User talk:CASportsFan

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wik.ipedia.Pro
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Anaheim.png, has been listed at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Mosmof (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop inserting rational-less logos in season articles? WP:LOGO permits use of non-free logos in articles about the organizations that the logos represent, but not subarticles like "History of..." or sports season articles. If you think these logos belong as part of critical commentary, it's your responsibility to write separate, detailed rationales. --Mosmof (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for including rationales for the images. Unfortunately, I don't think you've understood or addressed the core issue. No, WP:LOGO doesn't explicitly prohibit use of non-free logos in subarticles, but it addresses only for use of logos to identify corporate entities. Baseball seasons and team histories are not corporate entities, and the logos represent the team, not individual seasons or the team history. You've used the boilerplate rationales for logos that don't address how the images meet WP:NFCC#8. --Mosmof (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, how does having the logo in an infobox provide contextual significance? --Mosmof (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're disagreeing on what "contextual" means. I take "contextual significance" to mean significance in the context of the article, as opposed to simply being displayed without context in the infobox. --Mosmof (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wik.ipedia.Pro, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wik.ipedia.Pro is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to California appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you.----moreno oso (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Major League Baseball All-Star Games in the Los Angeles Area, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wik.ipedia.Pro's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Articles for deletion/Major League Baseball All-Star Games in the Los Angeles Area. 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. — Timneu22 · talk 01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CalAxe2009.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wik.ipedia.Pro, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wik.ipedia.Pro:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wik.ipedia.Pro:Image use policy
• Wik.ipedia.Pro:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:CalAxe2009.jpg, please note that Wik.ipedia.Pro cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2009/11/22/SP111AOKAO.DTL&object=/c/pictures/2009/11/21/mn-stanford_foot_0500871816.jpg. As a copyright violation, File:CalAxe2009.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:CalAxe2009.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:CalAxe2009.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wik.ipedia.Pro:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:CalAxe2009.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:CalAxe2009.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wik.ipedia.Pro takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CASportsFan! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wik.ipedia.Pro, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2/5/11

It turned out we were both simultaneously adding today's game to the game log, I could tell because the "edit conflict" notice popped up when I hit "submit." If you'd like to me to leave the game log alone I can do so because that seems to be your domain anyways.

RedSoxFan274 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter too much, as long as someone does it!! :) --CASportsFan (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AmigosStars.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wik.ipedia.Pro under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wik.ipedia.Pro page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been fixed, the image is no longer orphaned. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AmigosStars.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wik.ipedia.Pro under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro (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) 05:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CASportsFan, I'm just writing to let you know that me and some Wik.ipedia.Pron friends are launching Wik.ipedia.Pro Club at Berkeley, a student club for promoting participation in Wik.ipedia.Pro and face-to-face collaborations. If you're still living in the Bay Area and that sounds fun to you, please consider joining our mailing list. Thanks! Dcoetzee 00:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them from the hockey bios because they are irrelevant. The notable figures section is WP:POV, but more importantly, the fact that there are a couple baseball teams or a college basketball arena in Orange County is utterly and completely irrelevant to a hockey bio. I'm not picking on you here, but that template is a terrible example of a navbox, because it is not used for navigation at all. It is just a mishmash of mostly unrelated articles that have the very trivial link of being related to sports in Orange County in some way. Not everything needs a navbox. Also, I removed it from the hockey bios only as I am exceedingly confident that the project's past consensus on templates like this would hold for their removal. If you wish for a wider opinion, I most certainly encourage you to bring it up at WT:HOCKEY. I also know that some other projects, namely baseball, favour these types of navboxes, so I chose not to remove it from bios that fall within other project scopes in defference to what I believe is their own viewpoint.

But truth be told, I think the only part of that template that is worthwhile is the sections on the area teams. Those form a tightly related set. The championships, "notable" players and venues just dilute the purpose of the navbox. Indeed, this is the only template in its category that adds players or championships, while only a couple include venues. Resolute 06:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The University of California and the Berkeley campus were originally synonymous in academic circles and still is to this day when it comes to athletics. Many people refer to the Berkeley campus as the "University of California" and adding a simple link at the top could help alleviate confusion. --CASportsFan (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any references for this? I have not once heard anyone refer to the campus as the University of California. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try going to their website: calbears.com:"California Golden Bears - The University of California Official Athletic Site." Maybe you could visit the website of the Associated Students of the University of California [1], University of California Rally Committee [2], University of California Marching Band [3], etc. You obviously don't live in the state of California or follow Pac-10 athletics . . . all athletic venues are all clearly marked with the words: University of California. You can also look at the Wik.ipedia.Pro page on the History of the University of California, Berkeley. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these is actually a reference to UC Berkeley itself, but rather to an organization which operates within the campus. Moreover, the names of these organizations are historical artifacts from when the campus was known originally as University of California. No one today under the age of 60 would refer to the campus itself as the University of California (maybe as Cal, Berkeley, or UC Berkeley, but not U of C) and anyone who still does would be greeted with quizzical looks begging the question "Which campus within the system do you mean?"

Nevertheless, I can appreciate the fact the UC Berkeley was originally named University of California and was referred to as such for a significant amount of time, so I won't revert the navigation link. --Jay Gatsby^(talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I recently moved to Berkeley (last week) and I have noticed that everywhere on campus, they use the specific Berkeley seal: posters, paperwork, sign pots, cars & trucks, Student ID cards, etc. Is it OK with you if I correct the UC Berkeley wiki page to show the Berkeley campus-specific seal? What are your thoughts? Do you still live in the area? If not, when was the last time you saw the campus?

Thanks! Hh73wiki (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a Cal student for years now and the only place the Berkeley specific seal is used is on merchandise and on vehicles. The official seal, as stated by the University is the "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" seal as it always has been since 1868. Thank You. --CASportsFan (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, last time I was on campus? Today. --CASportsFan (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wasn't trying to be rude. Actually, its not just on merchandise and vehicles. The signs all have it, and the student ID cards all have it. What are your thoughts? I can show pictures of where I found it if you like. Hh73wiki (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, they are both in use I have never made the claim otherwise, but the official seal remains the one that has been around since 1868. I too can post pictures of the original seal in use (like every one of those "Berkeley" signs on the lamp posts), inside Haas Pavilion, etc. I can also redirect you to the official campus identity page that supports my claim. [4] --CASportsFan (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following your link, I found ( http://identity.berkeley.edu/guidelines/seal/ ) This says there are two official seals: one for the University, and one for Berkeley. What do you think? Hh73wiki (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are, that for the wiki page "University of California," the University seal is most appropriate, and for the wiki page "University of California, Berkeley," the Berkeley seal is most appropriate. This seems to be inline with what the link you provided is saying. What are your thoughts?Hh73wiki (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are official, I should have rephrased my statement . . . when academics and athletics are involved usually the 1868 seal is used, and the Berkeley seal is used in all other situations. As you can imagine, the 1868 seal is used much more often and is much older than the Berkeley seal. I believe it is appropriate for the original (and still official) seal to remain. --CASportsFan (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When students compete athletically, or are granted academic degrees, they are doing so in the name of the University of California, so it makes sense that the University seal is used in those contexts. When students are doing anything campus specific, the Berkeley seal is used instead, as you mentioned above. When the University seal appears on Berkeley's campus, I dont think Berkeley is trying to misrepresent themselves - they are simply putting the University seal on business that officially originates from University of California itself. Since there are two wiki pages, one for the University, and one for the Berkeley campus, I think Berkeley campus page should use the Berkeley campus seal. What are your thoughts? Hh73wiki (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the University of California name is used by both the system and the Berkeley campus, not unlike the University of Texas and University of Michigan. Because of this, the original seal of the University is still in official use on the campus along with the University of California name. While the campus is no longer officially the "University of California" (even though the athletic department is still the "University of California Athletics Department"), the seal is still official and because of its history and the history of the campus, the original seal should remain. I do, however, believe that the Berkeley seal has a spot on the page, just not in the infobox. --CASportsFan (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be getting somewhat heated, so let's bring this to a moderator and have them decide based on the discussion above.Hh73wiki (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim seasons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you were wondering, I do plan to work again on the Ducks' season page this year. Currently, I'm mostly working on this page, but when the Red Sox' season is over—hopefully not as early as Wednesday!—I should be turning my attention to the Ducks again. RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 01:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I will be updating it periodically as well . . . I guess whoever gets to it first. One thing that needs to stay updated is the stats and I am absolutely terrible with doing all of that. Also, the Angels may be pretty much dead, but the Rays are my only hope to keep you all out ;) --CASportsFan (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am horrendous at stats as well, unfortunately. I thought there were a couple users, Doh286 (or some such number) and Piemann16, who worked on the stats, but I could be wrong. Personally, from a locality standpoint, I wish both the Angels and Red Sox could make it so there'd be some playoff games to go to down here! RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 07:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you used to put the Ducks' points as a part of the game log? I didn't notice it this time around. RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 23:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I must have put the preseason one in there . . . it is fixed now (not that it matters, they're at 0 with yet another opening day loss). --CASportsFan (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any actual difference between #bfb and #bbffbb or between #fbb and #ffbbbb? If so, I don't notice it. I guess I have the shorthand versions ingrained in my hand back from when I was editing the Red Sox' log. I'll try to remember to do it the longhand way. RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 08:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, I just do everything in TextEdit first, and I always just do the longhand version, so I just did a replace all, but if they are the same colors, then there is no problem. :) --CASportsFan (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought something was weird with the attendance...what exactly happened, did I miss a game or two by accident or something? Or maybe I had the capacity wrong...it's 17,174, isn't it? RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 01:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CASportsFan,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know I keep bothering you with these (sorry!) but when you inputted tonight's game, did you update the infobox stats? Because they hadn't been and I didn't realize until I hit "edit" that you had already inputted it in the game log because the same game showed up twice... It's my fault for not checking the log, too, but since the stats didn't look like they'd been updated, I assumed the log hadn't been either.
RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 06:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wik.ipedia.Pro's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh . . . no! I guess I could do some "community service" on Stanfurd pages. Bwahahaha. >:) --CASportsFan (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then it's UP with the blue and gold
DOWN WITH THE RED
CALIFORNIA'S out for a victory
We'll drop OUR battle axe on Stanfurd's head
When we meet her, our team will surely beat her
Down on the Stanfurd farm there will be no sound
When our Oski rips through the air!
LIke our friend Mr. Jonah, Stanfurd's team will be found
IN THE TUMMY OF THE GOLDEN BEAR!

GO BEARS!

Hello, I have a YouTube account and was thinking of doing a few Wik.ipedia.Pro how-tos, one of which would be on updating a game log, for which I was planning to use the Ducks' season page. Of course, if I were to get around to this, I want to pass it by you first and see if you have any major objections of any sort. If you have any apprehensions to this, please let me know.
Thanks!
RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 02:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections. How about this season?? 6 points back, my goodness I am starting to believe again! Haha. --CASportsFan (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for your support on this issue. I am constantly bewildered and exasperated by the ludicrousness of the antigamelog movement but I believe that if we editors stand as a united front, it will in the end be a winning battle. I have restored the Red Sox' spring training log as well, and hopefully it will not be deleted again. By the way, was at Staples yesterday...congrats on Cal's win. :)
RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 01:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have posted something on Wik.ipedia.Pro talk:BASEBALL#Spring Training Game logs, if you could back me up, it would be great. Go Bears! :) --CASportsFan (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 00:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the game log, for what game should the Ducks be considered "eliminated"? We didn't know until today (Wednesday) that they would be eliminated, and they were still in the hunt mathematically as of their last loss. However, it seems contradictory to say they were "eliminated" in a game which they actually won. Because of this, I have placed the elimination shading on Sunday's game against the Bruins (such an awkward, conflicting game for me!!), but if you think it should go elsewhere, let me know.

Obviously a disappointing year, but hey, if it weren't for their run I think I would've conceded the season back before Martin Luther King Day.

Thanks in advance for the input!
RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 07:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As strange as it may be, they were officially eliminated on March 28, and the game log should reflect that despite the win (there will still be the W1 and change in the overall record to reflect the win). I will add an asterisk and a quick notation so people know that it was indeed a win and despite that win, they were eliminated from playoff contention. --CASportsFan (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up just making the game number, date, and points the dark red color and the rest the light green so the reader will easily see that they were eliminated and won on the same day. Do you think that works? Anyway . . . at least there's hope for next year, right? ONE MORE YEAR!! Haha. --CASportsFan (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited California Golden Bears, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Bay (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) 10:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just want your two cents on this...if (most likely simply a matter of what day next week) the Kings win the Stanley Cup, would you see that as beneficial to the hockey environment in Southern California as a whole (and, I mean, seriously, everyone when you step out the door is wearing a Kings shirt or hat right now), thus benefiting both teams, or as a potential threat for the Kings to overshadow the Ducks even more than they have in the past?

Personally, I fear the latter.

P.S. Please forgive this fact, but I've just noticed that practically 90% of your talk page messages are from me. Sorry! Must get a little annoying.

RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 07:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I worry about the latter as well . . . hopefully Samueli will step up to the plate and realize that the direction that this team is going in is not going to help the franchise in the Los Angeles/Orange County market (FIRE BOB MURRAY!). Haha. I am still holding out hope that the Devils will win the next two and even up the series. Can't believe I am saying this, but GO DEVILS!! --CASportsFan (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it goes against my ethos to support any team from anywhere within 50 miles of New York, or to support a team that beat the Ducks in 2003 albeit redemption four years later, or to support a team named the "Devils" (Yuck, hate that name) ... but in this case I believe I'm going to have to agree.

P.S. (And by the looks of this game, I think we're going to have to hope for a 2004 ALCS-style comeback.)

RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 01:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't been monitoring this, there's a bit of a kerfuffle going down here over HLIST versus no-HLIST...

Some thoughts. I think you might be the best person to step in and settle this dispute, considering you, after all, were the one who first created the navbox.

RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 04:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I filled out the game log for you. Only columns empty are the TV/radio ones, couldn't find the info on that yet, plus you seem to have your own special way of doing those... if you find any mistakes or incongruities, please forgive them; it takes a mighty long while to make those game logs and when you get toward the end sometimes your brain starts givin' out on you a little bit.
RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 05:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited 2012–13 Anaheim Ducks season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbus (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) 13:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your contribs and it looks like you haven't been editing in quite a while, but I thought I'd leave this message anyway because I want to know what should be done about the Ducks season page...this lockout looks like a nasty one that ain't going away anytime soon. I think we may have another 04–05 on our hands.
Please reply as soon as you can. Thanks,

RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 04:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should just follow what has been done on some MLB pages for postponements and cancellations if the entire month has not been cancelled. In the event that we lose an entire month (or the entire season), we should have something like the 2004-05 game log. See 2010 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season's spring training game log for what I am talking about as to what we should do for cancellations when the entire month has not officially been cancelled and 2004–05 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim season for what I am talking about when it comes to what we may have to do when an entire month has been cancelled . . . I will go ahead and do that for the September games that have been cancelled and when October games are lost we will probably have to to the first scenario because the entire month probably will not be lost all at once. Hope that helps. --CASportsFan (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply! Man, I thought you had disappeared from this site for a while. Anyway, isn't there a possibility of some of those games being reinstated, even if they are for the time being cancelled? As with the NBA last year, for example, even though the season was delayed until Christmastime they still managed to hold a few "preseason" games... if the season is (hopefully) salvaged in some way I can't imagine they wouldn't still have an (even if abbreviated) preseason...but I could be wrong. As for marking games as cancelled, I think we'd have to do that as the announcements come out, I suspect they'd be cancelling games every couple weeks or so until the dispute is resolved or the season is lost. I'm surprised they haven't cancelled any October games yet because September's almost over.

Anyhow, thanks again for the quick response. I'll keep tabs on the situation as update the season page when (inevitable) further cancellations are made. Shame this had to happen just after the Kings won the Cup, not that I'm happy about that, exactly the opposite, but the one positive of them winning the Cup was that it brought home to Southern Californians the notion that hockey, well, you know, existed... and now a lockout may cause all that to be lost.

P.S. I console you on the matter of Cal's disappointing effort yesterday. We all hate the Trojans in this household haha. :) And I also issue a somewhat reluctant and begrudging congratulations for those Halos of yours sweeping us... twice. Jeez, that was painful.

RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 05:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alas. First casualties of the regular season. I'll leave the game log up to you.
RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 01:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the recent redesigning of the hockey navboxes, which started with the Kings template and has spread to numerous others, including the Ducks'? Personally, I think it looks downright ridiculous.
RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 04:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is downright atrocious! I will revert is back ASAP, and I think it should be reverted back again if it is ever changed again. --CASportsFan (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also left a message on their discussion to voice my displeasure and make it clear that I am in firm opposition to the proposed change here --CASportsFan (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting and voicing your discontent. I didn't think you would've supported the change, but I wanted to get your opinion first because I didn't want to revert things myself and then get in hot water with the WP:Hockey people if your attitude toward it was, "Oh, no, that's okay, we can leave that." Personally (though I don't support this method either; I'm just saying I'd prefer it over what they've done), I'd rather they just leave the navboxes colorless if they're concerned about "accessibility." The worst part of it in my opinion was that because the team name internal link in the navbar was not colored, it naturally looked blue, which made it look as if blue was a color of all the teams. Personally, between you and me, I'm getting awful tired of people taking established designs and doing away with them for no good reason. I had a whole bunch of streamlined colored templates that got reverted to that dull light blue, but I didn't argue the point because I was confronted about it in a very harsh manner. ...But now I'm just ranting, point is, thanks for doing that, and if someone reverts your revert, I'll feel comfortable enough to rererevert. P.S. Not to be a downer, but I wouldn't expect much success. Remember the whole spring training game logs debate? I fought tooth and nail over that, and they still deleted mine, but I didn't bring it back. But maybe things'll turn out differently...you're not a "Wikiwimp" like I can be sometimes haha
RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 07:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Angels spring training log is back, I refuse to give in. ;) --CASportsFan (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a reason why your not willing to follow our policy on this matter?Moxy (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the Hockey Talk page. --CASportsFan (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We require valid arguments based on policy over the "I don't like" it argument. Did you read the guides that have been presented for this case? Thus far your editing to and old version that does not meet our policy guidlines.Moxy (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:CASportsFan/Directory/California Memorial Stadium, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Miscellany for deletion/User:CASportsFan/Directory/California Memorial Stadium and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:CASportsFan/Directory/California Memorial Stadium during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete it, it was just a sandbox for when I was recreating the Memorial Stadium page. --CASportsFan (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. I think someone will delete it shortly. thanks for the hard work in improving it, its not an area i could have researched very well, but i am fond of its history and importance to the local area. wouldnt it be great if it could get to Featured Article status? I have been placing sports articles in the WP:San Francisco Bay Area task force, as a lot are missing from it. im hoping to hit 7000 articles shortly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This message isn't urgent...but eventually I'm going to have to know what to do with the game logs because it looks like we might be going seasonless. I give it a couple weeks for a 48-game season, and they're not even talking now as it is. Such a shame. I've been updating the game log when games, a few by a few, get cancelled...I just need to know what to do when, as I expect will happen, unfortunately, they all get cancelled. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you will get this because, judging by your contribs, your edits seem very few and far between; whether the same can be said of your visits to Wik.ipedia.Pro I cannot judge. Anyhow, I made the rehashed, truncated game log for the Ducks, just to let you know that had been cleared off the table. I'll try to get in all the games I can as soon as possible, but I already see some dates in there where I probably won't be able to input games at the ready due to prior commitments. So, I thought we should have a backup editor, unless you're okay with the game log getting a little behind once in a while. I was thinking maybe this guy? He inputted some games last season. Anyway, reason I'm saying all this is because I don't want you to feel any pressure to do it if you can't visit often.

Glad we finally got some hockey back! I was suffering hockey withdrawal for months! I actually started editing this game log! 48 games may not be much, but I'll take it over 0! Can't wait to see what Souray and Winnik can do in Orange County. Cheers, RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 02:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found it pretty cool how I said to you in the above message, "Can't wait to see what Souray and Winnik can do in Orange County," (inwardly not sure if they'd be able to do much of anything), and then they were responsible for nearly half of the goals they scored tonight! I just checked...first season opener they've won since...2006–07 (*wink, wink*) I was laughing uproariously all night long at how helplessly shellshocked Vancouver looked...although as someone for whom Admiral Hovey Park in Marblehead is one of my happy places, I do feel a smidgen bad for spoiling the evening of Schneider, who's from there. Anyhow...let's just hope we can keep this type of gameplay up! –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 06:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say, I very much enjoyed that game! Hopefully they can keep it up. I also changed the color of the points to green because the Ducks are technically in 1st in the division thanks to the tie breakers --CASportsFan (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thriller! (And Winnik again!) :) –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 07:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was that? I'll take Fasth back, please. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 06:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was at the game, the power play was absolutely PAINFUL TO WATCH . . . get one on the PP, then we win that game. --CASportsFan (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how many games you have been able to watch, but it's pretty much been that way all season long so far to tell the truth..sometimes they can't even get a single shot off. −RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 21:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the gloriousness that was the power play during the first game against Vancouver. I have to say though, the PK has looked much better as of late. --CASportsFan (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a warning...it would seem that the ugliness that is the current navbox color scheme is heading for the game logs, the stats boxes...everything. It hasn't hit the Ducks' page as of yet, but it seems to be only a matter of time. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 01:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...do we have any idea as to why the points color for the most recent game looks like a different shade of green even though I put the same exact code in? –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just did some experimentation using the show preview button...#ffbbbb is yielding orange and #bbcaff is yielding brown! Wonder if these are supposed to be opposite colors or some weird anomaly of that sort...–RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 06:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have bothered you with this, the issue is now fixed. For some odd reason, I had put a semicolon in the code, as in, bgcolor="#bbffbb;", and this was causing the anomaly for whatever reason. The problem went away upon removal of that semicolon; I realized that earlier color codings in the points icon don't have semicolons, so I don't know why I put one this time. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 06:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, for once you actually beat me to the game log? I only saw that game from midway through the 3rd period onward, but at least things started turning rosy as soon as I began watching! –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 05:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see the header on my user page here. I had a seizure last night (2/23). I've had them before but this is my first one in a few years, and you're supposed to take it easy on the computer and such after you've had one. Given that, I will try to do some editing here and there (especially on the Ducks season page, of course), but I might be out of work or out of touch for a few weeks as I recover. Thanks so much for understanding!!! –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 06:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was one for the ages if I've ever seen one!!! Is there any deficit this team can't overcome?? (Oops, hope I didn't just jinx it.) You got to the largest crowds table before I could, though. :) –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 05:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

55 games watched over the past five months and that was the worst one I saw them play. I'm serious. I'm not saying that because I'm disappointed or because of the stakes of the game, that was the worst game they played all year. A perfect regular season blown to bits in the first round. Detroit always spoils the party. And now the Kings, Sharks, Hawks, and Wings left in the West. Awful. Eh. Go Bruins, I suppose. They're all I have left. Anyhow, have a great summer, and I will get the 13-14 schedule and game log when it comes out in June. :) Thanks for everything. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 05:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CASportsFan, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Pat Curcio, appears to be directly copied from http://sfbulls.com/team/front-office/. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Pat Curcio if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All rights have been released from the San Francisco Bulls, the language was given to me from the SF Bulls staff. --CASportsFan (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wik.ipedia.Pro appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pat Curcio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlotte Checkers (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) 11:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wik.ipedia.Pro appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1994 Los Angeles Rams season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Taylor and Chris Miller. 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) 08:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's so funny that I was just thinking about you the other day and today of all days you show up! :) I'm still keeping up the Ducks page for you, I feel as if you sort of bequeathed it to me when you dropped off of here for awhile. I've been doing the Panthers' and Oilers' pages of late, as well. I think I'm almost as old as you were when we first met by now!

Anyhow, I hope your life is going well and I just wanted to drop you a line.

I also wanted to say that the best moment of the 2014 MLB season was at the end of the ALDS when Holland struck out Trout. =D (Yes, I went there!)

Your friend,

RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 06:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you took it over...the last year or so I stepped away because I found myself disagreeing with many of the decisions being made around here and I just didn't want to fight it. I'm back (albeit temporarily), to try and get all of the Los Angeles Rams stuff nice and ready for the—ummm—inevitable ;) --CASportsFan (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I can understand how that feels. I used to edit all sorts of different pages and topics, but I've become disillusioned with so much of it that I've basically been relegated to filling out sports game logs because I figure at least THOSE edits don't get argued over! =P

I feel saddened for you that you have been taken in by all the hoopla over something that isn't going to happen. =P I don't give two shrimps about football anyway, so whatever transpires I'm not likely to pay much attention to. =P

RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 09:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet they still get argued over! Remember the preseason debacle a few years ago? Haha. Anyway, my father and grandfather were Rams season ticket holders back in the day and I will be thrilled when they return. :D --CASportsFan (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LA Rams Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wik.ipedia.Pro under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wik.ipedia.Pro appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1993 Los Angeles Rams season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Taylor. 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) 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1946 and similiar templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Greater_Los_Angeles_Sports_by_year_navboxes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Los Angeles Rams has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wik.ipedia.Pro about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be copy/pasting content from the St. Louis Rams to the LA Rams, as this screws up the editing history. Rather, you should attempt to move the pages; if this doesn't work, wait for an administrator to perform a history merge. Zappa24Mati 01:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please do not continue. That is not how it's done.--Yankees10 02:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All your previous edits have been reverted/deleted. There is currently a discussion on Talk:St. Louis Rams#Requested move 13 January 2016 on when would be the appropriate time to rename the pages (and it is not to be done right now). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wik.ipedia.Pro:Files for discussion/2016 August 12 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

• File:Clippers Logo 1984-2010.svg
• File:Los Angeles Clippers logo.svg

Thank you.  ★  Bigr Tex 17:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Thanks for uploading File:1957 Rams Record.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wik.ipedia.Pro under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Inglewood Stadium.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wik.ipedia.Pro under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:AnaheimAngels.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wik.ipedia.Pro may not meet the criteria required by Wik.ipedia.Pro:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wik.ipedia.Pro:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wik.ipedia.Pro policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:DucksAlternate.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wik.ipedia.Pro may not meet the criteria required by Wik.ipedia.Pro:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wik.ipedia.Pro:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wik.ipedia.Pro policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Angels50.svg, has been listed at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I have nominated all of the NFL's team season templates, some of which you created, for deletion. You can find the discussion at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#NFL team season templates. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Disc Golf at Mountain High's North Resort.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wik.ipedia.Pro. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]