User talk:B

Top

Welcome back! ;)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Miranda 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea! — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WyomingHS.jpg

As I stated during on the talk page of the WyomingHS.jpg image, the image was taken by me. The fact that it appears on the school web site does not eliminate the fact that it is my intellectual property, and, as such, I have the right to release it for use on Wikipedia. Read before you delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JagSeal (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you uploaded the image initially in April, 2006, you said, "Image was created by a public school and therefore is open for use." This is a false statement. HOWEVER, based on your statement on my talk page that you, personally, are the actual photographer, I have restored the image temporarily. In order for the image to stay, we need to have appropriate documentation in the m:OTRS system demonstrating that it is not a copyright violation. To provide this documentation, please send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org giving (1) your name, (2) a statement that you are the photographer and the copyright holder (keep in mind that if you photographed it as a part of your duties as an employee of the school, the copyright belongs to your employer as a "work product"), and (3) a statement that you release the photograph into the public domain. For more information, please see WP:COPYREQ. Thank you. --B (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats.

Congrats on your team winning today! Bowl or no bowl? Miranda 22:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every Division I-FBS (formerly I-A) team with a winning record goes to a bowl game. So yes, we will be in a bowl game no matter what. If we win the ACC title game against Boston College, then we go to the FedEx Orange Bowl and probably play Georgia, but possibly Kansas (if Missouri wins the Big XII title game) or Missouri (if Oklahoma wins it). If we lose to BC, then it's either the bowl formerly known as the Peach against a Southeastern Conference team or the Gator Bowl against Texas Tech. --B (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, congrats on beating Boston College too...Gator Bowl. :-D Miranda 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football notability

Can you tell me when this became consensus. It seem odd to me that former professional football players are not notable, but former pro baseball and basketball players are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can draw that particular conclusion from anything there. This was a proposed change to a proposed guideline that was a work in progress. The proposal appears to have been rejected. --B (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your administrative action was mentioned as one superior (IMO) to that taken by one of the parties in the case. GRBerry 01:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx ... is Matthew Hoffman a reincarnation of Profg or something? If not, I'm missing the connection. I notice you also mentioned Whig. I think it was a really all-around bad idea for an involved admin to be the one to block him, but he really did need to be banned. I suggested during a previous ban discussion instead placing him on probation/editing restrictions and he just continued to be disruptive even during the discussion. An uninvolved admin should have been the one to make the block, but he did need to be banned. --B 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman created his account in 2005, didn't edit until 2007, and edited this page before Profg. Profg ended up with the last edit in the edit war as his only edit. The connections are 1) participated in same multiparty edit war, 2) Profg elsewhere was in disputes with the same users, 3) both were blocked by the same admin. GRBerry 04:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back!

Good to see you back. Definitely missed your insights and your work. I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at the FAC for 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl and leave a few comments. Since it's a Virginia Tech bowl game, I think it's right up your alley. Thanks, and good to have you back! JKBrooks85 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rather serious error in the article. I'm pretty sure that game ended at halftime. ;) Seriously, looks great! --B 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Don't I wish. Incidentally, are you coming down for the Orange Bowl? I'll be there. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - but remember to take lots of pictures ;) --B (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, do you have any more photos for the 2007 ACC Championship Game article? If not, I'll throw up a post on Tech Sideline and see if anyone has some they'd be willing to offer. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you've got the time, could you swing by 2007 ACC Championship Game and see if there's any glaring errors or anything you think needs to be changed in it? I tried to model the article after the Chick-fil-A Bowl article I shepherded to Featured status, but there are still some things I'm overlooking, I'm sure. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#ifexist issues

Your last edit to {{cbb link}} broke the template. Is there a way we can compromise to still make it work while limiting the #ifedit traffic? This is the first I've heard about problems with that function, would you mind filling me in (and please dumb it down as much as possible, I'm no computer whiz) Hoof Hearted 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right ... I screwed up and forgot to take off the extra trailing brackets. It's fixed now. See the bottom of WT:CFB for the discussion. The problem is that excessive #ifexist calls place a drain on the server and starting next Monday, ALL articles will be limited to 100 per article. So getting rid of the redundant calls is one step. The template was allowing the user to enter gender=men's or gender=men and rendering both versions as men's. That's a good thing - but it was taking four calls to #ifexist to do it. I reduced it to one call - anything resembling "women's" will be changed to "women's" - anything else is "men's". That knocks it down from 10 calls to 5, which is probably still too many for season articles. (100/5 = 20 ... and we have 25+ games/season.) So we need to link directly to season articles that exist and probably could remove the "athletics" link since that isn't our naming convention. (Articles named "Virginia Tech athletics" should be renamed to "Virginia Tech Hokies".)--B (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Looks like you're still missing an 's in there somewhere...~~ Ah, you got it. OK, I will start unloading the pages of the {{cbb link}} where the season articles have been created. Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ... I'm going to give this thing some thought. The football articles aren't as big of a deal because virtually every BCS school for the last two years has an article. So just fixing the links to existing articles gets it well under the 100 limit. But looking at Category:2006-07 NCAA Division I men's basketball season and Category:2007-08 NCAA Division I men's basketball season, very few of the basketball teams have articles. So we're still going to be over the limit on those and probably need to remove {{cbb link}} if there is zero chance that the team will ever have an article for the season (eg, 2006-07 Charleston Southern) and simply link to Charleston Southern Buccaneers men's basketball, making a redirect if the page doesn't exist. {{Cbb link}} may need to be reserved for actual text articles and not used in schedule pages. --B (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your feedback on my proposal at Template Talk:cbb link. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cfb link and #ifexist

Thanks for the heads-up about #ifexist. I was not aware of that limitation. I'm also active in the US highways projects, where {{jct}} is used a lot. I just checked, and it does not call #ifexist, so it should be fine. (Articles with long exit lists may call the template over 100 times; because of calls to images, it really makes articles a lot more readible to use that template and not subst it.) You're right, though: cfb link should be subst'ed or otherwise avoided, except where there's potential for a future article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profg

~~Oh, you are about! Sorry - I thought that you weren't, so brought up Profg's return to try and find an alternate mentor thingie. Sorry! Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind. talk to you when not sleep-deprived and can speak coherently. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What I was trying to say is that User:Profg has returned, and I'm a little worried about him being without (minor) oversight. Are you willing to do this, or should I poke around the mediation cabal and see if I can find someone? I'm hitting exams. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on his contributions. --B (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Retired"

Yup. nobody can resist the gravitational pull Wikipedia appears to have on people. :) Maser ^(Talk!) 04:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered what happened to that photo!

I was going to upload that image (amongst others) and put it on my user page, but couldn't find a proper citation for it. When I went back and looked at my user page, I didn't have it on there and I thought I just decided not to upload it. Like I said, I was doing a bunch of them at once and I guess I put that caption in there with the others. This is certainly a BIG mistake on my part. Do you know the process for getting a photo deleted (and this one certainly should)? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now. --B 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award ☺

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your hard work in the thankless task of image cleanup, I award you this shiny new barnstar made from 100% recycled photons! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image:Jinin

Thats fine, I viewed the source and it did not provide an author, so I think chances of that image returning to Wiki is slight. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: OTRS

Yes I still have OTRS access. I looked this up (Ticket 2007121410018321) and the agent handling it decided (for which I agree) that getting a free license out of the owner isn't possible. They want attribution on the article, which we don't do. They also don't seem to really understand the free license part, putting restrictions such as "not uploading to Commons" which would be perfectly acceptable under a free license. My thought (with the agent that handled it) is that we have no hope of a free license and should delete the image(s). It was worth a shot, but doesn't seem possible now. MECU≈talk 03:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the image

It got muddled in a collection of photographs I have on the subject. I may have taken the photograph, I don't know, I have been in contact with the guy on the blog in the past, and it may well be my image. Though I cant be sure. Iwas at that parade, and recall taking pics. So feel free to delete that image while I clarify. Sorry for the trouble. My bad. Lobojo (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PUI

It is in the second-to-last paragraph under Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Instructions...

“

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.

”

If I misunderstood this, please correct me. It strikes me that this rule was probably intended for those editors who shoot off an invalid fair-use claim in response to a claimed-as-free image being challenged. WP:IFD would have been a more appropriate venue for the ip editor to nominate the image in question. WP:PUI largely deals with possibly unfree images that are being claimed as free. That being said, both venues generate very little traffic, and two (now three) editors in agreement seem to indicate that I made the right choice. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Ok ... I had never noticed that. I was trying to figure out where on WP:FAIR it was coming from, so I was looking entirely in the wrong place. ;) --B (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia

I replied to your post on the sophia image deletion discussion [1]. jbolden1517^Talk 13:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

So sorry, didn't realize that person was still alive. sorry. KitHutch on the other hand should have tagged the info, instead of unilateral deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome709 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miklos Ybl

Thanks for your note. This is a bit of a curiosity - someone else took the image from my upload to 'Find-a-Grave' (c. 2002) and claimed it on WP as their own. I couldn't really be bothered to argue - but have now tagged it as a GFDL under my own name. Best regards, Smerus (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Tickets

I've got a few free tickets to the 2008 Orange Bowl... want one? JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, but getting down there is prohibitively expensive right now. --B (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions on file

B, the permissions were forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the images are now uploaded at commons (see the links at the discussion page for those images) and can be used directly from commons now. All permissions appear at the commons address provided. Once again, thank you for your help and all the best in this season. Jenny^Len☤ 09:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Please see Nancy Reagan Discussion page

I am requesting your periodic monitoring of this page as HappyTalk22 has proven to be dominant in his editing and reverting this article without any "three-revert-edit" imposition placed on his account.

Thank you very much. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Nancy Reagan Discussion page

I am requesting your periodic monitoring of this page as HappyTalk22 has proven to be dominant in his editing and reverting this article without any "three-revert-edit" imposition placed on his account.

Thank you very much. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]