User talk:Bband11th

Welcome!

Hello, Bband11th, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! bodnotbod (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Santa Anita Depot in the I-210 article

I found two sources that tangentially mention this:

Neither of these has enough information to create a new level 2 heading in the article. However these sources are reliable and are enough to have a one or two sentence mention as part of the route history. Dave (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, added as a sentence in the history section. Please advise if I hosed anything.Dave (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you don't mind some constructive criticism. Starting a new heading for every sentence added causes an article to spiral out of control rapidly. It's easy to see how after a couple of years an article could have 200 headings, each containing 1 sentence. It's better to spend the extra 5 minutes to read the article and find an appropriate place in an existing section to make the addition. New headings should really only be created for major additions/rewrites. Dave (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009-10 NCAA Division I FBS football conferences

You seem like someone who has editorial interests that go along with creating an Pac-10 page to fill in {{2009-10 NCAA Division I FBS football conferences}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great start. Just look around at other conferences on the template for ideas. You will probably want to add a rankings template and maybe do a watchlist table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two conferences(Big 10 and MAC or MWC) have watchlist tables that look O.K .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cal @ UCLA, 10/17

Nah. My friend had broached the idea a month or so ago and I think we would have been more inclined if the Bears hadn't straight bombed the last 2 games. Last Saturday was an utterly pathetic performance, so we're saving our money. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 22:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it, thanks. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! I created a 2009 UCLA Bruins football team Commons category for you to work with addition to the existing 2009 California Golden Bears football team. Your 2 uploads have been recategorized accordingly. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 03:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still here?

Noticed there is no user name, but your talk page remains. Wondering if you are still here? EditorASC (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Glad to hear you are still at Wiki. I am unfamiliar with the situation of having a talk page, without a user page. Is that by your design?

Also, don't know if you are interested in the development of the Fullerton College article, but if you are, you might want to look in on it. There are two new Wiki Editors that seem determined to cut out much of what was there. They even removed the photos, until I insisted they be restored.

About the Fullerton College article: I researched the Wiki Policy on photo placement and found that what we like the best (placed on the right side of the article), is the preferred and default Wiki Policy. So, I move them back there. EditorASC (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox opinion

You may have an opinion about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#All-American_in_infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point spreads

The place to reach consensus on this issue is at WT:CFB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter to me which way it's represented, but that is not the right way to go about it. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please get lost. Especially if you don't care.

I can see the point spread format confusion in the bowl game articles. The WT:CFB article pointed out above does not mention anything yet. The example in the Template:Infobox_NCAA_football_single_game shows "WLSU favored by 2.5 points" as an example. Thanks much, Group29 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: 2010 Alabama football

Well, I've got several pictures I took over the course of the season (I'm a season ticket holder), however those would relate more to the 2009 team. During next season, I'm sure I'll get plenty to put on the 2010 page. – Latics (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Almost) any picture is better than no picture. – Latics (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. ;) – Latics (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't, by any chance, have taken photos during the presentation of the Coaches' Trophy, would you? Was curious after looking at 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season and such that it might be nice to have one. Just curious. – Latics (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks anyway. – Latics (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..,.sorry ...

bout that!--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of George Gladir

The article George Gladir has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kca10-logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kca10-logo.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wooden

Given the obvious difference of opinion regarding the John Wooden article, I'd request that you address the issue on the article's talk page. That way, you can articulate your position more thoroughly than just the two or three word phrases that fit in the edit summaries. If we can't reach any agreement there, then of course, we can always begin the WP:3O process, but either way, it would be most productive to discuss it fully. Thanks! Mwelch (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember

What you can do, others can too! Bband11th (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California or City County employees' works

I don't know but don't think so, I do a lot of work on Commons and haven't seen anything yet that says that something like that. What about contacting them directly and asking who holds the copyrights to their works? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bband11th posted on my Talk page, here is my response: The deciding case concerned Santa Clara County employees, see Wikipedia:Public domain status of official government works, also the link at Template:PD-CAGov. Looks good to me. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Disruptive editing: / Edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 01:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this block is due to your continued edit warring despite being warned, failure to participate in an outstanding RfC on your reverts despite being notified of it, and the protracted edit warring on 2009 Little Caesars Pizza Bowl, 2009 Texas Bowl, and 2010 Rose Bowl. On a related note, an edit war of any sort spanning months (in one case, it looks like since April) is absolutely uncalled for. --slakr^\ talk / 01:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bband11th (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

They have been vandalizing the articles by continue to make changes. The use of "by" has been done for years and the template has also specified as such. If you look at the history of the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl for the year prior to 2009, you will see that "by" has been used. Also see the Rose Bowl game articles. Precedent was set years ago. There is no justification to make the changes for this year. The prior year articles have not been changed. Nobody want to make the change and they have not gotten any support. One is has said he doesn't care either way, but continue to make changes. Why would anybody make a change if he doesn't care, except to vandalize them. They just want to bully their way around. Who gave them the only right to keep reverting them? Where is the fairness? Their contribution have been minor at best.

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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Smashville^talk 02:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bband11th (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the reverting was started by others by not following the standards set for years and as showing in the template; they were the offenders and should be blocked. Reviewing of the prior year articles will show that they are not following the useage that was set.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Disruptive editing: / Edit warring + Editing while blocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 07:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Via: 99.146.24.166 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
Similar recent contributions (while signed out) from same ISP and geolocation, before block:
- 99.101.130.15 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
- 71.130.210.222 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
- 71.140.203.247 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
- 99.59.99.63 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
- 99.90.144.184 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)

Other editors are free to launch an SPI investigation if future or more complex abuse arises. Please avoid editing while blocked to avoid escalations in block duration.

--slakr^\ talk / 07:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annual football conference season navboxes nominated for deletion at TFD

I have nominated all of the annual football conference season navboxes for deletion as I don't believe they are useful navigational tools. You can find the discussion here. –Grondemar 03:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spieker Aquatics Center (UCLA)

Hello. Could you please add pictures of the actual stadium to this page you created?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]