DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) m →Blocked again: only one unblock request at a time is permitted - changing to simple response to the posed question |
→Blocked again: unblock granted |
||
Line 364: | Line 364: | ||
Please read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<font color="#4B0082">(T<small>ALK</small>)</font>]]</small></sup></span> 04:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)}} |
Please read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<font color="#4B0082">(T<small>ALK</small>)</font>]]</small></sup></span> 04:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)}} |
||
{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" |
|||
{{unblock|I understand that I have been blocked for Sockpuppetry. I promise that I will not use another account for editing on Wikipedia. I am on Wikipedia to improve ice hockey and other Wikipedia articles. The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Once I am unblocked I will continue to add referenced content and new encyclopedia articles on notable subjects to the project, and to constructively take part in the wikipedia community.}} |
|||
|- |
|||
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.5em" | [[File:Artículo bueno.svg|50 px]] |
|||
| style="padding: 0.1em" | |
|||
'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): |
|||
<br><br>I might be missing something here, but I am inclined to believe Dolovis. I see a long history of constructive editing an no disruptive behavior. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
''Request handled by:'' ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> |
|||
<small> '''Unblocking administrator''': Please check for <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php?user={{PAGENAMEE}} active autoblocks] on this user after accepting the unblock request.</small> |
|||
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> |
|||
|} |
|||
Can you please be descriptive and explicit about your relationship with [[User:Andy14and16]]? Are you operating that account as well? [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
Can you please be descriptive and explicit about your relationship with [[User:Andy14and16]]? Are you operating that account as well? [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
*Thank you for taking a second-look at my block. To answer your question, I have ''no relationship'' with [[User:Andy14and16]]. I am not operating that account and I am not operating the [[User:Pooet]] account. I have tried to be as descriptive and explicit as possible, and I am happy to answer your further questions if required. The only account that I am operating is [[User:Dolovis]]. I have examined all of Andy14and16's edits and can find no similarities between those edits and mine. On my [[User:Dolovis|User Page]] I have fully explained my relationship with Pooet. He is my nephew, and and we do not share our accounts with each other. I reiterate my point that this block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Please examine all the facts and allegations leading up to the 1st and 2nd block when considering my request to be unblocked. Thank you. [[User:Dolovis|Dolovis]] ([[User talk:Dolovis#top|talk]]) 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
*Thank you for taking a second-look at my block. To answer your question, I have ''no relationship'' with [[User:Andy14and16]]. I am not operating that account and I am not operating the [[User:Pooet]] account. I have tried to be as descriptive and explicit as possible, and I am happy to answer your further questions if required. The only account that I am operating is [[User:Dolovis]]. I have examined all of Andy14and16's edits and can find no similarities between those edits and mine. On my [[User:Dolovis|User Page]] I have fully explained my relationship with Pooet. He is my nephew, and and we do not share our accounts with each other. I reiterate my point that this block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Please examine all the facts and allegations leading up to the 1st and 2nd block when considering my request to be unblocked. Thank you. [[User:Dolovis|Dolovis]] ([[User talk:Dolovis#top|talk]]) 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:25, 3 June 2010
|
WIHL Seasons
If all you have to say about the individual seasons of the Western International Hockey League is "The xxxx-xx season of the WIHL was the nth season." is it really worth creating the article at all? Also, your article on the WIHL needs more references. You clearly have a ton of information about this defunct league, and as a professional league, it deserves its place in Wikipedia, but the information needs a reference to be verifiable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that the articles are being created as "stub articles". Be patient as content will be added shortly.Dolovis (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I note that the first article (1947-48 WIHL season) is a verbatim copy of the same article at the Ice Hockey WIKIA. While the text there is licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0, this does not allow it to be copied verbatim without attribution. This template exists for this purpose. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the template. The article is now properly attributed.Dolovis (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I note that the first article (1947-48 WIHL season) is a verbatim copy of the same article at the Ice Hockey WIKIA. While the text there is licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0, this does not allow it to be copied verbatim without attribution. This template exists for this purpose. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that the senior teams you are doing history on need to be in separate articles from the present Jr. hockey clubs. You can create pages like Kimberley Dynamiters (senior), Trail Smoke Eaters (senior), Spokane Flyers (senior), and Nelson Maple Leafs (senior) instead of adding them to the applicable jr. team. Please not though there are ways to link the present Jr. teams namesake to that of the old Sr. team... look at Durham Huskies and Durham Huskies (1996–2001) for example. DMighton (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, please take a look at other season pages... maybe you can borrow some templates and such to make these ones look a little better. 2009-10 OJAHL season, 2009-10 OHL season, 2009-10 NHL season. DMighton (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Bot?
Is this a bot account? This account is rapidly creating articles. Tommy (msg) 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is not. I am an actual person.Dolovis (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article 1987-88 WIHL season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no content
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop proding the articles concerning the "WIHL seasons". They are marked as stub articles, and further content will soon be added.Dolovis (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article 1986-87 WIHL season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no content
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop proding the articles concerning the "WIHL seasons". They are marked as stub articles, and further content will soon be added.Dolovis (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article 1985-86 WIHL season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no content
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop proding the articles concerning the "WIHL seasons". They are marked as stub articles, and further content will soon be added.Dolovis (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article 1984-85 WIHL season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no content
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop proding the articles concerning the "WIHL seasons". They are marked as stub articles, and further content will soon be added.Dolovis (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article 1983-84 WIHL season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no content
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop proding the articles concerning the "WIHL seasons". They are marked as stub articles, and further content will soon be added.Dolovis (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Nelson Cubs
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Nelson Cubs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Terrillja talk 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of "Marquette Iron Rangers"
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f7/Nuvola_apps_important.svg/48px-Nuvola_apps_important.svg.png)
A page you created, Marquette Iron Rangers, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a club or other organization, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for organizations in particular.
You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Thank you. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Okanagan Senior League
I have nominated Okanagan Senior League, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okanagan Senior League. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Terrillja talk 22:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The KIJHL, AWHL and RMJHL Dynamiters franchises are the same... please put (KIJHL) not (RMJHL) when linking... Good work so far... but you really need to build up those season pages you were making before they all get deletion tags... I hate when a potential good article gets tagged. DMighton (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the encouragement. I hope other editors will assist with making additions to the stub articles that I have created. Dolovis (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm telling you right now... it's hard to find good help. I've been doing the bulk of Ontario and Canada now since 2006. I also founded the Ice Hockey Wiki. A lot of the info you've been using was put on there by a friend of mine from Toronto who has access to the National Archives. So if you have any questions about stuff you've found on there... look for User:Fanofpucks... he is an amazing resource. He should also have some newspaper sources for your articles you've put on here as he did a lot of the leg work... he should know where he got the stuff. If you need them, just ask him and you can add them to the Wikipedia articles. DMighton (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Please use proper tables; see WP:TABLE. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would appreciate the help of another editor to properly format the tables. Dolovis (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Help:Table might be more help (har); it contains a lot of examples of how things can be implemented. If you have any difficulties using it, contact me on my talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Categories
Hi! I saw the categories you added to the Vancouver Canucks article. While I don't concern myself with it too much, others try to keep the category trees as clean as possible. Since the Canucks article is part of Category:Vancouver Canucks, and that category is part of Category:Ice hockey teams in British Columbia, the Canucks article is considered redundant in the latter category. So, don't be surprised if someone comes along some day and removes those categories with that reasoning. :)
Also, I noticed your excessive see also section at 1983-84 WIHL season and the like. You would probably find it much easier, and cleaner, to use a template for things like this. {{Calgary Flames seasons}} and the like would be a decent example of how this could look. I also converted the standings from that season article into a table, per the suggestion above. You should be able to use that to update your other season articles. I would also note that we generally don't use one article for different teams using the same name (i.e.: The Spokane Chiefs). It would be better to create an article at Spokane Chiefs (WIHL) that details the senior team's history.
Welcome to the project, and feel free to ask any of us at WT:HOCKEY for any assistance you may need. Cheers! Resolute 23:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your warm welcome to the project, and I appreciate your constructive comments. I have become involved to create article for the many redlines that I found while researching old hockey on Wikipedia. Many of the articles that I have created are stubs, and several more may require to be Wikified. I feel it is most important to get the article started, with the hope that other editors may pitch in to help with additional content and formating. Once the redlines have all turned blue, then I will be back to see what I can do about beautifying those article that still need the help. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can tell you from experience that it will likely be a solitary goal. We've got some great editors of historical articles in the hockey project, but as with everything else, there is a bias towards recent leagues and events. Resolute 00:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Two users have now asked for undeletion, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored the article and pointed then to WP:N, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Nelson Cubs
I have nominated Nelson Cubs, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson Cubs. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
USHL
If you actually read the history section of the USHL page it would explain how it worked to you. They are the same league. What happened was that in 1979 all the teams that were not junior dropped out of the league which allowed the league to declare itself only junior. It is still the same league, it just changed classifications. I actually am from one of the cities that was in the league and have many programs from games that explain the league history. -DJSasso (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I understand what you say to be true, but nonetheless I remain convinced that it is better organized to keep two articles: 1961-1979 ( minor professional) and 1979 - present (junior). A minor pro league operates very differently from a junior league, and since their is such a clear break between the two (1979), it makes sense to have the two articles. Dolovis (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- There isn't a clear break between the two. Because from 1977-1979 the league had both junior and semi-pro teams. That is sort of the point. This is a very unique league which is why it should be kept together to illustrate that. -DJSasso (talk)
- I believe that both of us want to improve the article(s) relating to the USHL - we just disagree on how to do it. I think that a single article is confusing to anyone who is trying to research minor pro hockey (like me). The fact that the league is currently operating as a junior league obscures the minor pro years of 1961-1979. Two articles makes logical sense. Dolovis (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- There isn't a clear break between the two. Because from 1977-1979 the league had both junior and semi-pro teams. That is sort of the point. This is a very unique league which is why it should be kept together to illustrate that. -DJSasso (talk)
Please continue this discussion here Dolovis (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit Warring
This is your final warning. Cease edit waring and discuss changes or you will be blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have earlier given you your final warning on your talk page, yet you are continuing to revert my good-faith edits. Bring it through the proper channels, and stop your edit warring. I have already brought WP:3RR to your attention here. Dolovis (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your first edit was good faith, when you continued to revert me and not discuss your edits stopped being good faith. You've been warned. Quit your WP:POINT editing and learn to discuss before warring. -DJSasso (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please hold off on creating the Vancouver category. Because obviously the creation of that category depends on the outcome of the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Dolovis, I am glad to see your interest in the subjects you've been adding to... senior... pro... but you really need to read up on Wikipedia:Etiquette or you might sadly end up with a ban for awhile on here. Djsasso is an administrator on here, he's knowledgeable in both hockey and the ways of Wikipedia.... I would suggest you take his advice. Being Bold is one thing... but you are only allowed to do it once per subject... if someone objects and reverts it... you must take heed and discuss it. From this point on, it is a matter of consensus... none of us like it at first... but we learn... I had to too... we all do. DMighton (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your first edit was good faith, when you continued to revert me and not discuss your edits stopped being good faith. You've been warned. Quit your WP:POINT editing and learn to discuss before warring. -DJSasso (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Dolovis. Recommend (in future) bringing such concerns to WP:HOCKEY 'first', less dramatic that way. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the friendly advice, and I will try to not object too strongly the next time another editor starts to revert all of my edits. But as I look at my edits now (i.e. creation of a new category and the adding of such new category to 63 articles), it was actually Djsasso who was being Bold by attempting to delete the new category, and I who was reverting his bold moves. So (by wiki-policy) once I objected and reverted then it should have been Djsasso, and not I, who should have taken heed and discussed it. But I now understand that he is an administrator so I will pay heed. Dolovis (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have used AWB to repopulate the Cowboys cat, now back at 63. The correct way to object to a new category is cfd, not depopulation (and, if the objection is upheld, a bot does the work). Boldness is not needed to create a category. Occuli (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- You must have mistaken me for DJSasso (talk) as he was the editor who objected to the new category by depopulation (not me), and it was I who brought the issue to cfd. Thank you for repopulating the category, as it had become apparent that the depopulating editor was renaging on his promise [1] to take on that task. Dolovis (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I was stating my views on the matter without mentioning names. Occuli (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- You must have mistaken me for DJSasso (talk) as he was the editor who objected to the new category by depopulation (not me), and it was I who brought the issue to cfd. Thank you for repopulating the category, as it had become apparent that the depopulating editor was renaging on his promise [1] to take on that task. Dolovis (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have used AWB to repopulate the Cowboys cat, now back at 63. The correct way to object to a new category is cfd, not depopulation (and, if the objection is upheld, a bot does the work). Boldness is not needed to create a category. Occuli (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Calgary Cowboys
FWIW, I reverted your move of the article to Calgary Cowboys (WHA). There is no need to disambiguate the title given the WHA team is clearly the subject most readers would be looking for at that title. The hat note provides a link to the only other team using the name. Cheers! Resolute 16:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have given my thoughts on the subject at Category talk:Calgary Cowboys (WHA) players. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your move of Metallurg Novo. to HC Metallurg Novo., that's not the team's name so I'm unsure what you mean by "consistency" --Львівське (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am looking at the Category:HC Metallurg Novokuznetsk players. There is currently a discussion that the category title should be consistent with the main article title. Perhaps you would like to change THAT title for consistency. Dolovis (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Book reference
Are you adding that book reference all over the place to back up any specific statement? Does a book about the southern hockey really have 2000 pages about the Adirondack Frostbite? ccwaters (talk)
- Thank you for pointing out my typo. Referenced pages should be 17-200. Not every page deals exclusively with the Frostbite, but Jon C. Scott's book is the best I have yet to find on the subject of minor pro hockey in the American south. Dolovis (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the "Adirondack" teams have been based in Glens Falls, New York, well above the Mason-Dixon line :). Anyway, the real purpose of my inquiry is that I noticed you added this book to a handful of articles. Typically, citations are used to verify specific statements. It would probably be better to extract any relevant information out of the book, then to say "read these 200 pages because the Frostbite were mentioned a few times." ccwaters (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- This was added as a general reference for this article. If you check all my edits you will find that I use in-line citations to reference specific statements. Dolovis (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the "Adirondack" teams have been based in Glens Falls, New York, well above the Mason-Dixon line :). Anyway, the real purpose of my inquiry is that I noticed you added this book to a handful of articles. Typically, citations are used to verify specific statements. It would probably be better to extract any relevant information out of the book, then to say "read these 200 pages because the Frostbite were mentioned a few times." ccwaters (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposed move of International Hockey League
G6 deletion is for "performing uncontroversial page moves", that is page moves that no one is likely to disagree with. I this case I don't think the move is uncontroversial and think it needs the fuller discussion of a requested move. It may well be that consensus agrees with you but I don't think this is so obvious that a G6 should be used - the older league has a reasonable claim to be at least as notable, from what I can tell it played at a higher level and was around much longer. I would agree that the (2007–) is ugly but this is a separate issue which can be sorted (if it still needs to be) after we've sorted what's the primary topic. Dpmuk (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would think that deleting a duplicated disambiguation article would be uncontroversial, but I will raise this at WP:RM when I find the time. Dolovis (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- But that's not really what's going on here is it. What you are trying to do is move International Hockey League (2007–) to be the primary topic. The only reason it involves "deleting a duplicated disambiguation article" is because you made a copy of the page in preparation for the move. Yes deleting a duplicated disambiguation article is often uncontroversial bit it isn't when its required to perform a move that possibly is controversial. You can't circumnavigate the rules on contreversial moves by going as far as you can and then claiming the last move is uncontroversial because it's just deleting a duplicated page as that defeats the point of requested moves. Sorry for the delay in replying but I had a funeral to attend. Dpmuk (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
Comment: My suggestion for a separate category for Calgary Cowboys players (originally opposed by an admin[2]) was approved after a discussion. I was then blocked for one week following an accusation of “socketpuppetry” made against me by the same admin.[3]. The block was implemented without warning, and without giving me or the other party (my nephew) the opportunity to explain or defend against the accusation. The block could not be based on the results of the “possible” but “inconclusive” results of the checkuser [4] so the block had to be based “behavioural evidence alone”.
I presume that “possible but inconclusive” means it was found that the two accounts were operated from different computers in different parts of the same city or region (I make this assumption because I live about 10 kms from my nephew).
As the checkuser provided no assistance to having my account blocked, the blocking admin relied upon the accusation that the two accounts had “almost identical edits in a couple instances”. The simple truth is that there is only one single edit [5] (not “a couple” as claimed by the accuser) that could be even remotely used as evidence to justify a block. This single edit [6] (the so-called “convincing” behavioural evidence provided by the accuser) concerned a “succession box” that my nephew had set-up, and once he showed it to me, I used the same form to create similar succession boxes into several other articles that I was trying to improve. Other than that one small piece of knowledge that he shared with me, I have not shared any other editing with my nephew or his account.
As background, I didn’t know that my nephew had been involved with Wikipedia until during a visit to his house one evening I shared with him that I had become involved in editing with Wikipedia. He told me he also had an account. That evening we had fun reviewing the articles that I had created, and we also reviewed together the Calgary Cowboys players discussion that I was involved in
A review of my nephew’s edits shows that soon before we were blocked, he nominated a hockey related article for a deletion discussion. The deletion nomination was opposed by the accusing admin. I have since reviewed the nomination discussion and, based on what the article looked like prior to my nephew’s involvement [7], it is appears to me that the nomination, though unsuccessful, was not frivolous.
The only link that my account has with that of my nephew’s is that we were both involved in discussions with the same admin. My suggestion for a separate category for Calgary Cowboys players (originally opposed by an admin [8]) was approved after a discussion. I was then blocked for one week as a result of an accusation made against me by the same admin.
My suggestion is that there should be clear policy on what constitutes sufficient “behavioural evidence” when the checkuser does not confirm socketpuppetry. I suggest that such evidence must consist of something more than a single constructive edit. I also suggest that the accused parties should be given the full opportunity to respond to such a serious allegation before a block is implemented. Dolovis (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Cleaning up references and external links
Hi, I noticed on a number of articles you started that you put a reference but put it in the external link section. I suggest you create a reference section when you are adding references else other editors are going to prod, tag and otherwise start removal of your articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your help and advice. As a relatively new editor, I am still learning as I navigate my way through the politics and formating protocols of Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wayne Mor(r)in
The one-r spelling is not an "implausible" typo; firstly, the article was created at that spelling in 2007, while the double-r spelling didn't exist until you created it a week ago. Secondly, 1976–77 Calgary Cowboys season and List of Blazers/Cowboys players both link to the single-r spelling; by having it deleted, you broke an existing link. Thirdly, several other references — this one, for example, and this one — do spell it with one r. And fourthly, just on principle alone "Morin" is far more plausible than "Morrin" just because it's a far more common surname to begin with.
With conflicting sources, it's certainly best that we don't get into a move war over it pending some kind of confirmation. But the one-r spelling, at the very least, isn't "implausible" enough to warrant deletion in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- So create the redirect. Dolovis (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article 1981-82 WIHL season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- non notable sports article
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stormbay (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article 1947-48 WIHL season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- non notable sports article
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stormbay (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Western International Hockey League
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Western International Hockey League. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western International Hockey League. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Your WIHL articles
There are a lot of these season by season articles that you have created
- 1946-47 WIHL season
- 1947-48 WIHL season
- 1948-49 WIHL season
- 1949-50 WIHL season
- 1950-51 WIHL season
- 1951-52 WIHL season
- 1952-53 WIHL season
- 1953-54 WIHL season
- 1954-55 WIHL season
- 1955-56 WIHL season
- 1956-57 WIHL season
- 1957-58 WIHL season
- 1958-59 WIHL season
- 1959-60 WIHL season
- 1960-61 WIHL season
- 1961-62 WIHL season
- 1963-64 WIHL season
- 1964-65 WIHL season
- 1965-66 WIHL season
- 1966-67 WIHL season
- 1967-68 WIHL season
- 1968-69 WIHL season
- 1969-70 WIHL season
- 1970-71 WIHL season
- 1971-72 WIHL season
- 1972-73 WIHL season
- 1973-74 WIHL season
- 1974-75 WIHL season
- 1975-76 WIHL season
- 1976-77 WIHL season
- 1977-78 WIHL season
- 1978-79 WIHL season
- 1979-80 WIHL season
- 1980-81 WIHL season
- 1981-82 WIHL season
- 1982-83 WIHL season
- 1983-84 WIHL season
- 1984-85 WIHL season
- 1985-86 WIHL season
- 1986-87 WIHL season
- 1987-88 WIHL season
Might I suggest, instead of having all of these separate articles, that the seasons be put in a large table with all relevant facts and figures? It might be better than all of the current articles. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I really would appreciate your input on these articles. I don't see how they are notable on their own, but maybe they could be included in a list. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- In it's day the WIHL was a top tier league. As such, the individual seasons are notable. These articles are stubs, and it is my intention to add content when I have the opportunity. In the meantime, I have cleaned up the main article by creating the list article List_of_WIHL_seasons. Thank you for your suggestion. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess my thought is that you could expand the list that you just created to include the season details. I could help you do that (but not right now - I am very busy, maybe I will have more free time to edit in a week or two, maximum one month, but I am still willing to help!). --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- In it's day the WIHL was a top tier league. As such, the individual seasons are notable. These articles are stubs, and it is my intention to add content when I have the opportunity. In the meantime, I have cleaned up the main article by creating the list article List_of_WIHL_seasons. Thank you for your suggestion. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thanks
for the message. I read the talk on the link you gave - interesting to see it pointed out that the project doesn t have jurisdiction over categories - sometimes it really seems that the hockey group doesn t see it that way or that categories interconnect with other topics/areas (that the world doesn t actually revolve around hockey, not to say I don t enjoy it too) Not to excuse too some of the poor edits I have made in their eyes - I like details and nuances and this often gets me in trouble! Regards, Mayumashu (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Happy editing. Cheers! Dolovis (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Scott Brower
Is the Scott Brower article you created about Scott Brower or Tim Breslin? It appears to be an amalgamation of the two. - Dravecky (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have it fixed now. Dolovis (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked again
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Stop_x_nuvola.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola.svg.png)
You may contest this block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.It is clear that you have been using User:Andy14and16. –MuZemike 01:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Dolovis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have openly admitted that I have personal knowledge of the person who edits under the name User:Pooet. He is my nephew, and he is a more experienced editor that I am. I have disclosed this knowledge on my User Page. But I have not, and do not, edit under his name; and he does not edit under mine. I do not speak for User:Pooet and I have no knowledge of who User:Andy14and16 is. My first edit was made on Mar 29, 2010. Since that time I have made over 2,000 edits and have created over 160 new articles. Virtually all of my edits have been in support of the WikiProject Ice Hockey. Any check of my edits will show that they are constructive and supportive of Wikipedia. The first block was not justified, and I have outlined the full facts of that complaint on my User Page. This recent block was also made without warning, and without seeking my comments, and without taking the time and attention that should be required to determine if in fact there is sockpuppet abuse based on behaviour. The allegations against me do not suggest or demonstrate that there has been any abusive edits, or any other inappropriate uses of an alternate account. The allegations are made against me are unremarkable and un-documented. They are made against me by an editor (who is also an admin) who disagreed with me in a discussion. The complainant does not point to any edits made by me that suggest that a block can be justified based on behavior. This is because I have made only constructive edits, and because my account and the others are not related.
:I have just read Evidence and SPI case guidelines. It is clear that I have been blocked in violation of that policy which states: If there is no evidence showing forbidden sock-puppetry, then nothing will happen and the case is likely to be speedily closed by the SPI clerks. Most SPI cases are decided based upon behavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts or IPs concerned. This evidence needs to be explicit; that is, use verifiable evidence in the form of diffs, links to the pages in which the sock puppetry is occurring, and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from said evidence. Evidence solely consisting of vague beliefs or assumptions will be rejected. If policy, as written above, was correctly followed, then neither of the blocks against me would have been implemented.
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Can you please be descriptive and explicit about your relationship with User:Andy14and16? Are you operating that account as well? GlassCobra 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a second-look at my block. To answer your question, I have no relationship with User:Andy14and16. I am not operating that account and I am not operating the User:Pooet account. I have tried to be as descriptive and explicit as possible, and I am happy to answer your further questions if required. The only account that I am operating is User:Dolovis. I have examined all of Andy14and16's edits and can find no similarities between those edits and mine. On my User Page I have fully explained my relationship with Pooet. He is my nephew, and and we do not share our accounts with each other. I reiterate my point that this block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Please examine all the facts and allegations leading up to the 1st and 2nd block when considering my request to be unblocked. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- As the Sockpuppetry investigation shows (see above for the link), the editing patterns are suspicious - is it possible that Andy14and16 could be your nephew? The editing involved is disruptive to the encyclopedia, and so the temporary block seems justified to me. My advice would be to wait for the month to be up, and then resume editing - and don't let your nephew use your computer. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- My nephew has never used my computer as he lives a good 20 minute drive from my home. Even if Andy14and16 is my nephew's account, it is not my account and you will find no similarities in the edit patterns between Dolovis and Andy14and16. Please be explicit in how the editing involved has been disruptive? And even if so, a month block is extreme when compared to other blocks given for similar and more serious offences. This will be my last unblock request. If the answer is still no I will wait until the block expires. I am just asking that someone please explain to me how my account could be blocked when I have no connection to Andy14and16, and no diffs have been shown to demonstrate a suspicious pattern of editing between my account and his. Blocking policy is supposed to prevent these types of injustices from happening, as a complaint must be more than the just the bold statement of belief from the accuser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolovis (talk • contribs)