User talk:10stone5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Randy Mearns[edit]

Hi there; I have marked this article for deletion because all of the numerical data shows only as x's. If you would like to go back and fill in all the blanks, I am fairly sure that the article will survive. Otherwise, I feel it will not.--Anthony.bradbury 01:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This was updated. thx


Eamon McEneaney[edit]

A question came up regarding Eamon McEneaney's date of birth. I searched google & didn't find anything. Do you have any ideas? Mitico (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Re: Syracuse Orange Men's lacrosse[edit]

Thanks for your message. [1] This is my source. It lists Syracuse as co-champions in 1920 and 1925. Please let me know if you need anything else. Chengwes (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The listing odf Syracuse as the 1990 NCAA champions is erroneous. That title was vacated by the NCAA for rule violations. The reference cited is a Syracuse Lacrosse brochure. Please see the NCAA records for confirmation. Kudos to the Orangemen for their recent thrilling NCAA Finals win, but we should try to be accurate and the 1990 title belongs to Loyola for adhering to the rules. Hkerfoot (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Johns Hopkins Blue Jays lacrosse[edit]

I think a list the all-time leading scorers on the Johns Hopkins Blue Jays lacrosse article sounds like a great idea! Best regards. Mitico (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wingate[edit]

10stone, I found this on the USILA website. It looks like they have taken the Wingate Memorial Trophy article that you created and have posted on their site, nearly verbatim, as the history of the award. Since the organization that sponsored the award is deferring to your research, you must have done something right! Great job! Mitico (talk, contribs) 11:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but if I did something right, it was purely unintentional :-) --10stone5 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Navy titles[edit]

I'm a little confused by the championships. According to their media guide, Navy only claims 17 nat'l championships themselves: 1928, 1929, 1938, 1943, 1945, 1946, 1949, 1954, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1970.[2] Since the other seven (for 23 total) come from 1914 to 1925, are these semi-official or retroactive championships? You're a lot more knowledgeable on lacrosse history than myself, so maybe you can shed some light on the situation for the early championship awarding procedure? Strikehold (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I added ILA, USILL titles. I'm not totally convinced that the ILA & similar titles were on the level or even that championships were consolidated since there were, evidently, some diverse lacrosse orgs pre-1920s. I'm ok if you don't want to include. thanks. --10stone5 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's good to include it. Probably deserves mention of which years were awarded by which organizations, etc. in the main body of the article though. Thanks for the clarification. Strikehold (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Corp[edit]

I don't remember tagging this article to be honest. Sorry, I probably didn't look at the notability properly. NPervez (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the quick response! --10stone5 (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009[edit]

Information.svg Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Cornell Big Red men's lacrosse, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. I see you're an established editor (moreso than I am, in fact) and so it's confusing to see the "minor edit" box being used repeatedly in the course of non-trivial revisions. Perhaps you have the option set to mark all edits as minor by default, and have forgotten to uncheck it lately?Notyourbroom (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Trust me - those were minor changes. I'll be glad to get into greater detail on why my changes were minor, if you'd like. But I will, in fact, endeavor to be more descriptive with even minor changes as much as possible. --10stone5 (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Uncle Charlie Interview[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Uncle Charlie Interview, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Charlie Interview. 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. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I'll be glad to accept this priviledge, and hopefully not abuse it.--10stone5 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Head coaching wins list[edit]

Hey, could you check out my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lacrosse#List of college men's lacrosse coaches by career wins? Strikehold (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting articles[edit]

You recently blanked Brian Christopher (lacrosse) and John Zulberti without stating a reason. You must have a purpose behind this, but as it wasn't stated I restored the articles for now. Perhaps go through WP:AFD or if there is a speedy reason, WP:CSD? --Muhandes (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brian Wood (lacrosse)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.  –Joshua Scott 19:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:1960s Radical Activists[edit]

Category:1960s Radical Activists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Progressivism_in_the_United_States#Contemporary_progressivism[edit]

Regarding the section Contemporary_progressivism on the page Progressivism in the United States: I would like to propose the following fix, which I'll undertake as an editing project if you agree with it. It's a big project (perhaps a day or two of research) so I don't want to undertake it until you agree (you're the only reviewer who signed that section). Here is my plan, copied from that page:

I found the list of progressives discomfiting in its over-inclusiveness (I call myself a progressive). I would like to suggest a criterion for inclusion in that list: If the person in question was a candidate, they can only be included if they were considered, by progressives, to be the progressive choice in an election. Citing the election in question, and the progressive vs. non-progressive issue stances and support base, would substantiate the list. The two entries I found most discomfiting violated that rule the most explicitly. First was Al Gore, who was the liberal choice in the 2000 Democratic primary against the progressive Bill Bradley. Gore might be considered a progressive in other contexts, but not in 2000, his last race. Even more discomfiting was John Edwards' inclusion. In the 2008 Democratic primary, Edwards was the liberal, along with Kerry, against the progressive choices of Howard Dean, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich. Using this criteria, Barack Obama was the progressive choice in the 2008 primary against Hillary Clinton, and hence should be included in the list. Tell me what you think -- if you like that idea, I will edit the entire list accordingly and remove the citation afterwards. I suggest a table of the recent presidential primaries showing the progressive choices vs. the liberal choices, with citations (I will dig up all of those). For the non-political candidates, such as Noam Chomsky, I'll link to his issue stances at OnTheIssues.org -- he meets numerous criteria as stated elsewhere in the article (and I would certainly call Chomsky a progressive), as will several others in the list using the same method. If I can't find citations or liberal primary opponents, I'll remove the name from the list. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment[edit]

I will do a request for comment. One at a time. But it may require severaal. I have tried since January(!) to put in information reliably sourced by 100s of citations only to rebuffed on the grounds that editors don't think my sources (the US Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, and case law from 11 circuits) are valid while they think their opinion without sources trumps these matters. There are myriad clear errors in the article, but they refuse to even let me post a POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Fair enough GP. Just looking for some resolution, in this one instance. 10stone5 (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

'review'[edit]

Explaining[edit]

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Thx for the info, did not know that process -- the prior was more an fyi -- thanks for your effort 10stone5 (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment article to dispute resolution[edit]

Just in case you were not notified GreekParadise filed a dr on this issue your participation there would be very much appreciated. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notification. I've added my name to the DR, and a partial commentary. Will expand my opening commentary further, shortly. 10stone5 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks[edit]

Looks like next season will bring a shake up in conferences in college lacrosse (like everywhere else in college sports). Also looks like the sport will continue to grow adding both men's and women's teams, especially in the South. Looks like a bright future on the college level. Also here in Penna. the PIAA, the state's official assn. on the high school level, has raised lacrosse for both sexes to official championship level in just the last few years. Keep up the good work. Freddiem (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1984 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Zimmerman (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) 08:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2013 IRS scandal[edit]

It has been proposed that the name be changed to to remove the term "scandal" from the article title. You have peviously participated in talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy and paste move[edit]

I have fixed your copy and paste move of Clintonomics to Economic policy of Bill Clinton. (You shouldn't move an article by manually copying its contents; this causes the article's history to be left behind at the old location. Instead, you can use the "move" function in the menu above the article; if you can't move a page, perhaps because the new location is occupied, or if you believe the move would be controversial, see requested moves.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Thomas (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) 08:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albany Great Danes men's lacrosse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Notre Dame. 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) 08:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

your edits on Media bias in the United States[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Removing paragraphs isnt minor, for example here--Wuerzele (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deep Carbon Observatory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Century Club. 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) 09:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swarthmore. 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) 09:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wondering if you might offer some advice...[edit]

I am attempting to submit an article of the Republican nominee for an executive state office in MA for the November election, however the submission was rejected by an administrator on highly questionable grounds. Specifically, a claim that a political challenger is, by definition not notable enough to warrant creation of an article - only incumbent politicians have achieved this status apparently. Also, it was asserted by this administrator that a challenger page, even if sufficient notability has been established, poses "a huge danger" of devolving into a propaganda outlet. The notion that Wikipedia does not host articles of political challengers is factually incorrect, and the notion that a challenger's page is somehow specially predisposed to propaganda is equally false ofcourse. A look at the rejecting administrator's work helped me to understand why he would offer such a fallacious explanation in declining the submission - his bias speaks for itself.

Now that my rant is over (sorry), I was wondering if you could suggest any administrators that I could submit the article for review to who might be more neutral in their evaluation. Individuals who upon seeing the word "Republican" do not experience the uncontrollable urge to "X" off the submission before evaluating it with both hemispheres of their brain.

Thanks for your help!

JustOneOfThosePeople (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to post the link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Patricia_Saint._Aubin

JustOneOfThosePeople (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Eric Holder shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And as far as I'm concerned, now that you've been called out on the contentious factual misstatement in a biography, you are in violation of BLP. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • DO NOT REMOVE, FOR DOCUMENTATION PURPOSES *
  • You can not just accuse me of an unsupportable edit war, and you can not under any circumstances alter my talk page without my permission, with the exception of adding your own content. I am putting the entire documentation of this incident here.

"== Why did you (whoever) take this out ? == This is well documented. It is useful information to understanding Holder's character. I understand this is recent news (the resignation), and people are emotional at times like this. But it notwithstanding deserves mention, was previously in the article, and the removal of this was unsupported. I'm putting it back in. " While at Columbia, Holder was a member of the Student Afro-American Society, which staged an armed occupation of the ROTC lounge and demanded that it be renamed the Malcom X Lounge.[1][2][3][4][5][6] " 10stone5 (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Per the NYT "armed with pillowcases and sheets." Please read the sources.Acroterion (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
So then say that or words to that effect 10stone5 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That's up to you: the incident is not in dispute, but your insistence that it was "armed" is, pun intended, loaded language. Please rephrase to reflect what the sources say, and remember that BLP sets a high bar on allegations about being "armed." Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not insisting they were armed, I'm saying you can't just delete this, note though that Columbia's own archives say they were armed. --- http://web.archive.org/web/20100926031018/http://www.columbiabso.org/?page_id=118. Note that I reverted your change. If you want to change the wording on the armed issue go ahead, but you can't just continue to edit this section out. Again I understand that people are emotional at times like this. 10stone5 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • From Fox: "The details of the student-led occupation, including the claim that the raiders were “armed,” come from a deleted Web page of the Black Students’ Organization (BSO) at Columbia, a successor group to the SAAS. Contemporary newspaper accounts in The Columbia Daily Spectator, a student newspaper, did not mention weapons." Hardly a sufficient source to make such a bold claim here. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
::::* <this is my insertion, for documentation purposes, after the fact> Please note, I was not citing Fox as I already know many Wikipedians consider Fox a persona non grata. I wasn't citing anyone. I just happened to read Colombia's own archive, cached from The Wayback Machine which described the incident as an armed one. My problem was never with the issue of whether this incident was armed or not, it was that this citation was removed in the first place. There was no supportable evidence for removing it> 10stone5 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please learn how to read. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Please stop reverting my edit. If you want to change the wording on whether this incident was armed or not, go ahead. I have no issue there. Otherwise a complete revert is unsupported as there are many citations for this incident happening. So please stop. 10stone5 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please stop reverting it yourself. You're already at three reverts; are you going to go for four and be blocked?
As for the incident, it was a non-event. Your sources say nothing like what you're writing, and that makes it a BLP violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please make neutral edits that don't try to insert loaded language that isn't supported by the sources. The burden is on you to respond with an acceptable edit. Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll repeat my prior point and in this case make the appropriate edit to the wording in question. But you cannot cite me for edit war, because your position of complete removal is unsupported. "Please stop reverting my edit. If you want to change the wording on whether this incident was armed or not, go ahead. I have no issue there. Otherwise a complete revert is unsupported as there are many citations for this incident happening. So please stop." 10stone5 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't get to call the man a terrorist and put the onus on other editors to clean up your mess. Sorry, but Wikipedia and BLP don't work that way. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Nobody is calling anyone a terrorist. Note that I took it upon myself to change the wording. "While at Columbia, Holder was a member of the Student Afro-American Society, which staged a non-confrontational occupation of the ROTC lounge and demanded that it be renamed the Malcom X Lounge." -- so I noted specifically that this was not armed, not confrontational, not terrorist in nature. But still useful information as to the character of the man as well as being well documented. You can't just delete things that are well documented and pertinent, because you don't personally like the content. 10stone5 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
<ecx4>We're not here to rewrite your persistent violations of policy and factual misstatements into some acceptable form. Thank you for finally writing according to the sources. Acroterion (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why didn't you make the change or provide a better explanation from the get-go? I understand you are an administrator. Just not a very good one in my opinion. Next time, as an admin, as a representative of Wikipedia, please explain your administrative behavior better. At least now I've gotten a good education on how Wikipedians attempt to suppress information, I'll know from now on to be on the lookout for you two, and most importantly, I have the tools as well as mental capacity to combat this blatant attempt at information suppression. Also, please do not ever, ever make any edits to my talk page without my express consent, except for purposes of adding a new notification or responding to a notification. 10stone5 (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC) "

Disambiguation link notification for September 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Dougherty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division III. 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) 09:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1980 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1981 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Johns Hopkins scoring – Jim Zaffuto 6, Jeff Harris 3, Joe Ciletti 2, Bill Cantelli 2, [[Jeff Cook (lacrosse)|Jeff Cook, Peter Scott, Brendan Schneck, Henry Ciccarone, Mike MeGee, Howard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1981 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Johns Hopkins scoring – Jim Zaffuto 6, Jeff Harris 3, Joe Ciletti 2, Bill Cantelli 2, [[Jeff Cook (lacrosse)|Jeff Cook, Peter Scott, Brendan Schneck, Henry Ciccarone, Mike MeGee, Howard
  • * Johns Hopkins scoring – Jim Zaffuto 6, Jeff Harris 3, Joe Ciletti 2, Bill Cantelli 2, [[Jeff Cook (lacrosse)|Jeff Cook, Peter Scott, Brendan Schneck, Henry Ciccarone, Mike MeGee, Howard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211350/Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-armed-took-protest-Columbia-occupied-school-office-FIVE-days.html
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/nyregion/01holder.html?pagewanted=all
  3. ^ http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201012/eric-holder-attorney-general-rahm-emanuel-white-house-elections?printable=true
  4. ^ http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090519.html
  5. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20100926031018/http://www.columbiabso.org/?page_id=118
  6. ^ http://nation.foxnews.com/eric-holder/2012/10/01/daily-caller-college-student-eric-holder-participated-armed-takeover-former-columbia-u-rotc-office