Jump to content

Talk:Rick Mount

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This page will need be removed unless it is properly sourced. It is copy and pasted from Purdue's official website, which receives no credit. TuckerRoo62 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Tuckeroo62[reply]

IMHO it's not a total cut&paste job. Some rewriting is done, and quite a few random text strings appear to have not come at all from the Purdue page. But still, a lot of the current page is indeed from the Purdue page. This article needs attention from someone skilled at excising copyvio material out of pages like this. From conversations on my talk page, the user TuckerRoo62 above appears to be the original author of the Purdue page, so this definitely requires careful attention. - TexasAndroid 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the big deal, why not just credit the proper source if you have found it? No reason to get all excited and going nuts about it, just add a footnote crediting the source-material.. geez.83.151.131.116 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Career

[edit]

Revert my edits, but not the useless self reference at the bottom of the paragraph? LOL 130.156.31.225 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged bad faith edits

[edit]

If you truly feel the edits were 'unsourced, negative, POV items', I suggest you remove the ENTIRE sentence, of which I only contributed a small phrase, which itself only served to further explain another editors comments. Certainly, the other criticisms qualify under your criteria. 130.156.29.50 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were bad faith edits. Just POV. And I have removed the rest of the unsourced negative stuff as well, as you correctly pointed out. OTOH, you could have removed them just as easily yourself. The presence of one set of bad material does not justify you adding in more bad material. - TexasAndroid 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove them because I didn't feel they were POV or bad material. The remarks were consistent with what I remember to be criticism of this person's abilities by presumably qualified evaluators. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.156.29.50 (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
And if you can provide sourcing of this criticism, then they are perfectly valid to leave in. Including the one that you added. WP:BLP is the rule here. Negative stuff needs to be very well sourced. The bit about Mr. Smith being "obscure" is, however, totally POV, and really has no business on Mr. Mount's article. If Mr. Smith had an article, it would likely be improper there as well, but it really does not belong here. But back to Mr. Mount. If you can find sourcing for the criticisms that meets WP:RS, then they could be returned to the article. But they really do not belong here by themselves. - TexasAndroid 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is old magazine articles based on interviews with scouts and coaches, which I will document if time permits, with the caveat that most of these will be available in print form only and not on line, as the time period is several decades ago, so links can't be provided although dates of publication can be. Regarding the totally seperate Mr. Smith issue, you are missing, perhaps intentionally, the real problem. Why does this information belong in the article? The fact that a former pro player took a high school kid fishing is hardly important, nor is it explained why Mr. Smith himself is noteworthy. It was tempting to delete the whole section for being in violation of rules against self-promotion, and I'm sure you can come up with the exact template name for this rule, but I refrained from doing so on the small possibility that Mr. Smith has a notoriety that warrants his mention. However, since we're so insistent on providing documentation, maybe this section can be considered for deletion until we know Mr. Smith has done something more substantial than having played high school basketball over thirty years ago. 130.156.29.50 15:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now who's assuming bad faith with that "perhaps intentionally" quip? You've hinted at the issue a number of times, and added that "obscure" line a number of times, but this is the first time you have come out and actually explained your issue with the sentence. And you know what? I see your point. But actually communicating your point works a lot better than vague references and WP:POINT edits that don't even express your point. Yeah, I was missing your point, but you were saying everything you could *except* actually making your point, it seemed.
I'll have to ask about the use of offline magazines as sources, though I would expect that there should be a way to make such work. I'll have to look into that. - TexasAndroid 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my insertion of the two word phrase was more to avoid an outright deletion of the paragraph on the small chance Smith was noteworthy for a reason of which I wasn't aware, while at the same time conveying the message to both the editor who made the addition and to anyone reading the article that most people wouldn't consider Smith a household name. I, like yourself, have deleted passages before, but I was willing to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, particularly since his brief editing history does not evidence any agenda . Having dealt with this issue before myself, this seemed like the most reasonable course, and only requested documentation when it was asked of me. Perhaps the editor will return and explain his additions, at which time it can be determined if they should be restored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.156.29.50 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rickmount.jpg

[edit]

Image:Rickmount.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rick Mount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Mount&oldid=1206779719"