User talk:TDJankins

Merger
Good day, you are invited to this merger discussion. Lbertolotti (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Wais4 example question.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wais4 example question.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot copyright license that which has no copyright. Did you not see the comment to file?  It explicitly states: "This is a single questionnaire item which is considered a functional device and thus has no copyright (see 37 C.F.R. 202.1(b) and (c))."  I find it a little hard to believe that this issue has never come up before, especially since, as you say, "Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously."  Anyhow, maybe you can get Wikipedia's administrators to add this option to the license menu, but no need to rush on my account, it's not a big deal to me either way.--TDJankins (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger
You are invited to the discussion. Lbertolotti (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, you are invited to this discussion as well. Lbertolotti (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

History Section on SAT Page
Hi, TDJankins. That's a reasonable suggestion, thank you, perhaps the tie-in is clearer to me than the reader. My thinking is: This is one part of the article where a discussion of somewhat peripheral information is hard to avoid; after all, it concerns the history of the SAT and (as in particular, the few sentences in question) how it came to be, before the SAT itself existed. Erjwiki (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Universities are colleges, correct?
Hi. I started a discussion on talk:SAT about the understanding that universities are in the category of colleges, so I propose a rewording that got reverted. Will you please give us your input on this, and perhaps revert the reversion? Thanks! Thayve Sintar (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Cal Poly name
Hi TDJankins and thank you for your edits to both Cal Poly articles. There have been various discussions in the past about the use of the name "Cal Poly" in the Cal Poly Pomona article talk page, in the Cal Poly San Luis Obispo article, and in the in the Cal Poly (disambiguation) talk page. These discussion go back well over a decade now and the general consensus is that for academic pages, "Cal Poly" is an ambiguous term that may refer to either college. For example, Cal Poly Universities Rose Float is the name of the rose float both universities put together and it's not referred to the "Cal Poly and Cal Poly Pomona Rose Float". For sports contexts CPSLO trademarked the term "Cal Poly" and CPP trademarked "Cal Poly Pomona" and "CPP", hence the pages Cal Poly Mustangs and Cal Poly Pomona Broncos. The ultimate, third party (and legal owner of the term "Cal Poly") is the CSU Chancellor's office which, in its Branding Standards Guide uses "Cal Poly San Luis Obispo" for California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo and "Cal Poly Pomona" and "CPP" for California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. I hope this clarifies why I will revert some of your edits. Regards, Chlorineer (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope, the term Cal Poly is owned by Cal Poly and not just for sports purposes, but for general education purposes as well. See:
 * http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:onrzzr.2.5


 * and


 * http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:onrzzr.2.3


 * The second one clarifies who "The Trustees of the California State University" is, if the address didn't already make it abundantly clear ("The Trustees of the California State University AKA California Polytechnic State University").


 * Cal Poly has never referred to Cal Poly Pomona since Cal Poly Pomona's inception in 1966. The Pomona campus was only called Cal Poly when that real estate was part of Cal Poly between 1949-1966. Cal Poly Pomona explicitly says to never refer to it as just Cal Poly. https://www.cpp.edu/~graphicstandards/identity/nomenclature.shtml --TDJankins (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * These arguments don't really address the reasons that editors have seen the necessity for disambiguation here: if an entire page of the Cal Poly Pomona website is needed to address the question, it strongly suggests that Wikipedia users need guidance on this question as well. But more immediately, please take note that a WP:Proposed deletion tag may be placed on an article only once, and may not be restored if it has been removed by another editor for any reason (or even for no reason).  And WP:Proposed deletion may not be used when the article has been subject to a previous deletion discussion, as this one was in 2014, see Articles for deletion/Cal Poly.  Accordingly, I have removed the prod notice you improperly replaced here.  You can start a new discussion at WP:Articles for deletion if you want, but if you do so, please try to respond directly to the points raised above and in the prior AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  07:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Notifying Wikipedia of a potential legal issue, namely secondary liability for trademark infringement, is not me threatening suit. Notifying Wikipedia administrators is the correct route for unambiguous copyright infringements, so why would it not be the correct route for unambiguous trademark infringements?  Threatening to block me for notifying Wikipedia of an IP infringement is an intimidation tactic that won't work and shows a great deal of hubris.--TDJankins (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Since you seem to have no idea how trademarks work, let's start with the entry from my old copy of The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual:
 *  trademark A trademark is a brand, symbol, word, etc., used by a manufacturer or dealer and protected by law to prevent a competitor [emphasis added] from using it; AstroTurf, for a type of artificial grass, for example.


 * Unless you have evidence that Wikipedia is using the "Cal Poly" name to fool consumers into thinking that it's associated with a particular California-based university or is deriving some commercial benefit from using the name without authorization -- maybe selling "Cal Poly Wikipedia coffee mugs? -- your claim of "IP infringement" is pure nonsense. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's what you're hung up on, I specifically pointed out on the Administrator's Noticeboard the fact that Wikipedia has been, and is, profusely used for hidden advertising (see here). Are you in denial about that consideration? Regardless, that consideration doesn't magically go away just because you'd like to ignore it.--TDJankins (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hidden advertising (AKA native advertising) is what gets Wikipedia content, which is what gets it prominence, which is what gets it donations from the hidden advertisers (wishing to keep their Wikipedia advertisements high up on search engines). That's Wikipedia's whole business model. A recent summary of the rapidly expanded law regarding secondary liability for trademark infringement can be found here. Further, it's important to remember that a trademark owner is required to police its trademark or jeopardize losing it. Given that the subject page is a very straightforward trademark infringement, it's highly suspicious that Wikipedia's administrators have been so adamant about attributing Cal Poly's trademark to another company, even going so far as to block someone who points out the risk of secondary liability for trademark infringement.--TDJankins (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not "in denial", I'm saying that your pseudo-legal claim is ignorant projection on your part, that you don't understand the very basics of what you're claiming, that you're inventing ridiculous legal rationales, that you're pretending to legal knowledge that you clearly don't possess, and that your cosplay Clarence Darrow schtick is disruptive.

If you had a leg to stand on, a simple e-mail to Wikipedia's legal department -- which employs actual lawyers -- would have resulted in irrevocable action to remove the problem. Notice that it hasn't? --Calton | Talk 08:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 03:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You were explicitly warned to drop the pseudo-legal warnings. Your attempts to intimidate other editors into supporting your edits by doing the same thing here is not acceptable. --Neil N  talk to me 03:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You blocked me for notifying Wikipedia of a potential legal risk. Bravo.--TDJankins (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's very suspicious that Wikipedia's administrators are so adamant about attributing one company's trademark to another company (i.e., secondary liability for trademark infringement) to the point that they're willing to block someone who points out the potential legal risk.--TDJankins (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the editor sees nothing wrong with their editing and has continued the pseudo-legal warnings warned against here, I would recommend not unblocking. --Neil N  talk to me 07:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a Wikipedia approved reason for the block then cite it. You having a personal vendetta or dislike is not a qualifying reason.--TDJankins (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your constant attempts to intimidate other editors by inventing legal consequences is disruptive editing. You can take up legal issues by emailing info-en-c@wikimedia.org. --Neil N  talk to me 07:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are clearly the only one inventing things. Nowhere did I attempt to  "intimidate other editors by inventing legal consequences."  Your inability to cite a Wikipedia approved reason for blocking me proves you had no actual reason for blocking, but are instead just trying to manipulate Wikipedia's policies for your own personal preferences. Wikipedia is not censored.--TDJankins (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus to redirect Cal Poly to California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. It has been discussed for over a decade and was recently re-discussed because of your pseudo-legal warnings and threats. The consensus is to maintain the DAB page.--Chlorineer (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I was blocked for mentioning the risk of secondary liability for trademark infringement on the Cal Poly talk page. Please someone direct me to that Wikipedia rule.--TDJankins (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Finally got around to fixing your vandalism of the article on the College Board
I am bringing that up here as additional evidence for why you should never be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Your edits amounted to clear vandalism of the article and should have been reverted immediately. Most educated persons are aware by early adolescence that the name of the College Board always takes a definite article. I knew that by the time I was twelve years old, the first time I took the SAT (in order to attend CTY). --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)