User talk:BillTunell/Archive 1

Notability of Truman Gibson
A tag has been placed on Truman Gibson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:GibsonTruman.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GibsonTruman.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Louis-schmeling-1938.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Louis-schmeling-1938.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by 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. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading.STBotI (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

friendly reminder
Please use edit summaries. It is very time consuming for others if you don't. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it would be very helpful to others if you utilized the edit summaries, even for small matters. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Kingturtle (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg of you, please used edit summaries. Without them other editors have to take extra time to understand what you're doing. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Clancy.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Clancy.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC review
Do not strike through a discussant's comment. Strikethrough means the reviewer believes the point has been resolved, not the nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Hi. It's generally accepted that editors should only have one active FAC at a time; do you mind if I remove Joe Louis until Jackie Robinson is done with? Steve T • C 20:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- Now that I know better, I'll leave strikeouts to the contributing reviewers from now on. I think everything you listed, with one exception, should be taken care of by now.BillTunell (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, never mind, someone already took care of this. Steve  T • C 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm still learning about these kind of policies.  Can you point me to the wikipedia standard that limits one nominator to one FAC at a time? BillTunell (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates
Hi Bill. I would be happy to help copyedit Jackie Robinson. I also wanted to let you know that I have removed your nomination of Joe Louis for now, as the Template:FAC-instructions indicate that "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." The intent there is to most effectively utilize our resources—not only is it difficult for a nominator to keep up with reviewers at multiple FACs, but we also have a limited number of reviewers and a long list of articles to review. I hope you understand.

The weather here is too gorgeous for much daytime editing, but I'll try to start working on Jackie tonight. Maralia (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. The Joe Louis thing can wait.  Thanks for your efforts. BillTunell (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I've finished a rough copyedit. As a FAC reviewer, though, I have some other concerns with the article, primarily centering around inadvertent plagiarism and reliable/independent sourcing. I know you inherited some (if not all) of these problems, and I can see that you've put a ton of time and effort into the article, but my advice would be to withdraw the FAC for further work. I really hope not to discourage you with that suggestion, but it's been my experience that when wide-ranging issues arise at FAC, it's difficult to both fully address them and assuage concerns about them in the limited timeframe of FAC. It's entirely up to you, of course—just my 2 cents, in an effort to minimize anguish :)
 * Whatever you decide to do, I would be glad to continue helping with the article. I'm planning a trip to the library tomorrow or Wednesday, where I should be able to pick up Eig and Rampersad, as well as Fussman, Carl (2007). After Jackie : pride, prejudice, and baseball's forgotten heroes : an oral history. ISBN 1933060182. Another local library has these:
 * Falkner, David (1995). Great time coming : the life of Jackie Robinson, from baseball to Birmingham. ISBN 0671793365.
 * Simon, Scott (2002). Jackie Robinson and the integration of baseball. ISBN 047126153X.
 * I made a library trip yesterday and found Falkner and Simon, as well as another Sharon Robinson book, and a book by Rachel Robinson. These are now incorporated into the article. I also found the Eig book, the footnotes to which seem to check out. So you can pass on those unless you're interested n reviewing them. I still can't find the Rampersad book, which is the most important to review IMO. BillTunell (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I picked up Rampersad today, as well as Eig, and the Fussman book I mentioned above. I will start comparing the Rampersad cites to the book, to check for any plagiarism concerns.
 * I still see citations to some sources that I don't think meet WP:RS. I know that in at least some cases, the assertion is also cited to a reliable source, and the non-RS has been kept as it provides further information (like an image). From a reviewing standpoint, though, it is extremely difficult to tell that a non-RS isn't being inappropriately used. In these cases, I think it would be helpful to combine multiple cites in a single citation. This ties in to my next issue...
 * It appears that primary/non-independent sources may be too heavily relied upon. There are a fair amount of cites to Jackie's and Rachel's books, as well as to Jackie's official website. As with the non-RS source issue above, it may be that these are all double-cited to more independent sources, but it's really difficult to tell. Combining cites would make it easier to confirm whether all is kosher here.
 * I didn't see any other significant concerns—just some cites that needed accessdates, dates, and publishers. Now for some Rampersad... Maralia (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The issue of consolidating footnotes was brought up by DocKino as well. One of the reasons I prefer not to consolidate is so the text will show multiple footnotes for any claim that has more than one source. That makes it easier to determine at a passing glance.  I'll give the article a look and see if I can double-srouce anything that is attributed only to Robinson-authored sources or the official website.  If you can give Rampersad a look in the menatime that woudl be great. BillTunell (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I've double-sourced using the Eig, Falkner, and Lamb books for any potentially controversial claim previously attributable only to a Robinson family source. In doing so, I've decided to revise the substance of the text/footnote dealing with the reason Jackie left UCLA. The family-related sources are now also linked following the more independent citations, to denote the family-related sources as supplemental. A couple of family sources were wholly replaced, both dealing with statistical issues. The only things left that are atributable solely to family sources should be relatively uncontroversial events like Jackie's marriage, early life, etc.. BillTunell (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed reply; was unexpectedly away for a day. Have finished reviewing the Rampersad cites in comparison to the text of the book. I did not find plagiarism, but I did find inaccurate page numbers; have adjusted those. On other fronts, there appear to be a couple statements in the article that still have only family cites, and I need to review my old list of issues to see if any remain unresolved. I should be able to list any remaining issues tomorrow. It's looking much, much better. Thanks for your work. Maralia (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have started putting together a list of specific issues. I'll hold off on posting them until I hear whether you want to proceed with the FAC. Maralia (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The more I've looked at it, the more I see plagiarism concerns too.  I've already taken a further look over the long weekend and hope to post a comprehensive list of changes on the discussion board today.  Let me know at that time if you still favor withdrawing the FA nomination.  I won't be offended; in fact, given a lot of deletions of images that would be required, I've begun to suspect that the article would not be best served by FA status, anyway.  Again, thanks for your efforts.BillTunell (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm so relieved that you understand where I'm coming from; thank you.
 * Don't despair over images. I am not an image expert by any means, but I'm damn good at finding images, and I know plenty of people who are image experts, so I'm confident we can do right by illustrating the article, given some time.
 * I will keep an eye out for your list. May not make it to the library until tomorrow; it's pouring down rain here. Maralia (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is up now, so let me know if I missed anything you noticed. Thanks again.BillTunell (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Robinson FAC
I am sorry to say that it is not looking so good for the FAC. I would encourage you to continue your efforts. Robinson is getting lots of feedback, which means you will have things to improve. You may even want to go to WP:PR if the FAC fails. You are fortunate to be working on an athlete of top international importance that can get people to volunteer their time to consider. I have a FAC for Rob Pelinka and can not get a witness.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your comments were helpful – although there are a couple of remaining suggestions I didn't act on for editorial reasons. The inclusion of non-free images appears to be the snag. I've become convinced the article can't reach FA consensus without removing all non-free images, and that the administrators won't elevate the article while there are any standing non-free-image-related complaints. At the end of the day I care more about an informative, well-illustrated article than I do a star at the top, so I am not going to pursue the FAC again after it dies.  But if any contributor wants some low-hanging fruit for a successful FAC-elevation feather in their cap, this would be it.  Thanks again for your input.  BillTunell (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson
If that's all that's keeping the article from FA status, why not get rid of the non-free images? They should serve the article, not the other way around. I would certainly prefer to see the article promoted than to see a photo I uploaded stay in it. --Amble (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to remove the Pasadena image. But the broader issue goes beyond that.  Deletion of all non-free pictures would significantly detract form the article, IMO, and so I just don't have an interest in doing so.  The way I see it, FA status is being held up not because inclusion of the images is necessarily unacceptable, but because any differing opinions on the subject prohibit consensus.  I personally wish that wikiadministrators would rule on the underlying quesiton of "significance," and either delete the images or formally approve their use.  But that isn't going to happen.  What are you gonna do.  Anyway, thanks again. BillTunell (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair use images have derailed many FACs for me. A few are allowed however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill, I'm confident that the article can make it through FAC without losing too many images. I'm sorry that I was so focused on the content, citations, and plagiarism concerns that I wasn't able to get involved in the image issues before the FAC was archived. I'm not going to be online much through this weekend, but when I get back next week I'd like to tackle the image issues. It may take a little time and consensus-building, but I'm nothing if not persistent :) I would really like to see this excellent article become an FA, and I would gladly shepherd it through the process myself if you don't want to deal with that again. I would be comfortable doing so because I've accessed many of the sources now myself—but I hope we can build a workable consensus and that you'll be willing to re-nominate it yourself when the time comes. Thank you, again, for your fine work on the article, for following up on the plagiarism concerns so responsibly, and for always being friendly and appreciative of my input. Maralia (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me think about it. I'm just afraid that user:Jappalang's comments prohibit any real consensus on the core "significance" issue, which means the whole thing is a waste of time because the administrators will never take sides. I'd rather lose the argument than have continuing debate be the reason for non-promotion.  Ultimately the article may be better served by not being FA class.  But I'll give it some thought in the next week or so.  I really think the editorial portion of the article is FA-class.  The bot hasn't officially ended the FAC yet, anyway, so there is some time to step back from things. Thanks again. BillTunell (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Jackie robinson signature.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Jackie robinson signature.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. FileBot (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson
Are you going to go again? I'm interested in helping. I came here without knowing about whatever non-free issues there are. I was the one who took it to GA. Anyways, what's the latest? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PF: Glad to see you're back wikipediing again. At this point I'm not planning on re-nominating the article.  But if you want to, you have my full support.  I don't know how much you've reviewed the prior noms.  Theyr'e pretty lengthy, but for all the banter there are only a couple basic issues holding up FA status, as I see it:


 * (1) Non-free pictures. There are only two: the Satchel Paige pic and the Pasadena statue/memorial pic.  I thought the latter would be non-controversial by now (there's an established guideline for pics of public statues), but I guess it isn't.  The former I expected to be controversial, and I suspect that whatever the rationale, someone will always object to any non-free pic in an FA-nominated article.  I'd ditch the Satchel Paige pic if I could get some kind of ruling that it violated policy (in this case, the "significance" of the picture under criterion #8 of the policy on non-free-content).  But by the nature of things, the administrators will not make a ruling, they just wait until there is a consensus.  I have mixed emotions.  On the one hand, I feel like kind of a heel for insisting on the picture's inclusion at this point.  But on the other hand, I'd hate to cave on the rule interpretation issue just to get the article elevated.  One way or the other, I'd like closure on the rule.


 * (2) Reliablility of sources. Basically this relates to my conversation with user:Giants2008 in the last nomination phase. Actually I'm not sure whether he would still oppose the article in its current condition, because the nomination got closed before he was able to comment on my latest (and fairly extensive) revisions.  But at least potentially this might also involve another interpretation of wikipedia rules -- particularly WP:reliable.  The issue here is whether a claim that is otherwise referenced using a reliabe source can be supplemented with backup references from sources that may not be quite as reliable -- but nonetheless have at least some rationale for inclusion.  The way I read the rule, every claim within the article's text has to have at least one reliable citation.  But user:Giants2008 seems to be indicating that each citation itself has to be reliable.  The scope of the issue seems to be down to about 5-6 footnotes, because I've eliminated any footnotes that seemed truly baseless.  But when there are backup footnotes that have some questionable quality (but are in accord with another reliable footnote and are otherwise helpful to the reader), I've retained them for the time being.  Again, my fear is that we'll never get a ruling on what the WP:reliable rule means fom the adminsitrators.


 * In short -- although I don't want to seem too critical of the adminsitrators, because I know they're busy -- I fear that since we'll never get resoution of rule interpretations, the article will never get elevated, no matter how much work is put into it. That is, unless the nominator is willing to cave to potential opposers on rule interpretations in order to gain their support for the article.  I personally think that would be shortsighted; but then again, I don't own the article, so I've thought it best to leave it alone for now.


 * If you want to re-nominate it let me know. I'll definitely support the nomination, whichever way you want to go with it.  I might co-nominate if you're interested -- let me think about it.


 * Anyway, that's a long answer to a short question. I do want you to know that I respect all the work you put into this article before I happened upon it.  BillTunell (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm more up to speed than I was before. I didn't realize you had put in 1200 edits!  Wow, impressive!  After all the improvements over the last year or so, JR needs to go on the main page and be recognized!
 * Ideally, what I'd like to do is just make the changes recommended at the last FAC, even if every one of them isn't exactly improving the article, and do a co-nom with you. It's kinda the cowards way out, but you can't fight city hall. ;-)  I've already removed the non-free images, and I'm thinking about making all the other changes from the last FAC.  If this doesn't sound good to you, we'll need to put those images back before they get deleted.  Tell me what you think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to co-nominate if we can re-insert the Satchel Paige picture and ask for a determination one way or another. Hopefully if the nomination is clean enough on the other issues the adminsirators won't seem so overwhelmed.  Again, if we get an adverse ruling, then I don't mind removing it.


 * The statue picture I realy don't care about, but I would like its contributor user:Amble to be able to chime in.


 * As for footnote-reliability changes, I don't mind doing further edits, although I'd like to see if user:Giants2008 thinks they're neessary before doing them. I do think I probably agree with getting rid of the SportMag.us biography reference at this point, regardless of any other issues.


 * Let me know if you're okay with re-inserting the Satchel Paige pic for the time being and I'll look into co-nomnination procedure. Never actually done one of those before. BillTunell (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Texas A&M user box
BillTunell. Thank you for the major upgrade in the Texas A&M Userbox user aggie. While I personally am not going to give you problems over it, image policy/ fair use policy on wikipedia is pretty brutal. are you sure we are allowed to put up a trademarked image in college userboxes? Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oldag: Yes, that issue has been hashed out previously.  A trademarked image that does not rise to the level of copyright (for instance, mere letter/font combinations) are usable in userboxes.  See, e.g., |WP: userbox image use.  There are many other examples of such letter/font combinations in college/university userboxes.  The Texas Longhorn symbol would be an example of one not usable because it rises to the level of copyright.  BillTunell (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I too have been in some frustrating debates over image policy. Keep up the good work. Oldag07 (talk)