strictly a random measurement in this case and very much WP:OVERLINK. Yosemiter (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@MostlyTexasArticles: I'm also going to mention that without the citation saying the AAF was looking for places similar to your phrasing "mild winters and early springs", it reads heavily like a synthetic conclusion of "teams in cities" + "cities with mild winters". Unless there is a referenced connection between the two (especially since they chose SLC where it can snow randomly until June), that is what I was mostly honing in on with my edits. Yosemiter (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sun fan

I missed this notice you left on their talk page. Probably could have been brought to WP:ANI directly given their history. That one is even obvious enough WP:OR that I might have been exempt from WP:INVOLVED to block them. At his point, WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE means hopefully they have stopped ... Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I'm not sure if I am the best to take them to ANI, never done it before, but I can always supply ample evidence. (Although a particular editor loves to give me civility warnings when I use the edit summary harshly (frustrated) for their continued problematic edits.) I also wasn't sure how to address clear OR when it also was not plainly visible with the hidden text. Yosemiter (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I missed the fact it was a comment. Generally, WP:NOTFANSITE comes to mind with their edit summaries, and this "comment". As for civility, see WP:DENY. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Pertaining to this edit (under an IP again) where they stated Utah Jazz has clinched without using a source, and was wrong as their magic number is still One due to a possible tiebreaker vs. the Kings apparently, I have started an ANI discussion. Yosemiter (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for investing the time to file your first ANI report. Excellent results. —Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

SEC Football rivalries

On the rivalries your edited summary says 'put back in alphabetical order'. So instead of more historic rivals importance level order? Does it supposed to be? Because there's several other SEC teams on here rivalry list isn't in A.B.C. order... Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Razorbacks_football

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Gators_football

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Wildcats_football

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Miss_Rebels_football

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Bulldogs_football

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_Aggies_football

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_Commodores_football

If it's supposed to be in alphabetical order then all the teams should be that way Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sports Fan 1997: First off, please use an edit summary and explain why you think it should be in the order you put it in. It seemed very arbitrary to list NC and NC State before Georgia, in terms of significance, number of times they have met, and how often they meet (also when they first met). Other articles list order is irrelevant to what you did, it just seemed to me that it was in alpha, but I could be wrong. It could also have been in number of games they have met. Listing the NC and NC State above Georgia, when USC has only face both those teams seven times combined in the last 20 years seems arbitrary at least, and wrong at best. Your best bet is to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, which I am not very involved in. They have much more experience on those pages. Yosemiter (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

America Hockey League

it sould be Cleveland Monsters and Hershey Bears had Both Won More than everybody.RuthSmith95 (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@RuthSmith95: Absolutely incorrect. First, the parameter is "most titles", there is absolutely no need to list second place. We do not do that anywhere else. Second, the Monsters have won exactly once, not 10 times. Perhaps you are confusing them with the original Cleveland Barons (1937–73) nine wins? There is no more connection between the Monsters and original Barons than the Minnesota North Stars has with the Wild (just as an example). Please do not publish your own original research. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yosemiter, i am so sorry i made a mistake of the teams. Thank you, RuthSmith95 (RuthSmith95#top|talk) 13:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

List without context

I came across Olympics on CBC commentators, and I not sure what to make of it. Seems like a candidate for a merger or an AFD. What do you think? Flibirigit (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: Late response, but I would support a merger of the hosts section to Olympics on CBC. The individual event commentators looks like WP:LISTCRUFT that would otherwise not meet WP:LISTN while the lists of hosts is small enough to not really warrant an article (and may primarily be WP:ROUTINE coverage of the "So-and-so will host the morning recaps..." or their own actual reporting). Yosemiter (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Metropolitan Riveters

Did you read two references that I included one of which stated they will be required to leave the Prudential Center because of the end of the agreement so yeah I would say that counts as a statement to their status. YborCityJohn (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@YborCityJohn: I did, and I did say the team is likely to move in my edit summary. However, nowhere has an official source said the "must" leave, just reportedly. (In fact, neither org has officially said anything about the arena yet. Only the Devils have said: "Recognizing the current landscape, we believe the best way to support the future of women's hockey is by reallocating our resources to focus strategically on grassroots initiatives that positively impact female youth hockey players in our area, while leveraging our resources to help train, support and develop women's hockey players competing at the highest levels".). The two reports simply states they no longer have agreement with the Devils, and that includes the free use of the rink, similar to the Beauts current situation. After all, the Rivs did play at that rink a year prior to the Devils' partnership, it does not exclude the team from making a new lease agreement until there is an official statement that says so. For now, WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies until something verifiable pops up. A tweet about from reporter is not quite official (Kaplan- "The Riveters will remain, but must find a new place to play. No more games at Hockey House or Pru"), it could just be a summary about no lease. It is best to wait until something from the league comes forward (which could include the league not playing at all). Yosemiter (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@YborCityJohn: Also, the way you wrote this edit implied the team had ceased operations, which is a pretty extreme extrapolation of "no longer sponsored by the Devils, therefore losing free rent". Yosemiter (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You have been "reported"

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#ℯxplicit's Rude Behavior, and others abuse of authority regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk • contribs)

@NostalgiaBuff97501: Mind your head, the boomerang tends to come back. Yosemiter (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and the "boomerang" misses! NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@NostalgiaBuff97501: Check again. The boomerang is already on its way back if you don't change your tone. Yosemiter (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Then ban me permanently already! You don't have the GUTS!!! NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just an observer, but I'd say he should be banned for life. He's obviously not listening to you and is showing complete and utter disrespect. Perhaps, you should ban this individual for good. 2600:6C55:7A00:433:407A:7ED6:3CE6:9F31 (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@NostalgiaBuff97501: and random IP who has only edited here and NostalgiaBuff97501's talk pages. Guts have nothing to do with it (although I have been called heartless, so its close). I am not an administrator and therefore have no authority over the matter. Also please don't WP:SOCKPUPPET or WP:MEATPUPPET (IP address traceable to Medford, Oregon. ZIP code 97501). Yosemiter (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please type so people can understand! WP:BLAH-BLAH-BLAH! NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@NostalgiaBuff97501: I'm sorry that I assumed you were competent at clicking links and reading them. Yosemiter (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A nice link to create. WP:BLAH-BLAH-BLAH! You always post some stupid links to whatever ridiculous "policy" or "rule" that is WAY too long to even understand a tenth of it. Just ban me and get it over with! And put your "sockpuppets" or "meatpuppets" or whatever else you bring out back in the hope chest and keep them there. This is just JUNK!!! For MY help, you're welcome!!! NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@NostalgiaBuff97501:, you are digging yourself a MUCH bigger hole for yourself that you can get out of. I am going to suggest that you be banned for life from Wikipedia. But I know there are certain policies that everyone here needs to follow. You need to stop this nonsense and follow the rules. I will take whatever football helmet you design and try and design them again and ASK if they are good for non-free content use. You, my friend, are an embarrassment and need to be taught a lesson. Shastinian (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Yosemiter! Perhaps, you can go over stuff with me. I will work on learning the rules as I go along. Perhaps I can help with all of those helmets that you say NostalgiaBuff97501 is trying to upload. Sounds like he's rude! Shastinian (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shastinian: That's nice, but the helmets have been removed from arena and indoor football templates due to abuse of WP:NFCC policies. Also, read WP:SOCKPUPPET for your account. Wikipedia administrators have access to tools that can trace accounts that have been used to the same IP addresses. But considering your new user page is the same as the old, good luck. Yosemiter (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

That works. If I'd've known my IP address got hacked, I'd've done something further. But it is what it is. I might be just as creative as that guy is, only better. You and User:Marchjuly and that Explicit person can be of some good help. I think NostalgiaBuff is just BEGGING to be banned and doesn't think you'll do it. I would just get rid of him. There's also someone under CcwStandard, I think. They have been inactive for a while. Perhaps they can be removed, too? Or how does that work? Shastinian (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This user was clearly just talking to himself. Yosemiter (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I've created WP:BLAH-BLAH-BLAH! as a redirect to an appropriate essay. - BilCat (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@BilCat: In this case, it seemed to be more applicable to WP:IDHT. As in, "I see random links, but I don't care enough to actually read them". The past paragraph is very telling in this case: "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." Yosemiter (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

On a "nostalgic" tangent ...

any thoughts on latest happenings at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive 36#Change_of_name_article_for_the_present. Post here or there, if you choose.—Bagumba (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

GOJHL

Hey Yosemiter, I stumbled upon my talk page and noticed the message left about the Lockport/Buffalo Regals. Im still pretty new to the Wikipedia editing world, was trying to update some GOJHL Team pages (I work for 1 team in the league and soon am starting a job with the league itself). The Lockport Regals are moving back to Buffalo and rebranding back to the Buffalo Regals. I apologize for any confusion or headaches involved! You're right I should have messed around in Sandbox first before editing actual pages. My goal was to update every teams logo to their current and accurate one, not sure what is happening but its apparent you've fixed my mistakes. My apologies again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcar1994 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Philcar1994: Since you have personal involvement with the league, please review WP:COI. Having a conflict of interest (your employer) does not prohibit you from editing there, but you do need to disclose it and make sure to make only edits that are verifiable and include reliable sources. That means, no edits that cannot be verified by the general public. In this case, you made an inappropriate edit that completely rolled the page back to a version from nearly three years previous. What you should have done is add a source stating the are moving back to the Buffalo rink and then update the content to the 2019 dates, not delete history from 2016 though 2018. I have been unable to find a direct statement from the team or league that they are once again the Buffalo Regals, but I do see their social media seems to have that name. If you can link me to the announcement of going back to Buffalo, I can walk you though how to change the page if you would like. Yosemiter (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Media info

Hey yosemiter. Sorry about that. I only got your message as I finished up and now have most of the info it needs. Sorry again, next time I will do what you suggested. Thanks for your tips. Birmingham iron fan (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Birmingham iron fan: I was just watching, just thought the sandbox might be helpful. Outside of the extra column, the MOS:SECTIONCAPS, and the N/As, its not too bad. However, may I also suggest adding a WP:CITATION for each deal? That way future editors can verify and see where the information came from. Especially since most of the deals last for only one season (which may also be helpful to specify the duration of the deal in the table). Yosemiter (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: Thank you for the compliment! This is my first big edit (you can probably tell), and I thought it wasn't good. as for the citation, I will try to do that. Thanks again.Also, where's the extra column? I'm probably just blind, but could you point that out? Thanks.

@Birmingham iron fan: I removed it here. Yosemiter (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: Thank you.

Thoughts

I've done a partial revert, specifically with their header changes, related to our resident Lakers fan's comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Los_Angeles_Clippers. I know you've patiently tried to advise them in the past. Is it just me, or is a WP:TOPICBAN worth considering now or soon?—Bagumba (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: In regards to the editor in question, their biggest problem is patience, bias, and using the talk sections as forums. I did try to point out that Clippers' transactions made a much bigger news-hit than the Lakers getting Davis. Otherwise, I not sure I can point out any single useful contribution that wouldn't have been done anyways (Davis trade not in the History of Lakers article, etc). As to the subject they use the talk pages to whine about, I don't really think the Lakers need much. However, the Clippers article could easily be trimmed down via WP:TOOMUCH. That 2017–2019 section seems overly detailed to me. Why is nearly every trade/deal listed? That entire section could be trimmed down to about two paragraphs: one about general rebuilding, Paul/Griffin leaving, and a bit about the arena talks. Honestly, it might be best to call that "2017–present: Jerry West rebuild". That would include the present transactions that have not actually played out yet. There do seem to be sources that West is having an influence on the transactions. Yosemiter (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as the Lakers, do you think a topic ban is warranted? Otherwise, I'll just resume being silent to their talk posts, and exercise WP:BRD.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Based of their WP:IDHT behavior about the Lakers and being reverted multiple times, a Topic Ban is probably warranted for at least a six months to a year. I mostly just wish they would contribute to where encyclopedic work is needed, like the Clippers page, which they clearly noticed. It had so much trivia and WP:PEACOCKery, it was difficult what was actual information from the list of transactions. If they cared so much about headers, they probably would have realized that the "2017–2019" section was actually 2014–2019 and they could have fixed it (here) instead of whine about it. Yosemiter (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Based on this kind of response, they don't seem to be here to try and colloraborate in making an encyclopedia. Fairly sure that tends to get more than a topic ban. Yosemiter (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't plan to proceed as long as you were still investing time with them. A topic ban is a fair expectation. Anything more is a crap shoot, depending on who chimes in. Regarding that specific comment, I personally wouldn't bring it up, as I dont expect much sympathy if an admin originated it. A non-admin would have more legitimacy IMO (WP:NOTCOMPULSORY).—Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Similar to past cases, if they straight refuse to try and learn after several attempts, I stop trying to teach. I don't plan on trying anymore with that one and I mostly meant that behavior leads to getting more than a topic ban in the end, maybe not right now though. There have been much worse offenders in the past (see the NostalgiaBuff issues I had for one that was around for years before others started to chime in). Yosemiter (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I hope silence to any continued fan talk, reverts of any non-NPOV edits, and placing the WP:ONUS on them to gain consensus of any controversial edits will make this subside. I'll leave TBAN as a backup, as I'd rather avoid digging up the diffs, if possible. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Indianapolis Enforcers

Hi this is the owner of the Indianapolis enforcers whoever is updating our Wikipedia page I would really appreciate it if you would put our 2018 stats on there please we finished fourth in the league that year we went for in to in the regular season losing in the playoff to the Marauders getting our season at 4 and 3 overall you can please add this to our stats I appreciate it and if there's any other information that you would like to know about our team please feel free to call me at 317-442-1439 or email me at Coachcarter86@yahoo.com KCEnforcers (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@KCEnforcers: Thank you for reaching out. Is any of that information publicly available? Per Wikipedia policy, all information must be independently verifiable via reliable sources:

"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

WP:Verifiablity

Unfortunately, "because I said it's right" is not usually enough. Please also read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Need to talk please

• Can you contact which user who is expert in Lego-related topics?
• Can you show me the example which pages that can be notable please?

Oon835 (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oon835: I know quite a bit about Lego, but I am not sure there are any Lego "experts" here that are regular contributors (in other words, there may be experts, but they would rarely check their inbox here). Notabilty is entirely based on its independent coverage from reliable sources. Looking over several of the Lego pages, many of them are in bad to very bad shape when it comes to proper sourcing.

For example, Lego Star Wars has multiple sources used, but almost all of them are WP:ROUTINE product announcements, WP:PRIMARY links, or non-reliable user created sources (IMDb). However, within it 87,000+ news articles, many of them do cover the topic of Lego Star Wars, what it is about, and its impact. (Compare Star Wars' 87,000 news hits to say the Powerpuff Girls' 43 total hits.) The topic therefore meets the General Notability Guidelines (GNG).

A worse example is Lego City, one of the oldest themes if you count its existence as Lego Town. The entire page is just a bad product catalogue that completely fails WP:CATALOGUE; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sales catalogue. As written, it also appears to fail the GNG with just two primary sources. But again, the topic DOES meet GNG based on the 41,000+ news articles on the subject. Its just that the entire article NEEDS to be re-written to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Lego City#History section should be the main part of the article, not product listings. FYI, there was an effort some time ago to remove all of these catalogues from toy lines due to violation of WP:CATALOGUE, but it seems they gave up. But just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on the Wikipedia does not mean to continue adding other crap.

Probably the best Lego theme articles are Lego Mindstorms and Lego Speed Champions as they both cover the topic to the extent of their verifiable coverage.

TLDR; I would suggest focusing on fixing the existing bad articles before creating more bad articles. However, if the listings are what you are interested in perhaps try contributing to other wikis, such as Brickipedia, because there already exists better sites for cataloging data. Yosemiter (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter:

• Are you sure that give me the 2 right examples pages that are notable?
• The earlier I went to talk to Onel for some help but ignore me. I thought I following the method of the example from this pages such as Lego Super Heroes, Lego Harry Potter and Lego Pirates of the Caribbean. Do you think this pages are not the right example?

Oon835 (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oon835: Put it this way: if we removed the list of products from those pages, what would it look like? A paragraph each with maybe two sources that are not from Brickset? And those two sources are usually about the video games and not the toys? Yeah, they are in bad shape. Maybe not as bad as City like I listed, but still could use some cleanup.

My point about creating pages is just what I pointed out before, you need to provide sources that prove the topic is notable. The fact that something exists is not sufficient. So modeling a new article, in which you failed to prove is notable, because there are other articles like is not helpful. Product lists should NOT be the main topic and that is all you were making.

P.S. you do not need to use {{reply|Yosemiter}} on this page. It is my talk page and will notify me if any one edits it. Yosemiter (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• If you know a bit on Lego did you create the page of Lego before but I know how to list out set of lego. But I still have the official website lego.com as a reliable source page and I don't copy from website. The earlier my 5 pages was deleted by Onel because they are not notable and I must had follow a wrong way. Do you think you can help me together?Oon835 (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oon835: I did not create them. Lego.com is a primary source and therefore is not applicable for meeting Wikipedia's Notability requirements (that would be like saying because I wrote an autobiography, I am notable and should have a page). The topic of the list must be Notable per Wikipedia's guidelines before it can be published on Wikipedia, so it has nothing to do with your ability to make a list. Please refer to my previous comments on you talk page for what kind of sources are needed to meet the Notability requirements. Yosemiter (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• I forgot to tell you that an earlier Lordtobi gave me this talk page called Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lego and I went to this talk page and asked for help but no answer at all. So you think it's hard to find which user is the expert in Lego-related topics.Oon835 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Please I need discuss you more about Lego. I will follow the 2 pages that are notable but I need you help to find more about source pages and books.Oon835 (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Oon835: For the five themes you mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lego#Need Help (which is a dead project in my observations, so basically useless), you are not going to find book-based publications on those themes. Lego themes just don't get covered like that, at best they get talked about in Lego-enthusiast magazines that I would not call WP:INDEPENDENT (they are usually sponsored by Lego). As I previously stated, one-off themes do not get WP:SUSTAINED coverage past their product announcements (especially in the case of media tie-in line ie Lone Ranger, PowerPuff Girls, DC Superhero Girls, and Scooby-Doo). The only one that may have sustained coverage is the Overwatch theme because a second series has been announced and it is based on subject that gets a lot of long-term coverage. However, a simple redirect to Overwatch (video game)#Related media and merchandise is probably enough to cover that it has Lego sets (which it already has). Yosemiter (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • So that means Lordtobi must had give me the wrong talk page which I didn't know earlier. So where can I find more about source pages and source magazines?Oon835 (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Oon835: First, please WP:INDENT your replies, it makes it easier to read the order of the conversation. Second, Lordtobi wasn't wrong, it's just that there are no editors on the English-language Wikipedia that strongly interested in Lego for there to be any Wikiproject in the first place. Third, I have covered where to find sources plenty with you (such as Google News). However, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines in that the sources you are looking for just simply do not exist from independent prolonged coverage of a theme. I tire of this discussion and I do not believe I can help with what you are looking for. Please stop asking now. Yosemiter (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

198.254.230.81

Hi Yosemiter - you and I have undone several edits by IP 198.254.230.81, who's been removing French translations of Ottawa-area subjects, but I've been the only one to "notify them of the problem" on their talkpage. Please have a look, and chip in if/when you can. Thanks! ....PKT(alk) 22:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@PKT: I tried to give UWs, but all mine edit conflicted with yours before you got to the fourth warning. Yosemiter (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

What can I tell ya, eh? ....PKT(alk) 22:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

S/he's done it again, on Capital Pride (Ottawa) PKT(alk) 22:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@PKT: They're now reported for WP:NOTHERE behaviour. The same IP appears to have been doing it quite some time. Yosemiter (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Payne Arena

Hello Yosemiter, hows your day? I just had a question, the State Farm Hidalgo Arena just recently changed it’s name to the Payne Arena and I was just wondering how would one change the name of the whole article to the new arena name. Thank you so much. Feel free to remove this from your talk. Have a nice day. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Please refer to WP:MOVE. You should already have page move rights (unless under three days old or banned from doing so for previous inappropriate moves). You just go the "More" drop down tab and rename the article. Let me know if you need me to do it, but it would be a better learning experience if you did it yourself. Yosemiter (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Legends Football League

Hey Yosemiter, hows your day? I was just wondering if the new Extreme League is just a rebrand, meaning we will just use the same page. I also was wondering if these were the same teams under new names or were they just new teams in the same locations, because I was wondering if we should change the old pages like Chicago Bliss, to were a women’s American football team instead of are. Thanks, Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatOhioGuy (talk • contribs)

@ThatOhioGuy: The X league claims they are new, but on Wikipedia we use independent reliable sources when determining things like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If public opinion sees it as a continuation of the same league, then renaming is in order; if not, then a new page if it gets enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The problem right now, no independent reliable sources have even noticed that the LFL ceased, much less that an X League launched. So per WP:NOHURRY and WP:TOOSOON, we need to be patient until there are enough outside sources to make a decision. Yosemiter (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

CHL/NHL Top Prospects Game

I need some help at CHL/NHL Top Prospects Game. It looks like the URLs for every game summary no longer work. It also appears there might be a new title sponsor. Do you have time to assist? Flibirigit (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

American Arena League sources

Hello how’s your day? I have noticed how the AAL has been very unreliable lately. I have no clue if you saw this yet but the Tornadoes posted their schedule on YouTube, the Ironmen released their schedule on Facebook and the worst thing of all, the Carolina Energy’s website lists old AAL teams and old Arena Football Teams (the only current one being the Arizona Rattlers), all this is under the “league section”. Also the Tornadoes mention a Maryland team, the Pittsburgh Defenders, the Detroit Ironmen (am error but it’s funny to me) and they mention playing the “England National Indoor Football Team” I kid you not. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Individual teams in the low-pro/semi-pro circuits have always had tons of misinformation on their websites. I believe the AAL website itself used to be maintained by the guy who is now working the media department with the Mass. Pirates, so it looks like the AAL never replaced him. The reason I have to keep writing "announced themselves" and have not changed the league alignment is that the teams are historically unreliable. Many teams in the past announced themselves and were never once mentioned on the AAL website or schedules (Vermont Brew and others that come to mind that never launch or end up in the EIF or similar). I am fairly certain Maryland is a semi-pro team in MAIFL as seen here, I am assuming they mean the PA Copperheads instead of the Defenders (who are most likely dead), and who knows with the so-called National Team. The page will be updated when something verifiable happens, and that may not be until the season starts at this point. And you do not need to update me on the minutia of weird stuff with this league as it seems you too lurk on ArenaFan forums, which I scan every few days as well as Indoor Football Forum and few others so that I can be aware or reports to look for once they are verifiable. Yosemiter (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: Ok, sorry for bothering you. I just thought this stuff was just odd, haha. Have a nice day. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Seems they changed their web address, but the website is still a mess. All the teams that announced themselves are on it though (and the Jersey Bearcats, which said they were part of different league, so there is still issues). I added the teams to "Current" if both the team and website have stated as such. However, I could still use some help finding coaches and venues if they have been announced. (Also, you don't need to use the reply template {{re|}} here, I get notified no matter what on my own talk page.) Cheers, Yosemiter (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I did see something that said the Mid Atlantic Indoor Football League had merged with the AAL so that means the Reading Raptors, Western Maryland Warriors, Maryland Eagles, Central Penn Chargers and the Jersey Bearcats are all joining to form an “East Division”. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Where did you see that? (a link or is just speculation on the comments section of a Facebook page?) It's possible, and they typically have non-league games every season, but the owners of the Raptors and Warriors have pushed the advantages of their semi-pro status over the "professional" claims of the AAL. I just don't see them getting along with the AAL senior managers unless the AAL changes their tune and embraces the semipro budgeting they should be operating on. Yosemiter (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Reading Raptors just confirmed it on their Facebook, I'm not the best at linking sources. I'm also in a discord server about indoor football and we found that Inside The Arena talks about it (given I don't know how reliable they are) ThatOhioGuy (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Ur III, who runs "Inside the Arena" is extremely unreliable. He will "report" on any rumor he sees. He even "reported" on All-Naked Arena League this year after some folks from ArenaFan made a series of jokes on him. I would wait to add until at two announcements are made: one by the teams and another by a league, AAL or MAIFL. There's WP:NORUSH. Yosemiter (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking the same, even though Reading confirmed on their facebook, I agree we should wait for the AAL, even though the AAL facebook hasn't been used since June of 2019. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh I think the merger is confirmed, if you haven't noticed, the AAL website is under construction again and there is a video playing when you get on it and they do show a few MAIFL logos, the Maryland Eagles, Central Penn Charger, and the Western Maryland Warriors, but we should obviously wait for the opening again on February 4th. I'm also shocked the UAL is going to play (with three teams). ThatOhioGuy (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Thanks for the update, but agreed that we should wait until the website loads the schedule (which they have Feb 1 right now it looks like, if that means anything at all with that league). A bit odd the Reading logo was the only MAIFL team not present in the vid despite being the first post the confirmation on their social media. As for the UAL, don't count those chickens til they hatch. "Indoor" teams playing on rodeo grounds have historically folded early. Yosemiter (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Minor leagues and RS

JzG I am open to suggestions then on how to balance keeping leagues and teams up to date while balancing both RS and WP:OR. I heavily push for WP:V, which I use when both a team and the league have stated something, typically to prevent WP:RSBREAKING edits.

But that usually means that I have to keep back other editors from updating pages where even the primary can be non-RS like The Basketball League, American Arena League, National Arena League, Federal Prospects Hockey League, etc, simply because many of these leagues have been tending to rely on social media instead of press releases, which is ignored in newspapers. Non-RS blogs then cover the league changes, something that is easier to link, cite, and archive than a facebook post that can easily be deleted. These fall under questionable and self-published sources, but I do try and make sure the only part being cited from them is a non-controversial fact, such a screenshot of the social media post. In the case of why this ANI was opened in the first place, the BroBible blog was there to show that someone noticed that one league ended and the folks behind it started another. Then maybe four or five months later, a paper might make a blurb of Did you know we had a team? In this case, the The Kent Reporter wrote about it a month later. I have been enforcing "As of" on the league alignments, but it usually feels like I am policing a bunch of fancruft.

There is a reason I have AfD'd and prodded many of the team and season pages involved with these leagues. Yosemiter (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Name change update

Since the football team Acoustic Acoustic changed its name to Austin Sound, can you change the Austin Acoustic page name to "Austin Sound"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1018:C8F8:7014:8329:8BC3:77FF (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@2605:6000:1018:C8F8:7014:8329:8BC3:77FF and Greyjoy: IP, please read WP:COMMONNAME, there needs to be independent reliable sources that use the name before we change names of articles. So far, no one has even reported on the league change much less the team name. Perhaps when games start being played, some news sources might notice. Yosemiter (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Henderson/Las Vegas AHL team

I believe VGK owner Bill Foley mentioned in an interview that the team name would have Henderson in it, not Las Vegas. SportsFan007 (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I read a transcription where he said it would probably be "Henderson or Nevada". But either way, WP:NOTCRYSTAL still applies, the AHL called it Henderson/Las Vegas. Seems odd to call it Henderson if they are not going to play their for a couple of years anyways. Best to wait. Yosemiter (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Faur enough, Thank you! SportsFan007 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@SportsFan007: Just for reference, it was here: [1]. I did see a newer one mention Henderson specifically, but it is all just WP:SPECULATION until announced. Also I saw this edit of yours; is there a source for when the AHL arena will be complete? Or should you note they will be in Henderson "upon completion" instead of the hard (and currently unsourced) date of "2021"? Yosemiter (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I put 2020 back on all of them. SportsFan007 (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I specifically meant your edit to Henderson, Nevada. Is there a source that says they will start playing in Henderson or when the AHL arena is expected to be complete? It would be inaccurate to say they will play in Henderson in 2021 if there is no reference, and it would be inaccurate to say they began play in Henderson in 2020 if they are playing in Paradise. It just needs some clarification statement in your "Established" column. Established in Henderson (maybe 2021?), Established in LV (2020), or Established as a franchise (1971)? Yosemiter (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@SportsFan007: Once the team gets enough press or a team name, the Ice Hockey Wikiproject creates new articles for each team. So a page called Henderson/Las Vegas AHL team or Las Vegas AHL team, depending on the agreed upon WP:COMMONNAME, will be created separate from the San Antonio Rampage. It may be a good idea to use the piped redirect now so when a page is created for the new team, you won't have to around and change all the links immediately. (Also, I will be away for a few weeks, so I won't be of much help soon.) Yosemiter (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok, I see what you are saying, I'll remove it for now. SportsFan007 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Barrhead Bombers

Can you please make my hometown Barrhead Bombers wiki page? VGKCUPCHAMPS'19 (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@VGKCUPCHAMPS'19: From my WP:BEFORE searches here, it either does not pass Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines at this time (WP:TOOSOON) or it is very borderline (especially since they have only played one season that ended up getting cancelled). Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Jersey Hitmen

I have noted that you stated that only the top team (NCDC) is of any importance. That might be your opinion but every level is important to the players, parents, coaches, and families. We are requesting that the additional information be included with regards to Head Coach as well as the page move to Jersey Hitmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondeanny (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jasondeanny: Please note, terminology I used was NOTABLE, which has significant meaning on Wikipedia and is not an opinion. For minute unsourced details (as lists of youth hockey coaches for the mites, which tends to go out of date since no one updates regularly), I suggest you try another wiki, such as the Ice Hockey Wiki. Due to your possible conflict of interest please read THIS LINK. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Canyons Village at Park City

How do you feel about moving Canyons Resort to Canyons Village at Park City with appropriate text edits to reflect new reality ? User:Abune (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Abune: As the main subject article is about a previous independent entity/organization, and not about the physical location (Snyderville Basin), then I would say Canyons Village at Park City is not the appropriate WP:COMMONNAME of the defunct resort given the historical context of the subject itself. All current "Canyons Village" information is already contained within the article Park City Mountain Resort as it is now simply a location within the greater entity post-merger (a la Blackcomb Village). While not completely WP:V, I do know that in local nomenclature, the general area is just simply "Canyons". Yosemiter (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought more about skiing slopes location, difficulty, etc., not about actual ownership or trademark. Do you think it's feasible to move it to Canyons, Utah or just leave it alone as it is ? User:Abune (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Abune: It is about ski areas, and Canyons is not an independent area anymore. All current info is found on the PCMR page; all historical pre-merger info is found on Canyons Resort. For example, they have added runs between the two areas, so how would we verify if those are "Canyons trails" for the Canyons Resort page or "PCMR trails"? The answer is we leave them on the entity that still exists and save the article on Canyons about the entity it once was. As for "Canyons, Utah", it is definitely not the COMMONNAME (that would probably be a DAB page anyways, as Canyoning is very popular is Utah and there are many in Category:Canyons and gorges of Utah). Yosemiter (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, will just leave it alone as it is ! Thank you for your input ! User:Abune (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Abune: No problem, for article titles WP:COMMONNAME would probably be a good read for you (and also WP:INDENT for talk page replies). Other articles to keep on eye on are Alpine Meadows (ski resort) and Squaw Valley Ski Resort as they a single entity now, but have not fully merged at this time (there is no direct way between them yet). Something similar may need to be done there if the gondola is ever built. Yosemiter (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Edson Aeros

Hi, I'm new to this but have created a page for the Edson Aeros. At least i think I have, it says its "draft". How do I link this in the WSHL page? thanks P.S. any assistance would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sample00 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing figure skate

Dear Yosemiter

• I added this to figure skate because there is now other Skate sub fields such as roller skate,inline skate , roller hockey etc in the list of sports, so we have 2 option, 1) add this to figure skate, 2) add an another topic with name of roller skate, inline skate or roller hockey, they are different with ice hockey. so what must we do?

for example roller hockey has professional league in member countries in World Skate Federation.Farahpoor (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Farahpoor: Please read the top of the page you edited: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." You, nor anyone else, can unilaterally change a Notability Guideline without first discussing the change. You must make a WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) using evidence that each and every player for what you are asking has Verifiable Significant independent coverage to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline.

My first question though: What even is a "fully professional figure skating league". Your examples are all team sports, figure skating is not. There are "team events" where single skaters and couples can get a team score (like gymnastics). But I have never heard of "playing figure skating". Yosemiter (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• yes you are right, I have no problem with your discuss, I just said, sports list must have other subfileds of skate, roller,sakte, inline skate, ... that they are team sports which have league. just that. so you say that I must make WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) for those sports and make them independent, ok. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farahpoor (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Block for edit-warring

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit-warring at List of Lego themes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Yosemiter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I freely admit I reverted unsourced changes to List of Lego themes four times over a period of 1 week (not 1 day), but I did so by citing sources and adding them to the article in the reverts themselves such as this edit. I also provided more within the Talk:List of Lego themes such as this addition. I tried to discuss and instead they attacked me, stating they were right despite the sources (even though changed their stance ("faction" was never an official term used by the Lego Group to themes became increasingly associated with "factions"). I was reverted by them stating the primary and secondary sources were "wrong" without a contradictory source to their credit. I was merely acting to protect the content against what appeared to be a user insistent on adding their own OR based on their edit history. I was about to take it to ANEW after the second revert today and the warnings to the user, but I had to leave my computer due to work. If you don't want to unblock me, then so be it, but I was earnestly trying to discuss the changes while maintaining what was verifiable in a limited amount of time, so they appeared as reverts as the IP showed no interest in collaborating or discussing. Yosemiter (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The reverts have been made in good faith, to enforce Wikipedia's policies, by an experienced user who knows about dispute resolution processes and was attempting and intending to use them properly. The block seemed to be necessary to prevent edit warring, and none of the 3RR exceptions clearly applied, but the block might not have been actually necessary to prevent further disruption. It has now expired; welcome back. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

From WP:GAB, it suggests that you must either explain why the block reason is incorrect or not applicable to your conduct, or you must convince the reviewing administrator that you won't do it again. I'd suggest you clarify which direction you are pursuing. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba and JBW: I broke the 3RR in the strictest definition, in that I reverted three times. But I did so believing I was acting in a antivandalism capacity against a well-established NOTHERE editor based on their user page and comments displaying generally uncooperative attitude towards the WP:V in my BRD attempts (and they were shown to be wrong in most instances). I argue, does reverting 24hrs after the offending edit, leaving incorrect info up, make it any better than reverting that editor immediately while also adding sources addressing the incorrect edit? (Mind you, I work in medical and got called away before I could complete an ANEW report.) 48hrs for a first offense also seems a tad harsh based on what I have seen previously given to other editors, but that is my opinion. Yosemiter (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There are exceptions at WP:3RRNO. Which one are you claiming?—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: You have some experience with me and should I know I am pretty open. So, in the most direct sense, I will not claim any 3RRNO outright. #4 is the closest in that the editor was making changes that contradicted sources in the article, and sources I added during the reverts, talk pages, and edit summaries. But I do not think I can honestly say they were "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism" as it is a niche subject that is not monitored or well-sourced as it stands. I did stop after three reverts on the day of the block, but extenuating circumstances stopped my ANEW (which I had never done before and was trying to figure out when I got called away), so I believed I was still following the correct procedure at the time. The fourth revert was 6 days prior. Yosemiter (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You did open a request at AIV, so a parallel ANEW report would have been seen as WP:FORUM shopping. At any rate, the other editor reported you for EW. It does not look like they notified you, which is standard procedure. However, you were presumably already aware of the site's edit warring rules given that you had already warned them about EWing. Generally, it shouldn't matter who files the report. The orginator's behavior is not exempt. I'm not sure if it was directly related to that report, but the admin blocked them for EW first before blocking you 15 minutes later. I've left a note at the blocking admin's page asking for their perspective. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I had multiple pages open, I began writing the ANEW after this revert at 23:40 (which, had I waited on the previous revert by a few minutes, would have been counted as 1 instead of 2? I am not sure how the counting really works as I considered it the same revert of unsourced and contradicted sourced material in my head as I was adding sourcing in the previous revert), giving this warning at 23:40, while simultaneously trying to address further concerns with the IP's edit with this edit at 23:44. I got called about an advisory case at approximately 23:46, paused my diffs additions to the ANEW report, then saw this spite prod at 23:46, but did not revert and figured it might qualify as AIV rather than ANEW at that point given the IPs history, and chose the path I knew better and could do more quickly, so AIV at 23:48 with as much as I could write quickly. I did not complete the ANEW at that point and I left by 00:00. I did get auto pinged in the IP's ANEW edit, but I could not respond before I left and it was after my AIV report. Considering blocks are supposed to prohibit disruptive editing, and not punish because I had to deal with a problem user again, it seems a bit much given the limited time I had to make a decision. I'm not perfect and I may have had a poor choice or two, but I was trying to work within my means at the time, address the IP's concerns, and not surpass the 3 reverts in 24 hours (which is the exact amount I had on that page in that time span). Yosemiter (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not up to me to review your unblock request, but if it were I would not accept the request in its present form, as it is clear from what you have written that you do not understand the reason for the block, and also that you think what you did was justified, suggesting that you would do the same again. Here are a few comments which I hope may help to clarify the issues for you.

1. A significant proportion of what you have written above is explaining why you think your edits were right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right.
2. You are well aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, having commented on them in the past, over the course of several years.
3. Saying that you were careful to avoid overstepping three reverts in 24 hours does not make edit-warring any more acceptable. In fact if anything it makes it less acceptable, as it shows that you knew what you were doing, and were trying to get round the policy by sticking pedantically to what you thought was the letter of the policy. (In fact, that is not the letter of the policy at all, but an astonishingly large number of editors who habitually edit-war think it is. You are blocked for edit-warring, not for breaking the so-called "three revert rule", so whether you stayed within the limits set by that "rule" or not is irrelevant.) JBW (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have thought again about this, to a significant degree as a result of Bagumba encouraging me to do so. I still stand by the substance of what I said above, but considering everything, including the fact that you have not been blocked before, I shall immediately reduce the length of the block to 36 hours rather than 48, and I shall be perfectly happy for any administrator to unblock you immediately if you will state that you will not edit-war again, even if you believe your edits are right. JBW (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Every Edit I see you make, there is absolutely 100% no spamming. Florida Panther77 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Women's ice hockey task force

Thank you for your contributions to women's ice hockey articles. I thought I'd let you know about the women's ice hockey task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's ice hockey. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Cross-namespace redirects

FYI: the proper CSD criterion for cross-namespace redirects from mainspace is R2, not G6. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: My bad, thanks. Yosemiter (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Islanders arena

If things operate with teams playing in their own arenas next season the Islanders will play in their old arena for the 2020–21 season. [2] Deadman137 (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Deadman137: Thanks, I also found this more recent one after my post. Still not a "Nassau will be open" next season type certainty, but what is these days? Yosemiter (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on Gaming the system

Point taken. WinnerWolf99 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Syracuse Stallions

Hi Yosemiter. Regarding this, please see point 3b of WP:DRAFTIFY, which says that pages should not be moved to draft if there is assertion that the page belongs in mainspace, such as a clear statement to that effect in the edit history, or on the talk page, or a revert of a previous draftification. If you don't think the article meets the GNG, I would suggest taking it to AfD. – Joe (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Archive/Access

Now you've archived them, that makes sense, but that wasn't what you did originally (you may have archived them the 2nd time and I missed it), you just changed the access date incorrectly. 194.28.124.55 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Access-date is relative, archive is not. I opened (accessed) the link after you (most recent) when I verified the links in this edit where the time zone of publisher was still the 4th. Access-dates are there to aid the bots in archiving links in cited sources and those links had been archived on the 4th, at 23:19:21 (note: it did not archive on the 5th). You then changed it for no other reason then to express that "I'm right, and you're wrong". I then added the archive and explained in my edit summary why. You then blatantly reverted the archive change, clearly without reading the actual edit or summary, for what appears to be ownership issues. I admit I'm not entirely innocent either, but I was trying to explain and not blindly reverting. Perhaps try using an account so others can better communicate with you? Yosemiter (talk)

Ok, ignoring the fact I'm using an IP (I can't have an account where I am), perhaps you can clear this up for me.

Assume I add a ref to an article today (10th Jan), but the ref was published on the 6th - should I put in the access date? or just not bother and hope someone adds an archive date to it?

Trying to understand, as when I did have an account, not adding an access date was a no-no. 194.28.124.55 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I can give a proper example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EFL_Trophy&diff=prev&oldid=943316163 I added the ref here nearly a year after the article was posted - should I have not used 'access date' and added an archive date? Please explain, so I can do this better. Regards, 194.28.124.55 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@194.28.124.55: (this probably doesn't ping you because you are an IP) Access-date is really only required when the citation is an online publication without date of publication, such as is common with rosters, standings, and statistics on team pages. However, they are still suggested for online sources even with publication dates because of WP:LINKROT; sites die or are updated with the links or content changed so that the source no longer backs the claim it is being used for. At that point, the access-date is used by editors or bots to find the archived link, if it exists, closest to that date. Where you are wrong is assuming that there is a right date/wrong date to use at all; there are no set rules. Best rule of thumb I've seen is the editor who most recently accessed the link should add the date they accessed (such as when I accessed the AHL ones to verify for making it MDY instead of DMY or when I update rosters or standings). Next safest if you're worried about timezones is to just use the date wherever the publisher is. It wouldn't be unheard of to add a cite for an Aussie subject with a date ahead of GMT or anything in North America, I would probably use the access-date at the source instead of my own in North America. You're example looks fine, but if that link does have an archive in the Wayback Machine or similar, you could easily add that instead and never have to worry about LINKROT. Yosemiter (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, that makes (more) sense. 194.28.124.55 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Mess

I know the discussion we are having is messy. I need to learn how to use it better, just wanted to reach out and apologize for making you wade through my replies. Looking forward to reaching consensus.

Youngjtdyt (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

NWHL - Affiliation vs Partnership?

Hi, and thanks for the heads up re:Brampton Beast edit, but I did have a question - I originally hesitate d adding the Six-Beast relationship to the infobox under affiliation, but I saw the news this morning that the Beast head coach is going to be joining the Six in the bubble as part of the coaching staff, which is admittedly a staff transfer than a player transfer, but does seem to indicate something deeper than just a marketing partnership? So I was wondering if there's a different parametre that could be used instead? And, for consistency, the Pride and the Whitecaps both have the respective NHL teams listed as affiliates in their infoboxes, should that be changed? NHCLS (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@NHCLS: Currently, there is no parameter for non-affiliation partnerships in the ice hockey, or general sports team, infoboxes. We could possibly add one, but it should probably be brought up at the Ice Hockey WikiProject or infobox talk pagees. In regards to MN and Boston NWHL team, since the NWHL has no definition for the term "affiliation", I don't see much concern in having them there even though the actual term is not used in any press releases. However, the NHL/AHL/ECHL have a shared players' union where the term "affiliation" is defined within their contracts.

As to Anastas joining the Six, it sort of sounds like he just needs a job and gets along well with Murphy, as well as Kaplan allowing it. I should also note, the Beast are not in a stable financial position and probably could not pay Anastas if the team is not actually playing. They had financial support from the city that ended in 2019–20 and no further statements about the status has been made since then (understandable considering the larger problems right now). Kaplan's own statements ("as many people have still not appreciated or experienced... the equally strong fan experience that the Beast provide") points to this lack of support. Per many "insiders", the Beast are the most likely ECHL team to not return from the hiatus, but right now that is just WP:NOTCRYSTAL and cannot be included on the article. Yosemiter (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense! Thanks for the clarification (I don't really follow a lot of men's hockey, so I'm not always up-to-date with what's going on)! NHCLS (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@NHCLS: I went ahead and added the Beast coach joining the Six for the season the Beast, it seems more than relevant even if the Beast don't come back. Also, as it might be of interest, these non-affiliation "partnerships" also happen in the AHL and ECHL with NHL teams. The Missouri Mavericks partnered with the Blues in the 2016–17 season without affiliation. The Blues have a lot of non-affiliation agreements over the years, such as having player-loan agreements with two AHL teams at once since they did not have an official affiliate when Vegas joined the league in the 2017–18 AHL season. The Canucks also have one this season with the Manitoba Moose due to border crossings and All-Canada divisions while their affiliate is in the US. Yosemiter (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@NHCLS: It looks like you may be inactive now, but just an update, less than one month after this partnership, the Brampton Beast are no more as expected. Yosemiter (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Date format?

Hi, sorry to bother you again, but I was under the impression that the guidelines for date formatting did allow for the Year–Month–Day format (esp. in citations?)? NHCLS (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@NHCLS: You are correct that it is acceptable in citations, although all three points in that supplement apply: MOS:DATEUNIFY (MDY), MOS:DATETIES, (US-based), and MOS:DATEVAR (MDY came first). However, my main comment was in regards to On the 26th of January.... American subjects use MDY per MOS:DATETIES, and we never use ordinals for dates per MOS:BADDATE. Yosemiter (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page edit?

What is a Talk Page edit? I am not aware of such an option? Please explain, I'll follow those instructions for future pages. I'm sorry!Baseballfan1948 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Baseballfan1948: What you just did here is a talk page edit: User talk:Yosemiter. It is the space where editors communicate with each other about the editing of a particular subject, and when we disagree on edits, we discuss to best path forward. Every article on Wikipedia has a talk page, including yourself at User talk:Baseballfan1948, where you have received several messages about articles you have created and edits you have made. You can read more about how they are used at WP:TALK. There are also Wikiprojects where we discuss broader subjects, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball, when we are looking for editing guidance from a larger audience on the subject. Low-pro and semi-pro typically don't have a lot of page watchers, so it is usually quicker to go to subject project pages, usually listed on the talk page of the article, such as the three projects listed at the top of Talk:Grand Rapids Drive. Yosemiter (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Goal horns

Hi. So I see you seem to not like having information about goal horns on pages. Where would be a appropriate place to write about it on a page? Thank you LW8790 (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@LW8790: Outside of improper formatting and broken references (please read WP:CITE to learn how to make in-line references with a template such as Template:Cite web), the main reason I was removing is because of the references you are using, if any are used at all. (I recommend reading each blue link.)

First, information must be Verifiable, so not using any sources for random bits of data is unacceptable.

Second, random uploaders on YouTube are not typically considered Reliable Sources. You or I could just as easily make the same video, with purposely or accidently incorrect info, and then reference it on Wikipedia. This would then introduce incorrect information because you or I are not known reliable sources.

Third, inserting random bits of trivia is trivial. Unless it is a significant part of the team's identity or culture around the team (ie, Brass Bonanza), it is not value added content. Wikipedia is a summary of info, not a database for every little thing. We are not going to suddenly start listing each team's goalposts manufacturer, and we don't need to list the exact make and model of every air horn in an arena.

In summary, the content needs verifiable and reliable sourcing as well as have significance to the subject. If you want to continue the topic of where goal horns can be included, the best place for that discussion is with the the Wikipedia hockey community by starting a section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok I am sorry, I am new here and I don’t know what to do LW8790 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@LW8790: No worries, we were all new here at one time. I would take the time to read the links above about sourcing though, it should be helpful. The Ice Hockey Wikiproject I linked at the end can also help with guidance as the editors there are pretty active. Yosemiter (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! LW8790 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

QMJHL Playoffs

Hi, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to set up a playoff format for the QMJHL playoffs and I was just wondering if you are able to take a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xolkan (talk • contribs)

@Xolkan: I assume you mean for making a template? I haven't been keeping up with the Q, what is the format this year (or send a link to the format when it was announced)? As for making or modifying a template, User:Frietjes is a master of making and improving playoff templates. Yosemiter (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: Yes, that's what I meant. Here is a link to the original format https://theqmjhl.ca/article/the-qmjhl-updates-its-scenarios-for-the-2021-playoffs. Xolkan (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xolkan: It looks like it changed a bit in the Maritimes, round-robin for the second seed I think? I would probably just list the round-robin standings above the bracket (like you already have) and the use Template:4RoundBracket-Byes and simply not fill in the first round for the Maritimes. Although, it seems Frietjes has been consolidating many of the brackets into Template:16TeamBracket and can probably give better advice than me (there is parameter for byes, but I am not sure if it gives the linked lines like the other template does). FYI, you don't need to ping me with the re: template on my own talk page, I have it set to alert if I get any messages here. Yosemiter (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xolkan: I took a stab at it here, please check for errors. Yosemiter (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I double checked it and it looks good, the only thing I would think of changing is moving the Maritimes to the semi-finals as Charlottetown won't play until then. Thanks for the help. Xolkan (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:4RoundBracket-Byes-One-Reseed

Template:4RoundBracket-Byes-One-Reseed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Rammstein on Lego Ideas

As for your edit on Lego Ideas. Yeah, German websites commented on the Rammstein conflict early. As I recall, Rammstein was a banned IP, but the submitter had failed to admit the Idea obviously was based on a Rammstein stage show. Anyhow, good that you found a source in English. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete updates

Are incomplete updates to game logs allowed or not? Reverts like this and this were made because the other editor claims that I should wait for the attendance figures to be reported. However, at the time when those updates were made, the attendance figures were missing from the source. Instead of removing everything, he can just put in the attendance figures himself, isn't it? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@LSGH: You should probably discuss directly with Yowashi instead of me. However, my 2cents: attendance is trivial in comparison to final game scores. If the score is final (not unofficial final) and has good WP:V (such as the boxscore or recap), then I would argue it is fine to have at least the verifiable score in the box. Trivial details (attendance, goal scorers, saves, shots, etc.) can be added later without any sort of effect on record. I have noticed that some of those stats can occasionally be re-evaluated and updated up to 24hrs after the initial reports. With that being said, there is WP:NORUSH, especially on team-specific season pages as they are less visited than league season pages. Yosemiter (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those edits were made after the game, and only the attendance figures were missing from this page at the time when I tried to update the two game logs. Thanks for the advice. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)