User talk:Scm83x/archive1

The following discussion is archived from User talk:Scm83x. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Welcome to wikipedia. Hope you enjoy it here.

You labelled Image:USSC justice group photo-2005 Roberts.jpg as tasteless and unnecessary. I dont see why. I just wonder if there was an image edit or something that isnt visible, although there is no copyright info so it should be deleted. Justinc 01:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I think I see (see page), but please be more specific in images for deletion. Justinc 01:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scm83x, thanks for following me around and helping out with my spelling. I'm really bad about getting my keys out of sqeuence sequence sometimes, and that was a lot of edits! You'd think that cut and paste would save me, but I had to switch out between adding categories and changing links, so I think I made more than 1 typo along the way... Hook 'em! Johntex\^talk 02:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the Barnstar! I feel very honored that you think my contributions were worthwhile, and I feel especially pleased to receive my first Barnstar for edits on Longhorn related work. Thanks again for your help in improving the new article also. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I hope that I can clarify what has been going on with Frisco, Texas. I did three things to the article:

1. I checked http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/about_ikea/facts_figures/ikea_group_stores.html and it quotes the value 28,800 square metres so I added it to the article. Unlike sources targetted at local audiences, Wikipedia is specifically designed for an international audience. So it needs metric units to be accessible outside the American region.
2. I changed [[square kilometer|km²]] to [[square kilometre|km²]]. That was not an attempt to modify what the reader sees (both look identical). It was an attempt to reduce redirection.
3. I removed links to solitary years. The reason for the existence of date 'links' is because of 'date preferences'. For example, Americans like to see April 12, 1981 and Brits like to see 12 April 1981. If square brackets are added, the Wikipedia software amends the format so that the sequence matches that chosen by the reader in the preference settings. It should not really be called a 'link' at all, the actual 'link' to the article is merely a secondary effect.

   Date elements that are unambiguous across cultures do not involve date preferences (e.g. a year on its own 2001, a month on its own December, a month with a year November 1996). It is explained (not very well) at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Internal_links

   This issue is widely misunderstood and because lots of dates get linked on Wikipedia, some people think that *all* must be linked. I consider it overlinking, however if that is what people want, it is fine by me. The issue is discussed from time to time. For example at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that my main priority was (1). I was disappointed that you reverted the whole thing. I don't mind if you do not accept (2) and (3) and want to eliminate those edits. But I hope that you can accept edits related to (1). I hope that by discussing this, we can learn how best to improve this article and others. Keep up the good work.

Regards Bobblewik 12:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about reverting (1) and (2). I'm not sure about reversion on (3). I prefer a link to all years, no matter, but it is clear that there is some debate about this in the community. I will leave it the way you did, because it's pretty clear you have more experience with these things than me. Just so I don't RV legitimate stuff in the future (and I know it's more work) but it would help if you could cite a page for the year removal whenever you do it. It's been a hectic week and well, we all do silly things when we're tired (like editing Wikipedia instead of sleeping). Thanks for checking out a local interest article and all. Appreciate the 30k edits you've put into the Wiki. -Scm83x 14:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:FlorenceShapiro.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --cohesion | talk 06:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. See Template:TXGov. Thank you! - Scm83x 09:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry, I'll try and refrain from that in the future. Staxringold 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, are you the same "Newsjunkie" who runs The West Wing News Blog? - Scm83x 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. You figured it out :-) --newsjunkie 10:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great pic of Mack Brown. I had the same thought when I saw him talking about the 50th anniversary of the Hook 'em Horns symbol on game day, but you beat me to it! I'm really glad we have a pic now. During the game against Tech, I took a screenshot of the National Championship trophy down on the field, with Bevo in the background. If things go well - I'll add it to the appropriate articles. Cheers, Johntex\^talk 15:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you request, a new thread has been started at Talk:The West Wing (television)#Wikipedia:External links style guidelines. — 66.167.252.72 07:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. Unfortunately the issue remains open (return to the talk page for the details). 66.167.139.129 13:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. It means a lot to me since I think you make great edits. Speaking of edits, though, I made a change to one of your edits to Mack Brown. I'm not sure we can say that we've held the number 2 ranking through nine games. It is certainly true that we will hold it going into the ninth game, and since the rankings don't change until after all the games, maybe it would be correct. I changed it to 8 but I don't feel strongly about it if you want to change it again. Best, Johntex\^talk 23:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea. Changing 8 games to 10 weeks is an elegant solution. This nomenclature keeps all teams in synch regardless of bye-weeks, etc. I've made the same change to Texas Longhorn Athletics. It is starting to bug me that there is so much overlap between the two articles. I'm tempted to do another fork to rip out everything about the 2005 season from these two articles and put it into its own article. Then it would be in just one place. I hesitate because to do this because I think that ideally the season is best understood as just one chapter of a bigger story. What are your thoughts on this? Johntex\^talk 15:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a large overlap between the articles, I've noticed how small the section is overall in both article. If we were to put it in its own article, I think we'd have to expand the content, which should not be hard, pulling content from the Vince Young page concerning the Heisman hopes and other things. Overall, it does bother me that the articles are so much alike but I don't know if I can justify pulling them out when they both make so much sense where they are. Whatever we decide, it will most likely be precedent because I have not found a similar pull-out section on any of the university pages that I looked at (including Michigan, USC, and Virginia Tech). We certainly have the one of, if not the, most extensive University athletics article on the Wikipedia. -Scm83x 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. On the one hand, a detailed account of a bid (whehter ultimately successful or not) for the national championship might truly be useful to future scholars/historians/fans. On the other hand, if we extrapolate to the extreme, I'm not sure we need an article for every season of every sports team. I guess each such article could be evaluated on its own merits to determine if it was notable or not. I might start a draft article for the season in my user space if I get around to it. Then we can decide if it seems to be progressing into something uselful before we release it "into the wild". Johntex\^talk 16:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Go ahead and start the article in your user space. Let me know where the article is and I'll help you work on it. Once we have something tangible, we'll decide if it's ready for release "into the wild". -Scm83x 16:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about anon's changes to the Mack Brown article. I read all the way from top to bottom and I was thinking that most of the changes were neutral to positive until I got down to the big deletion. In reading the text that was deleted, I'm sure it can be improved, but I don't think it should be taken out. There are a couple of smaller changes that I think should also be reversed. I'll take a stab at incorporating what I think are the good changes while replacing most of the deleted information. I'll let you know when I'm done so you can take a pass as well. Johntex\^talk 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this dif shows the changes between the current version and the version just prior to anon's visit. Edit away! Johntex\^talk 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits you made to spruce up what the anon did are great. No need to change. Also, great job with adding the {{ref}}s! -Scm83x 22:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the screenshot, that does clear up that issue of fancruft, but I re-put the afd tag on the article as it is still massively fancruft and original research. If my theories on Firefly-Outlaw Star connections were fancruft and original research despite numerous fans AND non-fans seeing the connection before the show even aired, drawing completely theoretical connections with NO mention outside some small sect of fans is DEFINETLY fancruft and OR. Staxringold 06:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, wow. First of all, and I have been meaning to mention this to you previously, but the Wikipedia is not the right place to get angry at people who have done nothing to you. Please see WP:CIVILITY. Use of excessive CAPS and placing angry/put-down comments in your edit summaries are not a good way to make or keep friends. When the time comes for large debates on topics that are important to you, it is important to have friends on the Wikipedia. Furthermore, I have commented on your AfD for the Timeline skew. I do not believe that the appropriate solution is deletion. I do wish that you had made a comment on the talk page regarding your reservations before placing the AfD. -Scm83x 06:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made the comments twice when the identical content was removed from the 2006 election article. And no one made any mention of it save you (who reminded me not to bite the newbies, which was fair as I was overly angry there). And I'm not using excess caps (I used one word in caps last post...), but I find the arbitrary double standard (I worked long and hard on that Firefly data) on original research to be silly. One magazine article that deals with one sliver of the theory does not mean it is newsworthy. Staxringold 07:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the proper solution is not an AfD. The skew is an important part of The West Wing continuity. The difference between your Firefly information (which I find impressive, although I haven't gotten around to seeing the show yet) and The West Wing information is that the Firefly information is something you found and came up with yourself. You saw the similarities and wrote about them, the show did not bring them up. However, the fact that the West Wing seems to live in a world similar to our own creates the obvious question, "Wait, didn't I vote for president in 2000, not 2002?" The show refers to prior events and things that happened in our world. This difference creates a void for this information, which news sources have filled and we wrote about here. -Scm83x 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking out my anger over the Firefly section on other Wikipedians. I didn't mention it on the talk page as I'd already removed the data on another West Wing page with no objection (past it's original poster who just reverted it without any discussion himself), and I didn't use a merge template as I don't think that's what should happen to the article. My comment on the AFD was merely a statement that even if the result is to merge, that merge should be drastically shaved down. Staxringold 00:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did The West Wing live debate broadcast two episodes, one for the East and one for the West, or did they rebroadcast the East Coast feed as I had seen talk of on the TWOP? Thanks! -Scm83x 05:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there were two feeds. I don't have any direct proof of this - I'm not sure what post at TWOP you are referring to, because I saw quite a few comments there remarking on the differences between the two versions. If you are are registered there, you can do a search for the word "feed" and see for yourself. Also, NBC has links to two debate highlights from both the East Coast & West Coast. What do you think about the timeline argument I posted in various places re: the campaign blogs being dated for 2005?--newsjunkie 18:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Living in Washington, DC, our local press was all over this story, and it was widely reported that there would be two feeds and that the cast would do it once, and then do it all over again. I don't know whether future broadcasts of that episode will specify East Coast, West Coast, or be a combined edit of the two. -- Lisasmall 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Have you considered moseying by the Texas Collaboration of the Month? We're currently trying to decide which article about Texas should be improved next. You'd be most welcome if you're interested. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on User talk:Wangi. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 15:27

There has been a long running discussion/poll at Template talk:Unreferenced over these issues, perhaps this discussion should be moved there. - SimonP 16:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I haven't heard hide nor hair from him lately. He seems to go through spurts of intense activity followed by spurts of inactivity -- I think he has a pretty busy day job so I'm not entirely surprised. He'll be back, I have no doubt, but I just don't know when. · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 23:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, this is quite a push you're making here. Anything else I can help out with? (also, thanks for the comments on the season summaries) Staxringold 21:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I archived all the solved issues on TWW's FAC to make it readable (that massive discussion put like 20-50 lines in between votes (which were all supports in the end anyways. :D). Staxringold 22:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's only made three reverts, strictly speaking. His first edit was to add the information. Technically a revert is defined as an edit that "undoes another editor's work." If he reverts again, now that'll be four. Let me know. Good that you warned him; maybe that'll get him to quit. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can revert up to three times in a 24 hour period without any penalties, though it's sort of frowned upon. It looks like another editor also reverted him. While you wouldn't be penalized for reverting again, if you don't mind waiting for another editor to do it, it would be better. But you won't be running afoul of any policies if you don't. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we dont need you deiding whats "relevant" to Texas A&Ms page. You think those pic on your schools site are "relevant"? The pictures are nice and make our site look good and we dont need some $%#% whorn to say what our site does and doesnt need. Stay off our site!

Thanks much for the barnstar! –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why would we not want a college to have contact info on their page? the school should be able to be contacted upon learning more about it—Preceding unsigned comment added by GameOfLife (talk • contribs)

I don't want to put Cheers up for a general peer review yet, as there are still some gaping holes that would distract attention away from any useful advice. However, your push on The West Wing (television) has spurred me on to try and fix up Cheers for an FA attempt. Could you give it a once over and give me some advice? (I'm still working on it, but any advice could help) Staxringold 23:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And my email is empty... Staxringold 23:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...just checked your bio after noticing your edits to the entries for the games played on today's show. Thought you might be interested in checking out http://www.golden-road.net. If you like the show enough to watch every day, I think we've got some stuff you'll find interesting (although I'll grant that I'm a little biased, as I write the site's FAQ). 67.140.39.183 03:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely inappropriate for you to unilaterally declare my objections to the West Wing FAC resolved and remove them from the main page. Only the objector, whether me or anyone else, is entitled to do so. Monicasdude 00:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I thought those issues were resolved. Won't do it again! -Scm83x 00:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - you just removed my links (and text) i added the the UT-austin page. you said they were linkspam. i guess you are right that my links for the cooperative houses organizations can be viewed as spam, and shouldn't be up there. i didnt really think about that till now (thanks). but i also added text along with them, which was relavent. our university has an unusually extensive cooperative housing community, and is noteworthy. comment back here and if you agree, ill add the text back, excluding the links. i also added a hypertext link to the natural sciences department in the list of departments. i hardly think this is spam! it's part of the university! in sum, thanks and no thanks, haha. one last note: that stuff i added was removed seconds after i hit 'save page'. were you actually online and monitoring every edit to the page AT 5AM?? sheesh, wiki is supposed to be a community made for the purposes of information sharing, not a power struggle. signed, fellow ut student (cell and molecular senior). ps, im taking biochemical engineering right now, which is cross-listed in BME, BIO and CHE. i dont recommend it, in case you were planning on taking it. if you'd like to know why, i'll tell ya. after all, im all for community and sharing information! pps, is your ip 24.227.210.138? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.210.138 (talk • contribs)

Hello. I am currently an ME student at UT. You may add the text back, as I am not totally familiar with the coop material. We don't add links for each college because Wiki is not a web directory. If the reader wants to see a particular college, they should go to utexas.edu and navigate from there. Also, there is a feature called a "watchlist" that updates users about every edit to pages they are watching, so no, I'm not obsessively updating the UT page history. It's finals week, why can't I be up at 5am? ;-) Thanks. BTW, the IP you mentioned is your IP. -Scm83x 11:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

haha... yeah, so i guess according to the 'wiki is not a web directory', you are right. however, the more links, the better, imo. that's what hypertext is all about. i took a course on communities and cultures on the net (at the university of glasgow - do i dare to link you to it?) and we had a section on hypertext. yeah, users can get to the individual colleges from ut's homepage, but that's another x number of clicks away, when instead they could just rightclick, open in a new window. that's the beauty of it all... why list the colleges, tempting someone to know more about a specific college, and then not link them, ya know? just my 0.02. ill add the text back up and exclude the linkage. lol @ my IP address! i was so confused for a second. and in case you didnt know, finals are the devil. ps, if you are interested in learning more about the coops first-hand, you are welcome to come over for dinner some time next semester. thanks for your cooperation ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.210.138 (talk • contribs)

Hey, I've added a few comments regarding this on his talk page. I'm all out against cluttered and unnecessary external links, but I've very slightly beefed up a sentence encompassing off-campus housing in general, though without too much advertisement-like detail regarding coop housing. -Rebelguys2 21:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello again mate. two things. first, regarding the University vs university punctuation. i scanned the article and found that when the word 'university' is used as a proper noun (referring to ut) but only the word university was written (excluding 'of texas at austin'), there is an inconsistency. eleven times, the word was capitalized, while 22 times it was left lower case. imo, if the word is referring to a proper noun, it should be capitalized. either way, there should be consistency throughout the article. small point, but ya know... and second, regarding 'The university's enrollment exceeds the capacity of on-campus housing; as a result...' i think it this is obvious. in the first paragraph of 'student life', the total enrollment numbers are listed, and then in the same paragraph in question, the on-campus capacity is noted. explicitly saying the university's enrollment exceeds the capacity of on-campus housing is redundant. would you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.210.138 (talk • contribs)

I'm not taking it personally. You're missing my whole point, which is that when anyone is allowed to edit/critique something, there is no way everyone is going to agree on what to do; so you get people saying things should be done differently, there is no way one can make them all happy. Things like typos are easy and obvious critiques, but when you get these debates about inline vs non-inline, writing style A vs style B, and layout A vs layout B, it's impossible to do it both ways.

Also, there should be page for guys like Staxringold, who is 17-18 yr old high school student. Is it really appropriate that he call a layout that he himself made of my page 'silly' and me 'crazy'?Rlevse 11:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions are welcome, but Stax calling his me crazy is highly inappropriate. He's the one that made a personal attack, not me. He's is definitely in need of 'keeping it cool' Rlevse 12:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you'd like to know that I've made this a showcase article at the Schools Portal. It's one of the best articles for a US public school I've seen. And nice work with the West Wing too! See you around. Harro5 07:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My suggestions to improve: I'd look to see if there are any more notable graduates (you never know); the history section is a little bare (what happened between 1899-1970?); some more info on academics, particularly subjects offered (which AP subjects? Any languages studied?). I'm Australian, so forgive me, but I don't know if US public schools have fees. If Plano does, you should mention that. Hopefully that's a bit to go on, but with some pics and some of this stuff the article will be very thorough. Also, if you can add a heading to the football table, do so, as it's a little hard to find the section explaining what it is about. Harro5 07:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table is great! Harro5 05:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added an image, and so must be at home for the holidays. Hopefully you're able to find that history stuff you wanted on the school, and enjoy your break. Harro5 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The article only gets better. What more can I say? Harro5 22:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The West Wing. 66.167.139.201 20:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I am disappointed to see your quick second reversion. I went to a lot of trouble to notify a broader audience about the changes, and before anyone else could render their opinions you reverted again. I noticed here you commented on some of your boldly made changes; please respect the bold changes made by others. 66.167.139.201 20:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

OK thanks for letting me know, they have been blocked for 24 hours. I only looked at when the last warning was received and what it was. -- Francs2000 23:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to replace them. Actually, as I said in the talk page, the only reason I uploaded the two pictures was that there were no recent images of the campus at all. - Eagle^amn 09:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't think they should be kept, they're just temporary placeholders. You can check how low the quality is. Unless you have a better idea, I think they should be removed as soon as other (better) images become available. - Eagle^amn 10:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I don't mind changing the copyright status. As I said, it's a quality and not copyright issue. - Eagle^amn 10:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed comments! I'm going to go implement many of them, but one major question:

• "Consistent usage of "character (actor)" format" Why would you continually write that? The West Wing doesn't do that. Your own featured article! I agree the one for Fraiser before the character table needs it (as your Josiah Bartlet in the opening needed it), but deeper in the article?

I've now basically completely edited the article to your suggestions, save the actor format thing above. Thanks! Staxringold 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, ok. The only place I know I break the style after the table is when talking about Coach/Woody (I go from a description of Coach to his actor dying, so I wanted to make it clear who he was). Staxringold 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My record speaks for itself I think. I think you're making guesses on whats up in my head instead of looking simply at my actions, but thats just my feeling. At anyrate, my record stands on its own--Tznkai 00:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Sorry if I got defensive. I'm getting jaded in my old age. Random thought: Thats a nice lookin girl you've got yourself.^_^ Anyway, the first person to actually get something done in a large push, whether good or bad, attracts a lot of ire, so I'm used to it. Take a look at the history of the abortion article. So I just pray that I'm doing something good, and if not, someone reverts me, and the swarms of consensus take over.--Tznkai 00:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the existing template at {{user longhorn}}. The entire point of the userboxes project is to find hidden sources out there. One request - can we edit the template to read: The University of Texas at Austin? I live right next door to UT-Dallas, and BOY do they get steamed when Austin alums talk about UT as a singular entity :-). I'll edit the Talk:UTAustin page and Support the Deletion of the UT-Austin Template. 1001001 10:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave it the way it is for now. I'll create the other Userboxes for the rest of the UT system tomorrow, and we'll see if anyone gets uptight about UT-Austin being the only 'UT' school. 1001001 10:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find I did respond on the Talk page of the article as you suggested. Fluterst 11:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, no big deal. Fluterst 11:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by one of the administrators that I can make comments and that some are overly touchy when others do not agree with one's point of view. So I'm not going to deleted my lists of points about Christmas. I'll thank you to stop attempting to intimidate me. --Bumpusmills1 12:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a word with him. IMO we should assume good faith and hope he takes the hint ;-) Izehar 13:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I has a word with Fluterst as well - let's hope he follows procedure. Izehar 13:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted my postings and any that were attached to them from War on Christmas, George W. Bush, and Arab/Israeli Relations. I've took your advice and posted my views, ideals, and beliefs on my personal page. It seems any time I post on a site and it is in any way against those who visit it on a regular basis I get harassed. My views are valid and as important as anyone else on this Wiki deal. Look to hear from me no more. --Bumpusmills1 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS-Unless you come at me again. --Bumpusmills1 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added in the fire alarm part in the TAMS article because it's becoming a significant problem in the TAMS community, that's all. I'll follow your suggestion and won't put it in again.

Also, I change the article up quite a bit, including new sections and some more information about TAMS's academic performance and requirements

What do you think? I am very new to this, and I want to learn to do it right. Feel free to yell at me if I do something out of line.

ThanksTimmy 00:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished another edit of the TAMS site, perhaps you'd like to look at it? And do you think that the site on Calligraphy is organized? Perhaps it needs some reorganziation of fonts. I had a hard time trying to navigate there. (Just a suggestion for a large scale edit) I'm a calligrapher myself, and I can contribute to the reorganization of calligraphy. Thanks again for your help. --Timmy 03:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to tell you that I nominated your Image:Plano seal.jpg for deletion because I provided/made a sharper version of the Plano, Texas seal. --J. Nguyen 04:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that there are an awful lot of Kaplans and there is no reason or justification why a commercial firm should commandeer the word Kaplan for itself as fist point of reference. The no. of references elsewhere is not in itself a justofication - it's just the sate of Wikipedia at this moment in time. By giving 'Kaplan Inc.' its own page, and giving links ot it in both 'Kaplan' and 'Kaplan (disambiguation)' the situation becomes fair. Otherwise grabbing a fairly common name like this as first port of call is rather like 'squatting' an internet address.

Best regards

13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC) -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smerus (talk • contribs)

Hello again! Hope you had a great holiday! Have you begun thinking about trying to get TWW onto the front page? I'd consider trying to throw something together to put on Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article. A complete example (with the correct format, at least):

Staxringold 00:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really supposed to be the last season? They aren't even going to try and do it with a Santos/???? presidency? If so, then I agree, but if there is going to be a season 8 I'd just push for whenever possible. Staxringold 03:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it looking any better? Suggestions please. --Bumpusmills1 23:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying my page whilst I was out!:-)--Light current 03:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the whole thing! I worked hours getting like I wanted it and then you went and messed with it! I'm leaving wikipedia as a user. I will delete my own pages too! --Bumpusmills1 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the intial comment I left on User:Bumpusmills1's userpage that started discussion of creating a Native American spirituality article:

Since reading your comments on Talk:Wicca, I've been poking around the Native American mythology-related articles on Wikipedia and I really think there is room for improvement. Several of the articles are mainly long list of red-linked deities (see Abenaki mythology), Blackfoot mythology actually has a section called "Misc", Seneca mythology and Iroquois mythology don't appear to be aware of each other's existence... there's a lot of information, but it's hard to make sense of it all. I am beginning to think that it could be very helpful to compose an article that would address Native American spirituality/religion in general, explaining the similarities and differences between the religions of various Native American tribes, and putting some of the vague impressions many European-Americans have about things like medicine wheels, Two-Spirited people, peyote, medicine men, the Great Spirit, and vision quests into an appropriate cultural context. The article could include historical information about changes in Native American spirituality brought on by the European colonization of the Americas, interaction with Christian missionaries and Indian boarding schools. Can you believe that neither Category:Religious history of the United States or Religious history of the United States (a sizeable article!) contain any information about the religions of the peoples who lived here before the 1600s CE? I really think something needs to be done about this, but it needs to be done by people who are familiar with the topic because it's a huge topic. I wouldn't even know where to start. Anyway, it sounds like this is a topic you know and care a lot about, so I just wanted to let you know - I think this is a place where you could make a huge contribution to improving Wikipedia's treatment of topics relating to Native Americans in the United States. I would love to see that happen. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That should give you a better idea of where I hoped that the article would eventually go. I do think that despite the fact that there has never been one uninified "Native American spirituality", the concept should have an article because it has all become lumped together in the popular consciousness. The various "mythology" articles that mostly consist of long lists of deities or translations of religion-related words need to be put into context. The article we had certainly did not accomplish that... but I had hope. I also thought this article might serve as a platform for improving and expanding our coverage of the religion and mythology of the various indigenous American cultures. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on User talk:Bumpusmills1. I've given some more explanations of Wikipedia policies and conventions and how they are relevant to this issue. Bumpusmills1 is still in the process of figuring out how Wikipedia works and I have been trying to help him out with this. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Jim you are gettin' a might to big for your breeches. I desire the picture on Cherokee Society to stay at 350px. Each time you change it I will change it back. Since you admitted to being less than versed in Native American anything I suggest you go to topics you know more about. I've been ran away from topics and now I'm running you off from this one. If you don't know anything about my heritage and people then hush your mouth about it and leave the article alone. --Bumpusmills1 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin with experience in Native American issues. I was asked to look into the discussions referred to on this talk page, especially about the articles Cherokee society and Native American spirituality. First off, it appears that the Cherokee society article has some much needed information which Wikipedia has been missing (and I'm glad to see it). However, the article needs to conform to Wikipedia styles, which means, among other things, using a NPOV writing style (meaning that the sentence in the lead which says "Hopefully through the efforts of this article some will find their way to the "Old Ways" of Cherokee Society." need to be reworked). The photo of the primary author of the article should also be removed b/c Wikipedia does not allow posting of vanity material. As for Native American spirituality, there is no reason that article should redirect to Cherokee Spirituality and Culture, which then redirects to Cherokee society. I'd suggest editing Native American spirituality separately from the Cherokee article. As a side note, though, I should mention that Native American spirituality sounds like the sort of New Age fluff white people would write about Native Americans. After all, I don't see any articles on Wikipedia about "Caucasion spirituality" or "African American spirituality." Finally, I hope everyone here will work toward achieving consensus on the article. Anyway, hope some of this helps. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd cut User:Bumpusmills1 a little slack. The editor is new and is still learning the ropes here. The editor already made some suggestions I gave, which indicates a willingness to abide by Wikipedia standards. I also think keeping the two articles separate will really help b/c, in all honesty, these subjects are separate subjects. Best,--Alabamaboy 02:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the ownership issue. Still, he apologized for the vandalism on the article's talk page and seems sincere in his efforts. As time permits I'm going to try and help him with some style issues and such. The article does have good info on Cherokee society and we'll see where it goes from here. Best,--Alabamaboy 02:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. I had just came out of a really nasty edit war. The dispute was not about content, just wanted to prevent another war before it even started. Cheers. Martial Law 03:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed Celina as a team that had won seven state championships in football from your Plano High page. You stated that Celina was not a 5A school and didn't belong. I did some research, and your argument only holds up if the school is currently 5A. Plano has won three 5A championships, one 4A, one 3A, and two 2A. Brownwood has won one 4A championship and six 3A championships and is still a 4A school.

I think Celina should be added as a seven championship winning school and the 5A reference deleted. Here is a page to verify the championships.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/highschools/leaderboard/football/uilchamps.foot.html

Thank you. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasag03 (talk • contribs)

In 1974, Celina tied Big Sandy 0-0 and were co-champs. Therefore, the seven championships holds.

I still think you should correct the Plano Senior High page since they did not win seven 5A championships and Brownwood has never been, or at least never won a championship as, a 5A school.

Plano High, Brownwood, and Celina still stand as the only Texas schools to win seven football state championships; an amazing accomplishment in any class.

Jeff 14:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all the doubters: Hook 'em. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got that right. So many people called this year's USC the "best team ever". Well, what do you call the team that *beats* the "best team ever"? Maybe that should be in one of our commercials. By the way, do you happen to be in Austin over the winter break? If so, can you hook up all us displaced Longhorns with a high quality JPG of that lit-up tower?? I think adding it to Texas Longhorn Athletics would be a good start. I am definitely starting that single-season article we talked about before. I'll begin it this weekend. Hook 'em!!! Johntex\^talk 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scm83x. I realize you still have a bone too pick with me, and guess what? I don't blame you. I did a bad thing too your userpage. I did do it on purpose, but I did not know it was considered vandalism. I have learned from my mistake. The things I'd posted on my userpage where merely to let others know that I'm being rather untrusting. I have filed a formal complaint with the FBI over some of the things that happened too me on my userpage etc. I merely deleted a caption from beneath your photo. These guys posted extreme radical garbage and filth onto my userpage. Alabamaboy explained to me that it wasn't right nor necessary to post those warnings on my userpage and I deleted that information from the same. He did say that the bogus statement could remain simply because he agree's with the statement and how I've worded it.

I had taken my eyes off you. However, it seems you still watch me closely. Alabamaboy knows how to communicate with me in a way that I do not take offense. I don't mind others keeping me on my toes as long as its done in the proper manner. If someone is overly critical or in-your-face I usually come out of my corner ready to rumble. It is nothing personal against anybody. It is my nature. I was born a warrior. I've never been in the military because my health would not allow it. However, had I been in the proper health I'd joined and fought in the United States Army and would probably be retired by now. But, like everyone else, I had to play the cards that Grandfather (God) gave me. I have fought as a Civil War Reenactor and did prove myself to be kind of a whiz tactically speaking. Some say it is because my Indian blood shines through because I can read the the land. I don't know about that, but I do know that it comes naturally whatever it is.

Please. Keep in mind that you did the right thing by reporting what I had on my page. I did not realize it was considered threatening. I am 42 years old and I'm just now learning diplomacy. Diplomacy has eluded me my whole life, but now it is finally awakening inside me. My heredity is to drop the proverbial axe and let the blood fly wherever it will. I come from a long line of straight-forward people. They spoke their mind and, like me, it got them into trouble from time to time. Well, keep up the outstanding contributions. Wado and Best, --Bumpusmills1 19:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, always glad to talk to ya' Scm! A copyedit would of course be most welcome. As for the reference style, do you mean ^x.1 as opposed to ^a for second refs to the same note? Any final thoughts on what the article needs before I make a FAC push? Staxringold 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the edits! I'll try and add a little to Critical Reactions, and I may even end up starting the FAC today! Just a note, you may want to check out TWW's ref system, as currently I think your custom numbering system has broken all the initial refs (Any that aren't labeled a, b, etc, the note at the bottom doesn't shoot you back up to the point in the article). Staxringold 15:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiyo! :) I think she's ready, I've put Cheers up for FAC and I hope I have your vote! Staxringold 01:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new article awaits your edits...Johntex\^talk 13:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Building of the University of Texas at Austin looks great! I'll certainly find something to add to it. My wife's grandfather played a large role in the tower's role as a host for warning sirens for public security during World War II. I'd like to see someone put together a Wikipedia portal for UT Austin. Something similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Texas - Bevo 16:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome article on the tower! I will definitely help you expand it. I'd be up for participation in a UT Wikiproject as well. I sporadically contribute to the project on Texas. Johntex\^talk 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think we should make a pagemove, however, to Main Building of The University of Texas at Austin. Someone did find that reference recently (I'll dig it it up if you didn't see it) that says that "The" is part of the Univeristy's full name. Johntex\^talk 17:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I did the page move. I also made a redirect at The UT Tower, changed the redirect at UT Tower to point to your new article instead of to Charles Whitman, created a disambiguation page at The Tower, and changed all the links on William Butler Yeats related-articles to point to The Tower (book) instead of The Tower. Johntex\^talk 17:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the Project/Portal - I may not be the best person to ask. I occassionally contribute to several Projects, though I was not involved in setting any of them up. I have never been involved in a Portal. Katefan may be a good resource for this. I would also suggest posting a notice on the Talk page of the UT article, and also on the Talk page of the WikiProject Texas. Johntex\^talk 17:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was almost too amusing to revert. *Sigh* The burden of responsibility. Johntex\^talk 18:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Malcolm Perry (physician), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

The article is currently featured on the Schools Portal. See what you think of the sections I chose for the piece, and edit/vandalise/praise it as you wish :p. Harro. 5 07:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Main Building of The University of Texas at Austin, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-Hoo! Congratulations!!!! Johntex\^talk 18:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! A post-National Championship lighting of the Tower on the main page. Quite possibly one of the sexiest sights ever to grace the Wikipedia. -Rebelguys2 18:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, lookit that! Now THAT'S a sight! · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Texarkana, thus it's within driving distance. I've been looking for an excuse to visit Austin for some time now, lol. Haven't been there before. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:49, Jan. 27, 2006

Lol yeah, I guess I didn't read closely enough. No, I'm not going there every month. If it's a Jimbo event I'll plan a trip out of it, and see the sights of Austin. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:58, Jan. 27, 2006

The show is in Category:The West Wing. That category has a category of Category:Drama television series so any article in Category:The West Wing does not need to include Category:Drama television series. At least that's how it was explained to me. Vegaswikian 08:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Some people are better at seeing stuff that the writers miss. Also, I can not find the template that is adding the 'Articles lacking sources' to the article. It has a list of references a mile long. Vegaswikian 08:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one line that uses the {{fact}} template because no one can find a citation for the seemingly common knowledge that liberal generally like the show and conservatives don't. Is that really needed? While I don't eally watch the show, I would expect that to be the case, but you could also ask if that line is encylopedic. Without proof it would be opinon and probably could be resolved on the talk page. Since I'm not going to get involved with the article text, I'll leave that alone. I do think that the presence of that cat is not in keeping with the quality of the article. Vegaswikian 08:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have my gratitute, for your reversion (and edit summary) of that spoiler on The West Wing article^[1]. In fact, have a barnstar: . -- Ec5618 17:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again man! Thanks again for your help on Cheers. Now, the reason I'm here on your talk page. I noticed while browsing the Schools Wikiportal that you are a member! I was wondering if you could give Hopkins School a once over and give me your advice (other than filling out the history section, which I'm collecting information for). Thanks again! Staxringold 04:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now if it were a photo of Muhammad performaing autofellatio, that might be different.  ;-) Thanks for the help. I've got to step out, so I leave this one to you for a bit. Can't wait to see what happens! Johntex\^talk 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: I've updated Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin with the group photo, which can also be found at Image:Austinmeetup04feb2006.jpg. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use the discussion page during the planning phase. (At least until plans firm up.) What do you think? jareha 02:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scm! I know you're a football fan, so I figured I would ask for your support for National Football League Lore as a Featured List! Staxringold 03:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if I can support this one in good faith with the neutrality tag still on it. — Scm83x ^talk 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scm83x, thanks for putting the note on your Jan 27 06 rev to the election page about McGarry's departure coming too late to revise the ticket (deleting my spec that producers could bring back Rob Lowe / Sam Seaborn for veep). Do you think your info ought be in the body of the article? -- Lisasmall 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is the general style, but what do you think needs additions? I can't go very much deeper into the plot while staying spoiler free and not turning into just a content paragraph. Any ideas? Staxringold 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update the graph once the numbers have been loaded onto the site I am using as a source [2] updates their CNN/USA Today/Gallup polling information. --tomf688^{talk} 02:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to prove a point. As I am new to the community, I went to your user page when I saw your premature AfD posting. I am naturally curious, and looked at most of the pages you have created. In a sincere attempt to improve the information on Wikipedia, it seems to me that those articles would (in all sincerity) be better merged into the article, or at a minimum, you should consider adding some connection from the series to the article on Enders' game series. You shouldn't take that as a personal attack - I really want to make those articles more usable. Don't you think that's worth considering? I haven't recommended that for any other articles on Enders' game series, because I haven't seem any of them yet. I found your pages through your user page, and haven't become interested enough to look for more. By the way, I am not sure why you seem to be so hostile. Shouldn't you assume that I am only trying to help? I have taken your comments very seriously and have changed the focus and direction of the Pulp and Paper Merit Badge article. Although your comments were somewhat premature, I still took them in good faith, tried to understand and have made some changes accordingly. Please see: Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers for some humble suggestions about your own Wiki behavior. NThurston 19:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Scm83x. Could you specify which images are in trouble, so I can erase these. Because I dont know. All the images are self-made. Thank You.--Zzzzzzus 22:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)zzzzzzus[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Franksgiving, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 16:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. So, how is the archive page actually created? Is there an easy trick for putting the old talk in there? NThurston 19:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly what kinds of things woudld I write in the edit summaries section? --Torourkeus 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks.--Torourkeus 05:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to have it on my laptop, but I'm pretty sure I have it at home. I'm traveling right now, but I will plan to upload it this weekend. Johntex\^talk 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Ha! I didn't even have to tell you about the new article!! I think we should put this on DIY - don't you? Which fact would be best to highlight, do you think? Johntex\^talk 04:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool! I'm thinking maybe the best thing to highlight in the Longhorn Band article would be the world's biggest drum. Also, even though I don't seem to have the photo you were asking about, you did start me on something of a photo upload spree tonight. Johntex\^talk 05:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I like the presidential angle better: DYK... The University of Texas Longhorn Band performed for inaugurations of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush. and the first and second inaugurations of George W. Bush?

Is that too long? When should we put up the two articles? Johntex\^talk 05:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! I'll wikify the names and then list it right after yours.Johntex\^talk 05:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BCS national championship trophy and Bevo.JPG

I forgot to look for the photo you requested over the weekend. I'll try to look for it one night this week. If I haven't gotten back to you by Friday - you might want to remind me so I look for it on the weekend. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• <<<---- Here it is! Johntex\^talk 23:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Deep in the Heart of Texas, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 06:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, and thanks for your suggestions/modifications to do the todo list for the Texas A&M article. If you don't mind, I have two questions about the additions and changes. First, can you expand a bit on how the pictures are out of line with Wikipeida guidelines/policies? Second, will you give a few examples of boosterism in the article as it is now? Boosterism seems, on the whole, to be a largely subjective thing (at least as far as I have investigated it), and I'm trying to get a better handle on exactly what is (and is not) acceptable. At any rate, I'm still trying to draw a good picture of the work needed to be done, and would like as much input as possible from more experienced editors; any help you can give would be appreciated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EdisonLBM (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is archived from User talk:Scm83x. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.