User talk:Dpodoll68

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dpodoll68, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie and Clyde

Thanks for your contribution, but it has been decided that the only songs that will be included in the Music section are songs written specifically about Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, or that use lyrics from her poems. The Travis Tritt song only uses their names, the song itself is not about Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow. The internal note before this section clearly explains what isn't acceptable for the section: "Selected" is meant to prevent an exhaustive listing of mention in popular culture. Please do not add unless the reference is solely and specifically about them, such as a song entitled "Bonnie and Clyde" which is ABOUT THIS COUPLE, or a film is made about them. Don't add passing references to the pair in songs, items that are "based on", "like", or "mentions in a line of an otherwise unrelated song" aren't appropriate for this page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your post at Talk: Bonnie and Clyde. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Golden Gophers football

Do you really consider Penn State a rival for the Gopher football team? I understand that they have a trophy game with the Nittany Lions, but that is the only connection. The only reason they have the trophy is because Minnesota was Penn State's first Big Ten opponent once they joined the conference. Gopherbone (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the U

First of all I apologize for deleting your comment. I was intending to reply and inadvertently hit save before I realized what I had done. However, regarding your comment, I respectfully disagree with you. You speak of not reverting contributions to old ones yet that is exactly what you have been doing. My contribution was there before yours and rather than adding to it, you simply replace it. Additionally, your contribution omits about 60 years of history. “The U” has referred to the University of Utah since the mid 19th century. The U, or U of U, was founded in 1850, where the University of Miami didn't even exist until 1925. There has been a concrete U cast into the mountain side above the U's campus since 1907. Your suggestion that the origins of this title have any ownership to Miami is just false. I agree that the paragraph on Miami could use some help, as clearly "the U" also refers to that school in modern times, but the origins are far from Miami's ownership. I would be fine if you want to add to the portion on Miami and will not delete it but please do not delete my contributions, especially when they are true and historically founded.

Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by College Football Truth (talk • contribs)

The U

With regards to your comment, "I think we both agree that "the U" is something that many institutions lay claim to, and your contribution insinuates that Utah is the most-talked about and oldest, neither of which are anywhere close to true."

Your statement has partial truths and complete assumptions. Yes, many institutions are referred to as "the U" but only a few are known nationally by that title. That is the point of the article. The two that use it the most are Utah and Miami. Between the two it is clear that Utah is in fact the "oldest" to use the term. Miami didn't even start using the phrase until the 70's after the logo was changed and they wanted to bring it back. Utah has been using it for well over a century. What other school can lay claim to that? You can't just say that many institutions have used it well before Miami was founded. What reference do you have that this is actually true?

No one wants to read that the term "the U" refers to every single institution of higher education. Please add to the article instead of deleting it.

The article emphasizes the origins of "the U" and makes a historical case. Miami made it popular in the latter part of the 20th century but it has always been used by Utah.

We obviously disagree. Lets try and compromise. I'll add to the article you have and lets see how it goes.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by College Football Truth (talk • contribs) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The debate goes on...

Sir, you clearly have an agenda of your own.

In fact the article does mention Minnesota as one of the other schools that uses the U. Of course I have never heard of them being referred to the U either. I don't even live in the west and I have heard the U referenced to the University of Utah. In fact, I haven't heard it referenced to Miami since they fell from grace about 10 years ago. They had a 20-30 year period of football greatness but have since died off along with the Big East. Your claim that they have greatness in all of their athletics is a joke. They had one good sport and it was football. Now they have nothing. You clearly have some tie to Miami or you wouldn’t care so much. All I want to do is put fact in the article and that is what I have done. There are two schools that are highly referenced across the nation with this title and they are Utah and Miami. I have lived in both halves of the country and currently live back east. I hear both schools referenced with even less lately of Miami since they have started to stink. The big picture of the U on the mountain is highly applicable. It isn’t the only reason they are referred to as the U but it depicts it well nonetheless. Regarding the issue of any university being referred to as the U is not valid. Whenever there are two universities in close proximity, they both cannot be referred to as the U. It would be confusing. Only when there is only one University around do schools refer to that institution as the U because they are referring to “The University”. When they speak of the U with Miami, it has to do with the entire debacle on getting rid of the symbol and bringing it back. It also has to do with them being referred to the NFL University. It is indeed highly applicable to them. However, Utah is unique, as I have explained so many times and it deserves to be written. With Utah it referees to “UTAH” versus the other main University within close proximity, “the Y” or BYU (as well as 3 other Universities within 100miles). Utah is the one of the only, if not the only, university in the nation that begins with the letter “U” and has been known nationwide as the U for over a century. You must have some bias against the state, its history, mormons, or something because repeatedly deleting its reference defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. Why not put both stories in. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise. Thanks for discussing.

College Football Truth (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing?

I am assuming you are writing me comment because you haven't changed it back yet. I am enjoying our discussion. Go Gophers!

College Football Truth (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing...

If we are going to go the way of creating a separate page for both Miami and Utah then you need to remove the article about miami on the main page. It shows ownership to Miami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by College Football Truth (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Mesko (football)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Zoltan Mesko (football), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? raven1977 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on The U

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The U, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "vandalism" is a little strong. Had you read the discussion pages, you would know that I have been editing that page heavily, and certain individuals keep returning it to an edit that is clearly POV, which I have asked them to explain, but they have not. They instead delete my content, and replace it with theirs. I feel mine is much better and NPOV, and I will continue to put it up as the article. Thank you.

Sources

Hi there

Re. your edit summary on Harold Godwinson. Wikipedia is not a reference source for Wikipedia. That would be circular referencing.

Happy editing--Charles (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of France/the Franks

Of course no medieval king was either "King of the Franks" or "King of France" since both those titles are in modern English. That historians call Philip Augustus King of France, that they translate rex Francorum that way, is enough for us at Wikipedia. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons or years

If you really consider this WP convention to be wrong, you might want to post a comment here to see what actually is consensus. IMHO it is using season-count instead of year-count. --bender235 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]