Talk:Ole Miss Rebels/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Olemisslogo.jpg

Image:Olemisslogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• New image and Fair Use Rationale in place. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

How is this page any more biased than the USC Trojans page? 199.67.138.154 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)AE

Controversy

I am adding reports concerning Ole Miss 75.134.128.140 04:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The controversy sections must be kept because it is a historic facts that are documented in archives and news articles throughout the country. 207.250.199.126 01:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The articles sourced report POSSIBLE violations and do not say any of the violations are true. Worded as they are, the paragraphs are not relevant. They were written to say the violations were true and that in fact the program violated NCAA rules when the news articles only report of possible violations without any further sources saying the violations were admitted to by Ole Miss or found true by the SEC or NCAA. Therefore, unless they can be re-written with these points, they should be deleted. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nevermind. I re-wrote the paragraphs to reflect correctness from the article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sourced. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ole Miss imposed "self discipline: and supports findings and sources. NCAA report concerning Powe is unique and very troubling. To not list it is worse would be more troubling than to note it. Before erasing making a case to support your argument reflecting articles importance.Spellmanloves67 00:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• It is not controversy involving the football program or any rules violations. Powe, just like the other thousands of college athletes around the country, had to submit to the same requirements of the NCAA. He failed those requirements - three times I might add. End of story. It wasn't a "controversy". Just a case of a kid who can't make the grades to play. As I have said, if you list him, then you have to list the untold numbers of other kids who didn't make the grade, not only at Ole Miss, but at any college and university in the nation. If you want to include the Powe info, go start a page about him or incorporate it somewhere else in this article but it doesn't go under controversy. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Your argument carries no weight what so ever. The differences between Powe and the "thousands of other kids" is as different as night and day. Powe has tried not once, but three times to get on the team and the evidence found by the NCAA is so unique and troubling that is mus tbe mentioned. The story relates that the NCAA report said "It also expressed concern that Mr. Powe completed a vast amount of coursework in a limited amount of time that was much shorter than the average time it takes students to complete BYU independent study courses."

This is so controversial it may need its own article.Spellmanloves67 06:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Allstarecho stop erasing true and accurate information jsut because you din't agree with it. These are facts that need to be included in the article and do not reflect your argument as Wikipedia:Vandalism. You are not the supreme commander of the Ole Miss article.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no controversy section at Mississippi State Bulldogs and lord knows they've had quite a bit of controversy themselves. So until such a section becomes standard practice, it's all hear-say and does not belong in the article. -- ALLSTARecho 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Allstarecho Do you even know what hear-say is?

The definition is:

hearsay [-sei] noun

that which one has been told about by others but for which one has otherwise no evidence

You can find it here:

hear-say. (n.d.). Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary. Retrieved December 07, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hear-say

Did you see the documented citations which clearly provide proof that what has been posted is TRUE?

Looks like the controversy sections STAYS!!!Freddiebender (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to get in the middle of this fight, but you guys need to work this out civily. I'll admit I have little knowledge of the subject (I honestly don't follow college football much at all even though I'm from the US), but it seem like this is worthy of being kept in the article. From what I can see everything is sourced properly and is not that outlandish.

If it's a matter of changing the sentences a bit, then work together on it. The constant revertion is just childish and unproductive. Do an RFC or if need be take it a step further to mediation, but for godsakes do something besides reverting. Davidpdx (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Davidpdx I have not been reverting. Allstarecho keeps erasing sections that need to be kept in the section.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Spellman, in a sense yes you are. Ever heard the saying, "it takes two to tango"? Hopefully whatever the disagreement is temporary, I'm just urging you guys to work it out.