User talk:Rreagan007

the last edit didn't seem to work. the reference is not showing up. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is the very first wikipedia article I've ever tried doing from scratch. I'm still trying to figure out some of the formatting for things like footnotes. I appreciate your help.

no problem. i've created 2 articles on my own and they are kinda crappy. i think i'm just going to stick to editing. did you see the message on the talk page for the school? p.s. did you go to this school? i think my high school used to play them. we played against RCA all the time and Friendship once in a while.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did go to this school in 11th and 12th grade. And actually I went to RCA before that. Where did you go to school? I take it from your name you're agnostic now. I got ya beat, I'm an athiest. Guess those 14 years of Christian exucation just didn't take very well.

I went to Faith Christian Academy in Goldsboro. I know aloooot of agnostics and atheists that use to go to christian schools/colleges...most of my friends from college won't step foot in a church.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember going down to Faith for games at RCA. Yeah I'm with your friends, church is just about the last place I want to go.

I removed the brackets from the NCCSA because there is no article for them and it stands out in red. Are you planning on making an article?--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks better as an acronym even though there is no article. And if you click on it you can still see the full name even though there is no article. Hopefully someone will do an article on it eventually.

Someone tagged the article with notability and pov. I removed the POV, but you need to add references in the article in order for the notability tag to be removed.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest looking over the info you're copying and pasting from the school's website. Remove the POV material before adding the info to the article to avoid having the article tagged for POV. Also, I'd suggest doing this on the other articles like Raleigh Christian Academy, etc.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

That link may have some interest here and there, but adding the same link to a large number of pages, especially where the info on the page linked to is not directly linked to the subject (it is an overview page of the archives), is certainly not according to our external links guideline. Please stop. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link I was adding was to add a source for the information on the individual pages as someone tagged one of them for not giving any sources for the information. Also, on some of the pages the external link that was there no longer works and when you are undoing the new link you're reverting back to a link that no longer works. I don't want to violate the link policy, but I think this one link is very relevant and belongs on each individual tournament page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs)

When I click the link I don't get any direct information, I have to click on to find more about the subject (I refer to WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, point 14). Indeed, there are no references in the document, but there must be directly relevant information, either on that server, or on news servers from the area. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well then can I assume that if I link to the page with the specific information directly instead of the main archive page that would be acceptable to you?{{subst:unsigned"|Rreagan007}}

That sounds like a good plan, though it might even be better to use it as a citation, see WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. Then it really attributes information in the document. Hope this helps, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to dispute your editing of the link to the UNC Global website (global.unc.edu). Both past UNC-CH Chancellor Moeser and current Chancellor Thorp have made it their mission to promote and grow UNC's reputation as a global university. UNC has one of the largest percentage of students studying abroad of any university in the nation and is an increasingly popular destination for foreign students and professors to visit. More importantly, however, one need only interact with the Carolina community to realize how well-versed and aware the student body is of current international affairs and how important their global education is to them. In order to reflect this aspect of the university, as well as promote the future direction of this great institution, I feel that a link to UNC Global is an integral addition to the UNC-CH wiki. I would very much like to hear your arguments otherwise before you remove the link. Thank-you very much - Rmitch3

Thanks for uploading Image:2008acctournament.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:2003acctournament.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Unc.seal.blue.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Unc.seal.blue.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do keep reverting to a poorer quality image? please stop. --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not poorer quality. If you compare the two, you will see that it's actually a better quality image. It's also in Carolina blue instead of black which is more authentic and is more aesthetically pleasing. Is there some reason you prefer the black seal to the Carolina blue one?

If you read the document that the image came from it is supposed to be black. Wikipedia is not for advertisement so your argument that it is "more aesthetically pleasing" is incorrect. --130.218.10.1 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and read the source you were referring to, and it only specifies black if the seal is used to "indicate accomplishment in or on behalf of the University." That's not the use here. If you look at the other source for the blue seal here you will see that the university uses the seal in both black and blue. Since both colors have equal value in terms of authenticity and use, I think the fact that the blue seal looks better on the article page should tip the scale in its favor, unless you have a better reason to pick one over the other.

Please stop reverting. The version you seem to be reverting to has broken transparency, is the wrong shade of blue, is missing the registered trademark logo, and is not that approved by the University's licensing department. If you have a good reason why such a logo should be used, even though it may violate trademark and copyright laws, please discuss it on Image talk:Unc.seal.blue.png. Thank you. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images are only allowed in the main article space, not in templates, unfortunately, so the shield you added has had to be removed. See WP:NONFREE policy #9. 152.2.133.109 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British or European topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.

Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you. 152.2.133.109 (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the bit about the pep bands. I just removed the words "Olympic sports" as you covered the scope with "26 other sports," so that we don't have to explain what Olympics sports mean (especially as basketball is in the Olympics, lacrosse isn't, and baseball won't be soon). Hope that was OK! Hippo (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rreagan007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Newshounddog (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my request for clarification at the sockpuppet case page: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rreagan007. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that I sometimes edit from that IP address instead of logging in, but I do not do that for bad purposes. Usually I either just forget to log in, or I have several different browsers open and I'm logged in on 1 browser and just don't remember to log into the other 1. I have looked at the talk page for the IP address and I do see the negitive stuff you are referring to. But none of the vandalism from this IP address was done by me. I did not even start editing wikipedia articles at all until January of this year, and the vandalism I saw was all from before that. I'm also not familiar with how IP addresses work, but it might be possible that more than 1 person shares this IP address. Again, I have never intentionally vandalised any wikipedia page, and none of the edits from this IP address could have been done by me before January 2008. If you have any questions about this for me please feel free to ask. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my closing comments at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rreagan007. To clarify: if you want to stay logged in on multiple tabs or window when you edit, click on the "remember me" box when you login. That automatically logs you in even on tabs you have not yet opened on that computer, and avoids the situation where you are logged in to Wikipedia on one window but logged out on another window. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, please don't change the ratings of project not involved in. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)rat[reply]

Sorry, I was just trying to help. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I double-checked before reverting, but I took off your capitalizaton of "States". Capitalizing it is 18th century usage.

Happy editing!

Robert A.West (Talk) 15:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just for your information, "Types of regulation" is correct. English does not inflect adjectives and adjectival phrases as would, say, French or German. Thus, "Attorneys General," not "Attorneys Generals." Moreover, we are talking about "regulation" as an abstraction, which always takes an indefinite number: Laws against felons' possessing firearms are a type of regulation, even if that type comprises five laws and twenty administrative rules.

Again, Happy editing!

Robert A.West (Talk) 15:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure you meant well, your revisions to the image arrangement on the Earth page led to some issues on my browser. Aligning the image with the table resulted in an ugly displacement in my browser, so it was not an improvement. You also move the image showing the relative sizes of the planets out of the section where the size was being discussed. That was also unhelpful. I would greatly appreciate it if you could be more careful; this page has gone through a lot of massaging over time before it achieved a satisfactory look. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for just jumping in like that and changing stuff around. I can see you've done a lot of work on astronomy pages and the Earth page in particular, so I will certainly defer to your judgment on this. However, the reason I tried to rearrange some of the images on the Earth page was because the page looked extremely haphazard in its arrangement, especially for a featured article. I know the article is very well written, but I still think having the 2 pictures and 2 tables in the arrangement they're in now does not look very good. Perhaps the pictures and tables could go on top of each other instead of side by side? I leave it for you to decide. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's been difficult to come up with an ideal arrangement that both keeps the material with the subject matter and still avoids collisions at differing widths, font settings and browser types. Many different arrangements have been attempted. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now you have moved the sardine image from the beginning of the "Feeding" section to the end of the previous section, claiming MOS. This puts the image in the wrong section and pushes the "Feeding" header from left alignment to an ugly mid-page position (in FF3). I can't believe that even MoS dictates which section an image should be in, if it does, please give be a link.

Alternatively, and probably better, tell me what's wrong with the original position, with an MoS link, so that I can fix the problem myself without your doubtless well-intended but unhelpful moves. jimfbleak (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I've lowered the sardines to after opening para, but kept left aligned so images still alternate. That should comply with MoS, but if an problems, let me know jimfbleak (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on Rror's talk page:

"Dude, my edits are the truth. I provided a reference. In issue #47 of DC Presents, Superman is sucked into Eternia (the He-Man universe) and goes galevanting about with He-Man. In issue #48, a brief biography of He-Man or Prince Adam is given and when asked of his mother's whereabouts he says "I don't know, probably on Mars selling astro turf"

Septimus1337 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

   Really? Lol. Sorry for reverting then :) Rror (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)" 

220.239.187.33 (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I set up the following new article North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball seasons and I thought you might be interested in helping improve it. It is also up for a DYK so any help in ensuring that it gets DYK status would be appreciated. Thanks. Remember (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i readded my edits. i'm sorry, but we are now in a dispute. the public ivy part of the article is non-nuetral point of view unless properly cited. as you said, it's the only way to let people know it's a highly regarded state sponsored school. unfortunately, the wiki page is not a place to talk that up. that's more for marketing firms. here, on wiki, we just want to present the information accuratly and nuetrally. i did all the edits in good faith. you unedited them for your reasons. the abbreviations are accurate and how the school is listed in unc publications. there is no reason to leave them off. they are official and recognized by the board of governors. we can resolve the dispute a better way, than you just randomly taking the article and making how you want it. i'd really like to see it move to featured article. please note, it was not promoted to featured article. perhaps, because it was not nuetral enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holla213 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i've also tried to lock the page to start a dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holla213 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, will look into that soon. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded Image:Image:Ravenscroft logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

You've uploaded Image:Image:Rca logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham academy logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Uncwseal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you noticed what I'm trying to do. I figure the 1995 and 2000 games will have enough information available to easily get featured status, and it's been my plan since early this year. I hope to have it done by next summer, but we'll see. 1993 Independence Bowl and 2000 Sugar Bowl are GANs right now, but we'll see how quickly I can do that. Thanks for noticing. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know. Tompw (talk) (review) 10:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Messier Leadership Award has already had a peer review, why does it need another? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your recent edit of Speer. I do have two comments:

• The text you used says "German: pronounced /ˈʃpær/", but the link is to IPA for English. Did you mean to give the English pronunciation (in which case, the text before the link should be changed), or did you mean to give the German pronunciation (in which case, the link, at least, should change)? Pardon my uncertainty on this point, as I have no expertise whatsoever with IPA but, Ich spreche und lese ein wenig vom Deutschen. I won't make a change, but encourage you to review and, if needed, correct or clarify your entry. Sorry again if I'm on the wrong track here.
  • Thanks for explaining things - it sounds good to me. Best regards,

--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The text you replaced, "German "spear", in my opinion, did have value. I'm putting that information (in a slighty different form ^[1]), into the article.

Thanks again! --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I just noticed that you added a unreferenced section tag at Canada#Provinces and territories. While that is quite true, is there something in particular you think a citation is required for. Most of the content is pretty obvious, ordinary facts that are covered in Canada#References. As a featured article, I think you should express your precise concerns at Talk:Canada. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wcsr logo.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... FYI, your edit has been reverted again. If the discussion concludes with an agreement that it should be in bold, I'll certainly accept that. However, given that it is disputed the common practice is to keep disputed material/edits out until a consensus is reached. Hope this helps resolve matters in the short term. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you updated the featured topic checklist with this article. Unfortunately, it's only a good article candidate at this point, not a good article yet. Of course, that could change once someone reviews it. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry, I guess I jumped the gun there. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be a major contributor to nominate an article, or a set of articles, for any rank. Actually, you don't have to have contributed at all. If you believe in the articles, then go ahead an nominated them for Good Topic status. The only article I have substantially worked on is Spider-Man 3. The first film article I worked a bit, but I left after some disagreement with a supposed "producer" (or whomever) came to Wikipedia and started terrorizing the page with his horrible grammar while he tried to "correct" all the mistakes. I haven't worked on the second one that much either, nor the "film series" page. I made some contribs, but not that many. I'm not really aware of the shape of any of those articles, behind SP3. If you think they're good enough, then you should go ahead and nominate them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid oppose. There is no policy, guideline, or even an essay that says you need "the blessing of the contributors" for such a nomination. It's "nice" to do, but there is no obligation as they don't own the articles in question. I don't want to nominate them because I haven't read them in a long time, and I don't have the time right now (end of the school semester) to re-read them all and check to make sure they still meet the GA criteria. That, and be the one to monitor the GT nomination. If you nominate I'll keep an eye on it and rebut anyone that claims you need "major contributor approval".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're too quick for me; you made most of the updates I was going to do. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Dick Baddour requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. FlyingToaster 20:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I've submitted 2006 Gator Bowl as a FAC. Any comments, questions, or support you'd offer would be appreciated. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any comments, they'd be useful. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! Our first bowl win in, well, three years. It's a good feeling. To celebrate, I've submitted another Virginia Tech bowl game FAC. Anything you'd care to add to the discussion would be appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rreagan007. I see your most recent edit to British empire moves the images above the subheadings. I understand this may help word placement, but per WP:MOSIMAGES and Wikipedia:Access#Images, they should begin below the subheadings. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MERRY CHRISTMAS (or other winter holiday) AND A HAPPY GAMEDAY

--B (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a image you have recently been discussing on List of Presidents of the United States has been put up for deletion, your comments are welcome. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread on the administrators' noticeboard which may concern you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lyrics. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cardinal gibbons logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ruby Supernatural.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ruby Supernatural.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the UNC-Ch wikiproject. Any help you can lend to make this a success is most appreciated. Go Tar Heels! Remember (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm preparing 2009 Orange Bowl for FAC, and was hoping you've got the time to take a quick look at it before I submit it. Any comments, questions or things you think should be fixed would be helpful. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cary acamedy logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to point something else out, it's 1/3 that the topics are actually getting promoted/demoted on, not 33%. In reality this is all a bit irrelevant because we'd need a topic of 300 articles for it to make a difference, but there you go, just thought it was more accurate - rst20xx (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah of course, 100 articles, not 300! Duhhhh. There should never be a topic with 100 articles, that's way too big and the topic should be split, but anyway, I'm going to change it back, BECAUSE... we actually originally discussed 1/3 :D - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm not sure, that's probably the best example but it might be better off broken up into groups or periods. ANYWAY! We'll have to wait and see... rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented an Infobox Scientist in the lead of the Joseph Priestley article, effectively right-aligning the much-disputed placement of the image and left my rationales on Talk:Joseph Priestley. Because I strenuously disagree with the alleged consensus about violating guidelines about image placement and consensus across a wide body of other articles, I have offered to open an RfC for more editors' involvement. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment[edit]

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC_on_lead_image_alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to MoS[edit]

Let's put our heads together to think about how to summarize and move this debate over to MoS since it seems we've hit the wall on the RfC. I'll watch your talk page. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sam and dean winchester.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you place a request at WP:RM which can then be used as a forum for discussion. If a redirect eventually needs deletion after consensus is reached on the "right" name for the article then any administrator can be contacted to complete the move. It's a much better idea to gain a consensus for the title rather than seeing it be continually moved around. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zachariah supernatural.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 03:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in WP:MOSDASH that en dashes should not be spaced in article titles? This would affect hundreds of articles, and would create ambiguity problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Spacing: All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940)." Dabomb87 (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you for your politeness and understanding. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia! ---kilbad (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got two GANs waiting for review, then I'll have completed the Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games featured article. If you have the time, could you review one of the two remaining articles: 1998 Music City Bowl or 2001 Gator Bowl? Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you took a glance at Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech. I'd like for it to be a featured article; any thoughts as to what could be improved towards that end? One that I know off the bat is that it needs alt text. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Reagan,

I realise that the article in question has numerous issues, and thank you for expanding it and trying to deal with them, but for future reference, please refrain firstly from marking significant (and in your case, massive) edits as "minor"; secondly and more seriously, heavy promotion of a point of view so offensive to many, presenting Paul's "negative view of sexuality" as a fact.

Yours sincerely, Kan8eDie (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Anna Milton.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jo Harvelle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Neuse baptist.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going over the quotation marks there. I though I had been following policy by switching them to the outside. But I undid you edit to the summary. I just think the numbers for cities and counties are too much detail for the summary, which already has a lot about cities. Thoughts?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedia article that states, unsupported, that something is "British English" is not valid criteria or proof. I looked in several dictionaries, none of which say in anyway that the word "burgled" is an English/British term and the word "burglarized" is American. In fact, most recognize the spelling "burglarised" as a British spelling without mentioning at all the word "burgled". Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. I work fast, don't I? Check it out.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That is a very good question, and although I love to be consistent on most things, wouldn't that mean I would have to delete the current nomination and resubmit it as a different article? Or is there a way around that?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rreagan, the iconization of logos is not permitted per the last paragraph of WP:MOSLOGO. That guideline is pretty unequivocal. It's fine to use the logo in full form, but to reduce it into a tiny icon is against the guideline. You're taking a logo from it's full size and reducing its pixel coverage 87% into an icon. As the guideline says, "Use of such images as icons is nearly always prohibited".

I don't have a problem with the NC logo being used in appropriate places. The university's sports logo is not appropriate for the infobox on the entire university. That's effectively saying that the sports department is more important than any other department within the university. The various different highly regarded programs at NC Chapel Hill (see here for just one school) would be highly insulted at that. It would be akin to putting the Marlboro logo on the infobox for the Altria article. It isn't necessary for people to understand what article they arrived at, it's mis-representative of the entire university, and it violates our guideline. There's really no wiggle room here. I'm sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as Spider-Man 2 has just been delisted as GA, the Spider-Man films good topic now has 3 months from the date of delisting, or until 12 January, to get this article back to GA, or the whole topic could be nominated for demotion - rst20xx (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Alien (franchise), even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. magnius (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mate. I've not been on Wikipedia for ages, but I've wandered back in the last few days and immediately run into this Magnius guy. I notice you've had words with him in the last day or so. Is he known for being a tool, do you know? Or is he basically okay but just doesn't express himself all that well? No problem if you don't know. Cheers anyway, Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your recent edits, I thought you might be interested in helping me bring North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball seasons up to GA status. Let me know if you are interested. Remember (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was a bit hasty! You are clearly right - though I don't think it's a very common name for it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Supernatural S4 DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this article removing the PROD tag which I had put up. The article topic may be encyclopedic, but the article falls well short of Wikipedia's standards in many ways, as the tags show. If you can work on it and improve it that would be great. I'll come back to it in a month or two and see how it looks then. If it doesn't look any better perhaps it can be taken to WP:AFD at that point. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. That would be great - my PROD was really a notice to get someone to fix it or lose it. As long as it gets improved I am happy. - Ahunt (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here, thanks - rst20xx (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ACC_Champ_blank.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? NCCU has a law school. If it is noted in a nonstandard way, then correct it, don't delete it. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed Moon for FAR here. You are cordially invited to join the fun. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm just writing in order not to get into further edit warring over the term "willy-willy". Your citation for the meaning "tropical cyclone" is out of date; after following your reference, it turns out the National Weather Service's glossary states that the term "willy-willy" was "formerly used to denote a tropical cyclone" (my emphasis). Also, AerospaceWeb notes that the term has not been used for tropical cyclones in Australia since the 1930s. At the very least, Willy-Willy should redirect to Dust devil, with a disambiguation note at the top, such as the following:

Willy-Willy redirects here. For other uses, see Tropical cyclone.

Thefamouseccles (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On its Talk page, I'm suggesting this article be merged with Mood disorder or deleted. Your input would be welcome. Anthony (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Devils trap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on reverting UNC-Chapel Hill's abbreviation to UNC, on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's page and the University of North Carolina when all the data I see for it, officially is UNC-Chapel Hill, the chancellor changed it from UNC-CH^[1], what it had been before. I think you missing that yes from 1789-1963 it was University of North Carolina, but around 1963, Chapel Hill changed its name to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Women's College of North Carolina changed its name to the University of North Carolina at Greensboro around 1963 as part of a renaming the UNC System. NC State also renamed it self from North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering to the North Carolina State University at Raleigh around 1963. Yes Chapel Hill was generally considered to be UNC, though I haven't found a record of it officially using the UNC abbreviation, just unofficially being referred to as UNC. Also in 1971, the State of North Carolina passed legislation bringing into the University of North Carolina system all 16 public institutions that confer bachelor degrees, giving that, the name University of North Carolina. Really all the 16 public schools rename themselves as part of common naming scheme.

UnOfficially[edit]

Yes in sports, general conversation Chapel Hill is referred to as UNC or North Carolina or even Carolina, though South Carolina has just as much of a claim on it, but that is not its Official Abbreviation, name, or designation! Why you put UNC above the official abbreviation on the page University of North Carolina page is a mystery. It could be added to below with 'North Carolina' for 'UNC' and 'North Carolina' for athletics, yes. By the way that column was intend for official abberiation not sports abbreviations as the heading states.

Articles[edit]

I think you are this of the January 08, 2002 article as the last word when it says UNC-CH Chancellor James Moeser and University officials are trying to phase out the "UNC-CH" abbreviation in favor of the more specific "UNC-Chapel Hill," "UNC" or simply "Carolina.^[2] But if go to the following article dated January 14, 2002 which it states Chancellor James Moeser's recent decision to drop the UNC-CH abbreviation in favor of a standardized "UNC-Chapel Hill" on all future UNC-CH documents...^[3] you see the official abbreviation!

Lastly[edit]

If you find a later dated article stating a new official abbreviation, then it can be corrected, to the new abbreviation. I really don't care what they call themselves. I was just to trying to put the correct official information.

Reference[edit]

-Forgot my talk page link I guess, I don't usually do this, but you annoyed me -User_talk:Commandersonic00

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Good topic. Since you had some involvement with the Good topic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's a joke? I seriously believe that it's not a realignment (there isn't a broken-apart conference; or a conference adding 4+ teams in one swoop), and that it really isn't that different from, say, 1992, which doesn't have its own conference expansion article. Here and on other Wikipedias, articles about more noteworthy articles have been nominated for deletion, and some were even deleted Purplebackpack89 15:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked...I'm displeased at the ESPN media circus around the issue (earlier this month, it was all expansion, Steven Strasburg, and LeBron free agency); and that ESPN basically forced the Pac-10 to expand. I prefer the traditional West Coast Pac-10, not having some backwater school like Utah. I'm displeased that basically an ESPN media circus has created an article Purplebackpack89 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been further replies to your comments on this FAC. Would you mind taking a look, and commenting if possible? Parrot of Doom 13:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to comment? It would be nice to even be acknowledged. Parrot of Doom 18:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll check for the official name of the episode later today when I get home. In the meantime, do you mind reviewing the article? I'm afraid that it will turn out like my earlier FAC's where it failed because not enough people reviewed it. Either way, thanks. Ωphois 18:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Uncg seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see