User talk:Sportskido8/Archive 1

Images
See Uploading images. You have to provide a valid source and copyright tag for the images. If you upload them as "with permission" or "non-commercial" they will be deleted since these unfree licenses are not accepted on Wikipedia. However, if they qualify as fair use you can use them, provided that you specify a fair use rationale. But in this specific case, the two images you took from sportsecyclopedia.com can't be used unless you know who is the original photographer, and the image from askmen.com can't be used anyway because it's copyrighted and it doesn't qualify as fair use. Mushroom (Talk) 08:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mantle/Maris picture
Can you please tell me where I can find a useable picture of Mantle & Maris together, because it's a damn shame that the New York Yankees wikipedia article can't have one in it due to these unbelieveable restrictions with copyrighting that don't make sense at all. Sportskido8
 * I have no idea whatsoever where you can find such an image. However, you could ask the person from whom you got the image that you are using if they are willing to release it under a free licence. See Boilerplate requests for permission for the text of an email you could use.
 * Please note that the copyright restrictions make a hell of a lot of sense. First and foremost, if Wikipedia includes material that violates copyright, the Foundation could be liable for millions in damages. Secondly, our goal is to build a free encyclopedia, and using images that others can't reuse runs counter to that goal.
 * I hope this helps explain the issue to you further. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:DerekJ.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DerekJ.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:GeorgeS.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GeorgeS.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Polo1921.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Polo1921.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mantlemaris.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mantlemaris.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yankee image problems
The following images you uploaded have been listed under WP:IFD:
 * Image:JoeD.jpg
 * Image:LouG.jpg
 * Image:GeorgeS.jpg
 * Image:Mantlemaris.jpg
 * Image:StengelMantle.jpg
 * Image:Torre2.jpg
 * Image:Wetteland96.jpg
 * Image:Oneill.jpg
 * Image:Derek2.jpg
 * Image:Boonehr.jpg
 * Image:Oneill21.jpg
 * Image:Arod13.jpg
 * Image:WhiteyF.jpg
 * Image:Hilltop3.jpg
 * Image:Polo1921.jpg
 * Although you do give credit to the site where the images came from, we still know nothing about the original photographer or the copyright status. Since it is highly unlikely that the sportsencyclopedia site owns the copyrights in the first place, any permission they give to use them is meaningless.  These all appear to be copyright violations.  If you wish to discuss the matter, you can do so at Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_August_11.   --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When to mark edits as minor
Remember to mark your edits as minor when, but only when, they genuinely are (see Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one, or vice versa, is condsidered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. -- Win777 18:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia page says that "It is often a matter of personal judgment" when making minor edits, and if I feel that the edit that I made is minor then I will mark it as minor. Which edit are you talking about anyway? -- Sportskido8 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While the page says that it is a matter of personal judgement, it also says "trivial changes only, such as typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes and rearranging of text without changing any content." The page also has a section titled "When to mark an edit as minor." Regarding the New York Yankees article, you have added a new line of text in, renamed and removed parts in , and removed a template in . The differences that I listed were not in line with the section "When to mark an edit as minor" in Help:Minor edit. -- Win777 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your comments at Images and media for deletion/2006 August 11
Please read this policy page. Thanks. -- No Guru 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not tell me how to talk. I didn't ask for any guidance, and I don't need any. -- Sportskido8 12:15 EST, 22 August 2006


 * As an administrator and editor on Wikipedia encouraging civility at on Wikipedia is my business. -- No Guru 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yankees images
Just so you know, the reason the images were deleted is not just because we want to cover our asses. It's because the goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia that anyone can use for any purpose. This means eliminating parts where we are unsure of the usability, including these images. I suggest you read the following pages for more information: Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Five pillars
 * Image use policy


 * You just made a big mistake pal and ruined a good article. I'm sick of hearing about this free content shit. Nobody was ever going to complain about those images and you know it. This policy needs to change because it is pathetic, and if you think I'm even going to click on those links then you're insane. --Sportskido8 12:40 EST, 22 August 2006

Please do not upload these images again. They were deleted per the deletion policy. If you continue to persist, you will be blocked from editing. If you continue act uncivilly, you will also be blocked. Listen, we are all working for the good of the encyclopedia here. If you want to improve the Yankees article, then find images that you know FOR SURE are public domain or free use. You claim the Polo Grounds image was taken before 1923, but are you absolutely certain? Can you tell us who took it and when/where it was first published? Besides, if you look at the Polo Grounds article, you'll find a perfectly usable image there (which I've replaced in the Yankees article).  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and threaten me. The title of the picture is "Polo1921.jpg", I didn't make it up buddy. You admins are so ridiculous you know that? Seriously, go get a day job or something...


 * The picture you added is the same exact one, and if you tell me otherwise then I have to assume that you have an IQ of less than 50. --Sportskido8 13:06 EST, 22 August 2006
 * Yes, but that one has a known source that anyone can verify -- see the difference? You're just grabbing images off the Internet and saying, "Trust me" when we don't know you from Adam. Look, you've got to understand the rules here so please take the time to read those links. I'm trying to educate you for your own good, because if you keep up what you're doing, you are going to get blocked. This is not a threat, just a statement of fact -- any admin will tell you the same. Play nice and don't be a dick. If you don't like how we do things here, you are free to start your own wiki. Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There we go again, a wiki admin who thinks he is king of the world, a god amongst mortals. You can tell me anything you want, but the image policy here is sometimes comparable to bullshit. Go take a look at that article and educate yourself. --Sportskido8 13:23 EST, 22 August 2006
 * Nobody's holding a gun to your head to edit here. If you don't like the policy, either work to change it or go work on your web site.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm using legal images this time around Mr. President. Please let the secret service and all federal agencies know that I'm going to abide by the rules for now and that they don't need to come arrest me. Thanks. --Sportskido8 13:39 EST, 22 August 2006

Edit summaries
I've noticed that you've provided edit summaries on only 20% of your edits. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! --Muéro 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are you finding these statistics, might I ask? --Sportskido8 21:23 EST, 23 August 2006
 * I noticed a few edits on my watchlist without summaries, so I checked your contributions, where I noticed that most edits were without edit summaries. Then, I used Flcelloguy's Tool for statistics, including the percentage of edits on which you've provided an edit summary. I hope I didn't sound too harsh; I just find it easier to keep track of everything on my watchlist with an edit summary, and after all, it is a Wikipedia guideline. --Muéro
 * No no, you weren't harsh. I was just curious. --Sportskido8 21:40 EST, 23 August 2006
 * I've noticed that on your 50 most recent edits, you've provided an edit summary on just 3. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. --Muéro 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:1995Devils.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1995Devils.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Andeh 05:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:LouNJ.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LouNJ.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. 06:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Devilsjerseys.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Devilsjerseys.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Devilsjerseys2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Devilsjerseys2.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yankees Article
It is just as much a violation to claim yankee fans are die-hard as it is to claim that they are frontrunners. As such if you continue to post claims that the fan base is die hard without proof it will be removed on the spot. For fans to be considered diehard their has to be a high level of support for the team when it is losing and the fact that the yankees reached the bottom of the AL in attendance during the early nineties is proof many yankee fans are frontrunners.
 * The "die-hard" line is less than one sentence. If you continue to post YOUR garbage I promise that your IP address will be banned. I have worked on this article for several months now and I'm not going to let an idiot like you threaten me. --Sportskido8 15:33 EST, 24 August 2006
 * Since when? Attendance will decline and increase based on numerous factors. It's normal for any team to experience decreases in attendance during losing seasons. There will always be the bandwagon factor, especially with widely-covered team like the Yankees. The Yankees have millions of fans around the world, basing a decision to call them not die-hard based on how many fans attend games in New York is ignorant.Yankees76 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I'll put the word back in later. You don't need to be a genius to see that they obviously have a lot of die-hard fans. --Sportskido8 16:09 EST, 24 August 2006
 * Dont worry Ill remove the die hard reference unless a section is included that lists that many yankee fans are frontrunners. You dont need to be a genius to know many yankee fans are frontrunners. It is just as much garbage to claim that the yankee fans is die hard, almost as much garbage to claim that their is not competive imbalance problem in baseball. If you tried to have me banned it will be hard for you to argue claiming their is large element of yankee fans are die hard is a neutral point of view, without including counter evidence to that points out yankee fans have not supported the team in down years. Yes but during 82-89 they were in contention throughout the season. The yankee fan base is regarded throughout the country to be full of bandwagon fans who have their wore their Jordan jersey in the 90's and now is wearing the Wade jersey now. When things got tough in the early nineties many yankee fans much like yourself gave up on the team. By the way red sox fans and yankee fans share many traits in common to an outsider such as myself. Both fan bases are full of frontrunners.
 * EVERY TEAM HAS FRONTRUNNERS you dunce. But there are countless amounts of die-hard Yankee fans, you don't even have a clue. The fans have a reputation for being die-hards, not a bunch of frontrunners. Four years in a team's history is not enough evidence, I'm sorry. The team did not make the postseason ONCE between 1982 and 1989 but they beat the average all of those years. You're running down a dead end, just give up already. What's wrong, are you a disgruntled Red Sox fan? Upset about the massacre that just happened? Oh by the way, I'd suggest getting a username to give yourself some credibility, because right now, you have zero of it. --Sportskido8 16:17 EST, 24 August 2006
 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I rarely do personal attacks crustacean, but this particular user just happens to be a moron and there's no better way to describe him. He is senseless and annoying, and if anything is "damaging the community" it's him right now. --Sportskido8 16:30 EST, 24 August 2006


 * You are a damage to the community becuase you want an article on wikipedia to be just a propaganda tool for your 200 million dollar payroll yankees


 * It's not propoganda, it was TWO WORDS. WAHHHHHH!!!!! TWO WORDS ARE HURTING MY FEELINGS!!! First of all, the Yankees were 70-43 in 1994. Grin and bear it pal. Secondly, if you claim attendance means everything, then:


 * Royals fans are all bandwagon fans.
 * Pirates fans are all bandwagon fans.
 * Etc.


 * Your claim of there being a bunch of bandwagoners has absolutely no factual evidence whatsoever. It may be an idea thrown out there, but you have no evidence. There is a lot more evidence indicating that they are die-hard fans...4 million fans in 1 year, that means that they most likely drew over 45,000 fans against the DEVIL RAYS sometimes. You've probably never been to a Yankee game or known any of their fans, yet you make a stupid claim out of the blue like this one. No proof = don't write anything with your ignorance. --Sportskido8 16:41 EST, 24 August 2006


 * I dont have to go to yankee games to point out that many of their fans are frontrunners. If not how did the team drop so low in attendance during the early nineties. If any team had built up a grace period it is the yankees. Also plenty of teams get high support during losing years unlike your bandwagon team the yankees. The cubs have always gotten high attendance in good and bad years for example, so not every teams fans are frontrunners. By the way it wasn't me that changed the yankees record in 94 maybe you should check the facts before slinging personal attacks


 * I didn't say you changed the record genius. I said that they were 70-43 because that was one of the 4 years that they didn't beat the average in attendance, thus destroying your claim that their fans ran away because they sucked for a few years. I guess all the Tigers fans were frontrunners too because they had great years, a bunch of crappy ones and now they're all back again. Take your personal vendetta against the Yankees elsewhere you idiot. As a Yankee fan myself, I can honestly tell you that this team probably has more die-hard fans than any other team, even more than Boston because they don't have as many fans. --Sportskido8 16:55 EST, 24 August 2006
 * Explain why their attendance dropped so quickly after all those winning years. You never have teams like the Cardinals and Cubs who draw regardless of their record. I have met many fans of the yankees who are big sports fans, their other teams include Duke basketball, Heat Basketball, USC football, and whatever other teams are doing well.
 * There was never a huge drop in attendance. In 1984 they drew 22,492 fans. In 1990 they drew 24,771. I don't know how else to explain this to you. You need to understand the numbers. Look at this link: Yankees Attendance Numbers. In 1993 they were only 88-74 and still drew very well, for that time. Just because they had a huge spike in attendance during the new dynasty does not mean their entire fanbase is frontrunners...it's just a claim thrown out by people who hate the Yankees...people like you. --Sportskido8 17:07 EST, 24 August 2006


 * By the way how does 94 prove yankee fans aren't frontrunners, attendance wasn't high for a bad team which would refute the theory but rather low for a good team which is unimportant. Or maybe it just means yankee fans will only show up for a team that is both good and full of superstars, which makes the yankee fan base appear to be even more dependent upon bandwagon fans. You should work on your logical reasoning skills, it would serve you well. Also in 1984 the average team drew 1,711,531 while in 1990 the average team drew 2,166,590 fans. The fact that yankee fan base was more or less stagnent in a period of increased attendance is evidence ofa bandwagon fan base. . . fans just like YOU.


 * You are an example of a jealous loser who takes his anger out on the Yankees and their fans because your team never wins. See: Critics in the Yankees article. I'm a bandwagon fan? Yeah, that's why I have the 46 game season ticket package while I can barely afford it. That's why I go up to Boston every summer for an entire 3-game series wearing Yankee apparel in the Fenway bleachers, because I'm a bandwagon fan. Let me tell you something pal. I am a bigger Yankee/Baseball fan than you will ever be. You don't even know what it's like to be as big as a fan as I am. So keep your mouth shut when you make stupid comments like that, and vanish away from Wikipedia. Your logical reasoning is the worst I have ever seen from someone. They don't hit the attendance AVERAGE for 4 years out of 87 and they're all bandwagon fans. LMAO!!! --Sportskido8 17:47 EST, 24 August 2006
 * I guess it is easier to insult people then address why their is little support for the yankees during down years
 * Yes, because clearly, every team should have fans like the Cubs do. Then the world would just be fantastic. There is little support for most teams during down years, and that is the last time I will stress that point because I am sick of saying it over and over again. Look at the Pittsburgh Penguins. They were a force in the 1990's and had tons of attendance...now they might be moved to another city. Their fans aren't bandwagon fans because of that. They're just sick of watching them lose. Do you understand the difference? Obviously not. --Sportskido8 18:05 EST, 24 August 2006


 * What a pointless argument. Sportskido - you might enjoy this. Yankees76 15:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, good article. --Sportskido8 13:45 EST, 26 August 2006

Fair use rationale for Image:Boone.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Boone.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Boone.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Boone.jpg, 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation in New Jersey Devils
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles, as you did to New Jersey Devils without permission from the copyright holder. See Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. --Muéro 04:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You and Chlomes are seriously out to get me. I don't know what the hell I did to you pal but you're attacking me constantly and I would like it to stop. --Sportskido8 12:10 EST, 26 August 2006
 * You added the following:
 * has been spotted skating up and down the ice, signing autographs, sliding across the ice on his ATV, and dancing up a storm in the aisles.
 * This was copied directly from a copyrighted web page (here). This is plagiarism. I am only trying to make Wikipedia better, not "attack" you. --Muéro 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, the Devils would be very offended if they saw that particular block of text copied onto Wikipedia. I sincerely believe that copying that sentence is not plagarism. "Plagarism" would be stealing somebody's original thoughts, and the things described in that sentence are very general and can be inferred about a team's mascot. Plus, it is not plagarism because I am not stealing it, I am sourcing it to directly where I got it from. This is definitely not plagarism, and I'm shocked that you believed it was. --Sportskido8 14:29 EST, 26 August 2006
 * From the Wikipedia article on plagiarism: "According to Diana Hacker, 'Three acts are plagiarism: (1) failing to cite quotations and borrowed ideas, (2) failing to enclose borrowed language in quotation marks and (3) failing to put summaries and paraphrases in your own words.'" This definitely is plagiarism. --Muéro 18:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I have to disagree. This is the furthest possible thing from "borrowed language." What am I borrowing? There is nothing to be borrowed here. It is a mere description of something that I could have generalized about any term's mascot. A cite is good enough for this, hands down. If a news article says "Sally went to the playground on March 17th", and I want to put it in my wikipedia article, you're telling me that I need to write "Sally went to the playground on March 17th" (in quotes) AND put a cite after it? That does not make any sense. I'll re-word the mascot's description anyway because it won't be hard to do but I'm sure you'll find something else to yell at me about anyway. And no, I don't feel like writing a god-forsaken description out for the hundreds of edits that I do every day. It is tedious and annoying. --Sportskido8 17:29 EST, 26 August 2006
 * Yes, if you put "Sally went to the playground on March 17th," (after reading it elsewhere) you would have to include quotation marks and put in the citation (it is impossible to use a quotation without putting in a citation). Or, you could paraphrase it (put it in your own words) and then add the citation. This is all spelled out in the Wikipedia article on plagiarism. I encourage you to read the help articles for more information about plagiarism, citing sources, edit summaries, and other Wikipedia guidelines. --Muéro 22:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's ok, I took college English classes. I know what plagiarism is, and what it isn't. --Sportskido8 18:26 EST, 26 August 2006

Dates
Full dates are always wikied because of autoformatting. These should look the same to you: August 26, 2006; 26 August 2006. View the source however, and they aren't the same. Bare years aren't wikied. See Manual of Style (dates and numbers). – flamurai (t) 06:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BerraFordMantle.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BerraFordMantle.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:DaneykoBanner.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DaneykoBanner.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 it not being deleted. Thank you. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:StevensBanner.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:StevensBanner.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 it not being deleted. Thank you. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Mantlemariscover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mantlemariscover.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils peer review
Hey, just noticed you posted the Devils for a peer review. Which is all fine and good, but you failed to add the template to the main peer review page. That's why no one commented on it, and one of the reasons why it failed FA nomination. I've posted it on the main page, so now it's formally up for peer review, and hopefully it will get constructive criticism, and once it's done, we'll re-submit it for FA nomination. Just thought you'd like to know. Anthony Hit me up... 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did have it on the main page and nobody was responding to it so I got impatient and took it off. --Sportskido8 16:31 CST, 31 August 2006

Images for deletion
As they are not currently being used in any articles, the following three images you uploaded have been listed on Images and media for deletion.


 * Image:Daneyko2.jpg
 * Image:Daneyko.jpg
 * Image:Stevensbanner.jpg --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)