Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:52, 22 May 2009

	Notice regarding conversations.
	In an effort to keep conversations together, if you begin a conversation on this page, I will usually respond here. If I left you a message, I added your discussion page to my watchlist so I'll know when you respond there.

Archives

Archive (04/15/2006 - 01/31/2008) Archive (02/05/2008 - 09/09/2008)

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)

Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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. —/Mendaliv//_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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ()

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 Misplaced Pages. →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 Misplaced Pages 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 —  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 —  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 —  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 —  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) 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 · 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 · 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 · 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 />-2009-01-01T21:49:00.000Z">

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article, use the following syntax: ]. 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 Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Misplaced Pages requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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? Misplaced Pages. . . 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 ? 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 —  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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)