User talk:GoBigRed1865

Please provide reliable sources for the Sphinx Head Society‎. Once that has been done, then you can add it to List of collegiate secret societies. Corvus cornix

You didn't even provide a link to the page of the Cornell newspaper which addresses the society. You still haven't provided reliable sources, and in general, a student newspaper is not considered a reliable source. I'm re-adding the {{unsourced}} tag, and re-removing the Skull Society from the List of collegiate secret societies until a real source is provided. Corvus cornix 16:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sphinx Head Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jeanenawhitney (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make your version of the article here, and let me know when you're ready. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is the next step? - GoBigRed1865 (talk) 17:06, 08 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've moved it into place and un-salted it. It still needs to be placed into one or more categories, but you can let others do that. I've placed a tag on it to alert category folks. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should change your comment to a keep if that's what you want.... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jon Anderson Honolulu.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping a clear head when you sent me the message. Although I appreciate you keeping that message kind, my mind has been set on the deletion of the article, simply because it is what it is. Your mention to the list of secret societies as well as not having AfDed other student union articles is really not supposed to be targeted towards your organization and I understand your frustrations.

Two of my earliest articles were deleted when I first started Wikipedia back in 2003 in my old account, and again when I proposed two student organization/union-related articles in 2005/2006, respectively. Trust me, I've tried to argue policy, notability, even pleaded with one of the editors to not speedy tag my article, and I thought that my article would stick, but two weeks later when I was bogged down with finals and other schoolwork, my organization article was deleted by another editor.

It is understandable and believe me, I've tried, but after weeks of researching those notability and now this set of university article guidelines as well, it really narrows down to what is acceptable and what isn't. Instead of going through with this battle that may end up wiping out your work (when they delete the article again, you won't even get the old history to retrieve the information to merge into the Cornell article), I suggest that you back up the current copy of the article, condense it into an acceptable length and just place it into the Cornell article. Hindsight's 20/20, and for someone who's done this twice now, it's just easier to accept the rules and begin merging. For an alternative approach to listing student organizations on campus, see Florida Institute of Technology#Student organizations.

And by the way, we're really not targeting you guys. WikiProject Universities is pretty small, we've only got about a handful of editors who actively participate in editing and discussing improvements on the potentially thousands of articles that are already listed that are affiliated with the project already, and possibly thousands more that haven't yet been affiliated or written. We have no control over the secret societies, but we'll eventually get to the other student union/organizations.

Happy editing and good luck! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to add two secret societies to the article for Cornell, please do so in the body of the article or add them to the Cornell student organizations template. They clearly do not belong inserted at the top of student activities section in a template. Thank you! cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Jon Anderson Honolulu01.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep adding references that fail to demonstrate that the person was in the society and instead just demonstrate that the person existed. I'm going to continue deleting them. Please add references that show that these Cornell alumni were in the society. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the only sources, that is what it is going to have to be. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review

Per Cornell1890 nomination, 13 May, 2008, I am commencing a Good Article review. Apologies for the length of time, but reviewers are in short supply. You may want to watch the review page over the next few days. Because of a bit of an administrative snafu, some editors have already commented on the content of the article and their commentary is in a number of places:

• The article talk page
• Sphinx Head was removed from the nomination in an out-of-process manner.
• Good article reassessment

Yes, it is odd that the article status is being reassessed when the review has barely commenced, but that is an oddity arising from the administrative mixup.

There is a new review process proposal currently being evaluated by Good article project participants where a number of aspects of reviewing articles merge into a single pipeline, an "open review." Essentially,the article evaluation is automatically on hold for at least three days, permitting collaboration, mentoring, gathering of second opinions and the like; the lead reviewer, myself in this case, may extend this review period to ensure an adequate review. While this is not the offical process yet, I will provisionally try it with this review. The earliest date that I might close this review would be 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC). Until that time, please feel free to undertake improvements and encourage others to do so. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey guys, what's the deal with the logo issue? I was trying to help you guys out with the facts on your page like Andre Smith etc and adding links to member pages. The crossed sword and palm (with the wreath) on the Sage ceiling is a pretty obvious stylized version of the original logo with quill and dagger (and wreath), and Northup's involvement with Sage is documented. why are you trying to remove this information? Cornell2010 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This defecency was uncovered during a Good Article evaluation of Sphinx Head Society Copyright status appears to be compatible with the GFDL, the image was published before January 01, 1923, but information about the author or photographer is missing. I'd appreciate it if you could furnish this information, if at all possible, or provide a statement that the information is no longer available. Thanks. Gosgood (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]