User talk:Bluedog423/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Help with webpage

You have done great work with a variety of Duke related articles and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the UNC-Duke rivalry webpage to make it better. Remember 13:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Duke Page

Congrats on having Duke University as the featured article of the day! You put a lot of effort into that, and it's great to see the alma mater front and center. DukeEGR93 11:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up

Dear Bluedog423,

I tried to work on all the issues that you brought up regarding the Ohio Wesleyan University article. I noticed several other people contributed. And hopefully that tremendously improved. Could you please take a look and let me know what other improvements, you might think are needed? Thank you for your time!!! WikiprojectOWU 04:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your extensive comments! I greatly appreciate your help!!!

I took most of your comments into account and commented on the ones that I didn't.

Will you support the article's FA nomination once your suggestions are taken into account? WikiprojectOWU 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Thanks for setting up the Duke Presidents template. But factually, presidents of Trinity College prior to Few, such as Kilgo, were not presidents of Duke University. Please fix your edits to reflect this fact -- thanks! Eleuther 02:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Could you take a look at the article when you have the time for more suggestions? Happy holidays! WikiprojectOWU 21:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are the best! WikiprojectOWU 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! These are some very helpful comments! :-) WikiprojectOWU 08:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Happy New Year! Hope all is well! I just wanted to let you know that I tried to include all of your suggestions. As always, they greatly improved the article! WikiprojectOWU 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the message from last week! I just realized I never responded to it! I noticed the peer review was closed. As a person with more experience in this process, what is your recommendation? Should I open another Peer Review? FAC? LaSaltarella 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-Madison

On 24 December 2006, I put up the UW-Madison article for Featured Article. It failed miserably, due in part to the fact that I had almost no idea what the criteria were for FA. I have now made considerable revisions. You had originally opposed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Wisconsin-Madison/archive1. Would you please consider looking over the article over again, and tell me how you would vote this time if it were put up for FA again? University of Wisconsin-Madison Thanks! – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding to my request, and thanks for all of the suggestions. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:KvilleMap.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:KvilleMap.PNG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Chick Bowen 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:2001champs.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2001champs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

I noticed your removal of a protection tag on the article 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal along with the edit summary "removed semi protection since consensus has been reached". Just an FYI, only users with admin status and above can add or remove protection; removing the template merely removes the notice. You can request that protection be removed on Wikipedia's request for page protection page. Thanks, auburnpilot talk 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up

Dear Bluedog423,

How is it going? You have been less active on WP these days. I just wanted to let you know that the article has gone through a major copyedit and unless I get major objections from WP editors, I am considering nominating it as a FAC. As you mentioned, comments will come up and hopefully, they should be fairly minor and fixable in the nomination process. LaSaltarella 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Methodist Colleges tp box

I notice you participated in a prior discussion on the Template talk page for Methodist Colleges. Other than the religious affiliation concerns, which is discussed below, I thought you also might have objections to the size of the template box which I wholeheartedly understated, I think we can shave down the size of the box or set it to autocollapse. I just posted this on the talk page and hope that you could return.

I discovered two sources listing Methodist colleges and universities the first is the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities (IAMSCU) founded in 1991 which describes its members as Methodist-related schools, colleges, and universities and those with a Methodist tradition from throughout the world. the other is the directory of untied methodist related colleges, from The Untied Methodist Church in the US. Both are from the General Board of Higher Education websites:

From these sources this template seems pretty accurate, however it is missing several universities

Both the University of Puget Sound and Duke University are listed and the last elections for board of Directors are January 25, 2007 see here so this list seems pretty up to date, any objections to adding them back to the template? - thank you Astuishin 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:-)

Dear Bluedog324,

From all people helping me with editing of the OWU article, the biggest "Thank you" should go to you! :-) I just nominated the article in the FAC process. LaSaltarella 19:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Duke Blue Devils

First off, the logo on sportslogos.net appears royal blue. The page (Duke page) says Royal Blue is their shade of blue. And the reason I added black is because on the basketball uniforms there are heavy elements on black. Heck, they have black alternate uniforms. That's why I added black. Crazy Canadian 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, on the University page, I'm not adding black. However, on the Sports teams page, I am since they use black in sports. Crazy Canadian 12:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work

Great job adding all of those previous rankings to the UNC-Duke article. I helped create the initial table so I know how hard adding all that stuff can be. Where were you able to find all the previous rankings? Remember 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rape case photo discussion.

Hey - I tried to organize the discussion of the photo a bit, to make the (long) debate easier to read. It involved moving both our comments (completely intact) into a different section; if you have any problem with the reorganization at all (they are your comments, after all), just move them back and I'll leave them there. Guanxi 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I apparently suffered from the delusion that, after I organized it, people would post to the proper section. Ha ha. Sorry for the mess. Last time I try something like that. Guanxi 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your level-headedness and I agree there are two valid sides -- I think the evidence argument is a credible one (though I don't agree). My honest feeling is, I have no idea what happened that night, but I think it should be decided by a judge and jury, and not by the media and public, and that's what's happening. Trials before the media and public depend on who has access to the media, status, and power (i.e., the kids' parents). If that happens, a prostitute and local DA are way outgunned by people with connections on the highest levels. As a result, women like her who really are victims have no recourse, and can be attacked with impunity by people with status and power. Who's going to believe the prostitute? But, to emphasize, I have no idea what happened -- rape, assault, threats, or just racist slurs (which are wrong, but don't merit a Wikipedia page).

Anyway, if you are willing to act as the level-headed one: If you're familiar with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies, might you consider explaining gently them to Johntex? I think it's a neutral issue, but the fact that I'm saying it is creating communication problems. The current photo is from a blog, which is not a 'reliable source' AFAIK.

If the photo is being posted as evidence of her condition at a certain time, I think we need a reliable source (who says this photo is from that point in time? Maybe it was before, or much later). If there's a reliable source for it, I certainly won't object to posting it on these grounds.
If it's just posted to show a picture of her, then, if it's as widespread as people say, we're probably safe, but then I think there's less support for posting it in that circumstance.

If you just don't want to get involved, I understand completely! Thanks. Guanxi 01:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I've been too busy at work. Thanks for helping on the Discussion page. I'm going to back away from it for at least a week, to let the discussion cool off and because of work. I did take a look today, and it seems that Johntex is systematically undoing many of my edits. That guy is out of control. Any idea how to handle it without taking his bait for an edit war? My edits were very gentle, purposely avoiding controversy, some were just added details -- I think the article needs a wholesale revision, really, but doing that while respecting the previous editors is a huge job. Anyway, responding to your post ...

You said, there's no need to call the accuser "a prostitute," -- I didn't mean it as an insult, I thought she actually was (and I don't think the term is pejorative?); maybe I was misinformed?
Also, I don't know what your statement of "I have no idea what happened that night, ..." has to do with anything about including the image. ... Maybe you were just talking about that issue without it relating to the inclusion of the image Right, I was just addressing the issue in general.
At least some of the defendant's parents have good jobs in Wash DC; one's mother is a (prominent?) PR consultant. They had enough influence to send some prominent DC lawyers down to help out. My memory is hazy on the subject, though.
if they were poor and Nifong acted in the same manner, there is no way that the potentially exculpatory DNA evidence would have surfaced. Good point. Money and power works on both sides of the equation.
while certain lacrosse players have admitted that some racial slurs were made (apparently on both sides with the second dancer starting it), the three indicted individuals apparently were not part of that, according to the second dancer. I didn't know that, though it's not that big a deal to me. I abhor racial slurs, but they do not compare to the rest of the accusations and are not worth a Wikipedia page.
Nifong has clearly acted like an idiot Not a brilliant performance, but I don't think it's as bad as it appears. 1) As they say, 'you don't want to see how sausage is made' -- if you put any process or institution in the spotlight, it's going to look ugly. If you look at how prosecutions work elsewhere, his performance is not unusual. His ethics indictments are for things he said to the press, but prosecutors leak to the press all the time -- how often do you see leaked grand jury info, withheld evidence, other leaks (e.g.. Richard Jewell)? I think it's wrong, but I think Nifong was no worse than the norm.
Your 'blue' name: Sorry, I didn't meant to pick out you in particular. It's just obvious that many Duke supporters are editing the page. I actually have several friends that went to Duke; it's an excellent school.

Guanxi 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Duke page consensus

Hi - I'm trying a different, more structured tack, with the idea that maybe it won't fall apart into a heated argument. I'm not sure it can be done -- so far so good -- but I'd value your input on the issue. Thanks. Guanxi 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree

Liviu Librescu should have had an article priot to this tragedy...

76.109.163.61

Image:ChapeLogoComplete.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ChapeLogoComplete.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete away! I replaced this logo with a better one a long time ago. -Bluedog423^Talk 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:ChapelLogo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ChapelLogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Talk:BigrTex|Tex]] 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete away! I replaced this logo with a better one a long time ago. -Bluedog423^Talk 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Baldwin1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Baldwin1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete away! I was going to use this image in an article, but never did apparently. -Bluedog423^Talk 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:DukeChapel1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DukeChapel1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 22:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete away! I replaced this logo with a much better one a long time ago. -Bluedog423^Talk 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Med_Center11.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Med_Center11.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 22:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete away! I was going to use this image in an article, but never did apparently. -Bluedog423^Talk 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Oklahoma

Hello. You commented on this article during its previous FA nomination and you had some good comments. I have worked on the article a little bit more lately and would really appreciate it if you could look over it again and let me know if there are any more issues before I renominate it for FA. Thanks.↔NMajdan•talk 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. After I make the changes you requested, I plan on renominating this for FA. I do have a few questions/comments regarding your suggestions.↔NMajdan•talk 14:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

4.) History section is too long. It should be broken into subsections. I'd say 2-3 would be appropriate.
- I disagree with this. The history section on the University of Michigan article looks just as long with no section breaks. I plan on leaving this alone for now unless more people disagree with me.
5.) "Norman campus" subsection under "Academic profile" seems misplaced. This all seems to be academic profile nothing about the campus, which is talked about later.
- I am treating the Norman campus and the HSC campus differently as the academic profile between the two is vastly different. The Oklahoma City campus is labeled "Health Science Center" but I don't know of any other way to identify the main campus other than "Norman campus" unless "Main campus" is more preferable. Although I could simply get rid of these section breaks completely in an effort to comply with part of your #7 suggestion.
7.) Some sections are way too short to merit their own section. Try to include this information in other larger sections or expand them if very essential. For example, "Health Sciences Center," "Norman", and "North campus" are too short.
- I agree with some of these as I too hate short sections. However, I honestly feel these short sections contain all the information I could supply about them. As I mentioned above, I could drop both sections under "Academic profile" and leave it as one section. I don't see an issue with the "Norman" section as it is five sentences long as more of an introduction for the following subsections. "North campus" - yes, its short. But I believe you said you are an alum/student/whatever of OU. What more is there to say about the North campus? The airport and the weather structures are worth mentioning in the article but where else should I mention them? I don't think merging it with another of the similar subsections ("Main campus", "South campus") would be appropriate.
9.) "Student government" section is pretty worthless. Every school has this; one sentence about the organization is sufficient. We don't need to know all the intricate details.
- Again, I apologize, but I disagree. Again, using the UofM and Michigan State University articles as references (both are FAs) have similar sections devoted to the student government (actually, MSU has an entire article). I'll leave this unless their is further criticism.

Wichita Massacre

Hi. I replied to your question posted on the discussion page of Wichita Massacre. Please let me know if you have any further questions. I hope my reply was helpful. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 03:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Image sizing clarification

(Copy of my comments at Talk:Duke University, copied here as you said you wouldn't be responding to any more comments there.)

Let me clarify, but first apologize: I didn't mean to say that your comments, Bluedog 423, were rude or arrogant, and I apologize that it came across that way. To clarify, I intended to say that persisting in adding thumb sizing back in when it's been pointed out that this contravenes MOS and UP, and thereby forcing the size on others is rude and arrogant. It was not directed at you specifically, but at anyone who so persists, and sadly, there's more than one editor out there who does this. So, Bluedog423, again, I'm sorry if my comment offended, irritated or othewise irked you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Georgetown University

Just wanted to properly thank you for your advice on the article. Most of it has been already put to good use. Hope to run into you again, maybe when it's ready for FAC. Thanks again!--Patrick 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Subtle

"account -> accounts" So subtle, but so true... DukeEGR93 04:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, I responded to your post on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Israel. -- tariqabjotu 04:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to offer

my sincerest thanks for your helpful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dartmouth College. The article I nominated and the article that got promoted (today!) are incredibly different, and separated by a huge degree of quality. I think this is due almost entirely to your extensive suggestions on the nomination page, as well as your willingness to stick with me and the article as I was revising it -- instead of leaving your comments and wandering away, as I would have predicted was the norm. This being my first FA nomination, I have no idea if your level of thoroughness and patience is par for the course or very unique, but I consider it the reason why the article was promoted. Thanks! Dylan 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Florida Atlantic University

I saw that you did a nice peer review for Ohio Wesleyan University and was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the above article. It is currently undergoing peer review here. If things turn out well I plan on taking it to WP:FAC next.

Thanks, KnightLago 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be great. I would like to get as many people as possible to review the article. The more eyes the better. Thanks, KnightLago 02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind fixing the captions for me? I seem to have a problem differentiating between the two. Thanks for explaining the rule though. I am working on your other comments. Thanks. KnightLago 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the only thing left is the captions problem. I added information to try and qualify the rankings. KnightLago 14:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you get the time please read the article so you can offer your opinion at FAC. KnightLago 14:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

88 Lines about 88 Duke People

T'would seem that you've kicked over quite the hornets' nest over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group of 88. I certainly don't think information about the listening ad or its signatories should be removed entirely, but I, like you (I think), cannot see the independent notability of the group as separate from one advertisement in a student newspaper. DukeEGR93 01:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Tee-hee - yeah - apparently "The Group" is so notable that the list that's up there is "The Concerned Faculty" rather than "The Group." Good Lord... DukeEGR93 02:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Just made what will probably be my final contributions to the discussion. The funny part about all this is, given my writings about the lacrosse case, no one paying much attention could make the statement that I somehow want to hide or cover-up the actions of some faculty during the whole mess... Maybe that makes me notable enough for my own page! I mean, I was in The Chronicle of Higher Education about it - TWICE DukeEGR93 17:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like it is now a redirect, which makes perfect sense to me. I see someone had already made a list of the Wikipedia-vetted notable people who signed the ad, which I think is also appropriate for the Responses article. Now I suppose a new article called "Concerned Duke Faculty" will appear... DukeEGR93 04:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EnvironmentMap.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:EnvironmentMap.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger Myerson

Hello Bluedog423. You mentioned on the talk page of Roger Myerson that you know his family personally. Have you ever met with Roger Myerson? I want to improve the biography of Roger Myerson. Can you help me? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SchoolofMedicineMap.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:SchoolofMedicineMap.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FuquaMap.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:FuquaMap.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DivinityMap.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:DivinityMap.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LawSchoolMap.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:LawSchoolMap.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

2007-08 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team

Bluedog, thanks for making the season specific page out of the content I originally added to Duke Blue Devils men's basketball. — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 19:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few examples of personal attacks by you on me. Please play by the rules or agree to not edit here at Wikipedia. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Hey Ebtunc2006. I understand that Duke53 adds ridiculous content to North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball

2) I definitely can say without reservation that you have acted with much more maturity than Duke53, which isn't saying much.

3)You shouldn't succumb to his level.

4) In any event, I just wanted to try to reason with you to not act childlishly [sic] by retaliating from Duke53's edits by adding superfluous edits to the Duke basketball article. You definitely should continue to revert Duke53's crazy edits, but I think you should also understand to not take part in such edits (even though I admit your edits are tamer) yourself.

5) And I'm not saying this on Duke53's talk page because I don't think reason will work with him. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you need to chill out. I was just trying to get on Ebtunc2006's good side so he'd stop vandalizing pages. But you should stop adding POV content to pages as well. Do you disagree that both UNC and Duke have had great basketball programs? I don't see how anybody could think otherwise. Just relax and have fun. It's just wikipedia. There's no point to constantly warning people. I'm sorry if I offended you, I am just trying to make sure these pages don't continue to have constant reversion wars and remain stable and NPOV. Take it easy, -Bluedog423^Talk 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Having looked closer at your contributions, I would now say that your contributions to the UNC page are not clear vandalism and I'm sorry I suggested that. However, I still believe that the edits have a unnecessarily negative emphasis when it's not necessary or helpful to the page. We're just trying to make these pages as informative as possible and I believe that your edits have not done that. Your edits of reverting vandalism to Duke pages clearly has been helpful and it is appreciated. I just want to see positive contributions to wikipedia rather than all-out wars of saying "UNC is a very successful basketball program" vs. "UNC is a basketball program." Cheers again, -Bluedog423^Talk 00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you were just trying to get on my good side rather than actually work towards resolution. Duly noted. Cheers and enjoy wikipedia as always. Ebtunc2006 (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, please show me where I was vandalizing pages. Last time I checked, removing unsourced or POV wasn't vandalism. Cheers and enjoy wikipedia. Ebtunc2006 (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, man I just cannot win. I am obviously trying to find a resolution in this matter, but perhaps I shouldn't have attempted to intervene. I agree with you that he is harping on citations for everything and perhaps "vandalism" was too strong of a word. It's more of undue weight of negative coverage. All I want is there to stop being an edit war on these pages. Do you disagree with that? Also, don't you agree that both Duke and UNC are part of the most successfully basketball programs of all time? These pages should have many positive things to say, and I think emphasizing one or two negatives unduly weights them. Do you disagree? -Bluedog423^Talk 01:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to self - don't try to resolve other people's disputes..... -Bluedog423^Talk 01:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to you: are you guys getting a bit confused and giving me 'credit' for edits made by user: 152.7.30.236 ? Cheers. :>) Duke53 | ^Talk 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NursingMap.PNG

Thank you for uploading Image:NursingMap.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ChapelMap.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:ChapelMap.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:SanfordMap.PNG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:SanfordMap.PNG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:CIEMASMap.PNG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:CIEMASMap.PNG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:DukeGardensMap.PNG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:DukeGardensMap.PNG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:NasherMap.PNG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:NasherMap.PNG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:LemurCenterMap.PNG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:LemurCenterMap.PNG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CIEMASMap.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:CIEMASMap.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SanfordMap.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:SanfordMap.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LemurCenterMap.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:LemurCenterMap.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DukeGardensMap.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:DukeGardensMap.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NasherMap.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:NasherMap.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)