The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2014–15 Los Angeles Lakers season:
Hey I added information but you deleted because you said it was a "horrendous edit" but all my information was correct. Was it pretty, no. But thats why I wanted help organizing it. I was wondering why you just deleted it. :(. I spent a lot of time on it.Lakersfan06 (talk)01:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lakersfan06: You should useWP:SANDBOX before making huge edits. What you added was horrendous and it was not worth my or other editor's time in trying to fix it. I see you are new here so please first experiment and get familiar with how editing works here before continuing. In addition, you based your edit mostly on RealGM, which is not a reliable source. You should search for news articles from team or reliable new websites (ESPN, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and others). –sbaio10:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Mk8mlyb: Your edit was reverted (same was done by another editor atMike Bossy), because it was unsourced. It is your duty to provide sources when adding content. In addition, please readWP:DATERANGE before continuing to add stints to players' pages. You must useWP:ENDASH when listing date ranges and not hyphens. –sbaio10:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the sentence with a source, and it was still reverted. Why is that? Also, I will try to add date-ranges in accordance with policy.Mk8mlyb (talk)01:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, the edit was not reverted. I should have checked first. Nonetheless, my second point still applies.Mk8mlyb (talk)01:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both the NHL and the Canadiens themselves often use "Montréal",in their English name. I don't get why we don't acknowledge that... –uncleben85 (talk)13:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncleben85: At the beginning of the Canadiens' lead sentence there is a note that quite clearly saysEven in English, the French spellingCanadiens is always used instead ofCanadians. The French spelling ofMontréal is also sometimes used in English-speaking media. So we actually do acknowledge it. In addition, the "Montréal" spelling is only used in about 0.1% of anything posted by NHL (for example,teams page andstandings) and Canadiens (some press releases), while "Montreal" is used 99.9% of the time (either by official or other media outlets). –sbaio14:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, reading that back, I hope that didn't sound too confrontational. Thanks for the explanation. Honestly, the note didn't even register with me.--–uncleben85 (talk)18:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncleben85: It did not. I was surprised by your edit and thought that you probably did not see the note. Oh well, everyone makes mistakes. –sbaio19:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When you reverted my edit on the Anaheim Ducks article, you stated that one source was not good enough to prove a rivalry. Well, I have foundanother source that states my case. Is that good enough?Mk8mlyb (talk)06:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mk8mlyb: You should really start a discussion atWT:NHL and ask there, because there are editors who have access to specific websites that could show more sources. Google searches are often very limited when it comes to rivalries. –sbaio14:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick heads up, it looks like there is a series of errors on the records.nhl.com site in regards to regular season goals for and against. I've confirmed the errors by looking at these links:[1] and[2]. On the records site the Islanders have 222 GF and 257 GA while on the main league standings they have 224 GF and 260 GA for the 2024–25 season. I've checked other seasons using previously printed material from the league and there are similar errors in other seasons on the records site. I also checked the playoff totals, thankfully all of those were the same.Deadman137 (talk)17:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I note that User:Iojhug updated sports related articles (including MLB, NFL, and NHL) by replacing {{Official URL}} (which include the leading "www") with URLs that don't include the "www". As I recall, you were previously involved in a similar discussion. As such, would you please remind me why Official URL is better? Thanks in advance.Assadzadeh (talk)20:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Conyo14: Fair enough. But I must note that the Yahoo Sports example was not written by them as it was originally written by The Hockey News, which is based in Canada. Yahoo Sports rarely write something themselves. –sbaio17:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Re: this - while I get REVERTBAN's purpose, it almost feels like feeding the troll to letany of their changes stand, especially when their socking is so constant/unending. The message needs to be made clear that regardless of quality, their contributions are not welcome here.
Keep in mind, while their contribs were often "useful," they were initially blocked for incivility/edit warring, and the repeated blocks since have been because they decided they'd rather sock around that block instead of just waiting out the three months they were initially blocked for. Their hole's been dug too deep to return from.TheKip(contribs)18:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am very well aware of that IP's blocks. But to revert IP's edits and introduce factually incorrect information like at2025–26 Montreal Canadiens season makes you disruptive instead. Please reconsider your approach and at least look through it the next time before reverting. –sbaio19:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, but I worry that letting their edits stand communicates to them that their contributions are accepted/appreciated. There's a reason they keep coming back.TheKip(contribs)19:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: I get what Ponyo means, but I still think that edit in game log should not been reverted as I already stated above. Administrators should just block whole range, but they are hesitant to do it, because "it would be extreme". I do not see other option than a range block (guess other editors feel the same). –sbaio03:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topicGreat Lithuanians. Thank you. --Pofka19:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]