User talk:Great50

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited 2011–12 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BTN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Big Ten Tournament scenarios
Indiana is the #1 Seed. They are 2-0 vs. Iowa (6th seed), whereas Michigan is only 1-0. - rpeckhart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpeckhart (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indiana is the #1 due to the immediate head to head; but as you know, 2-0 equals to 1-0, so that won't break the tie (Policy since 2009).Great50 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you've been editing this a lot, so you have an interest in it. I cannot devise a scenario where MSU does not get a first round bye if Indiana loses to Iowa tonight. Even if MSU finishes tied with Indiana at 11-7, MSU will go 1-1 or better against the other teams that can finish ahead of MSU, while Indiana is going to finish 0-1 against Wisconsin. It seems like that's going to mean that even if MSU ties Indiana at 11-7, no matter how you scramble things, MSU will finish ahead of Indiana for the 4th seed and the bye. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Purdue and Northwestern can still overtake Wisconsin, and if either Illinois or Minnesota or both of them tie with Wisconsin, some tiebreakers can tilt in Indiana's favor. Iowa can still overtake Wisconsin as well, but the tiebreaker will favor MSU. Great50 (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how this affects whether MSU could get a bye. For MSU to miss out on a bye, 4 teams have to finish ahead of MSU. The only teams that can finish ahead of MSU in the standings are OSU, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Indiana and Purdue could get into a tie with MSU. The rest of the league cannot catch MSU and so they don't factor into whether MSU can get a bye at the Big Ten Tournament. Purdue is out because MSU is 2-0 against Purdue. If Indiana loses tonight but ties MSU at 11-7, MSU and Indiana will have gone 1-1 against each other. The next tiebreaker is comparing their finish against the teams in descending order of finish, and I am just not seeing how that will favor Indiana. MSU will be at worst 1-1 against OSU, 1-1 against Michigan, and 2-0 against Wisconsin. Indiana will be at best 1-1 against OSU, 1-1 against Michigan, and 0-1 against Wisconsin. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your source for the scenarios. If Michigan wins they get a bye regardless of Indiana. Indiana can not get 12 wins, which Michigan will have with a win.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me your scenarios or futher explain? -Dbrain21


 * Head to head misreading is my mistake; got it corrected. Great50 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I can clear this up for all of you.

If Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio State finish 13-5 (with Michigan defeating Indiana on March 10), and both Michigan State and Wisconsin finish 12-6 (meaning Michigan State lost to Northwestern on the same day), the former three teams will all be 2-2 head-to-head-to-head. The next tiebreaker compares each of the records of Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio State against both Michigan State and Wisconsin combined. Indiana is 2-1 (2-0 vs. MSU, 0-1 vs. WISC), Ohio State is 2-2 (1-1 vs. MSU, 1-1 vs. WISC), and Michigan is 1-2 (1-1 vs. MSU, 0-1 vs. WISC). Michigan State holds a 2-0 record vs. Wisconsin, winning the head-to-head tiebreaker for the 4th seed and a First Round bye.

If Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State eacn finish 13-5 (with Michigan defeating Indiana and Michigan State beating Northwestern), Indiana wins the head-to-head-to-head-to-head record with four wins and two losses (2-0 vs. MSU + 1-1 against each Michigan and Ohio State = 4-2), Michigan and Ohio State tie at 3-3, and Michigan State loses at 2-4. As both Michgan and Ohio State are each, or would each be, 1-1 each against Indiana and Michigan State, their records against Wisconsin decides the seeding as Ohio State wins the tiebreaker (1-1 vs. WISC) over Michigan (0-1).

This means that both Indiana and Ohio State are locked in the first two seeds because an Indiana win over Michigan would win the Hoosiers the Big Ten Conference regular season title outright. Ohio State wins tiebreakers over Michigan (records vs. WISC) and Michigan State (records vs. IU).

DaDoc540 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Got the first two seeds, but now I'm trying to clear up the next three (Michigan, Michigan St., Wisconsin) Great50 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I found out that Michigan State's seeding is not decided by their own game. Ironically, Indiana/Michigan decides the seeding instead. Great50 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If Michigan and Wisconsin both finish 12-6 (with Michigan losing to Indiana and Michigan State defeating Northwestern), the Badgers simply win the head-to-head against Michigan (and the #4 seed) thanks to an overtime win at home-the only game between the two. Since this scenario requires Indiana to win against Michigan, the Hoosier would win the Big Ten Conference regular season title at 14-4 over both Michigan State and Ohio State both at 13-5. Since both Michigan State and Ohio State each held serve against one another (i.e. each defeated the other at home), their respective records against Indiana break the tie. Ohio State (1-1 vs. IU) wins this tiebreaker over Michigan State (0-2) for the #2 seed.

If Michigan, Michigan State, and Wisconsin all finish 12-6 (with Michigan and Michigan State both losing their final games), Michigan State's head-to-head-to-head record (two wins vs. Wisconsin, split against Michigan = 3-1) wins the Spartans the #3 seed over Michigan and Wisconsin (1-2 each). The next tiebreaker asks, "Of the remaning tied teams, who has the best record against the team or teams with the best record?" Since this scenario requires Indiana to win against Michigan, the Hoosier would lead the Big Ten Conference at 14-4. Wisconsin's win over Indiana would break the tie in its favor over Michigan (would be 0-2 vs. IU).

In short, Michigan really wants to win against Indiana on March 10 to earn the #3 seed and a first round bye; losing will drop the Wolverines to the #5 seed. Michigan State will finish either #3 or #4 depending on whether Indiana or Michigan wins; a Michigan win gives the Spartans a chance for a piece of the Big Ten regular season championship at the cost of a #3 seed. If Michigan loses and Michigan State wins against Northwestern the same day, the Spartans win the #3 seed and avoid a possible matchup against Wisconsin in the Second Round of the Big Ten Conference Tournament.

DaDoc540 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

NIT auto bid
You removed Michigan from the 2012 NIT page saying that since they were co champions then all the co champions receive auto bids, that is not true. The NIT defaults to the #1 seed in the conference tournament as the team that gets the auto bid if they loss. A few years ago, the WAC had a 4 way tie for first. Utah State was the #1 seed and didn't win thus they got auto bid to NIT, not all 3 that didn't win the tournament. So it doesn't matter because Michigan is going to the NCAA's anyway, but they were the #3 seed thus wouldn't get the auto bid, Michigan state as the #1 seed would, but they are going to the NCAA's as well. Just thought I'd let you know for future reference that its not all co champions that get nit auto bids, just the #1 seed. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Speed limits in the United States
I just wanted to thank you for your many contributions on the Speed limits in the United States page and for correcting me on it.

TheCatcherNumberSevenJoeMauer 07:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Cut & paste move of Texas derby
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Texas derby a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Allen3 talk 09:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Live updates
Hey, please only update a game when a quarter, haftime or whatever has ended and not in the middle of a game like you did to waterpolo and volleyball. The result field should be left blank until the game is over, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Margin victory
Sorry, the mistake was mine. The record is the amount of points (156), which surpassed the 138 scored by Brazil at Seoul '88. Thanks. --1969 (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Playoff elimination scenarios for Week 15
The N.Y. Jets will still be eliminated if they lose tomorrow. They would need the Steelers to beat the Bengals, but then the Steelers finish ahead of the Jets on tiebreak anyway. Gazzawhite (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to assist in the Texan Collaboration of the Year for 2013
Tramadul (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=555386264 your edit] to Bosnia and Herzegovina national ice hockey team may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Discussion on Talk:Hurricane Sandy
I am contacting you to let you know that there is currently a discussion going on that you might be interested in on Talk:Hurricane Sandy. I noticed that you were one of the top contributors to the article, so I figured I would let you know. Please don't feel like this invitation means that you have to participate, but feel free to do so if you desire. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion was recently closed by me, but has since reopened. Please feel free to participate if you are interested.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GA Thanks
Thank you for your editorial contributions to 2012–13 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Houston Dynamo season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2014 (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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)