User talk:Wordbuilder/Archive 3

Tucumcari

Thanks for exploring the weatherbox information issue more: I'd not noticed that it was tagged when it was added. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. When I get a chance, I'm going to try to verify the info and re-add the box with a citation. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cap

"Regarding the image, let me explain my comments. First, I think it is incorrect to place images to the left of section headers, but I could be wrong on that point. You've moved it left, so it's moot now. As far as permission to use, the "all rights NOT reserved" appears on a page of text. It does not appear on the page with the image. Finally, the caption is POV since it is an opinion rather than a fact. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)"

"Regarding the image, let me explain my comments."

Thanks. I appreciate that you have gone to the effort to do so. They were a bit unclear; your clarification has been useful. As it happens, it seems that, largely, I agree with you.

"First, I think it is incorrect to place images to the left of section headers, but I could be wrong on that point. You've moved it left right, so it's moot now."

And you may be right correct. In any case, it didn't look "right" "correct" on the left side, so I moved it.
(I didn't realise that you were referring to left/right. In fact, I don't think I really knew just what it was you were referring to. So your explanation is useful.)

"As far as permission to use, the "all rights NOT reserved" appears on a page of text. It does not appear on the page with the image."

True. However, nothing about copyright appears on any page on that website except the "all rights NOT reserved" statement on that text page. I'm afraid I don't know what to draw from that.

"Finally, the caption is POV since it is an opinion rather than a fact."

Hmmmm. Strictly, you are quite correct. However, POV is not always a bad thing in WP.
(Have you read WP:POV? I'm not sure what I think about what it says, but it certainly broadened my POV!)

So, where does that leave us? Or more relevant, where do we go from here? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Thanks for the reply. The edit summary sometimes makes it difficult to convey my motivations, so I was happy to explain. The image didn't fall under the criteria for speedy deletion and you've already repositioned it. My understanding is that copyright is automatically granted by virtue of having created a work. So, if I take a picture and post it on my website, no one has the right to use it even if I do not specifically claim copyright. In this case, it's a little less clear with "all rights NOT reserved" thrown into the mix. The image could be listed at WP:PUI to get consensus on whether it should stay or go. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"

Another "Hmmmmm". So let's see if I've got this right.
I'm saying: The picture on http://mafaism.com/_wsn/page5.html is public domain because the only mention of copyright is on http://mafaism.com/_wsn/page2.html where it says it's public domain.
You're saying: Copyright is automatically granted by virtue of having created a work, so no mention of copyright does NOT change that situation, and there is no mention on page5. QED. Yes, there is a mention on page2, but it is somewhat ambiguous whether it applies beyond that page.
Yes?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Correct, that is the way I see it. Another option besides WP:PUI is WP:MCQ. We might be able to get some guidance there. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"

OK. Thanks. Well, it's past bed-time here. Until later, Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my talk page and addressing those related issues. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Anyway, pandora's box has been opened. He can't change that. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We didn't come to a final decision on the image. I'm going to nominate it for WP:PUI review, but wanted to give you a heads up first. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we didn't did we. Thanks for keeping me in the loop, most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I re-read that and decided it was bereft of information. Well, I think you know I'd prefer it stayed. But really, I think that might be because it amuses and entertains me, (and there seems to be a lot of people around on WP at the moment who are neither amusing nor entertaining.) So I'll leave it in your capable hands and sit back and watch, but I do hope the result is "keep" - WP is becoming far too serious, and the "fun" level seems to be reducing. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons

I don't understand how to use "Commons". Is this a step down after downloading or before downloading? I've seen the instructions, but I did not catch on.Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Message

Hello Users-Babakath,Mcmillian,Pdfpdf and others. My name is Divine. I amazed that a lot of people are taking interest about my father and myself. I welcome the interest but I hope you guys delete the excessive discussions, talks, and any assumptions. We leave a very productive and quiet life and would like to have no web presence whatsoever, unless its a cause for the poor and the needy. I spoke to my father and he feels the same way. I have no knowledge on how to do wiki pages and want to delete our profiles, discussions, talks etc..., on all the communications related to us. I never authorized the creation of the wiki pages, and my father feels the same way. I really appreaciate what everyone is trying to do. We want to stay private from the internet at this point in time. Is this ok with you? Thanks, Divine

You may not deleted discussions and article in the manner you did. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I have any rights from being discussed without my consent? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fumblingfoe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you have the right to not be discussed, as long as what is being said isn't libelous. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the material created on my page if not all is not accurate. Can younhelp delete my profiles and my fathers profile. Its all gabage. Thanks, Divine (Fumblingfoe (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Fumblingfoe (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Plese see WP:AFD for information on how to nominate an article for deletion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, do not delete material from my talk page. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you nominate my profile for delition, speedly. Everything on it is false. I could not do it.Divine MafaThanks Fumblingfoe (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Babakathy has already started the deletion process. In all honesty, I'm neutral on the subject. My only concerne was with an image placed in baseball cap. However, I do maintain that the proper process should be followed when you want information changed or removed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Write-ups

Hey, sorry for falling behind on the write-ups. I have a couple of tests this week, but after I finish them, I'll try and do a write-up for the SMU and UMass games if no one does it before me. If you find any time between now and then, the DMN, LA-J, ESPN, and sometimes the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has good write-ups on them. ESPN also has drive-by-drive summaries on the game which are really helpful.--Almosthonest06 (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've been pretty busy, too. If I have a chance, I'll work on it. Between the two of us, we'll get it done. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Neill Armstrong.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Neill Armstrong.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. [remained or notice snipped by Wordbuilder] —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Colt McCoy under GA review

Hi there, I see that you are a primary contributor to the article Colt McCoy. This article has come under review for Good article reassessment as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified which are listed on the talk page. Please begin to address these points in the next seven days or the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

band priority

Hey WB, I think the goin' band should be rated 'high' priority rather than 'top'. As it is now, the band is rated in importance beside only the universities and the 'red raiders athletics umbrella page'. I certainly don't think the band page should rate higher in importance than things such as the football team or the individual colleges.--Elred (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

image OTRS

Hey. Do you know what the status of this image is? I just cleaned it up and it's a nice shot, but it's been 'pending' for quite a while now.--Elred (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

images on history of College football

Thanks for your work on Wikipedia. I am still learning,

I noted that you re-sized some images that I worked on and referenced the MOS, which I have not yet fully learned. The MOS says:

"The pixel size parameter may be omitted; this will result in default image width of 180px (140px for portrait format), although this value can be altered in user preferences. If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified."

To me, pics do not display saisfactorily if the reader can't make out the details of the pic. For instance, on Robinson, the text in the original pic cannot be seen when the image is the default size. Other times, I altered the size when the image was not understandable in the default size, i.e., the subjects (the players) couldn't me made out.

A question: is a Wikipedia page to be arranged so as to be read -- like a book -- without the user choosing images to be examined individually? Or is such user action anticipated?

I note that Wikipedia produces a printable version. Using the default size of images on the subject article results in pictures so small on the printable version as to not be very useful. —unsigned comment from Ruedetocqueville (talk · contribs)

The way I understand the MOS is, images should be left at their default size unless one of the follow applies:

• Images with extreme aspect ratios
• Detailed maps, diagrams or charts
• Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
• Lead images ([normally set to 300px])

With that in mind, I think the answer to your question is that it is expected that readers will click on images that they wish to view in more detail. For instance, the image directly above your post here is of a large area and no details can be determined at its default size. I would have to set it at a prohibitively large size in an article to remedy that. So, the only other choice is for the reader to click on it and see the larger size and click again to see the full size.

But, I'm not the final say. You may want to solicit feedback on the talk page of the article or on one of the community forums.

I appreciate your questions and your contributions to Wikipedia. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I guess I interpret:

If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified...

in the MOS to be more a true recommendation than a rule. I would like the printable version to be useful to the user, so I spent some time resizing to get the printed-version image just big enough to be understandable.

As you suggest, I will seek out others' opinions as I continue to learn more. Thanks again. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Italics

I've responded to your question on my talk page. Brianreading (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

An ad?

Regarding my Glenna Goodacre comment, that wasn't an ad.

For what it's worth, I am not and never have been in the realtor business or in anything connected to that business. I do like that particular kind of architecture and occasionally look at that site and other similar sites that feature homes built with that architectural style.

I stumbled across the information about her house up for sale. The pictures on the site included quite a bit of statuary on the grounds that I assume was her work and that people might be intereted in seeing.

So I mentioned the site where it appeared for those who might be interested in seeing her house and the statuary in case others thought that it might be worth putting into the main page.

65.68.190.251 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for misconstruing it as an ad. Still, the talk pages on Wikipedia must be limited to discussion on how to improve the article. General discussion about the subject of an article outside of that purpose is not permitted. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all the help on the Texas A&M page. Lots of continuous vandalism being reverted by a small cadre makes it easy to keep "clean"

As much as it pains me to say it, congratulations on the win. I'm not sure I approve of Leach driving up the score, but it was a win in any case and, until they institute a playoff system, those things are going to happen...

...don't get me wrong, Tceh still sucks and all...

-)

Gig 'em. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem on watching after the pages. Glad to help.

Thanks for the congrats. Can't say I wasn't worried for the entire first half. As far as "running up the score" goes, you and I obviously disagree on the issue. The way I see it, it wasn't up to our offense to keep us from scoring; it was up to your defense. If it was the other way around, I would feel the same way. Playoffs or not, as long as there are awards (e.g., the Heisman), then the statistics will matter.

Oh, those in glass houses should not throw stones. {:o)

Wreck 'em! →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Another reason not to throw stones. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A guy breaks away for a 35 yard rush TD isn't the same as calling a timeout and running one more play, and you know it. Nice try though :-).

As for the fans that had the blanket backwards, they aren't our official representatives. They're still idiots no matter how you look at it though... — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Running a play is running a play. The QB could have taken a knee as there was less time on the clock than when Harrell took it in for a TD and the difference in points was much greater.

You do realize the deal with the flags was more likely a matter of getting them mixed up while they were furled than it is about an inability to spell, right? Funny, yes, but why create another Aggie tradition because of it? →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to get under your skin :-) and to be silly at the same time using a rival school as a punchline (up front honesty there!).

At least our school isn't facing these kinds of problems. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have is that Leach said he did it just to run up the score and didn't care about the classiness of it all. Had he done it fo the polls, I could have understood it. But just to be an ass...just one more reason I don't like him (mind you, most of the football team are a bunch of classy folks...the coach is smart when it comes to football, but a moron with a penchant for doing the wrong thing when it comes to sportsmanship). — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, anyone can have an off day or more. Anyway, we could keep up this good-natured sniping for some time, but I'll just leave it at good luck on the rest of your season. {:o) →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Texas Peer Review

Texas just got promoted to GA, is now on a FA run, and it would be nice to have all the input we can get in our peer review. Thanks for the help. Oldag07 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Format for years

Thanks for the info -- I just corrected the mistake. I'll keep this in mind next time :) BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008 Texas Tech vs. Texas Football Game

Concerning the portion of the article you removed from the Football section. You said that it was already in the football section, it's not, and I can't even find the reference which you 'moved'. Can you please review your changes? Bladezor (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The passage about the game is in the article that is specific to football (Texas Tech Red Raiders football). The general athletics' article (Texas Tech Red Raiders), for the most part, gives a broad overview of the various programs (basketball, baseball, football, etc.) without going into the details of the specific games. The football article and the season article (2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team) cover the specifics, as do Texas Tech Red Raiders basketball and Texas Tech Red Raiders baseball for those sports. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Noticed this section and had to respond even though I have nothing to say about the article. That was a FANTASTIC game (my husband described the game as "really, really good playground football" :)). I laughed and cheered my way through all but about 1 min and 20-odd seconds. As hard as it is to say, I'd love to see Tech in the national championship game - it would not only drive Texas nuts to see you take "their" spot, it would probably boggle much of the college football world that has yet to see y'all play. Karanacs (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, Karen. I know it must be tough for you to cheer for Tech. I'd love to see Tech win the National Championship. I think it could happen if our defense could hold up for the entire game the way they did in the first half of that one. Good luck on the rest of the season and especially the rivalry game against Texas. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

a nice way

I couldn't think of a 'nice way' to do it either, but I didn't really try to think of one. When I read that I almost screamed.  :) --Elred (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

old admin shot

let's just not put it in the commons.--Elred (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Texas Tech Red Raiders football teams (2000 to 2005)

Hey, regarding this article, do you think we should take off the "Schedule" subsections unless that particular season has some sort of extra information? Also, should we start linking this to some of the other football articles under "See also" or should we just wait until there is more substance to the article? --Almosthonest06 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You just want to take out ===Schedule===? I agree. I copied the setup and didn't even pay attention to how choppy it makes the TOC. It's ready to be linked now. I don't plan to add any write-ups in the near future. At this point, it would be difficult to do a game-by-game write-up like the newest articles and doing a write-up for the entire season would likely just be repeating what the tables already show.

Thanks for your help with the article. I just could not find the season results for 2000. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, doing a game-by-game is essentially out of the question. But maybe a season synopsis or a stint about the bowl game if it doesn't already have an article is more along the lines of what I was thinking of. Then maybe a Schedule section would be more appropriate. Great work on the article already, I was thinking about starting a similar one but didn't know where to start. --Almosthonest06 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. A few paragraphs on the season and bowl game with make it more like an article than the list it is now. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lindsborg

You know I disagreed with previous edits, but with this I don't disagree at all :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you and I always bump heads once or twice before we get to an agreeable outcome. Cheers! →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article review

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

LAF as user of Minimi

Hello, You have undone my modification in which i included Lebanon as an operator for the FN Minimi Have a look at these photos

1. Photo one
2. Photo two

Please when you see the source and find them okay, undo you chages Thank you --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 21:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you are referring to. Please provide me with the link to my edit. Thank you. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Have a look here

Thanks --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 08:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your message was intended for Koalorka (talk · contribs). There was a problem with the leave a message link on that talk page that caused messages to appear on my talk page. I have fixed that problem and copied your message for the intended recipient. →Wordbuilder (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OOPS LOL :P Sorry for not noticing, and thank you..:)--Zaher1988 · ^Talk 10:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hey. Do you have the ability to change birth dates and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBrown1045 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the dates in articles? If so, any editor should be able to change them if there is a valid reason (i.e. no date present or date given is incorrect). →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok because there is a problem with Dana Plato's birth date. I've been working on a biography about her life for over a year now and can confirm it is wrong. I remember you from deleting my Ritchie Valens addition before so I thought I'd ask if you could help. : ) JBrown1045 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if there is a problem with Plato's DOB, you can change it. Be sure to include a source and include an edit summary. I deleted the information from Valens because it was copied word-for-word from another source. This is a copyright violation. Also, the bulk of the information did not relate specifically to Valens. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: <br />

Thanks for that, but that happens as part of the script I use, not manually. I could individually revoke each of those line break edits, but it would be too much work and it doesn't change anything other than in the edit window. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC) If you want to reply, leave a message on my talk. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

According to User:Gary King: "The forward slash is needed. For HTML, it used to be optional, but for XHTML, it's strongly recommended that it be used so that it works with as many browsers as possible. " Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary replied on my talk. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

hat & whip

Thanks for the "heads-up". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:19, 5 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) 03:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Help, please.

There's a puzzle at talk:hydrino theory that could benefit from your local NM knowledge. A rather unorthodox company called BlackLight Power Inc has, over the past two months, circulated a large number of press releases regarding contracts for demonstration-scale electrical production projects with Roosevelt County Rural Electric and with Farmer's Electric Co-op. We're trying to find some evidence as to whether these operators have even acknowledged awareness of these contracts that isn't based on a BLPI press release. Could you check into the local resources? Any assistance appreciated.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bullfighting

Are you seriously suggesting an arena where half a ton of bull with horns meets a man in a cotton suit, in Western Europe. doesn't have an infirmary? Not one of those statements is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.18.31 (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything aside from Wikipedia rules and guidelines should be followed when adding material to an article. The claims must be cited. Readers should not be expected to take your word for what is and is not true. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not added anything. I prevented someone removing something that was already there. The claim that bullrings have infirmaries is as obvious as the claim that they existent entities extended in space and time. If you want the history, you can cite everyone of these, save Mithras and Barcelona, from Death And Money In the Afternoon. You can cite Lonely Planet for Barcelona claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.18.31 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That editor had a right to remove what s/he did. Not only were the claims uncited, they had also been challenge using the {{fact}} tag. It is not incumbent upon me to add the needed citations. Those should be included by editors who add the claims or by editors who wish to preserve the claims. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

new article

I saw your new article on Timothy Cole. A very sad story. Chergles (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A definite tragedy and gross miscarriage of justice. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:06, 6 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) 02:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tim Cole

(Moved to main user page.)

University of New Mexico revision

There seems to be a revision of content I added to the University of New Mexico. The notes I see refer to "(→Alumni: Cleanup.)"

The content was relocated and link removed. Could you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneeno (talk • contribs) 19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The item you added still appears in the list. However, it is now alphabetized as it should be. You originally put it at the top of the list. When it was moved to its proper place, you deleted the entry above it. When that entry was put back, you moved it to the bottom so your addition would again appear at the top. This is not acceptable. Further, your method of linking is not correct. To link to a Wikipedia article, use the following syntax: [[article name]]. Finally, the amount of information you included is too much. Only the person's main accomplishment(s) should be highlighted. If the reader wants to know more, s/he can click the link to read the full article on the subject. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Revised - Thank you

1. The content I added uses 133 Characters and 22 words. 80% of the white space. On the Same page: "Eliot A. Jardines, BA, Political Science & Latin American Studies; Assistant Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Open source intelligence 2005-present" The above content contained two links, 139 Characters and 21 Words.

2. The list was and is not "now alphabetized as it should be". see below.

1. Edward Abbey
2. John Willard Baker,
3. Preston Dennard,
4. Rudolfo Anaya,
5. Warren J. Baker,
6. Hank Baskett,
7. Andrew Boyens, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneeno (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I think the list was right at one time. It's hard to keep in order when additions are sometimes made out of order. It should be correct now. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

{{TexasTech-stub}}

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Potts

I am not asking this in a mean spirited way, but on what grounds is a back-up quarterback in college football notable? WP:ATHLETE clearly states notability comes from either:

• People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport (not in the NFL)
• People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships. (has competed at the highest level in a limited capacity)

Potts has only seen the field in less than 40% of games during his tenure at Tech, zero as a starter as far as my research says, and while I have no doubt that he will someday be notable, right now I do not think he is. My question is if he quit the team to get a job as a physical therapist today, and never played another down of college football, would he be notable? And if so, how many other backup qbs need to have articles? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 04:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what you say here. However, unless something changes between now and then, Potts has been selected to be the next starting quarterback. His being starting quarterback elect, so to speak, is why I feel he is notable. If something changes and he does not end up starting, I would support deletion without hesitation. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Like I said, I have no problem seeing future notability, as he is qb-elect, and to delete the page now only to remake it when the season starts would be pointless. I just would recommend other users not to create pages for every backup on the team unless he is named or projected future starter, which is the case here. Hopefully he wrecks that community college in Austin! Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree. I would hate to see Wikipedia cluttered with articles on second-stringers. Tech beating UT two years in a row would be awesome. I'm not hopeful, though, with McCoy returning and the Red Raiders losing starters like Harrell and Crabtree. Maybe year after next... →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

TAMU template

I didn't see that discussion. Thanks for bringing it up. I have sadly already spend an hour or so putting the stub template on well over a hundred tamu stub pages. oh well. did you want me to weigh in on the discussion page? Wikipedia. . . for those of you lost fans, the island keeps on me calling me back. . . Oldag07 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You can weigh in if you like. I don't want my contact with you to be perceived as polling, though, since some editors feel that any related contact is. I just wanted to give you a heads-up that something similar may be headed your way. Maybe with the UT/tu template, the Tech template, and the TAMU template, there will be less of a chance for deletion. As it stands now, there is definitely no consensus in the conversation. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a compromise solution. . . . It will take some work though. Oldag07 (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to hold back on comenting there until other editors weigh in. If there is resistence, I anticipate it will be from those in the UT project. As you can see, they're passionate about their stub template. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert my technical edit??

Wordbuilder, Why did you revert the edition there[1] ? please answer in my talk page Ierrotpre (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The page you linked-to requires payment to read the entire article. This is in contrast with WP:EL. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry!!Ierrotpre (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. There are a lot of things to learn about Wikipedia. If you ever need help, let me know. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Soapsuds' ass

1. The whole thing is plagiarized from the website.
2. The whole thing is wrong with regards to the direction it is facing and the direction it's ass isn't facing (and I'll be happy to show you if you don't believe me).

— BQZip01 — ^talk 17:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on the article's talk page. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

2008-09 Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball team

Hey. I made a stupid mistake and forgot to put a dash in the name instead of a hyphen. Would it be best to just go ahead and move the article replacing the hyphen with a dash? I used hyphens throughout the article, but I can change those easily. Almosthonest06 (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would move the article. It will automatically create a redirect from the current location to the new one. The easiest way to use the correct dash in this instance is to copy and paste it from another location, like here: –. If you have any trouble moving it, let me know and I'll give you a hand. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. I have another question though. When should I used dashes instead of hyphens? Almosthonest06 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

En dashes are almost always used. Em dashes (slightly longer) are used to break up a sentence (such as "During one game—the first of the 1936 season—the quarterback..."). Hyphen are used to join words (such as "The eighty-six-year-old institution..."). →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Marching band uniforms

I added a little bit to uniforms about the Oregon marching band uniforms. I am a current member of the group, and I thought it would be an interesting thing to mention that our uniforms are pretty crazy compared to most other bands, adding to the point that uniforms vary vastly between different groups in terms of design and style. Someone had removed my edit, so I reversed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.108.40 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with your edit. First, it's uncited. Information on Wikipedia must be drawn from reliable third-party sources. Second, in whose estimation is the band reputed for their uniforms? This sounds more like opinion than fact. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Thomas

As the originator of the above now-deleted article who just noticed the deletion, I am curious about something you wrote in the AfD. What did you mean by "Claims regarding crime disputed."? Also, I'm a bit confused as to how you were assisting a user with no editing history whatsoever. I will tell you up front that I'm less than satisfied with the outcome of the AfD (2 deletes and less than 5 days listed), but I'm thinking of just leaving it as it is for now -- if the topic is important enough to the world, somebody else will concern themselves with it. By the way, thanks for making the effort to leave me a message. Too bad I was busy concerning myself with other things in March. Erechtheus (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I, too, was surprised at how swiftly the article was deleted after the beginning of the AfD process. Only two votes hardly constitutes something like WP:Snowball. The user I assisted shows no edit history because all of his edits were to the Bart Thomas article and its talk page. When the article was deleted, the associated edits disappeared from his contribution history. I assisted him in listing it because I initially pointed him to WP:IfD instead of WP:AfD and was fixing my misguidance. Even though I initially supported deletion on the article's talk page, I had not yet given my opinion in the AfD discussion because I was having second thoughts and was anxious to read other's opinions on the matter. Hederjoe (talk · contribs) disputed that there were any conditions attached to dropping the charges against Thomas. He said that the newspaper had misreported. I would consider this WP:OR but did note it since I was assisting him. It is unfortunate that the process went too quickly for you to weigh in. I had not expected that. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation of your note. I know DRV exists and have previously used it, but I think what leads me to not make a big deal of this is the apparent lack of progress for this article in a year. From what I can tell, it didn't change at all until whatever edits Hederjoe made. That suggests to me the article is kind of marginal anyway. Erechtheus (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Texas Tech on main page?

Hey, did Tech ever appear on the main page or did I miss it? I just thought of it because Florida Atlantic University was featured on there today. If it hasn't, is there a particular reason for it not having appeared yet? Almosthonest06 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Tech article has not been on the main page. Here is the process for getting it there. I have not delved into it, but the article will have a better chance of being on the main page if there is a current tie in (e.g., anniversary of founding). Getting it on there soon after FAU article may be tough. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all articles go through TFA/R - I don't think Florida Atlantic did. Raul654 also randomly schedules articles. I'm not sure what personal criteria he uses. If you guys want to request a specific date, I'd advise waiting until football season - if the team is as good as they were last year you'll probably get a lot of support for featuring the article on Saturday. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Karanacs. While I hope the team does as well as last year, I have my doubts with new players in key positions (e.g., replacing Harrell and Crabtree). Either way, we can keep our eyes open for a good date if it does not get randomly promoted in the meantime. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Tech actually plays UT September 19, the third week of the season. That would probably be the best time to request it if we were to wait for football season. We all know what happened last year between the two. It would be impractical to expect the things out of this year's team as last year's, but I still expect some good stuff to happen. You never know. Almosthonest06 (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

SMU Mustangs issue

Re: this edit, I wasn't the one who made that edit, but the article in question is Death penalty (NCAA). --Kevin W. 19:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Zorro popular culture

The youtube link was added to prove the sentence. I thought you could use youtube if the link would be long lasting. can you suggest an alternative? Maybe using the reference links REVUpminster (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument against YouTube links is the possibility that they violate copyright and, by extension, the GFDL concept on which Wikipedia is built. However, I could be wrong. If you find that I am, let me know and revert my change. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

File:AmarilloDusters.png

Hi, I've restored the image as you requested in order for Fair Use Rationale to be added in the next two days. Best, – Toon^(talk) 00:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I restored the licensing and FUR information which were included with the image prior to its deletion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

TTU fb uni

i'll start messing around with one.--Elred (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: MarkRomero

Please see here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not emailed, I was referring to Tip's response, which is viewable in the linked diff. Mark is not to be trusted, but V is, as far as I can tell. Also, Mark was recently blocked indef for racist comments and disruptive editing, so you shouldn't have to worry about him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding image deletion

It would be appropriate to nominate the image for deletion. -Nv8200p talk 00:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Colgate University

Hey. I saw that you're involved in the University WikiProject, and I was wondering if you could lend a hand for a minute. I've started a conversation on Talk:Colgate University/Archive 1#Acknowledgments to discuss the issue. Basically, this editor went through and added a bunch of info on rankings and comparisons to other schools, which I think is inappropriate. If you get a chance, could you leave your thoughts on this? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Colgate Acknowledgments

Wordbuilder,

As a high school student currently involved in the college-search process, I can assure you that these types of metrics and comparisons are one of the only ways to navigate through the labyrinth of information. That is exactly what these lists are for. I get very frustrated when I cannot find specific enough information or find information that is not put in context pertaining to the college search. Just saying it scored an "82" means nothing without some frame of reference. I find it completely appropriate and impartial to list two very well-known and recognizable institutions such as Georgetown and Brown to make the information more complete. If you disagree, I suggest we remove the "score" all together. -MNCeeG (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bigger than the college-search process. The university articles here are supposed to be informative but avoid boosterism. They are intended to provide non-partial information and not intended to be recruitment pages for individual schools. Again, I would like to see other editors weigh in to get a good consensus on the issue. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced additions to Types of gestures

I have already reverted this addition to Types of gestures once, but the contributor who added it seems to feel that it is an improvement. (Note that the 'fact' tag predates the addition, and refers to the entire paragraph.) I don't want to start an edit war; your input would be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Types of gestures

Then you should remove everything that has a "fact" tag next to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Eventually everything with a "fact" tag will be either sourced or removed. The process should be gradual in order to give editors time to cite claims for which a source can be found. The portion that you are intent on keeping sounds much more like WP:OR than other items in the article. "Hey, Homer does that. I think I'll put it on Wikipedia." I doubt that a reliable, third-party source can be found to back up the claim. However, if you find one, please add it along with the Homer sentence. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll supply that, soon after you supply the reliable source defining the face-palm gesture. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Take this to the article's talk page. I cannot conceive why an editor would fight to preserve something that is admittedly original research. If you can get consensus to preserve such non-sense, then I will drop the issue. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "fighting" very hard. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing one item without a citation and disallowing another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not hypocrisy. I voted to have the whole article deleted. Unfortunately, the consensus was to keep it. I know that if I go in there and cut out all the uncited junk, those who voted to keep it will have a fit. So, I have to work at it gradually. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like we agree, then. I'm thinking I should delete the uncited section on the alleged face-palm gesture, for starters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's uncited and already tagged. I'll support the deletion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Texas Tech

See. I told you we could agree on something! :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It seemed a bit iffy there for a bit, though. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

editing survey

Hi Wordbuilder. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Pampa

There is a Dyer's Bar-B-Que in Pampa, I think it should be in the article! > Best O Fortuna (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being serious or facetious. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I try be funny. I left Billy Hathorn a message on his talk page. Later. Go SOONERS! > Best O Fortuna (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was tongue-in-cheek but it's hard to tell on the Internet. I hadn't seen your message to Billy Hathorn before. Reading it now, though, I fully agree. Oh, and WRECK 'EM, TECH! →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hays Field

Hello! I would like to add Hays Field and List of baseball parks in San Antonio, Texas back into the main category,Baseball venues in Texas, to be left alone. It is a pet project I am working on inclusive of all Texas baseball parks past, present, and future. I will have more on the way. Please forgive my ignorance about the Texas Panhandle, but I am from SC. Thank you. --Bjrbbhaw81 (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's your pet project, does not mean that you get to set aside proper categorization (see WP:OWN). Let's take Hays Field for instance. The specific category is Baseball venues in West Texas, which is a child category of Baseball venues in Texas. There is absolutely no reason to add this type of article to the parent category when it is in the child category. For more informaton, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Duplicate categorization rule. The example given there applies here, "For example, Angers Bridge is not placed directly into Category:Bridges, because it belongs to the non-distinguished (systematic) subcategory Category:Bridges in France." →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of McAlister, New Mexico

The article McAlister, New Mexico has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article text appears to be about a different community to the title

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

One word does make a lot of difference when it's the name of the community. Error fixed. PROD removed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Texas Museums

Thank you for the feedback. I was using the list of cities in the regions as defined by the official Texas Tourism site at [2]. The Wiki listings often overlap, so I used the tourism guide. I will try to add the region definitions as used by the tourism site to the list of regions of Texas. Jllm06 (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move of Types of gestures

You may be interested in this discussion: Talk:Types of gestures#Move. See also Talk:List of gestures/Archive 1#Move. Cnilep (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Response

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

Double T

Appears to be back in business. Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I've been dealing with the same issue on the UCLA logo. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Per your request Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_September_13#File:UCLA_Bruins_Logo.png (see related discussions on the image talk page). — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Check my contributions, but many of the same players are getting involved again in several different venues. Involved logos include Villanova, Miami, A&M, UCLA, etc. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

decorative use of logos

The use of fair use logos in infoboxes as you restored is inappropriate. Yes, the logos are discussed, and it is appropriate to have them in the sections where they are discussed. Repeating them in the infobox is unnecessary and decorative use, failing WP:NFCC #8 and failing #10c of the same policy, as no rationale exists for displaying each image twice in the same article. Please do not restore these logos to the infobox as doing so violates policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since these were in place during the FA process and no one had an issue with them, I would like to see discussion on this before they are removed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• An article gaining FA status does not make immune from edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but you deciding something doesn't mean you can unilaterally make disputed changes without engaging in discussion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur Wordbuilder. Hammersoft if you have an idea about how to implement a new policy or standard, I'm more than happy to help this page conform to it once you achieve consensus amongst wiki project university contributors. ...but going in and starting a revision war on a FA isn't exactly the most constructive way to start. --Elred (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've already noted the policy these images violate. I'd also like to point out that enforcing our non-free content policy is a specifically stated exemption to our WP:3RR policy. I'm not stating that as a threat, but to show how important this is. If you want to debate whether the logos usage in the infoboxes violates WP:NFCC #8, it's a thin argument. But, there's certainly no wiggle room regarding its failure of #10c. No rationale exists for this use, and as such they must be removed until there is one. Regardless, I think it highly likely the logos will remain off for failing #8 as decorative use. Including them further down in the article where there is discussion of them is fine. In the infobox, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!/Condolences :-)

Texas A&M will be featured on the main page of Wikipedia on 30 September! Thanks for all your hard work!

I would appreciate your assistance with keeping the article clean from vandalism. If you choose to help with that endeavor, you should know a few things.

I've had experience on with three articles I was involved in featured on the main page, so I'd like to pass along some "lessons learned". First, this article will be the most visible article on Wikipedia for 24 hours starting at about 7 PM on the night of the 29th. It will attract vandals; given that it is football season, it will likely attract some of those comments as well. If they are simple vandalism, just revert it, paste a notice on their user/IP talk page, and leave it alone. If it continues and it is clearly vandalism from the same source, I stongly advise you to not re-engage with them. Simply report it (see below) and an administrator will fix it. Understand and be knowledgeable about WP:3RR (the only block I have ever received was for a violation of this), so don't get caught in this trap. Second, admins will likely not protect the article during its stead on the main page as it is supposed to be a prime example of what Wikipedia has to offer (both good and bad). Third, encourage engagement by people on the talk page to discuss issues with the article.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for repeated re-adding of material Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for repeated vandalism Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard for general problems. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for incidents.

Gig 'em! — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:MCCCommons1.JPG

File:MCCCommons1.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:MCCCommons1.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:MCCCommons1.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:MCCCommons2.JPG is now available as Commons:File:MCCCommons2.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:BaylorBand.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BaylorBand.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Aspects (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

PD Logo debate

As per your request about being informed about deletion of PD-text logos, there is a debate here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#West Virginia logo. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Aggie Bonfire for TFA

I was reading through the Aggie Bonfire talk page archives to see if there would be anyone in there interested putting Aggie Bonfire up for request as a featured article on the 10-year anniversary. If you are interested, I'm trying to build a bit of a coalition before the time for nominations opens up: User:BQZip01/TFA request; add your signature if interested. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Image use policy clarification

If you have the time I'd like your input on my proposed clarification of WP:Image use policy concerning fair-use/copyright versus public-domain/trademark image use. The proposal is contained here. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Texas Tech History subsections proposal

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

Public ivy

Just wanted to explain why I undid your UNDO so it doesn't turn into an UNDO war. CU-Boulder is cited twice in the "Public Ivy" article and at least 6 other colleges that are listed in the same manner as CU-Boulder (Michigan State, Washington, Penn State, UConn, Iowa, Florida) claim the "Public Ivy" thing in their intro paragraph in almost the exact same manner as I did (and most of those schools are just mentioned once in the article). I don't mean to insult you, but unless you are going to go into all of the other schools pages I mentioned above and erase it there as well then it appears that you are just vandalizing the page of a rival Big 12 school. Please leave it, it is absolutely a "supported claim" and fits with what other "Public Ivy" institutions have on their Wikipedia page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.56.29 (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but it was unneeded. When I saw your summary for the edit where you undid my reversion, your argument made sense so I was going to let your edit stand. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kliff Kingsbury

Why discuss it? It's out of place in the article, it's clutter, it's not notable, it's not a common theme in articles about players to put in their statistics for every single game. Wikipedia is not a news source, it's an encyclopedia. Just because YOU like Texas Tech (as evidenced by your edit history) doesn't mean that you decide what goes in articles and what doesn't. Peyton Manning doesn't even have his game by game statistics, nor do any other players i've looked through. Removing again, and will continue to remove it. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Further, why don't YOU discuss your reasoning behind breaking precedent established in other articles, and including this in only his article. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is a clear case of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. What's your problem that you can't discuss this on the article's talk page before removing it? It seems you're more interested in getting your way than in creating consensus. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, my argument is a clear case of wikipedia not being a collection of useless facts, or a news source. What is YOUR issue that you can't discuss this on the article talk page? You're the only person who has ever reinserted the information after any editor has removed it, and you always say 'discuss it first,' yet you NEVER discuss it. You're clearly interested in only getting your way, and your biased editing (your trend towards editing Texas Tech related articles) is clouding your judgment. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You're the one wanting to remove it; you're the one who should discuss it. Why should I be responsible to try to get consensus for your edits? →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally posting a discussion to the article's talk page. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lubbock History

I do have some of the articles from old AJs, there is some in the SouthWest Collection and there are some 16mm film reels of my grandfather's in Lubbock that prove some of my past statements, as well as a published book. Are you in the Lubbock area where I can direct you to the location of several items in regards to Lubbock History, including historic markers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrix2 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm a ways away from Lubbock. You can cite the AJ articles and the book in the article. The film reels, if they're "home movies", are considered WP:OR and cannot be used. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject

Hi, I've noticed you've been involved in editing Big 12 related articles. I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondered if you'd like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12, if you are interested and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1939 La Ventana.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1939 La Ventana.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion: Facepalm

You may be interested in this discussion. The current gist of the discussion appears to be trending toward addition of unsourced material to Types of gestures. Cnilep (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Types of gestures

An article that you have been involved in editing, Types of gestures , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Natalie Maines

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Natalie Maines/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! Wreck 'em Tech! NThomas (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

University of Texas at Dallas

Wordbuilder! I haven't talked to you for a while. Hoping all is well for you. Currently I am attending UTD for grad school type stuff. I haven't been as active on WP as I would like. I have done some work cleaning up the University of Texas at Dallas, and I have nominated it for a peer review. Considering your considerable experience with TAMU and Texas Tech pages, any suggestions would help. Thanks and gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Oldag07. I will take a look at the page and give you my thoughts. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wordbuilder, I think the University of Texas at Dallas page has improved since your last look. If you have some time can you take another look and see if it is on the right track. Stan9999 (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture for List of Texas Tech University alumni

I really like how List of University of Central Florida alumni and List of University of Florida people have pictures in their leads of the alumni association builings. I've looked on the commons and Flickr but I couldn't find a free use picture of the Merket Alumni Center or Frazier Alumni Pavilion. Can you help me find a picture for List of Texas Tech University alumni's lead of one or both buildings? NThomas (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I sent a message to O'Jay Barbee. He provided us with many of the campus pictures you see in articles and on Commons. I'll let you know what he says. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! NThomas (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't heard back from him. So, I don't know if this means he's looking through his images for what we need or he can't/won't help. I'll shoot him another message if I don't hear back soon. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to eavesdrop, it just so happens that your talk page is still on my watchlist. I live right next to the Tech Campus, and would be happy to take any pictures that that you or NThomas need. Just let me know what you need pictures of. —Voltin ^(T|C) 00:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Voltin. I have you in my watchlist as well. Right now, NThomas (talk · contribs) is needing pictures of the Merket Alumni Center and/or Frazier Alumni Pavilion. He can let you know if there are others. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I will see about getting a camera from the university library and taking pictures this weekend, maybe sooner if time (and equipment allows.) —Voltin ^(T|C) 16:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I received a response from O'Jay: "Let me see what I have. I need to take some of the Frazier Alumni Pavilion. Can you wait on the Merket Center. They should have the courtyard and gazebo done sometime this summer. It is really going to dress the place up." So, with his images and Voltin's, we should have several from which to pick. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'm betting Merket will still be under construction by the time I nominate the alumni list for at FLC. When the expansion on Merket is finished I'll be out in Lubbock and can take it in August. Having a picture of both would be great but Frazier Pavilion alone will be fine by the time nominations roll around. Thanks again everybody! NThomas (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have taken some photos of the Frazier Alumni Pavilion on the campus. However, the Merket Alumni Center is currently under some pretty extensive renovation so I wasn't able to get a good picture of it. As soon as it is complete I will go take some photos of it. I have uploaded a set of retouched photos to the commons and a a un-retouched set to Flickr. If we want to use a photo from the un-retouched set let me know and I will retouch it up in Photoshop and upload it in high quality to the commons. I am planning on going back on campus tomorrow, so if you would like any other angles or photos of any other buildings let me know. —Voltin ^(T|C) 03:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Karen. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

Hola: Estoy siendo amedrentado por el usuario chico512. Quien es intrancigente y mando a bloquear mi cuenta por quitar una ficha sin sentido, que fue colocado por chico512.Por el cual pido que sea bloqueado por atacarme persistentemente, borrando mis comtribuciones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalexd (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your message found it's way to me. If you feel you are being harassed, please refer to Wikipedia:Harassment regarding what action you can take. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

University of Texas at Dallas copy-editing help

Hi Wordbuilder, The University of Texas at Dallas article is in need of copy-editing help. Any assistance you might have time to provide would be greatly appreciated.Stan9999 (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wordbuilder. You have new messages at Nolelover's talk page.
Message added 20:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nolelover 20:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Want to see Tech on the main page?

Thought you might be interested in this [3]... In case you don't follow WP:TFAR, there is now a method to nominate an article for the main page without specifying a date; Raul cycles through these pretty quickly. This time of year might be a good time to give Tech some visibility if you or your cohorts want to nominate it. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on my calculations the article would get 3 maybe 4 points, they are: Promoted between one and two years ago, Subject underrepresented at WP:FA (Education), A similar article has not been featured on the main page within three months of requested date (last similar was Baltimore City College on June 1), lastly I am not sure if you have had an Today's FA but if not you can add one more point (I was not a significant contributor, so I wouldn't get the point). I have never submitted an article, so I don't know if this high enough or not.

With the date score we would be looking at a total of about 5 points. Another nice thing about submitting for a date is that I can let the Daily Toreador (and possibly the AJ) know that it is going to be featured and possibly get some press coverage of the article.

I am fine either way, I would just be happy to see our work being highlighted on the front page. —Voltin ^(T|C) 15:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be a three-point nomination, which should be fine for the non-specific date area. Anyone can nominate an article at TFA/R, but I thought it might be best coming from one of the nominators, who would know more what to put in the blurb. Feel free to bring this to the Texas Tech wikiproject.... Karanacs (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads up on Texas Tech Alumni Association article

GrapedApe (talk) has nominated Texas Tech Alumni Association for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Tech Alumni Association and is working to nominate other alumni associations for deletion as well. Considering the TTAA article is one of the more developed college alumni association articles (especially compared to Texas Exes), if the TTAA article is deleted, I don't see how any other alumni association pages will survive. Let's work to bring the TTAA article up to "standards" to prevent its deletion. NThomas (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As much as I would like to keep the article, I don't know that we have an argument at the moment. The best way to establish notability is to add references from reputable, third-party sources. Do you think there are any? →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In the book:

Rushing, Jane Gilmore (1975). Evolution of a University: Texas Tech's first fifty years. Austin, Texas: Madrona Press. p. 68. ISBN 0890520178. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

it goes into detail about how TTAA put pressure on the Board of Regents to keep the word "Tech" in the school's name and the state representative who introduced the bill that was approved by the board when applying for the name change instead of "State." According to that same book, the majority of students, faculty, and Lubbock's citizens favored Texas State over Texas Tech but it was the organization of the alumni by the TTAA that influenced the name change. Not only would the book be a reputable third-party source, it would highlight the organization's movement of a "major change at the university level," something brought up in the AFD nomination. Also, to satisfy the "multiple independent sources," another book:

Andrews, Ruth Horn (1956). The First Thirty Years: a History of Texas Technological College. Lubbock, Texas: The Texas Tech Press.

goes over the TTAA's history and organization. Perhaps adding this information into a history section would suffice? NThomas (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it will be enough to save it, but it's worth a try. Some editors get ideas and it's difficult or impossible to persuade them. Other editors, however, look at how things apply to Wikipedia guidelines. It's the latter group who will, hopefully, be influenced to vote to keep the article. After adding the material, mention it on the AfD page. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tim Cole.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tim Cole.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my Query about Scott Pelley -- I was correct to infer he "attended" Texas Tech (not graduated)

TO: Wordbuilder

I am quite interested about the ways that WIKIPEDIA is being monitored for false postings and for matters that don't seem to be checked as far as how important public figures leave out relevant data.

Thanks for replying to my discussion posting and I am not going to change anything in the WIKI "Scott Pelley" article itself.

With appreciation. Shalom from Timothyjshaw (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)timothyjshaw

Individual editors build Wikipedia and those editors also monitor Wikipedia to ensure inclusions are true and accurate. Because the threshold for inclusion is WP:Verify, if reputable news sources get the story wrong, that incorrect information will care over into the related articles here. This is the case with the claim that Scott Pelley graduated from Texas Tech. As you could see in the Google search results I linked to, a lot of news outlets called him a graduate. It was your astute examination that noticed the university itself never called him a graduate, but rather an alum, which is a term that can be applied to both graduates and to former students who did not complete their studies.

Wikipedia is much, much better than it once was. There was a time when editors could put non-sense in articles without challenge. However, as time has passed, serious editors have arisen who are quick to remove uncited, implausible claims and even challenge plausible claims that fail to cite a source. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Fight, Raiders, Fight for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fight, Raiders, Fight is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight, Raiders, Fight until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PGPirate 22:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Norman and Vi Petty.jpg

Restored, as requested. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you've

moved around the images at Riding Into the Sunset. I was thinking about going for a joke about a "horse's ass" - since it somewhat ties in with the placement of the statue, (which is riding out of the sunset, not into it) and since that is the view presented in the picture - but decided not to. My friends mostly know that i can not resist a good line but on wikipedia it is sometimes not appreciated. However, the focus of the article is about to change, since that casting of the statue is not the first one, despite what the article seems to suggest. Since the article is the name of the statue and not specific to the one at Texas Tech University I can feel a bit of a re-write coming on. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed, too, that humor is not always appreciated on Wikipedia. Once the article is rewritten to focus on the overall work of art, rather than the casting that is at TTU, it definitely makes sense to have as the lead image the one that doesn't highlight the horse's rear end. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Jim Angle

i notice you did not like my facebook link - not sure which 'article' you are referring to

only other link i found is from Linkedin

would that be better?

http://today.ttu.edu/2012/08/summer-commencement-to-include-more-than-1300-graduates/

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jim-angle/4/b10/b91 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RazorDog (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RazorDog (talk · contribs), I didn't see a citation and the article for Jim Angle mentions only the University of Texas at Austin. The LinkedIn entry does mention Tech, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable third party. Nevertheless, if you want to re-add Angle to the Tech alumni page and use LinkedIn as the citation, I won't challenge it, though someone else might. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BFeathers.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:BFeathers.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:JimCarlenTTU.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:JimCarlenTTU.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alex Reyes

The article Alex Reyes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Never played in the NFL. Fails notability guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 13:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not oppose deleting this article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KnightSchool.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KnightSchool.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bob Kurland.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bob Kurland.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Big Twelve Conference student newspaper navbox, etc.

Wordbuilder, Template:Big 12 Conference student newspaper navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Science City Jena logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Science City Jena logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Baylor University football scandal

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Baylor University football scandal, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/baylorbears/2016/10/20/baylor-sexual-assault-scandal-timeline-football-convictions-title-ix-investigation, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Baylor University football scandal and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Baylor University football scandal, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Baylor University football scandal. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Baylor University football scandal with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Baylor University football scandal saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

So, explain to me how this works. I've reviewed The Duplicate Detector report and, while there are some phrases that it might be possible to change, many of the matches are names or titles (e.g., "the pepper hamilton report," "briles and oakman," "the texas tribune," etc.) while others are direct quotes from people (e.g., "i was shocked by what he was saying he knew that i had a voice in the media and he was doing nothing but making baylor look guilty and he was validating for me that the football culture and that all the claims being made against them," "i understand i made some mistakes there was some bad things that went on under my watch i was the captain of this ship the captain of the ship goes down with it," "he's a great guy just in a bad situation we re not going to hold anything against him," etc.), and common phrases ("sentenced to six months in jail," "removed from a lawsuit," "federal lawsuit against baylor university," etc.). How do I remedy the problem? I have no desire to spend time rewriting only to have you deem it's not good enough and delete it again. —Wordbuilder (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a new copyvio detector tool, Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and using that tool shows a significant overlap: here is the copyvios report. Some of it is quotations, but a lot of it is not. Some of the detected overlap is simple phrases that don't need to be re-worded (" two counts of sexual assault", "former Baylor defensive lineman Shawn Oakman") but a lot of it is not, especially towards the bottom of the article. If you would like to begin working on a re-write, you may do so at this temporary page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look. What's the allowable threshold of overlap? These non-sentient tools are obviously incapable of recognizing a quote or allowing a common phrase to be duplicated. Assuming a human makes the final judgment and assuming that human is you or someone like you, where do you draw the line? —Wordbuilder (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Disregard my previous questions. I have reviewed the Earwig's Copyvio Detector report and removed as much of the red-flagged material as possible. As you can see all of the remaining flagged material falls into one of the following categories: names (e.g. "Outside the Line," "Sue Ambrose and David Tarrant," "the Pepper Hamilton Report," etc.), quotes ("Our hearts break for those whose lives are impacted by execrable acts of sexual violence," "hunting ground for sexual predators," etc.), or dates (e.g., "June 20, 2016"). If you disagree, please advise. —Wordbuilder (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The re-write is very good. Thank you for taking the time to do this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I assure you that the original overlap was unintentional. —Wordbuilder (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)