User talk:Kevinskogg

Welcome!

Hello, Kevinskogg, 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 looks like you've been around for quite a while and have learned how to operate on Wikipedia, but I noticed that you didn't have anything of your Talk page, so I figured a Welcome was in order. Thanks for the grammar neatening at Kilogram. Enuja 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

You'll have to read the discussion and consensus regarding the band. The NWOBHM era was from 79-82. JP had a thriving career as an international touring act long before that. Your personal opinion is respected. But Wikipedia is built on discussion and consensus. See WP:CON. Hope that helps your misunderstanding. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response

That's fine but then they should be listed as an influence, like Budgie. Oh and was it January 1979 or December? Would something in January 1983 not qualify then?

response

After reading the NBWOHM discussion page, I see that my initial assesment of the situation was absolutely correct. You have a personal vendetta, (you said it really irriates you) and will continue to grind this axe until eveyone gives up. There is no consensus on that page and there are a tremendous amounts of anonymous posts. Simply put, it is your opinion and you will not listen to anyone else.

Reply - copied from User talk:192.28.0.19 as your comment was original signed by

Hello there; I welcome discussion on edits, and I'll make some observations about what I "slashed" from that article, since as you mention it was a few years back and I barely remember it; so I'll look back on the changes I did now.

Your issue is, as you say, is that "the shift to numbers above 30 was a significant change" and you say "When I first read the article, it said that there was no basis for number selection in the NHL and that lower numbers were not more valued. This is untrue to this day."

this is a history of the article; what it looked like before I edited it is on the left, and what it looked like after I edited it is on the right. The article, after I edited it, read "Historically, in the National Hockey League, starting goaltenders wore #1, and the rest of the starting players wore low numbers (generally 2-30). In recent years, it has become more common for players to wear numbers in the 30s, an 40s and 50s."

I feel like this agrees with what you are saying. I'm very sorry, but I don't see where I deleted ANYTHING to do with the move from wearing under-30 to over-30, and the only mentions about Gretzky and Espo is still there; Hodge wasn't even mentioned in the article when I edited it. I'm not sure what part of my edits you're upset about; maybe you had the wrong editor.

I'm also confused by your statement "so describing how this happened with references is not any more trivial than talking about number of peoples jerseys in general" - the only reference that was there when I edited the article referred to Lemeiux wearing upside down 99 (66). The link is dead now and I can only assume it was dead then which is why I deleted that link.

If you let me know what specific edits bothered you, I can try to address it further... Thanks TheHYPO (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still find it odd that we're discussing two-year-old edits, but I will try to respond to your points. I"m afraid I still don't understand what your problem is with my edits. Your first post seemed to accuse me of deleting information about how under-30 numbers were typical and how this changed. Even though some of the information I deleted talked about how Gretzky went from 9 to 99 and Espo from 7 to 77, it never once mentioned that this is significant for any reason, such as starting the trend of using numbers over 30. All it is is a trivial story about how Gretzky got his number, which is a fact for his article, not an article on numbers. There was no context given to establish why these events were significant in the NHL. You say "the point of that story was to show the direct link from Esposito's decision to Gatsby's number selection which, because of his eventual stature in the game, sped up the inclusion of non-hockey (as I call them) numbers in the game." - nothing in the portions I deleted talked about "speeding up the inclusion" of anything in the game, which made it trivial. I don't know who Gatsby is and he isn't mentioned in the article at all either as it existed before I edited, or after I edited it (again the link is here as to what I actually deleted.) Maybe other people deleted stuff first that made the content about gretzky and esposito seem trivial when I got there. The fact is that there is not one citation in that section I deleted, so even if it did say "this led to the popularization of numbers over 30 in hockey", that would be one person's opinion without any citation to back it up. I suggest you might want to discuss the article on its own talk page and get other editors to help you work out the information you want to pop back into the article. I'm sure there are people watching that article that would like to discuss it. Cheers - TheHYPO (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your mistaken addition

Fyi. Kind regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 21:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made it better but it looks like I forgot to delete part. It is still poorly written.

Hi there

You have another reply from me waiting for you on my talk page. Cheers. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glad All Over.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hydriz (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glad All Over concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glad All Over, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This can be deleted, an alternate version was created. Kevinskogg (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Citron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Papeda. 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) 09:25, 13 January 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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of All-Big Ten Hockey Teams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defense. 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) 09:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kevinskogg. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kevinskogg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Kevinskogg. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kevinskogg. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BattleBots (season 8), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 20 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:11, 26 July 2019 (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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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, 23 November 2021 (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) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LCB Line

Before you add that line again, either start a discussion on the talk page, or start an article on the LCB line. You asked the question on the talk page in 2020, so you already knew the requirements and added the line anyway. Not a good action. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says on the page

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

The talk page has 4 options but does not pick one. This meets option B. Not all lines listed meet Option A or B.

This is just your little power play. Your comment to me in 2020 was cryptic. I said is a hockey card not enough and I guess you said it wasn't so I added more. Several lines have one source only.

where on the talk page Kevinskogg (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the page, as noted on the talk page, has the Uke Line added in 2022 that only has one source and no page.

Your rules are arbitrary and not clearly stated. If there are rules put them on the talk page. I can see that in one of your posts it maybe references a potential rule:

"By caveat, I mean that lines that are currently in the article (before we had this discussion) without their own article should probably stay, as I feel most (if not all of them) could have their own article. If someone wants to add a line here that doesn't have an article, then the answer should be "yes" if there's enough material to justify a standalone article. If there is, let's start that article first and then add the line here."

But this is written as a suggestion! It never is agreed upon and the "Uke Line" addition, which you approved, does not follow that guideline. Kevinskogg (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]