User talk:Rtr10

Welcome!

Hello, Rtr10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Also, when you upload images, please try to be truthful about the licences you are tagging them with. Declaring yourself to be the author of material you are not the author of is a criminal offence and, frankly, Wikipedia doesn't want to get involved in that type of thing. Uploading images is like nuclear energy - it can be used for good or evil, but either way you don't want to get any of it all over you.  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Image:Saban nick.jpg. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics27/200/TD/TDZPWPSNWLIZXPZ.20070105184428.jpg in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article [[Talk:Image:Saban nick.jpg|Talk page]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Saban nick.jpg]] with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article [[Talk:Image:Saban nick.jpg|Talk page]]. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Saban nick.jpg]] with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Saban nick.jpg]] saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you want to edit constructively, take a look at the welcome page. Thank you. WTStoffs 03:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:SRCS color logo.JPG, by Lowellian (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:SRCS color logo.JPG is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:SRCS color logo.JPG, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Straw poll logo.png, by Lowellian (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Straw poll logo.png is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Straw poll logo.png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop tagging logos and other images you don't own as self-created. It is fraudulent. Please read up on the proper licenses before uploading anything. The Evil Spartan 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have proof against that I would like to hear it, but it did not come from Iowa GOP's website. It was an original creation as stated when originally uploaded.

Proof. Any more dancing around and misleading like that, and I will be sure to call in an administrator to enforce our key policies via a block. The Evil Spartan 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SRCS small logo.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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:StrongrockChrisitanSchool M-1.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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:STKB logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:STKB-1.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SRCS color logo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Straw poll logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Huckabee with flag crop.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 21:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked specific questions, including who was the photographer, where was the image taken, and who did the composition of the flag and portrait? None of these were answered, so the no source tag should not have been removed; thus, this has been reverted. Do not remove warnings from your talk page. If the page becomes too long (which it was not), you can archive using the procedures at Help:Archiving a talk page. If you continue to ignore copyright issues, you will be blocked. Superm401 - Talk 09:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag image is a person file image (self created work) as was the original photograph, (I am a former art students and have contacts with Gov. Huckabee, know that might seem far fetched, but it is the truth) they were both original works merged together. It is original worked and I released to public domain upon upload to Wikipedia. I thought I had addressed that in the original upload and don't really know what else you are questioning. Please let me know what ever else you need.

First of all, I must compliment you on a nicely composited image. However, when browsing the My Space web site, I noticed that this flag image appears to be used as a background image on many of the My Space users web pages and is, in fact provided by a blogger web code site. Since you have stated that the flag image is a self created image, did you sell the flag image to the blogger site that is using it? If so, then I imagine there is no problem using it here. (Tho I'm not as familiar with all the Wiki rules as some others are around here.) But if you are "borrowing" it, you will find the Wiki admins very upset if you have claimed to make the flag image and actually have not. However, if you did create this image and have subsequently sold it to the blogger code site in question, then please accept my compliments on a nicely composited image and forgive my intrusion here. --Mactographer (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you for the compliment. I have not sold any of my work to any web site or blog, but the flag image used in the Huckabee image is self created. Do you happen to remember the site that you on? I would like to check it out, if they are using my work without credit I definitely want to know about that. Thanks and no worries of intrusion! Rtr10 (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I linked to it above, but will do it again here. This is the flag image as they have it on their site. The site's web URL is: pyzam.com. They provide blogger code for such blogger sites as My Space. They call their layout American Pride. I noticed that background on at least one or more of the My Space users' pages and thought it was a nice flag image, then I saw the same image used in your graphic on the Huckabee My Space Page. If they have indeed stolen your flag image, you have a major claim against the people at Pyzam.com. --Mactographer (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see it know. Thanks for linking it again. I will take a little closer look at it, but it certainly seems to be the same thing with a black fade on the bottom and right sides. I will look into it. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention. Rtr10 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So have you gotten a hold of anyone at Pyzam yet? --Mactographer (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Saban cropped.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong on this one. The campaign logo symbolizes the campaign. The photo, in Hillary Clinton's case, is her official Senator photo. The campaign logo deserves to be in the infobox, just like corporations have their logo in their infoboxes. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The move was only to align all the Candidate pages. Every other candidate page has their picture in the information box and the campaign logo as a thumb in the article. Go look at other candidate pages. I have been working on Infoboxes today and there is nothing wrong with that change since it is just aligning the page with every other candidates page. Rtr10 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with WTR. Please reconsider your approach to "building" consensus. --HailFire (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just wrote "Huckabee is currently competing with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani for 1st in national ..."

1. What does "currently" mean? This article is going to be read ten years from now. Never, ever say "currently" or "recently". Give a specific date.
2. Use "first" not "1st". This is meant to be formal writing. See WP:MOS for much more. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I have went back and corrected the mistakes. Rtr10 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source for the stray dog comment. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268762,00.html and also here http://www.utopiarescue.com/oldsite/stop_animal_torture.htm This isn't relevant because it is about the son and not the father. However the father's reaction is relevant. Jmegill (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Huckabee with flag crop.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:Huckabee with flag crop.png|the article's 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. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:DuncanHunter08.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image in use under fair use in Duncan Hunter presidential campaign, 2008 article.

Thanks for uploading Image:BillRichardson08.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image in use under fair use in Bill Richardson presidential campaign, 2008 article.

Thanks for uploading Image:JohnMcCain08.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image in use under fair use in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article.

Thanks for uploading Image:RonPaul08.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image in use under fair use in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article.

Thanks for uploading Image:DennisKucinich08.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image in use under fair use in Dennis Kucinich presidential campaign, 2008 article.

Thanks for uploading Image:HillaryClinton08.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image in use under fair use in Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article.

Thanks for uploading Image:FredThompson08.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image in use under fair use in Fred Thompson presidential campaign, 2008 article.

The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MittRomney08.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. —PNG crusade bot ^(feedback) 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:MittRomney08.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) 06:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008,
your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I specifically referred you to the second Mike Huckabee talk page archive, where the logo was discussed in depth, and consensus was to NOT include it, for a number of reasons. I recommend you read it. The logo stays out. ThuranX (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've seen fit to ignore the consensus determined, and to dismiss me and my concerns as vandalism. I'm not going to fight this anymore. I referred you to a discussion, I participated in the new discussion, in which another editor, Morphh, agreed the archive showed there was consensus to remove on Fair Use grounds, and asked for a clear ruling on that. You've chosen instead to revert war, not talk about it, and in general, lose any measure of Good Faith I could have in your actions. YOu win, but won't ever trust your edits again. ThuranX (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:MikeHuckabee08.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: A return to the old standards. Thank you.--STX 04:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 07:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a former Capstone grad thanks for the CrimsonRide pictures. I wish they had that service when I was there, would have made my daily walk from ten Hoor to the Bryant Museum much easier. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have expressed interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. However, after reviewing your edit history, I feel you may need more experience editing (i.e., >2,500 edits & 4 months of activity) on Wikipedia before you can know for certain your ready to begin the process of becoming an administrator. Therefore, at this time, your application for Admin Coaching has been declined. My suggestion would be to seek adoption from a more experienced user who can help you experience all of the various components of editing an encyclopedia. If you decide adoption is not for you, there is also the editor review process that may help you find areas to improve upon in our editing. If you would like to talk more about this, please feel free to leave me a note at my talk page. MBisanz talk 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rtr10, there is no policy, but there does seem to be some sort of informal standard in place. I had a look around at a lot of other college templates and all used the standard font, hence why I made the change. Somno (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JoeBiden08.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like this photo better. howcheng {chat} 21:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to be having our first Mississippi meetup next month, and I would love it if you'd like to come out! A few of us will be staying overnight, so if you feel up to it, we could have a meet and greet that night and then breakfast the next morning and talk about Wikipedia and everyone's areas of expertise. Let's show 'em how it's done Southern-style! Mike H. Fierce! 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 1995 SEC Championship Game 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 a club, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

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. Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 09:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a current discussion on how to best show the list of national championships for the Alabama Crimson Tide football article here. Any input would be appreciated. :) –  LATICS  talk  02:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I doing something wrong? My math isn't the greatest... ha. But I've tried to figure out the winning percentage. 799 wins, 315 losses, 43 ties. So, that's 820.5 wins ... as ties count as half a win, half a loss.

${\displaystyle 820.5\div 1149=.714099216...\,}$

So actually, it seems as everything we've had down has been incorrect. Unless maybe I'm missing something... –  LATICS  talk  15:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds right. I wasn't counting the half wins through ties, so that is where I was screwing up. I am not a math person either. :-) Rtr10 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw on College Football Data Warehouse's web site that they had .709 as the winning percentage. I went back tried to see where we went wrong and we some how slipped up on the number of total games. It is 1,157 as of now, not 1,149. And when you divide 820.5 by 1157, you get .709

Wow, yeah ... I completely messed up again with my addition. Don't really know where those extra 8 games went. –  LATICS  talk  06:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Running Man Barnstar
		I hereby award you The Running Man Barnstar for excellent work on sports related articles, especially related to college football and the Southeastern Conference. Keep up the good work, mate! Cardsplayer4life (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rtr10, today at WP:AN/I I requested action by administrators regarding what I felt were your personal insults towards myself and others, in violation of WP:NPA. The consensus among the people (actually all of them) at the section where I posted the inquiry was that you are not conducting personal attacks. Please feel free to continue calling people things like "most ignorant", "anal" and "holier than thou". This is perfectly in line with policy. The thread in question for your review, if you'd like to see, is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_stream_of_personal_attacks. I've marked the thread as resolved. Sorry to trouble you, and thanks for your time. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dripping sarcasm above aside, your response to other editors has been a little overly aggressive in recent days. I suggest that you tone it down and ensure that you keep your comments to other editors civil and avoid the commentary as noted above - it's not necessary. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read those comments in the full context of each respective discussion you will easily see they are no more agressive than the person who provoked the comment. Hamersoft has gone way out to try to portray myself and other contributing editors as bad people, when we only have the best at mind for Wikipedia, while Hamersoft has been only making nagging edits taking away from the overall substance in hundreds of articles, all while contributing nothing. Sorry, that is just the reality of it. If you want to call that aggressive or an attack so be it, but keep in mind, it didn't come out of no where. You always need to look at comments in the full context of things, not just the comments themselves. Rtr10 (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, in fact, read through the discussion, which made my head hurt - it's an area of discussion that I take no personal interest in, and that I only approached to evaluate the level of the discussion and the complaints made. I'm saying that in future, please be sure to comment only on the edits, and not on the editors involved - cut down on things like "holier than thou" et al. That's unnecessary in any discussion. I suggest that if you're having issues within that specific sphere of activity, that you start an RFC or use some other form of dispute resolution to draw more editors who can form a strong consensus going forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you right now that quite a few Hokies are looking forward to next year's college football game against the Crimson Tide in the Georgia Dome. It should be a really fascinating game, regardless of the outcome. Incidentally, I've put up 2006 Gator Bowl for FAC, and am looking for comments, criticism and support. Anything you'd care to add would be a big help. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I'll be able to make it to that game, simply due to distance and cost, but I know that's the one everyone on the Tech messageboards is talking about. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above policy. Since you are canvassing people to vote in the RFC on logos, and are doing so completely misleadingly, I suggest you revert yourself on all those pages (or I will do it for you). "As I am sure you know our current standard/system of using logos legitimately with fair use rationales do not violate any wikipedia policy." is a false (or at the very best miseleading) statement. As such, you are making the RfC completely meaningless because of the canvassed votes. Black Kite 15:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've helped you with the cleanup. Please note that further campaigning is not acceptable. If you wish to encourage wider participation, you are welcome to put a neutral request for additional comments at Village pump for policy or centralized discussion. However, this should be in the form of "Additional comments on this matter are solicited", not in the form of "This side is right, come tell 'em so". As the matter would require a change to a WMF resolution in any case, I'm not sure how significant of a difference the comments here make, but I suppose it would be good to know if a strong desire exists for such a change. It would at least be an advisory for WMF. I find it telling, though, that despite your canvassing, there is no consensus to allow such images. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me informed. I would've been irritated if the discussion had an RFC but I wasn't informed. WP:CANVASS doesn't hurt if people want to be canvassed. --Bobak (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case "You may be interested in the RFC here" will suffice. The message that was used here clearly violated WP:CANVASS. Black Kite 21:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rtr10, this is to inform you (and everyone else), that anything posted by you on my talk page dealing with WP:CFB is not canvassing. I am a full time engineering student, and as such do not have the time to carefully review every item in my watch list. You provide my with quick knowledge and access to pressing issues of WP:CFB. Feel free to post anything on my talk page that you deem necessary. Anything that is removed by anyone (admin or not) under WP:CANVASS will be treated as vandalism. Thanks for all you do. Ndenison ^talk 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is canvassing if it advocates a position or is seeking like minded people. A message to members of the college football project might be acceptable if worded neutrally and not advocating a particular position. Black Kite and Seraphim were both correct in reverting the CANVASS.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not. No where does it advocates a position or seek like minded people. I have no idea what other users do or do not think. I was simply notifying other active editors on pages that would be effected on the outcome on the RfC. If it is request for comment, wouldn't we want editors of the actual pages being in the discussion to voice there opinions? Seems pretty logical. You can call it what ever you want to, but it was simply one member of the project notifying others of what was going on. I haven't received negetive feedback from any that I have notified, infact have received positive feedback. Rtr10 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, Wiggy!, and Rtr10,

I'm leaving this on all three talk pages, and hoping it does more good than harm. Hammersoft and I have been discussing civility a little, and I wanted to chime in. This probably applies to everyone involved in the logo fair use discussion, but I'm just leaving it on your talk pages because you three are directly involved with what Hamersoft and I have been discussing.

Please, all three of you, consider altering your approach to talking to/about each other in the college logo discussion, and your interpretations of civility. You have very different opinions on what is best for Wikipedia, but I assure you, they are just that: opinions on what is best for Wikipedia. None of the three of you is here to damage Wikipedia, and it's beneath all of you to say so. Denigrating and vilifying someone you disagree with, particularly questioning their motives for being here, creates a toxic environment for the rest of us. "Warning" someone who you feel has denigrated or vilified you, rather than talking politely human to human, also creates a toxic environment, and is unlikely to have the effect you desire.

Please consider rebooting your interactions with each other, and approaching this as you would dealing with other adults in your office or somewhere else in real life; it's too easy to be rude on the internet, in a way you would never consider doing to a coworker. You're welcome to criticize each other's opinions on what should or should not be done. You're welcome to state your opinion that other people's approach is damaging to the encyclopedia. To do so is not incivil, but is part of the give and take of discussions that you feel strongly about, and you have to have a thick skin if you're going to participate in heated discussions. But please, all three of you, resolve to respect the motives of everyone involved, bend over backwards to avoid being insulting, and bend over backwards to avoid taking the bait if you think someone else has insulted you.

I'm becoming seriously disenchanted with "civility warnings", templated comments, talk of blocking, indeed talk of "civility policy" at all. "Don't be a dick" pretty much covers everything. I'm just hoping that a plea for everyone involved to treat everyone else involved as an adult that you happen to disagree with is enough to smooth things over.

I'm not online a lot, but I do have all three talk pages watched now, so if you reply, feel free to do it here, or on my talk page, and I'll reply when I get a chance. --barneca (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded File:SCAD 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. 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a thought, but this image is not eligible for copyright. All it is is text. It can be trademarked, but not copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the article as unreferenced, because it is--Rolltide.com is NOT a third-party publication on the topic of Gottfried. Note what WP:RS has to say: "Wikipedia articles[1] should use reliable, third-party, published sources." Rolltide.com is simply not third-party, since it's run by the Athletics department. Why not browse through the Tuscaloosa News, which has run articles on Gottfried plenty of times? Drmies (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information sourced from RollTide.com is mostly information that cannot be found in other publications. The fact you don't think RollTide.com is a reliable source is laughable. The site is not run by Gottfried or anyone on his staff, it is run by the University of Alabama's Intercollegiate Athletic Media Relations Department, which is totally separate from the basketball program and staff. It is more than acceptable as a reliable source and is used in a plethora of articles on Wikipedia. Nothing new about that. Rtr10 (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that the University of Alabama's Intercollegiate Athletic Media Relations Department really is not so independent from the basketball program, right? Their paycheck comes from the same place (Rose administration, that is). Seriously, why not look up some real independent sources? Oh, and that it is used in other articles is never a good argument. Don't turn Wikipedia into a PR department for every athletic program in the country. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I work in the Media Relations department, I know very well how it's relationships with each program. Media Relations isn't PR (that would be Public Relations, which is handled by Crimson Tide Sports Marketing) the information you would read in an article in say the Tuscaloosa News would be coming from the Media Relations department to begin with. This is a VERY reliable source. You could debate "third-party" depending on your personal definition of the term, but it is not purpose of Reliable Source policy and I think you know that good and well. If you want to add sources to the article, be my guest, but to say it is not sourced right now is simply incorrect. Rtr10 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And before you revert for the third time (also against WP policy), have a look at the article, to which I've added a source. A real one, third-party. Now it's your turn. Drmies (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Mark Gottfried. As stated above, please feel more than welcome to make such helpful additions. For future reference you might not want to try to treat fellow editors like such a dick, it really reflects poorly on you personally and does not do anything in a means of contributing content to Wikipedia, which is what we are all here to do. Hope to see you continuing to edit Alabama athletic articles in the future. Roll Tide!! Rtr10 (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By now, you have reverted the notice I put up three times, without improving the article and with no other explanation than the clearly incorrect statement that Rolltide.com has nothing to do with the athletics program. I think you should consider WP:RS carefully, and then WP:AGF, and WP:3RR to boot, before you start accusing others of WP:DICK. Contributing to WP means a lot more than removing tags you think are incorrect. You never addressed the actual point: the third-party status, or lack thereof, of what was the only source for the article. I think my alma mater deserves better than edit-warring, which is why I won't press the three-revert point (though that policy was broken), or the vandalism point (which was broken by the removal of the tags without discussing or improving), or the AGF point. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems if you were so well versed in these policies, like you think you are, you would know if the context of the issue changes (ie more references are added) then WP:3RR does not apply. I try to sit here and be somewhat courteous to you since you are a new editor to this article, but what do you do? Spit right back in my face. And yes, that is definitely being a dick and there is simply no need. Just purely unacceptable. Rtr10 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've managed to remove three perfectly good references. In your edit summary, you claim you removed a single one, because it's for paid subscribers (which isn't a reason for deletion in the first place--what matters is the reference, not whether someone has free access to it); you replaced it with a notice availabe through Rolltide.com. I have to wonder what this insistence on that website is, that you would delete a reference to an article in the New York Times, one to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, and a reference to Alabama's own media guide. As for 3RR, perhaps you care to read the "exceptions" on that page--what you refer to is not an exception. Rather than "spit in your face," I thought it'd be wise, in the interest of the quality of that article, to add some respectable sources. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an Associated Press article, it is simply published on RollTide.com. And as for a paid reference, it is not exactly useful if you can't see it. Not to mention this is suppose to be a free content encyclopedia. It was a simply mistake removing the note on Utah upsetting Alabama and removing the NY times reference. That has now been corrected. I'd appreciate if you would just move on and stop threatening me. I have much more important things to do than sit around and have to deal with you. You know we could BOTH actually be contributing content to Wikipedia right now, but you continue to insist on childish games. Simply unacceptable. Rtr10 (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see now what happened with that reference and my consolidation thereof, and why you changed to what you in your edit summary call "the full title of the Tuscaloosa News article"--what you entered is NOT the full title of the Tuscaloosa News article, but the full title of the article as it was reprinted on Tidesports.com. The Tuscaloosa News article is found at http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090126/NEWS/901260295/0/SPORTS01, the reference I added to the Gottfried article immediately after he was fired, a half an hour before you added the duplicate. It is wise, in a chain of reports, to pick the earliest. I'm not going to go and change that around, though it would make the article stronger; I simply want to point out to you that others are not always wrong if they disagree with you, and that a reliance on more immediate sources (Tuscaloosa News rather than Tidesports.com) is better. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is the exact same article. TideSports.com is owned by the Tuscaloosa News and simply republish the articles there. Didn't see your reference when I was added that note to the introduction. It is the same article though by the same author (Cecil Hurt) who broke the story. Rtr10 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's the same, except for the title--and I'd rather cite from something called "Tuscaloosa News" than from something called "TideSports.com" (something they taught me in Morgan Hall), if only because it looks better in the Works Cited. See, I can play nice and contribute also, and I can do that much more joyfully if I'm not called a dick every time I disagree with someone. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I called you a dick is because you were acting like one and I think if you take a step back and look at it from my point of view you'd see how I would perceive it that way. I was serious above though, as for just letting bygones be bygones and starting on a new note. Would love to have your help in editing articles related to the University, which is obviously a special place to both of us. As for the citation, technically the Tuscaloosa News is still the publisher of TideSports.com, but it doesn't really matter either way in my humble opinion. Rtr10 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you guys are being nice. If I could offer a comment to help the process in the future; instead of commenting on each others' editing manner, focus on the issue and only the issue. Telling someone that they suck at assuming good faith usually just aggravates them more. Oh, and of course, throwing around words such as 'dick' can be a bit testing as well. But over all you handled it much better than others I've seen. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos/Archive_1, I have included you in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, I hope we can achieve a lasting solution. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nadar 08.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) 05:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Malcolm X. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Malik Shabazz, but you are not the determiner of what a neutral point of view is. Saying Malcom X was a "Human Rights activist" is a joke and obviously not a written from a neutral standpoint. Don't be a hypocrite Malik, just because you may not believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. Rtr10 (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: A citation has been added to the introduction of Malcolm X in a the form of a TIME Magazine article from 1959 specifically identifying Malcolm X as a black supremacist and a leader of black supremacist. This is going above and beyond to show that it is not just a personal view. This is an encyclopedic website. We don't need to sugar coat the history of Malcolm X or black supremacist. We should strive for accuracy, even if it might offend someone. Rtr10 (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article from Time doesn't say what you think it says. It only says that Malcolm X, the New York leader of the Nation of Islam, was an ex-con. In any event, please read the rest of the opening paragraph, and the rest of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Malcolm X. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) By my count, you've made three reversions within the past 24 hours. One more and you're in violation of 3RR. I've also made three reversions. If you think I've made more than three, WP:ANEW is that way.

2) This isn't a threat, it's a warning.

3) Your "reference" doesn't say what you claim it says. Maybe you ought to take a few minutes and look for the part of the article that describes Malcolm X as a Black supremacist. I'll bet you can't find it because it's not there. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) 3RR is the Three Revert Rule if I edited the article and you reverted it, it is impossible for me to violate the policy before you do. Learn how to count.

2) It was very much a threat. If it was an honest warning you would not have initiated a conversation with a fellow editor in a hostile tone and you would have reported the situation to the 3RR notice board, which you don't want to do, because you know good and well you are in the wrong and you are trying to shoe me off and get your way with out a neutral admin coming in and telling you that you're wrong. Therefor the posting of that was very much a threat.

3) I have read the article multiple times and each time it clearly ties him as a black supremacist.Rtr10 (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ANEW#User:Rtr10 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, instead of being a jerk, realize you don't know everything. As has now been proven, I was right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.75.195 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the game would not be at 2:30 p.m. on CBS, it was always the most probable possibility. HOWEVER Wikipedia is not a site for guessing (no matter how much of an educated guess it might be). This is not a crystal ball, we only use factual information and when a game time has not been announced, which you could have clearly seen by checking SECsports.com, OleMissSports.com or RollTide.com the official websites of the conference and both teams, that the official announcement of game time and tv was being held (along with three other SEC games) until the weekend. If you have a question on Wikipedia Policy, feel free to ask me or look up the policy yourself. This was nothing personal and I wasn't saying you were wrong (as I myself knew it was a 95% probability of CBS taking the Alabama-Ole Miss game) I was just keeping the page in line with Wikipedia policy of not posting a time or TV selection until it has been officially announced, because until they are officially announced there is always a chance of what we think might happen changing. Again, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Rtr10 (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with your analogy is that I knew first hand what time the game was. I didn't guess, use a percentage or go to Madame Crystal Ball Reader. I had inside information. Just because it wasn't published anywhere doesn't make it less factual. It was on paper, just not made "public". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.75.195 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not use information that cannot be cited (referenced) online. I am happy for you that you may have inside information. I do at times as well, but on Wikipedia it cannot be posted until it can be referenced online. No exceptions. That is wiki policy. Again, if you have a question about the policy, feel free to ask. Rtr10 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rtr10, thanks for the recognition! Jweiss11 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should seriously stop getting so worked up over a wikipedia article. I am in no way trying to act as an authority on the names of each game. I am acting based on consensus that we appeared to have made through this edit. I agreed with his suggestion and deleted the made up titles, and included a guide for titles in hidden text. Nobody has made any objections to that guide in the year since I added it. My reasoning for reverting your edit on "the kick" is that 1.) it was listed as "Van Tiffin's kick" for years before you made the change several years ago, thus I think consensus was implied that it was fine the way it was, and 2.) the other titles in the section are easily attributed to a specific Iron Bowl game. Mentioning "the run in the mud" or "Punt Bama Punt" automatically makes you think of the 1967 and 1972 Iron Bowls, because they could not possibly be a reference to anything else. Google the terms, and the first links you get refer to the respective Iron Bowls. Google "the kick" and you get nothing referring to the Iron Bowl.

As for "the drive," coaches referring to a drive in a particular game as "the drive" in postgame comments after said game in no way suggests that the game will forever be known by that term. How else would you expect them to refer to it? I'm sure that Mike Shula referred to "the kick" that beat Tennessee in 2005 in his post game comments that day, but that in no way suggested that the game would be forever known by that term, and indeed it has not been. You have not provided any source in which someone has stated that this Iron Bowl will be known by that term. Thus, we cannot assume per wikipedia's crystal ball policy that the game will be known by that term 24 years from now, so there is no comparison, yet, with "the kick."

Your suggestion that I've shown any sort of ownership of the article is patently absurd. I am editing the article in the spirit of what the previous concensus has been. If you object to that, take up your issues on the article's talk page, not my talk page. Please stop assuming bad faith, and please stop taking wikipedia so personally. It's understood that if you contribute to wikipedia, your contributions might be edited by other users. That is not rudeness on their part, it is an overreaction on your part. CH52584 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would notice on all my recent edits, I have been more than willing to compromise on these issues. You made a good point with your edit of the 2008 game (which I had before supported the use of the title given), and agree that it probably shouldn't be used anymore. Unfortunately it contradicts your previous argument about Gameday and other sportswriters using "The Drive" as a title for the 2009 game in the days after the game. You are extrapolating to come to your so-called "reasonable conclusion," making it nothing more than an assumption on your part.

I have made several concessions on this issue. I have left your 2009 edit in, I have not reverted "The Kick" back to "Van Tiffin's Kick," and I will not revert the 2008 title. But I do strongly suggest you reconsider my argument against using the title for the 2009 game at the present. If you must change it, I suggest you reconsider which one of us is showing ownership of the article. Furthermore, I suggest you review my talk page and then review your own and see who is being a "dick" on wikipedia. CH52584 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll want to check out this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Articles for each year's roster of a specific team? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard [1], couple other names should be removed as well, for example "The Drive", as there's no RS for that either. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Drive is a commonly referenced title for 2010 game, multiple references from the media and UA coaching staff were made since the game calling it "The Drive". It was even called "The Drive" in the actual telecast. You'll have to be specific about any other title, they are all pretty commonly known. Rtr10 (talk)

Can you provide sources for that assertion? The 2010 Iron Bowl was in fact called "The Comeback" during the actual telecast. Your argument seems to be that that's not enough. What's good for the goose and all that. Either/or. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard that during the telecast and have not seen a single headline touting the game as "The Comeback" and I live in Alabama. Last year "The Drive" was not only used multiple times in the telecast, it was used by national and local media (both print and television) and Nick Saban even referred to the game as "The Drive" in the coaches show. You see how that becomes a common use? There has been no such widespread nickname given to this game, just Auburn fans naming it that here on Wikipedia, first as "The Cam-back" and now "The Comeback". The standard set is pretty clear. Everything up meets it. If there reaches a point where the game is referred to as "The Comeback" on a fairly common basis, I'll add the title myself. Until then, we can just stick with our current standard. Rtr10 (talk)

Again, if you're going to question one, then you need to provide sources for "The Drive" as well, not just assert that they exist. It may very well be that they're out there (in fact, they probably are), in which case it shouldn't be too hard to find them.

BTW, I haven't seen anyone refer to the 2010 game as the "Cam-back" on Wikipedia - not at the Iron Bowl article anyway, unless I missed something. Now that you've mentioned it though, it appears that there are sources which refer to the game as such in the outside world: [2]. There are also various sources for "The Comeback". The problem in both cases is that phrases such as "The Drive" or "The Comeback" are widely used anyway in any kind of football commentary so it's hard to differentiate between instances where a particular game is "nicknamed" such and where it is just "described" as such. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and look at the View Article History. Its there. I'm not going to play a game with you. There is no way to specifically reference is something is a common reference, it is a matter of common sense. Some of us seem to have it and well, some seem to be lacking. If you ask an Auburn or Alabama fan about "Run in the Mud", "Punt Bama Punt", "Bo Over the Top", "Wrong Way Bo", "The Kick", "The First Time Ever" and yes, even "The Drive" they will know exactly what you are referring to. One or two mentions in a newspaper article or on television doesn't make something a common reference. Obviously it was a tremendous comeback by Auburn, but the first and honestly only time I've heard THE ACTUAL GAME referred to as "The Comeback" or "Cam-back" have been here on Wikipedia and a headline from the Gadsden Times (which isn't even one of the five largest papers in the state) doesn't make it so. Again, we haven't had a problem with this standard in the past and it isn't a problem now. Its not just Auburn names I've removed, there have been pro-Alabama names that I've removed myself. If we start to slide on the standard then the section will get trashed by both sets of fans. There is simply no need for it. Rtr10 (talk)

I don't mean to play games, but quite simply, if you're going to insist on strict interpretation of Wikipedia's rules, then you need to provide reliable sources for these nicknames. Keep in mind that this is a fresh game. But there's plenty of discussion out there about what the game should be called, and "The Comeback" is in fact the standard term, for example here [3] (I guess we could go with "The Collapse"). Yes, I know that's a blog, but then again "Wrong Way Bo" appears to be exclusively confined to Bama Fan websites. If we go with your criteria, I'm pretty sure that if you said "The Comeback" or "The Collapse" to any Bama or Tigers fan, they'd know immediately what you're talking about, especially these days. Again, this is not meant to privilege one team or the other, just to ensure an equal treatment. Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Obviously there'd be no problem what so ever with sourcing "Punt Bama Punt", "Run in the Mud", "Bo Over the Top" and a few of the other "classics".) Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is there have been a number of very big comebacks throughout this series, some of the games listed above are notable comebacks. Perhaps the "The Collapse" would be an appropriate name, however that goes back to people just creating names and we are not going to get into that. End of story. Obviously the names are used much more by each respective side. You won't see a whole lot of Auburn fans use the term "Wrong Way Bo" and you won't see many Alabama fans use the term "Bo Over the Top". Your concern certainly seems to be that favorites are being played and the edit history on the article shows that simply isn't the case. Thanks for your contributions to the page, but I'm not going to carry out a debate on a pretty clear cut standard. At this time, there is not a name for the 2010 game that meets the given standard and until the changes, it will remain without a name. Period. Rtr10 (talk)

<-- Except this was THE biggest comeback in Iron Bowl history. And in Auburn's history. [4], [5], [6], so yes, this one is a special "comeback" among other comebacks. Again, if you insist on proper sourcing, then other games' nicknames have to be sourced as well. Also, just a word of advice, you shouldn't refer to other people's edits as "vandalism" [7] no matter how wrong you think they are unless they are very clearly vandalism (stuff like "So and so is gay" or "Mike likes Jane" or something). This advice is meant in honest good faith - sooner or later, someone will take issue with that and might try to get you blocked or sanctioned (I've been on Wikipedia for awhile and I've seen it happen numerous times). If you're going to revert stuff like that just say "unsourced" or "unsupported" etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go back and forth with you. I've explained to you as clearly as I can the standard we have in place and why we have that standard. This conversation is over. Rtr10 (talk)

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian in Alabama. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Troy University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

I know Alabama is a big state, but if you happen to live near Troy and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from Troy who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rtr10! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Straw poll logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:College gameday logo.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• 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) 18:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)