User talk:SNIyer12/Archive10

Arenas

I was in favor of keeping List of arenas to host NBA Finals and Stanley Cup Finals in the same year - not the individual articles. Zagalejo^^^ 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, List of arenas to host NBA Finals and Stanley Cup Finals in the same year would probably be deleted again, so there's no sense recreating it. And I wouldn't recommend recreating the individual articles, since most of the information that was in them could be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Overall, I think your time is better spent working on other things. Zagalejo^^^ 03:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:YankeeStadium1918!Chants.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:YankeeStadium1918!Chants.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:YankeeStadium1918!Chants.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:YankeeStadium1918!Chants.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:NotreDameBasilicaTrudeauStateFuneral.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NotreDameBasilicaTrudeauStateFuneral.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1994

You've done some great work on the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals article. The only thing I can see remaining is to convert the Rangers roster to the same type of table as the Canucks. Jmj713 (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:YankeeStadium1918!Chants.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:YankeeStadium1918!Chants.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. No Guru (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters

There should be a seperate template for the local broadcasters. Adding local broadcasters to the national templates is bound to create clutter. It's also kind of redundant because the local broadcasters don't necessarily fill in the gaps (i.e. making up for missed national broadcasts). TMC1982 (talk) 11:07 p.m., 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994

I have nominated Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Resolute 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NJSIAA

Will you please refrain from making this edit? You've done it several times and I've had to revert each time. The NFHS navbox needs to be separate because it is an organization to which the NJSIAA belongs, not the other way around, which is what all of the related navboxes within the condensed navbox are. All of the individual conferences and micro-NJSIAA pages need to be condensed, not the NFHS. Cheers. Jrcla2 ^talk 01:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994

In regard to this edit, please note that articles should not be redirected while an Articles for Deletion discussion is going on. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLII

I respectfully removed your qualifiers for the parade being the first "other than the Yankees"; isn't that an awfully arbitrary qualifier? –TashTish (talk)

Sharon Tate

I was curious as to why you went through this article and changed the book citations to a template from the coded citation method, but not other cites in the article to websites and articles. The article is a featured article and one of the criteria is to use a consistent style of citation. I know a couple have been added recently that were templates, but we were about to start updating and further citing it in anticipation of requesting a featured article reassessment. I'm just confused by partial change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

game 6 article

Could you explain why that should be a redirect? That game still has the highest Nielsen rating of any NBA game, has many more sources than the section in the 1998 Finals article and goes into more detail. Could you say why the topic does not merit its own article? nableezy - 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Game 6 article has many more sources and can be expanded further. It being the highest rated game is also reason for it being a separate article as well. The last shot has its own article, the game itself is covered in depth by a number of sources. The article goes into greater detail and has more information (sourced information, which the Finals article has only one source in that section). nableezy - 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Please read WP:NOTBROKEN as you should not be removing redirects and changing them to direct links. Especially in some of the cases you have been doing, because the article may later become a seperate article and leaving it as a redirect keeps people from having to seach through each link an fix it again at a later date. -DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Navboxes Template

Do not, under any circumstances, put the market templates and other templates that are seen at the bottom of television and radio station pages and television network pages (as you have done here) in a "Navboxes" template. The market templates should be seen not pushed away into a "Related Links" template of their own. Don't do this again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike Richter

Howdy. How is LaFayette's hitting the goalpost in Game #7 of the '94 Finals, a great Richter save? GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Busch Memorial Stadium

Hi, I've reverted your edits calling old Busch "The Field where the Curse of the Bambino died" for now. If you can find a reliable source calling it such, we could discuss adding it back in, but as a long-time St. Louis resident and life-long Cards fan (and ever-increasing ESPN junkie), I have to say I've never heard it called that, certainly not in St. Louis, at least. Also, I would note that the nickname probably doesn't belong in the title of the infobox. umrguy42 02:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - I wanted to add, I don't think the Yanks-Sox and the Red Sox navboxes need to be added to the article either. Not sure what WP:BASEBALL's guidance would be, but in terms of cutting down on minimally-related navboxes, I think we'd be best keeping it to the Cardinals-related ones. umrguy42 03:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, SNIyer12. You have new messages at Umrguy42's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stop adding this back in to the various navboxes (and/or adding those navboxes to the Old Busch page). Your doing so (after having removed them earlier) seems to smack of slow-motion/deceptive tendentious editing. umrguy42 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If I might add a few additional observations: 1. the information is already in the Busch Memorial Stadium and Curse of the Bambino articles. 2. If you have to add a parenthetical explanation that BMS is (where the Curse of the Bambino died) after it, it probably doesn't belong in the navbox, particularly when it's been dealt with in point 1. umrguy42 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on WP:BASEBALL in regards to this topic, so we can hopefully find some consensus on how much this needs to be in the various articles and navboxes. umrguy42 00:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Curse of the Inauguration

I have nominated Curse of the Inauguration, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of the Inauguration. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding "Curse of the Inauguration" to the Philadelphia Phillies navbox. The article "Sports in Philadelphia" is a higher-level article than Philadelphia Phillies, and this particular navbox links together lower-level articles. Thank you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994

Why did you recreate this article, again as a redirect to Madison Square Garden? It was already up for AfD a few months ago, and the consensus in September was that it should be deleted. -Sme3 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:BuschStadium-CurseOfTheBambinoDeath.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BuschStadium-CurseOfTheBambinoDeath.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AaronBoone.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AaronBoone.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the NJ Devils as a Cinderella

I'm not a Devils fan but several sources say they were up against the heavily favoured Red-Wings and they did not ever have Home Ice advantage. I'll keep out the fact about the 1995-1996 season though.--Something12356789101 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BuschStadium-CurseOfTheBambinoDeath.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BuschStadium-CurseOfTheBambinoDeath.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NW (Talk) 00:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Curse of 1969 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Curse of 1969. Since you had some involvement with the Curse of 1969 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Me Three (talk to me) 13:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello SNIyer12! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 937 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Ukee Washington - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Daniel Coughlin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chicago Cubs futility theories

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chicago Cubs futility theories. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Cubs futility theories. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of sports rivalries

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of sports rivalries. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sports rivalries. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)