User talk:FutureNJGov/archive3

Lita

I just meant it's not notable to the event. Yes it is notable to HER, and that's why it's mentioned on the talk page. It's the same reason stuff like Undertaker's WrestleMania win streak is only mentione on his page and not on every WM page. TJ Spyke 04:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, there is now a survey about this matter on the talk page of Survivor Series. RobJ1981 05:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and sports articles

Observation: It's amazing how fast POV crept back into New Jersey Devils[1]. I just wanted to share. – flamurai (t) 09:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we'll keep that article intact. On a related note, I started working heavily on the Martin Brodeur article. It needs a lot of work. Are you interested? Sportskido8 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Devils

My concern was, that it conflicted with Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. The arbitrary format change bothered me, I felt that if this change was added to the Devils page then it should be added to the other 29 pages. Furthermore, I felt a consense (say on Devils 'talk page') should have been reached first (before changing formats). GoodDay 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sections are now distorted. You might think I'm a party-pooper about this, but the Scott Stevens sweater retirement photo should be moved. A better place for the photo, could be the Scott Stevens page. GoodDay 18:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it's already there. That should be good enough. GoodDay 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 'Scott Steven' photo (for distortion reasons). Moved 'Retired Numbers' section, it's now below 'Head coaches' section. Done this to conform with 29 other team pages. Again if a new format is added to a NHL team page (after pro-consenses) then the format change should be noted in Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format, if approved by Wiki-Commnuity the changes should be added to all 30 NHL team pages. GoodDay 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the 'Famous Players' title & contens are here (Devils page) to stay. Oh well, just wanted (again), to let you know I wasn't against the edits personally. Just felt a consenses should have been reached first. GoodDay 21:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got my consenses after all (see Talk:New Jersey Devils. GoodDay 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hockey page

I protected that page as you requested. I've been spending a lot of time whipping the user categories into shape (mostly done, I think), but am about ready to try some other really huge project. Any suggestions?--Mike Selinker 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

I noticed that you check the "minor edit" box on the majority of your edits. I'll turn your attention to Wikipedia's guidlines on what constitutes a minor edit, as there seems to be some confusion. I'm thinking specifically of your additions to James Brown but there are others as well.

A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.

The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences not to display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please do not mark it as minor.

Cheers.--Beaker342 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Devils (again)

Due to fact 'Famous Players' section, still hasn't been added to the other NHL team articles, I've taken the matter to the WPTT for opinons (on section's existance). A potential 'edit war' at Philadelphia Flyers has forced, my hand. GoodDay 06:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tcnj-shield.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tcnj-shield.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sauerbrun.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sauerbrun.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHL leader

Could you explain to me how my edit to NHL stats leaders was vandalism? Jmlk17 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, all clear then :) thanks Jmlk17 08:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marty

Hey, I put the article up for GA consideration. I added a bit of content to it in the past few days, I guess it could use more references but besides that I think it's all good. Sportskido8 07:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. I knew all the hard work and effort would pay off someday. And yeah, that game was ridiculous last night. I hope they don't crash in Ottawa! Sportskido8 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind enabling an email NJ so I can contact you? Quadzilla99 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. Quadzilla99 02:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of family relations in the National Hockey League

Checked it out, looks great. As for the concerns about article length, I think there's a technique for 'folding' sections into 'section titles' which you can open & close. Your proposed edits, would greatly improve the article. GoodDay 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this looks good. I would keep the pictures, even though they are unconventional for a list article. I think they look nice. As GoodDay said, you can probably fold up section titles instead of ruining the integrity of the article, which is probably a better way to go. For the prose, I wouldn't really call it "Trivia" (that's getting kind of crusty I think). You can probably write a couple of paragraphs of solid information related to this topic which would nicely introduce the list or you can go with bullets, either way isn't bad. Overall good job! Sportskido8 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Hockey Project discussion of hockey player notability and project scope

Please come join the WikiProject Ice Hockey Notability standards for hockey players discussion. I'd like to see input from all our project members who have an opinion. Thanks! ColtsScore 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHL relations

There won't be an 'edit war'. I understand your reasons for adding Atwell/McCreary (now), feel free to restore their entry. Thanks for explaining it to me, it was very considerate of you. GoodDay 18:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relations list

Great job on the list Anthony. You clearly worked very hard on it, and I gave my support for it on the FLC page. I guess you saw that I was working hard on Dominik Hasek recently. I hope it passes! Sportskido8 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of Image:Danmorgantrainingcamp2005.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Danmorgantrainingcamp2005.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Danmorgantrainingcamp2005.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Danmorgantrainingcamp2005.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Avalanche articles

"At any rate, nice job on all the hard work you've been doing lately, and please don't take my comments as anything other than positive critiques." No, not at all, I thank you for your feedback, really. Hum, and your article on the Devils picks looks very good, better than mine, but mine could be more useful to compare all the draftees. About the traded picks, I agree with you, those should be mentioned. Anyway, I'm not sure what to do about the list, I think it would be good if we could work out some kind of consensus at the Wikiproject Ice Hockey and see what the community thinks. What do you think?--Serte ^[ Talk · Contrib ] 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you feel your comments may be misunderstood by me, but I can assure you they're not, don't worry. I welcome different opinions and ideas and I know that's what you're doing. Don't worry... :-) --Serte ^[ Talk · Contrib ] 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panthers

Forgot about that, I'll try to look at it today. Quadzilla99 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft picks

Hey, I'll definitely take a look at your FLC when I get a chance. I haven't noticed the draft picks pages really but I will take a look at that as well. I should look at the Wikiproject Ice Hockey page more. Right now I'm trying to get the Yankees page to GA-status (it should have passed recently but it's almost there) and I may help out the Sakic article since it's GA already and needs a bit of work. Any help would be appreciated! Sportskido8 18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, which Devil should we work on next? Stevens? Sportskido8 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of current WHL captains

You must have moved the Afd, mere seconds before I did. For a moment my contributions recorded my edit & now it doesn't. Very freaky. GoodDay 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with tables

{{helpme}} I could use assistance with tables. On my sandbox page, I am trying to create a table of New Jersey Devils coaches. The main part of the table is fine, and if I just wanted to do head coaches, I wouldn't have a problem. But I want to include assistant coaches within each coach's line. I've been struggling with the markup for the wikitable. I'm not sure how to code it properly so that I can make that happen. For example, if you look at the sandbox page, you'll see that the first two coaches are fine. But when we get to Doug Carpenter, that's when the trouble begins. Both Lou Vairo and Ron Smith were assistants under Carpenter, but I don't know how to get them to stay within the parameters of the "Assistants" lines. Essentially, if someone could do it for me (just these two), and then I'll look at the code to see how it was done and continue working on it for the rest of the coaches, I'd greatly appreciate it. Anthony Hit me up... 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is to spread it out over two rows. That means you need to put | rowspan="2" | at the begining of each line you don't want to divide, and put the other assistant coach in a new row, like this. I hope that makes sense :). --Werdan7^T @ 21:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Devils draft picks

If you need any help (or just want any), I'll gladly help you out with it, or any other Devils-related article really. I'm 99% sure that List of New Jersey Devils players will pass FLC so I think I can move on to working on something else and just check back to make sure everything's alright, I would say 100% sure but you never know what could happen by the time it's over. Bsroiaadn^Talk 05:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds good to me. What were some of your ideas for the coaches list in your sandbox? Maybe I could take care of some of those. And the notes are just notes from their time while coaching the Devils? As in, not noting the Herb Brooks was also the coach for the famous Miracle on Ice game, correct? Anyway, I'll help with that..but before we put it up for FLC, we should also make articles for all the redlinks, since that'll probably be one of the things they say to do. But we can wait till later to do that. Also, I couldn't figure it out, some of the coaches have 4 numbers in their record (I.E. Pat Burns 89-45-22-8) what would the fourth number mean? Bsroiaadn^Talk 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm...well, if I make a new table for the assitants, I'll leave the assistants in the main coaches table and just add records (if they have them) to the assistants table. I'm not sure if I'll split up the assistant coaches and the goaltending coaches, though, I probably won't. I think I may get rid of OTL for pre-lockout coaches as most people don't consider it important during that time, if you don't mind. I think it'd just cause confusion if it's left there. Bsroiaadn^Talk 04:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...in that case, I've thought of a very good idea for the records column to clear up any confusion about T/OTL. And I knew that third column now is OTL, I just wasn't aware that OTL counted for anything before the lockout as I wasn't as much into stats and stuff back then as I am now. Also, wondering if you can clear something up for me. I proposed a date on Today's featured article request for the Devils for June 30th as it's the anniversary of the day the team was renamed the New Jersey Devils and one person doesn't think it's significant. It's not up to him/her regardless, I just don't see how he/she can think it's not important enough to be a good date for Today's featured article. Bsroiaadn^Talk 22:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finished Head Coaches of the New Jersey Devils. I put it up already as I went over it completely and saw no errors. I'm still debating the Stanley Cup blue background thing as it may confuse some people, but I'm not sure if I wanna get rid of it or not yet. What do you think of it? Bsroiaadn^Talk 04:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Avalanche article review

I've worked very hard this weekend to expand the Colorado Avalanche article as you can see here. I'd like to hear your opinion on what could be done to improve the article further and how far is it from being a Featured Article. Also, I'd like you to pay attention to the fact that English is not my native language, so, there may be language errors and bad wording. If you have the time to check it and to give your opinion, I'd be thankful.--Serte ^[ Talk · Contrib ] 14:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying

I'm sorry about the revert; I should have paid more attention to the edit. I'll make sure I look more carefully in the future. I am sorry. Acalamari 01:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]