User talk:Wordbuilder/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

A handy linking tool

Find link.

Bob Knight

Thanks, I appreciate it! I'm always glad to help! BlueAg09 (Talk) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the pat on the back (Barnstar) for my Gnomish/OCD ways. I'll still be tinkering around the Texas project so I am sure you'll see me popping up on your watchlist from time to time! Thanks again! Jacksinterweb (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the DAB elimination

I needed a laugh. — BQZip01 — talk 17:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Glenrio

Thanks for the note. My objection is not that there can be multiple communities with the same name in different states, but that the same community cannot be in two states. Your example of Kansas City is good: there must be different articles because it's in different states; and the only way that KC is in both states is the Kansas City Metropolitan Area, and I doubt we need to be talking about a Glenrio metro :-) If it's in both states, we could have two articles (Google Maps labels the two sides separately). It's just that, due to the way states work, a community (even if unincorporated) in one state is rather different from another by being bound by a totally different set of laws, and really shouldn't be considered as being in multiple states. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article was moved. No clue how long "Glenrio" has existed as a redirect or separate article. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks so much

That is SO nice of you! A little gesture like that makes all the hard work worthwhile.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sally Kipyego

I just received your message from November 2007 - have not logged in in a while. I see the changes you made on Sally's page, and they look great! Yes, you are correct that the year refers to the calendar year of her accomplishments, and I think the new title was put in a good place. Great work! Runshan —Preceding comment was added at 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Raider Band (Barnstable)

So I have a problem. The high school band is being tagged as a university band but it obviously isn't. Do you think you coud whip up a high school band template. I would but previous templates have ended in utter disaster. Thanks in advance for any and all help/advice. Kevin Rutherford 03:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama image

Yes, it could be just cropping, and I'm cool with that. I'd much prefer to assume good faith on this, but thought it was important to share my concerns. All of this lively attention to a photo that was uploaded in 2006 comes at a curious time given concurrent references in the talk-hate media to Obama's "fiery oratory". So given that context, maybe you can understand better why I'm looking at it so cautiously. Thanks for all your work to make Wikipedia better. --HailFire (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fight song lyrics

I have a question regarding the inclusion of lyrics in the articles for fight songs. Can they be there or not? In the past, you've removed them from some articles, summarizing "remove lyrics which, if copyrighted, shouldn't be on any Wikimedia site, and if not, should be on Wikisource". Nevertheless, there is absolutely no consistency on Wikipedia in this regard. Some articles include the lyrics (public domain and otherwise) while others do not. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion they should not be, and that seems to be the consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help! Laboviorodruin (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

images

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Harry Barrow (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama image

Rather than just undoing revisions without an edit summary in a content dispute it would be much more productive to discuss the matter on the article's talk page.--STX 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing my post

So you just remove my entire posting because of the image? (Which can be commented out) --STX 01:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Trolling

You have crossed the line with your trolling comment on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Harry Barrow (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Harry Barrow confused my comment about "polling" with an accusation of "trolling" (see here). →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

What about sourcing that the video was said to help campaign

(and so on and so forth)? --Justmeherenow (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:TTUvBU.png at IFD

I deleted the image. In the future, please use {{db-author}}. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Listen, Barack:

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Harry Barrow (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack? Vandal? Honored and then insulted... →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Report of abusive username

You may notice that the Superdelegate article has been edited, vandalistically, by a couple of new users, Wordbuider and JamesMLanet. I've reported these abusive usernames at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. JamesMLane t c 21:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Wow, that bunch is fast. They've already blocked both users and removed the listing. Here's what I posted, now of historical interest only. JamesMLane t c 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the admin who soft-blocked those two usernames ... I'm filing a checkuser as well, since they all edited within 10 minutes of each other--enough time to edit, sign out, sign back in as someone else and edit again. Blueboy96 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well ... what do we have here? Both blocked. Blueboy96 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. Blueboy96 13:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

good compromise

i like your style. (no need to answer this- but why do we have such a narrow view of CW on the page? I know its easier than edit warring mostly- but I really feel like some editors use the cite process and tags to intentionally make the page stylistically ugly, and asthetically ugly.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

and seriously I have three cats and am GREAT at washing them in the tub- the key is the hand-shower lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy to try and streamline the cites or something but I doubt that would go well. The page seems pretty static lately so now might be a good time to try and get people, on both sides, to commit to a framework like we have now. at the same time I like that it is a fluid page and has lots of edits, sometimes. I just wish people used talk before they delete- I don;t mind crazy additions because you can usually work around those. but deleting just seems so cold-war to me. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Ebritton.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ebritton.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 11:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem

yah well your rv's at least were usually justified. I am always pushing the boundaries of what you can add without a cite (on general principle) but really, its nuclear warfare on that page and I just concentrate on keeping everything in the king's english. No worries about your prior rv-s, they were months ago anyways, and believe me lots of good editors rv me ALL THE TIME. I have kind of a confrontational style (as you may have noticed lol) and I do it intentionally, so usually I get what is coming to me.

anyways its a BS checkuser- I'm sure you're not very worried about it. Something needs to be be done about andy, but I wondering how much longer we need wait before he does it himself. regardless at this point I spend about half my WP time reading policy pages and the conflict resolution process pages, so believe me I will be ready when he really screws up. I just get so depressed at how ugly he makes everything... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just spotted this too. The dude needs his head examined or something. I've been restricting myself just to the Obama bio because dealing with Andyvphil all the time is too stressful. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruffin McNeill article

Hey, I was wondering if you were planning on creating a Ruffin McNeill article soon? If not, I was thinking about gathering some info and finally creating one. I've created a grand total of one article, so if I get one started I might need some help with all things wiki I can potentially miss; I can't make it perfect ya know? Almosthonest06 (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's alive! Let me know what you think and feel free to make any corrections/additions as needed. Thanks! Almosthonest06 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo requests

Are all photo requests limited to states or counties? The reason I ask is, while Sally Kipyego is a student at Texas Tech University, she competes at running events throughout the nation. So, photo opportunites aren't limited to Lubbock County or to Texas. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You can add a photo location request for each location a Wikipedia photographer likely would find Sally Kipyego. As a student at Texas Tech University, a Wikipedia photographer in Lubbock County likely would find Sally Kipyego to snap her photo. Template:Reqphoto has other parameters, such as "|of=" where you can specify a particular type of photo (e.g., "|of=Kipyego at the beginning of a race." I added some more to the Sally Kipyego talk page. GregManninLB (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I appreciate your help. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

photos

Feel free to copy any of my photos anywhere. I have no interest in them beyond their use on wiki, and I don't care if other people use them. I would recommend trying to find the best 'crop' of each shot though. Several of them that I've uploaded multiple times are actually the same photograph that's just cut differently. I definitely do want to keep all the good images we have up here somewhere so they're here if we need to use them for something else.--Elred (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Big 12

(Barnstar moved to main page.)

Fire

I left the fact tag for the 'thousands of years' phrase, nowhere is it referrenced- it could be far fewer years, it could be more. Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. If I pull out the time frame portion of the claim, would you object to the removal of the fact tag? →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course not, go for it Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Done. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

we missed you

well some of us did... I think NPR missed you too, for an interview. Oh well, if you were looking for relaxation, you looked in the wrong place lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was still here on Wikipedia. I just needed a breather from Andy and his ilk, lest I reach through the Internet and strangle someone. I'm back though and resuming the good fight. I tried to revert Andy earlier today but someone beat me to it. I can't complain when one of the good guys is quick on the draw, though. I read the NPR interview who did they talk to? →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
They talked to me, among others. I refused to be interviewed on the radio, but I responded to written questions. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz as well, who I had not met much in my short time here. Also Jonathan S. (is that wasted time r?). IMHO the wiki woman article is still the best one. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sucks that I missed it. I would have probably agreed to talk on the radio, then dreaded it, then thought it wans't so bad, then been glad that I took part. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

images in the commons

Heya mate, I noticed a couple images that were moved into the commons that are credited to me and aren't mine. The one of the main library (629056811 0147edf6ee.jpg) and the night time masked rider statue (Masked Rider Statue 2.jpg) don't belong to me. Those were some of the shots taken by a professional photog who gave me permission, but became reluctant after we realized the extent to which he'd have to release the rights to the images. It would probably be best to completely remove those two from wiki. I'd do it but I'm not sure how to. Thanks. --Elred (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Colorado Buffaloes

Sorry, I didn't look that closely. It looked to me like you had tried to repair the vandalism (which I agree on removing) but had mistakenly removed additional items or just deleted full text and we had lost some useful items. I'm fine if you want to remove that stuff again. I doubt it will ever get sourced (at least anytime soon). Sorry for my error, but thanks for talking about it and letting me know. MECU≈talk 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding Log to Info Box

Thanks for your comment, I didn't think anyone had noticed my little page here.

I was wondering if you could help me add our logo to the info box. I'd added it initially, but it was removed for some reason. Being VERY new to Wiki editing, I really don't know what I'm doing yet. The logo itself is the same one which we've had since 1977 except for a brief period from the late 90's to ~2006 or so. The key designer was and is our advisor, Bobby Green. On his suggestion, I'll be working to register it as a trademark once we get a few minor details corrected with our graphic designer. To clarify, Bobby created it, and somewhere in the last 30 years the digitized version was lost. A fried of mine has recreated it digitally to aid in publications. I digress, I would like to add it to our Info Box, and update the same with our incoming president. Can you help me? Thank you very much.

Where should I upload it? If it needs to be somewhere on Wiki, I'm not sure how to do that since I can't find how to edit the info box. If you just mean upload online, here's a link.

Also, when I or other officers go to update the info box, where is the link to do so? I tried to go through the help links within Wikipedia, but honestly, there seems to be so much jargon that I had a really hard time wading through everything. Thank you very much for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolamite02 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Thank you very much. You don't know how helpful you've been. I didn't know Wikipedia had the means for users to interact like this. You've dramatically brought down the intimidation factor for the forum. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolamite02 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar eaten by a bear award

(Barnstar eaten by a bear moved to main page.)

KURE article

Wordbuilder,

If you have time could you review and/or edit the article for KURE? I am seeking out user reviews as this article is my responsibility for an English project. Thanks.

Clintpickard (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bart Thomas

I'm just curious...what would you suggest other than "apparently" in this article? There is an article that indicates he was charged, but there isn't really any good source for the outcome. Erechtheus (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I asked when I noticed your template because I remember struggling with what to say there. I'll take a look at what you've done. Erechtheus (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Quay County

It doesn't seem like it should be that hard to find a better reference, either - it's not a hard fact to believe. Perhaps I'll try to find something at a local library. I even have a Frommer's NM and there's nothing in there. Tan | 39 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do you one better. I have the book Quay County and could not find it in there. Admittedly, it was a local effort and the editing and arrangement are a bit weak so that might explain it. Nyttend added a stronger source, which is great since he was the one who first added the Fact tag, which needed to be done. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, glad I could catalyze the reference being located ;-) Tan | 39 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Keep causing the good work to happen. {:o) →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

so help me write an addition

three times I tried adding a detail to the Petra page about a cover by Hokus Pick, and three times you removed it. Short of emailing HP themselves and asking them to write the addition for me...you know I've seen stuff on wiki without references and the top of the page says "article may not cite sources", why are you so hard on this note? I'm hoping someone else can confirm it and provide that elusive proof you desperately need so that you can sleep soundly at night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRJM01 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Texas Tech SET logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Texas Tech SET logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Concern addressed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dashes

Oy. You're right. I had to look at it on a page because it shows up to me as regular old hyphen. Should I got back and change everything *facepalm* or just let it go for now? Thanks for the tip! Geologik (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That'd be a fantastic idea, actually (Bot). I have no idea where to make a request like that though. Geologik (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't! It was a persistent nag that needed to be rectified. :P Geologik (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! It made me smile :) Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tjasker

I've added a ref, and replied on my Editor review. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and asking advice

First off, thank you for cleaning up the Famous Maroon Band page I recently created. In fact, thank you for the several edits you've done to pages I've created in the last several weeks regarding marching bands and WikiProject Marching Band. One of my year-long Wiki Goals is that I'm trying to create a basic set of stub articles for every university or college marching band in the United States. Concerning that I have a question. Would it be wise to create every band in stub form, which would allow for all of them to be later expanded upon by users who know more about the bands than I? Or would it be better to devote my time and energy to the betterment of a few specific articles I know a lot about? Thanks for the help and advice! Fliry Vorru (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Each editor takes a different approach of course. My vote would be to go with a stub for each and then come back and devote time to expansion. I think it's better to have a little information about a subject than none at all. Plus, I've noticed that many are quick to lend their expertise to an existing article but slow to create an article where one doesn't exist. So, you're right; once the stub is there, others may go to work on expanding it.
No problem on lending a hand. I'm hoping that the Marching Band WikiProject will become more active. Maybe it will pick up over the summer. You've set a high goal. I'll continue to help out where I can. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

From here, it's possible

Not a problem, I felt it should be cited if there were going to be any disputes what-so-ever, and according to the source, it is a tagline, not a motto. When it comes to a motto, I'm pretty sure Tech does not have an official one, as you said, that is generally in Latin. However, it is possible it could have taken a backseat to "From here, it's possible" and be hidden somewhere. About the infobox, isn't there a way to modify the infobox to add a tagline option? Almosthonest06 (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Graham Harrell

My source was the current issue (2008) of Dave Campbell's Texas Football magazine.Quidam65 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Conversation with AM01NU06

Removal of images

Regarding your removal of images from the articles medical school and law school, please let me know what Wikipedia policy or guideline supports your edits.

-->Wordbuilder, perhaps your affiliation with TTU is clouding your judgment? When TTU is solely featured in not one – but TWO – prominent articles about professional schools, something is amiss. Beyond the fact that TTU’s law school and medical school are both ranked in the lower tier nationally, there is nothing notable about either one to warrant them being uniquely spotlighted in either article, let alone both. If you were some neutral editor and had drawn TTU randomly out of a hat from hundreds of other schools to highlight then I would maybe sympathize, but that is clearly not the case as your profile and history show.

Your edit summaries are not valid arguments. There is no Wikipedia policy that states that if all of the subject matter cannot be illustrated, then none of it can be. If that were the case, then articles such as animal, food, marching band, etc. would not contain images.

-->The onus is on you, Wordbuilder, to justify why out of hundreds of medical schools and law schools you chose to solely highlight Tech in BOTH articles. I’m still waiting for an answer on that. Also, the selection of articles you chose (particularly animal and food) to illustrate image use elsewhere serve only to weaken your case. Those articles have a representative and balanced sampling of images related to the subject matter. What’s more is they are non-advertising related. In the case of the marching band page, at least the image of the Marching Illlini is warranted, as the caption in the photo indicates they were “the first band to perform a halftime show at a football game”. Also, why am I not surprised to see an image of Texas Tech’s band?

I notice from your user page that you attend or attended Texas A&M. I hope you won't let college on-field rivalries bias your editing here. As you can see from my contributions, I edit Texas A&M-related articles. Several Aggies here, such as BlueAg09, contribute to Texas Tech-related articles as well.

-->You chose to highlight TTU on two high profile professional school pages (in fields neither of which Tech is exactly notable and known for nationally) and I’m the biased one? Wordbuilder, you could have solely highlighted any one of dozens and dozens of schools (many of which are far more noteworthy than TTU in both fields) and I would have the same issue. If you have some sort of justification why there should be some random image linking to TTU (or any other school) in both articles, please let me know. Otherwise, people can link to TTU articles just like they do for all other schools via the ‘list of schools’ section at the bottom of each page.

I have reverted your edits to the two articles previously discussed. If you can support your changes, please let me know. Otherwise, it looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Be aware of WP:3RR (I don't want this to turn into an edit war). Hopefully we'll be able to work together in the future. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

-->Again, the burden is on you to explain why TTU should be solely highlighted in both articles.AM01NU06 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith?

Sorry my man, you stopped being worthy of the benefit of the doubt several edits ago. And if there were still any question about your bias, you quelled it when you reverted the compromise edits that I made to the law school and medical school articles. I have absolutely no connection whatsoever to Harvard Law School or University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. I included them because unlike TTU they are historically notable and objectively warrant inclusion in these articles about professional schools. You were fine with a single image of a law school and medical school in these articles before…so long as they were images of TTU’s. By stubbornly desiring that the images of TTU not only stay in these articles, but also be placed above those of the previously mentioned institutions shows quite clearly that your real desire is not to make these articles more neutral and objective, but to promote TTU. Your bias is made even more absurd by the fact that TTU is unranked and is considered a lower tier institution in both the law and medical fields. The TTU law and medical school are not even among the most noteworthy and historic in the state of Texas, let alone the US. I’m just not sure what makes you think it’s appropriate for prominent images of TTU to be the first picture people see when they visit the law school and medical school articles. I wouldn’t even have the gall to include images of the law and medical school belonging to Northwestern University (my other alma mater), both of which are among the most important, historic and notable in their fields. And I certainly wouldn’t have included images of the medical school or law school (if they had one) belonging to Texas A&M. So please tell me, what gives?AM01NU06 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

From the first time I reverted your edits, I asked you to point me to the policy or guideline that prohibits the inclusion of the TTU images. Why have you not done that? →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It has already been established that your addition of a TTU image/link to the top of the non-TTU specific law school and medical school articles is rooted in bias and does not reflect a neutral point of view. You added a TTU image/link to the top of these two articles because you like the school, as your profile and edits show.
In addition to the medical school and law school articles, you also added a TTU image/link to the top of four other non-TTU specific articles: Medical education, Legal education, Legal education in the United States, and Law school in the United States. Each added image/link is tantamount to placing a prominent web banner ad for TTU (a school you like) at the top of each of these six articles. Given your bias towards TTU, this clearly constitutes a conflict of interest. According to the COI article, “Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest.” Your addition of these TTU images/links at the top of these six non-TTU specific articles is also a violation of what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a venue for Worldbuilder to advertise and promote TTU.
Your placement of TTU images/links in these six non-TTU related articles is tendentious editing, defined as “editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view”. The article also states that this type of editing “carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors” (which you have done) and that “the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it (which you have not)…only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others”.
Where we go from here is up to you.AM01NU06 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Your assertion that merely displaying an image in an article on a related subject (law school in a law school article; medical school in a medical school article) is POV or COI is incorrect. I made no uncited promotional claims. In fact, I made no promotional claims whatsoever (and the web banner claim is merely your opinion). Taken out of context, the quotes you included would keep every editor from contributing to articles on subjects he/she has any interest in whatsoever.
I wonder if there had been a picture of the Northwestern University School of Law or if you had gone to the Texas Tech University School of Law as many Aggies do, if this would have ever become an issue. But, as it is, you are clearly biased and will accept nothing less than the removal of the images. You seem to be more interested in wikilawyering to get what you want simply because you came across pictures that you don't like. Therefore, if you're not interested in letting this go for the good of the project, I would suggest seeking the opinion of other editors. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I would actually be quite embarrassed were a fellow Wildcat or Aggie presumptuous and/or naïve enough to add an image of Northwestern University School of Law or Texas Tech University School of Law to the top of these articles simply because they like the school. Even Northwestern – which is a tier 1 top 10 law school – does not deserve to be spotlighted with no justification above, say, Harvard Law School (the oldest continuously operating law school in the country), Marshall-Wythe School of Law (the first law school in the country) or Yale Law School (the top ranked law school in the country). But then there is also the even larger issue of whether an image of the outside of a school building at the top of these articles is necessary at all – the business school article, for example, seems to be doing OK without one.
But, as it is, you are so clearly fixated on a football rivalry that you can’t (or won’t) see any merit in my argument. I was not the first editor who felt it inappropriate for you to place a TTU image/link at the top of these articles with no justification other than that you like each TTU image/link being there, and it is probably unlikely that I will be the last.
And btw, I don’t want to read into anything, so just to clarify, you’re not suggesting that your dominant placement of a TTU image/link at the top of these articles and your fervent reverting of any edits that dare challenge you is “for the good of the project”, are you?AM01NU06 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Your choice in wording, "does not deserve to be spotlighted", is the very core of the issue. In your point of view, the subject of the image isn't worthy so it has to be removed. So much so that, initially, you felt it would be better for there to be no image in the lead whatsoever than to have a picture of a subject that wasn't up to your standards.
Does the article need a picture of the exterior of a law school (or any image for that matter)? Many users like pictures but the text of the article would be as easy to understand without it. Likewise, when reading about corporations, I really gain nothing by looking at a picture of their headquarter's building; but I'm still glad that someone took the time to add in to the article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
And in your point of view, the subject of the image is worthy so it has to stay. So much so that, when I added an image of another school at the top of the article, you felt it would be better to move that image to a lower subsection rather than to have a picture of a subject in the lead of the article that wasn't up to your standards.
As to your analogy, I don’t see an image of a specific corporate headquarters building in the broader categorical corporation article…perhaps something to think about.
Anyway, I’m throwing in the towel so there is no need to respond to this. It is clear you have a lot more time to dedicate to getting your way on this issue, so congrats, you win.AM01NU06 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Spike Dykes

Hello Wordbuilder. Good catch! I neglected to notice that he was also a HS coach. I took that part of the sentence out, since we probably won't get to know exactly why he got inducted. Also, I didn't think a whole section was necessary to point out that he got inducted into the Hall of Fame. If we could find and add the Hall of Fame's explanation of why they chose to induct him, then I wouldn't mind it. I moved the statement to the lead for now. Feel free to move it wherever you think it's appropriate at. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

(DYK notice for Museum of Texas Tech University moved to main page.)

Thanks for cleaning up

my recent, somewhat casual edit regarding suicide at the Rio Grande Gorge Bridge. However I do believe that the suicide side of the bridge's story is a significant part of that saga. While I probably will not try to document this statement, I would be surprised to learn of any other place in the United States (Golden Gate Bridge ?) that has hosted as many folks taking their lives as this spot has, since it was built. I feel that this is noteworthy and should remain. I can easily see that your wording is preferable to mine. Thanks. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much of a deletionist when it comes to cited material. I did find the source interesting. I had no idea that so many people had jumped from the bridge. I don't know if I'll have any luck but I'll see if I can find anything more. Maybe we can add a couple of additional sentences so it'll have it's own paragraph. Keep up the great work! →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason that it is a big deal around here (I'm 30 or 40 or so miles away) is that we get to hear about what it is like to retrieve a body that has fallen 600 feet and been washed down however far and then has to be carried by someone back up. I've been trying (still in the planning stages) to get a sign-up system going where you sign up to jump but you first have to wait for someone else to do it, then you bring their body back and then jump if you are still interested. So far there has been little interest in my plan. EInar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That's really sad. I wish the people would get help instead of jumping. Your system would probably open some eyes and change some minds. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Jumping is, I believe, the last resort of folks who have tried HELP and that has not worked or who do not feel that any help is/would be of any use. We live in a world that . . . ......... but you know all about the world that we live in. Einar Carptrash (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
True. The world can be an unkind place and even tougher if, for whatever reason, one has difficulty coping. I also know what you mean about the help not always helping. I often think, "There but for the grace of God go I." →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ESPNU's Honor Roll named GIA the best college basketball venue in the nation,

That is a fact. What must I do to get that through to you? There are no video links. Should I send you my copy of the program?

It happened.

Would I need to contact ESPN and direct you to someone you would trust? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.48.39 (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it happened. That's not the point. The point is, if you want the information in the article, you must include your source. Sources don't have to be from the Internet so just reference the program. See WP:CITE for more information how to do this. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What must i do to reference the program?

I already stated the program was ESPNU's Honor Roll. It's a well known program. I just can't find an archived section on ESPN. The air date was October of 2005. I guess I can contact ESPN to get verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.48.39 (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but if you have a program from some event, scan it, and post it in the article. Then it can be its own reference. One editor's opinion. Carptrash (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem; you're comments are welcome here. However, the other editor can use the program as a source without scanning it and adding it to the article. In fact, scanning it could create possible issues with replaceable fair-use (for images) or copyvio (for images or text). Plus, I think I took "program" to mean printed program, when the editor actually meant television program. I was a bit confused. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, 64.149.48.39, I think I understand now. I was thinking printed program rather then television program. Here's the citation template you need: <ref> {{cite episode | title = | episodelink = | series = | serieslink = | airdate = | season = | number = }} </ref>

The series is Honor Roll. In addition to that, you would need to at least have the air date and/or season and number. The other three (title, episodelink, serieslink) can be left blank if you don't have that information. Let me know if you need an more help. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to do that when I get some time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.48.39 (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to warning posted at User talk:75.138.208.198

Don't you dare take that tone with me. You have no power, don't go around like you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.208.198 (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the way the template is worded. I didn't create it; I just use it when appropriate. See Template:Uw-npa1 for more information. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lubbock, Texas

Reference to the two oldest busineses is in the 100th anniversary info of the LUBBOCK AVALANCHE-JOURNAL. Grandfather was EVP of the Ft Worth and Denver, have films of the Railroad, considering donation to the Southwest Collection. Godfather was Clifford B Jones, founded TTU. Ed Whitacre Jr. was an employee of my family, just retired from A&TT. Carl Hart Jr photographed Lubbock Lights as shown in editions of the Lubbock AJ from those dates. He also attended LHS.I have a ton of the documentation in a personal collection. St Paul's church was built by my great uncle as was Jones Stadium(pics at the 50 yard line show how the sections could be moved by train until they botched it with the new addition on the West side recently)and Clifford B Jones and Adolf Hanslik were members there. Everything I added can be documented, so I would seriously consider unblocking me and restoring the content. I work with LEDA unofficially and the head of LEDA worked under my Grandfather at Citizen's National Bank before it became TCB. My family came to West Texas in covered wagons and I feel a bit offended that you didn't contact me before removing my content. I have been a Wiki editor for quite a while and wouldn't ever consider putting anything less than the known truth or well covered oral tradition wherein there is no print version. BT, Mrs Owens had a big celebration 2 years ago at the Lubbock Women's Club, which was once the MacDonald Funeral Home. I was a student at Christ the King where she taught, so that is personal knowledge that is repaetedly verified over 40+ years. So, please restore the edits and think of directly talking with someone who knows most of this history personally and has the actual artifacts. My Great Uncle's name appears on a Historical Marker on the front of St. Paul's on 16th and X, I do believe that would be a 100% verified source. Wrix2 (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tucumcari, New Mexico

What does "upright" do in image coding, as you used it in the Tucumcari article? I've never seen it before. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It sets a different default width for portrait images than what is used for landscape ones. Here's what WP:MOS says:
The current image markup for landscape-format and square images is (for example):
[[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Insert caption here]]
or for portrait-format images:
[[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|upright|right|200px|Insert caption here]]
The pixel size parameter may be omitted; this will result in default image width of 180px (140px for portrait format), although this value can be altered in user preferences. If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified. Examples of images which typically need more than the default size include lead images (see above) and detailed maps.
→Wordbuilder (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Invite

 Hello, I noticed you've made edits to University of Texas at Austin articles and thought you might want to become a member of the UT Austin WikiProject. We've recently revamped the project page and started a drive to improve UT Austin-related articles. We have a lot of articles under our project and would like assistance getting them to featured article status. Hope you'll join us. Hook 'em Horns!
--Eustress (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks

I actually did that for the sole purpose of deleting the old photo. There was some glitch with wikipedia that was causing the new version to show on the page, but the old version to show when it was clicked on. Also, since I retouched it some, I prefer than there not be a timeline of the previous versions.

Also, I want to get this article blessed pretty soon, and I think GA status is aiming too low. Looking at some other GA rated articles, ours completely blows them out of the water. I think we should go for FA, any intermediate step is a waste of time. ...and I feel like if we push for a peer review for GA, people will be less interested in participating in a subsequent FA review (having just done it). Let's shoot for the top.--Elred (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Texas Tech history

Yeah, a lot of those articles come up when I'm looking for sources and information. They have a ton of good stuff, but I don't think we can cite them cached like that. It would be a bunch of facts without sources to back them up, so we have to find them elsewhere. I don't know why they took those articles down. Almosthonest06 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WHAT??? How did you do that? lol, Wow, thank you! I didn't know there was a way I could find those anywhere else. They have a ton of info that I could have been using all this time. Perfect. Almosthonest06 (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

de:Diskussion:Angela Braly

I know. It is very late, but: You have a new message there. Alfred Nobel (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image change

If you prefer the photo of the spirt arena i'm ok with you changing it back. I just think the shot of the football interior looks more 'sports' related. The exterior shots of the USA just seem kinda bland, and we have tons of exterior shots of buildings. I wish we could get a nice looking shot of a basketball game in progress (a close-up of a dunk or something). That's what I'd really like to put over there. Either way, if you want to change it I'm fine with it. The exterior building shots just seem kinda 'quiet' for that portion of the article. I wasn't trying to just wipe out your edits. You don't have any random photos from a basketball game do you? I can probably turn them into something good in post-editing...heheh.--Elred (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

law photo

i'll see what i can do to it. i've always hated that photo. i wish i had a good shot of the new addition to the law school, that part looks great. i'm not in lubbock anymore though so i can't just go get one. Go ahead and try to get the wheels turning on the FA stuff. If there's a problem with the photo rights on that old thing we would probably be ok just removing it.--Elred (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a little bit. I took that photo through my windshield and it has reflections in it. Also, that construction junk going on is blocking some complex structures so it's hard to really fix that. It looks better now, but I still hate it. I mostly just made the orange stuff grey and that made it less obvious.--Elred (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC nomination

RE: While the article as a whole is NPOV, it also seems to be devoid of any mention of controversy. The history tends to give too much emphasis on the naming of the institution while ignoring what must have been contentious issues like racial integration, coeducation, war protests, counterculture, funding disputes with the legislature, contentious faculty departures, controversial student life policies, etc etc etc along the way.

  • I feel like a lot of this is stretching too far. The war protest, counterculture, student life policies, "etc etc etc" are either not present at TTU or not remotely relevant to the institution. Maybe an article on UC Berkeley (not picking on UCB) would need stuff like that, but that's just not a big part of Tech's persona. Likewise, I've never heard of a controversial faculty departure or especially noteworthy state funding battle. ...and I don't think we need to try to drum up some obscure event that nobody remembers or cares about just to satisfy this comment.
  • I really think Tech started out as co-ed. The School of Home Economics sounds like 1920s parlance for "the place where the girls learn how to be good housewives." Obviously we can't say that, but since (i believe) tech has always been co-ed, we aren't going to find an article about it becoming co-ed.
  • On the racial integration. I can't find a peep about it. You gave me that link about the football scholarship thing, but if we can't find when the school first admitted blacks then I can't make myself justify mentioning that. I suspect Tech probably just admitted blacks "when everyone else did" and thus it was never a really compelling story. It wasn't first to do it, or last to accept it.--Elred (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we need to actually request that the FAC admins come in and evaluate the proceedings or will they just show up? It looks like we've addressed everything pretty much, other than some of the issues where there are differences of opinion. Really, it looks like the only remaining issues are things that karanacs brought up (that are ironically shared with her own pet article). I'm not sure if madcoverboy is satisfied with the mentions of controversy and the added bit about WWII, but most of his issues are settled as well. All of the citation issues and image issues are settled. All of Tony's issues are settled, except for his displeasure with the length of the discussion.--Elred (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

oops

I didn't mean to revert your edit on the mascot logos... i must have been messing with them at the same time you were. Redo it? I don't know what exactly you did. PS. I'm almost retarded when it comes to wikipedia syntax and licensing rules.--Elred (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice find

How did you find that co-ed link...library?--Elred (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

heheh. Women's Country...sounds like a nice place.--Elred (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

mascots

if push comes to shove on that it's not a big problem. i just prefer the logos. I think we should use the masked rider statue image instead of the photo of the guy though. the biggest reason why i'm resisting this is because i don't 'like' the photos we have of the mascots. if we had a good one of MR racing onto the field or something i'd feel different.--Elred (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

the MR shot

I just dont like the shot of kevin burns standing there posing for the photo. it looks pretty hokey(sp?) to me. i'd much rather use the shot of the statue http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/MRstatue.jpg if we have to concede. plus, you can't see the horse in the photo so he just looks like a hamburglar. --Elred (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I concede. I'm going to go ahead and alter that photo a bit to make it fit the page better. where is that shot of raider red in the costume? I'm gonna see if i can make it cooler looking.--Elred (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It's ok, i wasn't saying 'i concede' in the sense that i'm conceding to you, or that you're wearing me out or something... it was more 'i concede to the process.' i'm just trying to stick to my soup-nazi-esque desire to have our images do the 'peacocking.' I think the MR statue still works for that because its another nice shot of the campus and piece of art. i'll just have to live with the raider red photo for now.--Elred (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I put the raider red photo in there for now. i think the angle that it's the Dirk West cartoon that originated the character may make it legit. However, sourcing that cartoon image is going to be tough. It's not really a logo of texas tech. I re-drew that thing mostly from an image found at Red Raider Outfitters (which was using a dirk west cartoon character for their logo).--Elred (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't let it go. We are discussing it right now and I think we can win the cartoons. If we lose we lose, but i think it's worth the effort.--Elred (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The CD remark was what got me. The idea of putting wikipedia on CD negates exactly and completely the reason why wikipedia is so effective. The fact that wiki is perpetually updated makes it so vastly superior to any off-line source that it's absurd to try to make it CD-ready.--Elred (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

MIT

When you're done going through hell for TTU FAC, you're more than welcome to return the favor at MIT's peer review. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The old photo

I agree that I hate to take that old photo down, but I think it's very unlikely that we're going to get approval on that. The license isn't set up properly and I can't get a hold of that guy now. I'm pretty confident that I can find another, better, old photo before too long. I will be working on that. For the time being though, I'm ok with not having it there. ...always working on it.  ;) --Elred (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know there are more photos of that building from that time period (I've seen them), and I think we can get a release on one. I may even contact Tech directly and see if they have anything that they could release. I have a little pull with them since I actually created some of their official websites. This is one that I'm trying to get http://www.flickr.com/photos/patmac3314/2255026402/ --Elred (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You think we can get this one through on fair use? I don't know the rules as well as you do. I'll go ahead and clean this one up a little bit in the mean time.--Elred (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Windmill

I see you reverted my addition of the German fixed mill. If the image was causing a problem why not adjust it or add a gallery. You state that the other mill is non-notable. From what I have seen on the German Wikipedia, that mill is more notable than the Greek mill. I'll see how I can add it in again without causing problems. Maybe a new section would work better. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the hasty revert. I used to try to make images fit until I found that I was spending most of my time fixing image problems. And, some editors would just respond by adding more images. Galleries are discouraged by Wikipedia. Commons is the better solution. I don't know that the other additon is actually non-notable so much as your brief edit didn't establish notability or include a citation. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

hey

i have something i want to send you. shoot me an email when you have a chance or post your email here.--Elred (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Marching Band

I actually intended on tagging Cape Cod articles tonight. I then realized that this project didn't have this kind of template. I guess impromptu can earn awards. Thanks for recognizing that.

lead

aren't all the major issues touched on?

  • establishment and original name
  • campus and enrollment size
  • number of degrees granted
  • academic organization (12 colleges)
  • major research projects
  • campus attributes
  • major athletic details

I don't really think we need parts about the traditions in the lead, and I don't know what details of student life really belong there. Maybe a part about the Goin' Band and the Sudler Trophy, that's a pretty big deal. ...and maybe something about the alumni. what do you think we are lacking specifically?--Elred (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


I added this: "While the majority of the university's students originate in the southwestern United States, the school has served students from all 50 states and more than 100 foreign countries. Texas Tech University alumni and former students have gone on to prominent careers in government, business, science, medicine, education, sports, and entertainment."

double ts

one could be deleted, but they are actually formatted for a specific reason. the images appear differently based on which info box they are used in, and the width of the image determines how it looks. so one is letterboxed to match the style of the main ttu article (the FAC) and the other is formatted to be larger on the athletics pages. if i had to choose one to delete it would be the one called 'redraider' something, just because the FAC page is the one i want to look the best. I'm trying to format most of the images on the FAC article to 16:10 aspect ratio. i think it lends a touch of professionalism and consistency.--Elred (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

carol

nope. i never heard back from the guy. i can probably get a friend to take a photo of that this year. that old photo is pretty good, but the bar has been raised for the images i want now. i want all of our photos to be magazine-cover/desktop background quality shots.  ;)

hehhe. that was from the era when our shot of will rogers had a black jeep grand Cherokee in the forefront.--Elred (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ttcc.png

no, it's trash--Elred (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

miss something

No, you didn't. That was related some recent FAC issues.--Elred (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

samiches

I see that, but let's not worry about it unless it's brought up as an issue. A lot of those types of problems depend on the monitor and resolution that the viewer uses. I use a widescreen monitor running at 1680 x 1050 and that's about as wide a view as anyone is going to have. However, usually when I'm browsing the internet, I do not maximize the browser window. So my browser window is a square shape. When I view the page like that there is no sandwiching (and that's probably the view 80% of users see). Eventually we'll probably be able to come up with a few more sentences about something that will help to alleviate this further, but I don't see it as a big problem. Even when I view the page at maximum width I only see about 15% overlap of those images.--Elred (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

new content

I apologize if this causes any problems. If all else fails, we can just revert. They should have no objections about the old content if they haven't had any up to this point. It's not like what I added is high maintenance stuff anyway. Elred cleaned it up pretty well. As I said before, however, I'll consult before any new additions.--Almosthonest06 (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

commons

ok thanks for the warning. another thing. when i tag an image for deletion, but there's an image of the same exact name in the commons, what will happen? will the image in the commons just automatically take the place of the one i tagged once it's deleted?--Elred (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats, I saw that Texas Tech University has just been promoted! At least it beat University of Texas at Austin to that milestone ;) Karanacs (talk)

Thanks and thank you for your help during the FA discussion. Unfortunately (for the project), UT's article recently took a step backward, losing its GA status. Eustress was working on it quite a bit but must be taking a break now. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations guys, you really had to slog through it but you got it done! Madcoverboy (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It was a trial but it was worth it. Thank you for your contributions to the review, Madcoverboy, and for your support. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Woo hoo

(Medal and userbox moved to main page.)

Congratulations! You and Elred deserve all the credit for that one. You took on the reviewers barehandedly. Great job. Now... what next?--Almosthonest06 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

red raider

i can flip it.. i'm planning to mess with that stuff--Elred (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I flipped Red but I realized that it causes two other problems. It looks weird in the infobox (the little image) and on the Raider Red article. It also looked pretty weird to me backward. One thing that occurred to me is that if we just removed that image from the page altogether it would completely fix the R/L balance of the page and end the sandwiching. I hate to remove it after the fight we fought to keep it, but it would solve several problems.--Elred (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I want to move the husband image to the left too, but it can't be placed at the top so it'd have to be put below the first paragraph. In that event, it overhangs about half of the text and causes white space (and looks terrible). Maybe we should revisit this after a few weeks.--Elred (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the problem with the husband image isn't being beneath a == header but, rather, that it would either supersede or be beneath the link to the notable people page. SandyGeorgia specifically moved that and the top football image (under athletics) because of that.--Elred (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you think about removing the 'ring' and 'raider red' images? If we pulled both of those down and left everything as is, the page would be balanced perfectly and in compliance with all the rules. Also, those two images are the ones where we have the weakest FUR. We'd still have the little Raider Red in the infobox. I'm kinda leaning toward pulling them. I feel like keeping the images balanced adds a touch of professionalism that I'd like to maintain. On a semi-related note, we've practically got a professional photographer in our employ now. My shots are pretty good, but I think we'll be improving on most of them shortly.--Elred (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll hold off on pulling these images until you've got the traditions page up and running (so they don't get orphaned). We can probably get some good shots for that page too (crepe wrapped statue, double t bench, carol of lights, etc).--Elred (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

traditions page

i started throwing stuff at the wall. make note, i just plain old ripped the info verbatim from the TTU pages for most of the stuff I added. I just did that to get us rolling. We obviously need to rewrite it.--Elred (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

photo

i cropped it down to get rid of the tower and the 'prairie dog' (i think that was a fire hydrant). ...and sharpened a little and corrected the color a bit http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:UnitedSpiritArena.jpg --Elred (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ya, i think i saw a little stream coming out from behind the hydrant.--Elred (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
fixed the guns up thing. i used UT's hand for the template so ours is the same hand (doing a different gesture) and scale as theirs is. the ones from TAMU and UoH where done after ours was (probably in reaction to ours and UT's). if I was charitable, i'd redo TAMU's and UoH's because they are kinda sloppy looking, but I'm not terribly charitable.--Elred (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

yeh i wiped that one out because it's causing some clitches in the layout of the page. there's still a link to the portal, but it's a text kind. i'll try to figure out how to nest that into one of the frames.--Elred (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Did it really? On mine the whole page was messed up. The right and left columns weren't side by side. They were stacked, but off-center. I think the image in the top and that portal link were the cause. I replaced and repositioned the image and removed that link and it all fixed. Does the project page look alright to you know?--Elred (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the bell tower looks fine on those other two things. The main reason I changed them to the hands at first is just because I wanted a square image. Now though, the little hand basically acts as an official logo but it's not one and we can use it how ever we want. --Elred (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Haha! No problem. Some of those were my own mistakes. I never thought about using my revolutionary browser spell checker for whatever reason. You might have one too, but I don't know what browser you use ect. Just in case you don't, just suggest some pages to me and I'll go through them.--Almosthonest06 (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Texas Tech University traditions

(DYK notice for Texas Tech University traditions moved to main page.)

That's awesome. Great job!--Almosthonest06 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4