User talk:TerminalPreppie

Regarding Czech Republic in the 2008 Ice hockey championships. If Switzerland lose the currently ongoing game to Russia, Czech republic will be 2nd ahead of Sweden and Switzerland (see Talk:2008_IIHF_World_Championship. (This is actually a likely scenario, Russia-Switzerland is 3-0 atm.)Lejman (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see that. I don't think Sweden as the 3rd spot locked up then. See the tiebreaker for 3 or more teams: http://www.iihf.com/channels/iihf-world-championship/home/format-rules.html ccwaters (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bc icemen 200x200.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bc icemen 200x200.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

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

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Cleveland barons old ahl 200x200.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Binghamton dusters 200x200.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Binghamton dusters 200x200.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Binghamton rangers 200x200.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Binghamton rangers 200x200.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Binghamton whalers 200x200.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Binghamton whalers 200x200.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor leaguers and notability

I respectfully disagree. When an article subject is obviously not notable, a speedy is in order. The minor leaguers who had articles posted by User:Babyhawk were about players who had not had any time in the NHL, had received no notable awards from the AHL or any other minor league, and were not notable in any other fashion. Moreover, it looked to me like Babyhawk was simply copying material from Rockford's media guide — I even thought he might be the team's PR guy. But these article were pretty cut and dried in my opinion, and dragging them into PROD or AfD seemed meaningless. If it's a borderline call, I do go to PROD first, but these weren't, IMHO. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that they have all been restored. All the players meet WP:BIO standards in that they played in a fully professional league. Whether or not they played in the NHL or not doesn't matter as the standard only requires them to play in a league which is fully professional, which these players have. That being said I am looking into copyvios and will be editing any I find out of the articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

UK vs GBR

UK is reserved for the United Kingdom under ISO 3166-1 alpha-2. It is also used as the top level domain for the UK and is also the standard abbreviation used by the the European Union. --JD554 (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Phillies

Please accept this invite to join WikiProject Philadelphia Phillies, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles related to the Philadelphia Phillies. We hope you can join and contribute greatly to the project.

KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AIFA

I apologize for the legal threat please remove.

thank you --Michaelmink (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ChunkIt! talk page

Hi just wondering the reason for your post on the ChunkIt! talk page. that was my first attempt, about a month and a half ago. I had resubmitted under different capitalization (It!) about 3 weeks ago, and it was deleted. The article I just submitted has changes that differentiate it from the new capitalization, not the old one you posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbyrne (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I mention that there's been relevant discussion of these articles? ccwaters (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

rochester pic

not sure about the river, looks same as always to me..

hope the new pic suffices?

DaveEvilarry (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

edit summary at Buffalo, New York

You know I completely understand why you added the comment to my user talk page about me calling an editor an asshole. really I do, but really I am just getting completely sick of reverting anon vandalism BS. I'll never understand why someone wants to act like that. Sorry Just fed with tryting to keep good articles on wikipedia... Tommycw1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

WHY WAS REVIEW OF COVELESKI STADIUM DELETED?

Ok, I understand adding a photo gallery to some players page may be crossing the line of advertising. I appologize and won't do that again. However, I don't understand why my ballpark reviews link was deleted...

Look at the links on the Coveleski Stadium for example. The links that you are allowing are small-parks.com, ballparkreviews.com, and littleballparks.com. Now I ask you this... what is the difference between those links and the ballpark reviews link that I posted?

For example Ballparkreviews.com is ran by a baseball fan (Brian Merzbach, who I have talked to quite a few times) who travels the US and takings photos and writes reviews of major and minor league ballparks. He is not affiliated with any "official" team or stadium or league. I am doing the EXACT same thing he is doing. I travel the US and take photos and write extensive reviews for fans to read about at each different ballpark, including physical architechural features of the stadium, seating layouts, game atmosphere, and so on. Also listed is factual information such as the architect, the year the ballparks were built, capacity, and the cost to build.

This is not a matter of posting spam. My website, david-mccann.com is nothing but a baseball website with accurate information, just go look at it. It is no different than any of the links you are allowing to keep. Whys are those 3 ballpark links allowed to stay and mine is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidm8985 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)