User talk:Mastrchf91

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting point on #2, but I'm not sure I understand your problem with it. If there is an article about a season, there should almost certainly be a picture of something within that season. I can't really imagine a time where one wouldn't exist. Thousands of fans at the events (in at least many instances). Surely at least one person would upload photos to Flickr or another site and license them to be used. Tell you what, why don't you give me a worst case modern scenario and I'll see what I can find. We'll make this a test case (admittedly an anecdotal one) to see if this works? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Most likely, it won't affect many articles. My entire point was that I couldn't fully support a guideline that might possibly support not using an image over using a fair use image. I couldn't really give you a worst case modern scenario; I'm sure that there are enough people who take cameras to games to support most if not all teams' pages. My apologies for not being able to give you a suitable test case. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, point taken. Perhaps a rephrase is in order? I think the season thing is a bit overblown, but I'd rather have a concrete guideline than remain wishy-washy. Thanks for your neutral POV though.

"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" -Zapp Brannigan

— BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How about doing something like stating it is an absolute last resort to use such a logo? — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That would work for me. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thansk. :) I didn't get what meant by "change the key to the lists". Would you describe it please? Behnam (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• "I still cannot support a measure which says to not use an image instead of using an already uploaded fair-use image".

  Could you clarify that? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  I think it's quite self-explanatory. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. You oppose a measure that says "don't use an image" instead of using a fair use image? or "don't use an image instead of using a fair use image"? I'm sorry, but I don't understand the use of the word "image" in this context. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In simple terms, I cannot support the ridiculous notion that if no free alternative is in place, we should not have an image even if a perfectly good fair-use image is already uploaded. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 13:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Which seems to be exactly in line with my point about album covers. If you were referring only to logos, could you please qualify why they should be treated differently? J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That really wouldn't be the most terrible use either. But that fight is one I'd choose not to take. As for this, the logo identifies the team. There is absolutely no detrimental effect to the article or the encyclopedia to have the non-free image included in the article as long as it is already uploaded, and frankly I think it's ridiculous for one to say there is. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point...but why not support the latest version then? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

<-- "To further the goals of a free encyclopedia, do not use any versions of copyrighted logos including: team logos, logo(s) of a school, or athletic department logo(s)." That line is still included. Therefore, I still cannot support. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 12:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who weighed in before, I would like your input on this discussion.--2008Olympian^chitchat 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya so you left a message on my talk page about non-constructive edits. There was a discrepancy between spellings in Kelly's info as her name was spelled KellEY in her infobox template, so I went back and changed what I thought to be a typo based on another, more important typo. 98.148.16.22 (talk)

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for fixing my error there, much appreciated! And thanks for your kind words about my Office work. I've been enjoying myself with it. :) Incidentally, if you'd like to help, I've got a while bunch of Office episode GAN nominations right now) that need review (as well as some Parks and Recreation ones, if you're a fan of that too), but you're obviously under no obligation. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know you have 3 months from the end of The Office season 5, or until 14 August, to get the article to FL, or else the topic will be eligible for nomination for removal. Thanks ;) rst20xx (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos/Archive_1, I have included you in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, I hope we can achieve a lasting solution. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to get this article about Arkansas history reviewed for Good Article status and was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it. Thanks, --The_stuart (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 2 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 1 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 4 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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 Wikipedia: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. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:LocalAd2.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

This is an important message from WikiProject Wikify. You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at this page—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify. Thank you for your support, WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 20:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

An article that you have been involved in editing, E-mail Surveillance has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. . Fences&Windows 17:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)