User talk:Bhockey10/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bhockey10. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

WikiProject Columbus Blue Jackets

Hello Bhockey10! I have noticed your frequent activity in articles related to the Columbus Blue Jackets. I have started a WikiProject that focuses on all articles related to the Columbus Blue Jackets. I was wondering if you were interested in joining. If you are, please leave a message on my talk page, so that the Project will be more organized. Thank-you! 1bevingtonco (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bowling Green Falcons

Hey thanks alot man, yeah I've been looking for someone to help me with the article including the current season ones (2007-08 Bowling Green Falcons men's basketball team for example). So are you a current student or alum? I'm in my second year and am a Sport Management major. --Rik (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

ECAC West

Hi, Bhockey10. Can I ask where you got these dates for the teams joining ECAC West? I know for a fact that Neumann hasn't even had a hockey program for 10 years, let alone since 1970. And Elmira has definitely been in the ECAC West longer than 7 years. Thanks. Powers ^T 12:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

re my question at Talk:Metropolitan_Collegiate_Hockey_Conference

I guess you are the person with the answer... Cheers! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Amateur Baseball Teams Notability

As you are a member of the Wikiproject:Baseball and the participants bit says you have some knowledge of minor leagues would you mind visiting the following pages Dupage Dragons, Springfield Sliders, and Twin City Stars and help to determine their notability for inclusion. If they and the league they play in are notable than I'd like to maybe help improve the articles but, I'm not sure they actually are. I don't want to overreact so thought I'd bring it to someone "in the know" that may be able to help. If it helps my request for assistance is listed here [1]. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blue Jackets roster

If you go to this page, you can update it there. Because it's on the Template page it will automatically be updated on all of the other articles in which the roster is located. Hope that helps, thanks! Black ngold29 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!

Love all of your improvements to the Bowling Green State University article! It looks much better now. Great job!! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

ALPB

I see your point with the West Chester ballpark. I'll be happy if this park does go up. If the West Chester team joined the ALPB, that would mean three teams in three adjoining counties in competition.

I try to keep the ALPB page to resemble the MLB page as close as possible. Obviously things like TV contracts and the like are major differences.JaMikePA (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MetroLink classification

I've reverted your changes to St. Louis MetroLink, again, classifying it as a medium-capacity transit instead of light-rail transit. Both Metro and the APTA consider MetroLink to be light-rail. The system also uses the same vehicles used by other light rail systems. I know there are a few sources on the net that mention that MetroLink shares many of the qualities of heavy-rail systems with its entirely independent right-of-way, but I don't know any sources that explicitly say MetroLink is a medium-capacity or heavy-rail system. Anyways, I would think the classification of MetroLink by both its operator and the APTA would overrule any other source available. --Millbrooky (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AAHA

Wow, I hadn't heard about that. Think they stand a chance at more than one season? Grsz ^talk 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, I was looking forward to a decent season in the MAHL, even if it's uncompetitive and Indiana goes 31-1 (atleast they're my team). Grsz ^talk 00:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

MAHL teams

As you are one of the few users who edited MAHL and related articles, I've come to you with this issue. I'm inclined to think that the Detroit Dragons and Chelsea Tornadoes are not notable enough to merit their own article and should be redirected to the league article. If you object, please leave a message at my talk page. If not, I'll make the redirect. Thanks, Grsz ^X 16:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bowling Green deletion comments

I just noticed that on your userpage, actually. Nice choice of major ;) – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, I'm exactly the same way to be totally honest. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Michigan Tech Huskies

On 10 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michigan Tech Huskies, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD question

Looks as though it was just deleted, but for future reference, only admins can delete or "finish" the AfD process. There's never really a set timeframe, anywhere from a few days to a couple weeks is the norm. Usually it just takes a week though. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Bhockey10. You have new messages at Versus22's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

user page protection?

You asked Versus22 if your user page could be protected against vandals. Strictly speaking, the answer is no. But it could be semi-protected which would prevent anonymous editors and "non-autoconfirmed editors" (accounts less than 4 days old, and with less than 10(?) 20(?) edits) from being able to change it. It can be applied separately to your user page and your talk page. If you'd like either, let me know. —EncMstr (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, your user page is protected from moving by all non-admin editors, and against editing by all unconfirmed and anonymous editors. Cheers! —EncMstr (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Amateur Ice Hockey task force

Sure, it only takes a few minutes. Create the article here, and copy-edit the Junior Ice Hockey task force article, replacing the junior information with amateur. Let me know if you need help with setting it up. Good luck, and have fun! — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 03:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tecumseh Local Schools Deletion From The Creator of The Page

Thank you I hope I can find even more info on those schools. ] (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate it. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nutritionalist

Howdy, just a heads up, I switched you speedy to a prod, since neologisms are usually deleted via prod or afd. It is probably just a matter of protocol for an article such as that, but such is the fun of editing. If the prod gets removed it won't survive afd almost surely. Thanks for all your hard work and keep it up. What you do is greatly appreciated. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey thanks man. I'd been working on that for a while and having seen all the improvements you have made to the BGSU article and creating articles for the colleges, I knew I had to get back in the mix lol. By the way thank you for starting those separate articles for the colleges at BG, they've been an eyesore in the template and I've been procrastinating on them. Also thanks for adding some photos to the BGSU article, they really make it more appealing. By the way I remember you were quite knowledgeable on club sports at BG, would you be able to expand on what I've put on the article? Rik (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully for BGSU articles, they have two dedicated students who keep on taking them from stubs to B's, someday maybe even GA or FA. Rik (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lindie Turner-Gibb

Hello. I saw where you tagged this page for speedy deletion under criteria G4. Please be aware that this criteria applies only to articles deleted by a deletion discussion. The page has been deleted anyway, because I'm pretty sure it's blatant misinformation, but just a heads up for future reference. Thanks. TN X Man 20:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All American Hockey League (2008-)

Sportslogo continues to violate All American Hockey League (2008-) and Lapeer Thunder page. Is there anyway to block him from doing so? I tire of him posting sources that site opinions and do not contribute to the purpose of the articles. --Bignd500 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was using a news site as the source, check the sources, know what is going on. (Sportslogo (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

If i remember correctly from a few months ago the "news" stories were opinion/blog pieces.--Bhockey10 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All-American Hockey League

I believe we should delete all references of affiliation deals between IHL teams and AAHL teams. I can not find any of the IHL teams or league site even mentioning the AAHL. If you go to the IHL web site, AAHL or AAHA is not even listed, they still list the MAHL. The affiliation deals seem questionable at best.(Sportslogo (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

ECHL task force

Hey B how has your summer break treated you? As you know, I have been working on many ECHL articles since I joined Wikipedia a few years ago and am in the process of petitioning WikiProject Ice Hockey for a separate ECHL task force. You have made many ice hockey contributions and edits that have improved many articles and your love for the sport is great. This being known I felt that you would be qualified to help with an ECHL task force. I am asking ten other Wikipedians and am hoping for at least five commitments before I petition the WikiProject. Would you be interested in joining this potential task force? Rik (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've hit a snag when it comes to the ECHL task force. For the most productive task force, anywhere from five to ten members is desired and right now we only have four members that fit the criteria for developing articles and improving articles. With this said I wanted to ask you and the others who are cool with creating an ECHL task force, if they would rather keep going with a four person task force or expand the parameters of the task force to include all minor hockey leagues (including High level (AHL), Mid level (ECHL, IHL, CHL) and low level (EPHL, SPHL, etc)? Let me know what you think. Rik (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Bi-State Public Transit Agencies

(Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)) Greetings Fellow Wikipedian!! This is MetroFan2009 I am creating templates of our regions transportation. Come to my page and take a look! Leave me a message as soon as you seen them.

Grand Valley State Lakers

Thanks for cleaning up this article. It's been on my to-do list for months. It looks much better! Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Lacrosse

Hi, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in joining WikiProject Lacrosse.

If you are interested in contributing more to Lacrosse related articles you may want to join WikiProject Lacrosse (signup here). --Yarnalgo _talk to me 23:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer/Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autoreviewer}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide yo do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Btw, while I'm here, would you like rollback? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that alot! I'm not familiar with rollback, What is it? Bhockey10 (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBK has the details. Essentially it's an extra button for much quicker reverts of vandalism (and vandalism only, with the exception of self reverts). I'd be happy to tick that box as well if you read the link and decide you want it. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBK looks like a nice tool for anti-vandalism. I'd love to have that as well. Thanks again! Bhockey10 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I confused myself. I initially asked you to get the autoreviewer flag [2] but then I saw that you already had the reviewer right and blanked my request. I got to thinking about it later and realized my mistake but I see you have it now anyway. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

that's okay, I saw that and at first thought "I already have that, so the blanking makes sense." Bhockey10 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hockey helmet

Hi-I noticed that you removed the image of the hockey helmet w/cage. The reason I had added it was because of the request on the talk page. Don't you think that we could use the pic or find a different one to illustrate the fact? I think it would be a helpful addition. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that you moved it to the goaltender mask article. You know, maybe you could help to incorporate that term (it's currently in the see also section) into the section about cages? I'd appreciate your help w/that, since I'm sure you're more knowledgeable than I am! Thanks much! --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Jan Rogers Kniffen

Thank you so much for your "clean up" of the Jan Rogers Kniffen page. It is great to have someone take an interest as well as take the time to do the hard work of making a page look and work better. I created the page, but you certainly perfected it. KLM3618 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad I could help. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mario and luigi stupid and dumb

It's a rubbish article written by a kid but it clearly has context - it's about something called Mario and Luigi on Youtube. Have you tried googling the title? I'll not revert you again but you're mistaken. Candidate for prod, certainly, but db-nocontext, not. andy (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Youtube skits are not notable on Wikipedia. And the redirect was to a related but independent topic so it's better to just speedy delete Bhockey10 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hate to butt in, but after trying to find anything on this besides backlinks on other sites without any other coverage, I think it would have fallen under WP:CSD#A7. But normally, if it provides something else beyond Acme is a company. It makes stuff., then it normally doesn't fall under A1. Make sure you tag stuff like this under A7 next time. Regards, –MuZemike 22:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I believe the first editor had it under A7, It was a typo to put it under A1 although until I googled it I thought it had no context either. Either way it's gone! Bhockey10 (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for giving me a barnstar... --Sweet xx ^Talk 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it! Bhockey10 (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

BYU

Hello. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), the infobox should be at the top right of the article. You are moving the portal box on top of it, which violates the MOS. —Eustress ^talk 12:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so anal about the little portal box top right, above the info box. In its original position before my edit it was below the info box but created a massive blank space in the article. I don't have much experience with portals- if there's another way to keep the portal box below the info without all the white space that would be great, but if not I don't think a small portal box above the info box is a huge deal, I think having the HUGE blank space before was worse for the usual manual of style. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, scratch all that, I had a bit more time to play around the article, and think I got it solved, info box first, then portal box (like before), but without all the blank space. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WCHA

Ok, what exactly are you doing? You copy/pasted, now moved a page from its correct location to create a redirect. There is a hatlink there so moving isn't necessary. Please read WP:OWN while I get an admin to move the page back. From now on, unless you are absolutely sure, go to WP:RM to request moves. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I already talked with an admin over the issue. The WCHA (AM) is a proper naming convention for radio stations, esp ones that have similar call letters to other radio stations and organizations. The copy/paste move late last night was me not thinking to get an admin's help with the move. B/c another editor created an improper redirect page WCHA (AM) going to the wrong article. This move frees up WCHA for a redirect to the Western Collegiate Hockey Association (commonly called the WCHA) or a disam page. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that, I was the one who brought it to that admin's attention. I am just trying to figure out what you are doing. If you are creating a disambig page at WCHA, that is acceptable, but if you are just pushing the radio station page out of the way to redirect "WCHA" to this hockey league, that is not. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm not just pushing any article around or anything reguarding WP:OWN, just trying to better organize articles and reduce messes like all the WCHA stuff was before the moves... For now I redirected WCHA to the hockey article, but one thing that was missing on that page was a for tag on the top, "For the radio station in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, see WCHA (AM)." Hopefully that all helps readers find the articles, reduce confusion, and flow between them easier Bhockey10 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have switched it to a straight disambig page. It should never be a straight redirect else the radio station page would just be moved back. If you have any future questions about moving pages, take it to WP:RM as this was a plain mess and unnecessary under current rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about!? "never be a straight redirect..." A disamb pages works but a straight redirect is much more suitable. See: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a google search and looking at the history pages will both show the primary topic. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The radio station is the Primary Topic cause it is called that by the FCC, the station, the listeners, etc., while the hockey league is nicknamed that. Please do not WP:EDITWAR on this and do read WP:OWN and WP:3RR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The radio station is not the Primary Topic. If you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC you will see that. The only one causing an edit war is you!! Bhockey10 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

note: see additional discussion here. 00:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple parameters in seealso template

Just a quick note to let you know that you can pass multiple parameters to the seealso template. Here is an example where I made a slight adjustment to one of your edits. Not a big deal; just a helpful tip! ElKevbo (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an awesome little bit of info to save some time and also article space. Thanks Bhockey10 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

College Hockey task force

Hi there. Thank you so much for the Barnstar. It is always exciting to receive recognition. You have made my day. In addition, I have joined the College Hockey Task Force. Have a good day. Maple Leaf (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help with those articles! Bhockey10 (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lindenwood women

Wow, I came across that article thinking it should be deleted because it was just a club, then realized they're moving straight up to Division I. Grsz¹¹ 04:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been some mentions of it in other AfDs that a team like LU women’s or the LU men's team may meet the notability guidelines even as ACHA DI teams anyway: 1) with their championships, record breaking, etc… 2) NAIA schools so the hockey team is run by the athletic department like NCAA programs and not like a club program. But 3) was the final straw before I created it- that they're transitioning to NCAA DI (the news has taken a back seat to all of the Penn State news. Note: I also more recently created as those programs are moving to NCAA DI too.

Aside form teams meeting notability outside of just being an ACHA hockey team, the only other ones that could have articles would be Kent State and Ohio (programs that were NCAA DI programs that dropped) and any other PSU's and LU moving up to DI (I don't believe there's anymore yet/right now). Bhockey10 (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I am no Big 10 fan, but Big 10 hockey would be awesome. PSU, OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota - even with 6 members it could be huge. Grsz¹¹ 05:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still 50-50 on the Big 10 splitting. There's some pros and cons to both sides. No matter what happens I have a feeling PSU and LU are the first of what could be an expansion period of NCAA college hockey over the next 5-10 years. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised to see Liberty come up, this year they have all five ACHA divisions, last year they had all three men's. Penn State was obvious. Though is it just Lindenwood women for the time being? Grsz¹¹ 05:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Liberty is another good bet in the future, Navy as well, there's a few current club programs that already even have NCAA level facilities. Syracuse has also been rumored, one of the reasons why they started a women's program was to "test the waters" for a future men's program or elevating their ACHA DI men's team like PSU. Lindenwood men's program is stuck right now but a new NCAA rule will open up the doors for them and other DII teams. It's currently proposed but could start as early as Aug 2011:

The practice of allowing schools to sponsor a single sport in a different division would be eliminated, except in sports where no championship is conducted in its division. Divisions II and III schools currently taking advantage of this opportunity would not affected unless they fail to conduct the sport in Division I for any ensuing year. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, and after reading Division I (NCAA)#Controversy, schools can have one men's and one women's sport at the DI level with DI scholarship allowances. It really shouldn't affect hockey too much. What's the deal with Lindenwood men? Grsz¹¹ 05:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha, volleyball. But, since there is DII men's volleyball, I would think they wouldn't have them play up, and allow the hockey team to move instead. Grsz¹¹ 05:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't get it. There is one championship for men's volleyball for all divisions. Meaning Lindenwood is classifying that as DI exclusively for the scholarships. Tough break for the hockey team. Grsz¹¹ 05:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, despite not having divisional championships they can classify as a DI program for scholarships, that makes sense then. The other issue with hockey in the next 2-3 years is that they don't have a suitable ice arena for NCAA men's hockey. And probably waiting to build a larger on-campus ice arena (current one seats about 1,000) or aquire the nearby Family Arena. They've gone back and forth with the city over, but said not yet back in the spring. Kinda like buying a car they might just be working the city for a better deal. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That is small for that region, compared to Michigan or Minnesota, but check out Atlantic Hockey#Conference arenas. Grsz¹¹ 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, outside of MN for women's NCAA hockey it's a good size. The Family Arena is probably a bit large even for men's NCAA hockey, most likely when the time comes LU will build a new hockey 5,000-seat arena on campus. That was the plan in 2004-05 when they wanted to enter the CHA. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines men's ice hockey

Why did you remove the roster from the article?VictorsValiant09 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be viewable on the article again, you must have seen it/clicked on the article in literally the few seconds between edits. It was never removed just moved to a more suitable location per naming conventions for team rosters. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Templates

No problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bah!

Bah! I stole your name! (me apologizes). Just was looking over recent changes and your name caught my eye - our usernames are only 4 letters different :P --Addi hockey 10^e-mail 06:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

lol nice coincidence. Glad that you're a responsible wikipedian too, I'd hate having a __hockey10 vandal around. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

UNO Mavericks Men's Ice Hockey

Hey - you seem to be the college hockey guy to go to. I just overhauled the UNO Mavericks men's ice hockey page - take a look at it, and see what you think. I'm willing to add more content to more of the team pages if that's something that the College Hockey Task Force would want to pursue. If so, would you suggest working with the more popular teams that have plenty of content but are generally a bit sloppy with all tables and almost no text (e.g. North Dakota Fighting Sioux men's ice hockey) or overhaul the pages that are now just stubs (e.g. Alaska–Anchorage Seawolves men's ice hockey). Thanks. Bds69 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work on the UNO article! (longer reply on (you talk page). Bhockey10 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: William Henry Harrison High School (Ohio)

All of the information that I have added to this page is verifiable and strictly informative. NONE are "bias" base or Point Of View! The links are to the school and district web sites, the State of Ohio Board of Education rankings and test results for both the school and district. The information regarding the "rock band" is quoted DIRECTLY from the schools site regarding this CLASS. FYI, not to be a jerk, but I don't know what makes you an expert on this school. I, however, graduated from it and still live in Harrison. My Dad was teacher there and my Mom was a secretary in the district. I still have contact with the school and district. BTW, "bias" or "pov" would be saying that is an "excellent" school/district without any statistical backing. "Bias" or "pov" would be matter of factly stating that "this is the best school in the area." I have made no such statements! Please feel free to contact me regarding this issue.

PS, I did make some minor edits so as to try to satisfy you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckeyeDave (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I kept the info you added earlier about ranking in the body of the article, but the ranking in the infobox is for the USNWR Ranking for which it wasn't. While much of your edits were constructive others were a huge mess. I kept the basic info noting the addition of the Rock and Roll lab, but removed and/or reworded much of the un-sourced info that also had numerous issues with POV, such as: capitalizing that ranking as "EXCELLENT", adding the word "long" and finishing the sentence with an exclamation point for the Color Guard, and then almost all of the sentence structure about Rock Band contain lots of WP:POV and even a WP:Crystal issue when it says "Robinson hopes to make..." There's also no sources provided with the info to establish notability or if the info about the Rock Band stuff is even fact. Also I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything, but I graduated from High school too, and there's something call plagerism- WP:Copyvio that is another issue of the info you stated is "is quoted DIRECTLY from the schools site" Bhockey10 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice! At least have the common decency to communicate with me. NONE of what I placed on this page is "UNSOURCED" or "POV"! I don't care what you keep doing, I'm going to keep changing it back. You know nothing about this school or district and obviously have not bothered to check my links or sources. I will also be contacting the site to file a complaint against you. I'm not sure why you think you are the authority on these things, but you are no more so than I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckeyeDave (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I communicated to your comment as soon as I got it, you didn't check my talk page so when I saw you again posted the content in question I posted the response on your talk page. No need to get hostile, I've essentially kept all the info you've added to the article, just trimmed down without questionable content. Also please be aware that if you continue reverting back to the version you insist- adding POV, copyrighted info, and/or unsourced info may be considered to be Vandalism by myself but also other users. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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

Bhockey10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am an experienced user and have never had any disruptive edits to Wikipedia and never had any blocks or even warning of possible blocks in the past. And have a proven track record for years of service to to Wikipedia for expanding and adding appropriate content, cleaning up vandalism, etc... I was never warned of/or had any interest in being engaged in an edit war- I notified another editor of his periodic reversion and addition (noted in the edit summaries and also discussed on the discussion above) The user was notified that his unconstructive edits included POV, copyrighted info, speculation, and unsourced info. After making him/her of those issues the user did not continue to revert to his inappropriate version and if he did, I would request that an admin review the edits and/or discuss the issues in question on the talk page of the article, but that action was not needed (yet). Despite the other user's negative and augmentative tone in the discussion, I responded civilly and noted the reasons his unconstructive edits were reverted. I understand what edit wars are and was not engaging in one, I don't believe I've exceeded the amount required for an edit war, as my last edit to the article was my third revert of the day.

Exemption claim for 3RR: Under the 3RR the following action, which applies to this case, is not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: Removal of clear copyright violations that the other user openly stated in the above conversation- the info was taken "DIRECTLY from the schools site regarding this CLASS." He provided no reference or attempted to paraphrase and/or condense the info. A block will prevent me from continuing to edit other articles in constructive ways, help eliminate vandalism and copyvio violations such as the other user's edits. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This was, indeed, reverting a copyvio. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 08:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

hi - thanks for the message. While I understand your frustration and tone, I don't think I'm going to be scolded by you about "randomly blocking" you or disruption or rushing here. I do not 'randomly' hand out blocks, and there are several admins who will tell you that I an very reluctant to use the block button. I take at least ten minutes investigating an AN3 report, and this one took longer, though I don't remember how much longer - probably 15 minutes. It doesn't matter that you were not mentioned in the report. All that matters is that the information is valid, and it was. Let's break it down.

"Borderline 3RR"? You reverted him five times (all times Central, my time zone):

Go take a look at your edit summaries. The word or phrase 'copyvio' is nowhere to be seen - instead, you're talking about 'bias' and 'unsourced info' and 'POV issues'. The article talk page is empty, so there's nothing about copyvio problems there. The only reference to our copyright policies is a brief sentence on BuckeyeDave's talk page. I saw that, and I looked at the URL compared with the text. I disagree with your statement in your unblock request, because he was indeed working on that information - he had removed a couple of sentences, added some quotation marks around it, and changed some phrasing, which led me to believe he was altering or would have altered (or better attributed) that paragraph in future edits. That, too, doesn't matter as far as 3RR is concerned. He reverted four times and he knew not to do it. So did you.

In the end, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree here. The edit war stopped, and that was my goal. 3RR isn't an allowance, giving someone permission to revert three times every 24 hours. It is the line we shall not cross. Period. If/when you decide to try an RFA, this incident will be looked at in its entirety, along with your maturity, your conduct, and all the rest of your history here, good and bad, just like everybody else. There are candidates who have had worse problems at RFA, and many of those candidates have a well-worn mop today. It's not a scarlet letter - unless you make it one. - Krakatoa Katie 12:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed a borderline case, but only because Bhockey did not sufficiently attempt to inform the other editor about the copyright violation. A single "stop violating copyright" message would have sufficed, but if there was one, it got lost in all the noise. It might have been a good time to step back and call it to the attention of another editor. Still, copyvios do have to be expunged immediately, and I would have done pretty much the same thing (after explaining clearly to the other editor why I was doing it, which was the only failure here.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jpgordon, I don't think Katie understands still, which is why I brought it to her attention. An editor could have 50 reverts on the same article if they are removing copyvio (although I'd hope they'd seek help before that.) Obviously you either looked at the wrong stuff for 15 mins or did not read deep enough which you should review more before blocking, also you say he removed a few sentences and added quotes, that doesn't change copyvio- you should know that. The reason there was not a single "stop violating copyright" message was because that was one of a few things wrong with the info he was adding and that I was trying to explain to the user. However the Copyvio issue appears a number of times in the discussion including the last message to the user before I was blocked Also please be aware that if you continue reverting back to the version you insist- adding POV, copyrighted info, and/or unsourced info may be considered to be Vandalism by myself but also other users. I'm not scolding you Katie, I told you I have no hard feelings, I'm just bringing it up under Admin Accountability as poor use of judgment for your admin tools, hopefully it was a rare mistake and not a pattern. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I had to hunt to find the copyright violation; this all could have been avoided if you simply posted a link to the source of the copyvio -- I usually do so in the edit summary (for example, "reverting copyvio from xxx.com." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience, I appreciated that you did take some time to review and "hunt" for it. And yes, that's what I will do in the future. I was probably too nice at first because the user does not appear to be an experienced user and copyvio is a serious situation. I was trying to explain POV and sourcing as the major issues in hopes that understanding would take care of the copyvio, and next time will just tag copyvio (which are more serious violations than adding POV and/or not citing sources). I'm not saying I was perfect in the situation either but a mistake not to directly tag copyvio shouldn't get me blocked when it is in the discussion a few times by me and the other user stated he took the info directly from the website, that she mentions she looked over. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)