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 you sent me an email, there's no need to notify me here. I check my email regularly and will respond as time permits.

TB

Hello, BU Rob13. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, BU Rob13. You have new messages at Cyde's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You Got Mail

Hello, BU Rob13. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Paid editor targeting

Hi,

You left me a message because some of my articles had been nominated for deletion by sock puppets/paid editors, possibly to drive business to themselves, as I am a very public and well disclosed paid editor. I answered with some examples. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:BC1278#AfD_nominated_articles

A recent example has come up with an editor who might fit in that category. Hard to tell. I was hired to turn a very short article with multiple issues, Letgo, into a more complete Wikipedia article. I did a complete re-write, and suggested a merger. I also submitted my re-write for review on AfC since I have to have independent review under WP:COI

Draft:Letgo

Very strangely, the editor SwisterTwister rejected the article on notability grounds, even though 1) the article already exists on Wikipedia. This is a re-draft/merger review request that would dramatically improve the existing stub and 2) the notability is beyond question, with articles in Fortune, New York Times, FastCompany, TechCrunch, The Global and Mail, Bloomberg, etc. Their note, about Wikipedia not wanting this type of content, is bizarre.

This particular editor, SwisterTwister , has indeed been reviewing my work over and over and rejecting everything. When I've asked why directly, they have said they do not think work by editors with a WP:COI should be allowed on Wikipedia. And yet the editor patrols AfC, a specific forum for editors with COI, rejecting almost everything, so far as I can tell. It's very strange.

If you'd like to investigate, please do. I just re-submit my work for review by others, which slows things down, but eventually gets the job done.

Best,

Ed BC1278 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)BC1278

• BC1278, to specify, my examinations and reviews were supported by our policies; next, because our policies are highly selective in what's accepted, the sources you gave (regardless of what publications they are) are known PR tech trade publications which largely influence or copypaste what the company said about itself, so it wouldn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG and WP:RS; at best, the only genuinely convincing source would be NYT, given it has the best editorial supervision of all, followed the Globe and Mail. I welcome anyone to re-review it, but that's not a guarantee at all anyone else will instantly accept it, but compared to the current article at Letgo which only has a few sentences, the version you've requested be accepted is largely consisting of what the company itself advertises, such as funding, financials, who it worked with and what specifics they have about it, etc. When a company has to largely only focus with funding or what it announces about itself, it's not independent and it only mirrors what their own "About" websites would say, which is what our policy WP:Wikipedia is not a webhost states. While this company may be considered significant to its customers and investors, that's not a sole factor in notability. Fortune, for example, is a simply a business announcement about its own funding and words about it, as is WallStreetJournal. Our policies also allow declining of anything that is suspected to misuse Wikipedia as a webhost. Even if you openly stated your payment and COI, this would still in turn be accepting the company's own motivated advertising. As a note, we as a community have largely been removing such PR-sections as "investors" as they have been shown to only serve as an advertised PR section. Simply because the company itself has paid to have their own article enlarged, would suggest Wikipedia:Ownership of content. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't had a chance to look into this overall situation, but I will. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I've finally had a chance to take a look. First off, BC1278, there are cases of undue weight in this article. Having a whole section saying "They raised money, and then more money, and then even more money" doesn't tell us anything about the company. It's good press, but it's not what Wikipedia is for. Consider, for contrast, Apple Inc., which barely discusses investing. It certainly doesn't cover specific investors; that would be well outside the scope of a summary style article. The writing could use substantial improvement and copy-editing, espcially with regard to dates. Choose a consistent and normal date style, such as Month Year. No commas between the two. No Month of Year. Those are weird styles, and they're inconsistent within the article to boot. Move all references to the ends of sentences unless the claim is particularly controversial, in which case put it at the end of a clause separated by a comma. Two words should never be separated by a reference without any punctuation. Remove any claims by the company about future sales, etc., focusing only on what's happened (WP:NOTCRYSTAL). Don't use the lead to place the company on a pedestal with some of the largest tech companies out there. It's undue weight to put that in the first sentence. You can note in the history that Letgo intends to compete with eBay, but you can't say it does compete with eBay without independent evidence; there's simply no evidence that they even have a similar customer base. You're welcome to create articles for pay, but you must do so completely and within all guidelines. We're not going to accept a half-baked paid article and leave it to volunteers to earn the rest of your paycheck for you. Lastly, please don't put merge banners on an article for a draft. That's not what they're intended for.

      @SwisterTwister: What you wrote above is simply inaccurate. WP:NOTWEBHOST states that Wikipedia can't be used to host content unrelated to developing an encyclopedia. The fact that a company wants an article doesn't mean that it's using Wikipedia as a webhost by having one created with proper disclosure. Target Corporation certainly wants a Wikipedia article; do we delete theirs? Certainly not. Anything that fits notability criteria doesn't fall under WP:NOTWEBHOST. Payment for edits and WP:OWN simply have nothing to do with each other when the editor isn't even editing the article directly and is going through all the proper channels to suggest their edits. WP:OWN states that no one editor or company controls the content of the article, but it clearly doesn't bar anyone from making or suggesting changes in a draft. It's very, very clear that this company passes GNG. I'm highly concerned that you don't see that. The piece from The Globe and Mail is substantial, independent, and neutral. It never overstates what the company is doing, just says it's trying to do things. It's also published in one of the most reputable papers in Canada. The New York Times piece is also substantial, independent, and neutral. That publication has high editorial standards. Bloomberg removes any chance of doubt. TechCrunch is dismissable, as they often just print what PR companies want them to, but those first three sources are beyond reproach. I share many of your concerns with paid editing, but based on our policies and guidelines, there is no basis for you to reject this article on the basis of notability. Please review this situation and ask questions if necessary to clarify. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I always agree that my suggestions can be substantially improved with feedback. Your feedback is much appreciated and I will incorporate them into my suggested draft. Even though I've now written many articles over two years, I learn more all the time. And as you note, these are only suggestions by me. I don't do direct editing on any piece where I have a WP:COI. I always ask someone independent to review everything I've done, even if it takes months to get a review. I was specifically asked by Rob₁₃ if anything strange was up, as he alerted me that a known sock puppet who was a paid editor nominated an article I made suggestions about for deletion. This instance struck me as a very strange situation. So I mentioned it to Rob only because I was asked to keep such stuff in mind. I don't have time to investigate people's motives, and it's not as though I'm personally going to do anything else about this problem with the reviewing editor. I am just going to improve this draft and deal with getting the suggestions reviewed.65.202.4.154 (talk)BC1278 —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BU Rob13. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Liza Ferschtman.
Message added 08:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Truck-driving country

I also left these for MusikAnimal:

1) Could you keep an eye on Truck-driving country and User:Robertlerner? Newly created account, insists on overlinking on the article and resorted to calling me a troll.

2) Oops, I accidentally screwed up with WP:3RR. My bad. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 00:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

PD info

For File:Djibouti National Olympic Committee Logo.jpg, I wanted to use it as the image for the Good Topic of Djibouti at the Olympics. I uploaded it and as of right now I have it as fair use, but I think an argument could probably be made for PD. Do you have any recommendations for the PD route? Kees08 (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kees08: That image is definitely not public domain. It was created, at the earliest, in 1977. Under Djibouti's copyright law, it was under copyright until at least 2003, which is after the URAA date. Images that were copyrighted in the source countries as of the URAA date will by copyrighted in the United States for the foreseeable future. As for non-free use, that's doubtful as well. The logo can be used to identify the Djibouti National Olympic Committee, but our non-free use criteria require that non-free images are only used to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". The topic itself isn't being identified by this image, so personally, I think the non-free use is invalid. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: That's fair, and I will not be upset if you nominate it for deletion. I think an argument could be made that the topic is identified by the image, as the NOC represents Djibouti at the Olympics, it is the logo for them, and that is what the article is about. Thanks for taking a look at it and feel free to nominate it for deletion if you feel that is necessary. Kees08 (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Score format

Need your help, please see here. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 05:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Crash Underride: I admittedly don't understand the consensus here. Why does the winning score go first? This is not always the common format for some (many?) sports. Often, either the home team is listed first always or the team you're primarily talking about is listed first, at least how I see it "in the wild". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Look in newspapers, websites, etc. That's how it's been done for as long as I can remember. With away team on left / top and home team on right / bottom in tables. Just go watch any game, that's how they are done. lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: I agree "Away–Home" or "Home–Away" is often standard (varies by publication). But why did the community approve "Winning–Losing" in the past? That's not a convention almost anywhere. I'm befuddled why anyone would even care to spend time pinning down which way we should display scores, really, since it's mostly a language variant type issue. I'd be quite peeved if someone changed that in my articles just for the sake of complying to some arbitrary guideline not representative of how reliable sources cover things. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, in (North) American sports the score format, in prose has (in my experience, 31 years) always been "winning-losing". For example, just look at newspaper articles on games, or watch ESPN, NFL Network, etc.. That's how the scores are always given. Mind you, the consensus was reached in the NFL project, and regarded (North) American sports, not European. In fact, that was even brought up in the discussion. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 1950 Montreal Alouettes season

On 9 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1950 Montreal Alouettes season, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Montreal Alouettes won the 37th Grey Cup in 1949 but did not make the playoffs the following season? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1950 Montreal Alouettes season. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1950 Montreal Alouettes season), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Newton

Protection just expired on Cam Newton. Surprisingly, it lasted an entire 56 minutes before an idiot got to it. Lizard (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you don't see fit to re-protect the page quite yet, that user could definitely use permanent reprimanding if you catch my drift. Lizard (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've applied pending for a year. Let's see if that works for the off-season. If it picks up, drop me a line. Permanent reprimand delivered. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Usage example for AWB tool per our discussion over WP:PERM

Hello! As required, I was able to establish a good use-case for using AWB.
While trying to figure out the tasks where I could potentially use it (for demonstrating examples), I stumbled upon "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages", where I was already tagging articles with the 'orphan' tag using Twinkle.
Today, I did that in bulk (manually) where the initial count was 36 (before today) and at the moment, it is up to 111 (and counting). You may refer the same here.
Hope that these convey the kind of contributions I intend to provide with, while using AWB (and a lot more). Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Topcipher: As requested at WP:PERM/AWB, I'd like you to take a full week or so chipping away at AWB-style tasks to get a feel for them. Part of the reason to spend time doing this (and do it with varied types of edits) is to get a feel for the edge cases – situations that may pop up rarely but cause problems when you write regex without considering them. Understanding the types of edits you plan to make with AWB fully is quite important to prevent mistakes (as is carefully reviewing each and every edit that pops up). Please give it at least the full seven days or 250 varied types of edits you could perform with AWB (whichever is less, although I would expect some additional edits over the 7 days, obviously) to get a good feel for the types of edits you want to perform. I doubt I'll have any problem granting after that. The additional edits will also give me a chance to comment on what AWB may not be good for, so you can learn from that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thank you for taking time and reviewing it. Trust that the example that I have shared above is within bounds of what was expected (or rather without flaw).
& okay; if this is the only way, then will reach back after a week by fulfilling the aforementioned parameters.
Side note - Let me profess this by saying that I have no issues with having to first demonstrate a few more examples (as required);
however, I do realize that this is extremely outside the bounds of existing procedures. While I understand that with my original proposal to request permission, I may have indicated the usage to be other than what AWB was intended to do but as explained, it was merely a theoretical assumption (which I still suppose is on fair grounds and very much relevantly appropriate to the point), as I did not have a frame of reference to compare it from in the actual sense. If the same is still in play, I'd like to believe that it is safe to assume that I was able to justify my proposal and most importantly, the intent, with the explanations that followed.
Having said that, might I request a second opinion on this before I get on to a task which I very much doubt I'd be required to do, if this was assessed from a different source?
Would appreciate your discretion on the same. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Topcipher: You're always welcome to request permissions again at WP:PERM/AWB, but I highly doubt another administrator would "overrule" me on this. I'm one of the most (the most?) experienced admins when it comes to AWB who also handles permissions. My goal isn't just to approve someone, but to set them up for long-term success with AWB. My standards have risen recently because we've had multiple long-term editors who have used AWB in extremely problematic ways. This has spawned a lot of community headache. I have no desire to go through that again, and I also have no desire for you to go through that. Building a short record to give me a chance to comment and offer suggestions on your intended use cases is the best way to ensure that you're a successful AWB user in the long-term, rather than one who has it revoked due to repeated mistakes a couple weeks from now. That has happened before to others who jumped in too fast without an appreciation for the types of edits they're making. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks, again (for your time). I suppose I should first have a better understanding in what I'm doing - with respect to AWB!
As assured, if you believe this to be the only way, then I WILL ensure to live up to the set standards and follow-up in a week's time :).
TopCipher (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Tagging

Trying to figure out why WP:CFL was added here. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: Damn it. Category:Alberta Golden Bears ice hockey players was in the category tree of Category:U Sports football teams, which I believe we tagged automatically. I'll go through all articles and fix this. I did manually check the category tree, but I must have missed this one. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Bill Walsh

I never have much luck with this, but surely Bill Walsh (American football coach) can be moved to Bill Walsh, no? I know asserting an American subject is a primary topic over European subjects is heresy on Wikipedia but the man won three Super Bowls. Lizard (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

But, but, what about Bill Walsh (American football player)???? lol ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably the primary topic, yes. Start a WP:RM discussion; they're quite easy to get started. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for all your help!!! Dolotta (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Osweiler

Can you put 30/500 protection on Brock Osweiler? No official announcements have been made, and all sources are in future tense. Lizard (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, screw it. Who am I kidding. Lizard (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for the delay, had a very long list of things to do when I first popped on and this was toward the bottom. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm just not sure how strict is too strict anymore. What even is an "official announcement"? Are teams required to release such an announcement? Lizard (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Official announcement" just means that one of the teams says "Yeah, we traded this guy." It's not a high bar. Trust me, reporters are already badgering both teams for a statement, and they'll release one as soon as the deal is truly final. Trades regularly break down even in the final stages (see the Sixers/Bulls trade for Okafor that never was ). I don't think you're being any more strict than is necessary to guarantee accuracy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As long as we don't shame ourselves with another "Goodell is dead" moment. Lizard (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see that as a failure on our part. We take news from reliable sources. The NFL Twitter is reliable. It's not our fault they got hacked, and we retracted as soon as the NFL did. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Alston (gridiron football)

On 10 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Alston (gridiron football), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that gridiron football player Charles Alston was the first college athlete to play in NCAA football and basketball games on the same day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Alston (gridiron football). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Charles Alston (gridiron football)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Almon at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User running amok

I'm not sure if User:Swagner6 is vandalizing or just incompetent but either way he's leaving a mess in his wake. It's compounding the already hectic task of trying to sort out fact from rumors. Lizard (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently enjoying Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard. Oshwah Can you evaluate if immediate action is needed here? I'll look tomorrow morning when Im back at a computer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 - Can do. Enjoy your time away :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit here changes the article subject's description of a picture without changing it, and adds '99' as the user's jersey number. I'm leaning towards bad faith editing, but I'll review the other edits and go from there. Lizard the Wizard - We're looking into it ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

My initial reaction was he didn't really understand what he was changing. Like here, where he changed the image caption to reflect the player's new team. But subsequent edits seemed either speculative or in bad faith. Lizard (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Lizard the Wizard - I'm going to hold off from doing anything for now, and for two reasons: 1) The editing has stopped, and 2) some of the edits do appear to be in good faith. The user has also been warned. If the disruption continues, please let me know or throw a report in the AIV pile. Happy Friday to you both :-). Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Pushing DYK QA upstream so it happens on the nom page instead of Talk:DYK, ERRORS, TRM's talk page, etc.

Re your comment here [1] you might be interested in my proposal here [2] re getting QA of approved DYKs moved earlier in the process, so that it can happen on the still-open nom page (where nominators, reviewers, and other interested parties are watching) instead of in the shadows downstream. EEng 17:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I'm supportive of whatever helps, but that wouldn't make much difference, in my opinion. I've had hooks questioned plenty of times before, always with a courtesy note on my talk page or a ping. Almost every time, the result is me explaining something about Canadian football and the hook running as-is. Sometimes there's a slight reword. Now, a single contributor has questioned 3 hooks of mine without pings, despite the fact that he was just blatantly incorrect about 2 of them (the third complaint was about an orphaned article, which was quickly corrected, and would have been corrected before it ran if he had pinged me). Eventually, it becomes apparent that he's operating with different objectives from others running QA. Until those objectives change, nothing will change. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree re true objectives -- his activities are POINTY on steroids. But I think that, as a practical matter, it's reasonable to expect nominators and reviewers to keep watching a DYK nom page until the hook gets through the main page, and thus if QA efforts take place on that page all interested will automatically know about it. Even if you think pings should be sent, the nom page carries the names of everyone who needs pinging. Personally I think the small change I proposed would have definite benegits. I know it would get me back to checking approved hooks again. But I won't in the toxic environment that's been DYK recently. EEng 18:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

My own tendency is to watch DYK nom pages (both my own noms and the ones I've reviewed) until they get marked as closed. I hadn't realized that important changes would potentially happen after that. I think that, as a matter of common courtesy, if any closed nom gets reopened, the person doing so should also ping the contributors to it rather than just hoping they pay attention (or worse hoping they don't). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's worse than that. The noms aren't even being reopened, in the sense of editing the nom page to return its status from closed=yes (or whatever) back to the state it has during the discussion/approval process. Instead, hooks are being discussed at TDKY and ERRORS, and hooks tinkered with in Prep or Q. Even if you have the nom page watchlisted, you might not even know it. As mentioned in my OP to this thread, what I'm trying to do is get QA eyes ("the eagle-eyes" as I call them, including TRM) to do their work as noms move onto the new Approved page. This way the nom is still open and presumably those concerned are still watching, and QA discussion becomes an extension of the nom discussion already there. EEng 00:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: The problem is that the objective here appears to be pointing out how right he is about the main page and DYK. If his goal is pointing out errors in preps, queues, and on the main page, not in actually fixing anything, then he just won't move the QA to the nom pages. He'll wait intentionally so that he can complain about DYK. I don't think the toxic environment is likely to change until TRM is topic banned, honestly, which is probably not all that far off. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

100% agree that's what's going on. BUT (a) sooner or later others need to get involved in QA, and this will make it easier, and (b) if everyone else is doing it at the Approved stage, and he insists on waiting until preps and Qs, it makes it more obvious what his POINT is. EEng 19:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another satisfied customer. EEng 20:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• And by the way, insect, you have been dismissed! [3] EEng 22:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Coffee: I have reverted your "redactions" as per WP:TPO. You've claimed we're casting aspersions, but all ArbCom principles about casting aspersions require many things that haven't been met here, such as things being repeated, intended to besmirch someone's reputation, making claims without evidence, and even the very basic thing of claiming a wrongdoing. The reality is that we're focusing on actions, not contributors, so these are not personal attacks. We're also doing so with mountains of evidence, a single time, while discussing how things can be improved to mitigate the problem. Taking your definition of aspersions, no editor would be able to discuss the behavior of any other editor anywhere on site. Do not refactor my comments again unless you believe they're eligible for revision deletion, in which case you should be prepared for a thorough examination of whether they truly do. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:UC Davis Aggies baseball coach navbox

BU Rob13, can you undelete Template:UC Davis Aggies baseball coach navbox? It now has enough blue links. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk)

@Jweiss11: When I look at the deleted template, it still only has two blue links. What are the four blue links that would be applicable to the navbox? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It should link to UC Davis Aggies baseball and to three head coaches that now have articles: Vern Hickey (1938–1948), Will Lotter (1953–1958), and Matt Vaughn (2012– ). Perhaps Hickey and Lotter are listed with different variants of their name? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Those first two were never head coaches of UC Davis' baseball team. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

They were indeed; see page: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ucda/sports/m-basebl/auto_pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/2016RecordBook.pdf, page 27. Can you tell me the what the coaching history looks like in the delete template? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Hmm, it seems it starts when UC Davis took on that name. Do you think it should go back farther? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the standard procedure with these templates and every other way we represente colleges and college sports programs that have undergone name changes. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Alright. If that's how it's usually done, I have no objection. I can't personally undelete it because I was the nominator, not the deleting admin, and so I'm WP:INVOLVED. Feel free to contact the deleting admin and link to my agreement that it should be undeleted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Plastikspork: can you undelete this template? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Jweiss11, done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Jweiss11 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)