User talk:Doogie2K

Welcome!

Hello Doogie2K, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- JamesTeterenko 16:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Wiki standards are not to capitalize every word in headings...I'll find you the link in a second. Referring to your changes on NHL Season pages.scsgoal31 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#General_conventions but otherwise, very nice edits to the season pages =)

Oh, I see. I've primarily been in the hockey areas, so seeing "Stanley Cup final" just struck me as rather odd. I would argue that "Stanley Cup Finals" would be, itself, a proper noun, but otherwise, point taken. Doogie2K 01:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with something like that...and I believe I left those alone on the pages you edited..but I think the rest still have it as "finals". The only changes I made were to headings like "Regular season" and "Leading scorers". scsgoal31 03:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Is this something I should mention to the Wikiproject, or only if I'm questioned on it? Doogie2K 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Knows Wikipedia

Having been the user to create ProStars and Bo Knows, I don't know why I linked only one to the other, and not both to each other. And it's been like 4 months. Thanks. JesseRafe 06:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I only found the article tonight and thought "SOMEONE ELSE REMEMBERS THIS! YAY!" I added the cereal bit from personal experience. Awesome job pulling that stuff together. Doogie2K 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

In the preferences, where it says nickname, this is where you do it. You click on the checkbox so that you are using raw signature. Mine reads like this, [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|20px]] [[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] [[User talk:Croat Canuck|Go Leafs Go]] . I only started fiddling around with it a few weeks ago, and I'm by no means a master and there are still a lot of things I don't know how to do. It uses HTML formatting, much like is used in the edit box in Wikipedia. You can see [1] as a guide, it helped me a good bit. It was only a little while ago that I was like you, wondering how to get a cool sig like everybody else, its amazing how fast we can pick up things. Hope this helps. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You rock. Doogie2K (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't worry about it, come playoff time I'll be cheering for your Oilers and Habs, not to mention the Sens, Flames (the Canadian teams), and my favourite American team since I was way-high, the Sharks. The Leafs will just have to win their Cup next year. Oh by the way, nice sig!

Croat Canuck

Go Leafs Go 03:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) And I can certainly see the appeal of the Sharks; they're playing some kick-ass hockey right now. Doogie2K (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I've been drawn to them since the Sutter days of the late 90's... always a very competitive hockey club, and the Thornton/Cheechoo combo has been unbelievable this season.

Croat Canuck

Go Leafs Go 01:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just never really noticed them until last year. And then, I was (sadly) on the side of the Flames, due to geography (I live in Calgary). But if I were to pick an American team I could live with, it'd probably be SJ right now. They just play fun hockey. Doogie2K (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doogie2k, you added two fair use images to your signature (logos for Edmonton Oilers and Montreal Canadiens). This is not permissible under Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9, which proscribes the use of fair use tagged images outside of the main article namespace. Please do not use fair use tagged images in your signature. Also, while you're certainly allowed to, the use of images in general in signatures creates additional load on the image servers which are already overtaxed. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask. --Durin 14:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table formats in NHL season pages

I've responded to your question on my talk page 137.207.10.117 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comments on my talk page

Re: Images in signature. It's not proscribed; you can have them if you want. I'm just noting it creates an additional strain on the already strained image servers. If we had plenty of capacity on our image servers, it wouldn't be a problem at all. You can place Alberta and Canada flags if you like. Those are most likely not fair use images. Re: pulling the whole tag; I tend to leave them in cases like that because it highlights to the user that a deletion occurred, so they can take appropriate-to-them action which could be removing the tag, replacing the image that was in the tag with an image that is allowed to be in userspace, or something else entirely. I don't dictate to people what tags they can have. I only remove the offending images. It's not up to me to decide what they want to do with the page after the image has been removed. So, call it consideration rather than laziness. If I was lazy, I wouldn't be removing the fair use images to begin with :) --Durin 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-insertion of fair use images

Doogie2k, you reverted my removal of fair use images off of your userpage. I'm sorry, but the policy regarding the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is not negotiable. This policy has been established by the Wikimedia Foundation and needs to be adhered to for the protection of the project. Wikipedia does not have deep pockets and can ill afford copyright lawsuits against it. Please do not re-insert the Oilers or Canadiens logos, or indeed any other fair use image, back on to your userpage. You are aware of the policy. If you act in violation of the policy, you will now be committing vandalism. Please, do not do this. Thank you, --Durin 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the "protection" of the project relies on not having a couple of logos on my userpage? And it would be "vandalism" to keep them there? Ooookay, whatever. Consider them gone. Doogie2K (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In part, yes. Think scalability. If we let you have fair use images on your userpage, what's to stop our other 1,000,000 users from doing so? One user abusing copyright laws isn't going to generate a lawsuit most likely. Scale that up a few orders of magnitude, and it becomes a very serious problem. We have to draw the line somewhere. Thanks for your cooperation. It is important! --Durin 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Playoff Picks

Hey Doogie2K, I just looked at the playoff pics on your website that you linked from in the who will win the Cup discussion at the WikiProject. Okay, you picked the same in all 8 series as the TSN consensus, it seems that people just don't like picking underdogs anymore. That's the problem when you make public predictions, oy are they ever up to scrutiny. Dallas in 5, eh? Nah, I'm just razzing ya, but you didn't even pick your Oilers or Habs to win! It took me until 3 days after the regular season ended until I backed down from my prediction that this was indeed the Leafs year. And both your Oilers and Habs are leading 2-1 at the time of this message. yeah, sorry to bug you, just thought I'd throw in my comments about your picks. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wanted so badly to pick the Oilers, I did. I just thought, after that pathetic stretch run, they were in a world of trouble. Let's just say I'm very, very happy to be wrong.

Also, I made my picks before TSN, by a day. I prefer to think that means I know what I'm talking about. ;) But still, I have three correct teams, and four correct series lengths, in five finished series so far, so I don't think I'm doing too badly. Doogie2K (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that five for seven on teams and lengths. Doogie2K 06:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on article naming

Talk:World Junior Ice Hockey Championships If you're interested. Thanks.
ColtsScore 09:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it gets my goat

It really gets my goat that so many people are letting their personal POV take precedence over policies on wikipedia and basic common sense. Why is so hard for these people to understand the basic concept of "use the most common name in English for article titles?" They seem to think that we are against the use of all diacritics in article titles. But that is not the case, at least for me it isn't. For me it is a "most common English title" thing. Hell, there are some English words that it is far more common to see diacritics included than excluded. For those, there should be diacritics in the title. Also, the fact that people are calling the English spellings mistakes really gets me. English doesn't spell English wrong. Anyways, thanks for your backup with the issue of diacritics. Masterhatch 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've cooled off a little, I'm trying to settle things peacefully without more WP:ATTACKs, but given what I see on Elrith's talk and archive pages, I'm not hopeful. What do you think the odds are of needing to go to WP:RFC or WP:RFM? More importantly, how much of this has been done already and (obviously) failed? Doogie2K (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the problems is that some editors have garnered a God complex here on wikipedia. Constantly, one of the main focuses on wikipedia by many editors has been to remove the "big" problem of vandalism. In doing so, many have formed a god complex. Remember the editor who deleted all the hockey player lists without discussion? User:Ryulong moved almost all of the hockey player articles back to include diacritics without discussion. Even when i pointed out that the vast majority of articles didn't start out with diacritics, and in the event of a dispute, the original rendition must be kept until resolved (basically status quo must be kept). He basically said he didn't care about that particular wiki policy and said that the articles must remain where they are.

Another problem arising here on wikipedia is the forgetting about the policy that states "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Elrith is bad for this in his constant ranting about "proper spelling" because he was a translator. Well, he keeps ignoring this policy, too. I have no problem if this debate is posted here Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but i think it is a little too early to be posted here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. So, do i think we will win? I really don't know. There was a vote on this subject before with it a simple yes to diacritics or no to diacritics. I am not sure exactly where this vote is recored, but it went something like 58% for diacritics and 42% against. The vote was considered inconclusive. Personally, i think the question was asked wrong in that vote. It should have been a two-part question "If the most common spelling in English includes diacritics, should wikipedia article titles include diacritics? If the most common spelling in English does not include diacritics, should wikipedia also disinclude diacritics? anyways, i think that is a fairer question. Oh, and that User:Ryulong guy pisses me off because he doesn't acutally read the discussions before commenting. he is stuck in his own little pov world and has blinders on. Masterhatch 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was more wondering how much of the dispute-resolution process has been tried before, because if it's been done before, and done recently, we might be able to skip right to mediation. But, if you think we could WP:RFC with the right question, then I'm all for it. I'll see how this goes first. Doogie2K (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i know (and i have been dealing with this since late 2005, this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) is the closest thing we have to resolution, but it is still only proposed and holds no weight. I almost find it funny that everything points in our favour; we have all the sources, references, naming conventions, naming guidelines, and even naming proposals to back us up. "They" have nothing. Not once have they pointed to a naming convention (proposed or otherwise) or a source or a reference of any kind. They just keep reiterating their own personal point of view, which contradicts and defies wikipolicy and countless references and sources. Aren't people suposed to remove their own point of view when they edit wikipedia? Oh, we did score one victory, though. Go to Talk:Quebec Nordiques. Masterhatch 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Hey, if I need to put together a case for Teemu Selanne (never mind every other NHLer with diacritics), I need all the ammo I can get. Hopefully, maybe we can even get the diacritics guideline some official weight (not that I want to get too ambitious). Doogie2K (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kinda nice

It's kinda nice that Marian Gaborik is now in the right spot. Over the next few days, as i get time, i am going to look through all the players with diacritics and look at their history as User:Ryulong moved virtually all of them without discussion or consensus. Basically, i will try to figure out if the original author used diacritics or not in the article spelling. If diacritics weren't used by the original author, the page gets moved back to where it started. Of course, if the article started out with diacritics, it will remain there (for now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterhatch (talk • contribs)

This certainly gives us another precedent for us to fall back on, as well as, of course, the weight of official policy. And certainly, no one can legitimately beef if you're undoing unilateral, undiscussed moves back to the original namespace. (Something I did with Lower Decks (TNG episode) the other day.) Doogie2K (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion

If you are interested, there is further discussion on the matter of diacritics (and other foreign characters) here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Finnish). Masterhatch 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Teemu Selänne

Just so you know, all those subheadings under the body of the debate are also a part of it. Not sure if it factors into the decision to rule "no consensus", but they should definitely be placed under the archival envelope. Doogie2K (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put it under the archival envelope because it says that nothing within the envelope should be edited. Since the part under the "discussion" header is just that - discussion - and not the survey, I decided to leave it outside the envelope and let people respond to comments right there. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I thought all that stuff would've had to go underneath once the debate was ruled upon. Thanks for the clarification. Doogie2K (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2006 (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 00:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Ducks

Since you felt the repetitive section should be removed from the opening paragraph, will you do the same for the New Jersey Devils article...the one that is ranked as a feature article? Just curious. Ccrashh 23:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was noted in the Discussion, and I felt he was right. Naming history is right there in the info box, so more detailed information should probably go in the History section. That being said, there's a compelling argument the other way, too, so I'm not going to bother re-editing it, because it's not worth a revert war. Also, just because an article's featured, doesn't mean it's perfect and/or should never change; merely that it's of very high quality. --Doogie2K (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Port Huron Fighting Falcons

Thanks, yeah I've never used that tag before, after reading the tag and exact specs of an “attack”, it technically wasn’t, so i removed it from the talk page. Debates can get heated sometimes, but it’s important for editors to still be respectful and use civility. Thanks, have a good one. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Leigh Alexander (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leigh Alexander (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leigh Alexander (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:00, 15 February 2015 (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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Doogie2K. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Doogie2K. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Doogie2K. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]