User talk:BU Rob13

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by .

Quarterback

May I call you Rob? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:A6 (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what's up? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well Rob, I'm the one you blocked. For good reason. I'm persistent to say the least. Forgive me...I'm not particularly computer savvy, I don't believe I fully understand the talk feature here and I don't normally care to edit anything on any website for any reason...but that subsection of the article on the position of Quarterback sits particularly poorly with me. Since you are the VERY FIRST EDITOR TO DIGNIFY ME WITH A RESPONSE...please explain to me why it is that am article that is supposed to be about a position in a sport, delves into the topic of race? It seems misplaced, to put it mildly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:A6 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking any position on the content dispute itself. I haven't evaluated the article and I don't know the context of that section. The reason you were blocked wasn't because your position was inherently unreasonable; it was because you were reverting continuously instead of discussing the changes you'd like to be made. I'm sure you can understand how the encyclopedia couldn't run well if every editor did that, which is why we have policies against edit warring. Having said that, the appropriate way to solve a content dispute is to take it to the talk page of the article (Talk:Quarterback) and start a discussion with other editors to discuss whether it should be removed. While you're blocked, you're not permitted to edit anywhere on Wikipedia (including that talk page or even here, technically), so you'd be unable to engage in that discussion. Having said that, if you agree to discuss on the article's talk page rather than edit warring, I'd be willing to unblock you. Are you willing to do that? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I'm not concerned with being blocked....I mean, here I am, right? Block or not...you do what you feel is right and so will I. Having said that, this is the first time somebody has even pointed me in the direction of that page. Maybe the other editors need retraining, because they don't seem to grasp the concept that not everyone spends time editing this site and don't know how to navigate it unless they're looking for content...maybe the interface is simply THAT confusing....

I will follow your link, but please do me a favor.....look carefully and review that section and objectively ask yourself. What exactly does a perceived racial bias in ONE professional football league have to do with the POSITION of quarterback as it relates to the game of football? Even if it were true (and maybe it is), is the article a referendum on racial disparity in the NFL or is it about a player position? What does that say to a kid in the youngest leagues in the game? Grade school? High school? College? - At very best, the whole subsection seems like it belongs on the NFL page and NOT on the Quarterback page. Being black or white or Latino or Chinese.....these things don't have a single thing to do with playing that position....also notice that it shows up NOWHERE ELSE FOR ANY POSITION....that I've looked at anyway.

Seriously though...when is the last time you saw a white Cornerback? 2003? There's no race subheading in that article - nor should there be....it's irrelevant to the position... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:A6 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking a stance on the content dispute. I've unprotected the page and unblocked your account. Please take your suggestions to the talk page. If you revert the edits again, you're likely to be swiftly reblocked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I talked. I have come away with the very distinct impression their minds were made up long before I brought up the issue. No progress was made at all. What is the next step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:803:0:0:0:B8 (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue this further, see WP:Dispute resolution. I'd recommend specifically looking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, which allows you to list a discussion to draw in outside input. If you create an RfC as described in that link, you could also place a neutral notification at WT:NFL, the talk page of a WikiProject dedicated to NFL-related articles. Neutral means that you don't take any side whatsoever in your notification; it should basically read "There's a discussion about the inclusion of certain information relating to the race of quarterbacks in the NFL at Talk:Quarterback. Please take a look and comment if you have an opinion" with no further information favoring one side of the debate. Editors can read your arguments once they get there. You should be prepared for the possibility that consensus may favor including the material in the article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NFL player awards

Seeing as the Ed Block Courage Award is an individual award and not a team award, why doesn't it go in the infobox? (Brought here by the Mike Lucky article.) CrashUnderride 07:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash Underride: There were a few discussions on that one. Basically, it's not related to their sports accomplishments in any way. It's basically a "good guy" award that isn't very exclusive (32 award winners per year, 1 per team). If we're providing career highlights, "having good sportsmanship" isn't exactly a highlight. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this was brought up, because I came over to mention that I think we should keep Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year in the infobox. It's a good guy award, but from looking around it seems like it gets a good amount of coverage and prestige (even though its article in its current state doesn't really convey that, but that means nothing with NFL award articles). It also gives more consideration to on-field play than other good guy awards, so it's kind of a hybrid award. Plus it's the only good guy award listed on PFR. Lizard (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Warner said it's the award that stands out most to him out of every NFL award. He might have just been paying lip service, but our notability standards don't distinguish between sincerity and lip service last time I checked. Lizard (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't plan to delete anything without clear consensus at WT:NFL. I'm having trouble finding it at the moment, but I recall there being a discussion on the Ed Block award with most people thinking a "good guy" award given out to 32 people per year not being worth the infobox space. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need to start knocking some awards out. As in, out of Wikipedia. We have zero notability/verifiability standards when it comes to awards. We can't just continue to let awards and navboxes build up like this. Template:Rudy Award (collegiate) seriously? Isn't there a CSD for navboxes that have 1 link or less and cannot be reasonably expected to contain more? Lizard (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard: Sports navboxes in general have been a shitshow as long as I've been here. I'm finally taking them on. I've nominated a huge number of coaching navboxes at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion recently, for instance. If a navbox has less than four total links in it (including the header link), they are near universally deleted at TfD, so just nominate away. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a template for nearly every award the Touchdown Club of Columbus hands out, and the references on that article are 4 links to a spam website. So we're dedicating what, 15 navboxes for this shady awards presenter? I'm guessing the site once hosted the content that the references claim, but the fact remains that they were all first-party. Do you think it's reasonable to TfD all of them under the rationale that the parent article is pathetically sourced, and that they can be recreated after better sourcing is added? If that's a thing we can do, I'd be in favor of torching every awards navbox that applies to. Lizard (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have a much easier time with such a mass-nomination if you took the article to AfD first. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of clarity

Please do not take the below message uncivil or rude. I'll express my point as calmly as possible.
Since you were suspicious that I am a sock here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarojupreti I thought ill clear myself:

You said I signed Nepalis guestbook. I did because I needed that barnstar! I do love wikilove.
I did nominate his pages for deletion. I could not see every nonsense page being in Template namespace. I emailed User:MusikAnimal about this guy (You can ask him) as a result his page Template:User belives God (wrong spelling intended) was moved to his userspace.
I did create a SPI case for his bot because at that time I understood Sockpuppetry as creating multiple accounts without following a procedure in which you had to declare your second account through a link on your user page. I got the thing later.
I copied the whole user page format from User:Mr rnddude whom I even told I am copying your format in this edit - [1]
My idea about the guestbook is a story - I visited The Counter Vandalism Unit Academy and started taking training from User:DatGuy (you can confirm) and there I saw another of his student User:Hamham31 and saw a guestbook on his page. He had multiple guestbook barnstars. This gave me an idea to sign their books and get barnstars. One of them was User:Solar Police who was giving barnstars for signing. I copied the format and made my own guestbook. My original guestbook had the same color as his (you can check). I also designed the barnstar for signing my guestbook so that I could award others.
And that bot thing is for what I feel too foolish now, At that time I was barely a week old to Wikipedia probably and didnt know much so I just requested. I had just leerned what a bot was. So i am sorry for the trouble I caused sorry.
I didnt even knew about the User:VarunFEB2003/GuestbookBarnstar page created by Tiger Gang. I have nominated it for deletion since I dont need it. Thanks for informing me.
And I did participate in AfD because I thought I should participate. Afterall AfDs are meant for public participation Aren't they? (Please correct me if I am wrong. — Varun FEB2003 I am Busy 14:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged here, I figure that the hilarity is about to ensue. My earliest editing involved the extremely complicated wikimarkup design (based off John's page, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's page, Queerly Bohemian's page, and others that I cannot recall). I bring this up because of this comment "I fail to see how even the most competent editor could create that userpage shortly after joining." I quite practically did so in my first 50 edits here. Please refer to my talk page for an explanation if necessary, thread section Question. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003: Hi. Sorry I didn't respond to your message sooner, but I wanted to process it a bit. I don't make an accusation of sockpuppetry lightly, especially given that I've been accused of the same myself based on very little evidence. I don't think the "evidence" of a potential relation is strong enough to indicate you're a sockpuppet for sure, but I did think that it was strong enough to warrant an examination of the technical evidence. I stand by that judgement, and the CheckUser evaluating the evidence I provided agreed given the check they performed. I purposefully didn't approach you directly about my concerns so as to avoid being uncivil. In a sockpuppetry situation, there's really nothing you can say to "defend" yourself, so when I suspect something might be going on, I report it quietly at SPI and let them handle it as appropriate so as not to cause alarm to the editor in question if they turn out to be a different person. None of the actions you took that I linked to in that report were negative (other than potential biting, I suppose), but there was enough cross-over between your actions and the actions of the other sockpuppets that I thought it was worth a look. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I greatly understand any good user would do that. You acted that in good faith, I had understood that's why I came here told you my story so that you do not have any more doubts about me. I just wanted to clear myself. And thank you for acting as a good admin. I am always open to criticism and if you feel I have done something wrong you can very openly tell it , I won't categorize it as uncivil or just trout me! Many thanks and sincere regards. — Varun FEB2003 I am Offline 09:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soil?

Can you check this rather odd edit please? It doesn't appear to have anything to do with stub templates. Cheers. PC78 (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this gave me a laugh. Lizard (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PC78: It appears I left the talk page clean-up module from Magioladitis on. He may want to check out how it behaves with alternative capitalizations, as that seems to be the bug that this is originating from. My apologies. That bug is unlikely to have affected any other articles, but I'll be sure to disable that module in the future. I tend to just leave it enabled because it shouldn't cause problems when run in the mainspace, but evidently it can. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this template is in the rare cases of Wikipedia:Templates with names differing only in capitalization. Both Template:SOiL and Template:Soil exist. I suggest that we orphan the second one and make it a redirect of the first one. Still, the module should not be ran in any other namespaces exactly to avoid similar problems. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are at about 150 pages with the redirect. We could replace them and then remove this piece of code form the module. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Park Ye-eun redirect

I am not sure why you linked to WP:RFD. Can you explain? Random86 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Random86: Whoops, that was a brain fart. I meant to link to WP:RM. Given that this page was moved in the past from Yeeun to Yenny (singer) and eventually to Yenny without discussion, it's best to have an actual discussion before placing it back at a similar name. I'm not commenting on the merits of the move, just stating that I don't feel it qualified as "uncontroversial maintenance" given the past moves. Apologies for the confusion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I wasn't aware the page had been moved that many times. Random86 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Templates

What templates are being deleted? All I heard is that you blanked four of my sandboxes: I've listed the edits in which you blanked the sandboxes below:-

TedEdwards (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TedEdwards: Several TV related sub templates were nominated for deletion and closed as delete because the templates have now been converted to modules that don't require the subtemplates. I think Template:Episode table/reference was the main one on those pages. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you harassing me on my Talk Page?

In answer to you: "No, I am apparently NOT "welcome" to use the Talk page for this, or any other purpose. Stop lying. Clearly, people like you think they OWN these articles, and they are carefully avoiding allowing anything it that would embarrass corrupt politicans and terrorists. And you'll have to show how what I've written amounts to a "BLP violation", especially within a Talk page! That, you won't do, because then you'd need FACTS, which you don't have. And BTW, when I was blocked, it was ostensibly solely because I was claimed to be in violation of the 3RR. Funny thing was, I first did two reverts of VANDALISM, restoring text that had itself been reverted by a "burner" account that only began to be used 11 minutes after I initially added the material. The 3RR rule clearly states that reverts of VANDALISM are not supposed to be counted against the 3RR. The problem is, when the vandals are those who think they "own" an article, it's easy for them to collude to harass an editor who has a different and conflicting point of view. Are you one of those vandals, or are you trying to assist them?" 75.175.65.141 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]