Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Archives
Archive index 2004-06:1 • 2 2006: 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 2007: 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 2007: 16 • 17 2008: 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 2008: 25 • 26 2009: 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 2009: 34 • 35 • 36 2010: 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41 • 42 • 43 2011: 44 • 45 • 46 • 47 • 48 • 49 2012: 50

North american players, and diacritics

Hi; just a quick question...
The project page says:

• All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics.

But what should be done in the hypothetical case where the best sources spell the name of the player with diacritics? Should the article reflect what the best sources say, or should it be misspelt in order to fit this wikiproject's internal conventions? bobrayner (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, such names are pipe-linked - example [Teemu Selänne|Teemu Selanne]. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I would rate the NHL, the Hockey Hall of Fame, SIHR, New York Times, Toronto Globe and Mail, ESPN, and several ice hockey books (e.g. Total Hockey) as the best sources for ice hockey. If those sources start to use diacritics as the most common spellings, then I think you'd have a case to revise the recommendation. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think its likely to eventually go that way since the NHL has started using diacritics on jerseys. And when it does go that way I am sure the convention will change or be removed completely. The convention is currently just a cease fire to stop the non-stop edit warring that goes on with the topic. It worked for many years and only over the last year with one user showing up and not liking it has it become an issue again. I think most people here are reasonable enough that if there were a number of major reliable English sources using them that it would not be a problem. I know this has been the case in the past for some french Canadian players where the NHL profile and some English sites like TSN have used the accents. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So this guideline is based on how sources spell the names...? In which case, why does the guideline exist at all? If there are no cases where the best sources use diacritics then the guideline is totally redundant; if there are any cases where the best sources use diacritics, then in those cases the guideline would be actively misleading and hence causes misspelt titles. Why not just use the spelling that sources use? bobrayner (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's best we stick with the North American guideline of this Project's diacritics compromise. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it best? There's an obvious flaw in the rule; simply resorting to "but we have a rule" is not a sensible response. bobrayner (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it prevents or is suppose to prevent disagreements of usage/non-usage. Sadly, Djsasso no longer respects the compromise & prefers to fight over them. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully respect it. Just because I believe in this case that they should be used and that there should be a discussion about their use does not mean I don't respect it. If consensus at that discussion is to not use them on that page then that is cool with me. But I do think it needs to be discussed there. Discussion is not evil. One might think you are just worried that the discussion will go against you if one is had. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Because like on the rest of the wiki no-one can agree that that is the way to go. One side of course believes they shouldn't be used cause sources don't use them. The other side thinks they should be used because stripping them off without translating them properly is incorrect and violates the part of COMMONNAME which says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." -DJSasso (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested. What jersey(s) are you referring to? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am forgetting which NHL players it was at the moment. I can look into it, its been discussed before and there are some pictures on the wiki I believe somewhere. The WHL for sure has switched to using them for example Sven Bärtschi. So I can't imagine the NHL will be far behind as more and more Europeans come, especially in light of the IIHF also making a new policy on names on jerseys. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the guy the NHL spells Baertschi. I wonder what the name will be on his jersey when he makes the NHL. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that would be the proper translated version as opposed to stripping of the diacritics. So it will be interesting to see how the NHL does do it. Either way works for me, either translate properly or use diacritics and I would be happy. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Irreleveant to me, how the WHL is doing it. It's a North American based hockey article, therefore we don't show them. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We know your position, you don't need to keep repeating it. Please remember you agreed to stop doing such things in your RfC/U. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to be certain, there wouldn't be any attempts to combat the guideline. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the rule is flawed. Repeating that it's a rule over and over again is not really going to help deal with that issue, although if any editor were to tendentiously prefer following a flawed rule to following what sources say, it's an understandable defense. bobrayner (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that you could propose anything that has not passed through the discussions of hockey players' articles over the past several years. Look over the archives and requested moves discussions, etc., etc., etc. I've proposed things myself. There are two entrenched sides, and GoodDay and Djsasso somewhat represent those two sides. The project has come to a compromise. It's okay to simply disagree with it, and live with it, you know? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Djsasso, is breaching this Projects agreement on diacritics, by trying to force dios usage on a players name at the Portland Winterhawks roster. Last time I checked, the Winterhawks (and the WHL) were North American based hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole bases of the compromise was that we were going on what the leagues were putting on the jerseys. We have a clear picture that in atleast one players case the league he plays in uses them for him. The page also already had the diacritic. I just reverted your removal as part of BRD. Which you have done on a number of player pages when people move them. So please stop claiming anyone is forcing anything since you have done the exact same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is CLEAR. No diacritics are to be shown on NORTH AMERICAN based hockey articles. What part of this, don't you understand? GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly its a guideline. You have spent the better part of a year moving articles away from diacritics when people move them to them. So I know you don't actually respect the guideline....so how can you expect others to? Clearly the compromise has stopped working as of late. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? I haven't moved or been involed with RMs concerning hockey bios in weeks or more. Stop now, I beg you. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the guideline really beyond question? How did it get to be set in stone like that? I was kinda thinking that it might at least be open to discussion by editors, if the rule were incompatible with what sources say. Is that no longer possible? bobrayner (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on wiki is ever set in stone (well except legal issues like BLP, copyright etc) so you pretty much sum up my opinion on the matter. Discussion is always good when it is civil and productive. In this particular case it made sense to me to have a discussion about the situation. Stiffing the discussion to me seems to be more out of concern that you won't get your way. So yes it is not set in stone and we should not treat it that way. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, what's your position? Is the project guideline set in stone, or is it possible to reconsider the guideline if it's either redundant or incompatible with what sources say? I would appreciate your thoughts on this point. bobrayner (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded at your talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• OK. Is there any other reason to retain the north-american spelling rule in cases where it's incompatible with the spelling used by sources say? Or shall we just strike it out, so that all hockey articles respect the spelling used by the best sources? bobrayner (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is very much no agreement on this. This is the whole reason we have the current compromise. Because people don't agree that we should go by the sources necessarily per WP:COMMONNAME which says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." because simply stripping the diacritics off is often incorrect. However, this case (Atleast I think it was the Sven Bärtschi case that caused this discussion if I remember correct its been a few weeks) was in the opposite situation for what the compromise was created for. English language sources in this particular case were actually using the diacritics. And that is where the problem was. It didn't mesh well with our compromise which most of the time does stop issues. Cases like this one should be discussed case by case...so far they are rare. But as someone mentioned elsewhere it looks like they are likely to become more frequent. -DJSasso (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• A possible solution would be instead of saying "All North American Articles don't use them"....we could say "All North American Artilcles follow the use on player jerseys" since that was really what the main argument about them originally was. -DJSasso (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would oppose simply striking it out, and I don't think I would be the only one. That just leaves it all undefined. We can work on modifying the sentence. Some sort of 'unless the diacritical spelling is in wide use in that North American league.' I would not want to use one or few 'best sources' to trump an overwhelming number of consistent spellings. Because the context is important in the case of this compromise. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Would jerseys be a simple compromise? "Use diacriticals in the title if there are diacriticals on the jersey", or something like that. bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Adding a sentence like that is acceptable to me as the situation indicates that the player wanted that diacritical spelling. But it needs to make the point that the jersey has to be the player's jersey while here in North America. I can just see some un-named nationalists using the sentence to mean the jersey the player used in his or her old country. The sentence needs to be more complete: "Diacriticals can be used in the title if there are diacriticals on the player's most current jersey while playing in an applicable North American league. The situation indicates that the player has kept or has specified the spelling to be used in reference to him or her." While I have no problem with Bärtschi or Baertschi, I would not want his junior jersey or his Swiss minor team jersey (e.g.) to determine to use Bärtschi if his NHL jersey says Baertschi. Sorry to be so technical or legalistic, but it is a compromise that is being tweaked. If he makes the Calgary Flames, it will be interesting to see what his jersey says. The NHL may develop a policy. I think there is growing acceptance of diacritics here in Canada -see the latest Sportsnet magazine article on Lidstrom- but I hesitate to put Wikipedia ahead of the common name curve, so to speak. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this already addressed in the current compromise? I'm a little short on time right now so I haven't been able to look but I remember something to the effect of it saying North American articles don't uses dialectics unless they are used withing the league such as the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey. So if the league uses them than they should be placed on the page. For Bärtschi since the WHL uses the dialectics in his name they should be included, but when he was drafted the name is without so the NHL pages shouldn't. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• What you are referring to is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format. That text might be in the wrong place, as it refers to league pages. That text could be moved to the main page diacritics section if people agree. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ah yes I knew it was recorded somewhere that that was the case but I couldn't remember where we put it when GoodDay was saying that wasn't the case. Yes I would take that section and put it with the rest of the stuff. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, that is what I believed as well. But gave up on arguing about it when GoodDay put up a big stink about it. But I do know for sure we had said that for the Quebec leagues. As for Alaney2k's comment I would have no problem saying something like the diacritics need to be on the jersey of team the article is talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Howdy Bobrayner. The North American half of the compromise should be respected & not altered. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Compromise? What compromise?

So, apparently the compromise is gonna be altered further to favour dios. That's great, just bleeping great. GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And now back to our regularly scheduled program

I've pasted the text that was on the player page to the main project page. Some was just duplication, so I left it out. I've not put the jersey sentence(s) on there yet. Have we figured out a wording? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Restore 2013 NHL All-Star Game page

Since Columbus has been given rights to the 60th National Hockey League All-Star Game, should the page be restored? Patken4 (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Ice Hockey will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in ice hockey history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

1994 Stanley Cup Finals

I have started a discussion on an addition to 1994 Stanley Cup Finals, regarding this series being "especially noted" as the last appearance of a Canadian team in the Finals until 2004. Comments are welcome at Talk:1994 Stanley Cup Finals#Canadian teams in finals. isaacl (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments are also welcome on a related discussion, Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1992–present)#1994 SCF. isaacl (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Scott Gomez

Some editors keep adding an external link to [1] which is clearly inappropriate. There are also several additions about his goal drought. I think this is a case of recentism, but, I may be wrong there. I am asking for a few more eyes on this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The first anniversary of his last goal was news in several places, so I have no issue with adding a single sentence noting it, and the fan response (anything more would definitely be undue). But yeah, the website link adds no value. Watchlisted, and will protect if it becomes necessary. Resolute 19:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hat Tricks articles

A question. Are the 'Hat Tricks' articles, such as 1998-99 NHL Hat Tricks, notable, and okay by Wikipedia policy? Or do they violate the WP:NOTSTATS policy. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say they would be violating WP:NOTSTATS. However, I could see a list of people who have hat tricks. (with totals of how many they have had). Although even that would probably be not all that notable since they are relatively common. And we actually have something similar with List of players with five or more goals in an NHL game so probably wouldn't need one for 3 goals. -DJSasso (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that a hat-trick list article would be huge and unnecessary. The NHL Record Book keeps a list of current players who have 3, 4 and 5 goal games, and that takes up a full page, in a small font. If that is just for one season of active players, a list of players from the past 95 years would be huge. By comparison the page with 5 or more goals is small and includes details about each feat. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki on a hockey pool

Hi, probably a no-brainer but I'm still looking for info on why there's no way a "long time running" hockey pool can't get it's own wiki. What are the prerequisits this actual pool would need to get Wiki page consideration rights? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabigp (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I imagine for such a thing to be notable enough, it would need significant coverage in many secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Easy: provide links to multiple articles written in mainstream newspapers and magazines specifically about this pool. That's the bar which has to be met. Ravenswing 02:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Just to belabour the point, Wikipedia's notability criteria expects that articles be the subject of multiple, non trivial, independent reliable sources. That is to say, blogs, the pool's website itself, and minor local coverage wouldn't be enough to pass the bar. In short, has this pool received notable coverage in a major newspaper? If not, it is very unlikely that such an article would be kept. I looked at the page that was deleted. First, I would point out that this is the English Wikipedia, and any article is expected to be in English. Second, the lone sentence in the article indicated that you intended for the page to host your pool. If my impression is accurate, then I have to point out that Wikipedia is not a free webhost. There is no chance that we would accept a page used to organize and run your pool. Thanks, Resolute 03:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hrm. What would make this a "long running pool" then, one wonders? Ravenswing 05:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, my French is bad. Like "ran it through Google translate" bad. Resolute 05:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Another hockey article on the Main Page

A heads up, Trevor Linden will be on the Main Page on the 11th. So if anyone else wants to help keep an eye on it while its up there, it would be appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to see an article on a fine former New York Islander make the main page. ;o) Resolute 00:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Better than mentioning him for his 28 game career as a Washington Capital. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

But who would forget him as Captain Canuck? Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 04:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In seriousness though, I wish I had looked at the blurb before it went live. I definitely would have added his Order of Canada citation to it. Resolute 03:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick Nash

TSN reported to day that the Blue Jackets are listening to offers for Nash. A few more eyes on the page would be appreciated since I have a feeling this is going to turn into the vandal fest Bobby Ryan had earlier in the year when the Ducks were contemplating trading him. Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ice hockey = Sledge hockey??

On the List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career article, an IP user is insistent on including Matt Cook, an amateur sledge hockey player. Does sledge hockey qualify for this ice hockey list?--Львівське (говорити) 03:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As the only differences between ice hockey and ice sledge hockey are those necessitated to allow for the use of the sledges, I wouldn't see why not. The vast majority of rules are the same and the game is played in a functionally similar manner. Wheelchair basketball is still basketball, and ice sledge hockey is still ice hockey, in my opinion.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 04:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, that the Wikipedia article is called "Ice sledge hockey" is a good indication that it's a form of ice hockey. Secondly, as I pointed out in the edit summary, in Canada ice sledge hockey is governed by Hockey Canada, so they count it as a form of ice hockey. 99.192.58.22 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While the article is called "ice sledge hockey" the common use of the name is really sledge or sled hockey, without the 'ice' prefix. Hockey Canada refers to their team as the national "sledge hockey team". The history of the sport, per Hockey Canada, is also referred to sans-ice.1 I'd like to move that the ice sledge hockey article be properly renamed.--Львівське (говорити) 04:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, renaming the ice sledge hockey article won't solve anything. Hockey Canada also refers to ice hockey sans-ice because in Canada "hockey" just means ice hockey. The qualifier "field", however, is needed for "field hockey". In other countries (like India) "hockey" means field hockey and the "ice" is needed as a qualifier for "ice hockey". So keeping the "ice" in "ice sledge hockey" helps make it clear whatever country one is reading the article. 99.192.58.22 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That it's played on a sled kind of implies it's not field hockey. Just sayin'--Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sledge hockey is played on ice and inline, so regardless you need the 'ice' in ice sledge hockey to distinguish it from inline sledge hockey, the same way you would say ice hockey or inline hockey or field hockey. They all mean something different, as the user above stated. How we colloquially refer to it in Canada is irrelevant, in the same way that we don't call it hockey in an encyclopedia, we call it ice hockey. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I rather think we need to draw the line somewhere. No doubt we'll get people trying to put in every teenager who died in a pond hockey match - something which is, after all, undisputably "hockey," and for which no doubt reliable sources can be found. Ravenswing 04:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ravenswing, you raise an important, but very different issue. The question of whether a player is notable enough to count is a different question from whether ice sledge hockey counts as hockey. Perhaps you are responding to Lvivske's comment that Matt Cook was an "amateur" ice sledge hockey player. But Cook was no random amateur. He won a bronze medal at the 2009 World Championships. So if the question is notability, then Cook clearly qualifies. 99.192.58.22 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is you're saying the list should include everyone who played hockey on ice, and I'm saying it should only include those who played actual ice hockey. Then the subquestion is, is sled hockey hockey, or a spin off on its own (that it has its own article leans me towards the latter)--Львівське (говорити) 05:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, sledge hockey would fit into our project scope. It is just ice hockey for disabled people. The main article does not require the "ice" in front because there is no need to disambiguate sledge hockey - there is no confusion over what sport is referred to. As to the original question, I wouldn't oppose the inclusion of Cook on this list because he was a competitor at a higher level. I wouldn't the inclusion of a pond sledge hockey player any more than I would a pond hockey player. Resolute 05:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

They have been tagged as part of our project in the past because we are a natural home for the articles. It is however a different sport from ice hockey just like field hockey is a different sport from ice hockey so I wouldn't put him on that list. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeh the simple fact is that he was a "ice sledge hockey player" and never an "ice hockey player" and so doesn't belong on the list. Salavat (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(Please do your homework :-) ) He did play junior ice hockey. He lost a leg to cancer, and took up sledge hockey. The cancer recurred and he died. I would include him on the list. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So where does this leave us?

It seems that discussion has slowed down a bit here and there is no clear resolution. So far, eight different people have commented in this section. Three (Cjmclark, Resolute, and me) have said that ice sledge hockey is a form of ice hockey and three (Lvivske, DJSasso, and Salavat) have said that it is not. The two other people who have made comments (Nurmsook and Ravenswing) have not specifically offered an opinion on the main question. I guess we need more input from more people in the hope that it tilts the balance clearly in one direction or the other, but I'm not really sure. Any thoughts? 99.192.50.176 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.58.22)

It is a form of ice hockey but it is not ice hockey there is a difference. This list is specifically about ice hockey, not all forms of it. Based on the above there is what we call no-consensus which means we default to the original situation which would have been not adding them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it might be a good idea to wait to see if anyone new has something to contribute to the discussion. Secondly, you said that with a "no-consensus" that "we default to the original situation". Well, Matt Cook was added to the list on April 8, 2010 - four days after he died. His name has been on that list for almost two years now until Lvivske removed it a few days ago. So if we are to default to the original situation, that would be to leave him on the list. 142.68.42.73 (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.50.176 and 99.192.58.22)

Addendum to the previous: I just checked Wikipedia:Consensus which says, "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." So would seem that regardless of what the original situation is that unless a consensus to remove Cook is reached that he should remain on the list. 142.68.42.73 (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.50.176 and 99.192.58.22)

• Ah, well, if we're to make our POV clear ... I do not believe that sledge hockey = "ice hockey" for the purposes of this list or any other "ice hockey" list, nor do I believe that Cook belongs on it, nor do I believe that sledge hockey competitions qualify under WP:NHOCKEY; sledge hockey players must look to the GNG for notability. Ravenswing 17:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:67.70.147.72 in Centre Étienne Desmarteau

Bonjour at the male hockey players and male supporters [2]

Caution:User talk:67.70.147.72 These 3 computers ( 2 in first floor and one computers in the second floor in the office of direction) are connected in the Centre Étienne Desmarteau at Montreal , Canada: it means that several users can write on these computers. I do not want to be implied and involved with this IP community address. In the pass , I have some very big problems with many people in the same IP im Centre Étienne Desmarteau ( see french wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Genevieve2 )

Bonjour aux hockeyeurs masculins et aux supporteurs masculins[3]

Attention: l'adresse IP 67.70.147.72 est une adresse communautaire de 3 ordinateurs. Ces 3 ordinateurs ( 2 sont situés au première étage dans les vestiaires des équipes et un ordinateur est situé au deuxième étage dans le bureau de la coordination de l'aréna) sont reliés au fr:Centre Étienne Desmarteau  : Cela signifie que plusieurs utilisateurs peuvent écrire sur ces ordinateurs. Je ne veux pas être impliquée avec cette adresse communautaire. J'ai eu suffisamment de problèmes dans le Wiki francophone avec l'utilisation communataire d'une même adresse IP du Centre Étienne Desmarteau par plusieurs utilisateurs (Faux-nez http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Genevieve2). --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)