User talk:Johntex/Talk21

Wow

You're from San Diego! me too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.21.81 (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to school project pages

Thanks

Hi Johntex..

Thank you for being our mentor. We do not have a subject to talk about for our final project, we would appreciate a lot if you give us some ideas about what we would talk about. Other thing is that we have to make a stub, the topic of the stub can be the same of the article for the final project...it would be great if you help us choosing our stub topic. We also want you to see our articles in order not have so much mistakes. We trust in you.See you later

Project

Hi Johntex..

Thank you for being our mentor. We do not have a subject to talk about for our final project, we would appreciate a lot if you give us some ideas about what we would talk about. Other thing is that we have to make a stub, the topic of the stub can be the same of the article for the final project...it would be great if you help us choosing our stub topic. We also want you to see our articles in order not have so much mistakes. We trust in you.See you later —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenpoket (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm hitting a brick wall

BQ, ThreeE,

Greetings to you both! Welcome to my talk page. Would you like a nice cup of tea?. Johntex\^talk 01:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you felt a need to delete my comments. My intent was to say I'm gonna go take a little break and to let you know why I am frustrated. There was never an intent to compare ThreeE to a pig, though in retrospect I could see the possible interpretation, but to tell you how I feel about the futility of this argument. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a brighter note, my edit count is WAY up for the month... — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't stay away while changes were being made that bad-mouthed/diminished the FTAB with nothing to back them up. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Is it mostly from the new references? — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThreeE has vandalized my user pages and accused me of plagiarism. I have been as nice as possible throughout this ordeal, but I am sick of this and I think it is now time to bring in the big guns. How do I go about requesting arbitration? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This notice was placed at the top of the pages in question...which he ignored. Kind of a moot point since he's been blocked for 36 hours. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Uhuru

Thank you for your comments, and for your well reasoned argument. I am aware that you have been both an editor and an admin for significantly longer than I have.

This article receved four delete comments, one rather dubious nomination, and no support at all for keep. I did not close early - the AfD was up for the full five days.

It seems to me that for me to go back and change my decision, which would leave a situation of 4/5 comments for delete, none for keep, result=keep, would look strange. You are personally able to restore the article and re-submit to AfD, or alternatively you are able to submit my deletion to WP:DRV. You may well be right on the merits of the article, but I decided on consensus; could I ask you to take either one of the two options I suggest? I shall play no part in discussion in either event. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. As I said, I have absolutely no problem with a re-listed AfD. It would be appropriate for me to take no part in it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Well done on getting 2005 Texas Longhorns through to FA! 4u1e 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life is funny...

And if you'd told me I'd vote to support an article about the Longhorns winning the National Championship, I'd have said you were nuts! We must be getting mellower the longer we are out of school. Karanacs 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too... — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting versus comment

Your comment on voting versus commentary is valid -- and in fact I agree -- but the use of redaction sets a bad precedent. ThreeE 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To BQ and ThreeE

Concerning editing someone else's user page, one relevant guideline is WP:USER which states:

As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:...Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others...In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests.

Therefore, if BQ does not want ThreeE to edit BQ's user pages, I think BQ should politely ask ThreeE not to edit them, at which time ThreeE should respect those wishes. Johntex\^talk 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Forgot to let you know here: I implicitly noted that on both pages and have explicitly requested it on his user page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big XII South seemed to do just fine, it's the Big XII North that is bringing the conference down...no...don't say it is so...a Longhorn and an Aggie in agreement?!? What's next? A Tech grad? — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning (ThreeE)

Hello, Johntex. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning ThreeE's conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by "ThreeE" in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE, where I would appreciate your participation and comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

Howdy, Johntex. Just wanted to let you know that I'm using this article as a guide for the article I'm writing. Your article is by far, in my opinion, the best 2007 college football team article. By the way, are you still looking for a ticket to the A&M game? I haven't forgotten — I'm still on the lookout for one. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 yardline, second deck, only $500/ticket. Support Aggie Athletics!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor and check this out

I think ThreeE may be working around his removed block by posting as an IP. Can you check to see if this is the same person? — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ThreeE. -- RG ² 15:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I am wrong, I am wrong. Additionally, ThreeE seems to have violated the terms of his unblock, but not in any serious way. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for backing me up on talk:John Kerry. There is now a subsection about the incident on John Kerry's article. Hopefully the University of Florida Taser incident article won't get deleted though. If you haven't already, you might want to go vote for keeping the article (or deleting it, but I hope you don't vote delete, lol) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident. Connör ^(talk) 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you voted keep. You made some great points there too. Connör ^(talk) 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you're correct about how it is awkward with just one sentence in a section. If you looked back through the thread you can see that I felt the same way, and was guessing that the section would get longer over time. Connör ^(talk) 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could really use some friendly advice

(ThreeE, Please stay out of his discussion) Despite ThreeE's claim he will stay off the talk page for one week, he, and others, have ramped up their attacks. He has refused mediation and will not back off his insistence that nothing coming out of A&M is reliable. I am at a loss as to what to do. I'm not going to back off and let him trash a perfectly good article & organization. His repeated comments that everything I've typed is no more than a lie is close to being malicious. RfC seems to be going nowhere because no one outside the discussion seems to have commented. I feel there are no more options than to go to RfA. If there is another alternative, then I'd like to hear it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus Bowl

Hello, I've followed the affairs of the Citrus Bowl quite closesly, and I'm quite certian that the most recent major concert was in 1997....someone has since put in another that happened in 2003, but I don't seem to recall that. I do not know why Florida Citrus Sports (who runs the stadium) does not chose to host concerts anymore, but if I can find out, I'll add it to the article. Thanks Doctorindy 13:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

Thanks for not leaving me out there swinging in the wind...at least not by myself... — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said my part and I'm going to refrain from posting there for 12 hours, unless answering a question directly posed to me. If inclusion is determined to be appropriate, then it is a matter of semantics as to where it should be placed. If it is the opposite, then there needs to be a complete rewrite. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell the book will be pulled as a reliable reference, I'm just trying to present an NPOV attitude. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and clarified something on the talk page, breaking my 12-hour commitment, but was only for purposes of clarification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonfire

Good add! BTW, if you have time (and I know I'm taking up WAY too much of it) can you give your two cents on which version of the lead you prefer: #1 or #2. You can just reply here and I'll check back later. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff: diff between the two — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, thanks. Of the 2 versions, I much prefer this version because:

I see no reason to introduce the explanation of "t.u." prior to it actually being used in the quote.
The sentence already talks about the students and the community, so I think it is pretty clear who is using the nickname.

I think we might even go further though, because the quote could possibly use some more explanation. It is unusual to have a quote in the lead section, and when this makes the Main Page I could see it causing another shit storm. I suggest, something more like:

Aggie Bonfire was a long-standing tradition at Texas A&M University as part of the college rivalry with the University of Texas at Austin.[1][2] For ninety years, Texas A&M students built and burned a bonfire on campus each fall. Known to the Aggie community as "Bonfire" the construction was a major event each autumn. According to the Bonfire slogan, the fire symbolized Aggie students' "burning desire to beat the hell outta t.u.". Aggie students and alumni use "t.u." a derogatory nickname for the University of Texas.

That may not be exactly the right phraseology, but my general idea is that the quote itself needs a bit more explanation.

I see that the quote is referenced to this book and of course I don't have that book. (Where have we heard that before?) Therefore, it is hard for me to suggest the exact wording that would stay true to the source.

While we are on the source, isn't it problematic to refer to a broad page range within the book? My understanding is that each reference to a printed reference must cite the actual page number. I'm sorry if that makes you cringe. I hope you are not sorry you asked for my input! Johntex\^talk 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never sorry to receive honest, well-reasoned input. Yes, it can be problematic. This was brought up in the FA review and the consensus (with one dissent) was that the page numbers weren't necessary and would only add to the complexity of the article. That said, I will be happy to add those page numbers in the future...but let's get through this first. If the consensus at the RfC is that this source can't be used, then it would be a complete waste of time.

Something else that might be acceptable is to send the article to an FA review...though I know a few people over there and I'm not sure I would wish this kind of "debate" on them.

On a related note, it appears ThreeE is following me around changing things I change, including the above referenced item and the t.u.. disambiguation page...again, something agreed upon by everyone involved in the FA candidacy. Despite a note to reference the talk page, ThreeE bypassed it and went ahead and just deleted it. This is bordering on harassment, IMHO. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is well-established as the motivation behind bonfire and what it symbolizes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

BQZip01 puts out over 30 messages to people on their personal talk pages and you say nothing. I put one question up on the UT talk page and you accuse me of canvassing and trolling? I used to think you were reasonable. ThreeE 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCOTW

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected.
Hope you can help…

JFW | T@lk 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to do

<sigh> You wanna take a crack at it? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philmont task force issues

How the task force going? I found something that needs addressed. On the TF page, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Philmont_Scout_Ranch_task_force, it says use two userboxes. One is in UBX namespace and one in template name space. We prefer to keep them all in our space per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Userboxes#Userboxes. The UBX box on people who've been to Philmont is not in our space and the other one, on ROCS, is duplicated in our space. Can you/your TF take care of this? Let me know here is there are issues. Tks. Rlevse 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these edits correct: [1] ? They look like low level vandalism to me. Did you get to the boxes yet?Rlevse 18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gundy

Thanks, Johntex. I just want to make sure the content is fair. This item is currently not realistically covered. I will read up on the source siting part and continue. I welcome and appreciate your input.

zoomis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.31.41 (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm here

for the duration of the work it takes to save the Marshall article. Could you please rework the refs into an updated system so it'll be easier to add more. Also, since you have already established a dialogue with the concerned users, could you please set some sort of deadline other than the end of the month. I don't live in Marshall anymore so my access to primary hardcopy sources is not as easy as it once was. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I should be able to start on the references tomorrow, and I'll see if I can get us more time. If they proceed with delisting, we can always re-nominate. I am sure we can either keep it FA or get it back there. Now that I've had a couple of FA successes, I think it is manageable. Johntex\^talk 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I've changed my mind after reviewing Gordon Griffith. That article is the most comprehensive biography ever written on Griffith; I had to look at census records to flesh it out that much. No matter how much work is done, people will Wikipedia will always change its standards to fit whatever arbitrary standard the dominant clique of the day has only to change it when they fall from influence. I've seen it happen many times before, and I don't want to have to work on something that will only be looked down on in a few months. I mean the Marshall article is outdated, but it is the oldest surviving city article and was used as a model for years. I just don't want to keep being dragged back in to save an article because arbitrary and subjective standards keep changing. The article will always be important in terms of Wikipedia's historiography even if most Wikipedians are ignorant of it. Anyway, Gordon Griffith is my best work; there is nothing like it anywhere else and it isn't even good enough to be a Good article. I wish you the best, but I pass on being drawn back into Wikipedia's games. In fact, since everything I worked on is now worthless, I think I'll pass with being associated with Wikipedia at all. Good luck. -Jay —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

johntex

You're a complete tool. It's obvious you're biased against OSU, since you're a UT alumnus. What qualifies you to add or subtract information from Mike Gundy's page anyway? Like you really know or care about anything he does. The page is completely slanted against him. You've spent no time looking for objectivity in your sources, rather only adding that which degrades Gundy. You've also not represented the fact that most people in the nation who even have an opinion on the subject of his postgame media conference are obviously behind Gundy. The only one's sticking up for Carlson are the tools in the media. Why can't you look for sources that support Gundy? Why can't you spend the time verifying the facts that support him? The only facts you have added or wish to verify are those which are irrelevant, or are obviously biased against Gundy. You've given no thought to objectivity whatsoever. You're no better Jenni Carlson, or any of the other sports "writer" hacks out there supporting her.

Oh, and how about you spell Reid's name correctly? If you're going to even pretend like you know what's going on, you can at least do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okstateguy987 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Fran

Howdy Johntex. Hope you are doing fine. I have typed up a rough draft about the Fran controversies here. This is to be added to the 2007 A&M season article. Mechanical errors (spelling/grammar mistakes) aside, what do you think is missing or needs to be added? Does anything not belong? Thanks in advance. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested

As a contributor to a related subject, I'd like your input at Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football#Discussion on All-time Lists. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croton Dam (Michigan)

Thanks for the GA nom, which I missed. Imagine my surprise to learn it passed just now. Much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:The Masked Rider of the Texas Tech Red Raiders.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:The Masked Rider of the Texas Tech Red Raiders.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. →Wordbuilder 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007

Project News

The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.

Member News

Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members

From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue

Psychless (talk · contribs)
Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)

Complete To Do List

Write an article
Expand an article about:

Improve an article by:

Review an article

Romano Volta •

Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle •

Answer requests for comments
Work on the Portal

Portal:Biography

Assess an article

Assessment Progress

Biography articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Core	Other	???	Total
FA	35	1,633		1,668
FL		203		203
A	1	132		133
GA	41	8,357		8,398
B	97	39,325		39,422
C	32	167,901		167,933
Start	2	759,840		759,842
Stub	1	1,035,412	1	1,035,414
List		8,013		8,013
Category	2	343,103		343,105
Disambig		8,160		8,160
File		31,712		31,712
Project		231		231
Redirect	3	45,098		45,101
Template		20,629		20,629
NA		543		543
Assessed	214	2,470,292	1	2,470,507
Unassessed		24,692		24,692
Total	214	2,494,984	1	2,495,199
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 10,818,629			Ω = 5.37

We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

WikiProject Oklahoma Newsletter October 07

The WikiOkie Reporter

WikiProject Oklahoma's Newsletter
Issue 2 - October 2007

Edit this newsletter
Discuss this newsletter

Your second or third stop for WikiProject Oklahoma News

Modest boost in assessed articles during September

WikiProject Oklahoma's massive list of unassessed articles got smaller over the month of September, as 45 articles were assessed by bots and editors. Assessments made on August 31 bring the total to 62 assessed articles over the 31-day period. On September 15, BetacommandBot assessed 40 articles from no-class to stub and start class. This bot automatically updates the talk pages of articles included in more than one WikiProject if at least one WikiProject has already assessed the material, bringing each interested WikiProject's ratings into compliance with the assessment. No B-class or higher quality assessments were given out over September, and only a small handful of importance assessments were granted. On August 31, one Low, Mid, and High importance rating was given to three separate articles. Leroy McGuirk was given the lone high-importance rating.

Oklahoma categories receive help from Texan

TexasAndroid, an administrator, assisted WikiProject Oklahoma by categorizing nearly 100 Oklahoma-related pages on September 24. The additions were made mainly to Tulsa-related pages. "I've done the major cities in Texas in the past, and was thinking about what to do next, and decided to stay relatively close to home for now. Thus OK's big cities got done," TexasAndroid wrote on his user page.

Shortcut

WP:TULSA

Meet WikiProject Oklahoma's "sub-project"

Taskforce Tulsa, a collaboration of editors operating under WikiProject Oklahoma, has been created to increase the scope of Wikipedia's coverage of Tulsa and its surrounding areas. Taskforce Tulsa is many things, but most importantly, it is a way for editors to have a place to put Tulsa-related requests (pictures, article, expansion, collaboration) for other editors interested in Tulsa. News, guidelines, and category trees related to Tulsa articles can easily be accessed and added through the task force's project page. The taskforce is not its own WikiProject. Instead, it works in conjunction with WikiProject Oklahoma to increase the quality and scope of Tulsa-related material. Because of the increased clutter and unnecessary waste of space that would be created with a new WikiProject, editors have opted for a taskforce, or workgroup project. Rather than having a Wikiproject Oklahoma banner as well as a Wikiproject Tulsa banner on most Tulsa-related pages, editors can simply add the Tulsa Taskforce note onto the existing Wikiproject Oklahoma banner. Cleaner, clearer, and more efficient. In edit mode, such a banner would appear as this: "{{WikiProject Oklahoma|class=FA|importance=Top|tulsa-task-force=yes}}". In other words, simply adding "tulsa-task-force=yes}}" to the existing Wikiproject Oklahoma banner on an article's talk page would include that article into the Tulsa Task Force. According to an explanation on the taskforce's project page, "The Tulsa Task Force is a 'sub-wikiproject' operating 'beneath' Wikiproject Oklahoma, and is designed to assist it by focusing specifically on Tulsa-related material. Editors who are interested in expanding knowledge of Tulsa on Wikipedia may wish to consider themselves part of Taskforce Tulsa as well as Wikiproject Oklahoma." Interested parties can sign up much like a stand-alone WikiProject.

This month's task: Get out of your routine. Make some edits! • Edit next month's newsletter

The WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter is a work in progress so please share your ideas about how the newsletter can be improved.
If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the sign-up list.

This newsletter was delivered to you by Okiefromokla. This is a one-time delivery as to all Wikiproject Oklahoma members to boost interest in the newsletter. In the future, if you would like to receive this newsletter in your talk page, please insert your name in the sign-up list. Thanks!

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Scout from Poland :)

Hi!

I think you are a scout :) Me too I am from Poland, and I have a task from my scout group I have to find a scout from USA or England, and talk with him about somethink:)

I hope you help me :)

My e-mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omiec (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 11 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article College football's ten most victorious programs, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

I need to point out that WP:MOS is a guideline that must flex with the local consensus as those editors deem appropriate. The consensus was to use the word "claim", in keeping with the view of the overwhelming majority of the reliable sources about the topic. Nonetheless, I took a bit of incentive and changed the first use (as a noun) to "assertion" for now. But I'm only one view on the issue, which was discussed very extensively on the talk page. ... Kenosis 15:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex, edit warring against consensus on a FA when it's on the front page is a really bad idea. You're surely aware of WP:3RR. Don't be a dick, and discuss your concerns on the talk page. .. dave souza, talk 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Intelligent design. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Raymond Arritt 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per agreement not to edit page on user's talk page. Request handled by: —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your long history of productive editing, I would be willing to recommend an unblock if you were agreeable to not editing intelligent design for the rest of the day while it is the mainpage FA. Will you agree to this? Newyorkbrad 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree not to edit the article for the rest of the day. I had already stopped editing the article in order to avoid any violations of WP:3RR. Again, I did NOT violate 3RR. The blocking admin made a mistake in not carefully looking at my edits. Johntex\^talk 16:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex, I don't have a position about the "claim/belief/assertion/whatever" issue. But you should be aware that Intelligent design is an article guarded by the most zealous ID-haters who have managed (with the help of like-minded admins) to hold on to controlling the article and use mob rule to remove vigorous dissenters. The article is somewhat less biased than it used to be (after much spilled blood, when the very lead sentence of the article betrayed a naked POV) but the defenders of the anti-ID POV in the article are no less biased than they used to be.

Being an admin, you are a little safer than the past victims. One of these victims was a tenacious NPOV warrior whom was done away with by the ID-haters who presently own the article.

Tread carefully, and good luck. 207.190.198.130 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tad hyperbolic, don't you think? So who are you really? What was your nick? Jim62sch 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing positive to gain from identifying myself (since the good faith assumed has been shown later to have been misplaced). But, in fact, there is not a sentence of hyperbole in what I said above. Everything is true and can be supported factually, but not without spilling more blood. 207.190.198.130 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is probably a tad hyperbolic. But my brief experience with the article makes clear that several editors are more interested in using the article to state their own conclusions about ID than to actually follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Johntex\^talk 14:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my experience, too. They are partisans that are using Wikipedia to promote their worldview, but the article is much better than it used to be. At least it doesn't open with [2] or [3]. 207.190.198.130 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Longhorns football

Hi Johntex, hope you are doing okay. I was thinking about adding a table similar to this one at Texas Longhorns football. I added the Aggie table here. What do you say? Where could it be added on the article? BlueAg09 (Talk) 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best bowl history table I’ve seen so far is this one. We can add the sort option on to that version and the table would look great. I haven’t seen a template for bowl history yet - perhaps we should create one so that it can be used on all college football articles.

As for combining final rankings with bowl results into one table – what about seasons when teams played in a bowl but dropped out of the rankings? BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait...meant the other way around: not going to a bowl but getting ranked at the end. Is that even possible? BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would not mess the table up. I'm sure such occasions were rare. So what do you say about creating a template? BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean something like this when I say template. If we create a template, other articles could use the same table too, right? BlueAg09 (Talk) 15:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I have not problem with the creation of a template like this. However, I would have to see the end product before I use it. Such a template would have the potential of being extremely long. I would like the option of shrinking it down so I could put it on the right side of the article with text on the left. Take a look at what I did here. Maybe, not that small - but somewhere in between normal and that. If you need assistance, of course I would be glad to help when I can.↔NMajdan•talk 16:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could always just create a template for the header row. In there you can set the columns you want and the background color and whether or not you want the smaller text and cell size. It saves the editor from having to know semi-intricate CSS code. Then, after the template call, they can just use normal wikitable format. This saves the template creator from having to create a template that produces code that is actually simpler just to type out. And it would save the editor time in not having to get the correct template syntax. We haven't used this approach on any of our other CFB template, but its just an idea. If you haven't already, get MECU's input if he is available.↔NMajdan•talk 18:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfires

Excellent work sourcing the Socal wildfires page. Keep up the hard work. — Ocatecir ^T 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PUT THAT BACK !

I was trying to straighten that out concerning the California wildfires. Arsonists have been found setting those fires. 65.173.104.140 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't shout, and don't try to order anyone around, as you just did on my Talk page. We don't expect all contributions to be formatted, but if you have no idea how to edit a page with proper formatting and flow, then please practice on a less visible page. We already say that authorities believe one fire was caused by arson. The LA Times report about one suspect being killed and another arrested is in there as well.

If you need help formatting your contributions, you can post them to the article talk page and more experienced editor will help you. Shouting at people and ordering them to "PUT THAT BACK" will get you nowhere, except banned. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 05:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I'm new at this. 65.173.104.140 05:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. Don't worry about it, it is OK. We were all new once. And we all get testy sometimes when someone removes / changes our wording and we don't understand why or we don't agree with the change. That never goes away completely but it does get better!

We do need more info on the arson angle, you are right about that. I am too tired to work on it right now; I'm going to bed.

I really do think it is a good idea to practice a bit here on your talk page. Then, if you think it is ready, you can past it into the article. Or, if you want to get a second set of eyes or any formatting help, you can post your suggested wording and/or references to the Article's Talk page. Someone will definitely take a closer look at them, I'm sure. We have several very good, experienced editors working on the page so it will get done, eventually. ;-) Johntex\^talk 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology, with fair objection

I realize that it was off topic. I am not a new editor and am aware of the rules regarding talk pages I assure you. But some would agree that professionalism only goes so far before we worry for the people involved in making this project happen.We are people, nonetheless, but i retain my professional manner.. I did just now get your message on my talk page, I thank you for your quick action and the manner in which it was done is commendable. --Amaraiel 14:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baja California/Los Pancakes

We can give you some information about what you are asking for. It would be a pleasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenpoket (talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BEVO Origin

I think you should edit the bevo page to include this link http://www.utexas.edu/tours/nowthen/20/17.html

This is conclusive evidence that the 13-0 orgin is correct. AND who in their right mind would name their mascot BEVO unless it was to cover something up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.32.87.87 (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing conclusive about that at all. Note that the picture (which we already have on our article), still shows 13-0. If you got to all the trouble to change 13-0 into Bevo, you don't photograph what you are covering up, you photograph your own handiwork. Johntex\^talk 11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroterrorism is not a Neologism

People have been writing books on the topic of Pyroterrorism. Its hardly a neologism.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a756697208~db=all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosjo (talk • contribs) 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 28th - You suggested adding a description of Pyroterrorism to the topics of Arson and Terrorism. Have you looked at how ridiculously long of an article Terrorism is? The headings that Pyroterrorism would have to be added to include:

Types of terrorism.
Domestic terrorism.
Tactics
Responses
Mass Media Coverage
History
Further Reading

Granted, pyroterrorism is a relatively new phenomenon (I've only seen the word's use during the last 10 years) and there's even been discussions about whether it should spelled pyroterrorism or pyro-terrorism, but rewriting the Arson / Terrorism sections is a huge task and there would undoubtedly be controversy as people take the topic of terrorism very seriously and any edits in that area would cause undue problems.

A simpler approach I feel would be to make Pyroterrorism its own page and include a link from Arson and Terrorism (and Unconventional warfare) rather than stirring up a hornet's nest of problems.

I believe the Pyroterrorism topic was created back in August. No one had a problem with it then as a topic. The only problem seems to be the result of the recent events in California.

My feeling is that Pyroterrorism should be a stub and expanded upon as more data on the topic becomes available.

2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game‎

I just want to say, very nice job on this article. I had been wondering if it should have it's own article, but I myself am far from a great author of articles, and so I knew I could never do it justice. You certainly have done so. Good job. - TexasAndroid 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted it to DYK. This is my first DYK submission ever, so please check it over and give eval/alternate wordings. - TexasAndroid 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On November 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done John, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johntex\^talk 16:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, I left a note on the TU-Millsaps game talk page as to why I can't agree with a longest play heading. I'm sorry, but I just think its still too misleading and confusing, something that just cannot exsist on Wikipedia IMHO. Can we please resolve this arguement soon, though? And I'm sorry if I'm taking a hard stance here. Dknights411 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Brown

Hello, Johntex. I'm not sure if you have seen them, but I have created better head coach records on Mack Brown's article here and here. They can use some tweaking though. Hope you like them! BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can add this somewhere? BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl FAC

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for reviewing the FAC for the 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl. I think I've addressed most of your concerns, and I'd appreciate it if you could take a another swing through the article and the candidate page. JKBrooks85 17:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I threw up a discussion starter in the College Football Wikiproject talk page. Drop by and take a look at what I've written. Please correct it if I've misrepresented your position in any way — I don't like laying out an opponent's position (there's too much chance of trouble) — so please let me know what I got wrong. JKBrooks85 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is up for FAC again... I'm waiting on the results of that AfD to replace the template, but I'd appreciate it if you could take a swing byFeatured Article Review for the 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl and leave comments or support. You were definitely a big help during the last round, but unfortunately it didn't go through because not enough people supported it. I'm hoping to change that this time around, and hopefully that AfD will wrap up soon so I can insert the brand new single-game college football infobox. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabasco flood

Hi Johntex, thank you for your message and for initiated the article in english, with much taste will deal to help with, nevertheless my english is not very good to write, but I can read and translate the Spanish well, but it will try to do something, mainly with the references, if you have any doubt on them with much taste I help you, greetings! --Battroid 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Good to see it made the front page! There seems to be a lot of good information on the Spanish article, too. The writing's a bit dense for a direct translation, but I'll see if I can pull some odd facts over into the English. Regards, Aille 12:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: 2007 Navy vs. Notre Dame football game

On 10 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2007 Navy vs. Notre Dame football game, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 08:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for letting me know that 2007 Navy vs. Notre Dame football game made the main page on DYK. Best, Johntex\^talk 15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, Johntex. That was an interesting game. Thank you for the article. --PFHLai 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice references box

I like the references box you added to the 2007 article. I'm going to add the same code to some articles that have numerous references :) BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can win that debate. Why isn't the external links section placed before the references section anyway? According to WP:EL, the links should be placed at the "end" of the article. However, the references section at the end would be better, as readers wouldn't have to navigate through the lengthy references section to reach the external links. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

I think we should include in the A&M notes how the 2005 Texas team played their worst that season at Kyle Field (according to this). BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did indeed. I almost asked you to make sure to include that info but you were definitely on top of that. I wonder if the Big 12 is going to do something about it - it is against the rules to make comments like that. BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I would love to read your analysis as to which coach A&M will likely get. The current candidates are Tommy Tuberville, Steve Spurrier, Art Briles, Bo Pelini, Will Muschamp, and Jeff Tedford. I'm sure Craig Bohl and Chris Petersen are on that long list too. As you may have noticed, I have been improving these coaches articles instead of expanding the 2007 A&M season article. I'll admit that the A&M football experience hasn't been too pleasant during my past three years here. It's actually been "frantastic". A&M's AD Bill Byrne has been teasing us by stating that he will evaluate Fran after the season. Hopefully that will be directly after the Texas game, which I don't think A&M has a good shot at winning. I'll admit that 12-7 was a fluke. I think Jamaal Charles will probably end up rushing for 8 touchdowns or so. BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm looking forward to this guy play. :D BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 A&M vs. Texas game

Hello, Johntex. I hope you reached safely from your trip and had a nice Thanksgiving. Have you watched the game on TiVo yet? I went to the game and took these pictures. They are not the best, but you can use them on the articles - you might need to crop/enhance some of them. Anyhow, that was one hell of a game, despite the freezing weather. I was really surprised by the outcome - did anyone ever think it would end that way? I'm glad that the football UT/A&M rivalry is finally back. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna make a friendly bet (copied from the archives)

Loser of the A&M-t.u. game puts some sort of banner (of the winner's choice) on their user page for 3 weeks (banner must be school-related)? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love your idea and I accept! It is a fair bet at this point given UT's higher rating, but also UT's lackluster performance in the opener, the fact that you won last year, and the fact that the game is in the home of the 12th man.

I propose the loser should be forced to make the banner. That will be all the more painful and I trust that if you lose that you will not skimp out in your efforts.

I have to let you know something about timing though. Although it pains me to be out of the country during any part of football season, I have decided to take an international vacation over Thanksgiving. I will be avoiding any sort of media coverage of US sports until I come back and watch the game off Tivo. Therefore, I suggest a modification of the timing. I suggest that the banner run from first bowl game of the season to the last bowl game of the season. Johntex\^talk 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

timing and length of posting: accepted!

picture: why not just have the team logo in the largest possible size on their user page plus text that the winner gets to write (it'll simplify the coding a little and reduce the workload). If the winner comes up with some picture, this could also be substituted? Deal? <extends hand for a gentlemanly handshake> — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that is fine with me. I think the loser should be able to write a note saying why they have done this horrible thing to themselves.

Looking at our bowl game article it looks like December 20 2007 – January 8 2008 would be the effective range. (Note the use of the "ndash"!)

Also, I propose the loser has to remove the "talk" links from his signature so as to drive more people to see the humiliation.

Deal? <extends hand for a gentlemanly handshake> Johntex\^talk 03:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deal...with the following caveat, but I see no need to alter the signatures...why not just have to post it on both of them?!? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life is good... — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to know the score, DON'T click this link!!! This should be a picture used in our bet and should be prominently displayed. More. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, several longhorn articles are in the top 1000 lengthiest articles including one in the top 100...

And you guys think Aggies won't shut up...

Just kidding around, but I find it interesting that no distinction is made between prose and references in article length. It seems to me that, with standard naming conventions, it would be easy to filter out prose length. Thoughts?

I am SO looking forward to the bowl season... — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		message thanks for helping out my students! You made a lasting impression on them! Thelmadatter (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh

To BlueAg, BQ, and Aggies everywhere:

What a rough day I've had. 24 hours traveling home and then that debacle waiting for me on my Tivo.

Unlike some "experts", I suspected that A&M stood a good chance of winning that game, but that doesn't make the defeat go down any easier. How bad is it to be out-coached by a guy who is being chased out of town? Pretty sad.

I'd like to think it bodes well for the UT/A&M rivalry, but it would really be better if A&M was at least ranked if they are going to beat us like that.

Oh well, I suppose I will recover eventually. As previously agreed with BQ, I'll be ready to deface my user and talk pages over the bowl season as a result of loosing the bet. Enjoy your victory and good luck with your new coach. Johntex\^talk 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Our two institutions are great rivals, but more importantly, great friends who have the highest amount of respect for each other." Quote made by the announcer of the University of Texas Band the week of the bonfire collapse. Gig em! Hook em! Oldag07 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader up for deletion

Wanted to give you a heads-up that someone submitted the template we were discussing a while back for deletion. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history 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 01:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Scouts

All the rest aside for a moment, even those in support of the other two cats, agreed that the fictional one should be listified. It was, and so it should be deleted. - jc37 10:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Eagle Scouts

This is just to inform the closer of the CfD and DRV on the Eagle Scout catgegories that per a discussion at ScoutingWikiProject, there is a unanimous decision to get rid of this category, so I've just removed it from the articles therein and deleted the category. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category Deletion Syndrome?

Johntex, I was pointed to the Eagle Scout category because of some similarities to the Erdos Number category controversy (which got deleted finally, despite always overwhelming consensus to keep, not merely lack of consensus to delete). It seems that consensus is working in the Eagle Scout case, and despite a deletion contrary to consensus (as with us) the deletion was sucessfully reverted in the DRV (in contrast to our situation). So first, congradualations :-)

Some of us are trying to figure out the syndrome, why is it that some very constructive editors go to such extremes to delete categories? What is it about categories that upset them? Unfortunately the Erdos Number situation spreads over many CfD, two DRV, a couple AN/I, it's rough. Zillions of lines were written about it. So I don't know where to point you, even if you wanted to help us. I'm slowly compiling stuff for a RfA at Case re: Erdos, perhaps you'd care to look at that. If you do take any interest please drop me a note. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by IP Address 74.94.36.245

All of the edits from 74.94.36.245 appear to be vanadlism. Can this IP be blocked? Jfwambaugh (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 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) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you take a look?

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]