User talk:Terryfoster

Michigan Marching Band

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Michigan Marching Band and Michigan Marching Band History articles, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the articles in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! - Engineer Bob 05:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Posted on Engineer Bob's talk page and copied here: "I am currently working on getting rights to the copy on the MMB website. As a former member I assumed certain liberties, but I will hopefully get rights to the copy that was rightfully removed." Terryfoster 14:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding the copyright concerns. I see that you've already begun rewriting the main article in your own words. Many years ago I had the opportunity to play in Michigan stadium with the Purdue band, so I look forward to reading your revised article. - Engineer Bob 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Posted on Engineer Bob's talk page and copied here: "I have received approval to use the copy I took and posted this approval in the talk page for the Michigan Marching Band History. I'm not sure what i'm supposed to post to the copyright violation page to get this cleared up so that the copyright violation can be lifted. The benefit I see in posting the history to the Wikipedia is so that other users can add to the history as they see fit otherwise I could just post a link." - Terryfoster 19:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. I'm personally satisfied that you've received approval to copy this material, but I believe you're also supposed to provide a copy of your authorization to the Wikipedia legal folks -- check Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details. Once you've done that you can go back and revert your articles to the old revisions; you'll probably want to add a "used with permission of MMB" note. Engineer Bob 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Terry, I've looked into the OTRS action you asked to be reviewed. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-28t18:14z

[1]

If there's no "reliable, published source" the information can't stay in Wikipedia.

Having something in a journal like Nature or a newspaper like Le Monde is usually also an indication that something is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Even if something is mentioned in a local newspaper (a reliable and published source) or there is a published statement from the MMB administration, that may not be enough to indicate that it qualifies as being notable enough. There can even be an argument made that the band itself is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-29t09:26z

Michigan Wolverines football

Terry,

The page that we have chatting championships on has been locked. I've added support for my side of the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michigan_Wolverines

My perception of that support is that it suggests that the NCAA page is not accurate in that it cites a source equivalent to that used in the link above, the link above supports the discussion point that Michigan might reasonably claim 4 other years than those currently supported by the NCAA page, yet the NCAA page and the source cited are not consistent. If brought into consistency, I believe the 7 versus 11 objection will vanish.

I'll hope to see the Michigan page synchronized with the NCAA page, and the NCAA page synchronized with the above provided link. If you agree with my conclusions, either one of us may make the change. I'd actually prefer that you or the other gentlemen make it in order for me to avoid "tainting" the page with my Non-NPOV perspective. Thanks for your efforts.

Regards,

66.65.76.15 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Templates

I used the blatantvandal template. I much prefer it because then they only get one warning before you can get them blocked. You can read about it here. -TheMile 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Terryfoster 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the extensive vandalism to the UM football page today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Wolverines_football), might it be locked until after Saturday's game? Would it be possible to eject the vandal from Wikipedia as well? 66.65.76.15 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

After repeated acts of blatant vandalism (blanking, profanity, juvenile expostulations...)to the University of Michigan article, I'm voting to have user Cavsfanman23 banned for at least a day or two. I'm not that familiar with the ins/outs and generally confine myself to editing, so I prefer to request this of a neutral authority. Might you take it under advisement? Thanks in advance. Wolvve85 01:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

regarding your accusation of vandalism

Terryfoster,

This message is to respond to your flagging me as vandalizing the Michigan Wolverines football article. In fact, I did make a significant mistake in my edit, as I initially thought it erroneous that Michigan would have played in two bowl games in the same year (Rose and Alamo in 2005). I checked my facts and noticed that they had played in the Alamo Bowl at the end of their 2005 season and the Rose Bowl at the end of their 2004 season, thus made the immediate assumption that they could not have played in the Rose Bowl in 2005. Alas, I forgot that, because the Rose Bowl is held at the beginning of the calendar year, the 2005 game would correspond to the end of their 2004 season. I was thinking that the 2004 game corresponded to the end of their 2004 season, for which I was wrong. I am aware this comes on a day where there are probably many other vandals on the site, but I insist I am not one of them. If I were, my edit probably wound not have been so benign as it was.

I appreciate that Wikipedia has so many wonderful members that are doing an excellent job at assuring the integrity of the site, and I am glad someone was there to correct my mistake. But remember, vandalism implies some sort of INTENT to commit wrongdoing (or, as Wikipedia defines vandalism, "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"), and I was by no means attempting this. Wikipedia's vandalism policy also clearly states that those who spot mistakes should contact the individual who made the mistake to clarify its factuality (or lack thereof) and confirm that the act was indeed not vandalism. Finally, the policy states that one should check the prior contributions made by the mistaken editor, to see if they have a history of vandalism. You should take note that I do have a small history of edits to other pages that are all in extremely good-faith.

Please take this as a mere mistake on my part, and remove this accusation of vandalism.

Thank you for your attentiveness. Cheers. 68.40.202.129 07:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my warning. I have no way of telling who you are since you're an anonymous editor on Wikipedia so checking prior contributions is irrelevant. I admit your timing was very poor, but you left no explanation until well after the fact as to why you made your edit and so it appeared to be a partial blanking form of vandalism. Brief reasoning should be left on either the talk page or on your edit summary. I would highly recommend (as noted in the warning) registering with Wikipedia and to leave reasons for your edits (if they aren't obvious) to prevent this from happening again in the future. Terryfoster 14:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines football: National Championships

Thanks for your message and your participation in the WikiProject CFB discussion on the issue of infobox national championships. Much appreciated.-PassionoftheDamon 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism on 2006 Michigan Wolverines football team

I think you and I reverted the same vandalism. But I think I might have missed something. Could you please double-check the final result? -- Ben (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked it out. It looks like someone put a change in for the trojans to be number 7 as opposed to number 8. I don't normally keep up with this kind of thing... is this chart supposed to have the AP ranking? or the coaches ranking? -- Ben (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the coaches and I think that 7 is right. Any comment? I left it at 7. -- Ben (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what it's supposed to be, 7 sounds fine. Terryfoster 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

UM Medical Campus

Sorry about my hastiness in removing the passage concerning the UM Medical Campus (I am currently in the middle of an FAR for Ann Arbor). However, I should note that the passage, in its original form, is a complete mess (which would seriously detract from the UM article if it remained in that state). Hence, I have recovered the passage and moved it over to the UM article talk page in the hopes that someone will help out in cleaning it up before it is inserted back into the article. Pentawing^Talk 00:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Michigan Marching Band

The minute details of who got elected or not-elected in any given year in a college marching band are not encyclopedic. In this case, they are exposing on one of the world's top-10 Web sites a situation which the parties involved have requested be left alone. I don't quite understand why you want to expose this - do you just enjoy hurting other people? Please remember that what you are writing affects real, live people on this Earth, who have thoughts, feelings and private lives. The information in question simply does not matter enough to Wikipedia to merit making the impact that it does on a living, breathing person. FCYTravis 23:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I have made my arguments on why this was a noteworthy event and not just a minute detail, but since it does lack a published source I agree that it doesn't belong here. Personally, I don't appreciate being noted as writing a "untruthful statement about living person" when what was removed was factually accurate and that may have spurred on my quest to have it included. If instead it was noted in the edit comments that this was removed for lack of a reliable source which is against WP policy, it would have resulted a different response. I certainly cannot argue against the fact that it lacks sources so, again I have decided to leave this alone. -- Terryfoster 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Marching band

You're Invited!! Based on your Wikipedia contributions, you may want to consider joining WikiProject Marching band. More information can be found on the project page. We hope you'll join us!

.

--Littledrummrboy 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Terry, I hate to do this, but …

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on University of Notre Dame. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -- KelleyCook 03:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the 3RR rule does not apply to vandalism reverts. I will take the warning under advisement, but when users make edits to change material that is properly cited, I believe that constitues vandalism. Terryfoster 03:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does apply -- see WP:3RR. None of the exceptions apply, so this silly one-word edit would be considered "content dispute" which is why I'm threw the warning. The point of the rule is basically to not to engage in edit wars. Don't worry, I'm not reporting you, as the IP user is clearly boneheaded and I think your 3 reverts were inadvertent. Let some others join the fray. I've seen admins nuked on 3RR for "content dispute" issues -- KelleyCook 03:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mmb logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mmb logo.gif. 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 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

William Revelli

I have started a page today on William Revelli and given your work on the MMB page thought you might want to add to the article.Cbl62 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines men's basketball

I am writing you because you are one of the leaders in edit count at Michigan Wolverines. Do you understand the code for infobox jerseys and know the details of the Michigan color schemes? I have just started Michigan Wolverines men's basketball.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1997 Michigan Wolverines football team

I am contacting you based on your extensive involvment in Michigan Wolverines football. I have beefed up 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team. It could use some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎. Also, I had trouble finding game details for the Little Brown Jug game. I hope to take this to WP:FAC so if you get a chance this is one of the more important articles that you might be able to help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)