User talk:Jbfwildcat
Reversions
[edit]Regarding your insistent reversions on Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball, please be conscious of the three revert rule, as well as WP:EDITWAR, WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. The reverting editor has asked you multiple times to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which you have repeatedly and inexplicably declined to do. This type of behavior is considered disruptive to Wikipedia. I urge you to engage in civil dialogue on the talk page in an attempt to reach WP:CONSENSUS. And leave the attacks ("You are a Kansas fan") and threats ("I will revert every one of your biased edits") at home. Persistent disruptive behavior will get you banned from editing. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic content
[edit]Why do you insist on appending "(aka "The List")" onto the "Cumulative all-time statistics" heading in Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball? I don't know anyone who refers to it like that, and it is definitely not encyclopedic. I'm pretty sure it would run afoul of WP:NPOV. On a fan site, maybe it would be OK, but here on Wikipedia, not so much. Please gain consensus regarding this edit on the article's talk page before you re-insert this appelation. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Again, please take this to the talk page. If you continue to re-insert this content without discussing first, you risk being blocked from editing. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 02:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I AM THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR AND COMPILER OF "THE LIST", that's why! I posted it here originally, I update it here, I completely did ALL of the research on it. I came up with ALL the categories. In point of fact, "The List" has ALWAYS been referred to as "The List" for YEARS on the internet, LONG before it was ever posted here. It was originally compiled and posted on Kentucky Sports Report and The Cat's Pause message boards. Most UK fans on the internet(and elsewhere) are VERY familiar with "The List", and refer to it as such. The fact that you have never heard of it referred this way this merely illustrates the point that you are not a Kentucky fan, but merely someone who likes to nitpick and throw his power around. In short, I compiled it, update it, and I named it. It's my baby, and it's known as "The List". Clear?
- First, you need to adopt a more WP:CIVIL tone. Second, message boards do not constitute reliable sources. Third, if you are the author and have not had this information published in reliable sources, your edits constitute original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. (Every part of this information is attributable to reliable sources except the name "The List".) Fourth, Wikipedia is not a place for discussing whether or not someone is a fan (you have been warned about this before). Finally, you have been repeatedly encouraged to discuss this on the article's talk page and not to repeatedly re-add it with no discussion there. All of this adds up to repeated violations of Wikpedia policy, for which you are dangerously close to receiving a block. You are free to publish whatever you want elsewhere, but on Wikipedia, you are constrained by Wikipedia's policies. I'm copying this discussion to the article's talk page. You are once again encouraged to pursue it there before re-adding this content to the article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Take it to talk. Further edit warring may result in a longer block. Connormah (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Original Research & Original Synthesis
[edit]Hi. Can I strongly recommend you read Wikipedia policy on Original Research and Synthesis before you continue with your edits? Other editors have already tried to point out that what you are doing is not in line with Wikipedia Policy, and indicated why, but you appear to be ignoring what is being explained to you. You cannot research or compile stats yourself and expect Wikipedia to publish them. That includes stats that you have gathered together from multiple sources and added them up. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally, you need to understand that it is not your list. When you put it on Wikipedia it became available to everyone and anyone to edit. See the text at the bottom of every edit page; "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protection
[edit]I know we've had our differences in the past, but what some IP editors have put on your user page lately is not constructive. If you'd like, I can semi-protect your talk page for a while so that IP users cannot edit it. Maybe that will help cool off the dispute and get it back to a discussion of the facts. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Adolph Rupp with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -download ׀ talk 05:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
If you would like to continue discussing this, head to my talk page and discuss this, otherwise, you're revert warring removing cited material and re-inserting material not of an encyclopedic tone. — Moe ε 06:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Re your message: The warning to you and Leochews and protection of the page was strictly because of the edit warring. The article history log of Adolph Rupp is just atrocious and unacceptable. The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule and both of you should have been blocked. I have no interest in the article nor will I moderate any dispute between you and other editors. Please discuss the editing dispute via the dispute resolution process. There have been no discussion of the issue on the talk page and that is unacceptable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Instead of removing sections from the Controversies portion of John Calipari, please add your voice to the discussion on the talk page. I am trying to build a community consensus there about what belongs and what doesn't in the interest of preventing any more edit wars. I plan to leave the discussion open for a good while, so that no one can say they were shut out of it. However, when consensus emerges, anyone trying to violate that consensus can be reported and potentially blocked. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
John Calipari season records table
[edit]Greetings, Jbfwildcat. I have reverted your addition of "overall" to the 1st place finish in the East Division for the Wildcats' finish in the 2009-10 season. Why, you ask? Because (1) the 2009–10 season is already color-coded medium brown for "Conference regular season and conference tournament champion"—please see the key at the bottom of the table; and (2) this is the standard formatting for these tables and the way it's done by WikiProject College basketball (WP:CBB) on every college basketball coach's page on Wikipedia. That's why. To confirm what I'm saying, please see Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams (coach), Rick Pitino, and Adolph Rupp (!). Please note, in particular, how the 1991–92 season is coded for Pitino.
BTW, in case you haven't noticed, I'm one of the editors who is trying to get everyone else to play by the WP rules on the Calipari article, and I've been around WP for a while. You might want to consider that when someone is offering advice on what the correct Wikipedia way is to do something, especially when they're providing links to examples and the applicable rules and guidelines. These articles are not the free-form, add-anything-you-want scenario that they might appear to newcomers. There are rules both Wikipedia-wide, as well as from WikiProject Biography and WikiProject College basketball, as well as the WP Manual of Style. Nobody gets to invent their own rules for their favorite pages. Making changes that are contrary to WP policy or in contravention of WikiProject-level consensus is only going to get you blocked from further editing at some point. Please consider carefully. I am not your adversary, just someone who likes to see things done the right way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Request for Comments: Team infobox practices
[edit]Jbfwildcat, your comments regarding team infobox practices are solicited: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Request for Comments: NCAA Sweet Sixteen phantom appearances. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thomas Robinson
[edit]7 different Major organizations (Sporting News, USBWA, NABC, ESPN.com, AP, John R. Wooden, CBSSports.com) have declared Robinson a 1st team All-American. The page 2012 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans lists him as a consensus All-American. That sure sounds like a Consensus First team All-American to me. I have added him back.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Stop. Based on what I see on here you make it a point to edit war and claim ownership of an article. If you attempt to do both I will request administrator intervention which will probably wind up with you getting blocked. Cease immediately.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Jbf, I have deleted the phantom Sweet 16 appearances from 1939 to 1950 per the overwhelming consensus established at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Request for Comments: NCAA Sweet Sixteen phantom appearances. These phantom appearances were also deleted from the UNC, Texas, Baylor, and NC State men's basketball team articles, as well as the other seven cited in the Request for Comments. The Wildcats are not being treated any differently than any of the other 50+ college teams that appeared in the NCAA Tournament between 1939 and 1950. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not engage in an edit war contrary to the established consensus of WikiProject College basketball. You risk being blocked for violation of WP:3RR. Consider this a gentle warning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you revert the change again that will be your fourth reversion and you will be in violation of WP:3RR, adn you will be blocked. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball
[edit]Please do not misrepresent what I said. I didn't tell the IP editor to stop editing the 2012 team nickname, as you say here. I asked everyone (including you) to stop editing the nickname until consensus was reached. As to your claim that "There is more evidence for the term "Undeniables" than for your term," that has not been sufficiently demonstrated, in my opinion. At least the IP has explained why I couldn't find "8th Wonders" in the Newsbank database. You, on the other hand, have just said "Go Google it" in support of "Undeniables". Once again, the burden of finding a citation is on the editor who wants to include a piece of information (i.e. you). Personally, I'd have no problem with removing the entire section until some time has passed to see how the team will be remembered (and named) a few years removed from their championship. I will say that, if it remains, I believe the IP has provided sufficient evidence to retain "8th Wonders". (I'm assuming good faith that it appeared as the Herald-Leader headline on the date given.) Whether it remains 8th Wonders alone, or "The Undeniables" is mentioned alongside it probably depends on you or someone else showing an equally reliable source for that nickname. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I am just letting you know that as the second leading editor at Duke_Blue_Devils_men's_basketball in terms of edit count, I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tommy_Amaker/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
[edit] Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball seasons may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {{CBB Yearly Record Entry | championship = conference tournament | season = [[2010–11 Kentucky
- {{CBB Yearly Record Entry | season = [[2013-14 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team|2013-14]]|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Missing UK ADs
[edit]Hi- I see you edit a lot of UK related articles (are you AG from RR?). I created the template Template:Kentucky Wildcats athletic director navbox, and would like to fill in information about the two former AD's who don't have an article, Harry Lancaster and Larry Ivy. I have not found a lot of information about either on the internet, somewhat surprisingly for Lancaster, considering the number of years he was around as asst Men's basketball coach and two stints as baseball coach (see Template:Kentucky Wildcats baseball coach navbox). Do you have any good verifiable info about either one that we could use to build a small bio page? Thanks, and go Big Blue! --rogerd (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Year-by-year teams
[edit]I placed a discussion thread on the College basketball talk page you may be interested in commenting on. It surrounds men's basketball play prior to the 1960's/70's and what the project should title men's teams prior to women's programs beginning....My guess is is will be a pain to change them over and cause some controversy and confusion, but I thought we should discuss now rather than later....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry
[edit]I misread the SB Nation claim. I'm sorry about pointing toward you. Runner1928 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)