User talk:Ruedetocqueville

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Samuel Face
I moved it to Samuel Face as it's unlikley that anyone will type in the ". Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:AndreeLittleFisherwoman.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AndreeLittleFisherwoman.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:FloodParis.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FloodParis.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Samual Face
Thanks for your additions. Please make sure you read WP:BIO and WP:CITE to understand how to properly label and credit the work you are doing on the article. If you have any questions, you can respond to me here. Gohiking 17:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:AndreeFisherwoman.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AndreeFisherwoman.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

List of world largest domes
That was my mistake. But, even though the Kingdome was demolished in 2000, the Norfolk dome should not be included as record holder for 2001-2007, as the Kingdome's diameter has not been superseded yet. That would be like taking the world records from Florence Griffith Joyner only because she has long passed away. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But as the list is titled not world record holders... but the largest domes by category... I have moved the "demolished" reference to replace "present", which the Kingdome clearly is not. I think the current iteration makes sense, is informative and clear to the reader. 01:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I gave you my reasons on my talk page why I believe "present" ist better. But I do not want to make it an article of faith. However, if in couple of weeks the entry is altogether removed, because someone believes that a demolished dome cannot be a record holder at all, then it is your obligation to put the entry back, because you stress the demolished character so strongly by putting it in the first column. My experience with WP at least tells me that the entry will remains much longer undistrurbed if the "demolished" is moved to an unconspicuous place under "comment". Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern has nothing to do with the record. My concern only has to do with clarity when someone uses the list as a reference to see where the current largest domes are. I will press the point no further.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just saw that our discussion is academic anyway: "the maximum clear span of a 20thcentury, thin, reinforced-concrete shell is 219m CNIT Exhibition Hall, Paris, 1958). (Robert Mark, Paul Hutchinson: "On the Structure of the Roman Pantheon", Art Bulletin, Vol. 68, No. 1 (1986), p.24, Fn.1). Perhaps you want to countercheck that since it is only contained in a footnote. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "ix intersecting double-shell parabolic vaults built to span a triangular space 216 metres (708 feet)." What the heck is this? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/122782/CNIT-Exhibition-Hall Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * by the description it is not a dome (a sphere section) but rather a vaulted roof in the form of a parabola. I have seen other references to non-domed concrete roof structures of larger dimensions than the domes have.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I have replied to your question on my talk page. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable Buildings of Norfolk
Thank you for your work in Wikipedia. I did take a further look into your notable buildings section. I would be interested in integrating it into the page. However, I was taken back by the fact that it was a list.

I use the WikiProject Cities/Guideline to template the cities that I work on. I also recommend Lists and Embedded_list, which states list content and all you would love to know about lists. I like to keep the articles in GA status, which more can be found here: Good article criteria

After a little thought, I would like to bring the notable buildings in, but in prose with citations and under an "Architecture" sub-heading. You are right, the information can be useful to describing the city's character. Let's work on getting this in through prose. Chrisfortier (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:FloodParis.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:FloodParis.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  22:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you begun the process of getting a ticket for these pictures? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  12:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I will try to do it this weekend.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Skier Dude removed the image, so the issue has been addressed. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Forward pass
I received your note. You are correct that there was a significant Eastern bias in football writing from the 1880s through at least the 1910s. During the early years, Eastern reporters had the view that the only important football programs, players and games were those involving the "Big Three" (Harvard, Yale, Princeto), later expanded to include Penn and Cornell. As my principal personal affinity is to Midwestern football, I sympathize with that concern. Of course, some of the Eastern orientation was warranted. Football was developed by the "Big Three," and "Big Three" football games were drawing 50,000 fans in the early 1900s -- ranking them as probably the most widely attended sporting events of the era. Even the most widely attended Midwestern football games in Chicago during this period did not draw the same level of support. Because the Harvard-Yale game was the apex of college football in the early period, I think it is worth noting Veeder's accomplishment. That can and should be done without diminishing SLU's status as the "first." To avoid diminshing SLU's accomplishment, I included reference to SLU even in the Veeder article. Finally, I think it reflects counter-bias to refer to contemporary articles in the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer and Washington Post as "some Eastern sources." These are major national newspapers, and the articles in question were publish many decades after the period when Eastern newspapers reflected an Eastern bias in their football reporting. I find this stuff fascinating and would be happy to discuss further. Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reading up on Cochems now. You've done a terrific job on the bio article. There is quite a bit of source information out there.  With a bit more work, your Cochems article could/should be promoted to good article and maybe even feature article status. Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been working on it quite a while and add info as I find it.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you considered adding any information about the assault charges made against him in 1905 for having assaulted a street car conductor in Madison. Stories indicate that, by that time, his brother was the Milwaukee Asst. District Attorney, and the street car conductor agreed to drop charges after reaching an agreement with Cochems. Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't, because I didn't know about it. But if it was dropped, I can't see that the allegation alone warrants inclusion. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article I read suggested that the assault charges were dropped as a result of a settlement between the street car conductor and Cochems. It's an element of color that may speak to his personality, but I defer to your decision not to include.  Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Parke H. Davis
Great work on this article. It was on my to-do list, but I see that you did a far more thorough job than I would have. Strikehold (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree! I was so impressed that I nominated it for Did You Know for Wikipedia's best new content. You can follow the nomination at Template_talk:Did_you_know, until it gets moved into the staging queues for up to a 2-3 days. Then it should appear on the main page. Give it about 7 days before it'll appear.  Royal broil  04:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. It was fun working on it as the interesting facts kept coming up. Thanks again.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I second (or third) the comments above. Parke Davis played an important role in the history of the sport of American football, and it is terrific to see that you've done such good work on the article.  Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your message re Mario Lanza
I don't know what you are referring to. I've not edited the Mario Lanza article. Yworo (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, I took out one word per MOS:OPED. If some source specifically call this "ironic", then simply cite that source and return the word. Yworo (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry D. Train II
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Harry D. Train II, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Harry_D._Train_II. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Forward pass
(in response to your post): Sorry, I should have chosen my words more carefully. I understand your intent better now. My reason for criticizing the use of the ellipsis, though, was that while you're right about it indicating a pause, it doesn't seem as appropriate for an encyclopedic article. It appeared to me that it was being used a little too "dramatically", I guess. I will restore your original word order, but I think a comma would work much better. Note, by the way, that the Manual of Style generally discourages using ellipses except for direct quotes (though I hadn't checked the MOS when I made the edit). --Fru1tbat (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:RobinsonThrowing2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:RobinsonThrowing2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:RobinsonPunting.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:RobinsonPunting.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:StLouisIowaPreview1906.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:StLouisIowaPreview1906.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:HackettPostGame.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:HackettPostGame.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:StLouisTrackTeam.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:StLouisTrackTeam.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:SrLouisIowaPreview.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SrLouisIowaPreview.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Old images
Thanks for the clarification,

Try and give as much source information as you have then... Like did they come from a specfic archive collection? If so where? call numbers ?

For older stuff you don't need a URL, but more information on where to find the resources is useful to interested readers...

Feel free to improve any of the older images as well, don't feel dettered from improving anything :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:1896LafayetteFootballTeam.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:1896LafayetteFootballTeam.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, we should go ahead and delete. I never used this image (which was from a 1911 US-published book) on Wikipedia, having found an 1896 source for a better copy of the same image.  Sorry I forgot to remove this file when I found the better image.  In fact, I may not know how to remove the file, so please remove it for me.  Please excuse the inconvenience. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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. Courcelles (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Cochems
As you may have noticed, I've spent a good deal of time over the last couple days working on the Cochems article. With the additional work, I think it's getting closer to be "good article" status. There were a number of instances where there were quotes or factual assertions that were not attributed to a source. Could you help fill those in?? If you want to discuss any of the changes, feel free to post a note on my talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Time for me to take a step back and let some time pass before working on the article any more. Feel free to jump back in.  My main goals were (1) trying to give the article a more typical biography organizational structure, (2) filling in greater detail on other aspects of his life beyond the 1906 football season, and (3) toning down the POV and advocacy.  Cochems is a remarkable character, and his accomplishments speak for themselves without puffery.  Stagg and others (including, to my suprise, Bradbury Robinson) have raised a contrary view, and that view is entitled to be neutrally stated.  A wikipedia article should be encyclopedic.  It should be neutral and present both sides in a balanced fashion.  It should not be an advocacy piece.  And, in my opinion, the facts do speak for themselves, and his accomplishments come through without editorializing. Your help in adding cites to the uncited parts would be especially helpful.Cbl62 (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. In the caption to the scrapbook page, you state that Robinson has written, "He is truly the father of the new game."  This seems inconsistent with his comments to Wray.  How do you know that Robinson wrote these comments on the scrapbook? What is the provenance of the scrapbook? Cbl62 (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I read your post on my talk page with great interest. I'll respond in a several parts:
 * 1. The scrapbook, memoirs, correspondence and recollections of Robinson's daughter are tremendously valuable. Have you considered publishing an article that memorializes some of this?  You would be in a good position to do so.  Though the market for such a piece may not be large, I am sure there are others who would be  interested.
 * 2. There is, however, a problem as a matter of wikipedia policy with using source information that can't be verified. See Verifiability.  For example, the recollections of Bradbury's daughter can't be used unless someone (perhaps you?) gets an article memorializing the same published by a legitimate news outlet.  I have written numerous wikipedia articles on athletes and have on several occasions been contacted by family members with valuable information (e.g., children of Charlie Fonville, Bob Westfall, George Ceithaml), but because the information is unpublished it (unfortunately) can't be used on wikipedia.  My best suggestion on that is that some of that information might be preserved on the article's "Talk" page until a verifiable source can be established.  Similarly, clippings in a scrapbook that can't be traced to a specific verifiable news source are not kosher for wikipedia purposes.  Have you checked to see if the St. Louis newspapers from 1900s are available on-line anywhere?  (Maybe the St. Louis Public Library.)  I have not found them in the databases to which I have access. The unidentified clippings in the scrapbook likely come from the St. Louis newspapers, right?
 * 3. Cochems apparently changed his mind quickly about the on-side kick. His 1909 writings described it as a dangerous play and advocated it being abolished.
 * 4a. I disagree in part with your comment that wikipedia can/should make judgment calls on which reliable sources or versions of history should be reported. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its policy frowns on such value judgments.  Certainly, that doesn't mean we have to include every crackpot opinion or version of history.  But in this case, Stagg is not a crackpot.  He is one of the most respected figures in the history of the sport.  Nor can Houlgate be put into the category of an unreliable crackpot.  Houlgate was an All-American football player, respected columnist and author of "The Football Thesaurus."
 * 4b. Claassen is a separate issue. Claassen doesn't say that the first spiral pass was thrown in 1911 by Notre Dame.  What he says in the quoted passage is that "the spiral forward pass emerged as a major football weapon" in the 1911 Notre Dame-Army game.  That's a matter of opinion as to when it became a "major" weapon.  And, as with Stagg and Houlgate, Claassen is not a crackpot; he was the AP's football editor.  In sum, I do think that contrary views need to be presented. That said, I don't think the Claassen comment is necessary, as it doesn't relate specifically to Cochems.  I would have no objection to deleting the Claassen commentary in its entirety.
 * 5. After sifting through everything I could find, there's no question that Cochems was a fascinating man. As even Gregorian concludes, Cochems was not the inventor or architect of the forward pass or the spiral pass.  But he does appear to be the first to have used it effectively and to build a successful offense around it after the play became legal in 1906.  Cochems' 1909 writings on the size of the football were "visionary" in my opinion.  He also had some wacky ideas (as any creative, original thinker would), including his five-down proposal in 1911.  There's also a lot that's unknown about him.  Why did he leave SLU?  Were the charges of professionalism supported?  Did the Jesuit administration at SLU force him out after the charges of professionalism came to light?  Articles from 1909-1911 suggest something of a downward spiral; what was going on?  Information about the 1905 assault charge is also sketchy (and I agree should not be included without more/better information to establish its significance).  Why wasn't he ever hired on at another school after 1914?  He apparently was interested (witness his putting his hat in the ring for the UW job in 1911 and 1940).  Just what role did he play in the campaigns of Roosevelt, Hughes, Coolidge?  I find no mention of him whatsoever in any press coverage of those campaigns on in any books on the subject.  The only sourcing for this is a 1953 obituary from a Madison, Wisconsin newspaper.  The sourcing is verifiable, and so the information belongs in the article.  But I would expect to see more sourcing if he played a significant role in those campaigns. Information on the whole period from 1915 to 1953 is pretty sketchy.
 * I am very glad that you created this article. Cochems has been largely forgotten.  I consider myself a college football history buff, and I had never heard of Cochems until I stumbled across your work.  A well-researched and written Wikipedia article is an important step toward having Cochems get the recognition that is due him.  An advocacy piece on "Why Cochems really is the father of the forward pass," or "Why Cochems belongs in the College Football Hall of Fame," is also something that you should consider publishing. I'd be willing to provide you with comments/assistance should you decide to write the latter type of article. Cbl62 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bradbury Robinson
Ruedetocqueville, thanks for all of your great work on the Bradbury Robinson article. I made a bunch of edits in the last day or so to add an infobox, beef up the lead section, reorganize the body of the article, tweak some of the prose, and clean up some ambiguous wikilinks. Many of the quotes seem to be missing attribution, but this is a really interesting topic and it would be a great candidate to move toward GA/FA status. Let me know what you think of my edits, and if you are interesting in circling back on this article. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments and all of your work on this article. I have seen and enjoyed your work over the years.  Unfortunately, the demands of my business have cut my Wikiwork down to almost nothing.  You might want to read my comments above on Eddie Cochems to understand my situation with this chapter of football history.  I am in possession of a lot of original material from both Robinson and Cochems, including Robinson's memoirs, scores of original newspaper clippings, programs, photos, letters to/from Robinson, Cochems, Wray and others.  Unfortunately, Dr. Robinson failed to completely organize his voluminous scrapbook - so in this piece I quote a lot of the newspaper articles without benefit of their exact date.  When I have time, i hope to visit the newspaper archives out in St. Louis and environs to nail down the exact date -- that will take weeks as they are not yet digitized and some reside in college libraries.  Most of the articles I have are without byline.  To further complicate matters, St. Louis had multiple newspapers in that era and Wray (the most important contemporaneous reporter) worked for more than one newspaper during the Cochems/Robinson era.  So, nailing down the details is really a challenge.  I wrote most of the Cochems article, too.  The Cochems and Robinson materials, I think, are important to the early history of the college game and were previously largely unknown.  What is exciting to me is that their work in 1906 wasn't just a chronological accident of chucking the ball first but an indisputable almost instant recognition and implementation of a modern passing offense at the moment that passing became legal.  Cochems' article in the 1907 booklet edited by Walter Camp provides the best evidence of that -- the father of the game understood the importance of what they had come up with.  Another thought I've had is scanning the materials I have and putting them on the Internet for other researchers to access.  It's such an interesting story, I imagine that some football aficionados would enjoy going through them.  Thanks again.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, your edits were improvements and I appreciate them, if I didn't make that clear in my earlier post here. In my read-through, I did notice that Wray is quoted before he is really identified -- a result of cutting and pasting sections for the improved chronological flow that you achieved. As to how to remedy the article's shortcomings without doing the substantial on-sites research required, I don't know. I have gone through microfilm of newspapers over the years and it will be a time-consuming undertaking. Heck, some of the papers may still be bound and not transfered to any other medium.  As I mentioned, the info is not all digitized and it is not all in one place, the best I can tell.  I have much more info than the SID at SLU.  Vahe Gregorian got his stuff from the morgue at the P-D. He was interested in writing a book when he and I chatted on this back on the centennial - but nothing came of it. We had been introduced by a mutual friend. Thanks again.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ruedetocqueville, I'm a writer working on a book about the cultural history of the forward pass and was curious if you'd ever digitized any of that original material re: Cochems and Robinson, or if you're still in possession of it? I'm at weinrebmi@gmail.com if you'd like to contact me directly. Thanks. Blackshoes1994 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ruedetocqueville, thanks for your response here. Yeah, things got a little out of order with the Wray introduction after my reorganization.  I think the beginning and the end of the article are in pretty good shape now, but I plan to comb back through the big middle  and clean things up.  The overall organization is much better now since it conforms to the general standard of chronology for biography articles.  In an essay about Robinson, one might want to open up in the middle, right in the action around that first forward pass for effect, but that technique isn't right for an encyclopedia.  The lead is much more substantial now too.  One of things I found really interesting was how Roosevelt's message from the White House filtered down to Robinson via the La Follettes.  I made a point to work that into the lead.  Chuck Klosterman wrote a great essay a couple of years about attitudes toward change and innovation in football.  Klosterman mentions Roosevelt's reforms and the advent of the forward pass and put that chapter of the game into a wider historical context.  You can the essay here: here.  I think you will enjoy it.  I'll take a look at that discussion about Cochems above.  Cbl62 is one of the best sports researchers on here and I see he worked on the Cochems article as well.  Thanks for your great research and your words of praise for my work. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Blackshoes and Jweiss11, thank you for your interest and contributions. I have owned the URL bradburyrobinson.com for some time with the specific intention (as I posted earlier) of digitizing his important scrapbook but, again because of the demands of my business, I just have not gotten around to it. An author with a history of success in sports books is very interested in telling the "Robinson Story" in a book. I have spent a lot of time on the Wiki article the last couple of days. There are more and more articles appearing on newspapers.com that, before, I had only seen in the scrapbook. It is much stronger to have them linked to the article, which I have done as I have found them online. Again, many of the articles in the scrapbook are from defunct newspapers and it may take a while before they appear on the Internet – if they ever do. Plus the scrapbook, as mentioned, has correspondence between Robinson and Cochems, some of BNR's former teammates and Wray. And, of course, his memoirs.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Louis Dewis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atelier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Biarritz.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Biarritz.jpg, which you've sourced to Died in 1946 so not yet PD in Belgium. Made "circa 1943" so not PD in USA either.. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , 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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as 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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An email was sent on 3/14 Ruedetocqueville (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes St. Louis!


Dust off your Polaroid camera and pack your best lenses. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, around noon in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Parke H. Davis.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Parke H. Davis.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:AndreeFisherwoman1.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Ardennes.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:BridgeBruges.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:CochemsScrapbook.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ron Beagle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Welsh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

History of American football
The featured article History of American football, an article you have edited significantly in the past, is currently at around 160 kb in length. The maximum allowable article size per WP:SIZE is 100 kb. While some bits of information could probably be pared down, most of the article is still surprisingly well written and referenced (despite growing in size by 2/3rds since being promoted to FA status several years ago). The article will need to be brought back to a smaller size, a discussion is underway at Talk:History of American football to decide the best way to handle that. We want to preserve all of the good information there, but the rules require us to split the article up somehow. If you are interested in helping decide how to do that, please come by the article talk page where the discussion is currently underway. Thanks! -- Jayron 32 12:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sally Hemmings
There are many sources here, not just Monticello.org. For a start, there is the Hemmings' family itself, which had the history right for a couple hundred years before white people would believe it. There is the Gordon-Reed book. There is the demolition of the alternative myth (the Carr story) about the Hemmings children. In almost any other case we'd consider all that good enough. But there is also, quite frankly, a certain amount of racism in the skepticism on this issue. Shall we question the parentage of Martha Wayles Jefferson's children? Why don't we do that? DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Myrick.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Myrick.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:FloodParis1.jpg


The file File:FloodParis1.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:BradburyNortonRobinsonJr.jpg


The file File:BradburyNortonRobinsonJr.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dewis
Okay. First:

When you uploaded all those images of Dewis paintings back in 2007, you screwed up. Just because you own the physical painting, that does not mean you own the copyright to the painting. All of those images should have been deleted; the article on Dewis could have used one, maybe two.

'''You don't know what you're talking about. I acquired the art and everything related to the art from the Dewis (Dewachter) family in 1998. The family owned the copyright for the 70-year period. Plus, I am family, too, as I am his great-grandson. The bloodline and ownership were validated by the French government in 1998, and Dewis wasn't dead 70 years then.''' DS

Second:

That no longer matters. Dewis died in 1946, so all his works are totally public domain as of 2016. I've moved them to Commons; if you can use the "upload new version of this file" feature to provide higher-resolution photos of the paintings, that would be nice. DS (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Contributing to Wikipedia is made so unpleasant at times.