Talk:Third Saturday in October

message: The image :Image:UTVolunteers.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of for key articles. Latics (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:UTVolunteers.png

message: Since Alabama had to vacate the 2005 win, the article presents the series record as "Alabama leads 45–38–7." But if Tennessee were to take the lead in the series by winning the next 9 in a row, the series record would be "Tennessee leads 47–46–7. In other words, the record currently only gives the number of Bama victories in the series, not the number of Tennessee losses, which would only be given if Tennessee takes the series lead. So my question for the editors is, should we add Tennessee's record in the series as well, either in parentheses or with an asterisk? CH52584 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about vacated game 

message: The result of the proposal was no consensus. 
*Note: improperly closed by Nascarking a.k.a. Daytona 500 at 02:25, 22 September 2012.  Also struck out others comments (now restored). Altairisfar (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Without commenting on the merits of moving this article, Florida–Tennessee football rivalry never resided at Third Saturday in September and YOU MOVED Tiger–Sooner Peace Pipe to Missouri–Oklahoma football rivalry less than 24 hours prior to making the above proposal. Just so we're clear. --auburnpilot talk 15:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Unless that blog is written by someone who's involved with either programs, you can't use a blog as a source on Wikipedia according to wiki policy Wikipedia:BLOGS. So your point is invalid.--Daytona 500 18:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

text: No it isn't. Your source is a primary source and Wikipedia discourages primary sources. And furthermore, the common name is more than likely the current name.Daytona 500 20:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

text: You haven't given a single reliable source that proves your point.--Daytona 500 23:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Not yet. Since you still insist on using a primary source to prove your point I'm going to use a secondary source (ESPN) to prove otherwise.  proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the official name.--Daytona 500 22:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: *No consensus to move.  Altairisfar (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributions by banned editors are generally reverted and/or deleted, depending on the situation. Edits by blocked editors (including socks) are not treated that way. The discussion should continue on its own merits. --auburnpilot talk 00:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when does a move or deletion discussion still carry on when a sock was involved? I'd also like to point out a sock started this move debate.--Daytona 500 00:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion has not been tainted by sock activity. The account that started the initial discussion turned out to be a sock, but the main account did not participate in this discussion. As such, the outcome will not be impacted by the discovery of the sock account in any way. If you wish to discuss the merits of the move, this is the correct place to do so. If you want to discuss the broader issue of sock involvement in discussions, Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry would be a starting point. --auburnpilot talk 00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on page move 

message: I changed Tennessee's colors for the rivalry to Orange & White (the school's colors), that way it is consistent with the other rivalries (school colors).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhar564 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:CONTRAST or WP:ACCESS. White is not compliant (readable) with UT Orange, and the following link will back it up. White on Orange vs. Black on Orange. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Tennessee's colors