User talk:BillTunell/Archive 3

Re: Oklahoma City Thunder userbox
Please respect the standard form for NBA userboxes. I restored the Thunder's to that standard. Tom Danson (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no wiki-requirement that all userboxes us the same template. My template is typical of many other wiki userboxes, contains no grpahics or other disputed elements, and has other improvements such as the embedded transclusion and accurate color specifications.  If you have any specific objections to it under a published WP policy, let me know.  In the meantime, I've reverted. BillTunell (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with the standard NBA style for the userbox template? Why can't the Thunder's box look LIKE EVERY OTHER TEAM'S? Tom Danson (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you reverted, but never answered my question. Since this seems to be a userbox dispute, I'll get ahold of others involved in this to see their opinion.  While there is no requirement that all userboxes be the same template, we still want to know why you resist my efforts to keep the Thunder's box looking the same as the other NBA team userboxes. Tom Danson (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My answer is posted above. I don't mind if you want to open a public discussion, but I don't know what basis it would be upon. There is no wikimedia policy that requires that any userbox look like any other userbox.  Unless directed by a wiki administrator on the topic, I will continue to render the improvements previously made.  Let me know where you open a discussion.  BillTunell (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I already have. And you still never answered what's wrong with the standard NBA style. ("cause I can" doesn't count)  BTW, I think your style would be good for a SECONDARY userbox, but keep the primary ones the way User:UBX wants them to be kept, OK? Tom Danson (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Until they make a decision on the matter, could you please keep it uniform?  If you want me to, I can make a User:UBX/NBA-Thunder2 one with your formatting (kinda like the Phillies one you have on your page). Tom Danson (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you are STILL not responding to me (or the talk page discussion) and reverting anyway, I have mad you a User:UBX/NBA-Thunder2 template. Post THAT on your page and leave the regular one alone, OK? Tom Danson (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to respond every time you post the same comment. I have responded above.  The userbox is not against any wikipedia policy.  The page you cited is a user page, not a policy page.  Even if it were, it says nothing to the effect that all NBA userboxes have to look the same.  I've asked you to identify where you posted a discussion, and you have not done so, although you claim to have submitted the issue for determination.  Asking for adminsitrator resolution without inviting comment from the other side is backhanded and immature.  Despite looking, I have found no Request for Comment boards on your complaint, and I have heard nothing from a wiki administrator.


 * The gist of this revert war is that you want the text within the userbox to remain left-aligned, using non-team colors, and without a transclusion link. Those are all useless changes, IMO, and don't add to any sense of uniformity among userboxes.  You don't use the Thunder userbox yourself, so for the life of me I can't figure out why you care (unless it's a personality issue, which I suspect it is).


 * As I stated before, if a wiki adminstrator makes a determination, I'll abide by it. Until then, your position is merely an opinion with which I disagree. BillTunell (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You can find it at User talk:UBX/NBA-Thunder, and a third opinion has been given. Tom Danson (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also given my opinion on this matter, and both of you need to use the RFC as a discussion forum. Do not make further changes to the template until the RFC is completed or you risk sanctions or blocks over this edit war. Note that my comments are not due to my status as an administrator but are related to my own personal beliefs in this matter; however, as I am uninvolved, I will not hesitate to block editors or protect the template. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thunder Userbox RfD
Just wanted to let you know that I have decided to do a RfD on the matter-we are surveying users who are experts on this as to whether they want your style incorporated into the userbox (User:UBX/NBA-Thunder), or want to use the standard version. If you you want to comment, hit the RFC discussion page here. Thanks. Tom Danson (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you meant RFC when you said RFD, since this does not involve a redirect issue and I don't see anything on the RFD page. I've commented under the RFC on the userbox' discussion page.  I'll leave editing alone until the end of the RFC, although given the outcome of the 3O and User:Mets501's comments, I'm not sure why it was revertred to the oler version during pendency of the RFC. BillTunell (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a compromise
How about we transfer your style to a potential page called User:UBX/NBA-Thunder2 so those who like that can use it, while those who prefer the standard can use that. (Don't worry, User:UBX is not an actual user page, just a public use account devoted to userboxes). Sounds fair? Tom Danson (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, from looking at the talk page, I don't believe we have reached a consensus yet. Please leave it like it was before until one is reached. Tom Danson (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The RFC has a timeframe associated with it.  I'm not going to postpone reversions based on the voting outcome indefinitely.  I've been generously patient with this.  The RFC is now adminsitratively closed, and there hasn't been any unique commentary for several weeks.  As I made clear on the comment page, I am reverting based on the outcome of the 3PO and the RFC.  As I also previoulsy explained, I am comfortable with you creating a secondary userbox -- but your claims over the primary box have no basis given the voting outcome.  BillTunell (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln
Another user and I are about to nominate it for FA, if you want in. It's looking pretty good. Thanks for all the work you did on the article previously. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. Sorry my work on the article fizzled out ... new baby got in the way.  But you'll get my FA comments, I promise. BillTunell (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No prob. Congrats on the baby. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

NBA rosters (Thunder)
All "training camp invitees" are signed to NBA contracts - the NBA does not differentiate between them in their rosters, so you cannot pick who to include and who not to. It doesn't matter if the deal is fully guaranteed or partially guaranteed - neither the teams nor the league announce contract details, so the roster status cannot be affected by who you (or reporters) decide are invitees. (This is different from MLB, which has very specific roster designations for 25-man, 40-man, spring training invitees, disabled list, etc.) Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the rationale -- teams usually have a couple dozen players under contract at any given time, and none of those get listed. Why none of the tender offer players, or players under last seasons' unwaived contracts (Kevin Ollie, for instance)?  Why didn't we list the summer camp roster players, who are similarly under contract?


 * I've always been of the opinon that we should just go by the teams' published online roster which is cited as the informational source within the template. But if you want to keep fiddling with it based on media reports, go ahead, at least for now.  I don't really care utnil the season starts and the roster hits its 12-man limitation.  At that point it should reflect the actual status per the team website. BillTunell (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Robeson Congressional Hearings
Hi Bill, the article was tagged for neutrality by Str1977 who removed and tagged the other Robeson sub-articles created to take some length off the main article. I'm not sure why as it looks succinct, great and non povish. I started a discussion.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I noted my comments on the talk page.  You've obviously made a lifelong friend in Str1977. BillTunell (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha!Thanks Bill, in restructuring the chronology of the main article I will now be moving Robeon's HUAC hearings there as well and will include Eslanda's testimony and the testimonies of those who accused him/supported/condemed him. So the article will be about something other than Jackie and Paul and be a place for all related Robeson hearings. A space saver indeed!Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Robeson Editing war
Hi, please weigh in on the main article editing war if you have the time. The previous edit has been "gone over" for povs and restructured. Str1977 prefers his and there is an editing war. We would like your feedback. If time or interest does not permit, no worries. Thanks so much. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Eusebius Beltran formal.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Eusebius Beltran formal.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've researched this and find no free equivalent. If you are aware of one, I would be happy to replace.  BillTunell (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Paul Stagg Coakley.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Paul Stagg Coakley.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've researched this and find no free equivalent. If you are aware of one, I would be happy to replace.  BillTunell (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Coakley-signature.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Coakley-signature.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The PD-signature tag does not seem to work outside of Wikimedia Commons, but I've inserted the rationale as well as the tag link. As a U.S. signature it is not copyrightable.  I assume this should go into Wikimedia Commons.  BillTunell (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

RE:Oklahoma City Thunder Pre-Season Game Log
Hmm, I think it's because I put "2010" as the year and it registers as 2009-10, I gotta change that in the game log coding. PDTantisocial (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good now. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This again?
I abided by the new standards under which the UBX format was set (no more blue-on blue, alignment to center). However, I wanted to clean up the look (no other userboxes have these thick borders, and the team name is white on every other one). Keep in mind your constant reversions could violate WP:OWN as I believe only you want the userbox to look this way. If you want me to create a userbox with a format designed just for you, let me know-but please don't impose your preferences on the rest of us. Tom Danson (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We've been through this with both the formal Request for Comment and Third Party Opinon proceses. Both have been resolved for over a year. I'm not sure why you're brining it up again now.  But all the old analysis applies. BillTunell (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * NO OTHER TEAM HAS SUCH BIG BORDERS AND THE TEAM NAME AS THE SAME COLOR AS THE TEXT. I have come to accept your readibility concerns and central alignment for all the userboxes, but I felt some cleaning up was necessary.  Besides, your designs actually make it look less readable and more grotesque (arguments I failed to produce in the earlier processes).  Please, for the sake of maintaining civility, could you please let it go? Tom Danson (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No. We've been through this before, and your rationale was not adopted by any of the reviewers in the formal processes.  You can't just ignore community determinations at your whim. BillTunell (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I know they've ruled that you're not violating any Wikipedia rules, and I respect that. However, what I was asking was whether you could just go with this voluntarily.  (Hopefully your response will be civil) Tom Danson (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation
Please read MOS:LQ to learn about standard punctuation practice at Wikipedia.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 05:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Curly: I'm aware of the MOS, but the MOS applies to articles rather than userspaces, essays or wikipages metapages. What you've changed is an essay on a wikipage.  Interior punctuation is used there to be consistent with quoted sources which use legal style punctuation. BillTunell (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Jerome Allen graduation date
Please see http://www.pennathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=8625&SPID=539&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=1700&ATCLID=204785337&Q_SEASON=2011 and note that Jerome Allen graduated from Penn in 2009.Wa3frp (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ryan Vesey 15:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Go Irish!
Just thought I'd say hey to the only other person here openly affiliated with ND Law. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:University of San Francisco logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:University of San Francisco logo.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 OTRS 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. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed this tag as inapplicable here since the claim is PD-shape (public domain non-copyrightability). If you'd like to dispute that designation substantively, then I'm happy to go through one of the third-party processes (such as with the San Jose State PUF, where the issue seems identical).  But otherwise it doesn't need and affirmative copyright release.  So please do not delete on that basis. BillTunell (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:San Jose State square-pattern logo.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:San Jose State square-pattern logo.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added my response.  BillTunell (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)