 Freqently Asked Questions (FAQ)
|
Q: Why have you reduced the size of my file?
A: In accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 3(b): An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate, is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). If you believe I have made an error in reducing the image, please let me know. If there was no error is the lowering in the resolution, please keep the image reduced and keep it tagged until an administrator has deleted the larger versions of the image.
|
Q: Why have you tagged my file as {{di-bad fair use}} 10(c)?
A: I have tagged it as in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 10(c): The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Meaning, provide a fair use rationale on the file description page, every time you use it on a different article. Otherwise it does not meet criteria for inclusion and it can be nominated for deletion.
|
Q: Why have you removed my image from an article because of 10(c)?
A: The file does not have a fair use rationale on the file description page for why it is on that article. If you add a rationale, you are free to use the image on the article once again.
|
Q: Why have you tagged my file as {{di-bad fair use}} 10(a)?
A: I have tagged it as in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 10(a): Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. A source for where the image was taken from needs to be specified, otherwise it will be marked for deletion.
|
Q: Why have you added {{deletable image-caption}} to an article?
A: This is to notify users that the image next to the caption is a candidate for speedy deletion in a number of days due to problems specified on the image description page.
|
Q: Couldn't you just fix this image problem yourself?
A: While I tag and re-sizing images, I do keep a look-out for things I can fix, rather than tag it for fixing. There is somewhere near 340,000 non-free images on Wikipedia, so I can't do this alone.
|
Q: Are you an administrator?
A: No, I am not an administrator here. I can not protect or delete pages, move over redirects, or block users. For a full list of privileges I have, and projects where I have them, see this page. Also, if you offer to nominate me for adminiship, I will probably decline. I have had a few nominations in the past, the last being in 2006. If I ever run again, it will be a long time from now.
|
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Ideally, I would like to have any conversation continued on the page where it was started. If I have left a message on your talk page please do not reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
This page-
Drama free days
|
| 4389
|
I really like the new layout for the master table. It's an aesthetically pleasing layout that both conserves space and still contains all of the desired information. Good job. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I saw the "best displays at 1600 X 900 resolution" at the top and thought the information could fit a little better. :) — Moe ε 14:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh by the way, UT Martin is actually Tennessee–Martin. The college basketball and football WikiProjects use the latter as the naming convention (see Category:Tennessee–Martin Skyhawks). I would update it myself on the master table but I didn't know if you were in the middle of a big revamp, so I didn't want to edit conflict you. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my bad. I'll have to move it back. Thanks for that. — Moe ε 14:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There, finished. I'll get to moving the rest of the templates and fixing them within their articles when I get back to my computer later. Regards, — Moe ε 15:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. Much appreciated. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ralphamale (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the invite. While I'm not particularly focused on any one topic, if there's something I can help your project do, I am willing to help. :) — Moe ε 05:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to bring this up again, but the Adolph Rupp page has been vandalized several times today. Is there anything Wiki can do about protecting this page? Seriously, the same person is constantly creating new accounts, and then posting the same vandalism over and over. Please take a look at today's history and keep an eye on this again. I know it's frustrating, but the level of some people's agenda is amazing. Thank you.Jbfwildcat (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had ONE other account "giochews" which was deleted, so I created my current account. I made some drastic changes to show the obnoxiousness of the page, which you have made a joke. You have continually edited everything to your standards, which are not the standards of Wikipedia. You have changed everything, including the stuff Moe added a few weeks ago. I made some changes to information that was one-sided, and you reverted it within 1 minute, and then made the same changes yourself! What's wrong with you? --Mullinwhite (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is certainly vandalism Mullinwhite, so consider this your first warning for doing so. Looking over the rest of the edits, such as this, I don't think you can accurately claim such a thing from the reference by looking at it. One thing though that Mullinwhite did was kind of right (done in a wrong manner). Removing "Rupp's overall philosophy to sports and basketball was simple, to just win." was wrong, but at the same token, it does need to be changed a bit for the sake of neutrality. The overall wording of what you added for the coaching section, Jbwildcat, does need re-wording and I've been giving you time to go and make those changes yourself instead of me going in and doing it for you. Mullinwhite, if there's something you would like to see added to the page or changed, let me know and I'll see if what you want to add is worth it. Also, Mullinwhite, stick to this one name only, or next time I'll request a sockpuppet investigation. — Moe ε 05:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus was reaching on the wording of the 1951 point shaving scandal section, and Leochews fought hard for the inclusion of the term "death penalty" to be added. Now, he wants to change the meaning to suit his agenda. I contend if there is no such thing as the "death penalty", then no reference to it should be allowed in the article.
Further, the edits he's making to the new sections added to the article are removing information that is common knowledge among the college basketball community, able to be verified in dozens of publications, both online and in print. Some of these are listed as references.Jbfwildcat (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moe, this person is reverting edits of things YOU added to this page, along with your sources. Jbfwildcat (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise to see you here complaining to Moe. You rewrote everything Moe added to that page. You also revert every single edit I make, even if you agree with it. Moe did not write that Byers referred to the UK penalty as the "de facto" death penalty, you did. I have never vandalized the Rupp page or even said anything derogatory about the man, I just wanted the page to be accurate. Even after I cited the NCAA recognizing this case as the first instance of the death penalty, you still insist that it is not. How can you deny this? Leochews (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
