User talk:Bhockey10/Archive 2

Best wishes
Hi. Just wanted to wish you all the best for 2011. Maple Leaf (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Best wishes to you this year as well! :) Bhockey10 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Great American Conference
Bhockey, do you have a source on the establishment of the GAC headquarters in Russellville yet? I am under the impression this still hasn't been decided. If so, would you mind adding it to the page? Otherwise, I'll change it back to "undetermined" in a day or two.

Many thanks: —PigskinPhotog (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw it somewhere when I was browsing through some of the reports, they main news reports also say the same things as the espn/ap source already on the article, but after taking a better look at the espn/ap source, it looks like that the hq isn't in that source so I'll look for the one I saw mention of it, I should have taken better note when I saw it, but it was late last night. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I just removed my Russellville HQ edit on the article to avoid any controversy until I search for that source later. Also does the GAC have a website yet? Basically the only info on the conference has been in the few days back in Novemeber right after the announcement. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Shorter University
Greetings, Could you make the Shorter University logo a little smaller? It doesn't appear correctly on Facebook. Thank you Missd8 (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for? it looks okay in the university infobox on the wikipedia article, I double checked and the image size is set in that infobox at 200px. Bhockey10 (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi!
Sorry, but I copied that word from Wikipedia itself. Thanks! Aerosprite the Legendary (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh I see that now, I just did a Google search and the site I found must have copied it from us. It looks like another user redirected back to the mention on Wikipedia before I got a chance. A redirect is probably more appropriate than a separate article. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lindenwood University
The article Lindenwood University you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Lindenwood University for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting
Hi, just a couple of points on your edit to the Lindenwood University article.

a) WP:MOS policy is that a multi-segment location should only be linked once - so in the case of Saint Charles, Missouri, United States, only the first location gets linked. This works on the basis that the average reader is aware of the United States and if they are not aware of Missouri they follow the Saint Charles link and it tells them.

b) In the sentence "In 2008 Lindenwood University announced plans to expand facilities at Lindenwood University-Belleville that would increase academic programs from an adult continuing education structure to offer traditional daytime semester-based programs.", use of the future conditional tense is incorrect. Since the plans to extends facilities have been announced they exist and therefore WILL increase - not WOULD future perfect tense.

Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 01:38, Wednesday March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * a) Although your explanation that the average reader is aware of USA and/or Missouri does make sense I've never seen that before on articles and didn't see that in WP:MOS. it would me the majority of articles, including many GAs and Featured articles i looked at working LU article to GA status, are incorrect. Could you point me to an exact location where it says that?


 * b) In the process of copyediting, you changed it from "...expanded..." to"...that WILL extend academic programs from...". Those plans already took place so that was incorrect too. I wasn't thinking and changed will to would but you correctly pointed out that is future perfect tense. It's now fixed and put back into past tense so it now reads "...that INCREASED academic programs from ..."


 * Thanks again for all your work copyediting and insight on a). Bhockey10 (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox methodology
Comments on the Speedy Deletion of Infobox methodology: If you are going to delete it could you please point me to the already existing Infobox I can use for proposing a new methodology such as this and another one I am working on called DevOps Lifecycle. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noakz (talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Creating an infobox is fine and useful but infoboxes are template pages not articles and start with Template:name of infobox. I've never created one, but WikiProject Infoboxes might be helpful to see if one already exists and/or creating a new infobox. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: College Hockey
thanks for the welcome! and also thanks for the pointers on where i can help. when i linked to the list of Men's BB final four participants, what i meant was that i was considering making a similar page listing the men's ice hockey Frozen Four participants. is there already a list like this? Ivyred (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey! Just wanted to thank you for your work on the St. Anselm article. I realize you and I are very similar, college kids who love working on wikipedia college articles, but also it seems (from your username) that you are a hockey fan. I am a huge Boston Bruins fan myself and am really excited about the playoffs! I assume you are probably St. Louis Blues as Lindenwood College is in Missouri. You clearly know how wikipedia works better than I, (one small glance at your userpage notes this, with all the accomplishments and articles you have worked on). If you want to be facebook friends to share tips on editing / smack talk for Hockey ;), my name on facebook is Eric John Ricci and I'm in the Saint Anselm College network (obviously). If not, I still look forward to discussing edits on wikipedia!

It's just a friendly thought, why not have another kind of hockey fan who's not a Bruins fan right? LOL --Ericci8996 (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks alot! I'm not on fb very much, especially with Wikipedia- it's far more productive personally and for society. I've lived a few different places so the Blues are in my top five. Milan Lucic is one of my fave players btw. Are there any plans for Saint Anselm to play DI hockey in the future? They have one of the top facilities and since Anselm and a few other NE-10 schools are the only DII hockey programs left they play down in DIII hockey. Also, you've done great work on the Saint Anselm article if you're every intrested Wikiproject Universities and also Wikiproject Ice hockey could also use more quality and experienced editors. In particular WikiProject Universities, there a lot of the non-GA university articles suffer from Academic boosterism and POV/COI issues. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As you can tell from my delayed response unlike yourself I am on Facebook way more than Wikipedia LOL! I love that you love Milan Lucic, yet I was disappointed in how Game 1 went for Boston... Game 2 in the Bell Centre will NOT be easy and I hope we don't fall in a 0-2 hole... That's cool you've lived in many places! Where?!? I've lived in Rhide Island, (primary residence), summer house on cape cod, Massachusetts, and obviously life's in New Hampshire when I went to Saint A's... After graduating there in May, (pics of my graduation are actually on the saint a's page) I moved out to Onaha Nebraska to take science classes at Creighton University.... On the suggestions of tfe dental schools admissions committee ... Did I mentionn im pre dental!? The next wiki project i want to do is going to be whatever dental school I get into! To answer your question about Saint A's NE10 possible D1 switch, well it had been a rumor around campus but i remember reading a college newspaper and tfe director of athletics had no intentions of leaving D2... I wish we'd go D1... Did you play in college? I'll def get involved in wiki universities or hockey projects when icactually get into dental school! What was your major undergrad?--Ericci8996 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Bellarmine University
I wanted to see if I could get your help updating the Bellarmine University page. My knowledge is very limited on wikipedia editing but I am learning as I go. Mainly I wanted to know if you would be wiling to help me update the main logo for the page and the watermark you recently added. These are both out of date logos for the university and should be replaced with the new ones that have been in use for three years now. Your help would be greatly appreciated! Also, I looked at some of your other work, Great Stuff! I would love for the Bellarmine page to end up as well done as the other pages you worked on! Murph5253 (talk) 11:57, 09 May 2011

I noticed a few photos recent uploaded and put on the article were all marked with own work and given free license tags. Historical photos are public domain and the B&W 1950s photos are bordering the historical period so I left those. The 2010 aerial shot and picture of the current university president were the suspect ones because the president picture looked very professional and for the aerial, not many people hop into planes to take pics. If they are of your own work-great job. If they are from another source they need a proper citation to avoid copyright infringement. Thanks! Bhockey10 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I assure you the photos you removed are mine and I have the rights to them. And I believe they are cited and sourced properly. (Murph5253 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC))

Thanks! And I appreciate your concern. (Murph5253 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC))

Schools AfD
Hi. I appreciate your concern for non  notable primary  schools. However, the standard solution established by years of precedent  and practice involving  thousands of school  articles, is to  redirect  to  the page about  the school  district (USA), or the education  section of the page about  the school's locality. Redirects are uncontroversial and can be done without discussion if the school  does not  assert notability. All AfD invariably end up  as 'redirect'  so  there would appear to be little advantage  in  opening  an AfD discussion  before some change to  this practice has been installed following a formal debate. If you wish, you  are perfectly  free to  begin  such  a discussion yourself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not just non notable schools, the main issue is that precedent seems to contradict most other article topics with similar levels of non notability. It's been awhile and Wikipedia has changed a lot in the few years I've been here, let alone when that was set and it needs a good review. There are some primary schools that are deleted, although yes, most are redirected. And there's many more articles that need redirected. It's a lot of extra maintenance for really unnecessary articles that should be easily deleted or speedily deleted. Most other orgs, groups, businesses with similar levels of non-notability would be speedily deleted or deleted through AfD rather quickly. Particularly elementary schools there's so many of them and most are very localized. Where would a formal debate take place, on an AFD discussion page, WikiProject Schools discussion page or other...? Thanks! Bhockey10 (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The policy (or guideline, whatever) has been in operation since before I had much to with Wikipedia, and that's a long time too. Schools definitely enjoy some privileges - especially that of inherent notability for all high schools - indeed, they can't even be speedy deleted per WP:CSD. In fact, as long as there is no doubt as to the existence of high schools and they provide mainstream education post Grade 9, the are allowed to stay as unreferenced permastubs (no that I personally think that it's a good idea). On the purely practical side, redirecting instead of AfD avoids clogging up the system with AfD especially when the outcome is going to be 'redirect' anyway. If you would like to start a single-handed motion to get it changed, then probably the first place to begin is a by making a proposal at the Village Pump. However, I think you'll find that it's listed as a WP:PERENNIAL so redebating it is unlikely achieve a new consensus. The irony is, that nothing actually gets 'deleted', as in removed from the server. Deleted pages are only hidden from public view, so there's not even a practical advantage in going through the primary schools that have slipped through the net schools and redirecting them all. It wouldn't be too difficult though, if one were to use AWB. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there any one specific discussion on it or just precedent from various primary school Afds. I'm fine with high school and above having inherent notability. Quality articles can be written on them and although High schools are still local, they are less localized than primary schools. High School athletics, esp. in the US, can have thousands of fan attending games. The A7 should really be clarified giving inherent notability to secondary schools, the way it is worded now it covers all. Thanks for the help. Bhockey10 (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A7 applies to all  schools, because other schools can be redirected uncontroversially. Even a really  crap  article can be redirected, all  we are doing in  many  cases is redirecting  the name only. There  are schools in  other English  speaking  countries too,  however, in  some, particularly  the UK, academic notability  is focused far more on  academic achievement  than on  sports where inter-school/college  games have a very  low profile compared to  US educational  culture. Inherent  notability for high  schools is laid down in  policy -  although even Wikipedia policy  is not  graven in  stone, so there is no  need to  IAR on  this. The precedent for redirecting  nn primary  and middle schools is not  policy, but  is an accepted procedure as explained above. It's not  broken, so  there is no  real  need to  fix it. My  philosophy  at  Wikipedia, which  is shared by  many who  work on  various policy  issues, is that  the way  forward is to  improve existing policies and practice, and make new ones for issues that are genuinely problematic, such  as for example WP:NPP, and WP:RfA, to  mention  but  just  two. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Valor Christian College
That wasn't cleanup, you replaced a redirect with copyvio from. Dougweller (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention, without edit summary or copyvio tags I was unaware of the issue. Note:see reply on talk page. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lindenwood latin motto translation?
Why do you insist on this translation? Please, where did you find this translation? You have posted no evidence of "character" being used for Natura which is "nature" in latin. Please see all translations of Natura on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_university_mottos then show me where Lindenwood has translated Natura to "character". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.7.104 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your previous edit "Essential Qualities, Innate Disposition, and Learning" pretty much means the same things, as a person's qualities and disposition are part of character. Natural in latin has a few meanings: birth, nature, character, qualities or disposition, an element, substance, essence. Doctrina means: education, learning, science, teaching, instruction, principle, doctrine. Translations often can have more than one similar meaning, I searched for references but didn't find any, I suspect many of the translations on the List of university mottos also have more than one meaning. As long as we have the translation as one of the possible exact translations I'm happy, we may never know which exact translation for LU and many of the universities' founders from that list meant. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

BGSU
Good job on the new additions to the BGSU article. My only cautions are to make sure the mentions of the new buildings A) don't sound too promotional, and B) don't have too many details (which can make them sound too promotional and/or seem like fancruft). The history section should mostly be mentioning their construction and possibly the reasons behind their construction. Seemed like a lot of the details about each building aren't really needed for the history section; certainly not a paragraph about each one. They can either be mentioned in the facilities section or in that building's own article (like the Stroh Center), if at all. Be careful too that the "recent events" section doesn't dominate the history section. BG is 100 years old, but half of the history section is from the last 3 years. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Darn, you beat me too it, the article needs quite of bit of work in general. I liked your idea of condensing some of the resent construction info The edit in question was more about getting the info down, I planned on pretty much doing what you suggested but ran out of time the other day- I moved some of the details to the Stroh Center main article and also some of the other info on buildings to the Campus section which is more appropriate for the specific uses, locations, and other info about current on-campus structures. The history section in general is fairly short, both in the early history and recent history subsections need expansion, that reminded me and I placed an expansion needed tag to help direct other editors to expand that section. Also any future help on the article by yourself or if you know of other interested wikipedians is much appreciated, especially historical info! Bhockey10 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. I would imagine that with the Centennial last year that a fairly thorough history of BG has been published and is available somewhere nearby.  Just wanted to make sure it didn't look like me swooping in and removing tons of your work!  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem like another experienced editor and I'd have no problem if you made a bold edit, esp since we're thinking along the same lines. When I'm overhauling an article I tend to add more content and just get it and the references in then trim and move it around later. Since I haven't worked down lower than the History section yet I put most of the building details there first. Good idea on the Centennial, I'll try to dig some stuff up too. Thanks and happy editing! Bhockey10 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So this has been driving me nuts for years - on the BGSU wiki page you uploaded an image of Moseley Hall. Great shot, but when you view the photo on the main page it has this description under it "Mosley Hall built in 1916." Can you edit this to reflect the accurate spelling of Moseley Hall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.159.130 (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, you do anyone can edit Wikipedia right? It was just a minor typo edit to add the "e" in Moseley. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Hi Bh, I posted an additional reply at the bottom of User talk:Peter Horn Peter Horn User talk 21:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The hectare article and your info was helpful, learn something new every day. I agree it seems the hectare is the proper measurement for land/property. Keep of the good work. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster Templates
I'm sorry, but I don't see how it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. It's not a duplicate, as it is for a different season and includes different names. Powers T 12:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "We don't do it that way" is not a speedy criterion. TfD it if you must, but it clearly does not in any way shape or form meet the speedy criteria.  Powers T 22:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The presedent explaination was an additional explaination to the T3 criteria 1) "not employed in any useful fashion" and 2) while not an exact duplicate it is a "substantial duplication" because there's generally only minor changes from season to season. But if you still don't get it I will put it up for templates for discussion. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Lindenwood Lions
Hi there. I just found out that the Lindenwood Lions women's team will be in NCAA Division I this year. I created a season page 2011–12 Lindenwood Lady Lions ice hockey season but just wanted to say that you did a superlative job on the women's team's page. Outstanding!!!


 * Thanks so much!!! That's my first barnstar for article work. Also thanks for your work on starting the Lindenwood 2011-12 season article, as well as getting many of the other women's hockey season articles going. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rugby
Great job on the rugby section for the Lindenwood Lions. This is one of the most comprehensive sections I've seen for any university's rugby program. Lindenwood are the most exciting rugby team in Division II -- hopefully they make the jump to Division 1 soon. Barryjjoyce (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I saw your additions and they also provided a lot of help in the section. If that section continues to grow it may need to be broken into a separate article. The few varsity rugby programs should have comprehensive sections and/or articles. I'll try to work on those when I get some time this summer too. Thanks again, and happy editing! Bhockey10 (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bhockey10 - I came onto your talk page to get your opinion on whether to create a separate rugby article for Lindenwood, and now I see that you already had the same idea. I'll probably get around to that this summer, if you don't beat me to it. Barryjjoyce (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

NAIH
"The NAIH follows the NCAA Division I rules of play with the exception that former Major junior players are eligible unlike the NCAA or ACHA," NCAA allows major players to play under certain circumstances. Therefore student-athletes who compete in Major Junior jeopardize some or all of their NCAA athletic eligibility because they fail to remain “amateurs” as per NCAA regulations but numerous players have appealed the process and played in the NCAA. Sportslogo (talk)


 * Are you asking a question or for an explanation? Generally the major junior play negates NCAA hockey eligibility. Some major junior players have played in the NCAA in other sports, but I wouldn't say "numerous players" appealed and play- rather relatively few move from major junior hockey to NCAA hockey. The few appeals I've seen are players playing in a major junior pre-season game or two or other cases where they've played literally a few games. Additionally a hockey player may tryout for a major junior team but for less than 48 hrs. There's always going to be an exception or two in many thing in life, but those are rare exceptions and generally major junior players are ineligible for NCAA hockey. On the ACHA side, I'm not even sure that organization has an appeal process. The NAIH allowing major junior players would fit the quoted sentence: "The NAIH follows the NCAA Division I rules of play with the exception that former Major junior players are eligible unlike the NCAA or ACHA." Bhockey10 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Walker
Hi, BHockey! This is Maxine Giddings. I respect and admire your work, but I am sorry that you feel my work about Matthew Walker, M.D. is shameless promotion. Please read my dispute page about my article. An elderly gentleman who was one of Dr. Walker's residents years ago, told me that he did not see anything about Dr. Walker in Wikipedia. He is 86 years. This gentleman, a doctor of great repute asked me to write. Can you imagine? Please reconsider deleting my article for the reasons I placed in my disputational piece. Thanks. Maxine Giddings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxigee (talk • contribs) 22:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The original article was filled with heavy promotion, even the title included "Extraordinary Gentleman". It appears that another user, Edison (talk), has taken the article on to trim the fat- promotional and POV terms. It might be helpful to review Five pillars and Help page/Overview for help naming, writing and editing articles. Also Wikipedia requires notability and not every person (even doctors} may not satisfy it. The article needs independent verifiable sources such as those from news media. Thanks! Bhockey10 (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lindenwood Lions correction
Thanks for catching my error on Lindenwood Lions. You're absolutely right, I intended to place it on the main page. The 2012 U.S. News and World report came out today and I've been updating colleges and universities in Missouri to reflect it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I figured it was a typo, I don't believe LU was ranked in the last us news ranking so the citation(s) in the main article may just need updated for the 2011-12 ranking. Also I saw you placed a "citation needed" tag on the last sentence of the LU Lions lead, that is sourced in the first main paragraph. I've always thought that citations in leads are to be kept to a minimum as the lead should summarize an article and therefore properly sourced within the article. In this case it is actually the first reference and citation in the first paragraph.  If you still feel that piece of lead material needs cited I'd be happy to add another citation for it. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats good enough for me; I removed the tag. Looking at it brings another question to my mind though. How are The Post and Lindenwood using the word largest? It certainly doesn't mean budget, number of student athletes, or number of staff. I have trouble with it meaning number of different sports teams fielded. If 20ish teams compete in the NCAA that would be about par for the course in Div-1, maybe a little high. As far as club sports go many large school seem to field over 50.


 * LU doesn't really have club sports as many traditional universities do, about half the sports are transitioning to NCAA and others that are not supported by the NCAA are remaining in their national sport orgs(such as rugby, bowling, women's wrestling etc...). As the ref cited as well as a couple similar articles I've seen by the post, I believe largest refers to the number of varsity sports (NCAA+non-NCAA) at 46 and possibly also the number of student-athletes, around 1,500. I would guess those two numbers have a direct relationship (as varsity sport increase, student-athlete enrollment increases).


 * In addition it's likely we'll see a second round of NCAA sports additions, women's gymnastics recently announced. The largest athletic departments by sport offerings among NCAA schools are in the mid-30s in sport offerings with Ohio State as the largest NCAA dept (37 sports) so even without the gray area of LU's NCAA + non-NCAA sports, LU's near 30 transitioning to NCAA isn't much behind OSU. Because of the gray area I phrased that fact in the article as i.e "one of the largest" while some of the refs I've seen outright state LU is the largest. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me, especially with your change. Thanks for the explanation, I'm sometimes a little deficient when it comes to college sports. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help clear things up, college sports can get pretty complicated. And from a sports management perspective, Lindenwood athletic model is a relatively new model of college athletics. Many schools are cutting sports, while Lindenwood and a handful of others are expanding sports. Also thanks for all the great work you do on Wikipedia and Happy Editing! Bhockey10 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BentleyFalconslogo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:BentleyFalconslogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 09:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

UAH season page moves
Hi. I'm curious why you moved all of the UAH hockey season articles, when the overwhelming consensus for college sports articles is to use "team" at the end of the title instead of "season". See subcategories of Category:College sports team seasons in the United States by sport. Hockey is the only sport that doesn't follow this format. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's two contradicting naming conventions and consensuses. User talk:Jweiss11 and I had a discussion last week that might provide some more details. To keep at least the individual sports consistent I reverted the change from season to team, the vast majority of college hockey season articles were named as seasons, I believe now with the adjustment to the UAH articles and a few Michigan ones, all now follow the same format. The other college sport seasons are against the larger naming convention to use "season" For example, the season naming is the format used for the professional sport season articles. As Jweiss suggested on his talk page, the use of "season" should be used across the other college sports. That task would be HUGE. however, adjusting a few of college hockey articles was not, and at least keeps that sport uniform. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks so much! Still pretty new to college football articles so that means a lot to me! Bhockey10 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

State/province flagicons in templates
I just noticed that you reverted my edit at Template:Lindenwood Lady Lions women's ice hockey roster with the edit summary of "flags used per consensus. see WP:MOSICON." I would like some further explanation of which part of that section do you think state and province flagicons are correctly being used in this template. Aspects (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The last portion of WP:MOSICON." reads "Subnational flags (e.g., England rather than UK) are traditionally used in some sports, and should not be changed to the national flag without consensus." College hockey articles have used state flags on rosters for many years. Generally the majority of college hockey players are from the US and Canada and the flags corresponds to information on rosters. Actually the references to state and province of players extends outside Wikipedia as I've seen them referenced on college hockey broadcasts as well.

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for working hard to cleanup the Connecticut Huskies men's ice hockey article. I hope you will continue working on it and if you will need assistance, I will help too. Smartyllama (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I, along with a few other editors, are slowly working on bringing college hockey team articles from tiny stubs to more useful articles. I noticed your work on the UConn Huskies, and it was already a lot larger than many other teams. Feel free to continue expanding the article along with any other teams, we need all the help that we can get! Some useful help, guidelines, format questions, etc... for UConn Hockey or any other hockey article can be College Ice Hockey task force part of WikiProject Ice Hockey. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SIUE
Hey Bhockey10! Thanks for your recent work on Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. I have a lot I'd like to do over there when I get the time. I see that you added the Southern Illinois University seal to the SIUE page. While the seal does probably apply to the entire university system, it is almost exclusively used with Southern Illinois University Carbondale. If you look at the websites for both, it becomes pretty evident. The trouble with SIUE is they have two logos that seem to be used pretty interchangeably. One spells out the entire name (which I see you also added a version of it to the page) and the other spells out SIUE. This document seems to lay out what all they use. I think the "siue" logo seems to be pretty representative of how the university brands itself, but I don't know if it's appropriate for the article heading (although this seems like it might be a special circumstance). There is a lot of deciding that needs to be done there and I'd like to get a discussion of these topics going on the article's talk page. If you're willing to help out, I'll see you over there! Thanks again for your help! Illinois2011 (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I looked over that document too, there's so many logo options it can be a bit tricky. I'd be glad to join and help that discussion. See you on the talk page Bhockey10 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for the barnstar! Actually, It's my first one in my five years on here so I feel pretty honored. lol Illinois2011 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for my barnstar as well. They're kinda rare, it took about 5 years for me to get one too.Bhockey10 (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

reply
Eagle4000 (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

SIUE Fair use rationales
Hey Bhockey10,

Our old friend GWFrog has added the SIUE seal and wordmarks to quite a few articles without updating the fair use rationale. I tried to explain why this isn't necessarily a good thing to do, but I'm not sure I did a very good job. We'll either need to take those images off of those pages, or add rationale for each article. I may be mistaken, but I thought that fair use images were supposed to be used as sparingly as possible. Illinois2011 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. That is correct that fair use rationales should be kept to a minimum. GWFrog seemed to be placing them on any article related to the university. I removed them from many articles and left the edit summary "seal and watermark not appropriate for article, in addition to no rationale for this article." so with that and any explanation you did, he should be okay. Also I don't think they were malicious edits, just unfamiliar with policies. I left the seal and watermark on the articles about the specific SIUE colleges and schools. Many other universities that have articles on the colleges and schools have similar fair use images in the infoboxes, however the SIUE ones will need rationales added to the image pages. Additionally many universities have separate logos and/or seals for colleges and schools, if SIUE has those they'd be even better than the regular university ones. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly think he meant well. Heck, I've been here for five years and I'm still having trouble with some jpegs I've replaced as svgs. People are getting upset that I've tagged the old file for deletion even though it's no longer in use and looks like crud. You are correct in your assumption about different logos for different schools within the university. They're similar, but have the name of the school in black underneath. I intend to make those sometime soon, and I told GWFrog that. Thanks for all of your help! Illinois2011 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That works great! If we'll have those individual college logos shortly, probably look on the college's pages or in the university's images and logos pdf doc, then it'd be best to remove the watermark and university seals. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey! I'm trying. (Some people have said that I'm very trying, but that's a horse of a different color.) It was a case of not fully understanding the proper usage. Keep trying to seer me right, and I just might get there. Thanx to both of you... GWFrog (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know you're trying. It's a lot of jargon that's hard to wrap your head around and it's not laid out very clearly to newcomers. It's set up sort of as a "learn by mistake" system.... I learn something new every time I make an edit it seems. I think this is one of the reasons Wikipedia is having such a hard time retaining active editors. Illinois2011 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's all good GW, hope you didn't feel ganged up on. You've already added a lot of good content in a fairly short amount of time. I've a pretty experienced editor on year, having started back in 2007, but there's other editors that know tons more than I do. Like IL2011 said, there's a lot of rules, guidelines, style formats, etc... that is a lot to take in, and just takes time. A lot of people think Wikipedia is just a random collection and anyone can say anything, but over the years it's become a valuable academic and knowledge tool. All the rules just continue to bring it to more reliable standards. As we edit, we keep learning, also being collaborative, you can always ask us or other editors for help or advice relating to any of the intricacies. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah! Sure and 'tis nice to be appreciated... I did not feel ganged up on, and I really do like that "learn by mistake" line, because I've been making mistakes and sometimes learning from them for a lot of years. When I first was directed to something in Wikipedia, I was a bit leery, because of the well-earned reputation for inaccuracy it had a few years back, but the more I come here, the more I see that a lot of people are really trying to make it a valuable reference source, which is why I decided to join the crowd. It is a bit of a test trying to do things the right way, when the rules are not as clear as they might be, but corrections to erroneous actions seem to usually come quickly, even if they sometimes don't seem quite as sensible as they could/should be. ;) GWFrog (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Interest in Wikimedia Midwest concept?
Greetings - in an effort to help nudge a conversation about developing a broader Wikimedia presence in the Midwest, I've posted the beginnings of a Wikimedia Midwest page/proposal. I was wondering if you know anyone, yourself included, who might be interested in organizing or helping shepherd this proposal along? Any thoughts you may have would be most welcome on that page or it's talk page. Thank you! --Varnent (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

BGSU PR
Glad to know my comments were useful and sorry for the delay. I think the article is pretty close to GA. FA is much harder and lots of seemingly little issues (like linking United States or the quality of refs cited or especially the prose) will be closely scrutinized for any article at FAC. If there is an official history of the university (book) I would try to get that as a source, or find newspaper articles from Toledo or Bowling Green or other local papers. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll nominate the article for GA after it is copyedited. That's a great idea for future work as a GA and the eventual move toward FA. My current university and many others have books on history, if BGSU does, that would help the sources. I closed the PR but if you see any other issues I'm open to more suggestions. Thanks again and Happy Editing! Bhockey10 (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

BGSU Faculty AAUP
Why do you keep removing the true fact that BGSU faculty are unionized with the AAUP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundaypolka (talk • contribs) 21:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's rather trivial info but more importantly it was previously added without a citation to verify the information was accurate. I saw today that you added the info with a source, so I corrected the source to the proper cite news format and merged it into the first paragraph of the Faculty section (same section). citing info is important on any Wikipedia article but especially important properly cite information for this article, a GA candidate. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very far from trivial info. It's crucial information regarding the faculty who teach at BGSU.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundaypolka (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of its importance, I kept the info so please stop adding the duplicate info to the bottom of the faculty section. It's all there as you originally wrote it, just merged into the first paragraph of that section. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as it stays there, I won't add it.
 * That's my point! It hasn't been deleted all day, just moved to the first paragraph of the faculty section. I've only removed the duplicate info you kept adding. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But in the past, you have deleted it, right? And you promise not to do so again?  OK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundaypolka (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past it did not have a reference, now it does so it's okay. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And now it appears to have been deleted again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundaypolka (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's there, I just checked. It's the last sentense in the first paragraph of the Faculty section. "Since November 2010, BGSU full-time faculty have been represented in collective bargaining by the BGSU Faculty Association, a chapter of the American Association of University Professors.[111]" Bhockey10 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas!
You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Meetup St. Louis
If you are in the STL area on the 23rd, we'd like you to come to our local St. Louis meetup. Details here. If you are interested, please add yourself to the list and our Facebook group. Thank you. Marcus  Qwertyus   18:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bowling Green State University
The article Bowling Green State University you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bowling Green State University for comments about the article. Well done! Cupco 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes St. Louis!


Dust off your Polaroid camera and pack your best lenses. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, around noon in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

University of Central Missouri Logo
I don't seem to understand how to upload this image. The reason that I am trying to change it is that UCM has altered their logo and the image on Wikipedia is not in accordance to this. The image is not used anywhere else on Wikipedia, it is a file on my computer. What do I need to do in order for this action to be allowed? Thank you for all of your help thus far! AngelaROrr (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)AngelaROrr


 * Thanks for the feedback, that is much more helpful then continuing to attempt the process and having it reverted by multiple editors, in the future it is helpful to reach out to another editor or discuss the situation on the article's talk page early. There are two options to correct this issue: 1) there is a drop-down toolbox on the left side of the page when you are logged in, scroll down to upload file and begin that process. 2) It sounds like it might just be a logo update, you can click the current logo and on its page scroll down and click "upload new version..." then follow through that process. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2012 (UT

your edits to acha
Please note your rv of the.doc acha is counter productive. Please read wiki policy concerning who and what is and is not notable. Btw these people are not notable. Furthermore your user name suggests a conflict of interest. I have changed the Page to be in accordance with wiki policy. If you change it again it will be viewed as starting a edit war and will be noted as such. 3rr will not apply in this case as you have been warned. Best.

Just so you are aware. Wiki standards for notability for hockey is at minimum 100 games play at the echl or higher. The majority of players that are listed do not meet this standard. Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.165.82 (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, it was not productive to section blank without an edit summary. Now that you have explained yourself, it is easier to solve issues. Many editors have particular subjects and articles that they are interested in, in fact there's few "general editors", COI only comes in when an editor is making unproductive, biased edits; not contributing meaningful content to make the subject of their interest(s) better. If you review my history, I have a number of acticle topics, not just hockey-related.
 * Point of order here- He did infact add an edit summary. It was mistakenly reverted by me, and it was only in the next revet-back that he failed to give an edit summary. A simple error at that. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the Notability (sports) standard of 100 minor league games. It is one of a few standards that a player can meet for a stand-alone article. A list of players within a larger article is appropriate. In fact, the current list has a few players that appear to be notable (some have wikipedia articles already); however I think there might be some players that can be removed from the list. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A very strange and incorrect way to read wiki policy. The policy is clear, I fail to see any clause that allows for 'stand alone' pages.  In any case, the page has been reverted back to be in accordance with wiki policy.  Failure to follow policy, will lead to a block request under 3rr.  Best.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Point of order again. If you check Notability (sports), it mentions this in the very first line-
 * "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. "
 * Maybe you missed it. In any case, its pretty clear that the notablity guidelines for 100 games are only for stand-alone articles; not mentions. Not sure if there is any other issue involved here or not. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the WHOLE policy. Stop picking small points to support your view.  These people are not notable, and you are in a conflict of interest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting the first line is NOT picking points. And I am in now way under a COI. I suggest you brush up your policies before accusing others of not reading it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

According to one of your user boxes, you state that you have played on a ACHA team. Thus under wiki conflict of interest policy, I ask that you refrain from making any further edits to the ACHA page. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a COI, as I explained on my talk page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Point of order - I will use your arguement. This entire page needs to be removed as it does not meet standards. "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or 'sports league'/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. " As a sports league, it is below the echl, and thus should not have a page. Again this is your argument, and you can't pick and choose, which policies you want to follow and which ones you don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Still incorrect. Nowhere is the guidelines for ice hockey organisations written on those pages you refer to. Since there is no statement on it regarding that, there is no way the policy can say that, whether based on what I say or not! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

To Bhockey- I am seriously beginning to doubt this IP's real nature. I think he might be a sock and/or troll. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How is this comment productive? An inexpericened user making a false claim.  Please focus on the debate and please learn how wiki handles notable people.  There are many, many, many cases where lists of people have been removed due to not meeting policy. Please reseach this, and stop making false claims and trying to start a edit war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, this is BHockey's user page and here I suggested that I was doubting your real nature. I did not conclude or even imply anything. This comment had nothing to do with the discussion. I do not make any false claims. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes this is Bhockey10's talk page. Many comments I left for him, were for him, not you.  You have replyed and thus made a mess of the conversation.  Another inexperienced mistake on your part.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Which makes it absolutely okay for you to jump in here.. I was an involved editor in this discussion and therefore I had every reason to come and discuss an issue directly involved with my actions. On the other hand, I simply commented on BHockey's talk page regarding something I suspect, and you had no reason to be commenting there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So there is a record of what I wrote, I will also post it here.
 * If you were to read the policy you would know the answer. Let me make this clear. Lets say I start a 5 year old boys hockey league in Austin Texas. Can I create a wiki article for that league? No, why? Because it is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. WIkipedia creates standards and policys which are agreed by not just one person but by many, highlighting what should and should no be in an encylcopedia. This community has set a stardard for hockey which is a player has to have played 100 games at or above the echl level to be notable. ECHL is not that high a level if you are to think about it in comparison to the best hockey players in the world. This standard applies not only to stand alone pages, but to notable lists as well. Going back to my 5 year old boy league. This league does not meet the standard of wikipedia. Under this same standard the ACHA falls short. Under guidelines a strong case can be made to have this page removed. The ACHA is not a pro league and is not a top amature league. This is covered by the page which speaks to NCAA hockey. Do you see how this can now be a problem? Every hockey league in the world can create a wiki page and create a list of 'notable' people. What would happen to the creditablity of wikipedia if this were to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

ACHA
Hello, back in December you had said that you were indifferent to who MUST be included in the notable player list. However you insisted on the players with the stand alone pages stay. I conformed to your request and further kept the players who did not play 100 games at the echl or above, but were close (in some cases not really). Now you are trying to add more players to the list which don`t meet the standard and who you agreed to keep off the list. I ask that you respect the policy governing notable people and refrain from adding players who do not meet the min of 100 echl games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there was progress made with the list, there were a number of players prior to Dec 2012 that should not have been on, i.e. played a handful of games in leagues lower than the ECHL... You have chose to select pieces of the guidelines for the notability of sports players for stand-a-lone articles, players that have played significantly in minors, won league awards in minors, played in European leagues that are the highest in the respective country can be included on the list. Many of the players on the list are fairly close to be notable for stand-alone articles. Also The player that played 100+ AAHL games that you continue to remove- the AAHL in question is not the defunct semi-pro league of 2008, it is the minor pro league that eventually became part of the ECH. That player is definitely notable for the list and would be notable for a stand-alone article. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the AAHL is nowhere close to the ECHL. Furthermore, notable standards are clear, and yet you fail to acknowledge them.  100+ games at the ECHL is the standard, not just for standalone pages but for everything.  I have keep the players who came close, but in fact they do not meet policy and should not be there.  Finally, please standby your December statement that you are indifferent to the players who do not meet the wiki standard.  Please stop cherrypicking and start following policy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's starting to feel like the ACHA page is a ping-pong match between myself and this 198 fellow, and that's not much better than his unilateral edits. He is also claiming that you two have reached a civil agreement on a standard for inclusion in the 'notable players in professional leagues' list... but judging by the "discussion" in the article talk page, accusations of edit warring in the edit comments, and the discussion just above in this talk page, I am at a loss as to where this "civil agreement" was struck (am I mistaken?). He also continues to press the Wikipedia notability policy line, despite you, me, and TheOriginalSoni pointing out that he is mis-applying a policy he appears to not understand. I feel like the only way to resolve this is with A) brining in admins (ANI request), or B) deciding upon an explicit and clearly-defined standard for inclusion/exclusion in the list (198 would be free to participate civilly in such a process... but I'm not holding my breath that he will deviate from his consistenly-unilateral course). I'd much prefer option B, and have attempted to start just such a discussion in the talk page for the article. I see you are part of this "College Ice Hockey Task Force" ... perhaps we can get some of the other folks on this 'task force' involved in crafting a clear page standard for the 'notable players in professional leagues' list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishbert (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 198.84.241.55. Thank you. --Fishbert (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions for tornado outbreaks
There is currently a discussion ongoing regarding altering the naming conventions for tornado outbreak and tornado outbreak sequence articles. Please feel free to view and comment on the discussion here. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC) You are receiving this notice because you are listed as a member of WikiProject Severe Weather. If you would not like to receive future WikiProject Severe Weather notifications, please add your signature at User:Ks0stm/Notify list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks0awb (talk • contribs)

Global account
Hi Bhockey10! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FHSUTigers logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:FHSUTigers logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)