User talk:Bluedog423

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archive

Contents

[edit] Help with webpage

You have done great work with a variety of Duke related articles and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the UNC-Duke rivalry webpage to make it better. Remember 13:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke Page

Congrats on having Duke University as the featured article of the day! You put a lot of effort into that, and it's great to see the alma mater front and center. DukeEGR93 11:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up

Dear Bluedog423,

I tried to work on all the issues that you brought up regarding the Ohio Wesleyan University article. I noticed several other people contributed. And hopefully that tremendously improved. Could you please take a look and let me know what other improvements, you might think are needed? Thank you for your time!!! WikiprojectOWU 04:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your extensive comments! I greatly appreciate your help!!!

I took most of your comments into account and commented on the ones that I didn't.

Will you support the article's FA nomination once your suggestions are taken into account? WikiprojectOWU 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy

Thanks for setting up the Duke Presidents template. But factually, presidents of Trinity College prior to Few, such as Kilgo, were not presidents of Duke University. Please fix your edits to reflect this fact -- thanks! Eleuther 02:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Could you take a look at the article when you have the time for more suggestions? Happy holidays! WikiprojectOWU 21:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are the best! WikiprojectOWU 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! These are some very helpful comments! :-) WikiprojectOWU 08:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Happy New Year! Hope all is well! I just wanted to let you know that I tried to include all of your suggestions. As always, they greatly improved the article! WikiprojectOWU 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the message from last week! I just realized I never responded to it! I noticed the peer review was closed. As a person with more experience in this process, what is your recommendation? Should I open another Peer Review? FAC? LaSaltarella 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Wisconsin-Madison

On 24 December 2006, I put up the UW-Madison article for Featured Article. It failed miserably, due in part to the fact that I had almost no idea what the criteria were for FA. I have now made considerable revisions. You had originally opposed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Wisconsin-Madison. Would you please consider looking over the article over again, and tell me how you would vote this time if it were put up for FA again? University of Wisconsin-Madison Thanks! – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding to my request, and thanks for all of the suggestions. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KvilleMap.PNG

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

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chick Bowen 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2001champs.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2001champs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article protection

I noticed your removal of a protection tag on the article 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal along with the edit summary "removed semi protection since consensus has been reached". Just an FYI, only users with admin status and above can add or remove protection; removing the template merely removes the notice. You can request that protection be removed on Wikipedia's request for page protection page. Thanks, auburnpilot talk 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up

Dear Bluedog423,

How is it going? You have been less active on WP these days. I just wanted to let you know that the article has gone through a major copyedit and unless I get major objections from WP editors, I am considering nominating it as a FAC. As you mentioned, comments will come up and hopefully, they should be fairly minor and fixable in the nomination process. LaSaltarella 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methodist Colleges tp box

I notice you participated in a prior discussion on the Template talk page for Methodist Colleges. Other than the religious affiliation concerns, which is discussed below, I thought you also might have objections to the size of the template box which I wholeheartedly understated, I think we can shave down the size of the box or set it to autocollapse. I just posted this on the talk page and hope that you could return.


I discovered two sources listing Methodist colleges and universities the first is the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities (IAMSCU) founded in 1991 which describes its members as Methodist-related schools, colleges, and universities and those with a Methodist tradition from throughout the world. the other is the directory of untied methodist related colleges, from The Untied Methodist Church in the US. Both are from the General Board of Higher Education websites:

From these sources this template seems pretty accurate, however it is missing several universities

Both the University of Puget Sound and Duke University are listed and the last elections for board of Directors are January 25, 2007 see here so this list seems pretty up to date, any objections to adding them back to the template? - thank you Astuishin 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :-)

Dear Bluedog324,

From all people helping me with editing of the OWU article, the biggest "Thank you" should go to you! :-) I just nominated the article in the FAC process. LaSaltarella 19:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duke Blue Devils

First off, the logo on sportslogos.net appears royal blue. The page (Duke page) says Royal Blue is their shade of blue. And the reason I added black is because on the basketball uniforms there are heavy elements on black. Heck, they have black alternate uniforms. That's why I added black. Crazy Canadian 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, on the University page, I'm not adding black. However, on the Sports teams page, I am since they use black in sports. Crazy Canadian 12:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great work

Great job adding all of those previous rankings to the UNC-Duke article. I helped create the initial table so I know how hard adding all that stuff can be. Where were you able to find all the previous rankings? Remember 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rape case photo discussion.

Hey - I tried to organize the discussion of the photo a bit, to make the (long) debate easier to read. It involved moving both our comments (completely intact) into a different section; if you have any problem with the reorganization at all (they are your comments, after all), just move them back and I'll leave them there. Guanxi 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I apparently suffered from the delusion that, after I organized it, people would post to the proper section. Ha ha. Sorry for the mess. Last time I try something like that. Guanxi 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your level-headedness and I agree there are two valid sides -- I think the evidence argument is a credible one (though I don't agree). My honest feeling is, I have no idea what happened that night, but I think it should be decided by a judge and jury, and not by the media and public, and that's what's happening. Trials before the media and public depend on who has access to the media, status, and power (i.e., the kids' parents). If that happens, a prostitute and local DA are way outgunned by people with connections on the highest levels. As a result, women like her who really are victims have no recourse, and can be attacked with impunity by people with status and power. Who's going to believe the prostitute? But, to emphasize, I have no idea what happened -- rape, assault, threats, or just racist slurs (which are wrong, but don't merit a Wikipedia page).

Anyway, if you are willing to act as the level-headed one: If you're familiar with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies, might you consider explaining gently them to Johntex? I think it's a neutral issue, but the fact that I'm saying it is creating communication problems. The current photo is from a blog, which is not a 'reliable source' AFAIK.

  • If the photo is being posted as evidence of her condition at a certain time, I think we need a reliable source (who says this photo is from that point in time? Maybe it was before, or much later). If there's a reliable source for it, I certainly won't object to posting it on these grounds.
  • If it's just posted to show a picture of her, then, if it's as widespread as people say, we're probably safe, but then I think there's less support for posting it in that circumstance.

If you just don't want to get involved, I understand completely! Thanks. Guanxi 01:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/u/User_talk%7EBluedog423_7ae8.html"