User talk:Wordbuilder/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Wordbuilder/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Brendenhull 23:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking

Your edit summary ("Not all links are "irrelevant.") is a straw man. No one is saying "all" links.... To understand when hyperlinking can be irrelevant, read this guideline article:

• WP:CONTEXT (Redirects to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context)

-- Fyslee 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding you. Keep up the good work! -- Fyslee 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You keep up the good work as well. -- Wordbuilder 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hack"

Wordbuilder

There's a misunderstanding on the "hack" quote ... The "hack" is me, Rbifan. I created the article! Articles I've helped start since then, (I hope) have turned out better. I respect everyone's work (and opinion) on Wikipedia. My apologies. -- Rbifan 02:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I apologize for the misunderstanding. That article has strayed some. Hopefully, with a bit of work, it can be brought up to snuff. Keep up the good work! --Wordbuilder 03:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

King of Queens

Oh, you're right. That sentence sounds much better now. I have to learn how to keep relevant ideas close together. Twentyboy 04:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help. I've done the same thing myself. With the constant addition of information, it sometimes gets "stacked on top" rather than woven in. Keep up the good work. --Wordbuilder 14:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Twentyboy")

I certainly will. Thanx for the response :) Twentyboy 18:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PostalWatch Incorporated

Thank you for your note about PostalWatch Incorporated. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PostalWatch Incorporated, which was initiated by Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

New Mexico publications

My apologies if the move was a mistake. I don't live in the Southwest and don't have familiarity with these publications, so I may be a bit confused about things. The stub for The New Mexican (magazine) had neither a website link nor an image, so I wasn't sure which publication it described. I managed to locate both website and image for a newspaper published by The New Mexican, Inc., but the masthead logo visible on the front page scan suggested the full title was The Santa Fe New Mexican, so I created a new stub for it. However, that publication's website also contains numerous references to simply The New Mexican (without the "Santa Fe" bit), so things weren't all that clear. Sometimes a paper has an official name that is different from the branded name and other times papers simply change their names; one of these seemed to be the case here, but perhaps you can fill me in about this.

I then moved The New Mexican (magazine) to New Mexico Magazine because the latter seemed to be what the stub you created was about, especially once I discovered a website for a magazine with that title. Is there a third publication that is a magazine named The New Mexican? If so I apologize, as there should certainly be an article for it as well. Otherwise, if you were actually describing The Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper, you may wish to add your description to that article (best if you do it yourself for copyright reasons). We can also discuss changing the name of (aka "moving") that article as well. Let me know what we can do to straighten things out. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:JessieDaniels.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JessieDaniels.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. (truncated)

Regarding your comments on my talk page. I apologize for my misunderstanding of the policy. I have no objection to the deletion of this image. --Wordbuilder 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Texas Tech dab

Doesn't Texas Tech already redirect to Texas Tech University? Are you trying to create something in Texas Tech?--Blueag9 (Talk) 04:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion with User:BQZip01

My comments, posted under "Recent edits to Texas A&M Aggies basketball and comments on your user page," at User:BQZip01: For Billy Gillispie's departure date in the Texas A&M Aggies basketball article, I changed the format back to Month DD, YYYY since that format is used for the other 50+ dates shown on that page. As far as your user page goes, it is ironic that you make fun of supposed poor spelling by those from Tech on a page containing multiple spelling errors of your own. (If you need help fixing them, let me know.) And, on the subject of irony, your use of the word "ironically" on the page is also wrong. It might be ironic had you been born on a base named after a "tech tard" since Texas Tech is a rival. However, I would think that you would consider it fortuitous being born on a base named for a fellow Aggie. Ah well, all in good fun, I suppose. Go, Big 12, and God bless the USA! -- Wordbuilder 15:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

BQZip01's reply here:

Ok, so I have a few missspelllings (intentional on this one), but mine can be fixed...and have! Tceh is intentionally misspelled. My errors also weren't done with 50,000+ watching (plus everyone watching on TBS). As for the use of rony, it is ironic that I was born at a base named after an Aggie and that I later became an Aggie. Most people born at a base do not go to the school of its namesake it has been changed to better reflect the situation. "Foruitous" would be used if it somehow benefitted me to be born there, but thanks for playing. BQZip01 03:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My response at User:BQZip01:

In response to your reply... I suppose the only question that remains is, who has more viewers-- TBS or ABC? Spelling lessons at mTa! --Wordbuilder 14:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

BQZip01's reply here:

Toucheé! Then again, our guys weren't chosen to lead the football team out onto the field (for obvious reasons!) in front of the entire world. Of course they are the 12th Man and should be ready to play...

They also aren't the bellringer...

I just wish I could find the pictures of the time (Fall of '00) when your cheerleaders left the flags at Kyle Field. We were cleaning up Kyle Field as a fundraiser for our unit when we found them. The next morning at formation, the cadets wore them like citation flags (they were returned later that day).

My response at User:BQZip01:

Ah, the bellringer is a classic. Unfortunately. If you ever find the picture with the cheerleaders' flags, let me know. I'd like to see that one. --Wordbuilder 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question Regarding Usage of Copyrighted Images

If it can't be proven the image is actually free, you must assume it is not. Proof is on the uploader to prove the image is free. If you can show that the image is from a website or scanned from a magazine, then you can mark it as a copyvio with the true source and the image should get deleted quickly. If you're fairly sure the image isn't free, you use {{PUIdisputed}} and follow the directions on the tag on where to list it. There, be sure to provide why you think it's not free. It is possible the uploader has permission, but didn't explain why well enough. They may be the website owner where they got the images, or have asked for permission, but unless they ask correctly and it is included into the OTRS system with a ticket, it means nothing. Proof is everything. Just remember: If you can't tell if the tag is clearly right, then the uploader needs to prove it to you. I hope this helps. Good luck. MECU≈talk 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Tag

{{subst:rfu}} – Replaceable images uploaded claiming no suitable, non-licensed substitute is available when there likely is one.

Reverting Redlinked "Notable" People

My comments (posted at User talk:Kukini): Please do not revert additions because articles for the people have not yet been created. Some red links are allowed if future articles are likely. If you are concerned that the articles are not being created quickly enough, you may create them yourself. Also, unless the information is obviously untrue, use {{fact}} to request reference information (the tag was created for this purpose). Thanks! Keep up the good work. --Wordbuilder 18:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Remainder of "conversation":

Actually, we disagree on this issue. I believe that it is not good practice to allow the listing of redlinked individuals as "notable" that are not at least referenced. Allowing such listings will allow far too many hoax individuals to be added as "notable." Thank you for your concern and comments. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I just looked at the page and am very happy to see all redlinked individuals have citations now. Wonderful work!!!--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point of view. I was a bit miffed at first (sorry if I sounded harsh!) since I would have had an easier time fixing had you just used the {{fact}} tag. Nevertheless, even though I had researched before adding, some contributors don't so your change makes sense. --Wordbuilder 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your work is great on that page! You would not believe how many other "notable" pages are not so well cared-for. Peace, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 05:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Case in point: [1]. I really appreciate the work you are doing to make this list viable and valid. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You got me there. A quick Google search showed one page stating Jensen Ackles attended Tech but many that stated he only planned to attend. --Wordbuilder 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Brandon Daniels.jpg

I'm not sure I see your logic with regard to Image:Brandon Daniels.JPG. Images of the Sooners from the 1990s are hard to come by at best. Brandon Daniels was a talented athlete who suffered under some poor coaching and a terrible system. I honestly can't find any other pictures of the guy, especially nothing 'free use'. I also can't get the owner of the rights on the picture to return my calls or emails. In that light, and given that the picture is only considered fair use on Daniels' biographical article, wouldn't that be acceptable?→Deser† sapper•≈talk 16:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Daily toreador front page.jpg)

Thanks for the heads up. --Myles Long 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

(Barnstar moved to main page.)

Thanks for the congrats!

Nice to know someone noticed. I was at the office for about 3 hours before my boss noticed. Even people who know me didn't even see it.

Have you read my whole page? Got some pretty good stuff in there. Interesting story regarding names of schools; someone once wrote me about a nickname they have for Texas Tech: Sand Aggies. I don't care whether you are a Techie or an Aggie, that one is SO wrong... (unsigned comment from BQZip01 on 2 May 2007)

Finish Texas A&M University article

This is a request to assist in finishing the Texas A&M University article for FA status. We need just a couple of people to read the article and the discussion and then sign off the remaining items to be checked. Once this is done, we will submit for Featured Article status. Even just checking off one item would help, so please do what you can — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

References

No prob on the cleanup. A couple of things that might help in the future, the cite templates require that the "url" and "title" variables be used. If they aren't used they'll generate errors. While the url and title variables are the only required ones, many reviewers for FA or GA status also require "publisher", "date", "author", and "accessdate" for the news and web templates. Any book or journals should include page number.

If you're using <ref name=blah> and then reuse that reference all you need to add is <ref name=blah/>. That way you don't need have repeat the entire reference and muddy up the editing text. You'll also need to make sure you add <references/> or {{reflist}} to the bottom of the article or else the references you added will not be visible. Other than that, happy editing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Responding

Hey, sorry about that. Feel free to go back and revert. I was only trying to help. What I get when I go to that link is the following: "Registration is required for full access to The LubbockOnline Network.

• If you have previously registered, please use the login box on the right side of this screen.
• If you do not have a user account, please register below. Registration is free. Register now.
• If you have questions or if you are experiencing any difficulty, please check the registration FAQ. If you're still have questions, please use the appropriate link on the right side of this page."

As I am not registered to LubbockOnline, the link looks more or less like nothing. As registration is "free," perhaps we can mention that on the footnote? --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Texas Tech seal images

I note that you reverted my replacement of Image:TTU Seal.svg, Image:TTUS Seal.svg and Image:TTUHSC Seal.svg with Image:Texas Tech CoA.png in their respective articles. The reason I replaced them was twofold:

First of all, it simply seems to me that, at least for the TTU and TTUHSC articles (not so sure about TTUS) the Coat of Arms would more accurately reflect the overall visual identity of the institutions in question; according to the visual identity guidelines at [2], "[t]he Official Seal and Signature are [...] reserved for use by the Office of the President of Texas Tech University and are used to represent the official business of the university", whereas the academic Coat of Arms is intended as a "unified identity for all academic entities within the Texas Tech University System". Using the Coat of Arms instead of the seals in our articles would also seem to reduce the (admittedly small) chance of them being mistaken for official documents of the university, and complies with the advice (which, while we are not bound by it under fair use, it would seem courteous for use to follow) that "[t]he Official Seal and Official Signature may be used only for documents and publications that represent official business of Texas Tech University" and that "[d]ocuments that are not official and formal should use the appropriate Academic Signature" (i.e. the Coat of Arms). It also allows us to use a single image for all the articles, not to mention, in my opinion at least, showing the interesting part of the logo more clearly without the distracting border and text around it.

The second, and more significant, reason for the replacement, however, was that, while I'd originally uploaded those SVG seal images in good faith, believing them to be acceptable with U.S. fair use law as well as our policies, upon further reflection I'm not longer as convinced of this as I was. In particular, while there are reasons for arguing that the SVG versions are not too detailed to pass criterion 3(b), especially given that they're freely available from the TTU web site anyway, I now feel that, regardless of the acceptability of their absolute level of detail, they are nonetheless replaceable by less detailed bitmap images, and therefore fail the non-free content criterion 3(a).

Thus, I no longer believe those images are appropriate for Wikipedia, and do not want myself to be associated with them. As their uploader, I have the right to delete them; the reason I chose to tag them as orphan instead of deleting them directly is that I wanted to keep them around for a while, in case someone did object to the change, and did not want others to end up tagging them (and warning me about it) while they were there. That said, I still don't want them to stay around forever with my name in the upload log; if you want to, despite the issues I outlined above, you're free to reupload them (or bitmap versions of them) under a different title, thereby assuming the responsibility of asserting their compliance under our policies and U.S. law. I no longer want that responsibility.

Oh, and regarding the use of the TTUHSC seal at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso Campus, I'm pretty sure that blatantly violates our non-free content criterion 8. It's not like that article really needs (either of) the images, anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Texas Tech University#Texas Tech seal images as you requested. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Sand Dorsey fire.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sand Dorsey fire.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated.

Fixed. --Wordbuilder 14:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom Stone

If an article is imminent (like within a day or two), I'm okay on leaving a redlink, but just leaving it there indefinitely isn't a good idea. Can you please provide a couple references to prove that he would pass WP:BIO? And if so, why not just create a quick stub? --Elonka 03:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If he's clearly notable, then just create a stub and include a reference on it, and all will be well. --Elonka 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Assistance Request

I have decided to try and upgrade the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band article to Featured Article status (from a normal article...quite a leap) all by myself. I think its pretty damn good right now, but I would appreciate a once-over before I submit it in 24 hours (6 AM CDT). Once submitted, I expect unconditional some support from you guys. Thanks in advance. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back

Well, I've gone and done it and the Aggie Band article is up for Featured Article status. Any feedback (especially support) would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Just goes to show that sometimes even Techies and Aggies can get along. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd seen the 1-12 video; someone posted it the day after the game. The bus...OH COME ON!!! That was so obviously done in Microsoft Word or Powerpoint! Did you guys NOTICE the little red squiggly line underneath the word?!? That means it's spelled wrong!!! Ya' know, it's those 250,000 Aggies that make the rest of us look bad...

To complete the joke, you must realize that A&M has only 280K graduates...

As for the score, that ain't right (the website says otherwise) and would be easy to manipulate in a simple graphic editing program like Paint. On top of that, the total wins and losses is the same and that is not how the page looks, so it clearly was altered a little, probably by some techie with too much time on his hands...

Good times...good times... — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair nuff. I trust ya'. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We love everybody

Howdy! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Texas A&M University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks and Gig 'em! Oldag07 12:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You have made just a big contribution to our page as anybody. we would be honored if you would join our wikiproject.

Gotta say ditto on this one. For a Red Raider, you're a pretty stand up guy...what I am saying, you're pretty good no matter what school you're from. Way to buck the stereotype...now if us Aggies can just do the same... — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Well folks, thanks to your reviews and comments, the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band is now a featured article on Wikipedia. It should take a day or so to update, but it's a done deal. Thanks for the help, Wordbuilder. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Yes, I'm certainly not trying to battle with you, but I thought my last edit was a compromise (despite my snarky edit summary). I listed the link under "See also" because it really is not the expected destination of a "final season" link; I would expect to go to a page for Rome season 2. Frankly, and please don't take offense, I don't think your list is particularly useful; all the same info is already collected in Category:2007 television program series endings. The fact that you can find no better way to link it should tell you that. But I am not the King of Wikipedia (which is why I limited my edits to the Rome article), so if you feel that strongly about it by all means put the link back and see what others think. I will, of course, reserve the right to comment on Talk pages. ;) TAnthony 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

TAMU

I think i answered bqzips' concerns on the talk page. btw, thanks for all your help. you have made lots of good recent changes. Oldag07 03:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is ok. you wouldn't be the first. I don't use the different computers, and i forget to log in sometimes. thanks for trying to mediate us. aggies like i said, are family. warts and all. . Oldag07 22:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

happy independence day. Oldag07 12:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SMU Mustangs athletic logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SMU Mustangs athletic logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia.(truncated) fuzzy510 19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

FA Gates

Yea, someone marked that as FA earlier on the site. I just changed it yesterday. the bot hasn't fixed it yet.Oldag07 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

(Notice for Sally Kipyego Did you know? moved to main page.)

Libraries

Hey mate, I agree that we should probably put the library section above athletics but I think that section needs to be reworked first. I really don't think 'libraries' necessarily should have its own article, but rather be included in a new section called "Campus and Buildings" or something like that. That particular article would be large and include libraries, historical buildings, public art, research centers, etc. The balance I was talking about most specifically relates to the images. It looks much better if the images rotate from right to left (or vice versa) all the way down the page, instead of several consecutive images being on the right or left. I also generally try place the picture so that it looks like its aiming into the interior of the page if possible.--Elred 20:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I'm working on getting permission for this photo now http://jeffreymark.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/65009_512.jpg I love that shot.--Elred 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

It appears that at some point somebody requested a rating (quality and importance) for the TTU page but it has never actually received such a rating. Do you have any experience with this stuff? I'd like to try to start pushing for FA status and making the necessary adjustments. At the bare minimum I'd like to see the page assessed and see what kind of reception it gets so we can tell what to address. Let me know if you have any thoughts on this.--Elred 19:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Texas Tech University article

Thanks for your input on this article. Can you explain to me what the break ({{-}}) is that you inserted? I'm not challenging the edit, just trying to learn what it is. Thank you! →Wordbuilder 03:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I just figured it out. Does this push the section header down so it doesn't get "stuck" on the side of the image instead of being left justified? →Wordbuilder 03:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly it; I'm glad you figured it out. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. That will definitely come in handy. →Wordbuilder 04:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Nice thing to learn. That's a major peeve of mine when images push lines out of whack.--Elred 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RE

I was kinda planning to create a Campus section that talks about the physical location, geography, architecture, buildings of the campus and I would include the sports facilities in that. Thus the "facilities" list you are talking about was already on the chopping block. Kill it. Don't worry about the photo distribution so much right now, we'll move things around to fit the layout of the page once its how we want it. ...and I have no problem with removing the song lyrics.--Elred 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo request

OK. I think they are all back in Texas. -Regards Nv8200p talk 17:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Image resize of the wide shot

Did you resize that to make it equal width as the university box above it? I assume that's what you did. It's kinda funny. You must use internet explorer. I use mozilla firefox. For some reason, the two browsers display the stuff slightly different. Now the image looks about 4 pixels too big to me hehe. (I highly recommend firefox BTW.) I switched the photos because of the HDR controversy and I talked to the photographer and he was a bit leery about the GNFU license mandate that is being forced on us. I figured I'll just go ahead and take them all myself so we don't have to fight about it. I think I'm gonna take some more shots this week.--Elred 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, just read your page. VERY sorry to hear about your son. I have 1.9 sons (another one due any day now) and cannot imagine losing either one. My father went to NMMI, my in-laws have a house in Ruidoso, and AFSOC, my prior command and the air force unit I most hope to be attached to, is expanding to Cannon AFB. So, I have a few ties to that region and have a special place in my heart for that state. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Corps at A&M, your buddies are sacrosanct; the phrase is "They'll marry ya' and bury ya'" implying they'll be your lifelong friends...they are. I still talk daily with a lot of them...well, online anyway. We even set up a listserv so we can keep each other updated.

The reason I say this is because one of my buddies was selected for Navigator training when his wife went into labor. When their son was born, he was found to have a serious congenital heart defect and unfortunately he didn't survive. Well, my buddy lost his navigator slot, but got another flying position. He then found out his wife was pregnant with their second son. Unfortunately, they beat the odds and their second son was born with the same defect (one in a million chance). Fortunately, he has survived the surgeries (four of them open-heart) and is doing much better.

My wife is a diabetic and we can't have any more kids without risking her life (which is why this one will be our last).

I tell you this to let you know you aren't alone and the future is always open. There are plenty of things can always change. Keep your chin up! Keep wikipedia-ing (is that even a word?)! — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hello, Image:Matmypic3.jpg does not seem to be listed at PUI. Can you please double-check and relist as appropriate? Thanks, Johntex\^talk 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gabe Hall

Hypocrisy rules. You reverted my entire last edit just because it contained "is" in the first sentence. Pats1 17:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, on unrelated note, I saw your user page. I was watching the LLWS last week and saw the game where Garrett Williams K'd 17. Quite the feat. The next Randy Johnson? Pretty good team, I was rooting for them to win. Pats1 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure you use "is a former" instead of "was" in the first line, as "was" implies that the person is deceased. Pats1 20:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!

For saving me the potential of another 3RR ban. I appreciate it — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of these complaints seem trivial and were addressed already in the FAC. Others are so subjective/wrong "I don't like how that sounds", "your sources are all from some stupid PR department", "I didn't like it"

I will back you in any attempt to get you banned...funny, the criticism only seems to be while the article is on the main page...haven't seen much since it was moved off the page...

No good deed goes unpunished... — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Could use some help on the FTAB talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning (ThreeE)

Hello, Wordbuilder. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning ThreeE's conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by "ThreeE" in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE, where I would appreciate your participation and comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 A&M vs. Tech

Is this NPOV material? Speaking of which, this game should be exciting. If you compare the offensive and defensive teams on both sides, they have about the same talent. I think it all comes down to who scores at the end. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

At least Vegas favors Tech :) Not too satisfied with their favoring of Miami. BlueAg09 (Talk) 17:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a big ouch. Certainly an unacceptable performance. There is talk about a new coach... Perhaps former Tech coach Jerry Moore could do better? BlueAg09 (Talk) 17:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomb of the Unknowns

Didn't like what you wrote? You were off to a very good start.... --ScreaminEagle 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dang...good update! If you get to editing the article before I do, the first two "secretaries" are misspelled. If I get around to adding the bit about the preservation organizations (who were the ones to write and inform Webb about the replacement plans) in the very near future, I'll do it instead. --ScreaminEagle 20:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue I (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities 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 for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! -- Noetic Sage 19:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese N64 games

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 16:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Vick 'em shirts

Howdy Wordbuilder. Do you think we should cover the controversy over the Vick 'em shirts on the season articles? There are some references on other news sources as well. I don't care either way, so whatever you think we should do would be fine. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess we can try to be NPOV here and add these quotes. :D Of course, we'll have to find a more reputable source though. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A&M vs. Tech

Hello again. Whenever you get the chance, could you check if this paragraph maintains a NPOV. I'm concerned if the words "unwelcoming" and "rowdy" are a bit too much. Feel free to change those to more appropriate words. Here's the link.

This will be the Aggies' 66th meeting with the Texas Tech Red Raiders. A&M currently leads the series 34–30–1, though 1993 was the last time the Aggies won at Jones Stadium in Lubbock. In games played at Lubbock, Tech leads the series 16–12. Coach Dennis Franchione has a 1–3 record with Tech as A&M head coach, and Tech coach Mike Leach has a 5–2 record with A&M as Tech head coach. In their previous meeting at Kyle Field, the Raiders outscored the Aggies 31–27, after Tech sophomore quarterback Graham Harrell made a 37-yard touchdown pass with 26 seconds left in the game. In the past decade, the Aggies' visits to Lubbock have been unwelcoming and rowdy. In 1993, hundreds of tortillas were thrown like Frisbees onto the field during the game. In 1999, after a Tech victory, Tech fans taunted and threw batteries at Aggie players, and also tore down the goal post to parade it against the Aggie bus. In 2001, about 1,000 Tech fans tore down the goalposts again, paraded them down the field, and pushed them into the A&M section of the stadium. Some A&M fans retaliated by throwing ice at the Tech fans, and a quarrel commenced.

BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find those news reports. Are you going to the game? If you are, it would be nice if you took 2-3 pics from the A&M line. They would make a great addition to the article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the win. Though I support my team, I think they are through winning this season. ;) BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Michael Crabtree, was selected for DYK!

(Notice for Michael Crabtree Did you know? moved to main page.)

Re:DYK entry for Michael Crabtree

Hi, you can find it here on DYK. It is also at Wikipedia:Recent additions where we list all items on DYK. Hope that answers your question. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The hooks that appeared on the Main Page are always available in the edit history of Template:Did you know; and someone added it to the archive... -- !! ?? 10:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bob Knight

Why did you undo my edit[3] at Bob Knight? Nishkid64 (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand. The article says he was Cuyahoga Falls HS coach from 1962-1963, then assistance coach at Army from 1963-1965. My changes made the dates line up accurately. In the current form, 2 positions are listed under 1962-1963, and there's nothing listed next to 2001-present. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine now. Thanks a lot! Nishkid64 (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Colorado game write-up intercepted

No problem.  ;) It was just a temporary smart-ass remark to emphasize my plummeting interest in the team over the last two games.--Elred 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue II (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities 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 for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

William M. Branham

I would like to explain why I undid your edits to William M. Branham. I feel I should have contacted you before doing so, and for that I am sorry. I am responsible for most of the references that have been added to the article, but very little of the content. Because this is such a controversial topic, with content being added to and altered frequently, both pro and con, I have tried to justify statements by more than the usual number of references. I am sure the rules of referencing are meant to enhance and not impede reading, and it is for this reason I have chosen to enter multiple sources under the one number.
With regard to your “citation needed” tag, the first two references this tag replaced were intended to show the international nature of the movement, not advertise specific churches. I agree that individual church sites would be better removed or placed under external links. If you still see a problem with the referencing I would appreciate your advice. Ken Rev107 (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you would kindly direct me to the exact place where it says a series of numbers is preferable to listing many references for a single statement under one number. If this is indeed the only acceptable method in WP, I will gladly conform, even though it looks very clumsy, but would you please edit all the references in the same manner so at least there is consistency.
I fail to see how listing a website that simply states the names and locations of churches around the world is spam. It seems to me to be a valid reference to substantiate the international nature of the movement. I feel the best course of action is for me to request an independent assessment and we both abide by that decision. Rev107 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I raised the matter at Editor Assistance. I am prepared to abide by the conclusion of the response that has been given there, so .... edit away! Thank you for your interest. Rev107 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue III (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities 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 for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! Noetic Sage 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

reference edit

Hi - I will look for the guideline this evening (I'm running out the door) but I believe MOS style says that we should avoid combining more than one form of referencing, so they all should be converted to one or the other. But looking further at it I didn't see anything in the text that relates to that reference, and it's a pay site so we can't look at the article itself, so I made it a separate section. But looking again, I don't really know why it was added, and I'll look further later, but for now I changed it to "other reading" as the source does seem to be about Scheuer although not talked about in our article. You'll see I also changed the "Hey Sandy" inline cite to a ref for consistency. Tvoz |talk 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This sort of explains the guideline by example rather than an actual explanation - but it's showing that we don't mix bulleted refs and numbered notes in the same section. If you look around I think you'll see that articles tend to be consistent on that point. Tvoz |talk 05:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help! Some of the policies and guidelines are not completely intuitive, and sometimes not written very clearly, so just keeping asking questions. I've been editing here for almost a year and a half and I still learn new things all the time! Best wishes Tvoz |talk 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting the Houston High School link

The article was deleted for repeated vandalism and I have put the article back up partly. If you don't mind, I have undone your edit. Nescio sed Scio (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Thanks for the warm welcome and encouragement! My husband and I both graduated from Texas Tech, so it's nice to be able to contribute in any small way. --_└^Frozen_┘^┌_Flame22^┐ 16:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to University of Illinois

Hi,

I noticed that you recently (17 Dec. '07) censored the University of Illinois article so that it is no longer the most prestigious entity in the University of Illinois system.

While I understand that the statement "most prestigious" may sound presumptuous and biased, I think that it most accurately defines how great the school is in comparison to its relatives. The reader of the article automatically understands where the school stands in relation to its two counterparts.

Let's define "prestige" as a high standard achieved by success or influence. There are three entities in the University of Illinois system; aside from Urbana-Champaign, there are also the Chicago and Springfield campuses. Urbana-Champaign has, first of all, been designated by the system itself as the flagship campus. Urbana-Champaign has roughly over 20,000 more students than Chicago's campus and roughly over 35,000 more students than Springfield's campus. In terms of sheer influence by population, Urbana-Champaign moves more degrees each year. Morever, let's look at how accredited institutions regard Urbana-Champaign compared to its counterparts. U.S.News & World Report, the U.S.' most referenced indicator of a school's excellence, ranks Urbana-Champaign 38th in the nation, while Chicago is ranked in the third-tier (or, two tiers below Urbana-Champaign). Springfield was unranked. The Institute of Higher Education at Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranks Urbana-Champaign as the 26th most excellent university in the world, while Chicago's campus is ranked 102nd. U.S.News & World Report regards Urbana-Champaign's graduate programs much higher than Chicago's in almost every field, with the exception of medicine.

I wish I had more time to gather statistics, such as perhaps the influence that Urbana-Champaign's graduates have on the economy, the endowment of Urbana-Champaign's campus compared to Chicago's and Springfield's, the sheer number of innovations that have been exported from Urbana-Champaign's campus, etc., etc. Undoubtedly, there are figures that exist, innumerably, that suggest a greater involvement and influence on the behalf of Urbana-Champaign's campus.

In my opinion, it is wrongful to sterilize content in this way. Sure, Chicago's and Springfield's campuses make great contributions to society and their student bodies are competent and influential. However, it is blantantly ignorant to reality to suggest that everything is equal. It's blantantly ignorant to suggest that Urbana-Champaign, Chicago, and Springfield can all be equally prestigious, all at the same time. In my opinion, it only mystifies the subject matter of the article, and obscures the importance of the school itself from the reader.

Please consider reverting your edit.

P.S. Here are some statements from the University of Illinois discussion page that you may want to take into consideration.

I can't believe that anyone would question the statement that UIUC is the most prestigious campus in the UI system. For heavens's sake, the other two or three schools are all cruddy little squatters. Hell, ISU, SIUC, and NIU all have better national standings than the other schools in the UI system.

No, I figure that this is just a case of someone wanting to delete all adjectives that might have a subjective connotation. Well, you know what? The word "prestigious" has a definition, and you can just look it up, and it is obvious to anyone who isn't being obstinate that Champaign meets this definition. Not everything has to be quantifiable in order to be a fact. But since US News has quantified things, and since UIUC is the only public university in the entire state of Illinois (let alone just the UI system) that even ranks in the top 50% of the nationally ranked universities, then I hope you can see what's what. For crimminey's sake. HuskyHuskie 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Paerra (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue IV (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities 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 for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Third party photo uploads

Hi. I noticed that you have uploaded several photos from other people, including Image:Gharrell.jpg, Image:Ebritton.jpg, and Image:TTUvsUTEP.jpg (possibly others, I didn't look). Do you have emails or other documentation releasing these images under the GFDL? If so, could you forward the applicable documentation to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? This is the address for the m:OTRS office of the Wikimedia foundation and it's necessary to have this documentation in hand so that if someone challenges the license some time down the road, the Foundation can point to the copyright release. Thanks. --B (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

TTU football

Tech played some good football this past season. I was pretty impressed by the bowl win. I think the Raiders have a shot at winning the Big 12 South this upcoming season - and maybe even become Big 12 champs for once ;) Anyway, I noticed you started the Tech football article - it's looking good so far. I'll help out when I can. BlueAg09 (Talk) 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tech football

Hey, thanks a lot for creating the Texas Tech Red Raiders football team article! It's about time someone made one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.41.204 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any help you can lend would be appreciated. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JessieDanielsCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JessieDanielsCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

don't delete my addition to the Bonfire article

I was a member of S.W.A.M.P. as well as being one of the students who was assaulted. Leave it in. Bonfire was run by a bunch of neofascist goons but I didn't put that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Strucely (talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh

Well, I've decided to apply to join the dark side. As a user with whom I have interacted, I would appreciate your input on my nomination. This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated, but simply a request for feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cingular All-America Player

I added Crabtree and then removed him only to find that there isn't a separate article for the "At&t" award. I think we should either update the existing award page to include the new award, seen as how cingular is the new At&t as you say, or start a new page with the new award. Let me know what you think, and if I can be of any assistance to you in this endeavor. BTW good work on here. →jmcstrav (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, good job. You seem to be very industrious on Wikipedia. I laud your efforts. Thanks again. →jmcstrav (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tech vs. UT

I suspect its UT's proximity to me (I'm in Houston) that in my mind it looms larger, or just the blur of assessing over 2000 Texas articles in the past few days. Either case it was an unattended slight, and I will give Tech parity. I try to be fair and consistant, but this one slipped by. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Jacksinterweb (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Welker link

Sorry about that; for some reason it looked to me like there were two links to the Red Raiders page. Samer (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Wordbuilder! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Knight

Why did you take my controversy contribution out and leave others in? It is referenced. Its as legit as any others. Mwinog2777 (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your prompt response. However, I beg to disagree with you. He coached under Knight, followed him, and was deposed when it was said. The fact that it is grainy doesn't detract from its veracity. The Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence are both grainy now, but still very relevant. Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

welker photo

yes, I think a crop would help Michigan10 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

Hello, Wordbuilder. I hope you're doing well. I figured you'd like one of these:
(Barnstar moved to main page.)