User talk:70.27.141.201

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.


Maybe you should try and keep the proper information available to the users of Wilipedia, instead of trying to hide the truth.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BoojiBoy 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me how providing the correct information is considered "vadalism"? Here is the CHL web site that shows the highest single season point totals.

http://www.chl.ca/CHLRecordBook/mostpointsoneseason.html

Here is a link to your own web site that tells how Rimouski had a longer unbeaten streak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Memorial_Cup

Here is the story to Dale Hunter's arrest

http://lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=148299&x=articles&s=knights

Where is the "vandalism"? There is no vandalism here. There is proof.

Here is your "vandalism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Nash&diff=68241444&oldid=61023451
Your edits to Rick Nash were in opposition to WP:Crystal Ball. Articles on Wikipedia, regardless of what kind they are or what they cover, should not be used for speculation, such as speculation that if Eric Staal had been chosen over Nash, Canada would have had a better chance at winning a medal, among other things. Resident Lune 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As for your other edits, adding racially-charged [1] statements to articles is frowned upon, as is making blatantly POV and misleading [2] edits. If you want to make a good faith edit to articles, go ahead, but anyone looking over your edit history so far would conclude you're only causing trouble. BoojiBoy 21:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Fact

- During a taping of Playboy TV's NightCalls, as well in the movie White Washed, Audree Jaymes says she enjoys sex with white men, more then with men of her own race.

Fact

- The single season highest point total ever recorded in the Canadian Hockey League = 125. - The London Knights' highest total = 120

Yet, that was erased.

Fact

- The London Knights went 31 games without a loss. - The Rimouski Oceanic went 35 games without a loss the very same year.

Yet, that was erased.

Fact.

- Dale Hunter was arrested and charged with Drinking and Driving. - Dale's newphew, Logan was also charged with the same offence less the 2 years earlier.

Yet, that was erased.

Fact

- The London Knights have only ever been to the Memorial Cup once in the 40+ year history. - When entering the Memorial Cup tournament that year, the Knights elected to take the host team schedule, instead of the OHL Champions. This year, the tournament was held in Moncton. The home team Wildcats won the QMJHL Championship, but entered the tournament as the QMJHL Champions, not the host team.

Yet, that was erased.

Fact

- Despite tying for the league lead in goals, Rick Nash only recorded 16 assists which put him out of the Top 40 in points with 57.

Yet, that was erased.

Fact

- Rick Nash was benched three seperate times during the 2006 Olympics because of poor and selfish play.

Yet, that was erased.

Fact

- Eric Staal finished the 2006 NHL season by being 4th in Hart Trophy voting, - Eric Staal finished the 2006 NHL playoffs by being 2nd in Conn Smythe voting. - Eric Staal lead his team in regular season points (with over 100). - Eric Staal lead the league in playoff points. - Eric Staal was a member of the Stanley Cup winning Carolina Hurricanes. - Rick Nash has ZERO playoff points as he has never helped his team get into the playoffs.

Fine, even thought the proof is there, we can't say for sure Canada would have won a medal without Nash, or with Staal (although then numbers certainly show that they would). So, erasing that is fine.

By why erase the other information that is 100% correct?

All I am going to say on that is to A) read WP:NPOV, and B) read this. POV-pushing is not welcome here and you know full well why many of your edits are being reverted. If you want to make neutral, factual and verifiable contributions to Wikipedia, go ahead. If you want to push your POV, you will be reverted each and every time. BoojiBoy 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now you want to use the CHL website. Rimouski's streak includes playoff games, and therefore does not fit the same criteria as London's regular season mark. But, the fact that they were able to pull off their unbeaten streak, at the end of the year, including the playoffs, is far more impressive then having one at the start of the year.

How can you say only "neutral, factual, and verifiable contributions" are welcome, when you erased "neutral, factual, and verifiable contributions" I made? It is a fact, the London Knights did not set the CHL total point mark at 110. Nor did they set it again at 120. I see now you've changed it, but it still can give people the wrong impression. It is a fact Dale Hunter was charged with DUI, and his newphew Logan was charged with the same, but yet you erased that. If "neutral, factual, and verifiable contributions" are excepted, why do you erase the facts, and keep your own creative way of wording things up?

The record set for most points in a CHL season is 125, set by Brandon. The 120 London set, reguardless of how many games they played, ranks them tied for 4th. Those are the facts. They are not POV. You continuely changing it though, is your POV.

Lets keep to the facts here. Or maybe I'm the only one who is required to do that.


Want to add the fact that Dale Hunter was charged with DUI to his article? Go right ahead. Want to risk a lawsuit by pushing guilt by association with Logan? Sorry, it'll be reverted.
Want to add the CHL total point record to the Wheat Kings article? Go right ahead. The fact that you haven't done that leads me to believe that you are only here to push POV, not because you're interested in contributing facts.
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BoojiBoy 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A lawsuit!?!? Guilt by association?!?! Get real. Hunter, yourself, and the rest of the Knights fans should worry more about why the head coach of a Junior hockey team is drinking and driving, and why he seemingly didn't learn anything from his nephew's arrest.

But for the love of God, stop trying to accuse me of pusing a POV, when you have been the one erasing facts all over this site, and creating your own "records".

Why is it you choose to erase the fact the Oceanic went 35 games without a loss, and say the Knights hold the record for the longest unbeaten streak, when you create your own record for the Knights with their "most points in a 68 game schedule"

You constantly erase facts, accuse me of pushing my POV, and threaten me with warnings, yet every single thing I have posted lately is 100% factual. Why don't you want the fact that London born officals worked the Memorial Cup final? Why don't you want people to know the Knights have set no such record for most points or wins in a year?

Tell you what, you stop pushing you POV, and I won't changing them. Can you handle that, or is your ever so tender ego not allow you to do that?

Look. Some of the edits you made were valid and have been kept. The Knights article no longer says that they hold the CHL record for most points in any length of season. That was wrong. But as is proven in the CHL record book [3], the Oceanic did not break the Knights' streak. They set a new QMJHL record, which is noted (as it should be) in the Oceanic article, but 28 games is not longer than 31. If you're going to extend it to playoffs, why not include multiple years? Why not include pre-season? You can't do it, and an unofficial record plus a loonie will get you a cup of coffee. As for the Memorial Cup, the fact that the tournament schedule was changed the next year is irrelevant, as they were the same rules that had been used from 1998-2004. Your implied conspiracy about the officials is laughable, as the officials for the Cup final are chosen by the CHL director of officiating, who grades every official in the tournament on a game-by-game basis and assigns the best ones to the final.
I have no interest in continuing this discussion any further, so this is my last word on the subject. You hate the Knights, I get that. But Wikipedia has to be neutral, so stop pushing your POV. BoojiBoy 21:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It was proven in the CHL record book the Knights did NOT set the single season point record, yet you let that stand until I called you on it.

Furthermore, with the NCAA, both in basketball and football, unbeaten streaks have included playoff games. So for the CHL to do the same is not out of the question. As far as counting exhibition games, well, go ahead. But the mention of that is absolutely ridiculous. Counting games that don't count (unlike playoff games which very much do) is ridiculous.

The change to the tournament does have relevance. Considering every person outside of London felt Rimouski would have been better with an extra day's rest. The statistics showed the team with the extra day's rest into the Final won the majority of the time in the Championship. It was showed this year when Quebec was given an extra days rest in between the Semi's and the Finals, and used that extra day off to prepare themselves better, and actually win the Final game. It only stands as logic, had Rimouski been given an extra day off, the outcome of the Final may have been different.(If there was no problem, please provide me with a reason the change was made).

It is also fact that the Officials assigned to the Memorial Cup Final all had ties to London. If this was indeed nothing more then a coincidence, they why try and hide the fact that the referee and one of his linemen, are life long Knights fans, and the other is an ex-player of the Knights. Why erase that fact? The assignment of Officials was, and has, been questioned ever since they were announced. If you really believe the best Officials were selected without bias (consider Branch's seemingly obvious attempt at assuring a OHL winner), I suggest you ask any fan of a team that wasn't called the Knights why they were picked. (why the following year were none of those men selected to represent the OHL in the Memorial Cup. But yet the ex-Knight Linesman, in his first year of referring, was given the nod to work the final between London and Peterborough)? Think about this for a second. If, in the final between Rimouski and London, the three Officals on the ice, all had ties to Rimouski and the Oceanic, been assigned to work the gane, and called a game that resulted in Rimouski's win, don't you think you and other losere (sorry), Knights fans been a little upset? Yet, with the win, the guys who worked the game seemingly become invisable.

Your profile includes the fact you say you are from London. You suggest I have a biased against the Knights, yet it is clear you have one for them. Yet, you are permitted to monitor their, and their alumni's, pages. Doesn't it seem logical to have someone without a clear cut agenda monitoring these pages?

I have no problem being "neutral". But being neutral includes providing the truth. You seem to not want to include the truth.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/0/2E/User_talk%7E70.27.141.201.html"