User talk:129.252.69.40: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:38, 20 January 2011

Attention:

This IP address, 129.252.69.40, is registered to University of South Carolina; Computer Services Division and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block may be shared by many. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to deal with vandalism; if so, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Alternatively, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.

IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

University of South Carolina

It isn't your article. Please read WP:OWN. Also, read the last paragraph of WP:MOSLOGO. The usage you are attempting to do violates that guideline, and since in this case it is a fair use image, it also violates our WP:NFCC. Do NOT restore the image as it is a policy violation. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USC logo

If you don't have the first clue about a subject, maybe you shouldn't be attempting to make edits regarding it on Wikipedia. The site (www.sportslogos.net) that you seem to think is the ultimate authority on college sports logos is DEAD WRONG concerning the use of the "Block C" logo by USC. It states that USC didn't start using the logo until 1983, right? Well, here are links to two pics of Heisman Trophy winner George Rogers during his USC career. http://www.itsalreadysigned4u.com/shop/media/images/product_detail/ape-rogers-g-sc-8x10.jpg http://www.georgerogersfoundation.org/images/george1.jpg. Oh my, what's that logo on the side of his helmet? And guess when Rogers played for USC? 1977-1980. Moral of the story? Don't tamper with things you don't know anything about, and don't assume that some random website is a source of accurate information to make up for your ignorance. Here's another site that might help you educate yourself: http://www.nationalchamps.net/Helmet_Project/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you for the compliment in calling me ignorant. I so appreciate a user saving me the time and effort to respond to them when they loft themselves on high in the use of insults. Quite a stunning accomplishment. See WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW. Goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just call you ignorant, you plainly ARE ignorant of the facts in this case. Like I said, either don't make edits when you aren't in full possession of the facts, or don't get your panties in a bunch when you get called on being wrong. And thanks, but I don't need to read some stupid "law" you made up to justify your actions. Have a great day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to you if you can't figure out how to use a civil tongue. You are, in fact, wrong and I have evidence other than site I noted to prove it. But since you can't conduct yourself in a civil manner, you are not worth talking to. Goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THEN PROVE IT. I provided PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE that you are wrong. I guess you are the type of person that would argue with a signpost. Congrats.

Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time entreating with a person who can't figure out how to use a civil tongue. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that to mean that you in fact cannot prove your false beliefs, and your inaccurate edits of the 1980 USC football article will continue to be reverted if you persist in pushing your incorrect opinion. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in your interpretation. I've told you you are wrong, and can prove it. But, you are not worth the time to discuss it. Please stay off of my talk page. Further edits here, especially insulting ones, will be regarded as harrassment and delt with appropriately. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in your "proof", because I've got the FACTS on my side. Documented history will back me up on this issue, you clearly don't have a leg to stand on, and like I said, any further attempts to push your inaccurate POV on the article in question will be dealt (note the correct spelling) with appropriately. You'd be best served to move on to editing things you know something about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up

You're not going to achieve any constructive editing goals with these sorts of edits. I have no opinion (nor time to form one) on the sockpuppet accusation at ANI, but that is quite beside the point. You are harassing another editor and if it continues, you will be blocked. Focus on the content, take it to the talk page, and try WP:3O if you can't come to a WP:CONSENSUS. I also have no opinion on the content dispute, which appears to be about a logo, but again - I'm commenting on your approach, nothing more. Please tone it down. Frank | talk 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. CobraGeek ^{The Geek} 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Steve Courson has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. SimonD (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

Why did you revert my change of the logo from a non-free, copyrighted image to a public domain trademark? Are you aware of WP:NFCC? You did not leave a comment in the edit summary field, so I have no idea your intentions. Non-free image abuse is something we take seriously, and your edits could be construed as being disruptive. Please explain yourself. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to 2010 South Carolina Gamecocks football team has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

USC logos

Ok, I know the Block C logo is more known than, lets say, the text logos. However, the USC has a sheet online of the logos they recognize as being official that can be used for products, articles, etc. We need to use the text ones because they are public domain. The usage of the Block C needs to be reduced in order to comply with the policies at WP:NFCC, especially requirement 1 (where if a free image can be created or found, the fair use image should not be used). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it says in plain English at the bottom of that online sheet, "NOTE: The marks of The University of South Carolina are controlled under a licensing program administered by The Collegiate Licensing Company. Any use of these marks will require written approval from The Collegiate Licensing Company." Therefore, the text logos are no more "free" to use than the official Block C logo, and since the text logos appear on none of our school's uniforms or in any athletic facilities, the Block C is far more recognizable and appropriate as identifiers of the school's sports teams and should be used on all team articles. Reverting the articles in question to reflect this fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but Zscout370 is correct. Under our policies, the wordmark logos are considered free of copyright (though not trademark), and must be used in lieu of non-free content when possible, per WP:NFCC #1. Please stop edit warring to restore the non-free logo. Also not that per USC, the wordmark logos are official athletic logos. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but neither of you are correct per the stated rule..."Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The encyclopedic purpose here is to identify a school's athletic team with the logo used by that team. The text logo is not and has never been used by the teams in question on the field or court (or by any television network during a broadcast), the Block C has been used for decades and is that common identifier for all USC athletic teams (except baseball), therefore the text logos do not serve the same purpose and cannot be considered an "equivalent". Please stop edit-warring to serve some need to Wikilawyer a common-sense issue into the ground. Also note that per USC, the wordmark logos are not to be used without written permission. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk • contribs)

It would appear that the University of South Carolina disagrees with you See this. As per the trademark issues, it is a non-issue for us. Wikipedia is well aware of trademark issues. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). A deeper understanding can be had by reading Threshold of originality and Feist v. Rural. This is why we have {{trademark}} and {{PD-text}}, and why the wordmark logos are (rightfully) hosted on Commons, which only accepts free licensed works. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You neatly avoided the issue of NFCC #1, which you raised. It makes no difference whether or not those text "logos" are "official", they are not used in any capacity on the uniforms or in the venues of the teams in question, and thus cannot serve as "equivalent" replacements for the logo that millions of people have been exposed to over decades and have come to recognize as THE identifier of the school's teams. The text logo might be used solely on the letterhead of the various team sports for all we know, but it certainly isn't used by the teams themselves, and thus doesn't serve the encyclopedic purpose of serving as an identifier for them. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that any encyclopedia (other than one manipulated by a few people who simply enjoy being disruptive) would ever have an article about USC football, basketball, etc. without providing the primary logo used by those teams. But I guess that's why my professors laugh when anyone asks if using Wikipedia as a reliable source is acceptable, and thanks to people like the two I've dealt with here, I guess they'll always be laughing when students ask that question. Congrats on perpetuating the stereotype! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the issue of WP:NFCC #1 is central to the entirety of this debate. Are you an official representative designate of the University of South Carolina? If not, their official stance as expressed by their Division of Finance and Planning shown by the PDF linked above certainly stands as official, and yes it does matter a great deal. USC says the marks are official. They ARE the wordmarks of USC. Therefore, they qualify under NFCC #1. I'm not particularly interested in the opinions of students and professors of USC with regards to Wikipedia. I am interested in doing what I can to help maintain its m:Mission, which WP:NFCC devolves from. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you've been reverted, yet again. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you've proved you have zero semblance of a life, yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the compliment. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a compliment, but anyone who wasn't clearly suffering from Asperger's would understand that immediately.

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 :And you've proved you have zero semblance of a life, yet again. {{unsigned|129.252.69.40}}
 :*Thank you for the compliment. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 21:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
+::It wasn't a compliment, but anyone who wasn't clearly suffering from Asperger's would understand that immediately.