User talk:UWMSports

Signature

Don't forget to sign your posts by appending two dashes and a string of four tildes (~)! --Orange Mike 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and notice: Editing material about yourself or your organization

Welcome!

Hello, UWMSports, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

It is difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself.

However, in clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not just a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. However, be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it.

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be a secondary or tertiary source. This means that Wikipedia should not contain any "new" information or theories (see Wikipedia:No original research) and all information should have checkable third-party references. Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable.

Wikipedia does not wish to have an inaccurate article about you. Our Neutral point of view policy means that we aim to have a balanced and fair article. Our goal is not to offer opinions of our own, but only to accurately reproduce those of others, which should be sourced and cited. You can help by pointing us to sources which can enable a more balanced view to be presented. --Orange Mike 23:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: UW-Milwaukee vs. Milwaukee

I thought I had read somewhere that the official term was now "Milwaukee" for all athletics teams at UWM. I was a little bit mistaken; official Horizon League media information lists both "UW-Milwaukee" and "Milwaukee" as appropriate labels for the athletics teams. I'm not going to get involved in the dispute since both terms are officially correct and I really do not have a preference which style Wikipedia ultimately adopts. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, then, does every reference at [1] simply call the teams "Milwaukee" and "Green Bay"? That would seem - to me at least - to constitute an official use. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

The recent edit you made to 1996 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Jonathan 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's a stylistic dispute, and should not be categorized as vandalism... (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence FancyMustard being un-blocked. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Toddst1 (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:Civil. this edit is inappropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of WRHU

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if when you propose deletion always say so in the edit summary. Including the word "prod" is enough. Also, please don't slip Prod in the middle of articles. Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UWMSports. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yahoo! Fantasy Sports

I have contested your prod of the article because I feel that it is notable enough to receive a full discussion at WP:AFD before being deleted. Royalbroil 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked for having an improper username, one that promotes ESPN. I think that your username is also real bad as a promotion for UWM, and I strongly think that you should change it voluntarily before you get blocked and forced to change it. See WP:USURP. It's no big deal and painless if done early. Royalbroil 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I disagree with your some of you assessment on my comment. I changed to merge late in the discussion because of the lack of content and difficulty finding additional content, not because of the paid portion. It doesn't read like an advertisement to me (at least no more than other articles on businesses). Royalbroil 13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment to Orangemike

This is a good way to discredit yourself as a serious and civil editor. Chill, relax. It's not that horrid. Just try to distinguish yourself from the billions of idiots who come here deliberately spamming or self-promoting by being cooperative without losing your innate boldness. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- CobaltBlueTony™ _talk has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Was being sarcastic. I don't think OrangeMike should change his username. I was just comparing it to mine. Got to read the entire section. -UWMSports (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. It just came off a bit snarky is all. Just ignore me and eat your cookie. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took it as a counterexample to my comment and I hope that Orangemike isn't offended. The Orange man is good dude. Royalbroil 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's, um, oatmeal raisin. Or carob! Yeah, that's it, carob.... *strokes imaginary beard* - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Jedi mind trick* Ignore the image name, too... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me! It was the one-armed man! :P - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UWMSports. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm not particularly offended (it's not like he called me a Paisleyite or anything). For more obnoxious WP:CIVIL violations, see my talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA, I definitely thought about it Mikey! Thanks for the comment though, I wasn't taking a jab at ya. -UWMSports (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you love me?

Friendly enough, haha! -UWMSports (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm confused. Are you referring to my unblock of SportsMaster? - Revolving Bugbear 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you in there, then saw how you like to receive friendly messages, haha. -UWMSports (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, heh. Thanks.

<-- Friendliness right back at ya. - Revolving Bugbear 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hey there. Can I suggest that you and your roommates try to avoid editing in the same spheres if possible, and definitely try to avoid backing one another up in disputes? That casts the appearance of sock- or meatpuppetry, and can cause all kinds of problems. Just a thought. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt

Sorry about those reversions. It's a very touchy subject among Pitt people because they did change it in 1997 amid much controversy (and it also happened around the time they decided to demolish Pitt Stadium. There are some boosters that renounced the university permanently over it. They reverted back in 2004 (see the discussions on those pages) Honestly, I don't really care that much, but you should see how bent out of shape some people get with this topic and these sort of unilateral Pitt->Pittsburgh changes evokes pretty strong reactions because of '97 so its best to at least keep a mix of both...but really, Pitt has always referred to itself as Pitt..."Pittsburgh" was more of a marketing ploy. Thanks for your interest in Pitt and help though.cp101p (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Show

Does the article size of Maxwell Show still warrent a merge suggestion? --Josh (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shows great effort, but it probably needs more work. The fact you're adding to it probably means it won't be merged right away. If it sits like that for awhile it will be though. Take a look at Mike and the Mad Dog. That's a great page for a single radio show. Obviously the Maxwell Show doesn't have to look like that, but I do suggest you adding more sections to the article. Do they have any notable on-air moments? Or a history section of how the show came to be. Good work though so far. I think you've shown you can do something with the page by your expansions already. -UWMSports (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

I would appreciate it if you would cease and desist from nominating my articles for deletion. Let someone else do it. Why not contribute to Wikipedia in some other fashion than nominating my articles for deletion. Thank you for your time. --Josh (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reporting me because we have differences of opinion from time to time. That is lame. You must learn to work with other people. If you do that, I think you will really do well on Wikipedia. There is no doubt that you are a good user who edits in good faith. You just need to realize when you create page after page after page like you do there are bound to be some casualties. You can't simply go to the next page without making each page the best it can be. I apologize for my roommate chiming in on the Yahoo vote. He's been instructed to stay out of your affairs. I will try and stay out as well, but we are both sports fans and there will be some overlap. As for Robert Hawkins, the page is not Wikipedia worthy and many users agree with me. --UWMSports (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homer E. Woodling

Hey UWMSports I figured I would move our conversation away from the Afd not to distract from the on-going discussion concerning the article itself. The major question I have to ask is: “…How much coverage" do you need supplied or criteria provided before someone is considered Notable in your mind? I am not trying to be flippant or argumentative, just wondering? The measurement varies from person to person. What I consider worthy others scuff at! But it is an important question in that you may be able to convince me to change my mind, and of course vice verse!. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SportsMaster at it again

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Wikistalk; Can you say something on my behalf there? Thanks! --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me; how's by youse?

I meant that you should say "Hi!" next time you saw me on the UWM campus. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most weekdays after 5 p.m. or so; look in Golda, or the Union or EMS computer labs; sometimes in the bookstore, or just in the Union grabbing a snack. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Chiefs statistics

I did read the link you posted about stats on wikipedia. All it says is it may be confusing to readers, nothing about it not needing to be on wikipedia. Please to not revert again. Thank you for your time.--SportsMaster (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting the merge on it. Appreciate it instead of getting into an edit war. Have a good one.--SportsMaster (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What other teams have statistics pages? I'm having trouble finding them. --UWMSports (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on what to do about the messy Pioneer Conference AfD

Sandstein was right to close the AfD. The result was clearly "no consensus," and the way AfDs are listed, having the discussion continue like that was just clutter.

There is no reason the discussion cannot continue where it left off, though. My suggestion is to copy the discussion so far to a new sub page off the Centralized Discussion page, and continue it there. Once consensus is reached, then action can be taken.

The point is that the discussion was no longer an AfD discussion, and it was muddying the waters to label it as such. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of discussion over notability of Ohio high school sports conferences

Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to merge lists?

Your list on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences can be folded into mine by adding another column. Care to do the honors? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio High School Athletic Conference Project

Thanks for the message about the Ohio High School Athletic Conference Project. I will take a look after my vacation is over. --SportsMaster (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits. the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Also WP:OWN. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit in question and you'll realize UWM is hardly claiming ownership. He has a problem with people changing a column that contains his opinion. It's like deleting or changing comments which are his. This is crossing the line. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing me up Huskies. --UWMSports (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What outlandish statements? ":Regarding your recent edits. the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Also WP:OWN. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

As for his opinion column, it just listed delete/decent, cleanup/ect. I believe that the minor edits David made to the template were not monumental enough for a revert and actually belong in that column. He marked what he believed we should use as our model article. The many charts were combined to save space. If there was another place the information should have gone I clearly didn't see one; or I would have popped it into the correct section. That wasn't a personal attack, but a request that GF edits not be removed but ,if placed inappropriately, placed in the correct area. I'd like to apologize if my short wording caused you or any others distress. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I am very sorry for the misunderstanding. It was not an attack on you or your character at all. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations

I gave the guys in the Ohio discussion a week to provide a blue print for the stub articles that resemble Cincinnati. Just keep in touch with me with your thoughts on their progress. They seem to be moving well right now though, so maybe I won't re-nominate in a week, but I would like to see a mock article created and work started on the rest before I bury this. Thanks! --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ohio Project

Alright, you've been keeping up with the conference discussion reasonably well, I think, so I just want to lay all the cards I have on the table with the drumbeating going on in the conference page. You've been level headed about all of this, so I just want to get your thoughts. I think that the subjects of the articles are notable, and that once they've been fleshed out by editors, they demonstrate notability. I do see the problems, or at least lack of necessity, as you do, with having articles that are simply just lists of schools. I think the notability is there, but it does take some work to do.

I've been working on these articles out of a matter of precedent, because I believe that this will be used to delete well-sourced, obviously notable high school conferences if handled badly. I have no interest in Ohio conferences at all, to be perfectly honest. I've just been forcing myself to work on these articles out of precedent concerns. So, I guess, what I'm just wanting to find out is your exact thoughts on how an AfD would proceed. I'd be willing to agree to a compromise deletion with no prejudice for recreation to articles that are more than just lists so it would not serve as a precedent for deleting properly sourced high school conferences. There will be sources available somewhere for 99% of high school conferences, and I hope I've demonstrated that so far. There are articles out there that are devoted to the conferences themselves, not just the member schools. I don't think that just deleting the articles that are stub lists is necessarily a good policy decision, by WP:PAPER, but as I said, it's the precedent that's the most immediate concern of mine.

I'll do my best to do rewrites of a couple more conferences by the ludicrously imposed deadline that keeps getting pushed constantly, but to be perfectly honest, there's no way that the articles will all be done. And it wasn't ever going to be possible anyway, since there are only a couple editors actively working on it at this point. But I just wanted to see your thoughts and let you know mine, so we avoid outright conflicts like last time. I apologize for this being a bit disorganized, as well. Long day at work. matt91486 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for the support. I'll probably get through two or three more myself this summer. Hopefully some others can work on some as well. matt91486 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nice NY 382 map

Feel free to add the map. Thank you for the link! Wikipedia is for having fun, cooperating, and making a scholarly product. Feel free to join in. Did you create the map yourself? Chergles (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case

See the results posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GroundhogTheater. I'm posting this to the talk pages of all 5 accounts. You can communicate with me by email if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Milwaukee Panthers basketball a different title by copying its content and pasting it into UW-Milwaukee Panthers basketball. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High School Leagues

I'm writing an essay at User:Trackinfo/sandbox/NHSL on a subject you might have an interest in. Please add your input either to the essay or contact me at my talk page.Trackinfo (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]