User talk:Buffs/Archive 4

"I understand that Wikipedia may seem at times to be very bureaucratic, but those rules are there to insure (sic) reliable information is passed on to the reader." One of the best quotes I've heard.

Another couple of gems: "The harassment of Cumulous Clouds will be stopped no matter what." and "I stand by my attempts to protect CC from overt harassment by friends of BQZip01. I will not bow to a small group of editors pushing American nationalistic garbage, trying to intimidate me on my own talk page as just happened moments ago."

Blue Angels

When I made the changes, I did find the same article posted as a reference and it did not say that the Blue Angels are considering the G-Suits, but that it was recommended to them by the Navy's Judge Advocate General Manual investigation report. There is clearly a difference between considering and recommended. Since then, the Blue Angels have made no public comment that they are considering G-Suits and that would be something they would say. However, they have stated in the past and have continued to say after the crash that they do not use G-Suits because it interferes with the maneuvers they do that are more precise then the regular combat flight maneuvers. If you continue to believe that the Blue Angles are considering using G-Suits then you will need more proof/references to back your statement up. Brothejr (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo editing

First off, happy new year. second, i wanted to ask you if i could photoshop this picture to make it a little brighter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yell_Leaders_doing_pushups.JPG have a good oneOldag07 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yell_Leaders_doing_pushups3.jpg Oldag07 (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the picture on the Midnight Yell page. Oldag07 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Thanks. Badagnani (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: WTF

lol, I'm bored. Sorry to hear about your son - hope he gets well soon. Happy New Year btw. I'm already counting the days until football season starts. BlueAg09 (Talk) 06:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly on all all fronts! Take good care of your son and have a Happy New Year! I also hope you can forget about the Alamo as you look towards the new year. Best, Johntex\^talk 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Bowie

Hi BQ. Haven't seen you around lately, so hopefully everything is going to be okay. I have a favor to ask, if you have time and energy. I have Jim Bowie nominated at FAC, with one support and 2 comments asking for a bit of copyediting by a disinterested party. You do an awesome job of identifying prose issues. Could you possibly take a look at the article and help me tighten the prose just a bit? Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter

The January 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) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

USS Illinois FAC

I have taken a stab at improving the article since you've been gone; would you consider giving the article another look? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Campus of TAMU

First off, happy new year. next. I am trying to update the Campus of Texas A&M University page. I have a rough draft done, and I would like someone to look over it before I post it. Oldag07 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kyle Field Expansion.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kyle Field Expansion.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re. RFA

Thank you for contacting me, BQZip01. It's good that you expanded your answer, but I shall maintain my oppose this time. I believe that you need more experience in admin-oriented areas, as is patent by some terms you use (such as "blocking authority"). I recommend that you withdraw this RFA and greatly increase your participation in tasks that usually require admin intervention. Keep it up for a couple of months and you're likely to succeed. Regards, Húsönd 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can substantially increase your vandalfight with the help of a tool such as WP:Twinkle. Report vandals to WP:AIV when they have transgressed their last warnings. Request protection for heavily vandalized pages at WP:RFPP. Participate in WP:XFD. Etc. There's plenty. :-) Regards, Húsönd 05:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

I have been waiting for two and one-half week for an answer from you. That's more than 14 days, sir. Suppose for a moment that situation was reversed, that you were the one waiting for answer from me, and having not gotten one left three messages on my talk page looking for one only to be (seemingly) ignored. How would feel? Then apply those feelings to an absurdly long wait from an admin after asking for his or her help to -protect a page? -block a vandal? -report a misbehaving isp address? Its too long, and from where I sit it is inconsiderate. And for the record replies to an FAC would go directly on the FAC page, not on the FAC talk page. Its your responsibility to check back on that page to see if the nominator has addressed the issues present, and you are suppose to check back and update your oppose as needed. From where I sit, numbers 2,3,4 and 9 were fixed last year and still no post assessment tweaks to your comments. Reviewers who object at FAC are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. That written right into the opposition section. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, what specifically has been addressed? I haven't seen anything to indicate what has been altered. I have no intention of re-reading the entire article over and over every time you make a single change just to see if you addressed my objection. Please specify. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you oppose instead of comment? If you have no intention of revisiting the article each and every time someone makes a change to it how will you handle edit warring, or articles that have disputed content tags, or original research, or other mediation related templates? Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made. Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list:

• "...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms
  • It isn't there anymore
• Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"
  • It has been fixed
• Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.
  • These were merged.
• Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • It should be out of the article now.

Now I am not an admin, but I am a coordinator, and though the tools are different the work is essentially the same, although in an admins case it is not limited to a project. You can tell a lot about someone from the simplest of things, and from where I sit your inability to follow even the basic suggested and unenforced requests casts a very dark shadow not only for this FAC but for your adminship as well. If I can't count on you to step up and take a more active part for a trivial FAC how can we expect you to step up as an admin? You had damn well better put some thought into your answer, sir, because your response to it will likely be the deciding factor in my decision to support or oppose your rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom I recommend you reconsider your above comments because they read like a personal attack please remember to comment on the content not the person. Gnangarra 13:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA was withdrawn

Hi BQZip01. I have withdrawn your RFA as it did not currently have a chance of succeeding. Please consider the comments that were raised and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello BQ, I am sorry to see your nomination did not succeed. I was on my way to support and I saw what happened. RfA's often have this problem where people find one or two things to seize upon and just focus on those things vs. looking at the big picture. There are some that say that adminship is "no big deal" but there are others that point out that it is almost impossible to loose the admin bit once it is granted, and that we have to be extremely vigilant to never promote a questionable candidate. Don't worry about it too much. You will certainly succeed if you let some time pass and try again. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this happen, I know from personal experience how tough RfAs are to go through. I think you probably learned from it, especially about friendly notifications..;) If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest getting an admin coach, they can be enormously helpful in learning about the various aspects of being an admin. Dreadstar † 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i am sure you will do well next time. gig em! BTW, i am going to teach my co workers in Ohio how to do a fightin texas aggie yell practice on friday. it is going to be great Oldag07 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good gracious no! Leave the poor Ohio people alone - they've suffered enough!  :-) Johntex\^talk 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Check

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65) for feedback. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I owe you an apology for my behavior and my attitude over the last few days. I have been off my meds for three days now, and as a result have been sleep deprived, underfed, and dealing with a with a never ending case of heart burn for which I have managed to drain two entire unopened bottles of pepto bismal in a vain and fruitless attempt to settle my stomache. All of this translates into an increase instances of stress, and since I can not work my stress of by exercising (that, too, makes my violently sick to my stomache) I have resorted to yelling at anyone I can find to make myself feel better. All of this aside I have been way out of line insofar as interacting with you for the past few days, and I feel badly about it, so if you can find it in your heart to except my apology I hope we can put this whole incident behind us. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to here it. I will look into adressing the specific objections you brought up at the FAC page a little later (tommorow maybe), but right now I need to step back from everything for a little while and catch my breath. Clearing my head would be the best thing for me right now, before my momentarily substandard judgement gets me into even more trouble. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding RFArb

You wrote: I was involved in this discussion, but was never informed of ArbCom. Given the sheer volume of the discussion, I really don't mind so much, but I wish I had been notified and no malice is assumed unless proven otherwise (I don't expect that to even be possible).

Given the sheer number of involved editors, I undoubtedly missed some that should have been included. If you wish to add yourself as a party to the case, you can do so yourself (As Remember did) - after all, this is a wiki *grin*. I did post a note about the ArbCom request on the talk page, to notify editors I may have left out. henrik•talk 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)

I have nominated this page for AFD. Since you're disputing the prod, you may want to give an opinion here. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I should clarify something here

Because of our recent disputes at Kyle Field and Michael Q. Schmidt (actor) I feel that my intent for the original edits at Kyle Field has been misinterpreted as being malicious. It has never been my intention to undermine your efforts to bring A&M related articles to FA status. I acknowledge that you have done this several times before at Aggie Bonfire and Texas A&M University, both of which I have read completely and enjoyed. My edits to Kyle Field were not meant to be a jab at the stadium's de facto status of being an intimidating venue, but were meant solely to bring the title and that section in line with Wikipedia protocol. Furthermore, I do not wish to eliminate or crop information from the article that promotes Texas A&M University, its athletic program or its facilities (as long as NPOV is maintained). In fact, I think the information at Kyle Field should be expanded and I hope that one day it becomes a Featured Article.

My edits were solely technical in nature and were not necessarily content disputes. If you wrote that "so and so called A&M the most intimidating venue ever" (with a source) that would be fine, wouldn't be OR and would agree with NPOV. Since it doesn't cover anything that isn't in the citation, it is perfectly acceptable. I probably have a more stringent view of OR than most, but I believe that holding editors accountable for what they write makes the information in the article more reliable. I recognize that your attendance at A&M makes you more familiar with those topics, but I would ask that you please please cite your sources so that when it comes time to promote these articles, other editors won't have these same disputes.

As for the nominations for Michael Schmidt, my reasons for removing those articles are based on violations of WP:AUTO where I believe that Schmidt authored that article to promote himself. He has already said several times that he paid somebody to promote him (though I dispute this and believe he performed the edits himself) through Wikipedia. Again, I believe that that transaction, regardless of any and all WP:COI concerns, makes the writing unsalvageably unencyclopedic and thus should be deleted. Because of the many and numerous attempts by sock puppet accounts to override the removal of this material, I reacted harshly to your removal of this template. Had I read the talk page for the ip account, I would have quickly realized it was not a sock and therefore not vandalism. I apologize for this accusation. Since you are a unique user, your removal of the prod was fair within WP:PROD, though I wish you had provided better context for doing so.

If you agree with me that some of the material on Kyle Field can be rewritten to improve the form and thus satisfy the POV concerns, I will remove the RfC immediately. I do not wish to engage in any content disputes with anybody on the project, so it would be great if we could resolve this amicably. If you do leave a reply to this, please do so on my talk page so I can respond faster. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are again a liar and still a fool to think that by now pretending to be the calm voice of wisdom you can disuade others from disagreeing with you. You continue to use Wiki guidelines to say whatever you want them to say. You bend them to voice your opinion whenever it suits you and then ignore these same guidelines and claim a personal attack when someone else points out your actions as being contrary to guideline. Long before I ever knew Wiki existed, you were tagging articles as non-notable, de-constructing them to make them non-notable, and then moving on to tear down something else. You have left a bloody trail of malice all across Wiki and anyone with the patience to follow your steps can count the blood drops.
• I AGAIN DEMAND YOU LEAVE ME ALONE. DO NOT MENTION MY NAME, MY PAST, MY WORK, MY FAMILY. YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF ME OR MY CAREER AND WOULD NOT KNOW TRUTH OR FACT IF THEY BIT YOU ON THE BUM. IN THE YEARS BEFORE WIKI EVER HEARD OF ME OR VICE VERSUS, YOU HAD ALREADY SHOWN A SAD PATTERN OF TOTAL DISREGARD FOR WIKI-TRUTH AND WIKI-ACCURACY. YOUR ACTIONS ARE INDEFENSIBLE. YOU HAVE WON. IT IS OVER. SO FOR GOD'S SAKE, LET IT REST!!!!MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of responding to both users in an appropriate forum/context, I have placed my responses here

Cumulus Clouds, I believe your interpretation of WP:OR is too strict, but your response here shows simply overzealousness (zeal, like many things, are excellent in moderation). In the spirit of WP:AGF, I accept your proposal in general and I believe the RfC to be unnecessary, but made in good faith, even if I think it was misguided. That said, we have the opportunity to hear from Wikipedia at large. Let's hear their opinions and work from there. That said, I think that in the future, you should attempt this form of communication first and then seek an RfC if some sort of agreement could not be established. Live and learn; no grudge is held against you.

MichaelQSchmidt, it would be far more appropriate for you to address these comments on his user talk page and not mine. Your cumulative posts violate WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:AUTO, WP:SOCK, WP:NOT, WP:THREAT, etc. and are among the most blatant I've seen, at least in scope. I attribute this to your relative newness to Wikipedia and its guidelines. I recommend reading these policies/guidelines and formulating responses accordingly. I also implore you to calm down in your posts and have a wikibeer on me (I also extend such an invitation to you in real life, should we ever meet). Furthermore, as a public figure, we have every right to mention your name, your past, and your work. My personal knowledge of your work is limited to what is available online. Truth/fact is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to what's online. This is why we have WP:V and its cousin WP:RS. I highly recommend you read these as well. As for your family, near as I can tell, no one has brought them up. I recommend simply leaving them out of the discussion altogether. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your insights and courtesies. Your professional demeanor has done much to molify. I did not mean to burden your talk page, but I am new here and thought I had to respond at those places where I felt I was being abused. And I was so many levels beyong angry, that I cannot describe it. I have gone to CC's page and posted an apolgy. I ask that you visit my talk page and make comment or invite me back here to do so. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad we can come to some reasonable understanding. There is no problem with "burdening" my talk page. I simply feel the direct and calm approach generally works the best...in all situations...and that you should have talked to CC instead. Technically, a user and talk page belongs to everyone one Wikipedia and you can edit anyone's you want within the guidelines of Wikipedia. However guidelines on WP:USER show exactly what you should do (if someone asks you not to post on their page, you shouldn't without good cause...you are welcome to talk on my page...only one user is not at this time allowed on my page and you aren't it). I also make it a pseudo policy not to delete anything on my talk page. It shows transparency and people can understand my perspective easier than if I cut things that I didn't like. This includes my block (see below for more).

I understand your hostile feelings and feel that you certainly have some reasons to be upset. Your actions (in general) were fine, it's your response that wasn't. Online, we all can get more hostile than we would in real life (then again, you work in Hollywood...I have no idea how stable those folks are. Heck I work in a place where our job is to find people and kill them...no seriously, read my user page). There is a bit of anonymity to the online realm that doesn't exist anywhere else. It can allow us to be more pensive and cautious, or we can quickly type something and click send, only later regretting that action, but with no way to take it back. Please understand, Wikipedia is not a simple forum and we save just about everything. There is no way to take back what you said. This allows a modicum of finality and makes people generally more cautious. We also have standards of behavior and rules that must be followed or administrators can block their access. If you follow those rules, taking issues higher in authority become easier.

Personally, I have had a single incident (okay it lasted 2 months) with an unnamed user and managed to get myself blocked for 11 hours for what I thought was a narrow interpretation of the rules. I then learned more of the rules and got my "nemesis" blocked on 4 other occassions...he eventually left as a contributor, but still lurks around on his talk page. My point is that people here will wear you down to civility or get you so frustrated that you simply blow up and get yourself banned.

I think CCs actions are simply overzealousness...a zeal that many people need here on wikipedia...but an intensity that is simply off focus. We simply disagree as to the best way to do things. As long as we can both accept the final product there is no reason to get upset. I would like for you to be able to join that group of people who can have a reasoned discussion even under the most heated of situations and it can certainly start right now (officially, Wikipedia doesn't hold grudges if people change their behavior when told it is out of line).

In short, even under the most trying of circumstances, as a Wikipedian you should assume good faith and remain civil even under the most trying of times. As a matter of fact, that is the best time to show restraint, in my humble opinion, even in real life. If you can say "That is an interesting point of view. Why do you believe XYZ?" when the other guy is screaming "FUCK YOU YOU MISERABLE BASTARD!!! I HOPE YOU FUCKING CHOKE ON A...", then you appear to be the calm one and people are liable to come to your aid and not the screaming psycho, even if you are wrong, because they realize the other guy is so far off his rocker that a reasonable solution isn't possible with him. They will want to get rid of him and keep you because you are not a threat; he is. This is doubly true on Wikipedia. Users who can restrain themselves emotionally will get much more accomplished and if a heated debate comes up, they might be wrong, but their actions aren't going to put themselves in a situation where they will get blocked/banned from Wikipedia.

In conclusion for the rambling diatribe, just be honest, sincere, and calm. Your defense doesn't need to be immediate. Think about it for a minute/hour/day before posting. We'll be here and we'll fix it. Your Hollywood perspective may also lend itself to some related discussions. I request that you reconsider leaving and stick around. You certainly don't have to do a lot, but we could use someone with your perspective. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Well, I believe that taking a very strong line against original research and requiring numerous references improves the reliability of the information in most articles. It is not meant to be an insult against the article's subject or its editors. If you have any doubts, look at the history for the article concering my home field. You'll see the same pattern of significant tagging and removal of OR so that the information in that article withstands checks for original research and synthesis and perhaps one day be promoted to GA or FA status.

Also it bears mentioning that I don't think the win record for A&M at Kyle Field should be eliminated entirely from Wikipedia, it just needs a proper context and perhaps a better article to appear in (something more related to A&M football and/or athletics). Anyway, let me know what you think and maybe we can work something out for this article. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No insult taken; merely disagreement. I can hardly think of something more related to A&M football (other than the team) than Kyle Field. I guess we'll see what happens there. 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would oppose any unblock for L.L.King since that user has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the rules and policies and has used numerous sockpuppets to circumvent existing blocks. With the COI problem, the user has previously stated their role in promoting their clients so any edits made by those accounts to the articles for those actors and organizations clearly demonstrates a significant violation of NPOV. I don't think anyone has any doubt that those accounts would have only been used for the purpose of promoting their clients on Wikipedia and it is for this reason that I would vehemently oppose any unblock request. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I would ask that you both visit my talk page. Cumulus Clouds has made a gracious proposal and explanation and I have made a counterproposal with explanation. Before moving my thoughts to the AfD page (where as the man with the least NPOV of all I would likely get laughed at (chuckle)), I would like input from you both... you Mr. Clouds because the tag of non-notability was yours (and understandable considering the circumstances)... and you Mister BQZip01 because you an impartial judge with a fresher and clearer perspective on this matter. (love that page split thingie!) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision to Cessna T-37

HI - I made an editorial cleanup to Tweety Bird on 12 January, and I see you cleaned up my cleanup. Your changes are GOOD. Thanks for the help. Raymondwinn (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

USS Illinois BB-65

I'm sorry to ask this of you, but would you permit me a few days away from the FAC? I am having a hard time typing at the moment, and would like to adress your concerns when I am at 100%. In the interm both MBK004 and Kirill Lokshin have agree to keep tabs on the article should you ammend your opposition list. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know enough....

Please refer to the talk page about the article about me. More information is being deleted in Cumulus Clouds continued bad faith effort to ensure my being non-notable.. following up on his promise to keep chopping the article apart. He knows that if I were to attempt any revert, it would be ammunition for him to claim COI. I am learning more each time I log in... but I an still too much of a newbie. Even the picture of me that was there was deleted though it was properly uploaded and cited. Do I have any recourse to being picked apart this way? Thanks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In Regards to vandal ColourWolf

Please read my comments in the SSP entry for ColourWolf. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal

It is a tough one. My general interpretation of the "no legal threats" policy is that person A is not supposed to make legal threats against person B or against the Foundation. The logic goes that if they are threatening to take legal action, then A should stop editing until A's legal action has run its course. If the legal action has run its course (including simply by A saying that a legal remedy is no longer being pursued) then A can edit again.

What we have here is slightly different. A is urging the foundation to take legal action. A is not saying A will take action so I don't think that qualifies as a threat.

If we classified this as a threat, then arguably we would have to make the same classification for any person who urges the foundation to pursue a course of action that is even vaguely connected with the law. Examples could include cracking down on people who are stealing our content and not using it under terms consistent with the GFDL.

Therefore, my read at this time is that I don't view this as a threat. Best, Johntex\^talk 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

For your outstanding effort to help make the battleship USS Illinois a featured article I herby award you the WikiChevrons.

Note that this does not mean your suggestions for improvement will not be implemented, nor should this be construed as such; however you were the only member of the opposition who endovoured to meet me half way on the FAC, and for I thank you. This is merely a token of my apreciation. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Well, I would admit, it was a little frustrating at first, but you actually made me present my case, which was much better. Thanks for playing the Devils' Advocate! Also, thanks for the barnstar! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of USS Illinois (BB-65)

An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aggie Bonfire leadership

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Aggie Bonfire leadership, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Aggie Bonfire leadership. Collectonian (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aggie Bonfire leadership

I have nominated Aggie Bonfire leadership, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggie Bonfire leadership. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Collectonian (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

American Flag Question

"I have a general query to which I couldn't find an answer... Is it permissible to fly a foreign flag on US soil without a supplemental (or dominant) US flag? What about only the state flag without a US flag?" Dionix (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is "permissible" under the US Constitution as free speech, unless done by a foreign entity as a symbol of possession (Technically that would be an act if war). This has happened at the Olympics, UN meetings, summits, etc. As for the state flag, the any state can fly just the state flag over government offices if they wish, but most don't. Individuals can fly them without under the US Constitution. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! Dionix (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

I spotted your comment on canvassing in you newest rfa. I want you to know that the issue did not fall on deaf ears. It isn't much, but its a start. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:BQZip01 RfA

1. You did state that you would continue to help at WP:FAC with your admin tools.
2. There is no real time policy, but most people prefer that you wait about three months until you re-apply for adminship. See Oppose Number 8. Dreamy ^§ 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For your last question, I am stationed in Canada currently, and it was a joke, only a joke, and just a joke, so help me god. In Canada I work at a fighter base, flying the CF-18 Hornets. I am stationed at CFB Comox. (See the seventh major point here.) I am also just on loan here to help teach new fighter pilots that have relatively no experience, and I am currently working as a Group Captain. Dreamy ^§ 13:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback Request

Sorry for not getting back to you in a timely manner. Upon reviewing your contributions, I have decided to grant your request under the following condition: Only use rollback to revert vandalism. If it is a revert that requires an explanation in the edit summary, please continue to use Twinkle or the Undo feature, because rollback only provides an automatic edit summary. To help you learn about the tool here are two places you should take a look at before using the tool for the first time.

• User:Kushan I.A.K.J/New Rollbacks School
• Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback

If at any time you decide you do not want rollback anymore, ask any admin and they can remove it. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Phoebe-SM

Hi. I updated the evidence as per your comments on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Phoebe-SM. Would you be able to take a look at it for me? Thanks. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do all the administrators seem to be tied up doing other things, since I don't think any of the requests on the sockpuppet page have been dealt with. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems this user is "sockpuppeting" it up again - I've filed another sockpuppet notice at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Phoebe-SM (2nd nomination) if you want to take a look and comment on it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Sure, if it's alright with you. I'll take a look at your RfA and such, and we'll see where to go from here. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi BQZip, I'm not going to post anymore at your RFA, I will offer some friendly advice which you can certainly choose to ignore.

Perhaps a more productive strategy for you to pursue would be to use the RFA page to announce your intention to withdraw your candidacy with a summary of all the reasons you think you are being opposed, your plan to address all the opposition with concrete actions, and an invitation for comments on the RFA's Talk page as to whether you are on the right track. This might be better than continuing to argue the points and would probably gain much more respect from the wider community by showing your ability to learn from your experience.

Lawyering around on the fine points of what's written and what's not is not looking like a good way to proceed. I'm not going to involve myself further and I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm only giving my impressions, not divining your intentions, but on this particular planet, unfortunately, impressions are more more important than intentions. Maybe there is a better way to proceed, if there is I hope you can find it.

I'm not trying to attack you here, I'm just looking for a better way. Good luck in the future and take care! :) Franamax (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User space

This tool allows you to see all of your user pages. For future reference you might consider deleting some of them prior to an RFA. Specifically, User:BQZip01/SledQuote might be considered a copyvio since it looks like it might be a book quote. User space has the same copyright rules and fair use items like images are also excluded from use on user pages as well. Thought I'd give you a heads up. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Venues for dispute resolution

In my role as an admin, and in order to remain as neutral as possible, I try to avoid becoming involved in dispute resolution of the type you outlined on my talk page. You may or may not have a valid complaint or issue; might I recommend that you attempt to seek the uninvolved, third-party opinions you desire at Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution page which discribes several ways to find uninvolved editors, including requests for comments and wikiquette alerts, both of which may be appropriate at this point. You may also want to attempt mediation as well, depending on the depth of the problem. If the person you are in conflict with acts against the opinions of these uninolved editors, sanctions can be started, but please try to work this out first as I outlined above. Good luck! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several outlets mentioned at WP:DR. If RFC is not working, try something else. If he is being incivil explicitly, try WP:WQA. Otherwise, and I know this sucks, before more drastic measures need be taken, its just going to have to be waited out. If you have a list of diffs that show explicit attempts to disrupt Wikipedia (more diffs is more better) you could file an incident report at WP:ANI, but not knowing the specifics of the situation, I do not explicitly recommend that, but only mention it as an option if you think admin action may be needed at this time. And I do type very fast. My responses are all well thought out, and not canned, but I'm a 45 RPM guy running in a 33 RPM world... If you catch my drift... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To do

Hello. I've been looking over your RfA, and have seen several specific areas that you need work in. The canvassing issue can't be helped, it already happened, and you shouldn't do it again. There's not much more we can do there. The second thing I saw was civility issues. You do need to work on being more civil, I completely agree with those who mentioned that as a concern. The third major thing was lack of experience in admin-related areas. The first thing I'd like you to do is to begin regularly participating in AFDs, backing your comments with policy; try not to put "Support per nom". I'll look at your AFD contributions and offer feedback, we'll see where things go from there. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Luck....

I feel your frustration. You are showing far more restraint than I might have (or did) in a similar set of editorial disagreements. Good luck in the RfA, as your temperance and calming demeanor would do much to improve everything Wiki has to offer. If you are ever in SoCal, the beers on on me. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

BQ

You cannot use the term "Band Queer" on this page, since it is being employed solely as a deregatory term. Please stop readding this text to the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of BQ. Your charge is baseless and, IMHO, your edits are quickly becoming harassing and counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia. Reverting something I typed after I post on every page is extremely pointy

Sockpuppetry Accusation by John Carter

I've logged back in to ask a quick question while I am still on-line.
As I have stated, this is a bad time for me so I need to know:
What is the time limit on my response to the accusation by John Carter?
PS. I think this affair is BRAVOOSCARGOLFUNIFORMSIERRA.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of a week, but as I said it was just a bad weekend for me, not to mention an unappetizing topic.
I hope that I have covered all relevant points and modivations.
If you feel I have missed anything that you believe I could comment on or add to feel free, of course, to message my talkpage.
I just hope I can go back to my studying and improving in peace.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

TAMU Glossary

The Glossary of Texas Aggie terms is up for deletion. I have put a lot of time in the article, so i am very for keeping it. put please post your opinions on the issue. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Texas Aggie terms Oldag07 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside looking out you can't explain it. Johntex\^talk 04:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that. For that to be true, my opinions would had to have mattered at some previous time. :-) Johntex\^talk 05:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if the nominator wishes to withdraw the AfD, they may not do so after others endorse deletion. It has to be properly closed now that it has come this far. I think, however, that the arguments are now swinging towards keep. One of the flaws with AfD is that a nomination may draw several "delete votes" before anyone happens by to make a defense. We should require an AfD to be noticed and then wait 7 days before commenting can begin. That would allow interested parties on both sides time to form better arguments. Johntex\^talk 04:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am very happy to see that this got kept. Johntex\^talk 03:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Thread

FYI - There is a thread at AN/I started by Cumulus Cloud concerning a user subpage you have that lists and describes his editing. You may want to comment. ^Avruchtalk 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

BQZip, you wrote at ANI:

I haven't used this term in some time, but I did use it in this page. This seems to be a tit-for-tat response to a perceived wrong. [sic] is used to show a quote is taken directly as stated and spelling errors (or malice for that matter) were kept as originally written.

Sorry, BQZ, I really thought "poring" was misspelleded in this context. My post was only intended to show support for you. No malice was intended whatsover. You should know me better than that be now. I respect you and your contributions, and I always thought you did the same for mine. If I'm wrong on that, I can move on - I certainly have no malice for you, and am surprised you seemed to interpret my comments as such. (PS, I'm posting here because I don't respect the others who commented after my comments on ANI, and I'm not going to dignify their crap with a response.) - BillCJ (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification, and sorry for the misunderstanding. At least most of the ones shooting at you are brave enough to do it from their own screennames, I'll give Clouds that much. I'm sure you saw the IP coward trying to be disruptive by pooping after my comments. We ought to take up a collection to buy this idiot some diapers! - BillCJ (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On the socks, I'd ask an admin from MILHIST or WPAIR to look at it, in private if possible. I really don't know how to handle that kind of situation, so I usally ask an dmin myself. Alan's hasn't been on this year, and I can't really recommend one other than Rlandmann, tho he's usually less eager to takle problems than Alan was jsut a different approach to adminning, that's all, he's a good guy). Two boys under 3? Sounds like major fun! :) - BillCJ (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I was sorry to see that your RfA crashed and burned, better luck next time.

It seems to me that the key to a successful RfA is to keep your head down for the preceding 3 months; don't say or do anything that might even possibly be considered "incivil" - a good trick appears to be to preface all of your talk page replies with "With respect ..." - stop all editing in the mainspace, and don't even think about trying to be humorous.

I'm sure if you did all that before your next RfA you'd sail through. ;-) Chin up! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have rather lost faith in the RfA process, and in administrators in general. Too many of the current crop ought to have to get their parents' permission before being allowed to post anything IMO. I certainly have no intention of ever going through another RfA, but I look forward to your next one, at which you can expect my full support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to butt in here, but I have some thoughts on this. I was a supporter of your most recent RfA, and I never deviated from that stance despite the avalanche that undid your nom. You are a fine editor and you gave no indication (at least to me) that you would abuse/misuse the extra (rather silly) buttons at the top of your screen. What Malleus seems to be alluding to is the idea that even though there aren't any "wait three months" rules, and even though you felt you had addressed the concerns from your first RfA, I can definitely see why the outburst of opposes cropped up. My own adopter gave me advice that proved to be invaluable -- don't respond to every oppose. Some editors will always oppose you. Three months from now, they won't have forgotten RFA1 or RFA2, unfortunately. When (not if, when) you arrive at RfA3, dont' respond to every single "oppose" vote, no matter how ridiculous and unsubstantiated, with a multi=paragraph long response. Gasoline, my friend, does not quell a fire. My advice? Just let it ride! If you truly desire adminship, knowing what triggers good responses and what triggers bad responses is of utmost importance. Let your nominators (and I firmly believe you need nominators, not self-nom next time) defend you if necessary, or your supporters. Much of the opposition came from your very own responses which appeared (to some) as argumentative and overly defensive. Anyway, that's my humble advice, given in good faith. Do with it what you will. Happy editing, Keeper | 76 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:BQZip01/Comments

User:BQZip01/Comments, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:BQZip01/Comments during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Lawrence § t/e 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Break

BQZ, if you need a break from the pantry-wastes on WP, but still want to do some editing, please contact me on my email. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fightin' Texas Aggie Band

A little late perhaps, but congradulations on getting Fightin' Texas Aggie Band promoted to FA. Basketballone10 01:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not part of the A&M Project, but I have worked on one of the articles a bit (and I do mean a bit). Is the vandal count really 4, or is it 3 (even luckier!)? Cheers, Basketballone10 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm an ignorant idiot, but exactly what should I count as vandalism? I didn't notice any vandalism. Cheers, Basketballone10 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes! I'll push the counter up to 6. Of course, the real count is in a userbox lower on the page. Basketballone10 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I just wanted to bother you invite you to vote in my "co-founded" poll for the 2008 United States Presidential Election. This is the link: Wikipedia:Presidential poll. Have a great day! Basketball110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Still think it should probably be deleted

Keeping the info on-wiki is causing too much drama. I agree that the comment by Tom was out-of-line, but seriously, this information can be kept other places... ---Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can yes, but not as efficiently used or edited. Per WP:USER, I'm keeping it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't vote

This was removed and is not to be re-added. We don't allow wikilawyering, and we don't vote on xFD discussions. Lawrence § t/e 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, got anything to back that assertion "We don't allow wikilawyering"? That is your opinion. I call it following the rules. I don't appreciate you removing a valid posting of mine with no cause. It seems quite uncivil. Furthermore, pointing out valid points in policy that others refuse to abide by is not "wikilawyering", it is called following the policies and guidelines. While I agree the spirit of the rules are to be followed, I disagree with your interpretation. Because I do, I feel you are accusing me of not following the spirit of the rules but following the letter. But how am I possibly doing that when it is explicitly permitted. I feel as if you are following your feelings and ignoring what is written. Lastly calling my actions inappropriate is way out of line and nothing prohibits what I am doing; I think it helps to clarify things and, thus, improves the encyclopedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Thank you

I'm thinking 2 weeks max - how does that work for you? ~ Riana ⁂ 04:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BQZip, respectfully, you indicated your intent to finish up by this weekend and I hope you come through on that. It will be the best solution for everyone (and I am not trying to contradict Riana :) Cheers! Franamax (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This weekend would be best IMO too - 2 weeks is the absolute maximum before some less patient admin nukes it outright, I'd say. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ugh. I think everyone agrees that was painful for all concerned. Sort of like the Battle of Jutland. I am glad you stuck it out because I think doing the "convenient thing" would have been wrong on principle. I firmly believe that Wikipedia benefits from a certain amount of users checking up on each other and your sub-page seems consistent with that.

Having said that, give the concerns of our fellow editors, I'm glad you are going to move this along to some sort of conclusion soon.

For my part, I am looking forward to working with everyone involved in that debate on some future article so we can work together on something happier.  :-) Johntex\^talk 06:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, after reading CC's post on my talkpage, which I believe to be correct, I am limiting the extension to the end of Wednesday next week. I hope this is sufficient for you - the page you currently have seems well-developed enough. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that the MfD has closed, I've heeded your suggestion and opened a thread to discuss what "reasonable time frame" really means. Franamax (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the DAB elimination

Glad to brighten your day. {:o) →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

use of a word....

When you wrote "... is an amazing telekinetic ability ..." you may have intended "telepathic" or the more generic "psychic". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Cloud

The reaction to your RFC filing is as I expected: tl;dr. Any chance you could give a brief summary? You're unlikely to get any activity otherwise. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus cloud

I'm not sure that I see the evidence of two editors who have tried to solve the problem required on the RfC page you created. Without that, the page will almost certainly automatically be deleted without action. I'm not sure if it would help, but maybe requesting a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts the next time the editor engages in such conduct might be a way to establish that the two-person threshold is met should you ever wish to refile if this filing is unsuccessful. Also, if there might arise problems keeping the page on wikipedia, you could save the extant information in an e-mail to yourself or draft of an e-mail, which could be restored later. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI

[1] Lawrence § t/e 17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Refactored RFC

I moved some discussion onto the Talk page so it wouldn't mess up the RFC page itself ('cause that discussion might get pretty long :). Revert at will! Franamax (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And to answer your question on my page, YES that is a way better format to present the information, readers can skim, then choose to go into depth.

I'll note here that I don't think anything outside of article and article talk space are particularly applicable, I don't know what the policies say, but arguing about a discussion about an argument is, ummm, arguably arguable :)

And I'll also say that it would be far to the best if you two would just have a WP:BEER together. I'll go farther than that, you guys can come over to my place where I have a two-four. There doesn't seem to be a Wiki article and I don't think you Americans know what it is, but up here in Canada we put our beers in bigger packages :) I'd be happy to go through each one of your diffs with the two of you and slap you both down where appropriate, until we all wind up friends. We can all end up winning that way. I'll post the same offer to CC. Regards. Franamax (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Article reference

I didn't know. Thanks for pointing that out. In any case, why is the reference commented out? If it were in the open, it would be harder for someone to justify modifying it. Appy polly loggies if you fixed it already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I think Wknight94's urging for mediation is a good option, as these edits seem to boil down (pardon the metaphor) to a heated debate over content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Using your position in the Air Force..." Like how, threatening to drop the Big One on him? I learned awhile back that edit-warring with another user just plain doesn't work, and that I'm only willing to spend so much energy on it. If an impasse arises, I go to an admin and ask for advice. An RFC is more typically filed by a group against a bully like User:Tecmobowl or a fanatic like User:Gravitor who gets a number of editors riled. When it's mostly a one-on-one situation, I think mediation would be the better answer. But I'm not an admin (thankfully), so don't take my word as any more than an opinion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I have certified the RFC, I agree with BB that mediation may be a good choice here. BTW BQ, I assume you are done with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments User:BQZip01/Comments? If so, please let me know and I will be happy to delete it. Johntex\^talk 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Johntex, could you just hold to those pages for a while yet? There's no need to place them beyond non-admin access at the moment, is there? Franamax (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I care the sub-page can stay up for all eternity. It is pretty much the same as the RFC and we keep those for pretty much all eternity, or at least we plan to. Some people, such as Lawrence and CC, would really like it to be deleted though.

Now that BQ has filed the RFC, I thought he might like to try to accommodate their wishes.

What is the point of keeping the page around? Johntex\^talk 06:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I did not mean the MfD page, I mean the subpage itself: User:BQZip01/Comments. There was a request to delete it instead of simply blanking it. I think that is a fine idea and I offer to do so if BQ agrees. Johntex\^talk 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get how you could use your job in some illegal way connected with wikipedia, but I don't know the whole history. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• BTW, Franamax has filed a WP:ANI post on you and does not seem to have notified you here.[2] - Johntex\^talk 06:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OMG. They are not really letting you fly airplanes are they? I sent you more e-mail. Johntex\^talk 07:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll start here first after saving on the RFC Talk, yes, I should have put the ANI notice here first, and sorry for that, I was concentrating in the wrong spot. So hey, yeah, I posted to AN/I, I have a real big problem with the words you used, I don't see how you can support that in any way, what possible valid comparison would you be drawing? I've been advised in the past by much wiser Wikipedians that if it matters to you emotionally, you're probably not the best one to deal with it. Your edit caused me to react emotionally, I still take offense to those words, but lesson learned (again), lets all cool down, meaning me this time.

And all offers are still open, and I still got no axes to grind :) All better now! Regards. Franamax (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I sent you e-mail. I'm going to bed. G'night. Johntex\^talk 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just my impression from everything I've seen -- and I think his comment on the RFC talk page supports it. I don't think I have time to go through his edits and find a bunch of diffs showing willingness to compromise (I have a job, man). But I definitely have the impression that he is. But, eh, there's an easy test for this. If you try compromising and he goes along...then you'll know he was willing. Anyways, I've got a couple of really active work days ahead of me so I might not be checking in much -- but good luck to you guys, and I hope you're able to work it out. Best,--TheOtherBob 14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Aggie Bonfire

I hope the students who are constructing the "unofficial" bonfire have built in some extra safeguards. As we found out in 1999, the stakes are high. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No title

• Basketball110 wishes you a happy Valentine's Day.

Thanks for vandalizing my page. I've made a new page just for that. See here. Basketball110 _{i'm not yik ginlyùn} 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC deletion

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Uncertified RFC. Only one (disputed, see talk) certifier, and it's now nearly a week old. Per RFC standards and policies, delete.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Lawrence § t/e 06:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• What a disgraceful attempt to squash discussion. The RFC has been undeleted. Johntex\^talk 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Me, me - pick me!

Adminship 4 me?

Mark Sublette (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the question "is it torture?" can be answered this way: Is it an acceptable way for American POW's to be treated by our enemies? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, I pose another: Who defines if it is "an acceptable way"? There is a serious point of contention between these two modes of thought. It is my humble opinion that this should be reflected in the waterboarding article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, some members of our own government think it's just fine. If so, they automatically concede license to our enemies to do the same thing to our own people. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it all boils down to how it is used. Loud music is not torture per se, but can be used as such. I'm not trying to say it is or it isn't, merely that a conflict in definitions exits. As for "used on our own people", military members who could face this are put through SERE school and faced with this technique of interrogation (by definition, torture can be an interrogation technique). I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but its status is certainly disputed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have this old-fashioned belief that the USA should set a moral standard for the world. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In principle, I agree, but, given the right conditions, that doesn't mean we shouldn't go to war, use lethal force to protect innocent people, or even possibly torture people. The world is coated in various shades of gray morality (areas where one moral imperative is mixed with another). As an example, let's say an AC-130 is flying over southern Afghanistan and spots Osama bin Laden...except he's at a daycare for orphaned children. They only have enough fuel to stick around for 5 more minutes. Do they shoot him knowing there will be casualties of children? or do they just let the arguably worst terrorist in the world go free to perpetuate violence on more innocents? There isn't an answer to this question, but given the choice, what would you do? I'll be honest, I don't know what I'd do, but I'd certainly call command and let them make the decision.

Then there is the legal side of it: the answer is that the crew may legally fire on the daycare center. His presence and a de facto war makes the structure a valid target. Deciding to do it on those grounds alone ignores the problem that children will die and our "standing" in the world declines. However, when was the last time the rights of our POWs were respected? You have to go back to WWII and the Germans to find such a time...and even that was problematic and treatment varied widely. Being a moral beacon does not work with countries/cultures that only respect strength and view a lack of fortitude to commit such acts as cowardice or weakness. Sure, it works politically with Europe and Asia, but those to whom morals don't matter, only the wishes of their commander or God, these actions will never have an impact since their beliefs override such concerns. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The unlikely Osama Bin Laden in a day care center is similar to a hypothetical I've heard posed about Hitler. It's easy. You apply the axiom of the "greater sin". To kill him (with or without kids around) is a sin. To let him get away and kill others is a greater sin. Blow him away, and take the kids with him if you have to, and ask for God's forgiveness. Just be prepared for it not really changing anything in the long run, or possibly making things worse, because it may just empower the enemy. The argument that they torture us therefore we can torture them simply takes us down to their level and puts us at the same low moral plane in the eyes of God. We had the moral high ground after 9/11, the sympathy of most of the world. Since then we've lost it, and it's going to take a long time to get it back, if we ever do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree immensely and whether or not it changes an event in the long run is pure speculation. Hypotheticals like this can be argued either way. A conclusion based on it is also speculation. Whether or not it is a sin is strictly a moral question that each individual must answer to themselves, but under the law it is still legal. Furthermore, "empowering the enemy" is also speculation: we have no idea what the future holds. If we kill bin Laden, it might illicit sympathy or it may inspire a revolution. Either way, the actions can end up in either way. War is rephrehensible, but there are worse things, like genocide. A war to prevent such actions is perfectly justified. In war innocents invariably get killed. It is not desired (at least by the US), but collateral damage happens and should be minimized. We have always had the moral high ground since 9-11, but certain incidents (which always happen in war) have been blown out of proportion. The people who were involved in, say, Abu Ghraib, have all been punished, but the New York Times put it on the front page 40+ times, giving it WP:UNDUE influence in the public sectors of the world. I'm not saying it was justified, but no one died, everyone was compensated, and the guilty were punished. Personally, I could care less about the sympathy of the world than the respect of the world. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your concerns

Re: this: Find a way to get others involved and form a consensus. Our dispute resolution procedure exists for this reason. Consider a third opinion or request for comments. You must realize that is hardly fair for me to block only one party in this case, so that's not an option here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC Nudge

Hey BQ, I realize you're on training ops but you've left CC's RFC hanging in the wind. Is there any way we can resolve all this and close it with a handshake between the two of you? There's been some warring over the RFC even existing and you may or may not be waiting for others to step up and comment on CC there, but CC has made an offer on the RFC and now another one at Johntex talk, let's get the two of you together and come to an understanding.

If CC is such a bad editor, they'll screw up with or without you pointing it out. If you're such a bad editor, well, you'll screw up all by yourself without CC opposing you. There's no need to keep this RFC open, especially when you don't have time to be fully involved. Shake hands and make up? Franamax (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was taking my time in formulating a response. See the page. I'd like to see this get a little more input from the community. Right now we have a "let's just sweep it under the rug" and that's about it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just really disappointed, yes I did see the page, and the top of your talk. I don't think any of CC or Johntex or myself were trying to sweep anything anywhere, there was some genuine movement toward settling things with some understanding. You've made your response, that's the way it will be. Opportunities lost... Franamax (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you or Johntex. I agree some things have been retracted, but other stuff still remains. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think we have to realize that the community has said about all they can be expected to say on this. Newcomers to the RFC are unlikely to have the patience to read everything that has been written so far, let alone new material. I know you view it as sweeping it under the rug, but I view it as a step in the right direction. The RFC is not by itself going to accomplish what you seek. I think we should all promise to be more gracious/careful in the future. Time will tell who can live up to it and who can't. Johntex\^talk 16:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured List

I was wondering if what you think about bringing the Glossary of Texas Aggie Terms to Wikipedia:Featured lists status Oldag07 (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ill put them back in when i get the time. they might suggest creating categories, but maybe a peer review from non Aggies could help? Oldag07 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to wait for blueag and karanacs to respond before we proceed. ill start putting information back in. Thanks and gig em!Oldag07 (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What the heck. . . Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Glossary_of_Texas_Aggie_terms Oldag07 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Now that's humor! Today's comedians could take some tips from this guy!" — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you voiced support for the list, and thus you don't want to seem biased, but it would really be nice if you could help clean up some of those concerns. There are so many Oldag07 (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I take yer point

Mark Sublette (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Aggie terms FLC

Hi. It seems like I offended you with my comments re notability, cruft etc. I didn't intend for that, just so that you know. And like I said, I did change from oppose to neutral... Hope we can still edit peacefully on Wikipedia. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the Fightin' Aggies Band?

Basketball110 :) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Texas rules

See this: {{Template:User from Texas}}. It creates this:

• This user is a native of the U.S. State of Texas.

Cheers, Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 04:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 05:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Will you sign my guestbook? Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 05:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

	The Hidden Barnstar
	This user has been tricked by Basketball110's "Tricked" page.

You've been to Romania? Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Where in Romania? Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 19:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean Bucharest? Budapest is in Hungary. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My reason for asking is that I am 1/2 Romanian. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on the vandal page.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		This barnstar is for making stupid and funny comments on my vandal page. Basketball110 what famous people say 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I probation proposal

See WP:AN/I for the thread I've started proposing that you and Cumulus Clouds be barred from further interaction. Avruch ^T 05:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Carswell AFB

Thank you!!! Carswell was the symbol of SAC for almost 50 years and the page was buried with Navy stuff and God knows what else. It needed a page of it's own and now it's got a decent one and the Navy has it's own to improve :)

Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

TomPhan SSP

That sounds fine. In regards to the recent edits at BQ, I assure you that I have nothing to do with it. It occured to me at some point that nobody really cared about the page except you and I, so if I just stopped reverting it the problem would go away. Well, now it seems someone is trying to take advantage of that conflict (and I would believe it's probably TomPhan) in order to make things harder on both of us. Whether or not the term remains on BQ is no longer any of my concern, I would suggest talking about the changes from any future editors before reverting again, otherwise you're free to do whatever you want there.

Since I've withdrawn from BQ, Kyle Field and several of the other pages that brought us into conflict, I'm hoping that this will satisfactorily resolve the dispute between us and allow the RfC to be closed. I think we'd both be far better off going our separate ways (for a while, anyway) so that we don't have to spend any more time in such a destructive editing conflict. Let me know what you decide.

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

A request for page protection of BQ has been placed on AN/I. 70.19.125.82 (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The bar

Remember when you told me about the bar that you had, and the "admin that bitched about it?" Someone did that to me too. I've still got the bar on some of my subpages, though. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Check this out: [3]. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 02:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No I did not, in fact. I bet Bo would like to know that. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-30 not to be the KC-45?

BQZ, do you have a cite for this? All the sources I've seen say the USAF was ging to call the KC-X winner the KC-45. See here for just one source. And this is the official USAF site. BOth sites state the new designation is KC-45A. - BillCJ (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are worng on this one. KC-30 is NG/EADS's designation - the RAAF version is even called the KC-30B. THe KC-45 is the designation that the USAF has set aside for the winner of the KC-X, which is backed up by even the USAF site showing the AFRN report. Perhaps you have access to something more "inside" that can confirm this one way or another? - BillCJ (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, nobody's ferpect - just ask Boeing! - BillCJ (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have been "worng" on this one. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football March 2008 Newsletter

The March 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) 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What you said about the bar

See this: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008. I took a bit of what you said to me, and put it in the discussion. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 06:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Uga Man would thank you. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 17:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Barney info

Your ref for the Barney info was broken (you used <ref > when there was no reference section enabled) so, out of curiosity, I went to follow the link. I'm not disagreeing, but really, the reference you used wasn't ABOUT them using the song as torture--it mentioned it, but in an entirely different context. After following the links in that article, and in subsequent linked articles, I arrived at the original mention of using the song in that context, and swapped out your link (and fixed the ref problem, too.) Just thought I'd let you know. Gladys J Cortez 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladys j cortez (talk • contribs) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• (after fixing using the nowiki tags...)OMG, that's QUITE hilarious. And to think, I USUALLY use the preview button. Yeesh. I'm going to sleep--one should never edit while under the influence of stomach flu. :) Gladys J Cortez 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I happened to notice....

I stumbled across your page a few times now and decided to read some of it. I noticed you had User:Wdflake/6by9 on your user page so I think you should take a look at this--Pewwer42  Talk  05:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Aggie terms FA nomination

Bad news, the List of Texas Aggie terms failed FL nomination. Negatives, we did not make it, positives, this article greatly improved. I need a huge break from wikipedia, as shown on my profile, but maybe a GA push would be more appropriate. I think the article could pass now honestly, if someone wants to do that. I might push few months from now. Thank you much for the help! Oldag07 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hurlburt update

I added some historical factoids to the article, and broke it into 'graphs. Ch-ch-ch-check it out. Mark Sublette (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Corps GA/FA help?

I know you're taking a "break" from wikipedia right now, but i was directed towards you to get some advice on what needs to be changed or even how to go about the process of bringing the Corps article up to GA or FA. This is somethign I would like to do, but have no clue where to start. Thanks. Robhakari (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking your advice and staring at the article for a few days while I should be working, I noticed a few things. Firstly, the uniform section (which si quite an eysore IMO) and the special unit section (potentially even taking the current unit structure of the corps) could be spun off into their own articles. Doing that would leave History, Rank, Class System, and Corps Life in the article. Those 4 sections seem like they could work well together as an article and also shorten up the contents box quite a bit. Questions, comments, snide remarks? Lol, that sure isn't much for a few days of staring. Robhakari (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy changes

I have reverted this change you made to WP:V. As you are probably aware, WP:V is a core policy, and as such changes that significantly change the meaning of the policy require consensus before the wording should be changed. I noticed in your edit summary you suggest discussing the proposed change on the talk page, however you also went ahead and changed our policy (because you "disagree with the language" and don't believe some things should be verifiable)... that's getting the cart before the horse, so to speak. You're welcome to request the community's input on your proposed change on the appropriate talk page. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Replying from this message: Snap; it is so. My most humble apologies in incorrectly interpreting the recent changes. Fortunately, I usually keep a tall glass of gin around should I need to wash down a foot.  :-) I see your point regarding "should be" versus a "must be" interpretation. While I do believe in a strongly worded policy, I don't think anyone wants to give agenda-driven editors more room to make ridiculous arguments. Thanks for the note, and sorry again for the confusion! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Addendum - it looks like some of your formatting in the message on my talk page might have gotten jumbled, and the quote from WP:V is missing (just some italics that messed up the subsequent formatting). Not sure if it's worth correcting since I am now more Enlightened, but I figured I'd mention it.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LM Polecat.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:LM Polecat.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking in....

Not to have you think I have forgotten your support during a time of contention, I have myself been extremely busy the past few weeks and have barely had time to check emails, much less log in to Wiki. I invite you to check me out on Youtube or IMDB or Google to catch up with some of my recent projects. One day we will share a cold one. As one of my brothers is moving to Texas, it becomes a stronger possibility that it could happen sooner, than later.- Michael MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Head Drum Major 07-08

Could you gt rid of Mike Valdez's picture from the Aggie Band page? He was a sleazebag who finally managed to get himself kicked out of the Corps, so not having him associated with the band anymore would be swell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.61.66 (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is more of a stab in the dark than anything, but was he from A-Co or B-Co? In all seriousness, I think we'll keep the picture for now, until it can be replaced by another picture. You appear to be a BQ, so a picture of the new head drum major would be easier for you to get than I. Wikipedia can always use more Aggies, so feel free to join and I'll be happy to walk you through the Wikipedia processes to upload pictures. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Improvement drive

This is overdue, but thanks for your comments here. I have improved that article a lot today and I wonder if you would like to give it a review? Informally would be fine; for GA would be even better.

I also created 2007 Texas Longhorns football suspensions this week, if you want to take a look. It is not really ready for a thorough review yet.

Finally, I am planning to create 2007 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game soon, borrowing partly from info already in the team articles. Johntex\^talk 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for contributing to my sockpuppetry case. You are right.-- Ketchup Krew ^{Heinz 57!} 19:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See you're missing the point. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:ComputerGuy890100/Cabal

The MFD discussion was open for less than three hours and was quickly swamped by people with obvious conflicts as to their feelings. The more recent discussion on the administrators' noticeboard saw review from a wider portion of the community, and Keilana and myself decided that deleting them all would be the best choice. east.718 at 01:01, April 2, 2008

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter

The April 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) 01:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfc

Has the dispute that led to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds been resolved? I am thinking of archiving this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ROTC

So what excatly is a commision after graduating? Just making sure. If I join, I don't have to serve in the military and risk my life, right? I live in Houston, but I'm not going to A&M, so at other "civilian" colleges, is the ROTC program different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.123.229 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A commission means you are an Officer in the Armed Forces of the United States that ascended to the rank of officer through education (technically, the other options are warrant officer, and noncommissioned officer, but those names are more of a holdover from the 1800s and they are not considered on-par with officers in benefits or privileges). ROTC at other colleges is nothing like A&M or any of the other Senior Military Colleges. You wear your uniform 1-2 times per week at ROTC. Meet all the requirements (including a month at military training) and at the end of the program, you can become an officer. ROTC is an elective course where military service is not required for the first two years. The last two years of ROTC are reserved for those who are on contract to get a commission and you cannot take those classes without taking an oath of enlistment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: HRC FAC

No hard feelings taken, whatsoever. I respect your view on this, and the work you do on FACs in general. Your FAC guide was the first thing I encountered on my first FAC attempt and quickly introduced me into the level of effort that would be required. No gain without pain! ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. SOF

What important details did I omit? Just about everything that was removed should not have been on the list. Outdawg (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary

That image no longer exists on the commons. It is in fact a work for hire and is PD. --evrik ^(talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are completely and woefully mistaken. Those who work for hire still retain copyright status. Please read: Wikipedia:Image use policy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter

The May 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) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Crud (game)

I'm with you on your sentiments. I brought it to AfD because I felt that such a deletion would be too controversial for WP:PROD, and the game is definitely not a candidate for WP:CSD. I didn't go to the talk page because I didn't feel that I would get something unbiased.

Personally, despite Stifle's comments and seeming pedantry, I see it surviving - but, I'm not sure we now have enough commentary to close as keep on account of WP:SNOW, and I'm not at a point where I can withdraw, as we have dissenting opinion. Either way, given its history with a lack of much in the way of reliable sources, I'm personally inclined to ignore the rules. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• note, edited the title of this piece o' talk page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC input

Please do not delete someone else's comments to make a WP:POINT,[4] at FAC, or anywhere else. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I will if you will, but as long as you continue to delete my comments, this method of suppression is ok, I thought. I mean it's exactly what you did. WP:POT? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I am fairly certain you aren't unintelligent, I trust you can see the difference between following procedures at FAC established long ago by Raul, and a deletion that you admitted was a WP:POINT. At any rate, please do not disrupt a FAC again to make a point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

An arbitrary action by a single individual is not procedure by any stretch of the imagination. I am quite intelligent, but my action differs in no way from yours. You disrupted a continuing discussion and deleted comments. I simply followed your example since you said it was acceptable. Your position should not make any difference whatsoever, but apparently you feel it does. If this is a procedure, it needs to be codified and !voted on somewhere. It is the height of arrogance to state that we are going to do something in specified manner because you (or any other individual) make an arbitrary decision; that is a dictatorship, not consensus. I trust you are intelligent enough to see the difference. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Texas Page

I got addicted to wikipedia again. I think I have done what I set out to accomplish, improve the Texas page. I figured i'd ask around for some fresh eyes to go over it. I am going to take a break for a month or so, so take your time. After that I am thinking about getting it to GA or maybe even FA standards. CyaOldag07 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Aggie Bonfire Collapse

Howdy BQ! You are correct I am 'the loudest, proudest, member of the Fightin' Texas Aggie Class of 2011.'

I read your message about Aggie Bonfire Collapse. It is my first article on Wikipedia so I’m am writing it off-line and will upload it soon. I just need a little bit of time an understanding until then. Thanks & Gig 'em.

P.S. I read something about you wondering how the students were making the 'unofficial' bonfire safe. I helped build it last year and, trust me, they are very safe. The biggest precaution is the stack is tiered but not actually stacked on top of each other. Instead, every log from the center out gets shorter as the logs move away from the center pole, giving the same effect. Txaggie2011 (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

spelling of 'broadcast' past tense

To this native fluent English speaker, broadcasted sound much like select movie theatres playing some movie release, or eveyone utilizing utilize, or those and so authoring a book, to wit marginally competent use of the language. If Sassure's idea of parole as defining a language is correct, then all of these are errors in the estimation of this speaker. No condescension to be inferred. ww (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bonfire image

Hi BQ, I saw that it wasn't an image you had uploaded. I think the image was uploaded under an incorrect license, and I don't think we can use it under fair use. I reverted it and left a note on the uploader's page to ask for clarification on the license. Karanacs (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Early evolution of the light bulb}}

WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter

The June 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) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Doolittle reunion at Duke Field

Dude! Send me your e-mail address at sub@spittoono.com and I will mail you boss pix! Mark Sublette (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Michael Q. Schmidt at wrap party for Yesterday Was A Lie.jpg

I've started a discussion about Image:Michael Q. Schmidt at wrap party for Yesterday Was A Lie.jpg here. Please join in the discussion there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to remove the tag, I'm no longer his adopter. However, from my discussions with him and his editing, I have no doubt he is the actor he claims to be. And I am inclined to think he owns the copyright, but there's really no way to prove it. He's of questionable notability, IIRC, and not having this image won't have a great impact on the 'pedia, in my opinion. That aside, as some background, he and Cumulus Cloud have a turbulent history. There was a lot of incivility and personal attacks... I believe from both sides. I don't recall if there was an RFC on CC or what, but I think there was something. I'd be inclined to argue that this is potentially a personal matter as there is no doubt animosity held between these two, however, as I said, I don't think the image is worth the headache and drama. I also don't remember what triggered CC to take such great issue with MQS, but he may very well have had legitimate reason to be annoyed, though not justification for his actions. Anyway, I read your comment on the IFD. It's well stated, but I'd leave it at that. LaraLove|Talk 04:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Never knew when I was un-adopted, but Lara Love has been helpful and courteous in the extreme. Is that why the CC deconstruction began anew? Because the quiet made him feel empowered? Yikes. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/L.L.King (2nd)

Could you look at what I wrote in the conclusion section? I see that you have previously been involved in disputes with Cumulus Clouds before, but maybe that actually helps you to see things I can't see. What's the history between CC and MQS? Do I have the right idea? Please advise. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean start....?

I have validated my email address. Sorry to have missed that impoprtant step. Feel free to write. Would it best serve for me to simply cease all Wiki involvement as MichaelQSchmidt and request reinstatement as MQSchmidt? Or would it be better to make an appeal to an admin to approve the later name as a clean start rather than for me to simply say I have done so? And were I to wish to write you, how would I find your own email? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I appreciate the vote of confidence, and I'm sure you know that I'm not claiming sole credit for the Aggie FAs so I don't need to explain that ;) Sorry to beat you to becoming the first Aggie admin - I hope you'll get all the extra tabs soon! Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Texas A&M

Although that content may be part of a revision I reverted to, they were not actually added by me :) -Rushyo (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. If a vandal puts something on a page and one makes an constructive, unrelated change one is not a vandal. Content added by another user that you do not even look at when you make an edit does not become your responsibility. If so then if I were to make any change to any page the entire page would become attributable to me. The very idea is preposterously silly. -Rushyo (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - In writing:

None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages. -WP:General disclaimer

Replaceable fair use Image:LM_Polecat.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:LM_Polecat.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Swing and a miss. There are NO other publicly released images of this aircraft. The aircraft was destroyed, so no other images can be made. It's that simple. A note on your talk page provides more detail. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Polecat image

Glad to be of some small assistance. Gotyear (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)