User talk:Buffs/Archive 5

Notice

In accordance with your wish to be notified when user with whom you have worked recieve rfa noms I herby notify you that one such nom has been opened for me. You are welcome to comment on the rfa, if you wish. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hiya. You forgot to strike your neutral comment in my rfa. I would strike it for you, but I do not hink that would be a good idea. Thanks for the input, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Establishment of Texas A&M University,

All the rest aside The Texas A&M University System recognizes 1876 as the official date of establishment of Texas A&M as is clearly shown here: http://www.tamus.edu/univ/tamu.html. Why can you not allow the facts to be shown on the page?

"The Texas A&M University System—although not officially recognized as such until 1948—got its start in 1876, with the establishment of the state’s first public college, the land-grant Agricultural and Mechanical College (A&M) in College Station."

This is the exact quote from the Texas A&M University System History page. It clearly states that the first public college in Texas was established in 1876. We know that Texas' first public college was TAMC, currently Texas A&M, therefore Texas A&M was established in 1876.

The Texas State legislature set aside money in 1871 for the formation a public college. Texas AMC did not come into being as a state university until 1876, most importantly: 1876 is the year that Texas A&M claims its origin. If you continue to disagree, I would suggest that you Consult the Official Seal of the University where the year 1876 is clearly displayed in the manner that is traditionally reserved on a seal for an establishment or founding year.

Senate bill # 276 April 17 1871 house passes a bill entitled: "An act to provide for the Establishment of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas." That Provision was money ($75,000, if you look further into it), which would later be used to establish the College. If you look at the wording of previous acts they are all stated in an "active" manner, For Example:"act to incorporate 'X'" & "Act to Authorize 'Y'," or in A&M's case "Act to Provide for 'Z'." The act authorizes the providing of $75,000 so that the College could be established, nothing more.

The wording of the bill was copied exactly from page 1073 of the official record of the 12th Legislature of the state of Texas, if you would like to verify

If that is not enough follow this link to another page in The Texas A&M University System website and see when they consider A&M to have been established...http://www.tamus.edu/univ/tamu.html

so please allow the proper year of establishment to show on the page, prospective students commonly use wikipedia to research their University options and it would be a shame for Texas A&M's page to be erroneous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzeppelin (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Proposals

Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

indenture?

Why do some editors combine/mismatch colon-indents and bullet-indents? You do (seen here), but so do many other editors, and I've never seen why. Combining different editors' styles of indenting frequently ends up breaking somewhere along the line, and I wondered what the stylistic/technical reasons for doing it differently are. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is a matter of personal preference. Near as I can tell (and I'm willing to be wrong here), there isn't a policy. It isn't a matter of different styles clashing, but different philosophies. To me, it makes sense to have a bullet for each point, but it doesn't make sense for each subbullet to have one. I've been in discussions that indent way, way, way to the right and someone outdents. If they are using a subbullet, it can appear as a new thought. Moreover, if the thread splinters into several discussions on the same bullet, it can get kinda messy. If there is a single bullet, it makes it more clear as to who is doing the objecting. In short, and IMHO (in my humble opinion), one bullet per objection makes things crystal clear. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what I was looking for; thanks! I don't have a personal style I suppose, but just try to go with whatever SOP is already in place in the conversation. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Whew! I gotta admit, I was afraid you were someone with an axe to grind and you were looking for something to trip me up. It's nice to know there are still people out there who realize that two reasonable people can disagree and still abide by the ultimate decision. You strike me as that type of person and it's a pleasure to have such discussions with you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh nah; I don't even own an axe, I'm afraid to buy one.  ;^) Thanks much for the compliment though! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol! I'll keep it in mind should you ever decide to join the dark side.

CAUTION!!! Somewhat self-serving comment follows!!!

Speaking of axes, I was the primary author of the Aggie Bonfire page, which was built mostly by hand and we used axes. We kept ours sharp :-) but more importantly, it is a featured article that was featured on the main page. Many people have told me it's a good read. If you are interested, take a peek. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh-ho! Ringing our own bells, are we? Well, I'll bite if you will. I wrote most of, and brought up to WP:GA standards: Osborne Reef. Further, I found WP:FAT vie your user page, and think that's awesome. Please feel feel free to look at Osborne Reef with a critical eye and help me out if you can! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Toucheė!!! and will do! — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick review complete. I can tackle more as you wish. I'll be happy to nominate this for FAC when it's ready and help guide you through the wickets. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome; thanks! I'll reply there to keep centralized. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I read up on some of the A&M articles before (when one was Front Page featured) and was really impressed with the effort that went into them, and the history/tradition within. The bonfire article is equally excellent, and quite a feather if you will. I may be moving to Austin sometime between this Autumn and next Spring, and I'd love to visit and see what I've been reading all about.

The memorial sounds specifically awesome, and I wish there were more pictures of the specific elements. On the twelve portals, are there any notes with regards to where they're pointing specifically?

Lastly, and I know you didn't ask for, but I'm really impartial to left-aligned images unless there's a reason they can't be right-aligned. Frequently they screw with other article elements and make it look wonky. Point in case, in the Bonfire Memorial section, there's no need to left-align the image, but it does make the bulleting and line breaks look all out of whack. See Image:Bonfire SS.jpg. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, I am so sorry to hear that you're moving to that city. I'm sure there was nothing you could do. Once again, my condolences. You do realize my archrival (some overglorified junior college) is in that city, right? Just kidding around, but hopefully you won't become one of those T-shirt fans...

As for the answer to your questions:

1. Yes, the memorial has each person's name and their hometown on it. I should be up at A&M (in College Station about 2 hrs away) this fall for a couple of games. If you want to come up for a game, I'd be happy to give you the grand tour with all the bells and whistles.
2. With respect to picture alignment, I guess it is a matter of preference. I like to have a little variety with the images since right aligned images appear stale. I try to avoid it when bullets are a factor.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 17:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually—you'll love this—the reason we may move is because my wife's planning to pursue her doctoral work at UT/A. So, if we end up there, I'll take you up on your offer, provided you're not ashamed to be seen with me. (A "t-shirt fan"?) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> it happens in the best of families. A "t-shirt fan" is someone who has no actual affiliation with a school, but supports them anyway. This is the same group where most of the trouble at events comes from. I'm not saying you're one of those since you will have an affiliation with the school, but do what you can to stay away. :-) I'm not ashamed to be seen with ya...at least not yet... My sister- and brother-in-law both went to Tceh (see linked picture for explanation), my father-in-law went to UT Permiam Basin, and my mom & other sister-in-law went to Baylor. It's all in good fun...or I end up sleeping on the couch.

Anyways, yeah, I'll give ya the $100 tour! — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team successes!

Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Howdy!

Invite appreciated. Bhaktivinode (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I intend to take practice using the tools for a few weeks before going "live" with the tools. I have never had these buttons before, but I expect I will be able to pick up the finer points quickly (military brats usually do :) Thanks for the message. On a related note, have you given any thought to filing another rfa? The last rfa you had was a few monthes ago (I think six, but I wouldn't swear to it) and with the admin-related work you've been doing I think others would be more open to supporting you the next time around. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you decide you want another shot at admin then I would be honored to nominate you. I have no reservations about filing out an rfa, although I must admit its been a while since I last completed one (a year, almost). The only catch is that if you would like me to nominate you I would have to wait until the weekend to find the needed time to go through the contributions and gather the information nessicary for convincing the community that you would make a good admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want we can use my sandbox talk page for that; its not currently being used for anything important, so a draft and comments could fit in there and be retooled until we reach consensus on how to word the nom. As to the other part: I am a firm believer in Second Chances; and in the principle that everyone - from the oldest to the youngest - can learn from past mistakes and take such lessons wtih them into the future. The fact we both have made few mistakes should not count against us as individuals or as part of the greater whole provided we have learned from them, and I beleive that both of us have. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Now thats I point I can agree on too :) Have a good night (or good morning, which evertime you happen to catch this). TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC review caution

Hi BQ, I'm not sure if you were aware, but the comments you left at WP:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America had an onlyinclude in them. This made the FAC nom not transclude at WP:FAC. I've fixed it, but if you have the same type of comments saved somewhere just be aware to remove any onlyinclude tags before posting at FAC. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! thanks for the help! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent pictures/useful pictures for conversational use

Wikipedia:In_Wikipedia,_X_is_an_Article,_not_Evil#.22What_do_you_mean.2C_.22Me.22.3F.22

Excellent thoughts in rebuttal

It was like taking a laxative and a sleeping pill in one night: it makes no sense!

Uploader status

Hi, I notice you often respond with "uploader status irrelevant" at WP:IFD when someone notes "absent uploader". Actually, the uploader status often isn't irrelevant. The point the people are making is that the problem with the image might be solvable if the uploader were still around to fix it, but since he isn't, the problem isn't going to get fixed. —Angr 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that to point out that it isn't a reason to delete. I stopped doing that shortly thereafter because it adds some context to the delete argument (that the person isn't around to help). But since also it seemed to be a criteria for deletion (this guy isn't around right now), I also found it to be a disingenuous/misleading reason. So, if everything else is in order but the image didn't meet our standards, it was irrelevant that our opinions disagreed as there were more than ample reasons to delete anyway. Discretion being the better part of valor, I decided that it was a non-issue and let it go because it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In short, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even if I disagree with a part of the argument, it certainly doesn't discount the fact I agreed with the basic premise of their argument. Saying that I disagreed was a waste of words. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Apparently, having the same input as another editor but not duplicating such specifically in words doesn't constitute constructive input and should not be weighed duly. See my input and reply at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 10#Image:The Family of Blood.jpg. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting the ball rolling

In advance of filing another rfa for you I need you to head to User talk:TomStar81/Sandbox and answer the questions there. I will start looking into your contributions and such tomorrow after school, and if I have any more questions I will ask there. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats all for now, I think. I am (albeit slowly) looking through your contributions, so I may have some questions about those in the future. So far I can tell that you would have need for the tools as you do alot of xfd work, so that will help in your upcoming rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Let me know when you're ready. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aggie Tradition?

I have to ask if this is something y'all do regularly? Ndunruh (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's called "Saw Varsity's Horns Off"....and yes, Ags do it all the time :) Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer already on his talk page... — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Taung Child

Hi, I thought my comments on the reversion were clear (over zealous deletion of fact...) instead of requesting citation, which I then added in the second edit. In a complex edit you deleted a clear, simple, linked fact about the location of the skull. I restored that fact, and requested citation for the section that was unknown by me. My current PC config does not encourage meaningful changes to graphic layouts so I assume that someone/you will edit the images. Regards. Autodidactyl (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IFD

I asked a question of one of your comments on IFD - I'd appreciate a reply (there, not here or at my talk page). JRG (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not the one. The photo I'm talking about is found on the Paul Keating page and depicts him and other world leaders at APEC in 1994. You said the source information was incomplete or something like that and I have no idea what you mean. That was the one I wanted a reply to. JRG (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of a clarification by the nominator at PaulKeatingLodge.jpg on the July 10 page, you may wish to review your vote. Orderinchaos 13:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - where does it say that I am wrong on the ages thing? A picture of someone at age ten is not replaceable by another of them at age 50. It's as simple as that. The non-free content criteria which you showed me does not say anything about that. I'm asking that we interpret this sensibly and according to ordinary meanings - the image is simply not replaceable because a replacement of it with another of that person at a different age is NOT a replacement. If you agree with what I'm saying then you need to be bold and stick up for users like myself and the others who agree with me, not just blindly supporting what masquerades as "policy". What you call "policy" was decided on by a handful of pro-deletion users, not by the majority of WP users and needs to be adapted from time to time, that's what things like WP:IAR are getting at. I'm glad you agree with me but I appreciate a little common sense put into decisions from time to time by WP users, so some support by you against those who don't display common sense would be nice. I and others have tried arguing on NFCC, but it doesn't work. You don't get listened to. (Please reply here). JRG (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the source of that Keating photo, by the way. The web address was wrong. JRG (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize that and it was one of the reasons I objected. Now, the crux of the matter boils down to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2, specifically point #12 which states:

"Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images."

Until recently (mind you this was three days ago, this was the sole guideline on the matter, but someone has seen fit to add:

• "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable"

I was still operating under the assumption of the old rules. While I see your point, I'm not sure this has the consensus of Wikipedians. Gimmee a few days and I'll re-review. If it has consensus, then I will be happy to change my !vote and/or support actions in undeletion. Realize this doesn't mean that every non-free picture should be put in. A single image is appropriate, like his portrait. The event with George H.W. Bush can easily be summarized into a sentence as can most of the other images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems legit. !Vote changed accordingly, but realize this is a one-image exception, not two or more. Let me know if there's anything else I can do! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Your help is much appreciated. JRG (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

BQZip01, I have never had the pleasure of interacting with you before, but since I have seen you around, I was wondering if you could help me. I would like a free image of the "Tangüis cotton" which I would like to place in the article of Fermín Tangüis where the subject is discussed. Do you think that you can help me here? Tony the Marine (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• What I would like, for you to find an image and upload it, please. Either of can place it in the article. I have a tendency to mess things up when it comes to images from a website. I will really appreciate your help. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, I'll keep searching. I live in the desert region of the U.S., therefore there isn't any chance of me taking any pictures the Tangüis cotton. Thank you anyway. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, for the info. Will do as you suggested. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

CC question

CC has a question for you on my talk page. This is a crucial piece of info. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:???

Still going through the thing. Sorry for being slow to respond, I got an email the other day informing me that I had been dropped from one of my classes for not paying for it and I am now having a large gunfight with the adminstrative people over the matter, so my time here got cut back even more. I am looking into though, trust me, its just going slow is all. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV of an IfD

I'm advising all participants in the IfD discussion for the Image Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg that a subsequent DRV was filed here. Your participation is welcome. Dreadstar † 01:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Situation

CC, Franamax, and BQZip01, how is the situation that was discussed on my talk page coming along? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Angel Locsin at ASAP.jpg

Hello Sir, I am the uploader of This image and this image must not be deleted because its from my own camera does it needs GNU License. Cutie guyx22 (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New FA-Team mission needs your help!

Félix Houphouët-Boigny needs to be copyedited and peer reviewed. We would appreciate any and all help from the crack members of the FA-Team! Sign up here. Merci! Awadewit (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

NPR/Lockheed AC-130‎

I've seen some of those links to what are essentially "cover pages" for the broadcast audio or video, so I knew to look for the easy-to-miss "play" link, which also happened to list the running time (in small gray letters). I just got around to listening to it and it's not bad -it shows a different side to the topic than already in the artilce or the other external sources. It was interesting to hear the "thunk" of the cannon and to hear the fire control officer diligently reviewing potential targets. Anyway, thanks for working on the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is time...

I've looked over everything recent and did not find anything of grave conern, and the three questions you answered cleared up the remaining unknowns. I see no reason to delay any longer, so here is your rfa nom. Good luck (you're going to need it). TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Should anyone require a further explanation on my answers ... ask followup questions." Well, the're asking :) Just making sure you know. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi BQ... Can you consider withdrawing your request, or making your preference known (on the page) about whether it should continue? Some may be considering closing the RfA anyway based on the low probability of success at this point. Avruch ^T 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  I'd rather see people's opinions even if it doesn't succeed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In celebration

Hello! I was not familiar with your contributions to Wikipedia prior to your RfA nomination. In view of what you have brought to the project, I would like to offer this token of my admiration and appreciation:

		The Special Barnstar
		In celebration of expanding the depth and scope of Wikipedia's content and strengthening the level of Wikipedia's character. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the fine work. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And thank you, too! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox

Let's distract you for awhile.... I have been working on THIS in order to show a notability for a film trailer. I am trying to show how this clip... because of who did it, why they did it, and the results of their doing... has attained notability. An article... three sentences and no sources... about a future film failed NFF at an AfD and was deleted. During the course of that AfD, I created an article about the film's trailer.... which has been out for over a year. Here's my start just after I added some EL's from which to work... and heres' the finished article which was moved to the old title. This article about the trailer was moved to the space of the deleted article because of naming conventions and was then put in AfD for a 2nd nomination. Yikes. It sure wasn't the same article that lost previously. However, and the AfD aside, this has encouraged me to further expand the article now at AfD to modify and underscore its focus. So in my sandbox is the article as I am reworking it. I invite suggestions on content, context, and title. You have been a guiding light in this confusing World of Wiki, and I deeply respect and trust your opinion. If you feel I am beating a dead horse, I will let the matter rest. Whatcha say? Schmidt (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC) (clarifications)m Schmidt (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think I am ready to move the contents of my sandbox to someplace as an article, as I have proven a separate notabilty for the trailer as a short film intended to promote attention for a proposed film. I am loathe to use the same title or overwrite anything involved in a 2nd AfD... and this article is as divorced from that 2nd is the second was from the 1st. Please review and give me your opinion... and do you like the new signature? Schmidt,' ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Well... we're supposed to be bold... yes? I did some last tweaking and sourcing to my sandbox article and moved the whole kit and kaboodle to the Seth and Jay article's page. I just left a note at the AfD asking the delete voters compare the 1st AfD with what originally went in to the 2nd Afd to what nows fills that page. With the change in direction for the article, it just ain't the same one that was being voted against. It may yet be deleted, but I know I did my best in the face of tough odds and I feel good about myself and my work there. If it gets deleted now, I'll ask for a review. Thanks for your support. Safe landings. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I do know how to work and pay well with others. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Now THIS was a surprise... but I figure it only bought me a little time. I have set up a plan of attack in my sandbox to very carefully address the concerns raised at the AfD. I think I am mis-using the external links section and not taking full advantage of certain sources even the AfD conceded were reliable. If I build upon good secondary sources and only use tertiaries that are supported by the secondaries, I should still have a decent source base. Am I going about this the right way? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA blues

Genuinely sorry to do this. Hope RfA's not bruised you. I'd love to see you as an admin one day. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A commendable response. Sadly, the answer is no, not in the timespan left in the RfA, I'm afraid not. But, and it's a big but, if you're as good as I think you are, you'll know exactly how to ensure that I (and probably most of the other opposers) will be able to comfortably !vote Support next time. Heck, I'd even be prepared to nominate you if you handle the intervening period in the way that... that you will undoubtedly handle it. A failed RfA can be an immensely positive thing, if the candidate has a little humility and the desire to learn from it. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. On reflection, I feel I was too harsh on you in my 'Oppose' comment, and took your dispute with CC as a typical example of your relations with other users, which does not seem to be the case. If you were offended by my comments, I apologise, and have toned them down somewhat: see [1]. Unfortunately, I still do not feel I can support you as an admin at this time. However, if you can manage to somehow resolve your dispute with CC (at this stage, that may require a Request for Arbitration) and generally stay out of trouble, I would be happy to support you in a future request for adminship. Terraxos (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your kind words and hopefully I can gain your support in the future. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And here another person suggests arbitration. If it comes to that step in WP:DR, tred lightly, answer succinctly, source all statements, and do not allow yourself to be baited. You remain an officer and a gentleman. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MQS! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do.": A motto that serves Wiki very well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tough break, though truth be told, it'll be nice to retain the only set of eyes reviewing images for deletion. It always bugs me a wee bit when IfDs just go nom -> del, without intervening eyes. WilyD 15:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

• On this occasion, your request for adminship was not successful. I hope that you will continue your useful contributions to Wikipedia and may consider standing again in future. Warofdreams talk 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Adding my own regrets at this (temporary) loss... but it allowed you to better understand the factors opposing you and those supporting. You will be able to address any concerns at your next RfA... and those with open minds will pay close attention. How you handle those with closed minds will be important. Best luck always. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

MIT

Given the extensive and high-quality work you've done on articles related to Texas A&M, I would like to solicit your feedback on the state of MIT's article at its peer review for whatever changes you feel would be necessary to secure your support at a future WP:FAC. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments at the peer review. Could you be more specific as to what statements you feel are unverified or POV? Thank you again and I look forward to any further comments you have. Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Intellipedia

I am sure you already know about Intellipedia, but I just read about it today. It is brilliant, and I am sure you would be an expert at it. I was wondering how active you were in the Intellipedia community? Well, hoping you are doing well. as for me, it is good to be back in Texas! Oldag07 (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any access to it because I am not in the employ of an entity that needs access to it. My understanding of it, the government needs people like you who understands wiki software. With your experience, you could be incredibly valuable in that community. Best of luck. Oldag07 (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert at Chemtrails

The article and external links section has been tagged for numerous problems, including unallowed sources, NPOV, original research, and more and is currently being cleaned up. If you'd like to defend some of the deleted content, I welcome the comments, but your revert has restored self-published sources, erroneously attributed claims, repetitious statements already addressed elsewhere in the article, and other garbage. You've also reverted corrected grammar errors. Blindly reverting the lot wholesale is not constructive at this stage, not in an article that so requires cleaning out the trash. It needs more thoughtful justification to defend the content you've restored, which includes dead links, self published content, claims misrepresented to sources, and more. The policies you've cited in the revert don't apply in this revert. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked back at it, but I think these are the best. The sections you deleted provide consistent NPOV perspective. Additionally, the wesbites provided do not directly contribute any information to anyone interested in these alleged chemtrails. Accordinlgy they are sdvertisements meant to push an agenda. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand really the issues with the sources or the nature of the content you've restored. I didn't add any links at all except one external link to syndicated broadcast chemtrails stories and interviews to replace a gap left by removal of links to self published chemtrails websites and blogs. The significance of those broadcasts are described in the article, and are a subject addressed in the article, sourced in the USA Today and other RS. Further discussion on the issues should probably continue on the article's talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

How come nobody deleted Image:Imslayout.PNG yet? Noble12345 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Girls At The Cairo National Stadium

Can you please explain why this article was deleted? The source you cited for its rationale states that there was no consensus... — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I linked the wrong page. Should have been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls At The Cairo National Stadium (3rd nomination). Stifle (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Resp from RfC

Would you, with your doubtless superior knowledge of Wikipedia culture and the English language, please consider explaining to me where I "insulted" this person? Also, it would be very conductive to an assessment of your highly appreciated and helpful efforts at the RfC if you could educate me about whether you read this section before you inserted your views. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really useful, especially in a heated discussion

I take this as insulting and/or condescending (these are your words, not mine): "...your English is too poor. This is the English-speaking Wikipedia and it is really only for people who have some good working knowledge of English. You cannot really participate on such a difficult topic if you can't write well." That is complete and utter rubbish. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just experts in the English language, remember? That means there are going to be typos. That means there are going to be errors in grammar. Accept that. Indeed I did read the talk page and your insinuation that I didn't falls squarely under a violation of WP:AGF. If you simply apologized, admitted your mistakes, and dropped it, all of this probably wouldn't be an issue.

As for the picture, it's just a joke, but I suppose it makes a statement like a political cartoon. — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've heard your opinion. I can now safely register you under those wikipedians whose opinion I'm not interested in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll also throw in that your previous statement and other actions run completely counter to Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct, specifically items 2, 3, and 5 (especially #5). — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

As a current or past contributor to a related article or as someone who may otherwise be interested, I wanted to let you know about WikiProject Texas Tech University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Texas Tech and the Texas Tech University System. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of tasks. Thanks! — Wordbuilder (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FutPerf

I think the unrelenting attacks that are leveled on him would make anybody incivil. Corvus cornix_talk 03:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He chooses to get involved in a contentious area where some people are going to be a bit bitter. The fact he's an admin should only strengthen his reasoning to remain calm. It's a requirement of an admin to be civil specifically for the purpose of presenting a good image of Wikipedia. The fact that he blatantly went against policy and has no remorse for his actions is the primary problem, IMHO. (resp on this person's talk page). — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

IP edits on user page

BQZ, I thought it might have been you, but the edit summary was unclear. You have some "interesting" wiki-adversaries, so I decied to go ahead and delete. I figured if it was you, that you'd let me know and revert it. You did. :) - BillCJ (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Image:Lt Clayton.JPG at Deletion review

As a partipant in the IFD, closed as keep, you may be interested to know that it is now at DRV and I invite your comments. Justin talk 09:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pt Mugu

Looks unlikely. Darn. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It will happen when it happens. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football October 2008 Newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd AfD nomination of Michael Q. Schmidt

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Q. Schmidt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination). Thank you.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

• And yes... I know you know already. I am just sending courtesy notifications out to anyone who edited the article. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you look at my document, and advise?

Could you look at THIS and advise if I am preparing it correctly, as I have never done such before. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cats

No problem! If you feel the Aggies are hard done by, as many colleges in the same situation remain in the head-cat, after I gave up cleaning it up for now, please carry on the good work, and/or comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Military_schools_and_military_academies, where I've raised the issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Green Ramp disaster

I'm a 19 year Air Force pilot. I've never done maneuvers, only operations (real world) and training. Mohrflies (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The State of Texas page

Texas just got promoted to GA, is now on a FA run, and it would be nice to have all the input we can get in our peer review. Thanks for the help. Oldag07 (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:TAMUQ_Profs_and_Students.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:TAMUQ_Profs_and_Students.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this image, Wikipedia:IUP#User-created_images requires that user-authored images be provided under a free license. Is it not possible to contact the person who took the photo and ask him to release it under the GFDL? --B (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You removed the {{pd-self}} tag from the image and added a fair use tag. If you, the photographer, or whoever owns the copyright for the image (I don't know nor, frankly, do I care who that is) is willing to release the image into the public domain, we can use it. If not, we can't. It's as simple as that. --B (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait ... I'm looking at the history ... it looks like BlueAg09, not you, removed the pd-self tag. If that removal was in error and not representative of your intentions, just say so and I'll restore the image. --B (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: 84th Flying Training Squadron

Thanks much! I'll be doing the rest of the Laughlin squadrons in the coming days so it's likely to happen again. I'm sure the bot is designed to error on the side of caution, which I can respect. Hopefully it won't cause too much pain. Ndunruh (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the bots are out of control (see above). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Declined page protection

I have replied on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ACC Regions=

ooops : Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you !!

Note to self

[2] use on AFROTC and/or Corps page? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: CIVIL

I wasn't trying to be uncivil, and I'm sorry if I came across that way. I do have a bit of a bad habit of getting somewhat sarcastic when I get tired, and it was rather late when I posted that. I'll try to keep an eye on it in the future. Thanks for bringing it up with me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Band members "R" us

Yes, that's me wot U found on Facebook. And I was glad to get your request! And I'm wearing a retro Tiger Band uniform in the pic! Mark Sublette (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

10-4 on the OPSEC... Mark Sublette (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette08:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Rice University

I doubt you'd shed any tears over them, but their article was in an absolutely atrocious state. I went through with and chainsawed large sections out and put in some generic descriptive info today, but I wonder if you wouldn't mind swinging by and giving it a once over or list of recommended improvements as well? Madcoverboy (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaVinn

Please use IAR sparingly, mainly where it improves Wikipedia, not to get the last word in a discussion. And please don't confuse "editing" someones comments with undoing an action. I have just removed your comments because the discussion was closed, I have not edited your comment. Fram (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Morris

In particular, I was unconvinced by the relevance of the arguments that a player's position on the field was relevant to if they "played at the highest level" and the idea that an essay could be cited as something relevant to a decision about notability. However, if you wish this decision reviewed, please feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Geek Is Back

(for now...)

After a lengthy "wiki-break", I'm back to editing the 'Pedia, although probably not at the rate I was. Just thought you might want to know....  :-) - NDCompuGeek (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

BQ Bowl

[3]

Happy Holidays

Here's wishing you a safe and sane holiday season home with your family and friends. Always glad to see your input and to know your wisdom is nearby. Best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

too many times blocked?

Well, it is finals season at most Colleges... and the Univerity of Washington is no exception. Maybe he's been hitting the books. ? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hainan Island incident tag removal

Please see Talk:Hainan Island incident. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

T-37

Good work!! I spoke with the Support Sgt. at Sheppard AFB and he confirms that 80th Flying Training Wing is still flying the T-37 in limited numbers. I will know tomorrow what their plans are for the aircraft, and will update the article to take that into consideration. My understanding is that there are only a couple Tweets still operating at Sheppard, but I'll know more tomorrow. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Any idea why Sheppard got to keep them, while everyone else has transitioned? Also, do you know how many are operational there? - Ken keisel (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how many of the 60 are USAF aircraft, and how many are foreign owned? - Ken keisel (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is rather interesting. It means that the USAF is still operating five squadrons of T-37 after their official retirement ceremony. I do wonder how many of them are actually USAF aircraft, especially since none of the Columbus based aircraft were transferred to Sheppard to relieve any of the oldest planes based there. I'm particularly surprised that the T-37 is still being used for regular U.S. pilot training. I could see the foreign nations contracting with the USAF to provide maintenence and training for their pilots using their planes, but from what you are saying the majority of the trainees are U.S. pilots. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

When you said there were 60 aircraft I figured 5 squadrons of 12 aircraft. Is it two squadrons of 30 T-37 each? Those would be awfully big (huge) squadrons. The maintenance staff would have to be at least triple the standard size, and I imagine the squadron CO would have to be a Col. at minimum from the staff size. Any idea the percentage of U.S. pilots to foreign on the current roster? I wonder if any of the advanced trainees are intentianally trying to go to Sheppard to get jet time instead of training in the T-46? - Ken keisel (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

For what it is worth, thank you for trying. Seems all roads lead to stuck in the mud. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just want to let you know you, USS Liberty incident/sandbox needs to be moved to a better name. I assume it is a derivative of USS Liberty incident; I'll let you figure out what to do. Cheers. - Canglesea (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just poking my head in to say thanks for attempting to mediate the article - takes a lot of patience. Oh, and if the black helicopters come and take you away, say hello to the Men in Black for me, will you :) Skinny87 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

It is ready to be archived. Some issues were taken care of privately. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Not sure why. [4] Is there a purpose in doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.245.9.144 (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Probably some t.u. student (the IP address originated in Austin, Texas, the home of my archrival). I fixed it and no big deal; vandalism is usually easy to fix. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

"I give you fair warning, I'm thinking of statements such as 'Boston's evidence of a cover-up derives not from his own part in the investigation'?" We'll discuss those in due time and see what we can do to build a consensus on the phrasing of that sentence (for which you obviously have a problem). — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for a discussion - there was a 6 - 2 preference by involved editors not to use that quote which is, prima-facie, a lie. And yet, two editors are still insisting it be there and defying consensus over it. That's almost the definition of an article that doesn't need mediation, but enforcement of policy.

However, even this obvious example no longer matters from the point of view of a mediation - the 5 other editors who were needed on board are hardly likely to sign up now they've seen how even careful and well-referenced dissent will be treated. Please don't take it personally, I'm sure you'd do an excellent job away from this subject and topic. PR^talk 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, those other 5 have not said one way or another that they would/wouldn't be involved in mediation. I don't think you shold speak for them. Let them speak for themselves.

If there is something that requires enforcement, please take it to WP:ANI, present your case, and an administrator will assist as necessary. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel about my asking another (uninvolved) editor to act as our mediator? I don't want to give you the impression that I've simply rejected you out of hand, but other additions to the discussion may have had the effect of frightening off even those people who were about to accept your offer. PR^talk 20:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem asking another user to mediate; I don't personally need be involved in the mediation, it was just an offer. I disagree with your implication that I am (somehow) an involved editor and I do not agree with your assertion that anyone has been frightened off; there is ample evidence to the contrary as you are the only one who does not agree to it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with getting to pick and choose mediator then becomes what if Jayjg decides he doesn't like the person PR picks? And so asks someone he likes? It could descend very quickly into farce. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur that is a risk, but the process of mediation is a far more important step than who actually mediates it. It is a step in the Dispute resolution process. The important part is that an attempt (or multiple attempts) at this step are taken. I believe PR's objections to be frivolous, but he doesn't have to agree to mediation either. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't. As I said on the page, I would be willing to work with those already signed up, though obviously, it would then leave a stage after mediation where no doubt PR would voice some good faith objections. What I don't think is ok is what is going on at the minute where we are just stuck in limbo waiting for PR to make up his mind (Yes, I know he has said no, but he has said no and then gone 'But....convince me". Could we set a deadline perhaps? Say, by this weekend an attempt at mediation will go ahead with those signed up and we will get to work looking at the article? I'd rather we did something creative rather than sitting on article talk sniping. God knows it doesn't bring out the best in me and it doesn't make me love PR any more. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is highly misleading to suggest that I'm an obstruction. Almost none of the people dis-satisfied with the current state of the article are signing up. Now, I may be at fault because I've pointed out previous severe problems with mediation, and raised a non-personal objection to the mediator, however, to suggest that it's somehow "my fault" almost ranks as a personal attack. Other editors are hardly likely to accept the first mediator on offer because there could be problems with the second one too.

Another obvious problem is probably frightening away other editors - the bull-headed obsruction to implementing at least one point of pretty general agreement on the article. There are 6 5 to 2 in favour of excluding a particular quote (with at least one other editor calling it a lie) from a profoundly non-Reliable Source. It's essential that editors accept properly arrived at conclusions. There are huge other problems at this article injected by partisans, some of them probably more serious than this one eg treatment of the Moorer report. I'm concentrating on this particular one because it's the most clearly anti-policy, and a very simple one for a new mediator to get his teeth into. PR^talk 11:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhm. I'm certainly not happy with the status of the article, PR, nor have I seen anyone signed up state they are happy with the article. Please either stop misrepresenting peoples views or just stop talking for them. You don't want to take part, fine. We'll get on with it then. Think we have enough of a group to move ahead BQZip? --Narson ~ Talk • 11:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we just move on, this is just soapboxing, its not in any way shape or form, useful. Justin talk 14:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Almost none of the people dis-satisfied with the current state of the article are signing up."

• Then their voices won't be heard. You cannot claim support from those who do aren't voicing their opinions.

"...to suggest that it's somehow "my fault" almost ranks as a personal attack."

• To the contrary, you are the only one who has said "no". Therefore, you are the only one who is stopping the process from moving along. That said, it's not necessarily a bad thing to not be involved with mediation; that's a choice you have to make. Like I said, you don't have to participate, but you are also the only one actively opposing it.
• As I've stated numerous times before, the rest of your problems (the content to which you have an objection) will be addressed in mediation, but I am not willing to discuss them and the merits of their arguments/counterarguments here.

PR, are you in or out? This is getting too long to be considered a simple discussion. Seriously, it's nonbinding and you can leave any time you want. You have nothing to lose by participating in such a discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Aggie Terms

Thanks for nominating our page. I am proud of all the efforts we have put on it, as well as our other A&M pages. Oldag07 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I replied at Talk:List of Texas Aggie terms#Recently Reverted. Thanks for your detailed explanations. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Houston

Should Texas A&M University, Prairie View A&M, Sam Houston State University and Stephen F. Austin State University be listed at List of colleges and universities in Houston? Please see Talk:List of colleges and universities in Houston. Your input is appreciated, Thanks Postoak (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

MERRY CHRISTMAS (or other winter holiday) AND A HAPPY GAMEDAY

--B (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)