Talk:Curse of 1940

message: Could we learn what these were please? Vranak (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'New York Newsday and The Calgary Herald had quite creative headlines' 

message: I want to make clear that the Knicks were in the NBA Finals at the same time the Rangers won the 1994 Stanley Cup. The Rangers winning the Stanley Cup is part of Knicks history and the information is necessary, because their loss to the Rockets made clear that people in Houston were longing a championship. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop adding this information. We've been over this before in the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals article. The information was rightfully removed before, you added it again, and now I have removed it once more. Please refrain from adding this information. It has nothing to do with the article. The Knicks loss to the Rockets made clear that people in Houston were longing a championship!? What wrong with that sentence? It has nothing to do with the Curse of 1940. You have been warned in the past multiple times. You're walking down a path that's leading to another block. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Knicks

message: I want to make clear about the significance of the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals. Although it has nothing to do with the Curse of 1940, the final is significant because although the curse was broken in the final, it marked the last time that a Canadian team was in the Final until . That's why I have been adding this info. It is significant. – SNIyer12, (talk), 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been added to the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals page which is the appropriate page. Since it has nothing to do with the Curse or the Rangers it doesn't have any relevance to this page. That simple fact doesn't need to be on every page related to every thing that happened in 1994 it really isn't that important. First off, the fact that no Canadian team has won a Cup since 1986 is far more notable than the fact that Canadian teams (only 20% of the league currently) hadn't been in the finals for 10 years. Secondly this article is about the Rangers Cup drought they themselves had been in the finals since 1940 prior to winning in 1994, it's not an appearance drought. The media loves to latch onto any type of perceived story they can, so the fact that they spewed this fact repeatedly is not an indicator of the actual importance of the above statement, which quite honestly is minimal. It is not significant to this topic and should be kept off.--Mo Rock...Monstrous  (leech44) 01:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one reason why I add information about the 1994 Finals being the last to feature a Canadian team until 2004. During the decade that followed the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals, only three times did a Canadian team reach the Conference Finals, Toronto in 1999 and 2002, and Ottawa in 2003, and all three times, they lost, before Calgary reached the Finals in 2004. Also, 10 years is the longest Canadian teams went without a Finals appearance. SNIyer12, (talk), 16:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And that has what to do with the Curse of 1940? You yourself state that it has nothing to do with what the actual article is about, its just trivial and doesn't need to be mentioned on this article. Even if you tried to stretch it and compare the Curse to the finals drought its still two completely different things, like I said before, the Curse is NOT about getting to the finals its about winning the Cup.--Mo Rock...Monstrous  (leech44) 17:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The news media constantly reminded about the Curse of 1940 and its end during the decade that followed because Canadian teams had not reached the Finals. Until Calgary reached the Finals in 2004, many players on 1994 Canucks did not want to say that end of the Curse of 1940 was best remembered for the last Finals appearance by Canadian teams until Calgary reached in 2004. Three of today's Rangers, including Coach John Tortorella, were with the Tampa Bay Lightning when they won in 2004. They all said from what they went through in 2004 that although the 1940 Curse ended in the Finals, it marked the beginning of the longest drought of Canadian teams without a Finals appearance. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The end of Dutton's Curse and the start of Canada's "drought" may have both occurred at the same time, but that does not make them related.  The one has nothing to do with the other. Resolute 18:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Agree that the absence of a Canadian team in the Stanley Cup Finals is not relevant to this article's topic, and so in my view does not warrant inclusion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; just because the media mentions fact A and fact B in succession doesn't mean the two facts are related and sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. isaacl (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Moi aussi. We need more details about the actual games of any particular series than irrelevant details deducible from looking at calendars. :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 Stanley Cup Finals

message: Please do not re-insert the information (insertion attempts: , , ) that has been discussed in the section above, "2004 Stanley Cup Finals", as being inappropriate for this article. isaacl (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord.  SNyler, this is getting seriously disruptive.  Give it up already. Resolute 16:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A block is going to follow if he keeps it up. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I hope that it is apparent that this information will continue to be reverted by the consensus of editors who agree that it is not appropriate, on this page and others (such as 1993–94 New York Rangers season). Given this, it would save everyone's time if the information were not periodically inserted into articles (be it this particular example, or various other examples that have arisen on other topics). isaacl (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It also should be apparent that if this information is inappropriate for this article, it is not suitable for inclusion in articles with broader scope, such as Sports-related curses (insertion attempts:  ). isaacl (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Please don't re-insert this information again in this article or in other similar articles; it's a much better use of your time to make another one of the many useful maintenance edits that you regularly perform. isaacl (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Please don't re-insert this information in other similar articles. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Final warning has been given to him. He will be blocked if he continues when he knows he is against consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Please don't insert this information into the article "List of New York Rangers seasons"; by consensus, this information has been determined not to be sufficiently notable for articles on the New York Rangers seasons. isaacl (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated re-insertions of information 

message: Hello everyone! This article has been most recently edited by me and I would like to request a dummy edit to this article so that I can get my edit summary. I am using a different IP address because I was taking a vacation in Ocean City, so my IP address was 70.91.154.21 when I edited this article. Anyway, I am specifically requesting for the description for my edit summary from "(Number of championships that the New York Giants football team should be 4 because the New York Giants football team has won 4 championships.)" to "(Number of championships that the New York Giants football team has won should be 4 because the New York Giants football team has won 4 championships.)" because I have made an error in my edit summary while I was editing this article. I am also specifically requesting for the edit to be marked as a "minor edit" because my edit to this article was supposed to be a "minor edit" and there was no check box indicating that my edit to this article must be marked as a "minor edit," so I could not mark my edit to this article as a "minor edit" while I was editing this article. Thank you very much and I would gladly appreciate it. 69.122.209.26 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a dummy edit on your behalf. No one can change the edit summary of your previous edit. As explained at Help:Dummy edit, all that can be done is to make another edit whose edit summary explains the error. I've never seen a "request for a dummy edit" before, as it is usual for the editor desiring the correction to make the dummy edit. According to WP:REGISTERED, users editing without an account are not shown the "minor edit" checkbox. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, but I am completely new to Wikipedia when it comes to editing articles. Anyways, I gladly appreciate it. Thank you very much. 69.122.209.26 (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting a dummy edit to change my Edit Summary 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Curse of 1940. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220080154/http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1070137/index.htm to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1070137/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified