User talk:TiconderogaCCB/Archive 1

Hello, TiconderogaCCB, 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! Will (Talk - contribs) 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SJU Logo.GIF)

Thanks for uploading Image:SJU Logo.GIF. 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 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Citations on St. John's Article.

please don't remove citations. this article makes broad statements without citing them. also tuition is as important as demographics in opening paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.7.90 (talk • contribs)

Copyright infringment

Your addition to the St John's University article violates copyright infringement. [1] based from http://www.redstormsports.com/about/traditions. Please cease from infringing on the works of others. 149.68.7.90 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Boosterism

Please stop placing in academic boosting terms. There is no set policy concerning the order of placement. You stating that something is biased is ridiculous. Everything placed in is cited material. Challenge the citations. DMVGuy 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see the discussion page. There is no question as to the validity of your edits, just the location. My edit retains the same information but puts it in a more appropriate section. For instance, if you were to write an article about MLK, would you first state the he committed adultry before discussing his importance to the civil rights movement, of course not. Neither would you discuss rankings or scandels before first establishing more defining characteristics of the university. The rankings and scandels are important, if I did not think so I would have omitted them. I just feel, as do most of the people on the dicussion page, that you are attempting to degrade a school for some personal reason by posting negative, and subjective data (as "rankings" are) at the beginning of the article. Please cease this maddness. If you want to constructively edit my reverted page, please do. But to revert to a page that is obviously designed to attack St. John's is just absurd. --TiconderogaCCB 00:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on St. John's University (New York City) for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 11:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TiconderogaCCB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits have been constructive and do not constitute vandalism. Two editors continue to edit the St. John's article to reflect negatively on the university, and in a format that is not fitting for the article. The discussion page has tried to engage them on this issue, but they have not cooperated, instead reporting anyone who tries to change their edits.

Decline reason:

WP:3RR applies to all articles and to all editors. The only exception is when reverting vandalism or WP:BLP violations. I suggest you readWikipedia:Resolving disputes during your time out. -- Netsnipe ► 20:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked II

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on St. John's University (New York City) for a period of forty-eight hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 15:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's University (New York City)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on St. John's University (New York City). 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. — UnclePaco 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusive sockpuppetry to duck the three-revert rule. Using sockpuppet accounts to revert the same article your main account reverts is absolutely forbidden, this includes the use of IP addresses. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Duqlawcoatofarms.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Duqlawcoatofarms.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 16:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Sju.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sju.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 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sju.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sju.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 08:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Duqlawcoatofarmssmall.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Duqlawcoatofarmssmall.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 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wc&s.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wc&s.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 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stjohnslogo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Stjohnslogo.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 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sju.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sju.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 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gspia log.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gspia log.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media 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. Esrever ^(klaT) 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, February 2008

Please avoid uncivil language on talk pages. It will lead to another block of your account, to avoid further damage to Wikipedia. Please read WP:NAM, WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:BITE, and WP:3RR. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What uncivil language are you referring too? - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one, see also this one ---96.229.184.69 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: post on my talk page.

Well, I am not sure what is going on with this apparent edit war. I was only reverting vandalism, and I thought Uconnstud was vandalizing. Based on my interpretation of Wikipedia's vandalism policy, and what he said on my talk page, he was not vandalizing, although he may have been edit-warring. In any case, the only reason I even said anything on his talk page is because I am using huggle, and huggle issues a warning automatically when I revert a "vandalism". Since he was not vandalizing, I removed the warning from his talk page. I was not supporting him in any way, I honestly have no desire to get involved. (Although if you and he want, I will try to give you and him a neutral third opinion.) I was just apologizing for a misdirected warning and removing the warning myself, since I added it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's University (New York City)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on St. John's University (New York City). 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for requesting a third opinion - hopefully, some reasonable compromise or discussion is possible. I would only note, in light of the above, that you take care not to revert further on the article, or it may result in a block. As I indicated to Uconnstud - you're both reasonable people, and I'm confident that something can come from a discussion with J.delanoy. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

third opinion

I have notified Uconnstud that I will give a third opinion on the article and asked him not to edit the article for a few minutes. Please also do not edit the article for a few minutes so I can look at the two versions and see if I can come up with a solution. I will post my observations on the article's talk page. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's up. Can you look at it and see what you think? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:St. John's University (New York), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 03:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I had archived the discussion. Another user reported me out of spite. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the fact that you deleted the IP's opinion and kept one in that supported yours. Uconnstud (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now your just making stuff up. And you just deleted additions I made to my own comments. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i guess Tiptoety realized what was really going on. Uconnstud (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Your edits are absolutely uncalled for, and you are relentless in trying to get every administrator to think I'M the one in the wrong. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit confirms the deletion of a comment you surely do not approve of. seicer | talk | contribs 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. But that edit was a deletion of a duplicate. [2] - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Please Please

I'm going to copy this to both TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs) and Uconnstud (talk · contribs). You're now discussing the merits of the article and the third opinion on that article, which is excellent - that's a great sign that this can be worked out. But, for the love of all that is holy, you both need to disengage with each other. Since this dispute has been posted to ANI, AIV, AN3, and every fourth administrator, there are a lot of eyes on your conduct right now. Please Please Please, limit your interactions to the talk page of the article, and then only to discuss the merits. Accusations of bad faith, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, and other shenanigans do not help anyone resolve this dispute - quite the opposite. Stop following each other around, stop arguing in every available forum, and focus on discussing the article. This is solveable, you're both discussing ways to compromise on a solution, let's stop the shenanigans. Continuing this dispute in this way will not end well for anyone. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master Plan

The st john's master plan was huge for the school. care to write on it and make its own article as well as place it in the proposed article? [3] Uconnstud (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redmen logo was this [4] . It was actually racist in nature. Uconnstud (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would but I've seen a number of images at the actual campus at newman hall. Also if we are supposed to be working together why is this still up? [5] . As one administrator said.. you're only making the situation worse. Uconnstud (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Uconnstud (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_john%27s_university_master_plan Uconnstud (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great compromise

I didn't agree to the controversial events. I feel that if it involved a member of the St. John's University community it should be included. Though newer additions are always up for discussion. We just have to make sure its NPOV and referenced. Uconnstud (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location

The school is located in Jamaica, Queens, NY. If you look at [[6]] Stony Brook you'll see that it states the school is at Stony Brook Long Island. It doesn't list itself as being Suffolk County Long Island. Queens is a county, Jamaica is the neigborhood in Long Island. If you go here you'll see that Stony Brook does have branch campuses, such as stony brook manhattan, and stony brook southampton. It surely doesn't change the fact that it is in Stony Brook, Long Island [7] Uconnstud (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location I can say I'm international, but if my primaryl location is in Great Neck, New York. If the presidents office is in Great Neck New York. If all applications are sent to Great Neck New York.. guess what.. i'm in Great Neck New York. It doesn't change the reality of the situation no matter what I believe or what I advertise. How about a compromise of Jamaica, NY & SI, NY .. that will show 98% of all students Uconnstud (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not familiar with NYC at all. The Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn identify using only those names, not neighborhood. Queens similiar to Nassau county was settled much later than the previous 3 and uses neighborhood identification. Thus you'll see Bronx, NY, NY,Ny and Brooklyn NY.. not Gun Hill, NY, Lower East Side, NY or Bed Stuy, NY.. but in Queens and Nassau you'll see Astoria, NY, forest hills, NY, or even Westbury, NY Uconnstud (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have left campus a lot.. I grew up in NYC.. that's how it's identified. No one uses townships in NYC by the way. Uconnstud (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is false, that is a study abroad program. If that were the case st. john's would have a campus in vietnam and latin america. It is a program not an operational campus. [8] Uconnstud (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should read it better that's a study abroad program, not a fully working campus. If that was the case St. John's would have a campus in latin america and vietnam. [9] Uconnstud (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not state that, but I'm tired of arguing about it. Leave it out of the header if you must. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine

"Academically, it has never ranked high among Catholic schools; in troubles, it outdoes them all." [10] (1965) Bigdaddy718 (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Bigdaddy718 requested protection of St. John's University (Jamaica, NY); however, I'm not going to protect it. I'm not going to block you guys either, even though you both broke the three revert rule. Instead, I'll give you guys a final warning; don't edit it until you have agreed on something. If the other edits, don't revert him; instead, report it to me and I'll deal with it appropriately. Please take this to heart. Thanks. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Duqlawcoatofarmssmall.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Duqlawcoatofarmssmall.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]