User talk:Buffs/Archive 6

More ENJJPT edits

BQZ, would you take a look at this diff, and the edits before it? It involves the same user whom you reverted on the T-37 page,and the same issue. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

featured topic

I appreciate the initiative in nominating our subject. we will see if it makes it. but look what happened to MSUOldag07 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The "take risks and try it philosophy" especially in this environment is definitely a good idea. Little to lose, much to gain. we will see. lets note however, that our athletics page also isn't a GA, as is our campus pages. it is section 1d of the ft criteria that really made me give up trying to reach for this goal. that being said, i personally think it would be better for wikipedia to loosen its FT standards. or at least its GT standards. I think it would motivate more editors to try to promote more topics. that i assume is the goal of the featured content of this site. we will see. Oldag07 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

One vote of support is good so far. And I would agree that the featured topic system is way too limiting. oh well. Oldag07 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As for FT, you might find this page that i made over a year ago interesting. 02:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Howdy! I'm an instructor at USMA. My wife is an Aggie ('96) and I received my graduate degree from Aggieland (MS in Kinesiology '07). I must say I'm impressed by the quality of A&M articles on wikipedia. I'm still new at editing articles and I've been working hard the last month to improve West Point's wikipedia article. When I started on it, it was awful. I'd like to think its a lot better now, but I still need lots of help. Could you please take a look at it and give me some pointers. My eventual goal is to see it make FA. What do you think? By the way, I'm an AH-64D pilot myself. I need to square away my use page as well, so any pointers there to get me started would be great. Thanks! Ahodges7 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The photo on my user page is an oil well not far from Taji, Iraq. I spent the holidays of 2005 and most of 2006 in and around Taji. That thing must have caught on fire 4 or 5 times while I was there. It would burn for days when it did.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For selflessly extending a helping hand. Thank you. Ahodges7 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I just posted some new photos that I thought you might like. BTHO... Ahodges7 (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas A&M, Whoop! Ahodges7 (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Does USMA need to be put up for GA-status before it can be put up for FA-status? Before we started working on it back in Dec, it was listed at B-class on the discussion page, but now its listed as A-class. I may be wrong, but isn't A-class better than GA-class anyway? I don't know when or how it went from B to A. I'm also deficient in constructing the proper code to list "article history" on the discussion page. Perhaps you could help with this or send me to someone who can? Also, "how close" do you think USMA is as far as content? I'm trying to re-work the history segment per Madcoverboy's comments, but I'll be decisively engaged at work this week it might take a few more days. Thanks for the help! Ahodges7 (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Comments

...at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/T-37 student pilot. Fair enough, I suppose. It was taken on a bright, sunny day. The blacks are going to be brighter and the whites are going to be a little washed out simply because of the sun. Can you assist in making tweaks to the photo? If not, can you recommend someone who can? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, it is possible something can be done with the blacks - simply a levels adjust or a brightness/contrast in photoshop might be able to fix it. The whites may not be recoverable though, if in the original image, much of that space is completely white. This would be the case if there are many pixels with the RGB value 256,256,256 (or FF FF FF), which can also be checked in photoshop. de Bivort 18:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at it in Photoshop, and it was as I suspected. Much of the white space is blown out and unrecoverable. Not much to be done about that, I'm afraid. de Bivort 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The blacks are recoverable, but that isn't enough. The photo could be taken with a shorter exposure time so that there was still detail in the fuselage, so I expect other FP participants will also find his problematic. de Bivort 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

File:T-37 solo student pilot.JPG

I've optimized this photo, removing haze, adding better sharpening and contrast and re-uploaded it to the Commons under the slightly different title : Commons:File:T-37 solo student pilot.jpg. If you compare it to the original, you'll see the difference. I think this photo will be a better featured picture candidate. JoJan (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

interesting image

Notability of individual games

No, I realise there are some individually notable games, just as there are in any sport, but this - "Varsity regular season, conference championship games, and bowl games are considered notable for all schools that participate in college football and are members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association or the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics" - a claim that all regular season games are individually notable and worthy of an article - is doomed to failure. Yes, there will be sources - news reports on the games - but imagine some analogies; it would be like having an article on every concert played by a band, every speech made by a politician ...

More to the point, most of the articles would fail WP:NOT#IINFO which states that "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article". Black Kite 23:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to a certain extent (such as the scores and basics of a game. That is news). However, the impacts of the games indeed shape the season. I also think that WP:SUMMARY applies. While the college football page argues that each game is notable, it still has to meet notability standards. If notability isn't there, then the opinion is moot. A great example of this is 2005_Texas_Longhorn_football_team. It has every game of that season. Some were not particularly notable games and do not have articles while others that were far more significant have an expanded article about that game (some with over 100 references!). My point is that there is a balance between the two and I think we can come to an agreement on it; it just may take a little time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think we're in agreement there, it was just the casual assertion on the Wikiproject page that every game was notable which had me wide-eyed :) Black Kite 23:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think generally it is true, but I added a note on the page that notability standards still have to be met. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the addition made in the notability essay... WP:CFBN is a living document. While I don't think that every game is automatically notable, I would say that likely there is enough coverage for so many of the games that it might be like splitting hairs. Still, anyone who creates a single game article is encouraged to consider just how worthwhile the article would be and should it be included instead in regular season articles, if at all. I think we all agree here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Highlander: The Series (season 2)

Hello, thank you for reviewing this FLC. I have addressed your comments, would you care to take another look ? Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

talkback

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

My apologies

I should read the policy carefully before I go off half cocked. I am sorry. I removed my opposition, my suggestion, and all of my comments. Thanks for your patience. I removed your comments to me in response as well, which is against policy, but under the circumstances, I didn't think you would mind. If you would like to restore my deletions, you are welcome too.

I like your first policy proposal, and I don't see how editors will construe it as a carte blanc to delete images and material.

I see you have a real talent in writing, that you are a statesmen, diplomat, and a very good editor. Wikipedia is lucky to have such talent. Thanks.travb (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! I think the problem is that too many people didn't see the trees because of the forest. There are plenty of good ideas out there and we just need a place to look at them in context and reasonably discuss and decide. Each side has valid points, but without some sort of consensus, we cannot possibly come up with a working framework which will reduce animosity. Thanks for working with everyone on this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 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) 02:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Texas Aggies

Thankyou. A great FL. Kensplanet^T_C 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar in connection with my help on that list -- and congratulations on finally achieving the FL distinction! --Orlady (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the barnstar, I really appreciate it, but I think you may have the wrong user because I didn't leave any comments this time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. great job to all. now it is time to add the 4 new words that were being discussed, to the list! Oldag07 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar :) BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Signpost article on non-free images

As you've asked the question, my "take on th[e] RfC" is that I question its ability to produce a meaningful outcome. The nuanced and unique circumstances of each article and each logo make, in my opinion, attempts to establish an all-encompassing statement on the use of sports logos impractical, if not ill-advised. That is, of course, to say nothing of the questionable ethics (e.g. canvassing) and failure of decorum that have here, as is the case with so many policy "discussions", retarded productive discourse and no doubt precluded some, such as myself, from participating.

To answer your implicit question of my take on the issues being discussed at the RfC, I would preface that I suspect some (perhaps substantial) issues could be resolved if folks would simply acquaint themselves with certain copyright basics (e.g. the concept of useful articles). For example, the licensing of File:MinnesotaGoldenGophers.png and File:USC Trojans interlocking logo.png as non-free is incorrect (see, for example, User:Elcobbola/Copyright); as free logos, their use would not be subject to the NFCC. That notwithstanding, to use an example from the RfC, I absolutely question the use of File:Usc football logo.gif in 2008 USC Trojans football team with its current purpose of identification. To represent that using, say, either File:UniversityofSouthernCalifornia logo.png and File:USC Trojans interlocking logo.png in conjunction with the first sentence containing "2008 USC Trojans football team" (all of which would be free - NFCC#1) would be inadequate to fulfill the purpose of "help[ing] the reader identify the organization, assur[ing] the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrat[ing] the organization's intended branding" is, frankly, an insult to my intelligence and our readers' intelligence. That, obviously, is applicable to this article and, again, I note that nuanced and unique circumstances of each article and each logo need consideration. So, to answer more generally, I think there is some validity to the concern that certain logos are being inappropriately/superfluously used, but I suspect there may be legitimate cases, as well. Эlcobbola _talk 16:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot

I would just like to thank you for trying to fix the article statistics section. everytime we promote an article, I can understand the urge to update that table asap. I however, would like to say that WP 1.0 usually updates the thing by bot. to update this more quickly, run this for most updated stats — Enter Texas A&M in the category box.

The nice thing about letting a bot update the page is these tools.

• Article list by quality
• Quality changes log

Well than. thanks again. now for a "wikibreak". maybe. sort of :-) Oldag07 (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the link was wrong last time. i had to change it. now it should work. Oldag07 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:WONDERFUL New information!!! This changes everything!

I think you're rushing in to the new proposal; I think it would be better if we review the situation a little longer. Everyone who has commented (from both "sides", if you will) has been a little sceptical. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that the images removed from The Game (Harvard-Yale) are not copyrighted?--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Have a beer on me

Haha, thanks. Surely, if we at opposite ends of the debate both agree on something, it's likely to be a long-lasting compromise. Well done. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		I couldn't agree more. Thanks for your work in building a compromise consensus solution in the always-contentious realm of non-free media. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sympathies

You have my sympathies on the Blackhawk crash at Texas A&M yesterday.

You'll have to send me a friend request on Facebook... I am having to recreate my page from scratch...

Mark Sublette (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

copyediting texas

I have divided the Texas page into 6 parts. Hopefully with more manageable chunks, people will be more willing to copyedit the page. would you be willing to copy edit one section of the Texas page?

Talk:Texas#Copyedit_plan Oldag07 (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

See copy edit plan again for response to your comment. Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I expanded the Civil War section. Added Governor Houston's Unionism, a few of the battles as well as tried to expand on the strategic situation of the state, and removed a questionable source. Thanks again for your help. Oldag07 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, editors from the french page just gave me a good several paragraphs about precolonial texas to add to the Texas page, and the history page. second, I moved our discussion about conservatism at TAMU to the Texas A&M talk page. Thanks! Oldag07 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Input requested at Sunset

Hi BQZip01,

After a quick browse through the history of Sunset I've noticed you've previously edited the page. Your input is now requested in choosing a new lead picture here. Thanks for your time, --Fir0002 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Banknote copyright

I have started a discussion on this issue at meta. Babakathy (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Images at First Ladies list

Hi. I was wondering if you would be able to help me with the images at List of First Ladies of the United States. I thought that if they were available at http://www.whitehouse.gov then they would be PD. Obviously any images from before 1923 are PD anyway, so its just the last 10-12 First Ladies that I need help with. Are the photos from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_First_Ladies_of_the_United_States&oldid=263524739 okay? They appear to be PD also, but I'm not sure now. Any help you can give me will be most welcome. Thank you, regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I believe I have now addressed the image issue at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of First Ladies of the United States. If you could return to comment, I'd appreciate it. Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:EXPLODE

Funny essay. Almost wished there was a sentence about context twisting.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I think you know what this one is for... :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Potraits

Hi, I encounted you at Commons (the Hillary Clinton portrait) and have noticed you at the First Ladies FLC. You seem to have a good knowledge of copyrights and I was wondering if you could comment on the talk page of the List of Presidents of the United States, where I have just replaced all questionable post-1923 portraits. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

note to self

Yale page on copyrights...

Re: logos

Hi, I see you feel strongly about coming to a solution that both sides of this issue can agree upon and I applaud you for that. I have a few concerns, which I didn't completely expand upon in the !vote due to brevity's sake and the fact that most of them have been mentioned by other comments in the thread. Here are some I can think of:

1. You provided several examples of "generic" logos of schools names spelled out. Personally, I think that, due to the lack of recognition to the general population and, well, their generic nature, that that is really only a very marginally better choice than simply leaving out an image altogether in favor of a simple text caption of the school/team's name.
2. I think there is a lot of gray area in the "generic" letters logo approach. For instance, examples were given of the interlocking USC logo and the cursive "A" inside the disc Alabama logo. Personally, I would think that those do meet the minimum requirement for originality under US copyright law. I'm not a lawyer, so that is just a layperson's opinion, but that is my belief. (As for Wikimedia Commons, I don't have any experience with it, but being connected to Wikipedia, my assumption is that anyone can upload to it. So, based on that assumpation, I would tend to believe that the presence of something on there doesn't, in and of itself, indicate that it is in fact not copyrighted.)
3. You propose using an action shot or image of the team to represent a team's particular season. One issue I see with that is that a photograph like that isn't iconic or representative of the team in the way that the commonly known logos are.
4. Also regarding pictures, I do think it is very difficult to find free images for most teams. You give Flickr as an example, but it is almost always the case that the uploader there marks them as "all rights reserved", often, I think, without really knowing what that means. In my personal experiences searching Flickr, I found no relevant pictures uploaded as share alike (for a subject related to this discussion).
5. I also think that it would be biased against smaller schools and less well known teams for the last two reasons, but to a far greater extent.
6. It is also an unsatisfactory solution for seasons from by-gone eras, where it is even more difficult (if not altogether impossible) to find free images.

You say challenge you with any game to find an image. Well, just off the top of my head, a random game I can think of would be Rice vs. Tulsa, two Division I FBS football teams. Strikehold (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Answers on your page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Gig those image permission authoritarians! Maybe a public domain image ran their dog over in a previous life? :) Madcoverboy (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Logo repository

If you would like the logos replaced with non-copyrighted images, it would be useful if you could start a subpage here that has one for each Div I-A school. That way, there is a central place to go to find free-use replacements for the fair-use images.--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, from where have you been finding most of them?--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The mighty Big 12 Conference is finished. As in its free-use logos are complete. Zen, baby. I'll focus on the SEC next. I'm going in reverse order of importance in my college-football universe. I guess it would have to be the Big Ten (yawn), Pac-10, Big East, ACC, Mtn West, CUSA, WAC? Although this is interesting.--2008Olympian^chitchat 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Crack open upon completion of check ride

Good luck! (forgot to sign) Ahodges7 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

<User now guzzles a brewski...> — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to nominate USMA for inclusion on Wikipedia 1.0. Could you help me out here? I've read the instructions, but nothing is quite as easy as it seems. I always seem to not dot an "i" or cross a "t". The Naval Academy made the cut, and quite honestly, its is no where near the quality of USMA's article (and that's not just the Gray Hog in me talking). Please advise...  Ahodges7  02:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been giving the idea of the lead a lot of thought and I think it really does need to be reworked so that no citations are needed. I'm working a new lead section right now in my sandbox. Feel free to stop in and check it out and leave comments if you like. I know you're going head to head with —Rlevse • Talk • about the lead citations, but I think it can be avoided, make the article better, and get an established administrator on our side.  Ahodges7   ^talk 19:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That IS a lot of edits. Anyway, I've completed my proposed re—write of the USMA lead in my sandbox. I like it better than the current lead. What do you think? I'd have to go back and relink some citations I think because some of them are used again later in the article.  Ahodges7   ^talk 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck on the EPs test. Army Aviation TMs are all arranged in the same format (same topics in every chapter, as I assume AF's are as well). For us, we have to memorize, verbatim, Chapters 5 (Limitations) and Chapter 9 (almost verbatim - Emergency Procedures). The Land Immediately and Land As Soon As Possible have underlined steps that must be repeated from memory upon command from an IP. Not to much different than plebe knowledge! Once again, good luck, and have some more Wiki-beer when you're done. Thanks for keeping up with the FAC. I've been swamped at work and didn't get to much of it today. Gig'em.  Ahodges7   ^talk 02:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the image policy debate, especially now. I like the military and physical training images better anyway. I'll make a trek up the hill and take a photo of Blaik field at Michie Stadium, which oh by the way happens to have a huge Black Knight - Cape Man logo emblazoned at center field. It will kill two birds with one stone: get a photo of Michie Stadium in the article, plus the log that everyone has such heartburn over. Can they claim copyright violation with that?  Ahodges7   ^talk 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The image debate with Jappalang is giving me a headache. Its the Supes' Official Freakin' Photo? Where does he think it came from, the one hour photo at Walmart? I need some of the Wiki-beer, stat! Seriously, what else does he want? No one has objected to the article based upon content or omission. I'm going to tap out of the debate with him. I don't know what else I can do. I can come up with something else that I've taken rather than the Knight and Krzyzewski photo for "other athletics", but I'm not going to budge on the Supe's photo. You seem game for the debate, so keep up the good fight.  Ahodges7   ^talk 02:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Lead, you're on fire!", err, uh, I mean "technique adjusted". BTW. I removed Bob Knight & Mike Krzyzewski. I know you dig the debate, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to show a current sports photo there anyway. Maybe I'll put them in the "Black Knights Athletics" article some day.

LOL. I saw the removed photo. If I'd thought it was an actual problem, I'd remove it myself, so, whatever you want to do with it is fine. I think we're well set up for FA in the near future, but these things can take a month or so to clear the system, so we'll see what happens. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about putting this photo in for football rather than the Black Knight Logo?: File:USMA's Three Heisman Trophies.jpg. There is also an older PD photo of Michie Stadium in wikimedia commons File:United States Military Academy Michie Stadium.jpg. Your thoughts? Is the Heisman photo high enough quality? If so, would it be an issue of being PD because it's "art", or something like that?  Ahodges7   ^talk 01:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine you're upset with me for rolling on Jappalang's insistence on the Fortifications image, but I actually do like the map sketch better anyway. Question: why do you have to put "upright" in the image code if the image is "upright" already by its dimensions? Now, I absolutely will not budge on the photo of the Supe. I think that's the only image still in question. That makes it 4 supports and one image oppose that really isn't legit anyway? Thanks for keeping after it. Sorry about your friend. Gig' em.  Ahodges7   ^talk 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's my job...

To be a pain in the ass about sources. It's not personal, everyone deals with it. Take comfort from the fact that I have an FAC up right now. You're welcome to go be a pain about the sourcing on it there. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

...and it is my job to be a pain sometimes with relation to the "letter of the law" when things that are preferences are cited as policy or guidelines when, in fact, they are not. No one faults you on that and I expect it. We'll duck/parry/and verbally jibe, but in the end a better product comes out. We'll come to an agreement eventually and I don't take it personally. I hope you don't. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

News...

Had just got a note from F telling the news. The lesson here is that wiki-life and real-life must be kept seperate. There is nothing in or on a non-paper electronic encyclopedia worth killing oneself over. And yes... his debates kept many people sharp and working toward the improvement of the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Deepest apologies to mess with your upage at this time:[1]. Seemed more respectful to change it right away and let you figure out what you meant. Sorry for messing it up... :( Franamax (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Edits while sleepy aren't always quality... — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Honorary Maverick

		Honorary Maverick
		As former commander, "Maverick06", of Bravo Troop, 1st Squadron, 6th US Cavalry, and Maverick Emeritus, I hereby bestow upon you the Order of the Honorary Maverick for your tireless efforts to champion the cause of The Academy in its bid for FAC. Without your help, it would not be this far, and I'd be far more ignorant than I currently am. When USMA makes it to FA, I'll consider a promotion to honorary "Iron Eagle" (if I can find my artwork for that one...) Ahodges7   talk 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

USMA

Under each concern is fine. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You are a machine. How do you do it?  Ahodges7   ^talk 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be bad form to put a little summary tally at the front of the article, something like: "Support 6, Oppose 1(weak, issues resolved, unstruck)? I noticed something similar to A&M History article during its FAC.  Ahodges7   ^talk 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and kind words. Not sure what's going on. Didn't know any of them. We've had a nasty winter up here, might have something to do with it, but the Army in general has struggled with the issue lately. Thanks again.  Ahodges7   ^talk 23:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sprotected

Talk page semiprotected on request; I did the same to your user page also. Regards -- Samir 19:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

USMA FAC

No problem. Like I said all my comments were about pretty trivial things, but your edits and responses in addressing them look good. Once again, nice job. Strikehold (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia isn't happy with the hide templates & wants them removed. It would really help if the editors who have had addressed concerns would return and strike their opposes so SandyGeorgia can tell the consensus is heavily in favor of support despite all the comments and responses.  Ahodges7   ^talk 01:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sports team logo guidelines

I really like the new guidelines you have submitted. There are just three small points (one an issue of wording, one that's probably so obvious it went without saying, and one I assume you meant but didn't include) that need fixing, and then your new proposal has my full support. I've got a lot of respect for you after your peserverence and willingness to compromise in this issue- these final guidelines will hopefully sort this issue out once and for all. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

...Damn. Seems I was a little more hopeful than I should have been. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright v. trademark

If you're sure we can use trademarked logos rather than copyrighted, then I'd say make sure that's clear in your instructions of which logo to use ... I didn't know that for those purposes, Wikipedia considers a trademarked image to be a free-use one as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to respond on my talk page about a question I had on the trademark/copyright issue? Regards. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

USMA FAC

I have struck and replied with comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your most recent comments and struck others. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

USMA

All of my issues have been resolved and I have changed my oppose to support. I know that this FAC got more personal than I would have liked, and for that I am sorry. I want to congratulate you on an excellent job. Please let me know if you have any questions. And again, great job! KnightLago (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1: Nice photo with Drudge story, Whoop!

2: My editing problem seems to have to do with my Safari browser and wikEd. If I turn wikEd off, it works. If I use Firefox, it works. Not sure why now when its worked for two months.  Ahodges7   ^talk 03:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you undid my link to Koscisuzko's monument. The reason that I linked his name to the monument in the campus section is that he's already wiki-linked by name in the History section. The sentence states "there are monuments to..." and then lists the individuals. I realize that so far all the wikilinks lead to the articles for the individual persons and Koscisuzko is the first to link to his monument, but eventually, I want to link to pages for the monuments, and not the people, considering the sentence is talking about monuments, not the individuals or their specific contribution to the academy's history. Your thoughts?  Ahodges7   ^talk 12:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

To a Fallen Comrade. May we be worthy enough to inherit his memory, and through our actions, keep it eternal.

---

Hello, BQZip01. Long time no talk. I dropped by to see if you still retained any interest in adminship, as I am willing to offer another nom or co-nom if you want. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

From a talk page I see that you believe that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is notable and not a hoax. You should then find this interesting: It appears that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church has admitted in court to only having three members. See Case 1:06-cv-01207-JDB Document 70 Filed 06/11/2008 page 3. I believe that proves that the central thesis in Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax is true and therefore that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is not notable and should be deleted. --e.Shubee (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a hoax. The first line of the article says, "The Creation Seventh Day (and) Adventist Church is a Christian movement." Three persons do not constitute "a movement." --e.Shubee (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that 2 of out the 3 church members of Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church are also editors and they are so very passionate about "their article" that they won't tolerate anyone else inserting any truth that might tend to detract from their very elaborate hoax. --e.Shubee (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Try to insert the extraordinarily relevant fact into the article that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church only has three members, citing Case 1:06-cv-01207-JDB Document 70 Filed 06/11/2008 page 3 or Summary Judgment, United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, June 11, 2008, page 3, and see what happens. --e.Shubee (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My only interest was Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. --e.Shubee (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 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) 01:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sports team logos, "Final versions"

My points 2 & 3 relate specifically to the wording of these proposals. I believe the final sentence of the rivalry and sporting events sections should state that "...a copyrighted logo other than that of the rivalry/event discussed (including team logos, logo(s) of a school, or athletic department logo) may only be used if no free alternative exists." (My addition in bold.) My point is that, after stating that the preferred image is the logo of the rivalry/event (making no mention of copyright status), the section then states that copyrighted logos may only be used if no non-free alternative exists. I understand the INTENT, but I don't think the wording is correct. Or, if the wording is correct, then I find the meaning of these sections unacceptable, in that they would exclude non-free images that would normally be permitted. cmadler (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hello, thanks for your note on my talk page. I can't supported any of the "final versions" because they are all flawed. In all 3 versions, they state a preference for a "free" logo if one is available. We should prefer the logo, period. This should be regardless of whether it is copyrighted / trademarked / etc. Fair use law protects our right to use these logos. As many people have pointed out, doing so does not in any way lessen the free content that is being contributed to the articles. Therefore, we should do exactly what ESPN and Sports Illustrated, and the New York Times would do, and represent the team with their logo. That is what the logo is designed to do. The current status quo of including the logos is the simplest and best solution. Force10 (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My e-mail to you

I haven't gotten a response. What's up with it? (Feel free to e-mail me with an answer if you feel it to be too private.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hainan Island incident

Hi, remember me? We talked in December about improving this article. I've been doing some work on it, what do you think? --John (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you comment either here or at Talk:Hainan Island incident on whether either of the planes involved would have carried a CVR or FDR? Sorry to bother you. --John (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Game (Harvard-Yale)

I am trying to add free images to this article to replace the non-free images that used to be there. Do you mind weighing in on the talk page? I have an admin and an editor who are not a part of the RfC discussion saying that no logos can be added until the dispute resolution on non-free images are resolved. One editor actually said "(free or non-free, whatever)," showing that he has no understanding of the debate nor desire to acquire any. And the admin is backing him until I get consensus on the talk page that free images would be okay.--2008Olympian^chitchat 14:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hurlburt?

Thanks for your input on KAL 007/intercept. My son-in-law was stationed recently at Hurlburt. Do you know Jeff LaFleur?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

'Suicide threats' are generally anything but.

Usually it's just someone seeing how fast he or she can get us to jump around. You don't really need to make an effort to make a topic 'noticeable'; the simple fact that it's there makes it that. I suppose nobody can fault you for having your heart in the wrong place anyway. HalfShadow 04:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This was a potential threat against me not a potential action to harm ones' self. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Same difference, really, though generally the second are taken somewhat more seriously than the first. As I said, though, simply posting is enough; you don't need to take pains to make your post 'noticeable'. HalfShadow 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not an America-pedia

You said: "(cur) (prev) 23:24, 26 February 2009 BQZip01 (Talk | contribs | block) (93,031 bytes) (Undid revision by WhisperToMe; We've gone through this before; Texas A&M Univeristy is, primarily, in Texas and, most ppl know, in the US. If you don't know where Texas is, you can click the link) (rollback | undo)"

And what if we have the guy who doesn't know where Texas is? Does this mean we can not mention other countries in other articles? French-related articles not saying "France"? Burkina Faso-related articles not saying "Burkina Faso"? Look, this is not America-pedia. This is a worldwide Wikipedia.

I will see the discussion on the talk page, but to be honest my change should not be controversial and there is no good reason to oppose it. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see nothing recent in the archives that indicates a consensus not to mention the United States like that. Please keep in mind that this is a worldwide encyclopedia, NOT a United States-centric encyclopedia. Unless I see something in the archives of the talk page (no edit summaries, please) "We've gone through this before" is not true. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

People typically do not include continent landforms when describing locations - typically it is city-country (or city, 1st subdivision, country). Even when a lot of people know Texas is in the United States, we still have to, have to present information in a worldwide perspective. The way locations are presented need to be consistent from all countries. Either we mention Burkina Faso in BF-related pages and the U.S. in US-related pages, or we don't. By saying "we can exclude the United States" from a US topic but not doing so from a BF-related topic it skews Wikipedia towards a United States perspective. We have to be consistent according to *all countries*. Also you have to say that it is of the United States first from a writing perspective, because if the country appears later people will wonder "where did that come from?" - It's a writing thing.

Now, what we could do is say "Texas A&M University, often called A&M or TAMU, is an American coeducational public research university located in College Station, Texas. " - By indicating the nationality there you don't have to tag on the United States at the end. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Talk:Texas_A&M_University#United_States_needs_to_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_sentence - And I responded to what you said there. I don't see how anyone would believe automatically that A&M would be in cahoots with the feds just because its described as an "American university" WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First salvo

I just received this first attack on the free logos:

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Akron.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC) --ViperSnake151 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please share your thoughts. And please let me know if you run into any similar attacks on any of the other free logos. I don't know how to check for these type of challenges when I'm not the uploader. Also, we may want to place a note at the project.--2008Olympian^chitchat 00:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of wiki images and Texas A&M logo

There is a seller on ebay.com and wigix.com who I believe is using an image he downloaded off of Lloyd Herbert Hughes' wiki page without permission. He is also using the Texas A&M logo in his items.

Please, would you email me outside of wiki? - http://www.rajordan.com/raj.html

Rajordan Niece of 2nd Lt. Lloyd Hebert Hughes, Medal of Honor Recipient http://www.rajordan.com/pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajordan (talk • contribs) 05:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he can use the image I took. That is the beauty of the free licensing...

...that said, he cannot use it without attributing the photo to the author in this case as that is one of the caveats of its "freedom". And the violation of the trademark is also a big no-no since he's paid no licensing fees to the University (I believe he pulled that image off of the Texas A&M page). I've written ebay about the listing with both problems.

For those interested, here is the item in question: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130290723452

— BQZip01 — ^talk 07:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This guy has about 20 products he is selling with illegal trademark use/copyright infringement/improper attribution of free photos. Mostly though, his stuff is PD and, if he can make a buck or two from it, more power to him. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Images for Texas A&M pages

I am making a trip to BCS in a few weeks, and I plan on wondering around the school with a camera for a little while. I have posted a image suggestion page up for images we may or may not want at the project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas A&M. I can't promise you I will get everything, but this is a good opportunity to boost some of our pages. Any suggestion is appreciated. Gig em!Oldag07 (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I got some pictures as promised from main campus. Weather for the most part was terrible this weekend, but i was able to take pictures in a lull in the weather. Not as much as i would have liked. Oh well. As for the pictures of the quad you requested Commons Corps of Cadets page Oldag07 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review

Hey BQZip, I was wondering if you could review the Spokane, Washington article for the editors. After you read the article, I believe all you need to do is apply the A-Class criteria to the article and put whether you believe it is worthy of being A-class. Also, in addition to that, it would be helpful if you could include some points for improvement. If you are up to review it, notify me here or on my Talk so I can stop looking for reviewers. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Help for a new user

Hello BQZip. User:Axmann8 is a new user that has run into some trouble and I pointed out you as a good editor which he should try to emulate; would you mind if he could ask some advice from you? Cheers, henrik•talk 09:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be glad to have a helping hand - I think User:Axmann8 could still be a good editor, but I fear he will have little time to adjust to this place given the attention he has already attracted. Editing controversial areas here successfully takes some practice and patience, it's a steep learning curve if you try to jump right into it. henrik•talk 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So true... — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get directly involved with that guy any more than I have to. But this [2] looks like trouble brewing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we don't know what's cooking with that page yet, so it's wait-and-see. I said on ANI and I'll say here also, that one way to grow as an editor is to work on a page whose subject you don't agree with politically, and try to keep it neutral. Trying to help with fending off the siege on the Palin page last fall was good experience that way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Axmann

Hi, it's Axmann8. Obviously, I've been having loads of trouble due to my (unfortunately naturally) argumentative nature, and have also been overwhelmed with all the policy. It would appear that the letter of the rule is, indeed, much more revered around here than the spirit of the rule... Any advice? And could you please respond on my talk page?

Thanks,

-Axmann8 (Talk) 22:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Yes, I'd like that. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

I am pretty sure I can be adopted by more than one user, I'm fairly sure.

I would be glad to be an adoptee of both you and download.

That is, of course, if you don't mind.

-Axmann8 (Talk) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm Axmann's current adopter, and if you're interested in co-adopting him, please join us. Axmann currently has his personal question page located at User:Download/Adopt/Axmann8, so if you could watch this page for changes, that'd be great. -download | sign! 04:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–xeno (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For coming to my defense

Thank you for coming to defense. The things you said on Xeno's talk page are exactly what I was trying to convey. While some of my edits certainly were disruptive, most of the things quoted as reasons for my block were inadequate reasons (and the original blocking admin certainly showed a conflict of interest). Anyway, moving past that, I have been unblocked and subjected to a voluntary 5-month politics topic-ban and I am just going to work on vandalism reversion for a while to keep myself out of trouble.

-Axmann8 (Talk) 12:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• He has voluntarily accepted a 5-month self-imposed ban on editing political topics, and has been unblocked. I'm okay with that, and have told him so. I only regret that he seems unable to accept that my ideological preferences (clearly disclosed) have nothing to do with the original block, which was a good-faith effort to maintain our standards in the face of threats of disruptive behavior. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • What was a threat of disruptive behavior? He threatened to get together a group of people to write a similar article to the one that was kept. That they don't match your ideology is irrelevant (this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, remember?). The only fault would have been if the same group intended to exert ownership over the article. My entire point was that the statement was in support of the deletion of an article. Right or wrong, consensus disagreed with him and the article was kept and seems to set a precedence. Creating such an article would be appropriate, IMHO, as criticism of any president is a valid topic. While the criticism itself may be partisan, the manner in which it is presented (WP:NPOV) is the key and must also include responses from the said president/staff for balance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann's frustrations

Do you know if there's a specific article or articles he's working on that are causing him grief today? I'm seeing a spark of hope here, but also that he's easily upset. Maybe he can be helped a bit? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of...

If we're going to have Criticism of President... pages, then to be fair we need one for all 43 or 44 of them. To get started, I'm going to write one for William Henry Harrison ... ... There, it's done. Or at least the rough draft: "Critics of Old Tippecanoe opined that he didn't know enough to come in out of the rain." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we have to have a page for all of them, but that one can exist. Criticism of a political figure, if done appropriately, could be useful as an expansion of another article per WP:SUMMARY. However, a WP:NPOV view/take on the subject is a must. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Axman

I'm sure you're about as keen on getting involved with that user as with a porcupine, but I for one resent his charge that conservatives are essentially blackballed here. To my mind, you fall into the conservative realm, yet here you are, unblocked since 2007 (as with me), and presumably still editing merrily away. He won't listen to a thing I say - and his like-minded pal CENSEI abandoned him when he needed him, so is untrustworthy. But he might listen to you. That's not exactly a request, just an idea you could consider. Axman also seems to have overlooked that I (along with the conservative-leaning Landon1980) opposed the lynch-mob mentality that seemed to be developing. I think Axman is just a kid, and frankly a hot-head, but somehow I think there's some hope. So call me crazy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that between 5:40 and 6:11 UTC, you had decided that Axmann8 indeed was ready for a long-term block and a ban. He kind of put himself in Groucho's defiant shoes in this dialogue from Duck Soup:

Angry Minister of Finance (Wikipedians): "Sir, you try my patience!"

Groucho (Axmann8): "I don't mind if I do! You must come over and try mine sometime!"

I had opposed the block originally, favoring simply enforcing the topic ban; so I was arguing his position for him, until this ridiculous socking stuff started, and I concluded it was hopeless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He created another one today, which was very short-lived. Once someone is banned and on the radar, action is swift. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If anyone knows me, they know for a fact that I will give people a lot of benefit of the doubt, but this is just too far... — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Make that TWO today. He's reduced himself to just jerking us around. He could be the poster boy for "how to turn your friends into your enemies", as several who opposed the block have now said, "Ban him." The only thing I can figure is that he's young and hasn't figured out his own head yet. That can take time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you a possibly provocative question. You're in the Air Force. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think it's safe to say that an apparently would-be military guy like Axman would not last long in the real military. The U.S. armed forces contain quite a diverse group of people, and anyone coming in with a white male supremacist attitude, especially as extreme as his seems to be, would either have to hide it very well, or would quickly find himself back in civvies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't assume any more of him then he's shown; he's probably a 14-year old who's still waiting for puberty to hit so be can grow a moustache. HalfShadow 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, his behavior the last 2 days suggests that, but I've known immature people in their 50s and 60s, so you never know. Ironically, facial hair is frowned upon the military (except maybe the Navy), although actually having some to be shaved off is probably considered a plus (on the men's side of it, anyway). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Axmann would last well in the military or not. Quite frankly, we don't care about your politcal views/motivations (as long as they don't advocate overthrowing the government). What we do care about are actions and racist behavior isn't tolerated...period! He wouldn't find himself back in civies, but possibly facing a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to Fort Leavenworth for an extended stay for a violation of Article 134 under the UCMJ: "Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline."

As for facial hair, we're just finishing Moustache March and a lot of guys grow their out (some say emulating General Robin Olds...now that's a stache!!!), so it isn't as frowned upon as long as you are within regs. Apparently, if you are the leading ace in Vietnam, they bend the rules a little (and I think the rules were a little different then), but I think that would be well within "commander's discretion" to stetch them, if he so desired. Additionally, some guys grow "combat moustaches" when they deploy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

UT Page for the Friar Society

Several months ago, you offered to help me create a page for the Friar Society at The University of Texas. I have finally tried to create the page again. Would you mind telling me what you think whenever you get a chance? Thanks for all your help. I hope this one stays up.--AndrewSolomon (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)