AZCactus1

welcome if no one has done that yet good job on Arizona Wildcats Athletics any objections to shortening the page to Arizona Wildcats? Smith03 02:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Motto

AZCactus. I don't have anything against Sursum, just cite sources, that's all. I don't think we should put Sursum up until you can find the sources, to be honest. I doubt a lot of information is going to be lost if someone misses it while you find what you're looking for. My guess is that if Sursum, is in fact, some sort of a "co-motto," you should be able to quickly find it and add it, which probably won't cause anyone any problems unless they're in some sort of life or death situation that requires the "correct" motto :-) Madmaxmarchhare 06:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Arizona puffery

Are there specific issues with the depuffery I'm doing to the U of A that you object to? You seem to simply be intent on reverting edits I'm making that eliminate editorial, non-neutral, puffery language and assertions. JDoorjam 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree articles should be NPOV, but I also believe many of your edits eliminate NPOV facts. For example, your word changing of "top tier" law school to "top 50" law school, when top tier actually means top 50 law school is pointless. Many of your edits are valuable, but radically altering an article that has been cited does not seem appropriate. I encourage you to voice your concerns and opinions on the UA discussion page so that the article can improve through collaboration. AZCactus1 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

People probably wouldn't know that U.S News divides schools into 50-college "tiers," and so calling the school "top-tier" seems to be qualitative flattery. No offense, but discussing every single point simply takes too long. If you don't like an edit I've made, change that edit, or re-word it. I'm usually pretty clear about why I've made a certain edit. But I'm not going to discuss every edit before I make it. You mentioned "top-tier" vs. "top 50" -- are there other specific issues you have with the edits I've made? Simply wholly reverting the work I've done completely without comment is, as you said, disrespectful. JDoorjam 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You are of course more than welcome to edit as you wish. However, if you are not inclined to discuss your edits, then you may want to curb some of your editing. I also do not expect you to discuss every minute edit, but you asked for an example, and I supplied it. So, edit as you wish, and I (along with other contributors to the UA article) will do what we see fit. I believe you are being far too defensive in this issue, but I respect your right and ability to edit Wikipedia freely (even if it is at time with reckless abandon). Thanks for your time. AZCactus1 00:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UASeal.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:UASeal.gif. 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) 10:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)