User talk:67knight

If you could assist with any of these tasks it would be greatly appreciated. Golem88991 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know that the

I like the idea of moving to a table as opposed to a traditionally listing. It does seem to be easier to locate specific individuals and is also a better presentation of the info. Thanks for your work on this. Golem88991 13:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great!Marylandstater 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished product looks excellent, with a little work on the citations (wikify), a few more images and completed dates of graduation, it could be nominated for a featured list! Marylandstater 23:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the list!!! I think this is a huge improvement over the way it use to be. My only comment is that I think we may want to remove the shading for political affiliation. My three reasons for this are as follows:

1. The list is not inherently political, though there are politicians on the list that is not its primary function.
2. The information is in many cases redundant, as there is also an indication in the individuals description of their political affiliation.
3. This is a personal feeling, but aesthetically it is bizarre that some rows are shaded and some are not.

I do not want you to think that these comments are in anyway intended to suggest that I do not like the new format. To the contrary I think that this is an extreme improvement over what was there. I just think that this suggestion could further refine the list. Thank you for all your work on this. Golem88991 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not need to be removed, I was just saying that it looks a little strange for the list to have the shading in some parts and then there is a break until the next shading. I simply wanted to discuss it as a possible improvement; I do not want to suggest that it needs to be changed. However, you have lead this effort so I will defer to your decision on the matter. And I do agree with you our primary concern should be sources and completing the table not aesthetics.

With respect to adding more info, I do not really think it is necessary. Our primary concern with the list is how they were associated with City and what they did that is notable. The only other column I can think of adding would be one for pictures of the individuals, but that would make the effort nearly impossible, as it would be hard to find public domain photos of all these guys. Thanks again for your leadership on this. To think that we could have a featured list!!! That I never imagined, though we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Thanks, Golem88991 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The names should be in alphabetical order; and should be the first item/category on the list. I have no problem doing it just want to know what you folks think. The current order is a bit confusing especially to those with no connection to school, and therefore no idea what catagory the notables are in b/c they have no idea who graduated from the school. Furthermore it suggests some roles are more important than others (i.e. US Senator over nobel prize winner, or US Congressman or state delegate) while the latter is commonly accepted I think alphabetical order ensures more fair exposure for all. So my suggestion is:

Alumnae(us)[in alphabetical order], Category, Notability, Year of Graduation.

Also I think the color scheme is a bit confusing, as it is designated for republicans and democrats to rehash Golem88991's point the page is by nature "not political". Perhaps we could designate colors for the categories (i.e. red for the arts, blue for politics and so on.) Or we could go with no colors at all but the fact that some are with and others without colors makes it confusing. But overall I am impressed with the efforts to improve this page we should be a featured list in no time. Please let me know what you think and whether you approve the suggestions--Bcc07 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have a better understanding of how the list works now...I think we may want to consider using the same style but dividing the lists into the subgroups (arts politics etc) much like this example List of Michigan State University people--Bcc07 00:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bcc07, on this. I have been looking at the Michigan list and I think it is a good model to go by. I have read your response to Bcc07 about how with the full list it is easier to find people by name or by graduation year. I understand the argument, but I think the reality is that most people will go to list from the main article and be unfamiliar with the graduates of city college. It will be much easier for those individuals to have a page that is divided by category, so that they can see the different accomplishments in the different fields. Though, I know that the single list is divided by category it is much harder to see the divisions between the categories at first glance. If the tables are divided visually it is much easier to see the different categories. I also think that by dividing it into multiple tables there would be a reason to have the political shading because those sections that deal with politics would be separate from apolitical categories. Thanks, Golem88991 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum to my previous comment. I agree with you, I think the sortable feature is neat and I think even if we do divide the table into smaller tables we should still incorporate that feature. Golem88991 17:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you did the bulk of the work, I consider your request to wait until the table is done more than fair. I will try to help with the completion of the least and I guess we will reassess the situation at that point. Either way the table ends up though, I think there is one thing we can borrow from the Michigan list and that is the separate column for references. What are your feelings on that? Golem88991 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 05:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not necessary I think it should be deleted or changed to a City-Poly Footabll Game page. I have a couple concerns the first is that the BCC Football program is certainly not notable, and the info presented is not very extensive this is certainly not worthy of its own page. We could create a page for every single activity at City College at this rate, I think we both know that is unneccessary and certainly not the best use of wikipedia. My second and main concern is that this page was done unilaterally and without the consent of the wikiproject. You have bashed a few of my submissions for them being without your known consent, I would very much appreciate it if these "rules or courtesies" which u made me aware of were practiced by you. To Quote you:

"I know you love the school and so do I. There are many people out there who have contributed to this article and that is why the project was begun so we can discuss changes. I don't want to be critical, but you keep making major changes without getting a consensus."--Bcc07 18:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No--Bcc07 17:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My feeling on the list is that as long as they attended they should be on there. If there is not indication that an individual attended city, then I agree with you he should be removed, as seems to be the case with Medairy and Goad. Golem88991 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? First off neither of those two people are rather notable. Secondly you act as if I have to notify you about any action I take on wikipedia point me to the rule that indicates that all action on this so called project goes through you. You act as if this project is about you, and like your editing your own page(which is illegitimate you know). This is not 67knight project so please stop attempting to lead where you are doing the least and being the most uncooperative. I would like to remind that the project was neither your idea nor work at putting together and keeping together. Moreover, when did you notify people about the addition of the BCC football page the idea was never bounced around. No consent was given by single member of the project. You have split this project apart congrats on your work. I especially like the addition of the confusing alumni page.--Bcc07 07:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67knight, would you happen to know when the Knights have been nationally ranked, either by USA Today or some other reputable publication?

Also, can you check my user page out for a copy edit of the main extracurriculars section of the BCC main page? I'm just looking for some feedback and more specific info. Thanks. --WriterThesp77 20:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to reinvigorate the project. Any suggestions you may have would be helpful. Let's get some momentum going again. Golem88991 05:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create a Hall of fame section either on the main page or the alumni page? If you agree that one is necessary might you be able to lead in its creation.Bcc07 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a BCC seal or know how to get one that we could use on the main page? I think it would be more appropriate.Bcc07 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

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

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

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. 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies

.

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. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of William B. Henry

criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies

.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (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. Toddst1 (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of William B. Henry

criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies

.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (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. Toddst1 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni

I made a list of the deleted alumni from the category (now restored). It's at

-- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Knights2.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyright problems, Baltimore City Public Schools

Hi. On June 6th, this article was tagged for copyright concerns and automatically listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 June 6 for evaluation. A comparison of the article with the suspected sources — http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/About/History/Early_Schools.asp http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/About/History/Develop_of_Public_Ed.asp and http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/About/History/Meeting_the_Challenges.asp — does confirm duplication of text. The whole first paragraph, for instance, seems to have been taken from various points of those identified urls. It seems to have been added here, in 2007, by you. Internet archives confirm their prior publication, with a clear copyright reservation, "©2006 Baltimore City Public Schools... All Rights Reserved."

We will only be able to utilize their text if we can verify permission to do so, unless you can demonstrate that the language is for some other reason free for use (or unless it is handled in accordance with

non-free content guidelines

, with brief quotations as needed). Since you seem to have brought the text into Wikipedia and were not notified of these concerns, I am per standard practice blanking the section and relisting to allow you an opportunity to respond. The requisite standard template generated by the "copyright problem" tag includes some helpful links to the permission process as well as suggestions if permission cannot be obtained. Accordingly, I'll place it in a subsection below. Please forgive the "welcome newcomer" language, which obviously doesn't apply here. The template has some value anyway at least as a collection of links.

Since this is an alternate account, I will leave a pointer to this conversation at your standard account. I'll watch here in case you'd like to discuss the matter. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Copyright problem: Baltimore City Public Schools

Hello, and

welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Baltimore City Public Schools, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/About/History/Early_Schools.asp http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/About/History/Develop_of_Public_Ed.asp http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/About/History/Meeting_the_Challenges.asp, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked

from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Baltimore City Public Schools and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the
  GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Baltimore City Public Schools
  with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the
  GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Baltimore City Public Schools
  .

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow

Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines

.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Baltimore City Public Schools saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:10Kurt Schmoke.JPG

You took this image yourself? J Milburn (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Schmokein66.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Schmokein66.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at

non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:1cityring.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:1cityring.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

File:67knight.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:67knight.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Bccflagsquad.jpg

The file File:Bccflagsquad.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 01:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of File:Cityvpoly07.JPG

The file File:Cityvpoly07.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 01:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of File:Andersonbcc.jpg

The file File:Andersonbcc.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 01:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

FAR nomination of Baltimore City College

I have nominated

featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

1. ISBN 0-8262-1503-3