User talk:Jazznutuva/June 2007

Uni of Virginia
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Virginia, this WikiProject has been moved into your userspace, User:Jazznutuva/WikiProject University of Virginia. It has been suggested that the project might gather more interest and more members if it expanded its scope to education in the entire state. ( Radiant ) 09:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, alternatively, sought to join WikiProject Virginia as some form of task force or work group of that project. I believe that at least one member of that group has no objections to setting up such subprojects, and that you might well receive a favorable response there. Badbilltucker 02:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Two points. One, I was not the one who proposed it for deletion. If you check the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Virginia, you will even see that I was one of the two who gave it any support whatsoever. In answer to your second question, whenever anyone nominates a project, or anything else, for deletion, it then shows up for discussion. The Cornell, Ohio Wesleyan, UT-Austin, and Penn State Projects (there were only four others; Georgia Tech has since been created), are also comparatively new projects, but, so far as I know, none of them have every been nominated for deletion yet. That may well change, however. So, basically, something gets nominated for deletion by whomever decides to start the process, and your project was the only one of these single-school projects so far nominated for deletion. Finally, I have one more suggestion for continuing your project, as per one of the later comments on the MfD page above. You might also consult WikiProject Universities to see if they would be willing to take it one as a task force or work group. Again, if for no other reason than to prevent the creation of 200 or more additional single school projects, they may well agree to take on your group. Generally, these task forces and work groups, as in the cases of WikiProject Military history and WikiProject Biography, are basically self-administered groups which more or less adopt the standards and practices (article format, what have you) of the larger group, and allow the larger group to do some of the administrative work (assessments and so on). Actually, doing so would allow your members even more time to work on the articles. I think you might want to seriously consider these options, as I believe your work could continue with either the Virginia or Universities projects, if you wanted to do that. Badbilltucker 14:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the project had only been around for that little time, so I can well understand why you reacted the way you did. Personally, as someone who has nominated a lot of inactive projects for deletion, I always give them at least three months from the last time the page was edited before the nomination, and make sure that there have been no real project-related edits for some time as well. I'm sorry that this happened to your project so quickly. But, as stated above, I think either the Virginia or Universities projects may well be willing to take your project one as a sub-project under whatever name. You might want to check out the pages of WP:MILHIST and WP:WPBIO to see how the pages for these subprojects tend to be formattted (I like Military history's pages better myself) to prevent the number of projects ballooning even further. Right now, we're at about 1000 active and inactive projects. If for no other reason than the sheer number of potential competitor projects, you might get better luck as a unit of an already existing group with several members than trying to start a new one on your own. Good luck with your work in wikipedia and elsewhere in any event. Badbilltucker 14:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Virginia. Badbilltucker 18:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your WikiProject
Mr. Jazznut, without realizing that your UVa WikiProject existed I created a CIO at UVa to start a Wiki for the University. If you would be interested, I would love to speak to you more about the subject. If you could send an e-mail to Nadine at ncn3w@virginia.edu it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time!

--Natourminator 14:50, 16 November 2006

Deletion review of WikiProject University of Virginia
Hi. I have requested a review of the closure of the deletion discussion of your Wikiproject. If you would like to offer an opinion, please see Deletion review/Log/2006 November 17. My concern, aside from the correctness of the decision, is that the closure has left templates on a bunch of article talk pages that are now pointing to user space. Either the project needs to be restored or the templates need to go away, but the current situation doesn't make too much sense. Please visit the deletion review page if you would like to offer an opinion. Thanks. BigDT 16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Football in the USA and Canada
Please visit WikiProject/List of proposed projects if you want to be a part of WikiProject Football(soccer) in the USA and Canada. The page is still under construction. XYZ CrVo 02:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The page for WP Soccer and America User:XYZ CrVo/WikiProject Football (soccer) in the USA and Canada is up and running,

but still in its beginning stages. Please leave any comments on the talk page of the project. XYZ CrVo 02:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow RE. The proposed the disambig standard is:
 * Ex- Eddie Johnson(MLS and National team- Current)

It contains what leagues they are apart of to avoid football v soccer and any former leagues. What do you think? XYZ CrVo 01:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Commonwalth Cup
I nominated this article for deletion not because the content was bad, but because it was redundant to the Commonwealth Cup page. I moved a bit of the information over there, but enately they are the same. Jazznutuva 10:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominatng was a good move. I incorporated the style of info box or table found on previous Commonwealth page which I think looks cleaner, just my opinion. Adjusted the title color to white since it was somewhat hidden in the grey (black text). Moved the photo up.
 * Question do you know how the template for UVA (Commonwealth Cup) and Jefferson-Eppes Trophy article/page bottom) is done. That's a mystery and I'd like to create one for FSU. Thanks. Noles1984 16:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:UVA.PNG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:UVA.PNG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —BigDT 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I created this SVG image - Image:UVA SVG.svg - as a vector version of your UVA logo. If you take a look at WP:UVA, the vector version doesn't pixelate so badly.  If you would like me to tweak colors or anything I can ... or you can do it yourself even without any special software - svg files can be edited in a text editor.  Because the PNG image is no longer being used, as a formality, I have nominated it for deletion.  By the way, I don't know if you have noticed or not, but the WP:DRV was successful and WP:UVA has been restored to project space. BigDT 04:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bramall Lane failed GA nomination
Hi! I noticed that you failed a GA nomination of Bramall Lane with the reason that you think that it is copied from EnglishPremier.net. I think that you may have made a mistake—the article on EP.net is dated 31 July 2006; if you look at a pre-July version of the article you will see that most of the content was already in place. I would suggest that it is EP.net that have copied from Wikipedia and not the other way round. —JeremyA 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think JeremyA is probably right here - the EP.net article appears to be a direct cut and paste with minor edits from Sheffield, Sheffield United and Bramall Lane (each edited by dozens over many months). I'm not sure how one could 'prove' precedence. (Even the trivia section of Sheffield United is there, word for word, line by line. If you have a look at 26 Apr it has "The club has been involved in many notable firsts: the first and to-date the only League club to score ten goals in an away fixture, versus Burslem Port Vale in 1892." By July it is "They are the only League club to score ten goals in an away fixture; versus Burslem Port Vale in 1892" (with a semi-colon, minus full-stop) and EP.net has exactly the July version (with semi colon, minus full-stop).) roundhouse 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with all the above, and have just replied with as much in my talk page!.  L.J.Skinner WOT?|CONTRIBS 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Indianauniversity.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Indianauniversity.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Durin 18:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:FloridaStateLogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:FloridaStateLogo.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NMajdan &bull;talk 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Danbonner-mug.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Danbonner-mug.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Localzuk(talk) 12:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

More replaceable fair use images
The following images are used to describe living, public people, and are thus don't fall under Wikipedia's fair use policies.
 * Image:Jeffjones-mug.PNG
 * Image:Seansigletary.PNG
 * Image:Daveleitao-mug.PNG
 * Image:Klockner-stadium.jpg

Remember that the criteria isn't whether you can find free alternatives, but whether it's reasonably possible to create free alternatives. And since athletes and coaches regularly appear in public, with printed schedules, Wikipedia considers it reasonably possible to create non-restricted alternatives. -- Mosmof 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, whether they actually came from media schedules or other promotional materials is sort of immaterial here - there's a good chance they were licensed for use solely on those materials, and the fact that they appear in several publications doesn't tell us anything about their copyright status. Unless the press pack explicitly says the photographs are free of copyright and can be distributed and republished, they are still under copyright.


 * The key here is that you used Template:Promotional, a fair use license, and Wikipedia considers fair use photographs of living, public people to be replaceable. Mosmof 16:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Terryholland.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Terryholland.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 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Debbieryan-mug.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Debbieryan-mug.PNG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. BigDT 06:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wilfing
This is being worked on, perfectly acceptable to be where it is. I will removed that tag because the content has changed, please note I am not a new user. --Pandaplodder 10:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 12:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bristol Rovers F.C. Good Article review
Thank you very much for reviewing the Bristol Rovers F.C. article. I expanded the lead section, per your suggestion, and I'd be grateful if you could have another look at it to see if it is good enough, or if it needs further work. Gasheadsteve 09:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

RICAS contesting speedy delete
Hi, I have added some comments in the talk page for Ricas contesting the speedy deletion. Will be great if you could drop by a few days later and see if the updates deserve speedy to be taken off.

-Deepraj 12:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

RAF Spanhoe
I initially misspelled this as RAF Stanhoe. Also, I have no information this was ever a MAC base in the UK. You may want to verify the information in the USAF UK infobox to make sure it's accurate :)

Bwmoll3 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler Sunbeam GA review
Thank you for taking the time to review the Chrysler Sunbeam article. While I do not feel the urge to contest the outcome of the review, I couldn't find anything in WP:WIAGA that would explicitly require Good Articles to have a certain mix of sources. Secondly, I am not sure what would this sentence mean:


 * On that reference I couldn't find substantial references on it either.

I would be grateful if you could expand on both issues. Kind regards, PrinceGloria 10:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply! I am not sure whether you are aware of it, but good references for automotive articles (that go beyond the basic technicals and "generally known facts" you can find in magazines, catalogues or in manufacturer's own literature/online content) are very hard to find, so sometimes we do have to rely on online sources of some degree of informality, judging their reliability based on our own "expertise" in the field.
 * The very source you mentioned is ran by a group of enthusiasts with good connections in the world of, to say so, former British motoring industry. They are also professional journalists who specialize in the area. What they are writing is in a big part based on personal experience and direct information from people working with the company, and therefore I consider it a good source for this kind of information. I strive to remove the unencyclopedic bits removing from the more "journalistic" and personal style of the editors of the site, but I believe the basic information they provide is reliable and worth quoting.
 * I know the site fell into a state of slight disrepair more recently, mostly because the team is more focused on developing their other site, Austin-Rover.co.uk (also a valuable resource on the respective subject). See the "Contact Us" section of the latter site (I can't link directly to it, unfortunately) for some information on the background of the editorial team. I am not sure how many members of the Austin-Rover team were also active in creating the Rootes-Chrysler site, but I am positive that Keith Adams is the driving force behind both, and I believe he has done a very good job from the point of view of providing an information resource.
 * Finally, I have also been relying on this source heavily, or should I say - mainly, when expanding the Talbot Tagora article, which eventually became an FA and, although the reviewers raised many issues in the process, this has never been one of them. PrinceGloria 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)