User talk:Tarmbrecht

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:WesternHigh.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Western.jpg. The copy called Image:Western.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cassanda Diaz
A tag has been placed on Cassanda Diaz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Macromonkey (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 NIT
Hi. Please do not link the teams on the 2009 NIT page bracket after the first round. There is no need to have duplicate links right next to each other, and this practice has not existed on al of the other NCAA and NIT articles. Please do not revert once the correction is made again. Let me know if you have any questions or issues. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks more uniform, instead of changing from blue to black. Also, what is the issue with multiple links. Even on the same page, every teams's conference is linked, not just the first oneTarmbrecht (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is overlinking. The same link exists right next to it, which is a bit overkill.  Please look at other NCAA and NIT articles like I said.  Frankly, I don't think the links should even be listed once in the brackets, since they are already listed in the table above the bracket.  However, please see the edit history... I am not the only editor that believes that this is an issue.  Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, what is the issue with "overlinking"? It doesn't hurt anyone.And I looked at the other pages and some of them aren't linked at all, so that is no basis for not linking multiple timesTarmbrecht (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the point, they don't have, and frankly don't need links in the brackets when they are linked right about the brackets in the table. Saying "because there are two links to the same page, adding a third doesn't matter" is not convincing.  Odds are after everything is said and done, even the first links in the brackets will be removed.  Regardless, saying three (or four or five as the tourney goes on) is no different than two is unpersuasive. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And you saying "don't do it because I don't like it" isn't very persuasive either. If someone is reading the article and wants to see more information on a team, they shouldn't have to scroll all the way up to the top of the article to do so. Also, why is it OK to link to all of the comferences multiple times?Tarmbrecht (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)