User talk:ModRocker86

Welcome!

Hello, ModRocker86, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! · j e r s y k o talk · 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Corkervictory.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Corkervictory.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. 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IFD of Image:Corkervictory.jpg

Hi. You nominated the image Image:Corkervictory.jpg for deletion at WP:IFD but this wasn't needed, as since you uploaded it, you can request it's deletion by putting {{db-author}} on the page. This is a criteria for speedy deletion. I have put the template on the page for you, and this isn't a big deal, you appear to be new and you can't know everything about processeses like this. Thank you for trying to clear up your mistakes, as most users wouldn't even bother. If you have questions on this or anything else, feel free to ask me on my talk page or the friendly folks at the help desk. Welcome to Wikipedia, and good luck. --MECU≈talk 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

order of precedence

Hi - I have removed the order of precedence boxes on senators' pages. I assume that you know what "order of precedence" actually means - ceremonial protocol only. But the problem is that it's not clear if most readers know what it means. By using the words "preceded by" and "succeeded by" there is an implication that it is describing succession, as in succession to the presidency in the event of a catastrophe, not precedence which means who sits where at an official dinner, etc. I don't think it's immediately apparent to readers less-informed about such matters that this is strictly a matter of symbolic protocol - only by reading the page for order of precedence does that become clear, and there's no reason to assume that people will click on that link to find out. So as it is now, it would seem best to not have a potentially confusing box on individual senators' pages. This is being discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Succession boxes: Order of precedence, fyi. If you really think order of precedence is important for senators' articles, then why not work it into the text - maybe in a miscellany-type section. But I and others think this box, as it is, is misleading to the average reader, especially in the US where "succession" is pretty well understood, but "precedence" is not really. Glad to talk about it, of course. Tvoz | talk 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing major. I noticed that some more senior senators had the order of precedence in their succession box, so I added it to the freshman and other new senators. I don't think it was that important, just trying to get some uniformity among the current senators.ModRocker86 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great - I'm all for uniformity otherwise! Tvoz | talk 23:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read this discourse a few months back and it hasn;t set right with me. There are still several order of precedence boxes on pages for Presidents, Cabinet Secretaries, etc. I do not beleive Succession boxes have to necessarily by limited to chronologically held positions. I beleive we need to have all or none here at wikipedia. The only question is which one I would take. I'm leaning toward "ALL" : putting the order of precedence succession boxes back on the senators pages.--Dr who1975 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schweiker was a Republican

Thank you for correcting the info for Richard Schweiker on the page United States Senators by seniority (1979, 1980). I have made sure to correct the data on the other Senate seniroity pages too.--Dr who1975 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Winfield Dunn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Winfield Dunn.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).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Ford's succession box

Greetings. I could not help noticing that you have re-added the information about the home states of the House Minority Leaders (and possibly the House Republican Conference Chairmen) to Gerald Ford's succession box, and I should like to ask why exactly. You see, I had removed it because it was completely redundant; the leadership not being rotating, the state is immaterial and its mentioning can have the reader draw erroneous conclusions about the importance of the state. I simply wonder if there is any other reason for adding this particular piece of information back into the box other than the "the more information the better" principle. Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the states because many other House and Senate leadership members have the states of their predecessors/successors in their succession box. I am all for standardization so I added that to the Ford box. I see, however, that you are part of a standardization project and I shall yield to you and your groups new standard and will assist you in your endeavour if necessary. I have no idea who started the practice of adding states in succession boxes (and those who also insist on adding party affiliation as well). ThanksModRocker86 20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that states (or countries) should be added under a predecessor/successor's name only in cases of rotating presidencies, and I shall attempt to move things towards this direction and remove the states from the leadership succession lines (or have them removed). As you can see by looking at the later United States Presidents' boxes (which I have all edited), I have added the countries for the G8 presidency and have adopted a specific format for doing so (small italicised linked names).

Your help will be much appreciated, I can assure you. If you find succession boxes interesting enough, you might even register yourself as a member of SBS; we do need helping hands, being in a constant lack of contributors. Voicing your opinion for the matters currently discussed in the talk page would be a good start, anyway.

Thank you for your understanding. Waltham, The Duke of 07:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Don Sundquist.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Don Sundquist.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 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 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Losing standardized boxes?

You've been eliminating the use of {{USRepSuccessionBox}} and {{U.S. Senator box}}. Why? —Markles 13:59, 13 November 2007 (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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]