User talk:Almosthonest06

Wikipedia Contributors Needed

Hello Almosthonest06, We are hosting a program about Wikipedia at the Texas Tech University Library. We'd like you to participate if you're still in the Lubbock area. My email address is kimberly dot vardeman at ttu dot edu if you are interested and/or would like more details. Thanks in advance. 129.118.14.176 (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best edit summary ever.

[1] --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem =) That was a good episode too. Love that show! Dp76764 (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Almosthonest06, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPICE

I think this needs some kind of mention but, I agree that an external link isn't the way to go about it since it's not mentioned in the article proper. Susana Polgar is a "five-time Olympic chess champion". I had no idea that chess is an Olympic event... →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffin McNeill

We need one. Let me know when you put one together and I'll chip in. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a quick glance. Very nice! I'll give it a closer read now and tweak anything that may need it. Well done. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foster High School (Fort Bend County, Texas)

Regarding this edit [2] - Foster HS is not in Richmond, Texas. The city has defined boundaries, and if you look at this map http://www.lcisd.org/DistrictbrInformation/MapofLCISD/ all of what is in Richmond is zoned to Lamar Consolidated. Therefore Foster HS doesn't even serve Richmond.

As for the "Richmond, Texas" address, the USPS addresses do not indicate whether places are in unincorporated areas. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your name keeps popping up on my watchlist, so...

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your regular efforts to protect Iron Maiden and Megadeth from repeated vandalism. ~ mazca ^talk 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I moved it to my user page. Almosthonest06 (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From here, it's possible.

Thanks for the citation. My issue wasn't really with the phrase itself being official but with whether it's a motto or a tagline. I'm pretty sure it's the latter and will change with the next big marketing push. University mottos are usually Latin (though that's not a rule, of course) and rarely or never change. The infobox used to have a tagline option and "From here, it's possible" displayed in that before the option was removed. Do you know if Tech has an official motto? I looked and couldn't find anything. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is a template. I'm going to post a message on its talk page to ask if the tagline option can be put back in. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Amendola

FWIW, I was going by the Draft preview page you linked (the one that says "comparisons to Welker are inevitable." But the point that their builds are rather similar is certainly undeniable. [BTW--I'm only slightly annoyed that the Pats didn't sign Amendola--I doubt he could make the team, given that, well, they already have Wes Welker 1.0--but I figure that they can just sign him when he becomes an RFA in 2011. >B) ] Samer (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Harrell

The editor tells me the material he added is from Dave Campbell's Texas Football. If he provides the page numbers, I'll be able to re-add it with the proper citation. →Wordbuilder (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your creation of and work on the article Texas Tech Red Raiders baseball. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Prince

Because withdrew the section Awards and Nomiantions in the article The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air? I put back in the article, there is no reason to cut it. LL290368 (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

Nice work on the TTU page, especially the cleaning up the references/citations. That's a tedious job but it needs to be done.--Elred (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Tech history

This cached page has some interesting things I hadn't seen elsewhere (such as a complete list of the towns that wanted the college). It might be worth a look as you try to expand the history section. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a better way to go and Wikipedia allows it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. If you can find a source anywhere for "second largest contiguous campus", please add it. The current one is so dead that website isn't even Tech-related any longer. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

multiple references from the same page

Hey man, I noticed you fixed some of my multiple reference links. Thanks. However, I think one of us made some type of minor error while we were doing that stuff and it caused a large chunk of the page to vanish. I fixed it, but I think I undid what you had just done. Please do it again, and I think there are a couple other instances where the same citation is used for multiple claims. Thanks.--Elred (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC nomination

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas Tech University →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get in the ballgame son. We've been hunkered down in the trench for 2 days. We need reinforcements. :) --Elred (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Just jump into the fray. It feels like its getting a little contentious now since an aggie has posed opposition, basing many of her objections on purported flaws that our article shares in common with TAMU's article (that she herself contributes to). About half of her suggestions have merit, but the other half appear to be fairly transparent bias. We just need as many of 'our' people working on it because the Aggies usually circle the wagons (including their own admins) to benefit their FACs (they have 8 featured articles).--Elred (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new content

Hey bud, try to take it easy on adding new content for a little bit. I think we've almost made it through the FAC process (after much labor). The additions you just made are fine, but I don't want to make significant changes that will make them feel like they need to 're-check' a bunch of stuff.--Elred (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. The stuff you added was good info. The FAC has just been so brutal, now that I think we've got everyone pretty much on-board, I don't even want a squirrel to fart in the wrong direction.--Elred (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, "stability" is one of the requirements for FA. Kind of odd since the whole process requires so many changes, but still. Honestly, I thought about making the same changes you [Almosthonest06] made but decided to hold off. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. It's not that the info doesn't belong; it does. It's just this process is so gruelling, I'm afraid to breathe while editing the article. (Of course, that could have somthing to do with the farting squirrels.) →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It made it

I know we put the Texas Tech University article up for featured article when you were a bit busy. Nevertheless, I wanted to thank you for your help in the days leading up to the nomination.

		The Special Barnstar
		I present you with this special barnstar upon the promotion of Texas Tech University to featured article. → Wordbuilder (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What next? I've been pondering that. Did you have anything in mind? I don't think any of the other articles are anywhere near FA status but we might be able to get some to GA status with only a moderate amount of torture. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

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

traditions link. hey bro, i undid your link on the main page to the traditions page because that page is such a mess right now. since we're a FA right now we probably get a lot of traffic/scrutiny. i don't really want everyone to see our work in progress on the traditions stuff yet.--Elred (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good gracious. I need to learn to proofread better. All your corrections are making me feel half-literate. Thanks for the fixes! →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to use Firefox but just can't seem to convince myself to switch to it fulltime. I'm using something called Avant. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

The Masked Rider, including picture, is currently on the main page in the DYK portion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texas Tech University traditions, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I wanted to share the wealth. These notices are really intended for both the one who created the article and for those who expanded it; not just for the person who did the nom. I think the DYK folks are busy, though, and don't have time to post as many notices as they otherwise would. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny George

Chicago Latin has never made it to state, any check of the IHSA's website will prove this; Latin never even made it out of sectionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.138.125 (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astros into

Thanks! I am working on getting better at this Wikipedia writing. The intro really need to be redone. Thanks for the input and advice. --mickeyp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link but ref number should be different

I added the link on the naming of the colt .45s is related to the "gun that won the west". It is from Astros daily was well as most the intro, however it is from a differet article on Astros Daily. Should this have a different referance number? It is defaulting to 2. How can I make it 3? Mickeyp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colt .45s era

Hey I added a Colt .45 era. Also I noticed you lined up everything under "franchise history". Good job! I was going to ask about that. How do I send you email via wikipedia? mickeyp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse...

I've been trying to get the "hard rock" tag off of the Megadeth page for the past month, but I keep getting told it was consensus. I honestly have no idea what they're talking about; this was never discussed. And all post-1990 albums have "hard rock" on their genres, which we know from Megadeth's style after Rust in Peace, is applicable only to Risk. I do not see what is "hard rock" about the three albums after Risk.

But, when I try to reverse them back to what they were, I get yelled at for "going against consensus." This imaginary consensus is starting to get annoying. =) -MetalKommandant (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... I've posted on every album page, but nobody seems to care. I say that there is no basis for adding hard rock to the albums, but they just don't get it. I explain why, but for some reason, all the albums after RIP are in the same boat as "Risk."

Obviously, anyone who knows Megadeth's style knows that's not true. =) -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megadeth Hard Rock

As much as I disagree with the genre "hard rock", we still have not reached a consensus in removing it or keeping it so we should keep the article in its FA state. AlanZhan (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that the articles all after RIP have hard rock on them, which is we know is only 100% correct for Risk. I have posted on each talk page the basis for deleting it, but the moment I do, it'll be reverted... -MetalKommandant (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astros talk on Rainbow Jersey

Hey I would like your thoughts on something going on at the Astros article. A user is calling the Astros rainbow uniform of the 1970's "Rainbow Guts" and made the change. I have lived in Houston since 1968 and only a few locals refer to the Rainbow uniform as "Rainbow Guts". Even the offical Astros web site calls it "The Rainbow Jersey". Could you please go look what I wrote in the Astros discussion and tell me what you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Raiders Kicker Matt Williams

Hi. I saw you update my work on Jacquizz Rodgers and clicked on your user link. When I saw you were interested in Texas Tech articles, I had to contact you. I've been doing work on Matt Williams, but have been unable to get a birthdate for him. I figured you'd be the perfect person to be able to add that to the article. Ulric1313 (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. Ulric1313 (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

linking names

I have a question for you. I was reading The Smiths article and found that the members names were not linked to their articles through out the main Smiths article. So I linked them by adding the name where there name was in the article. A user went back and undid my work stating that the had already be linked "above" meaning the intro. So as a reader do I have to page back up to go to a link? Is there a rule? It would seem that where ever the members name is there shoul be a link to his article. no matter how many times he or she is mentioned. Thoughts? mickeyp

Texas Tech Red Raiders football teams (2000 to 2005)

I replied to your comments on my talk page. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article review

I have nominated Texas Tech University for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Almosthonest06. You have new messages at Wordbuilder's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have replied to your new message. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TTU scarlet/red

I have started a discussion on this at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas Tech University#"Scarlet" vs "red". Please give your thoughts. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Tech History subsections proposal

As one of the leading contributors to Texas Tech University, I would like your opinion about adding some subsections to the history section. I've already started the discussion here. Any input would be helpful. Thanks! --NThomas (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big 12 WikiProject

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Iron Maiden Page...

Wow, that page seems to require a lot of "work" for reverting idiotic edits and vandalism. You and mushroom and the others who seem on top of it can count on my help. I was actually in the middle of reverting the "huge fans... Miley Cyrus, Beckham, etc" stuff when your finger beat me to the submit button.

Best, Robert

(and Up the Irons!)

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 21:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review of Megadeth

I wanted to let you know I have nominated the Megadeth article for FA review, as it appears to depreciated since it was promoted to featured article. I believe that it does not pass several of the FA criteria (specifically 1(a), 1(c), 2(a), 3, and 4). Since you are or have been a contributor to this article, I wanted to inform you of this so that you are aware of the review and can improve the article. Let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tech on main page?

Please see the comment from Karanacs (talk · contribs) at the bottom of my talk page and tell me your thoughts. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Tech University Featured article review

I have nominated Texas Tech University for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]