User talk:BostonRed

Welcome!

Hello, BostonRed, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Darwinek 10:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10/27/06 Basil Wolverton edit

> (fixed one 'very unique')

Good call, 'unusual' is much better. --AC 06:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaal Anderson

Hi there,

I just wanted to let you know about categorization. You don't need to put a person in 2 categories when one of which feeds into the other one. For example, People from Little Rock is sufficient for Jamaal Anderson, because Little Rock is in Arkansas. Otherwise, good edit.--Thomas.macmillan 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing revision at Harding University - National Merit Scholars

I was wondering why you thought my edit "In 2006, Harding enrolled more freshman National Merit Scholars than any other private university in Arkansas was not noteworthy. Universities are always competing for National Merit Scholars, and the more your university can attract, the better. Surely this is noteworthy, especially since there's an outside source for it. Fmccown 20:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is claiming to have the top number of National Merit Scholars any more of a recruiting statement than saying your university "had the fifth largest single-campus enrollment in the nation as of fall 2006" or claiming that your university only admitted "25% or 8,634 of the almost 34,000 who applied for freshman admission in 2006"? Also, the article states that besides the Univ of Arkansas, Harding had the most National Merit Scholars of any Arkansas university. Doesn't that sound notable enough? Fmccown 14:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a function of scale. Both the statements you mention are fairly impressive...perhaps a bit boosterish, but those are nationally impressive numbers. The second most NMS in a small state doesn't strike me as that noteworthy. Does the UofA mention the number of NMS (I didn't see it)? As I read your profile, you are an employee of the school, so it may be difficult for you to be objective. That said....it's not really that important to me. If you want to add it back, I won't object....but I don't think it looks that special for Harding. BostonRed 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UofA had 41 (first school mentioned in the list). I think I understand your reasoning... if something is notable on a national scale then it should be included, but not if it's notable on a state scale, especially if your state is Arkansas. ;) Yes, I am an employee of Harding, but I'm also a big fan of Wikipedia and value consensus. That's why I was curious about your opinion on the matter. Fmccown 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

Please note that the Star Trek wikiproject calls for italicizing "Star Trek" only when referring to the actual 1960s TV series; when referring to the Star Trek franchise, or making a general assertion about Star Trek not connected with a particular series, it should not be italicized. --EEMeltonIV 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Zenith (disambiguation)

Per WP:DAB, "Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed." I will remove your pipes. --Orange Mike 14:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDAB is useful also. Fourohfour 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging edits as minor

Just a friendly reminder:

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) 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.

Happy editing, Phaunt 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 72.166.46.129 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 16:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Boloco

An article that you have been involved in editing, Boloco, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boloco. Thank you. GlassCobra 15:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:The Bob & Tom Show

Template:The Bob & Tom Show has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Josh (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrollton bus collision

I respectfully encourage you to participate in the discussion page regarding your reversion of my edit on the Carrollton bus collision article. I wonder whether you would agree to one of the edits suggested on the talk page, as this has been a topic of discussion for a few weeks, and I added my observations today. Wikipedia's dispute resolution page [[1]] states, "Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, "think twice before simply deleting it" and "Always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you. If you can say it in one line, use the edit summary; for longer explanations, use the talk page and add 'see talk' to the edit summary." While I don't feel strongly about your edit, simply reverting the edit (thereby deleting the sentence) opens up the possibility of an edit war, which of course, never solves anything. So I would prefer to obtain a consensus on how it should be worded. Fortunately, most editors are respectful of one another, and once views are carefully expressed, a consensus can be reached. EditWatch88 (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Arkansas Razorbacks

Hi, I have seen that you like me, like to edit "Arkansas Razorback" article's if not sorry but it seems that way lol. But would you be interested in co createing a wikipedia project for the Hogs? Let me know, I have a couple other user's I want to ask to. #1 Metallica Fan Your Hancock 16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K sweet! umm Yeah I to like to do football,basketball, I'm working on Sonny Weems right now. But I want to ask a couple of other user like: Mastrchf91, JustAGal, and Jonneroo. Do you have any other users in mind? #1 Metallica Fan Your Hancock 20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this? Let ma know A.S.A.P. #1 Metallica Fan Your Hancock 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Albany State University

Hi. I noticed you added two alumni entries to Albany State University. Do you happen to have a reference showing they attended Albany State? If so, please add it to the entries. Thanks. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references to the Jones boys I added is in their Wiki articles already. Seems redundant to add a reference when the reference is already in Wikipedia. Most other lists like this don't include references, since the link usually takes care of that. BostonRed (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In theory that works great, but if you've ever placed an article under review for "GA" or "FA" status you know the screening critera is much higher than general articles across the spaces. I've found it better for all involved to verify and add the references vice making other editors peel back and do the searching. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Fortunately, my only interest in Albany State is the Jones brothers, so I don't think I'll be adding too many others (though maybe Oliver Jones should be added). I'll use your format if I do so. BostonRed (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the references earlier today. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Hi BostonRed, Are you a Red Sox fan? If so me to! I have two questions I want to ask you. 1. would you like me to help you create a user page? It would be no trouble at all, and fun! 2. If you don't want me to help you create you one would you like me to delete it for you? No trouble at all, and I would like it if you would reply on MY talk page. SteelersFan94 20:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer

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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 05:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melissa Benoist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ryan Murphy (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) 11:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

link to steve's ice cream

I was in the middle of doing a whole pile of extra edits, so we had a small edit conflict on the Bertucci's page. That said, it's standard to only link to the first occurrence of a link, and Steve's was already linked to in the article; it should not be linked to a second time. But thanks for editing - I'm hoping to source some images of the original location from the Davis Square historical groups on FB soon. --Thespian (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2013 (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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rose Lavelle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page W-League. 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) 09:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BostonRed. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BostonRed. 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]