User talk:MrArticleOne

The above anon has made a minor edit to the article.^[1] I think that edit should not be reverted. Anons that make good faith edits that don't make an article less accurate, should not be left with the impression that they are not welcome. This anon's edit should be left in place, because it does not undermine the quality of the article and because the anon would hopefully then feel that his efforts at making good faith contributions to Wikipedia are welcome. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, if any edit lessens the quality of the article, that edit should be reverted. I have no objection to changing it back later. My point is simply that an anon who makes an edit that doesn't lessen the quality of the article, shouldn't have that edit reverted as if it were vandalism. Such anons should be encouraged to contribute, not discouraged as if they are unwelcome intruders. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that, unfortunately, there is never a low supply of idiots. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought about what you said. My guess is that at least of some of those vandals are anti-American and see vandalizing the Preamble article as a way (stupidity notwithstanding) to express how they feel. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably a combination of both. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that footnotes no longer function correctly. If you hover over a footnote in an article, instead of seeing the text of the footnote, you see the Introduction of that article. This is what happens when there's no reference section, but now is happening even if there is one. It even happens at the Preamble to the United States Constitution article. I'm wondering if you've had the same problem. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On the George W. Bush article, which has over 200 footnotes, this problem is a big annoyance. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding a footnote that is linked to an example having an alternative view of the Preamble would be a way to back up that sentence. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the word "are" to "may be" in the sentence we are discussing. Now the sentence only refers to the possibility of alternative viewpoints about the Preamble, instead of claiming that such viewpoints exist. This makes it a hedge, rather than a statement of fact. With this change, I also removed the cite tag. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I could add such information to the template easily, however, the NHL does not recognize either the regular season conference champion, nor the old regular season division champion between 1981-1993. The template currently has banners only for accomplishments that the NHL itself recognizes with banners. Resolute 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are banners the Red Wings themselves hung. They aren't NHL awarded banners, and I don't know of any other team that does that. Resolute 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What a team hangs is up to their discretion. But the Stanley Cup, President's Trophy and Conference titles are recognized by the league via trophies as well. The league also recognizes division champions. For regular season now, but for the playoffs in the 80s/early 90s. I don't really see the point in cluttering the articles with minor things that teams themselves recognize that the rest of the league doesn't. Should I add a line in the template for the "thank you fans" banner the Flames hung, or the retiring of the #1 by Minnesota for their fans? Resolute 01:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Each team designs its own banner, so there is no difficulty at all in Detroit making up banners for regular season finishes that are identical to other ones. As I said, three of the four are recognized via trophies (which regular season conference championships are not), leaving the Division title as the only real question. I can tell you that Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver all display banners in the format I mention - playoff division champions < 1994, and regular season division champions after 1994. The timing of this coincides with the changes in the NHL's playoff format. Before 1981, it was a 1-16 format, and after 1994, it's been conference play, so the Division title cannot be decided in the playoffs. In the time between, the first two rounds were divisional playoffs. Resolute 02:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello MrArticleOne! That seems like a fairly decent idea. I am working on a few other things here and there on Wikipedia and in my real life, so I will not be able to work on creating a new bracket design, but a redesign definitely has been on my mind. I am looking at producing something more analogous to how the series summary tables have come out. I'm looking to create something that is smoother and lacks the really boxy feel that the current format does. Look forward to something in a month or so. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked for it -- go check out the refined template at Template_talk:NHLBracket#Revisions_Requested_Above

Thank you for your efforts on editing 2008 IIHF World Championship article. Can you explain why SUI is free of the tie-breaker (even having played only 4 games, that is one game less, before game 43), and why it is placed above SWE and CZE? Svmich (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now I see. Thanks. Svmich (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

. Your image also says they won in 1933-34, which is incorrect. If you'll check the article for that season as well as NHL.com you will see that the Leafs were the leaders that season. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you zoom in on the image, you can clearly make out 34 as the last number, so one would have to assume it means 1933-34. According to multiple sources, the Red Wings did not win the league that year. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if ellipses with spaces are proper. I won't revert, but I think you should note Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ellipses. Spaced periods are strongly discouraged. I am fine as it is, and it doesn't seem like many other people have a large interest in the Preamble article, but I thought you should know. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to add in an edit summary when you edit ;). Also, do you feel that Article 3 needs more expansion? I was thinking of trying to bring it up to featured article status and I was thinking of trying to update it. NuclearWarfare (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Try using the (small)(/small) code, but with the greater than/lesser that at each end of "small" instead of the parenthesis. NoseNuggets (talk) 11:39 PM US EDT Oct 1 2008.

I don't think I'll bother doing something that's only good for one year. The work I did for the NFL playoffs (and kept general enough it could also be used for Arena league and others with similar seeding rules) was worth the effort since it can be re-used so many times. If you have something that's used for more than one article, let me know and I might try something for it. The Monster (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please post submissions in this area. Thanks MrArticleOne (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Calgary has been brought up many times, and this is what is in the rafters at the Saddledome:

• 1985-86 Smythe Division Champions
• 1985-86 Campbell Conference Champions
• 1987-88 President's Trophy Winners
• 1988-89 President's Trophy Winners
• 1988-89 Smythe Division Champions
• 1988-89 Campbell Conference Champions
• 1988-89 Stanley Cup Champions
• 1993-94 Pacific Division Champions
• 1994-95 Pacific Division Champions
• 2003-04 Western Conference Champions
• 2005-06 Northwest Division Champions
  1. 9 Lanny McDonald
  2. 30 Mike Vernon
• There used to be a banner representing the Fans (#1 - 2000) following a season ticket drive in 2000, but that has since been removed
• The Calgary Hitmen have six banners of their own, soon to be at least eight, and there are two for the Calgary Roughnecks.

Edmonton follows the same patterns. They have banners for each Stanley Cup winner, for each Campbell/Western Conference championship, for each President's Trophy (1986 and 1987 as it was not awarded before that), and for each Smythe Division playoff championship. And, of course, all of their retired numbers. They do not have any WHA banners, and in a fit of ridiculousness, they hung Edmonton Oil Kings memorial Cup banners for 1963 and 1966 using the new team's logo. Trust Edmonton to try and invent history for an expansion team. Resolute 20:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Flames and Oilers, along with many other teams, viewed the divisional playoff as the division championship, not the regular season finish. Thus, Edmonton does not hang a 1985-86 Smythe Division banner, but they do for 1989-90, while the Flames do not hang one for 87-88 or 89-90. In fact, if you download and view the Flames media guide, you would see in the history section that the team does not even acknowledge finishing first in the division during that era. It only mentions winning the Smythe Division playoff championship in 1986 and 1989, then the regular season titles following 1993 realignment. Resolute 21:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made a proposal, your thoughts on it would be appreciated. The proposal is here. Thanks, Terrillja _talk 18:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe the Preamble to the United States Constitution is a good article? If so, should we try to have that article awarded GA status? SMP0328. (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit that the HSBC Champions is an odd duck of a tournament as far as the PGA Tour is concerned but I think it deserves inclusion on the listed schedule (which is "main events" not "official events"). Yes it's listed as a "featured event" on the tour's official schedule, but so is the Presidents Cup which is included on the table. The World Cup could easily be added or not. Whether or not the HSBC becomes a full-fledged PGA Tour event next year is undetermined as far as I know. My vote is to keep it in the table with the note I added.Tewapack (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Mr. Article. IP: 166.205.133.83, has made previous appearances as 166.205.4.61 & 166.205.7.162 & 166.205.135.183. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Also an interesting 'threat' on my talkpage (that I've since reverted). GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

because I got it first!

You look like you keep a watch on this article page. Issues have been identified at the GA review that you might be able to help address. Take a look if it is in your areas of expertise. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that might have been the case but I just went for it anyway. Thanks for making that clear for me. Tampabay721 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did some stuff in my sandbox. I hope that's what you're looking for. If it is, I'm hoping that it would work with virtually the same code as 4RoundBracket-Byes code, just with a little extra to include the ability to edit information in the 3rd place/bronze medal game. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I got it semi protected. We still need to watch 2009-10 NHL season though. Maybe the bracket should be a semiprotected template. ccwaters (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, yeah i made a mistake. Fixed it, thanks for notifying. Kante4 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has suggested changes to the Preamble article. I figured you should be given a chance to be part of the discussion. SMP0328. (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll get to that later tonight. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Article structure on all international basketball tournament articles. to determine on what to do with consolation/placing games. Please participate in the discussion, and if you know someone who is interested, please invite them too. Thanks. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Russia and Slovakia will advance too, Germany played both already and we know that they have goals 6:3 and 6 points. If someone from Group D finishes with higher GD we don´t know but that can be changed later on... Kante4 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What? Their record IS finished for Group E, it will not change. Kante4 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Don´t see why not. Their record won´t change so we can add them. It´s the same when a team finishes as E1 before the last day, so we can add them to the bracket as E1. Kante4 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Every team kept the points from preliminary round matches against teams who also advanced" says the article, should not be that hard for editors to not edit that table after their game. Kante4 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it can happen. But the way i did it tonight was done last year too, adding something when it´s a fact. Kante4 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah was a typo, thanks for fixing. Kante4 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it´s the goal difference, Russia -2, USA -4? Kante4 (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Forget that. For the tournament USA has +-0, Russia has -1 if i made it right quickly. Kante4 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought USA were 7th, when they and Russia are eliminated? Kante4 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message about Penn State, went ahead and fixed the B10 Leaders division standings

Bearcats fan (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NCAA Tournament (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) 11:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you indeed read them, you would note that all of the Michigan articles on counties include the set off date, if it differs from the organization date. I put them there, so I know. You can start with Alcona County, first of the 83, and proceed from there. "Bibliography on Alcona County". Clarke Historical Library, Central Michigan University. Retrieved January 17, 2013.</ref> See and compare, List of Michigan county name etymologies, List of Michigan counties, and List of abolished U.S. counties. It is a separate noted historical event, and whether you consider it to be important is hardly the test. That the Clark Historical Library makes the distinction suggests it has consequences. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I am embarrassed I got involved at all. It is trivial, and it probably pissed off Kante as he was trying to edit game details by causing edit conflicts. The IIHF frequently contradicts itself, particularly writer Andrew Podnieks used to screw up royally with qualifying scenarios. The format page (as in the IIHF Sport and Regulations pg 20) indicates the tie-breaking rules, it states what to do if two teams are equal on points, which is what the current standings indicate. It doesn't state how it should be handled when the standings are incomplete, so it is open to interpretation I suppose. You have to decide whether the lack of direction is an indication that logic should be used, and the current webmaster of the IIHf has got it wrong, or whether the words of the format are to be followed as written even when they don't appear to be for partial results. Either way, you won't catch me behaving like that again.18abruce (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Then what are you using to put Illinois ahead of Minnesota? And why does ESPN show Minnesota followed by Illinois in the standings? Akatheflake (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that that's the way you've always done it, but why? I've never seen anything that states head-to-head results do not apply for teams not in first place. In the NFL playoffs, the very first tie-breaker used is head-to-head results, even if it is for the last wild-card spot. Why is it any different in NCAA? Akatheflake (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Because in the NFL, they need to break ties out to 6th place to determine those wild cards and how they are seeded. Those tiebreakers don't apply after that, though -- they have a separate process they use to break ties for draft order, for example. And in college football, the only tie that needs to be broken is a tie for 1st place to determine who plays in the league title game. If you read the applicable tiebreakers, it is crystal clear they only apply to 1st place by their own terms. Look at the 3rd one, for example: "The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5, 6, and 7)." See how it takes for granted that the next one after the tied teams is 4th? That's because the tiebreaker isn't intended to break a tie for 4th place. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)