I used to be known under a different user name, however, I was outed by a colleague. Due to concerns about my personal security I request that any users "in the know" refrain from using my previous name in discussions. Thank you
Howdy! I can only assume that you are somewhere large quantities of alcohol are being consumed in celebratory fashion. Congratulations on your kids' fine victory, and welcome to the conference. Your kids passed the final exam. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh...my head...was that really all a dream? It wasn't?!?! WHOOOOOOOP!!!
Have you been relying on any source besides sportslogos.net in order to determine which logos are PD due to age and any lack of copyright notice? I've been doing some research the last few days and am questioning its reliability as a source for such information (and I see no indication there of any registration information or lack thereof). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been relying on that site for the first usage of the logo. I checked with the US copyright office's website and found no registration of copyright for said logo (or any others I labeled) as such. That is not to say that these are not trademarked (for which they are), but that trademark protections are different. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I have two follow-up points. First, with regards to the date of publication: How reliable is sportslogos.net? What source(s) are they relying upon? I've been looking into File:OSU beavers.gif and found a different site which seems to indicate that it came into use/was published in 1997 as opposed to 1986 as indicated on sportslogos.net and our article on the matter claims it was made in 2000. I'm not familiar enough with the sites or subject matter to determine which is actually correct nor have I yet found firm confirmation for any particular date.
The best way is to address these each individually as each situation is unique.
Iowa's logo: Has been in the news in many differing circumstances, but in every trademark case, copyright is not mentioned a single time. Copyright violations are MUCH easier to prove and I find it highly unlikely that they would chose trademark courts over copyright. Moreover, they do not claim copyright, but explicitly claim and defend it as a registered trademark. That said, you have a valid point and, if this is the exact same logo, then you have the evidence you need. That said, I'm not seeing the representation of said logo in the links you provided. If it's the case, then indeed it needs to be removed as a PD image.
Kansas State logo: Same situation as above
Oregon State's logo: I too am confused as to the design on OSU, so given the references in the article, I'd say we should remove it as copyrighted.
With regards to Iowa and Kansas State (and other similar cases), there could be any number of reasons they choose to pursue trademark rather than copyright litigation ranging from the uncertainty of a fair use copyright defense to the risk of trademark genericization should they not pursue such cases.
Now the copyright office doesn't provide copies of registered works except to authorized parties or pursuant to litigation, so unless the universities explicitly claim the copyright for their logos like they do the trademark, we don't know for sure that it's the same work. That said, since the times, creators, and general description match up with the information in the news articles I linked to, I strongly feel we need to respect the probability that they are indeed copyrighted logos, for similar reasons to the precautionary principle on Commons and the wording at WP:PUF which calls for "proof that the file is indeed free". VernoWhitney (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, I've been putting this off for a while now, but I do still think the other two images should be retagged as non-free to be on the safe side. If you wish I'll take them to a discussion at WP:PUF or WP:MCQ for some more opinions. Would you like me to start up a discussion about the images or can I simply retag them as non-free? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
On the free side of the coin, I found File:Kstate text logo.svg which is close but not quite the same as the text logo you have listed on your FBS logo page for Kansas State. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the invite, but the discussion is already one-sided...and I concur with that "one side". No need for additional input on this one. Buffs (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
12th Man (football) edits
The information on the page when I first found it this summer was somewhat inaccurate (dare I say hagiographic at times) and incomplete with respect to the context in which the phrase was used in the 1920s and 1930s. TheunUniv of Iowa edits were necessary to coorect the record.
In my most recent set of edits, it is important to note none of the events of Jan 2, 1922 are supported with citations from 3rd party accounts. Neither the Houston Post, Houston Chronicle of Dallas Morning News editions of 3 Jan 1922 mention the team being down to 11 players or Gill even being in the press box. Also there is no evidence to show Gill was a member of the team who left early to prepare for basketball season. The first 3rd party account of Gill's actions come from the Dallas Morning News July 16, 1942 which is why the description of Gill's role has been changed with the DMN article as a citation. If any earlier 3rd party accounts can be found, the information in that article should be considered for updating the entry.
As for the last paragraphs in the "History" section, it is important not to give the impression the term was applied to only one school, that being TAMU. There are other citations I can give for the term being applied to individuals including a Dallas area high school principal and in connection with a former Vanderbilt football player slain in WW1. Additionally, there are many instances I can offer for the term being applied to other fan bases. Since the predominant context given is to describe the TAMU fan base, adding how it was applied to the TAMU and Texas in connection with their rivalry game in 1938 adds much context to is widespread use during the 1920s and 1930s. Its use after the 1942 DMN article about Gill's WW2 service is unresearched. The next cited use of the term I know of is in the 1980s.
Much of the information on the phrase "12th Man" is unsupported by reputable citations and needs to be cited. I am attempting to do just this and will continue to edit or add context as I research further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Duke (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's just chat on your talk page. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Being only a short drive away from the University of Arkansas campus, I see (and wear) the Razorback a lot. However, I must tell you that the version of the razorback logo we have on Wikipedia isn't in the public domain. You are correct that the razorback was on the helmet was from 1964, but changes were made from the 1967 logo (http://www.hogdb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1967-2000-Razorback-Logo1.png) to the 2001 logo (as documented by http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2001-07-18-arkansas-logo.htm) that it will enjoy copyright protection. I am not going to call for the deletion of the image, but we need to have FURs for it again. However, hope is not lost for any kind of razorback logo usage. I recently located PDF copies of all of the Razorback logos, including textual ones (so we can use PD text), so if you can work me on this, that would be great. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 06:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
If you will note on  there arealternate logos that were in use during this timeframe (including the one you mentioned), but the design to which you are referring in the USAToday article is the current one (a 3D view, not a side view), not the one on the pages here, so, no it is not copyrighted. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Your first source is a bit suspect as a fan site, but I've tweaked the image accordingly. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
But a user talked to me off-site and mentioned the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case. It was mention that any type of updating or refreshing the logo where subtle changes were made will not enjoy the updated work to copyright status. If that is the case, I have vector logos of all University of Arkansas sports icons (and of the university) so if you want those, I can shoot you an email. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 16:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC) (edit, Meshwerks v. Toyota also gives us ideas).
Ironholds makes a good argument that that case isn't as persuasive as it might have been, but ATC Distr. Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc. is closer. Nevertheless, the question is a question of fact ("does it meet the threshold of originality"), and might be arguable either way.
That said, I think that the changes are clearly de minimis and mostly a consequence of the move vector art. Since the new logo is clearly intended to be the same "razorback" as the older one, my opinion is that this does not cause a new copyright protection to exist. — Coren(talk) 16:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I have restored my edits which you reverted on Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force. I had no choice, I had made more than one edit and your blanket revert gave little information other than claiming "POV". I'm not sure you examined my contributions because not only did I not introduce any new material or unsourced information but the entire passage had stood previously. I am able to explain each and every amendment I made but you need to ask me what the purpose was behind each one, unless you do this, I would be forced to publish a directory for you to find the alleged "POV" response. The very fact that my version contains fewer characters is justifiable is that it reduces clutter. Had I removed something by mistake (I believe I didn't because I checked), I would far rather you restored that particular piece. Naturally if it seems that I added something that is either POV or unsourced, your two options are to boldly remove the controversial part or to place a citation tag so that I may provide sources. Blanking of contributions however is not constructive, particularly in light of it having been a clean-up, designed to make more sense and not to be repetitive nor to send readers on a path of needless circumlocution. As the subject in question is one close to my area of knowledge, I am able to discuss this topic. Please enlighten me on what you believed to be POV so that I may either explain it or make further amendments to the page which I am quite happy to do. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note I have made some more changes and have spotted something that was out of tune if not POV-intended. I have tried to clean those parts. Please also be aware though that if you mass revert me, you will not remove anything or bring anything back because everything was already on the page prior to my first edit. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You are intentionally removing one well-referenced point of view to bolster your POV and burying it behind simple changes to make it more difficult to revert. The dates were fine the way they were. So, that, but definition is POV pushing. Buffs (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Be very careful throwing accusations of "intentionally removing one well-referenced point of view to bolster your POV and burying it behind simple changes" if you do not wish to be the subject of WP:ANI. Had you taken the trouble to examine my edit in comparison to the previous you would see that nothing was added and nothing was removed. I removed no source, the page has been viewed many times between your contribuions and only one editor (User:Bobrayner) removed a link. I invited you to present my alleged "POV" and you failed to provide a response whereas I adequately explained my amendments and they in turn contained fewer characters than the previous revision therefore I have the jusification of clutter-removal. Therefore, if in future you have a problem with my edits on the article, I sugest take the mater to admins. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll deal with it on my own, thank you very much. I don't need the sheriff. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
And I stand by my assessment. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
And that is? Just which side do you think I am on? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you are on the side of accuracy and I'm an asshole.
Dude, I was WAY wrong. I must have clicked the wrong diffs twice on one day and AGAIN on the next. I made a HUGE mistake and I'm sorry. Buffs (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No you're not, don't be hard on yourself. But do me one favour, as things are there really is a repeated section. The second paragraph beginning with Jamie Shea now features twice. I'll leave it to you to take out whichever you feel most appropriate. All the best! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The Lead of an article is supposed to summarize the contents, that is it is a duplicate/summary of some information contained later in the article. As such, you removed something and pushed it up top, but it had nothing to go with it below. As such, it is now a straight duplicate. Keeping the latter and summarizing the former is the best solution. Buffs (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
That's right. I merged two pieces with the first contribution. Shall I get rid of the top part or the second mention which is titled "Measures taken, etc." ?
That or just condense it. Buffs (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I've tied it to LEDE and took out lower part. I hope you like it but if wish to make chnges to it, I am all right with it. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I tidied it up a bit. Feel free to add to it. I removed the comment about cluster bombs as it really wasn't a factor and unnecessarily pushed the anti-cluster bomb POV. Buffs (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Your version is fine now we both know what the other was thinking. I'm happy to leave it as it is, I expect the page is feeling dizzy itself! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I am letting you know that I have proposed a merge of Chili burger to Chili con carne. Being that you participated in the AfD, I'd be interested in your thoughts. The discussion is at Talk:Chili con carne#Merger proposal. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It was suggested that Hamburger might be a better target, and I was implored to allow that as a possibility. Therefore, I've moved the discussion to Talk:Chili burger#Merger proposal to allow for this. Please accept my apologies if it seemed that I was advocating for one solution over another. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Michael Q. Schmidttalkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year!FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:OSU beavers.gif. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)