User talk:65tosspowertrap

Welcome!

Hello, 65tosspowertrap, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am CTSWyneken. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Provide an Edit summary
Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
Create a User page

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. --CTSWyneken 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)^(talk)[reply]

Jim Kiick

'65: The stub status is there just to attract attention to the need for expansion of an article. If you've taken to the level that it covers the subject by-an-large, be bold and delete the stub template that appears at the bottom of the article. It looks something like this: {{stub}}. That's all there is to it. While you're at it, its good to make sure your article has several categories listed at the bottom. These cats are how people, by and large, will find your article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Butchandsundance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Butchandsundance.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Super Bowl III edits

I consider "excessive comentary" to be statements that are obvouisly personal opinions or are not verified by facts. For example, calling Namath's incompletion "one of the most important incomplete passes in pro football history" is flagrently biased and excessive. The importance of the incompletion can be explained without claiming it is more or less important then other incomplesions. Back when I was new at editing Super Bowl articles, I made a simular mistake by calling John Taylor's 45-yard punt return in Super Bowl XXIII "the most exciting play in the first half". Soon after, I realized that statement was an obvouis opinion, not facts, and it needed to be removed.

Another example is the statement "The Colts could have scored 27 points in the first half. They scored none." That is pure speculation based on events that did not happen. Even if the Colts had not blown their scoring opportunities, they still might have settled for field goals instead of touchdowns ended up with less then 27 points. Also, any alteration of the real events would change the entire game, thus making it possible that the Colts would not have had the chance to score 27 points. Furhtermore, the fact that the Colts blew their chances at points has already been clearly explained, so this sentence is not needed.

"The Jets were having great success running off left tackle behind the blocking of Winston Hill, who was overpowering 36-year-old defensive end Ordell Braase, the man who had tormented the rookie Hill in Colts' training camp." Is not as bad, but I think it needs some citation because it sounds like an opinion. A simple reference would solve this problem.

Also I'm going to remove your statement about Bubba Smith having "only" one sack. One sack isn't really bad. If a player recorded one sack in every game, he would have 16 sacks for the season, which is considered outstanding. Furthermore, there have been many great defensive linemen who have played an entire Super Bowl without recording any sacks. So in fact, I think playing a game injured and recording a sack is an accomplishment.

I hope this explination helps with your edits. By the way, I'm pretty impressed with most of the info you found. I have done exstensive editing on Super Bowl III(along with the other Super Bowls) and thought I had found every piece of relavent info there was on the game, but it turns out I was wrong.Chainclaw

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kiick-csonka.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kiick-csonka.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 13:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kiickposter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kiickposter.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 02:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Alwaysontherun1.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Alwaysontherun1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim O'Brien kick

I believe you were right about the "creative liberties" NFL Films used in their Super Bowl V highlight film on what is supposed to be the winning kick, but I think some of their more recent footage of the game doesn't use the "extra point" clip you referred to (I've got a 1995 tape where the winning field goal call is accompanied with video showing the end zone angle). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]