|
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:
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 OverlinkingYour 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: -- Fyslee 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
"Hack"
King of QueensOh, 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)
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 publicationsMy 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.jpgThanks 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)
Texas Tech dabDoesn'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:BQZip01My 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)
Re: Question Regarding Usage of Copyrighted ImagesIf 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" PeopleMy 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)
Brandon Daniels.jpgI'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 articleThis 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) ReferencesNo 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) RespondingHey, 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.
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 imagesI 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)
License tagging for Image:Sand Dorsey fire.jpgThanks 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.
Tom StoneIf 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)
Assistance RequestI 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 I'm backWell, 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)
We love everybody
You have made just a big contribution to our page as anybody. we would be honored if you would join our wikiproject.
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 warYes, 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) TAMUI 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)
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 GatesYea, 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.) LibrariesHey 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)
RatingsIt 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 articleThanks 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)
REI 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 requestOK. I think they are all back in Texas. -Regards Nv8200p talk 17:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Image resize of the wide shotDid 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 assistanceAs 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)
ImageHello, 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 HallHypocrisy rules. You reverted my entire last edit just because it contained "is" in the first sentence. Pats1 17:28, 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)
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. TechIs 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)
Tomb of the UnknownsDidn't like what you wrote? You were off to a very good start.... --ScreaminEagle 02:02, 18 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 gamesI 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 shirtsHowdy 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)
A&M vs. TechHello 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.
BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:27, 12 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 CrabtreeHi, 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)
Bob KnightWhy did you undo my edit[3] at Bob Knight? Nishkid64 (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Colorado game write-up interceptedNo 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. BranhamI 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. 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 editHi - 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)
Redirecting the Houston High School linkThe 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: WelcomeThanks 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 IllinoisHi, 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 uploadsHi. 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 footballTech 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 footballHey, 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)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JessieDanielsCover.jpgThanks 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)
don't delete my addition to the Bonfire articleI 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 ohWell, 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 PlayerI 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)
Tech vs. UTI 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 linkSorry 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
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Bobby KnightWhy 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)
welker photoyes, I think a crop would help Michigan10 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC) The Original BarnstarHello, Wordbuilder. I hope you're doing well. I figured you'd like one of these:
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
