User talk:Alex9234

Orphaned non-free image File:Official logo used for the 2004 NBA Finals.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Official logo used for the 2004 NBA Finals.gif. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2004 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Alternate names in highway infoboxes
Unless an alternate name applies to the entire highway, we don't list it in the infobox. Not all of M-10 is the Lodge Freeway, for example, so that name does not belong in the infobox. The northern and southern ends of M-3 are on different streets, so Gratiot Avenue does not belong in the infobox like that.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * So the northern end is on a different street? This is news to me. I knew about the southern end Alex9234 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, M-3 turns off Gratiot Avenue onto 23 Mile Road to connect to I-94. Gratiot Avenue itself continues northeasterly to Marysville. Between New Haven and Richmond, it carries part of M-19.
 * As a side note, please WP:INDENT your replies underneath other comments on talk pages.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Highway graphics in city infoboxes
There has not been a consensus to graphics like that to the infoboxes in city articles. In fact, in recent discussions on the issue, consensus was to remove mentions of highways from city infoboxes. Using marker graphics as links is also quite problematic because it turns those graphics into Easter egg links.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:US33MichiganShield.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:US33MichiganShield.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by 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 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 seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:US27GraylingMI.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:US27GraylingMI.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by 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 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 seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:US33MichiganShieldSmall.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:US33MichiganShieldSmall.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by 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 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 seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:US27StIgnaceMI.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:US27StIgnaceMI.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by 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 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 seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I was considering adding that image for the US 27 page for many years though I wasn't sure how to do it. I think it would work for the article considering it is likely the only photo you can find of US 27 in the UP. At least as far as I'm concerned. Other than that, is there any other way that photo or a similar one like it could be added? I'm not sure if the photo is really supposed to be public domain or what, so I really don't know what to do. Alex9234 (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you aren't 100% certain an image is in the public domain or if you, yourself, don't have the copyright or the permission of the copyright holder to reproduce or upload an image, then the safest bet is to just not do it. As a person who has had many of my own works (photos, maps, articles, etc.) stolen and plastered all over the Internet and Wikipedia, I really don't appreciate people taking my own hard work and throwing it where ever they please. Often times, people expend great amounts of time, energy and MONEY when creating the works they decide to share online and if people keep stealing them and uploading them elsewhere, you're going to find less and less of those works online in the long run. Yes, it can be somewhat frustrating when you have to make 100% sure—or 150% sure, if you want my honest opinion—that something is in the public domain or is otherwise freely reproducible before you use it somewhere like Wikipedia or your own website, but that's the way it goes. As a content generator myself, I would definitely appreciate it if you would take the time to understand how copyright works and what "public domain" truly means. CBessert (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

AD Police Move
Please move back A.D. Police to AD Police. It's the right title. Yes the names are inconsistent within the series but it's not Wikipedia's role to fix that, thanks. - (talk)  04:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:US45MIBorder.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:US45MIBorder.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:US45MIBorder.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:US45MIBorder.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm…do you think I should upload it as a free media file? I mean, the site I found it on has been out of commission for quite some time. Maybe it could potentially qualify as public domain? I don’t know, you’d probably know more about that than I would. I’m no expert on this subject. Alex9234 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, it would not qualify as public domain. Assume that all images found online are subject to copyright unless they have an explicit license listed or other details are explicitly listed to indicate that it is public domain. Abandoning a website does not remove copyright. It would be no different than finding a photo in an old book that's out of print: copyright still attached to the publication. Photos would have copyright for 95 years from first publication, and after 1989, a copyright notice or registration is not required for protection to attach. (There are ways that photos published before 1989 or 1978 would not have had copyright attached and immediately fallen into the public domain, but that's not going to apply in this case.)
 * As for the specific photo here: someone could drive to that location and take a new photo and upload it under a compatible license. The fact that MDOT has changed state line welcome sign designs is not enough to warrant using a copyright-protected photo in a highway article. You might be able to make a case for using a photo of the older signage in a different article that explicitly is discussing the signage; for this article though it's just an illustration of a location on the highway and not the subject of critical commentary or another standard reason for fair use on Wikipedia. For that reason, this photo is replaceable. Per our policies, we cannot use replaceable copyright-protected media under fair use, period.
 * There are similar issues with all of the other recent uploads of yours.
 * The US 33 marker images are complicated, but the presence of File:US 33 Michigan 1948.svg means we don't need to have a copyright-encumbered photo of a public domain design. The SVG is better quality to illustrate the design anyway. The image isn't even "proof" that US 33 entered the state; old MSHD maps prove that, and pre-1958 those maps are public domain. I've used sections or insets of several old state maps as illustrations in articles.
 * The US 27 photo in Grayling isn't needed because we could use a current photo of that location to illustrate it.
 * I did something similar in U.S. Route 33 in Michigan, using a photo of M-63 and A-2 to depict the location of the northern end of US 33. In that case, the modern signage doesn't impact the purpose of the photo.
 * You might be able to contact the photographer for that image though and get permission to use it under an appropriate license. That's preferable to trying fair use. We got permission to use an older photo of M-87 in Fenton in part because the photographer was so impressed with the article on that former highway. He allowed us to use the photo under license, and it's in the article. We might be able to do the same here, and who knows, maybe even a better version of the photo.
 * The US 27 sunset photo in St. Ignace is a little different. In a sense, that photo is also replaceable for the same reason as the Grayling image. I agree that it's a good photo, and I'd love to see it or similar in use. We don't have enough historical photos of that sort for use on Wikipedia, but we still have to follow the rules.
 * That specific image may be from an old post card per Michigan Highways. If so, the next question is if the postcard has a copyright notice. File:M-28 & M-178.jpg comes from an old postcard that lacked a copyright notice, which means its a public domain image. So if that sunset image is a postcard without a notice, it too would be public domain. (And if so, the file on Michigan Highways is better quality.)
 * That page of photos on Michigan Highways also offers another option. There are two versions of a different photo showing that same location in 1958 or 1959. Those photos are in the Mackinac Bridge Authority Archives. If someone were to ask the MBA for permission, it might be granted. I've received public domain dedications for a number of MDOT images over the years. It's also possible those images were published before in books that lacked a copyright notice. That's how a few old photos entered the public domain.
 * Sorry to be so long-winded here, but the key take-away is that fair-use is a last resort, and I think you found pretty pictures online that you like and want to use without working through the other steps first and severely short-cutting the fair-use analysis.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I made my previous reply to a comment of yours above before I scrolled down and noticed Imazdi1979's very well-stated and very detailed explanation here. (Mine was more of a mini-rant, so I'll take my hat off to Imazdi1979 for taking the time to thoroughly explain the situation to you rather than just complain like I did...) But just to add to what has already been said here: I, indeed, did ask the Mackinac Bridge Authority for permission to use those photos. I'm in the somewhat enviable position of having quite a few personal "inside" contacts at MDOT, the Federal Highway Administration (Michigan Division), quite a few County Road Commissions and other road agencies and transportation planning agencies around the state. In some cases, materials have been sent to me for inclusion on my website, as agencies like MDOT, for example, don't have the time, resources or wherewithal to delve into the historical aspects of the highway system in Michigan like I do. They regularly send people to my site for answers to historical questions and, accordingly, have welcomed me putting information, maps and photos on my site that they've provided me over the years. Unfortunately, I have a sh*t-ton of info, photos and maps that have been sitting here waiting for me to find the time to get them onto my site, but a wife, two kids and a full time job haven't helped in that regard.
 * So, anyway, I either ask for permission (if I'm not explicitly granted it already, as I noted above) or I doubly-ensure the materials are not copyright protected before I put them onto my website. Here's an example of a photo I didn't take but got permission to use on my site: http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-23_sunriseside.html . I included a copyright statement for the original photographer, too. Now look closely at the ends of each of the captions below the photos on this page: http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/m-231/bikeride/index.html . Sure, anymore we don't have to go out, buy actual rolls of film, load them into SLRs, take the photos, then take the film in, pay to have it developed, see if any of the pictures turned out, if any did, scan in the good ones, then upload them... but that doesn't change what a "content creator" does and most of us like to protect our work. Most of us will also allow people to use our work, too, for many purposes, if they ask us nicely. I've granted many requests over the years to many people, webmasters, kids doing school reports, and even newspapers needing graphics for news stories. And take a look at who contributed this to Wikipedia a lifetime ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_left#/media/File:MichiganLeftSigns.png . So, please take what Imazdi1979 said to heart and do what we ALL did at one point: learn about the fun and exciting world of copyright and public domain... or, if not, just leave the inserting of images in Wikipedia articles to others if not. Thanks! CBessert (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1971 MLB Postseason
Hello, Alex9234

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Bruxton, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, 1971 MLB Postseason, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit Edit the page]
 * 2) Remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) Click the  button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And remember to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Duplicative articles
Creating these MB post season articles duplicates information which is already in our articles. i.e. ;;This is duplicative. See target article for an example - 1971 Major League Baseball season Bruxton (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I was wondering if we could give the MLB playoffs their own separate articles like the NBA, NFL, and NHL playoffs. I feel that this would be easier to find than going to the MLB season articles. There are no article series on here that cover the MLB playoffs like the NBA, NFL and NHL ones. So why this needs to be deleted makes no sense to me, unless I need permission to create that series. Alex9234 (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a REDUNDANTFORK. You can remove the prod and state why on the talk page of the article. I will let other editors decide. Bruxton (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I left my reason on the talk page. I'll leave the prod up just in case. Alex9234 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You should def remove it. It is a contested PROD. Bruxton (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If you say so, I just don’t want to get in trouble is all. Alex9234 (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Made an MLB Postseason Navbar for you
Hey @Alex9234, I see you like baseball, I also like baseball. I threw together a navigation template for your articles. I basically just copied it from the NBA playoff template. Feel free to mess around with it and make it useful for your articles. As a life long Giants fan I just hope you're not a Dodgers fan!  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 05:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I’ll check it out later, thanks. Alex9234 (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Alex9234

Thank you for creating 1998 MLB Postseason.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   00:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sign stealing into 2018 MLB Postseason. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I posted the attribution correctly, not sure about how to hide it in the text Alex9234 (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but the statement belongs in the edit summary, not the article itself. For example, see the edit summary of this diff where I have already added the attribution for you, for this article. So you don't need to worry about this article, this is just a note for any future instances of copying. Let me know if you have any questions. DanCherek (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that was for the NLCS part. I actually found the source for that on Google myself, I actually had no idea it was present in the Sign stealing article. Alex9234 (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Attribution for public domain material
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as 1976 West Bloomfield Tornado. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hi Alex9234! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at 1974 Major League Baseball postseason that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Nagol0929 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll try to remember that from now on. Alex9234 (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2022MLBPostseasonLogo.png
Thanks for uploading File:2022MLBPostseasonLogo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2023 MLB Postseason logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:2023 MLB Postseason logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Adjacent communities
The best way to add adjacent communities to a geographic article is with Template:Adjacent communities, rather than text. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1948-63 Michigan Wolverines Alternate Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:1948-63 Michigan Wolverines Alternate Logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1964-78 Michigan Wolverines logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:1964-78 Michigan Wolverines logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1979-86 Michigan Wolverines Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:1979-86 Michigan Wolverines Logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ohio State Buckeyes logo (1968-1987).png
Thanks for uploading File:Ohio State Buckeyes logo (1968-1987).png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add permission pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax «¦talk¦» 06:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

College football consensus v. unanimous champions
Hi Alex9234, Just wanted to let you know that GBFlyer is continuing to ignore your talk page message and revert pages to saying consensus rather than unanimous. I reverted their edit on 2018 Clemson Tigers football team but they reverted it again. In order to avoid an edit war, I figured I'd let you know since you left the message on GBFlyer's talk page. Not sure what the appropriate next steps might be.

Thanks, Swimmer33 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Nah, it’s okay. I think the original editors here had them at Consensus anyway, so I was going to change them back. Alex9234 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , Alex9234: you both may want to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1992 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fab Five.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2005 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dee Brown.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2013 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship game
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2013 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship game, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Alex9234&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1226297146 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_championship_game&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1226297146%7C2013%20NCAA%20Division%20I%20men's%20basketball%20championship%20game%5D%5D Ask for help])

"Vandalism"
Hello.

Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. That is to say, "vandalism" is editing (or other behavior), which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. Vandalism implies malicious intent on the part of its performer, and, as the relevant policy notes, [e]ven if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is vandalism.

There are times when people make boneheaded edits in good faith, or simply delete information that they errantly believe is too detailed or otherwise unencyclopedic. Unless you believe (and can demonstrate with evidence]) that someone is intentionally and maliciously making edits to harm Wikipedia, please do not refer to these edits as vandalism, as you did here and here in response to this edit. Accusing others of vandalism without evidence can be a form of casting aspersions, which violates our core pillar of civility; when incivility causes disruption, it can lead to a block.

Thank you for your understanding. Please let me know if you have any questions.

— Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Friendly piece of advice, unfounded accusations of vandalism often have a boomerang effect on editors that throw them around. It would be best to stop while you're ahead. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'll provide some context: The user apparently took issue with me making legitimate edits and accusing me of being disruptive and violating WP:MOS. In my opinion the user isn't following WP:CIVIL and his behavior is very close to WP:OWN. He never presented a valid reason for reverting my edits, appears unable to explain why my edits violated WP:MOS, and is doing the opposite of assuming good faith.
 * I've contributed to many articles and even created a ton of articles, but I never ran into a situation like this until today.
 * I've also made lots of edits that other users had no issue with, but when it comes to NHL-related articles, the users there keep reverting my edits without explanation. Many of the NHL editors on Wikipedia appear to be incredibly picky and revert any edit without warning, even if it's legitimate. I really don't like the micromanaging they do. I only seem to encounter this problem whenever editing NHL articles.
 * I'd appreciate it if the user provided a good explanation and not just reverted edits for no reason.
 * That's my side of the story. Alex9234 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would too. And you could absolutely take this to WP:ANI or another dispute resolution forum. But the issues you bring up don't meet the narrow definition of vandalism. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I've recently assisted with other users who have been having trouble with Vandalism and edit warring as of late, so I just assumed it was vandalism. There was a lot of edit warring and vandalism going on in the 2023 Michigan Wolverines football team article when Michigan won the national title a few months ago, a bunch of what appeared to be Ohio State, Michigan State, and Notre Dame fans appeared to be vandalizing that article and other articles regarding Michigan football, and I've been helping some users track down and stop this from happening as much as possible. It got really out of hand in January and February.
 * That's one matter I'm trying to help resolve. Alex9234 (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)