This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Nmajdan/Archive 1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kukini 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to have you aboard!!! Kukini 21:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. If you got any questions or need help, let me know. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice images of OU. Keep 'em comin'!--ragesoss 04:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the OU article, it's looking much better now. Those were just some things that popped into my head that might be better put elsewhere, but that's just my opinion at the moment. Let me consider those points today and I might change my mind heh. But seriously, keep up the good work. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The article really is in need of a history section, but that may have to wait until I have time to do a little research. I may take the bombing article and put it under "See Also" cause I don't think all campus tragedies need to be displayed so prominently on the page. Eventually, I will include some general info on it in the History section, much similar to the way the University of Texas did with regards to the sniper attacks in the 1960s.

Nmajdan - you're doing great work w/ that article. I'd be very pleased if it became featured. I was just up on the roof of Sarkey's the other day - I'll see if I can get back up there and take some pictures. I'll also try to get some shots of the NWC. Ottergoose 20:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. I've uploaded several to OU category at wikimedia commons, some of which I've placed on appropriate pages in Wikipedia. I also started a Norman, OK category there. Ottergoose 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh Nmajdan, don't forget. After you get done with the OU article, there's always the OSU article that needs attention too =) -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I will definitely help but I don't know nearly much about that campus as I do my own.--Nmajdan 22:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nmajdan - thank for creating ((LonghornsCoach)). Great work on the OU article as well - it is really taking shape. Best, Johntex\^talk 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, great work on the template for the U. I've added to the Sooner Schooner page and put it on there as well. Boomer Sooner! Z4ns4tsu 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks for the help. Feel free to join the Oklahoma WikiProject. We need all the help we can get. Do you live in Norman?--NMajdan•talk 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I do right now. I just graduated and will be moving up to OKC in a few months, though. Z4ns4tsu 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you take pictures?--NMajdan•talk 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, what do you need and what size? Z4ns4tsu 21:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of stuff. Not really. Ok, what do we need? Outside of LNC, baseball park, softball park, new soccer complex, better pictures of Bizzell (that one on the OU template's legality is questionable), more pleasing pictures of the campus in full bloom, better pictures of dorms, really anything. There is a page in the commons you can check out and upload to. As far as size goes, the bigger the better. There is no limit at the Commons.--NMajdan•talk 02:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'll tell my wife. She's an amature photographer and has a bunch of shots of campus already. I'm sure she won't mind the work, either. Z4ns4tsu 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, awesome. And like I said, upload whatever you can. Of course no personal pictures, but pictures that show off the architecture of campus as well as its aesthetics, etc. But the more pictures we have, the more options we have for inclusion in future articles. But I do think we need more pictures of the athletic facilities as well as better pictures of some of the older buildings on campus like Evans, Bizzell, Holmberg, Jacobson, Copeland, etc.--NMajdan•talk 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article still has two solitary links to the 1890 article. I just thought that I would let you know in case you want to run the tool again. Feel free to use it on other article categories of interest to you. Keep up the good work. Regards bobblewik 13:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I removed one of them. But that year is significant to the article.--NMajdan•talk 14:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Feel free to run it on other articles. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 14:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Great work - thanks for creating this and letting me know about it. I did post one small problem here. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this is User:ProfessorPaul; I live in Oklahoma and I am also signed onto the Wikipedia Oklahoma project. May I enquire where you got the user box that you have 2 academic degrees? I have 3 academic degrees, and I just wanted to know if I could get a user box stating that. Thank you.  :) User:ProfessorPaul 22:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is the two degree template:((User degree/2 degrees)). I don't see one for 3 degrees, unless you create it.--NMajdan•talk 02:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject College football= Johntex\^talk 02:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I joined. Hopefully, that infobox I made is a start. I've added it to several coaches so far. Would it be of interest to expand the scope to college athletics (so it applies to basketball and other sports) or would those be best serves as separate WikiProjects?--NMajdan•talk 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, did not see that college basketball already existed.--NMajdan•talk 13:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I borrowed the layout of your user page. Thanks. Z4ns4tsu 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem.--NMajdan•talk 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the invite. I'll join. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm still learning. Thanks though! Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoonerinCollege (talk • contribs)

Why do you play with my comments and label them unsigned when others unsigned comments you leave alone? Tulsa Oklahoma—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.154.33 (talk • contribs)

I sign unsigned comments as I see them. If this is a problem, then sign your posts yourself.--NMajdan•talk 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Theres plenty of unsigned comments you bothered to ignore. You only bother to label them if it has 198.187.154.33 followed by it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.154.33 (talk • contribs)

Wrong. Its just weighted your way since you post a lot and never sign. Why, if you look a few posts up, you'll see I signed another.--NMajdan•talk 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the work was done by Mecu and not me. I just added the blue and changed the legend. What I was thinking with the blue background that it would replace the superscript and then could be used on the other tables as well (since sometimes the BCS 1 and 2 are not the AP or Coaches 1 and 2) I just forgot to remove the superscript number. Z4ns4tsu 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Guess I just saw your name most recent on the history and didn't look any further down. I guess I was going for the less obvious indicator. --NMajdan•talk 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

When you add a link to the page that you're editing, Wiki processes the link and just makes it bold. Like, on this page User_talk:Nmajdan just turns bold instead of being a link. This is why you couldn't add a link to the 2005 rankings article. Typically then, people will just bold with the ' instead of using the brackets to link. --MECU≈talk 12:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that, that was a typo on my part.--NMajdan•talk 13:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific --MECU≈talk 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, gratz on the featured list for 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings! You and Mecu did a whole lot of work on that list and it looks great. Z4ns4tsu 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. Now its time to start getting the 2006 page up to par. Hopefully we can get it featured after the season ends.--NMajdan•talk 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be somewhat involved in the College football project, so I thought I would ask you about this. I've been perusing through the conference pages and I've noticed a lot of disparity in their structure. I'm trying to put together a uniform template off of which all conference pages can be based. Do you know where I should put this or who I should talk to? Thanks. --Cliedl 21:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd probably open it up for discussion on the college football WikiProject (talk). Once a format has been decided on and agreed to, I'd say the template would go in the Structure section (here). But that is a good idea and look forward to an open discussion regarding it.--NMajdan•talk 00:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

He is already in the category "Duke Blue Devils men's basketball players." That category is a subcategory of Duke University alumni. It's not a big deal, but I think that generally it's bad to have people in a category AND in its subcategory. Everyone will know he is an alumnus because he is in the subcategory. LaszloWalrus 19:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I disagree with that assertion. I will leave this one alone, but is many cases, just because a person played sports there does not mean they graduated from there. An alumni is (as I understand the definition) is a graduate of a school. Many athletes do not graduate, but may leave early with the intent of pursuing professional sports. But, in Capel's case, I don't think this applies. Thanks for the clarification.--NMajdan•talk 19:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Autoblock unblocks are a pain in the, er, ankle. They come in about four varieties, each with a couple of different potential reasons. Also, for privacy reasons, we don't see the entire picture - we have to make educated guesses, trial unblocks and the like. Of course, the alternative is to let vandals run wild... New software is making this easier, but the introduction is slow and admins have a learning curve (the latter hit you, I think). I'm sorry you were hit by the autoblock: Wikipedia needs good, productive editors, and technical restrictions on them really don't help anybody. Thanks for being a good sport! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it was me who hit you with some friendly fire. It wasn't you I was going for. ;) Henry^Flower 22:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, no problem at all. I figured that since it was an IP block and not username. At least I got it resolved quickly.--NMajdan•talk 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. It was in an awful state before I did the most recent bout of edits. "B" is about where I was thinking it would be, but I'd love feedback on what areas should be worked on. I clicked on the "rating" link but only Lloyd Carr's article was mentioned on that page. Please let me know what I can do to make it better. Much appreciated, Bobak 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some things that I notice that could be improved before applying for good article status would be:

• Use more in-line citations (<ref></ref>).
• Rephrase part of the lead to focus more on Carroll the person/coach rather than the teams he's coached.
• Expand some of the sections in "Career."
• Preference: Add an image, if you can find one that doesn't violate copyright restrictions.
• Only capitalize the first word in section headings.

Let me also include some comments from an automated peer review script:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[1]

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under WP:IUP and WP:IT that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[2]

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.^[3]

• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[4]

• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.^[5]

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Hope this helps.--NMajdan•talk 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 14:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working on a feature article for the OU Daily about the University of Oklahoma Wikipedia page. I wanted to see if I could talk with you about your contributions to the page and thoughts about Wikipedia. Please let me know at mechant (at) ou (dot) edu. Best,

Gene Perry

You had some good quotes in the paper today. Gene's article wasn't exactly pro Wiki, but, what can you do? Ottergoose 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that today, too. Needless to say, I didn't know his focus when he asked for the interview. I still don't know where he pulled that quote from the Bob Stoops article, I didn't see it anywhere and I went back through the history a little. Nevertheless, any exposure to OU's articles should be beneficial.--NMajdan•talk 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The September 2006 issue of the Biography 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. plange 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone who as well was interviewed for the Wikipedia article (but not quoted!), it's good to see someone put a ton of effort into the OU-related articles Tmrobertson 02:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hope you had a good vacation. I think we kept the article up while you were away pretty well. z4ns4tsu\^talk 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I had a great vacation. The article looks great, as always. Great commentary on the previous two games (UO & MTSU).--NMajdan•talk 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for inserting ((fact)) in this article. However, with respect to biographies of living people, the correct course of action is to simply delete potentially libellious claims given without serious sources. David.Monniaux 03:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that info. I guess I was giving the editor the benefit of a doubt. I see you removed the text from the John Popper article. I may also remove it from the Blues Traveler article since its unsources and doesn't apply to the band as much as it does the individual. Thanks again for the info.--NMajdan•talk 13:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:OMU.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —ccwaters 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC) ccwaters 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Nmajdan. There is a lively debate about use of promo photos on wikipedia. My name is Jeff and I Do not support the interpretation of WP:FU as implemented by user's like User:Chowbok. They believe that Wikipedia should be free of all promotional photos that are "replaceable with an equivalent" (i.e. an amateur photo from flickr). Their rationale is being debated in many places, and take it a step further believing that all promo photos should be deleted and let someone else deal with finding and uploading a free alternative.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use specifically this thread
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok
• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok
• User:Chowbok/Robth's_RFU_Explanation
• Image_Talk:Jennifer Granholm.jpg

And many other places I've no doubt missed.

I and many others who support use of fair use promotional photos have not been successful in changing the actions of Chowbok and rampant deletion and changing of many hundred's of useful images from Wikipedia articles continues. One good example is the Jennifer Granholm article which had a great promo photo replaced by a terrible photo. I seek to raise the profile of this issue through challenging promotional photos on high profile article's like this one. I'm sorry, really I am, but fair use policy as implemented by Chowbok has left me with few viable options.

I invite you to join the battle for Promotional Photo usage on Wikipedia and the protection of Fair Use concepts. --Jeff 07:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This message is to notify you that a stub template and category that you created (((OU-stub)) and Category:University of Oklahoma-related Stubs) is up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yah, when I first started doing templates it was recommended to do <tr><td> because the pipe didn't work. I just discovered the ((!)) like 5 days ago and agree it is the better way to go, in the long run. But for now, since it's already done with the <tr><td> stuff, I'd just leave it. When I, or someone gets the motivation to switch it over it'll still be there. I think you converted another template I did (and I saw it took you several tries and awhile) so thanks for that. And thanks for the tip. I guess I should go look at the conditionals where I learned it and see if it still says to use <tr><td> and if so change it to ((!)). If you can improve any of "my" templates, please do so. I like doing them, but by no means am I good at programming or tables or styles or all the above. --MECU≈talk 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Help. User:Mecu/NCAASingleGameHeadertest. I tried to convert it and it just gets uglier with every edit. The purge is at the bottom. --MECU≈talk 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Running Man Barnstar
		The Running Man Barnstar: given in appreciation for substantial contributions to existing articles about Oklahoma Sooners football and college football

Great Job on the team page! CJC47 05:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nmajdan: With respect to the comments that you posted on my talk page and on the discussion about individual team seasons, I would like to enlist your help. I have read through the discussion and think I grasp it. However, before I charge down another path, I would like to get some idea of whether I am on the right track. With respect to my earlier articles 1895 Georgia Bulldogs football team and 1896 Georgia Bulldogs football team, it is my understanding that they need to be merged into one article called Georgia Bulldogs under Pop Warner (he only coached at Georgia for two years). I have been experimenting with the format for this new article on my sandbox. Would you please look at my sandbox and let me know if I have adopted the correct approach? Feel free to make any changes that you think are appropriate. Thanks.--Tlmclain | Talk 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that you reverted several edits to Mr Switzer's article yesterday. Can you explain to me why you did this? It's important. DS 23:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted here.--NMajdan•talk 14:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. That's what I thought; I just needed a confirmation. DS 15:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yah, they actually do something, or rather, they prevent something from happening. If you notice, they start at the end of each line and end at the start of the next line. In short, they prevent a new linefeed/carriage return from being rendered or they prevent newline specialties from occurring. Like, when # is on a newline, you can use this trick to prevent that. But in that template, they just prevent extra lines from be generated when the optional fields aren't used. You could copy the template somewhere, remove all of them and check it out. Just be sure to leave the optional fields out. --MECU≈talk 01:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're a better coder than me. Or maybe it's because you've used the ((!)) instead of HTML tags. But yah, it looks like your way works fine. --MECU≈talk 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the ! is much better method, both for readability and edit-ability and it keeps the syntax closer to the wiki markup. That info box is looking pretty good. I'm starting to get jealous. --MECU≈talk 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nmajdan: I left a few comments on your template at WikiProject College football--Tlmclain | Talk 15:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It is important to note that only media published in the United States before 1923 is in the public domain. If a photograph was taken before 1923 but published after that date, for instance, it would not necessarily be public domain, unless it was published without copyright notice and never renewed, or the photographer has been dead for seventy years. Given that clarification, if there are images on that website that fit the criteria, they can be safely uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for use in any project -- we accept media that is public domain both in its country of origin and in the United States as if it were public domain everywhere. I hope that this answers your question. Jkelly 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 somebody  erased my formula  ......why?  and should I put it again??
 I am referring to the article that I posted around  10 days ago below mechanical singularity.
 The name of the article was system of expansion G      do you know who erase it and why?!!!!!!
  Why did they delete it  and should I post it again?   
  I posted it  again  .....  It is my idea  and I have all the copyrights of it     This is a shame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 It is not about copyright  lots of poeple know everything about it  this a clear case of dicrimination or somebody is tring to steal my idea      I am mad as   an horse!!!!!!

Giovanni Piepoli

 Can you help me in editing because the article is very very important!!!!!
 Yes I cited   for first  www.whatthebeep.com  and i will add  other pages of Wikipedia  

is that ok

 Do you think somebody will steal my idea ???????
 Yes is all my idea and a lot of people know that is mny idea because I even went to the MiT to discuss about it and they told me that I was right.  This article is very well known among researchers. 
 I know it sound funny  but it is true   I created this   on my own  all on my own.

What are you referring to?--NMajdan•talk 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you edited the Mechanical singularity but I'm not seeing anything called System of Expansion G. If you did create an article, it may have been speedily deleted. I'd go post a message at this talk page. Only admins can see a speedily deleted article.--NMajdan•talk 22:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it was deleted. It appears to have been speedily deleted instead of going through the WP:AFD process. If you feel you have enough content to start the article, go ahead and do so. Just make sure you follow the rules and guidelines at WP:FIRST.--NMajdan•talk 17:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see what happened now. Wikipedia does not allow original research, which your contribution appears to be. That is why it is being deleted. I was under the impression and article you created was deleted, not an edit to an article. What you just edited will probably be deleted again because it appears to be either copyrighted material or it is not referenced. You need to cite your work. I posted a Welcome message to your talk page that has details on how to begin editing on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any more questions.--NMajdan•talk 17:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, any text on Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL and thus free to copy, redistribute, and modify. So if this is original research and you're afraid of somebody stealing your idea, this probably isn't the best place for it. Wikipedia does not allow original research. If you contribute, you must cite your references. I can help you edit the page, but first you must list your citations.--NMajdan•talk 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are still coming up in the <pre> boxes which is throwing off the whole page. Also, I don't know if www.whatthebleep.com is an adequate source for the material. And once again, you keep saying "your idea." No original research is allowed on Wikipedia. If this is your idea, it must be published and you must cite the published work. I still don't have a fundamental knowledge of how Wikipedia works and I suggest your acquire this knowledge before doing any more edits. Please read the following guidelines and rules on Wikipedia before editing any more: WP:FIRST, WP:MOS, WP:GTL, WP:EDIT, WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT, Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions, and WP:BETTER. Also, check out this page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics.--NMajdan•talk 18:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, unfortunately, that qualifies as original research and that content is not allowed on Wikipedia. Now, if the idea is published, then it can be cited. Until then, it has to be deleted.--NMajdan•talk 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your post Mecu's talk page and about template expertise on the participant list. If you want to take a stab at whether a template would be feasible, go for it! The standard format for game schedules doesn't really fit historical games, which is what I'm trying to work on. I guess while you're at it, let me know if you think the approach I'm using seems to be ok. The best example is here, but this stub will give you an idea of what it will look like when I get to coaches that have lots of seasons.--Tlmclain | Talk 03:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the schedule format we have now would't work for historical games. I mean, after all, once a game is over, its historical. Yes, a template is possible a may be something I look into. (Mecu, if you're reading this, if we do a schedule template, it'll have to be like a succession box. ((CFB Schedule Start))((CFB Schedule Entry))((CFB Schedule Entry))((CFB Schedule End))). If and when I make a template, it will be like the schedule the WikiProject decided on.--NMajdan•talk 03:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much everything about Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format#Schedule works for more recent historical games and parts of it work fine for older historical games (like the W/L/T color scheme, etc.) However, since I started working on the really ancient games first, I've found that there are lots of things about the old games that don't fit. Of course, the TV column doesn't work for the old days, nor does the time of the game. I'm not sure when rankings started (1940's?), but I know that you cannot find it for the old games. In the early days, there weren't stadiums and sometimes not even named fields that were used. All of this is what lead me to use the modified version that I have been using for the games from the 1890's to the 1920's. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there may need to be two "approved schedule" forms, one for games before a certain date (1990? 1980?) and the one already approved for the more recent games. Also, now that this is turning to a discussion, maybe we should move the entire thing to the Project talk page. --Tlmclain | Talk 03:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I would say just leave those fields out. Specify which poll you are using (if you are) in place of Coaches and leave the TV column out. I see you're point though. In addition, a lot of teams games even now are not televised and they are not ranked.--NMajdan•talk 04:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading this now. I agree on the succession box format, but I think it would be acceptable to use optional fields so some of the things you're complaining about would be moot. We could have two forms whereas instead of ((CFB Schedule Entry)) we could have ((CFB Schedule Entry2)) that removes some of these fields (rank) and schedule could just be a raw entry format so if they wanted to enter a field name they could, but if not, they don't and just the city/state would display per whatever they entered. I started a discussion on the WP:CFB talk page to determine if we really need a template for this or just use tables -- since we had a hard time determining what would be the standard table format for schedule tables. --MECU≈talk 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Sooners football is not as bad as many offered up for FA status, but it does need a lot of work, mostly an entire change of tone, and acknowledgement of who the audience could be: non-Okies, non-Americans, non-football players, why not make it something a young mother living in remote Africa sitting in the local library could and would read? I think with serious work on the prose and choice of content it can be brought to FA status. There are a lot of people who want their local AAA team, their college team, their pub darts' team to have FA status, and it's not going to happen, but it would be nice if you could show them how it's done. I think you (and other editors) have the skills and the will to make it happen with the Sooners' football article--it's also, realistically a college team that could be a FA. Please let me know if you want additional specific feedback after you've done some extensive work on this article by posting on my talk page, and I will critique it top to bottom. Cheers, KP Botany 16:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of your ability to see the problems and correct it--the former is a matter of learning to look at it from an outsider's POV, something that you can learn to do by doing and by changing your mind-set or POV while writing, and the latter is a function of your present editing skills which are already up to the task. I wouldn't have bothered giving you a simple object instead of a strong object, if I didn't think this was so--there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that simply need a different editor, or a better editor, and this article is not one of them. Take a break, come back, and start explaining OU Sooners football to a young woman in Africa. Whatever your biases now, whatever your limitations, you have the right attitude and the skills and can learn a few things in the process to take this article to FA status. It will be a lot of work, but I guarantee that when you wake up, log on, and see the OU Sooners football program on the Main Page it will be worth it. Think of it as getting in shape for football season, and think of how you'll feel next Bedlam Series knowing that OSU was never on the front page of Wikipedia (do I sound a bit biased? like maybe I personally want you to do it? yes). KP Botany 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I posted a couple of articles, but someone wrote that it should be categorised, otherwise it will be clean-up. I'm new here, so don't know all possibilities of the system, and can't categorised it. Can you look trough Sparse index and Dense index in English, Kazakh and Russian. I don't want that someone will delete my articles.

Here the links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_index http://kk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_index http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_index http://kk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_index http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_index

http://kk.wikibooks.org/wiki/Third_normal_form

Thanks, Yerkin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yerkin Abdildin (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit^talk on behalf of Kaldari 01:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Per the discussion about the national championship field in infoboxes, I've gone ahead and altered the NCAAFootballSchool template you created to specify wire national championships in the national championship field. Please let me know if this is problematic.-PassionoftheDamon 20:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am getting ready to propose 2005 Texas Longhorn football team for consideration as a featured article. The article has had one reveiw already and I believe all issues raised there have been addressed. I have also used the semi-automated review script to look for small things that need to be changed. The article is meticulously referenced with 121 in-line sources. It contains both free-use images and appropriate fair-use images. It attempts to follow the standards set out by the relevant wiki projects.

In watching the nomintaion of the OU football program, I see that the OU article has received some objections on the grounds of supposedly being overly positive and for listing too-many awards. I have reviewed the 2006 UT article in light of those objections and I am prepared to argue that every positive thing said is relevant and attributed to a specific source. As for the awards and accomplishments, I think all the ones listed in the UT article are notable and justifiable, but I'd like to get more feedback from other editors so I invite you to review the article if you please. Johntex\^talk 09:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have requested peer review here. Good luck in the Fiesta and have a Happy New Year! Johntex\^talk 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering how can I upload a picture too a page I wrote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Himanko (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Hey, thought that I'd let you know that I've created a stub for this article. I expect that we'll need to flesh it out pretty quickly to avoid an AfD. I'll move over a lot of the info from Oklahoma Sooners football later on today. z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

		The College football Barnstar
		I, BigDT, present you with the new college football barnstar for your phenomenal work with college football articles this season. BigDT 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nmajdan, regarding your report to WP:AIV: that page is for cases of blatant vandalism only. Since your case is too complex for AIV, I moved your report to here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you nominate this article for deletion, Francis Price. This article is completly false and just a vanity page. I would do it but I don't understand how to do it. Thanks for your help. HorseApples 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I asked and was told to put them up for WP:IFD. They haven't gone through deletion yet (ie, been 5 days) I think, so I don't know if this is an effective method yet. I have some on Jan 4 (maybe earlier, I don't remember and too lazy to look) so we can watch those to see if they poof. If you're tagging lots of images you could look into adding the quickimagedelete script to your monobook. It even helps with the IFD process and saves a ton of time. --MECU≈talk 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, IFD. Logos are pretty safe as the rationale seems fairly obvious. You could just write the rationale for it. Look at a few other similar logos to see if they have a rationale and just cut and paste and make the few minor changes they need. --MECU≈talk 15:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. For example, the IFD. Once you click it, and enter the IFD reason, it should open 3 pages and edit them appropriately and save them automatically. You just sit back and wait. I use it on Firefox 2 with no troubles. Make sure you have the required addons for the installation. See User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js#Requirements, they're kinda hidden so you may have missed it. --MECU≈talk 21:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/addLink in your monobook.js. I saw the other function though. --MECU≈talk 21:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird, I even searched for "addLink". Anyways, if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/addLink it says it's an "improved" version, so maybe try and install that one and remove the one you currently have? --MECU≈talk 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'll say this for the obvious, but just to make sure: You've reloaded the page on your monobook.js? Hitting CTRL-SHIFT-R? --MECU≈talk 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of ideas. You could copy my monobook.js and delete yours and paste mine in and reload just to see if it works. If it does, then you've got something else in your monobook causing problems. Best I can think of. Sorry. --MECU≈talk 22:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw a lot of good stuff on yours that I'd like to use, so if you figure out what causes the error, let me know so I can avoid that one. Glad to help. --MECU≈talk 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to change the title of my contribution in grey color to from 'Ma xiaonian' to 'Ma Xiaonian', but don't know how. Please help me out. Thanks.--Qingma 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I was reading through the FA candidate discussion for Talk:Oklahoma Sooners football. It looks like those that criticized the POV of the article wanted it to be more like a soccer team's article. Have you searched any of those? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Featured_and_good_articles I think the article looks great. I suppose there could have been more about the probations and the scandals, but from their comments it looked like many of the reviewers were unfamiliar with the nature of college football, except for JonTex. Shouldn't the article instead indoctrinate those unfamiliar with the Sooner Football team? I'm pretty new to editing in Wikipedia. I'm trying to get a TCU Horned Frogs page going, then I want to do one on TCU Football. Just looking at that soccer project page and the list of featured articles they have makes me want to get a lot more college football featured articles. General125 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a hidden note to 2007 BCS National Championship Game warning people not to change the rankings. Doesn't the same thing apply to the win-loss record? I thought that was supposed to be coming into the game, not after. I want to double check prior to changing it. Johntex\^talk

Thanks, I fixed it and put in a note. I will also put in a hidden note in the Template itself. Johntex\^talk 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it has been removed from the article it was in, so it should be deleted. Hello32020 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

hi there

Could you tell me why the ablove article is considered for deletion? i appreciate your response. regards

goswin Goswin 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your kind answer. can't wait for deletion, really. have a good day.Goswin 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you because of the possibility that you were running an unauthorised bot. All bots need to be authorised first, and I will unblock you if you can explain your recent edits and agree to seek a bot flag if one is necessary. J Di 17:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this is referring to. I just created a script that allows me to quickly add ((welcomeh)) to new users' talk pages, if that is what you are referring to. Check out User talk:Nmajdan/welcome newuser.js for details on the script. I didn't think there would be an issue.--NMajdan•talk 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the speed of your edits. I will unblock you, but you need to slow down with the welcoming. Many people don't welcome users until they have made an edit anyway. J Di 17:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, sometimes its better to make the first contact with a new user before they inadvertently make a bad edit. I'll slow down on the edits.--NMajdan•talk 17:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're unblocked. J Di 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You have marked Image:Bad Image.jpg to be speedy deleted and have posted me a message (User talk:Geevee#Fair use rationale for Image:Bad Image.jpg). It is marked with ((albumcover)), the link to it in Bad Image article is marked with comment of fair use. I don't understand, what's wrong with image? Geevee (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I just add that stereotyped text ("== Fair use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] == ...") at the image page? Geevee (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just uploaded an image and immediately received a message saying this image has no fair use rationale and is a category for speedy deletion. Why? I have never received this before when uploading a DVD cover. I correctly marked the image with the DVDCover licensing tag. As far as I was aware, DVD cover images are allowed on Wikipedia. Gram 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, forget it. I looked on another user's talk page where you done the same thing and I see that the rules of Wikipedia have changed in the night, and now we have to justify every DVD cover and album cover we upload. I don't quite understand the argument though - I would have thought that the justification / rationale for uploading these types of image would be the same in every single case - namely, low quality, illustrative of the article, blah blah. Personally I think the DVDCover tag should be sufficient, and if it's not, it should be amended to include a good standard piece of rationale itself, because as it stands, I have to make something up myself (or copy it off some other user), and in 6 months time that rationale probably won't conform to your next rule change. I presume I'm (currently) allowed to write a rationale and copy-paste it for every CD and DVD cover image I upload from now on. So why can't you or some other wikipedia crusader make one available that everyone can use? Whatever, I'll write something. But if it doesn't conform to some standards that I'm not currently aware of please can you let me know rather than just deleting the image in a week's time. Thanks. Gram 15:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for showing concern. Usually only one image would be needed to summarize an article and identify it visually which is very important for educational purposes and to know exactly what the article is discussing. Anybodt who is familiar with the series may not relaise what it is discussing until an image puts it in place. I have added a rationale but I will try to only limit one image per episode aside from the title. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In that partifcular episode there were unusally two main villains!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I will gradually add it to the other images I wan't aware the full rationale was needed I presumed the brief and the licensing tag was enough. I am now over half way of covering the entire series of randall and hopkirk and I beleive one key image of each episode aside from the title is an extremely useful asset. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh! I mistakenly wrote fair use rational on its descreption page while uploading this logo. NAHID 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• There are lot of logos that doesn't have fair use rational. Has that tag been added only for this sentence fair use rational of SEU logo ?? Thank you NAHID 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• But there are thousands of logo without a single rational. Is the problem with that sentence I mentioned avobe. NAHID 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the rational. Another thing the educational logos that are uploaded before (but after may 2006) do I need to mention their rational?? NAHID 16:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• But even featured article (educational) logo doesn't have rational. I can't remember their name though. Why they are get nominated? Thanks anyway NAHID 16:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• One more thing, is there any problem if I writedown the same fair rational sentences on logos that are related to university or any organizations if I were the uploader? Thank you NAHID 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Could you please mention some image deletion tags? I want to delete some images that falls in same category and they refer same subject at a time. For example, I uploaded some logos of an university. One of them is real and others are fake / created by someone else. Thank you NAHID 17:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, I uploaded a new version of an image. But why its previous image is still exist? I don't need that. Thank you NAHID 18:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - good work welocmieng new users! I noticed that you welcomed [1], who later turned out to be a vandal (now indefinately blocked). Can I suggest that you welcome new users who have one or two edits showing that they're not vandals first? Other than that, keep up the good work :) Martinp23 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry the licence shoudl have been cc 2.0 I have changed it accordingly. ray 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay. I'll remove the link as well, and maybe just have an external link to the photo. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers. 141.151.164.149 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC) oops thats me ray 05:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know it's a free software but I need to add program's name and it's publisher?

like this:

create with Delta Force: Xtreme Mission EDitor, DFXMED.

publisher: NovaLogic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchwarzKatze (talk • contribs) 09:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Hello, Mr. Majdan. Anyway, My name is Patelco and I've just got one message: Drop It! OK? because what I am trying to do is to help the goosebumps pages and frankly no-one except me is gonna help it. I'm sorry for my outburst up there it's just I mean i see where you are going with this and you think I'm one of tgose vandalism guys, well I'm not Ok? look, I'm just telling you this now cos' all I want to do is help. Oh, yeah I have given the images copyright status and that so i don't really know where you are going with this. Again I am just telling you know instead of later.

Have a wonderful day and a bright future

- ₪Patelco☻ 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I have completed my review and my suggestions list here. Please don't feel you have to go with every suggestion. There may be good rational in some cases for the way the article is currently written. Good luck, I hope it makes FA. Johntex\^talk 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts never existed." That is not true. Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts existed since 1867 until 1991 in Zagreb when changed name in Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Maybe its name was wrong because it was academy (only) for Croatia, but that academy existed! Many scientists was members of that academy with that name! But, academy for whole Yugoslavia never exists, every republic had own academy (Serbian until 1886, Slovenian, Montenegrin until 1973 etc.) Regards. --Djordjes (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about Image:Adrian Peterson OUvsBSU.jpg about the license being changed, then I don't think they can "take back" the release of a license. Especially, if we used it under that license. I am probably not fully qualified to answer this, so you should seek a second opinion. I know that a GFDL license can't be revoked, once it's out there it's out there; I would think CC licenses would be the same. You should ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. The problem them comes on how to verify the image license was changed? On commons, an admin will come along for some images and state that "yes, this image was under this license on this date" so if they change the license or it gets deleted somehow, the image can still say since there are two people (one an admin, very trusted) saying the license is such. I've seen this happen to some of the images I uploaded at commons and can find one for an example if you'd like. --MECU≈talk 22:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the image to commons: commons:Image:Adrian Peterson OUvsBSU.jpg and marked the image here as replaceable as the same image exists on commons. I've asked on IRC for an admin to verify it on commons and mark it with the tag that they approved/agreed with the license. Once the image is deleted here at wikipedia, the commons will automatically show up, and once admin approved at commons, it will forever be okay to use. (I had to move it to commons because Wikipedia doesn't have anything like that.) --MECU≈talk 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure no problem the image won't be useful to me anymore since it can't be used for my original purpouse, so it can be deleted no problem-Dark Dragon Flame 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NMajdan: I was in the process of writing you about this when I saw your latest change. Yes, it is only a redirect to Georgia Bulldogs football under Kid Woodruff#1927 Season. I think it is a NA, but don't know if the banner needs to be there at all. Since there was already a banner there, I thought I'd leave it. Do you know if a custom has been developed for redirects?--Tlmclain | Talk 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the banner off. With respect to those Auburn pages, they're on my list to merge, I just don't know when - I keep coming up with new projects without finishing ones I've started . . . . . --Tlmclain | Talk 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the licence on this picture - I did wonder how to do it at the time, but couldn't find any obvious info. I'll know now!

Bassophile 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football how's it look now? --MECU≈talk 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You want to stop and discuss this renaming for a bit please? Talk:2006 NCAA Division I-BS football rankings --MECU≈talk 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Send me the link so that i put the information of the image i cant find it now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrahimkhel (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

BUT how do i add the source information??????

The picture belongs to the author he sent me via email. Its he who has taken the picture and he sent it to me to publish it in wikipedia along with his biography.

i dont know how to add that information

i know nothing more. just do whatever you want to do or whatever the wikipedia wants to do. weather you will keep it or not.

if you want me to stop writing in wikipedia then i would do it. just dont bother me with many warning notes anymore. i dont have that much patient. well goodbye —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrahimkhel (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it's still operational, I just have been busy with other stuff lately. I'll let it run through the unused images somewhen next week. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've done some final cleanup (helped by another editor) and I have nominated Baby Gender Mentor for FA. We'll see how it goes. Thanks again for your help. Best, Johntex\^talk 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The nomination is here if you would like to comment. Johntex\^talk 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer your comments and suggestions regarding Rutgers University. Though a couple days late, I was able to reciprocate for the University of Oklahoma peer review. I am quite impressed by the article, and it's given me several ideas I can take back to improve the Rutgers article. When this does go up for FA candidacy, please do let me know, because I will gladly support it. —ExplorerCDT 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am about to make some 2007 season pages and I'd like to use the templates, but it looks like attendance did not make it in. Would it be possible to add this? I think it is important. Thanks for your help with this and also thanks again for your review of BGM. Best, Johntex\^talk 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Did we decide to not add it or did we just not decide to add it? I don't recall any opposition to it being included, though I seem to remember no one but me was pushing for it. Since you have made so many of the fields optional, perhaps attendance could be included and made optional as well? Johntex\^talk 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent!! Thank you!! I guess I must be one of the few who thinks a record of the attendance is important. Anyway, I will now convert the table I just made at 2007 Texas Longhorn football team into these templates. Best, Johntex\^talk 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you deleted material from the OU Talk page? I assume it was an accident but if you could restore the comments it would be appreciated. Thanks! --ElKevbo 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

NMajdan: Before taking this idea to the entire group at WP:CFB, I thought I'd run the idea by a couple of guys that seem to be level-headed, have experience in the Project and are telented designers. I have become convinced that we need a fully-integrated solution to infoboxes and football championship article. I think that if we can give some semblance of order to the football championship article, then the infobox problem will solve itself. My idea is to redo the main year-by-year table to fully report all claims to the National Title in each year, but designate the "Wire Champ" and the "Consensus Champ" each year. Then the infoboxes would reference "Wire Champs" and "Consensus Champs" and tie back to the year-by-year table. Take a look at National Champ project and you will see a few sample years that illustrate how this would work. The sources for the poll information will be the NCAA and College Football Data Warehouse. Let me know what you think about the idea and, if you like it, how it can be improved. Also, you are more than welcome to fool around with my test table. Thanks--Tlmclain | Talk 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I also solicited the help of MECU and he found my initial message less than clear. I have posted a much more detailed description of my "vision" on his talk page.--Tlmclain | Talk 05:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Please let me know if there are any other hotly contested years to add to the sample table. At MECU's suggestion, I am going to add 1967, which is one of the years that Tennessee fans seem to fight about (it already has 1941 for the Alabama folks). The idea is to include a selection of the more controversial years to that participants in the discussion at WP:CFB can better evaluate the table and the approach when I post it there.--Tlmclain | Talk 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

NMajdan: I just went live with the presentation of this idea on WP:CFB at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#National Titles. Your input would be appreciated.--Tlmclain | Talk 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some comments to the OU Peer Review. I've also made a whole bunch of minor corrections and edits to the article. --ElKevbo 16:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you need any more comments or feedback on the OU article? —ExplorerCDT 13:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I should be able to take another swipe at it this afternoon. —ExplorerCDT 13:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying desperately to sort through the copyright procedures on wikipedia, and I am having trouble trying to add a tag to something I've already uploaded. This image and a few others featuring pro helmets are images I've uploaded in an attempt to assist with the Oklahoma football articles, specifically articles on various former OU players. This file, like a few others I've uploaded, was created by Charles Arey, author of the Helmet Project ^[2]. This file has been released for free distribution by its author for all uses, excluding only commercial use (whenever the reuser may be gaining something monetarily for its use). The author spells this out at the bottom of the website:

You may feel free to copy the helmet pictures on these pages and use them (in moderation) on your own non-commercial conference, school, or personal web pages. Universities and colleges, in particular, are welcome to use the collection in any way they wish, including media guides, game programs, etc., but I regret to note that I am unable to provide versions of the helmet images that are of different sizes or higher resolutions than you see at this site (the software that I have does not allow me to save the images at higher resolutions than you see here). All I would ask in return is that you help by posting a link to the "Helmet Project" from your web page so that additional people will find the site and contribute towards its development, and please contribute information yourself whenever you can. Commercial use of the images is NOT permitted, because the various colleges and professional teams own all such rights to their respective logos; so do not attempt to print these images onto some product that you intend to sell. Re-distribution of the images en masse on CD or other media is absolutely prohibited. Also, please don't be a jerk and copy the entire gallery of helmet images at this site off to another similar web site. I consider a few dozen images up to a hundred or so to be an acceptable number to use; many more than that is not.

If my rationale is in error, please point this out to me, so that I may seek special permission from the author. The images on the site, according to my interpretation, are free use. I believe this requires a GFDL tag to comply with the wikipedia copyright policy. I do not fully understand how to do so. I don't even know if I am thinking about this free use license stuff the correct way. My experience in copyright law is minimal.

Desert sapper 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)desert sapper

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are awesome. Next time I'm in Tulsa, I'll buy you a beer. z4ns4tsu\^talk 04:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. I think since it's just you or me (seemingly), that either of us putting an article into rotation that both of us (and others) that hasn't received any objection (like yours on the Florida page) should be "automatic" and acceptable and not need any discussion. Items like the Florida, since you've objected (which I'm fine with, it only meets the basic requirements) shouldn't be automatic and in order to be put in, either you would need to put it in yourself (thus saying that your objection is noted but we don't have anything else "ready"?) or you or you state that you're fine with the changes to the article that allow it to be used now (and I could put it in eventually). My only thoughts is that we're likely to get more attention before the season and during the season, so we may want to save our "better" articles until then? --MECU≈talk 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he changed the license back. It was valid at that once time and we used it under that license at that time which he can't remove from us. Since it's been validated by an admin, it'll stay no matter what now. I've found quite a lot of pictures that aren't free on flickr. I've asked folks to change them and more are completely willing to do so, some are even pleased and honored that you want to use their work! I think we should write a page on how to do this, similar to the how to request permission page, but be flickr centric. --MECU≈talk 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Great work on the OU article. Thanks for keeping up your hard work. I will give it a thorough re-read and I anticipate being able to support the nom. If I spot any problems I will let you know. Johntex\^talk 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the CFB Portal picks for Feb. I still am not clear on how to do it, so I'll watch how you do it this month and then I could help out in the future. Good work jump starting the portal in the activity. --MECU≈talk 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You came in and took away my thunder with your AWB and changing the category name. No biggie, was just wondering why near the end the pages were already transfered, and then I saw you were using AWB. I'll let you move Category:2007 NCAA Division I-BS football season to the new name using your speedy AWB edits to save my fingers then. --MECU≈talk 16:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help me. Sorry for being so dense. I meant the ((col-begin)) ((col-2)) TEXT FOR FIRST COLUMN ((col-2)) TEXT FOR SECOND COLUMN sequense. I would like to set the width of the second column and let the first column float with the screen resolution. Is this possible? Frank van Mierlo 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain this edit? —Dgies^t c 23:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to sound so accusational. Notice I didn't accuse you of any nefarious intent, but it was more of a "What is going on here?" —Dgies^t c 02:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to McFoy's stats from ESPN.--Thomas.macmillan 00:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you contributed to the AfD debate on this school. I have made a contribution to this debate in which I discuss why the school is notable, and edited the article a bit. Any comments you could make would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your help with this.

Sincerely,

WMMartin 15:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Nmajdan! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton.

--GordonWatts 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I read your note about images being properly credited on the Chicago Bears page - I posted the picture of the 1924 team. I have a number of PR images from the early NFL, some of them of my father as a New York Giant. These obviously were taken by a professional photographer for the use of the Giants, but along the way the Giants lost their copies. They have used images from my collection a couple of time in their publications and also for a Time-Life book on the 75th Anniversary of the Giants - and in each case they have said "used with permission" of Michael Moran or the Moran family collection. So when the upload image page asks for the source, I've never been quite sure how to put it. I changed the Summary on the Image:Bears 1924.jpg page and would appreciate your comment on how I worded it - also on my user page I have all the images I've uploaded so I be curious on your opinion of how I've documented their status Revmoran 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AdrianPeterson.png. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't is hilarious given how much I go after FU images that I get this tag. Funny stuff.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nmajdan

You have been posting untrue and absurd statements on wikipedia regarding Yankee Candle Company and it's founder. Please either step up and contact me directly with a legitimate claim / interest or keep your theories to yourself.

My email is mphilli@yankeecandle.com

Thank you for your immediate cooperation.

Mike Phillips Internet Strategist Yankee Candle Company —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wackalectic (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

You've left two messages at my talk page about Kings_of_the_High_Frontier.bookcover.jpg, which had a fair use rationale when it was uploaded (and the first note was left), and had a separate fair use template spelling out again what was already in the first template when you left the second note. Please either tell me specifically what you want me to do or stop leaving messages. grendel|khan 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The file clearly states this is an image from a poster. Since when does this require any additional explanation? SFTVLGUY2 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To the file I have added what I believe you seem to think is required. I have checked many other similar images and find nothing re: "free use," so I have no idea why this is such an important issue for you. SFTVLGUY2 20:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

When looking at an image, please check where/how it is being used as this will often explain any rational. For example, TV screen shots used on episode listings or plot summaries are almost always object illustrations of the contents of said episodes so it's not really necessary to restate. Particularly when it includes unique characters.

perfectblue 21:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that is a little bit of an obtuse answer. It would have been far more helpful, and just as much effort on your part, if you had corrected the tagging problem and had messaged me after the fact. I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are actually bots to check images and warn users about tagging. User interaction is best spent sorting out the messes, not pointing them out.

perfectblue 08:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few different image bots out there that remind users of problems like this. I've had a message or two from them before when I've accidentally hit the submit button before adding a rational. I can't remember where the list is, but there is one out there somewhere.

Sorry if I came across a bit bossy, I just have a pet dislike of users in general who point out problems that they could be solving. While it's true that it's not your responsibility to add the rational, it's good etiquette to do so if it's simple and easy.

A word of caution, some people actually take offense to big warnings over small things, and it can tend to upset or confuse new users who think that they have committed some kind of crime.

perfectblue 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks for the help. I was just trying to get the picture in as a stepping stone for the article. Although there isn't much information on the SEC Fanfare, I was just trying to put something pertinant to the article in there. I'll scan a high res copy on later, thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastrchf91 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the welcome. Are you speak spanish?

User:Mathyas

Please go forward with the deletion of that particular image. It was a test upload. I saw no way to delete the image after uploading. Thanks User talk:Scotcra1

Please dont delete the article with the name Sherzaman Taizi and its image. i have the copyright of that. but i couldnt mention during the upload process cause i forgot.

kind regards Ibrahimkhel—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahimkhel (talk • contribs)

Now i have done what you said. dont send me any more messages. I will not do anything more for you. Just let me live with peace. I have written all the information now.

I'm not sure putting both football and basketball into the same template is a good idea. Is there ever going to be a reason to use both on the same page? And they may need to be different enough in the longrun that using the same template would make it difficult. I like what you've done, but I don't see the point in putting them both in the same template. But, either way, it looks good and I can't think of anything to add. --MECU≈talk 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

-We would of course cite any sources we use, and we would not be drawing any conclusions of our own, only presenting arguments that have been made, and research done by others. This would only be a posting that would consolidate some of those things in one place. Do you think that there is a better way, the reason I ask is because we have been asked to create a place where our school can contribute to how people understand the constitution, and the best way to track the contributions of my class would be to have a separate place where we contribute. If it's okay with you, we plan to put up our first posting within the next few days, and you could take a look and tell me if there is another way we can present it, or if it is acceptable. Again this is an important project for us so if there is a way we can do this we'd like to.

Thanks Matt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mbrecher (talk • contribs) 14:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

We would be expanding on articles, and presenting relevant case law, and research done by scholars, so in that respect I'm sure we will stay within the guidelines, if the problem is the title, I can come up with something more creatively vague, such as "How Rights are Discussed" or something along those lines. One of the goals we were given was to present information in a way that it would help people to find information about the bill of rights. Our project is called "constitution in the community" and the primary goal is for us to contribute to peoples understanding of the constitution, not to try to confuse, or influence people's views. I have already set down STRONG guidelines for my coworkers to avoid biases, and we have divided up our work so that we have people prepared to present information on all sides of issues. My point is that it is important for us to make our research something that people come upon when they look for information about rights. If that will happen if I put it under my username... than I'll do that. If not, and you can think of a title, or a way to protect what we create from deletion, I'd appreciate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mbrecher (talk • contribs) 15:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your help, you will be talked of well --Mbrecher 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the new userbox. Thanks for adding it to my user page.→Deser† sapper•≈talk 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with ((WPBiography)). Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The March 2007 issue of the Biography 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. Mocko13 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just looked at the portal and the March article/picture aren't up. Are you going to do them? Kinda embarassing to have the red links there, so if I don't hear from you within a few hours, I'll do it. Lemme know. (I know you selected them already). --MECU≈talk 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I wish we could have a counter on that so we could see how many people actually visit it to see if it's useful. Also, we could see that 50 folks visited it yesterday and today and saw the goof... but alas, no biggie in the end. --MECU≈talk 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

kk, I'm on it, I'll contact you when I find the public domain notice for thw west leeming primary school logo symode09 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 You can visit http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ for all australian legal information. Australian law in this case is similar to US law. You can use this image in the public domain but can not use it if you are for example writing a letter and attempting to impersonate the organisation by using their logo. symode09 00:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Update 3 The school is a public school (a government school) proof is availavle at http://www.lookatwa.com.au/Community/primaryu-z.html or look it up wikipedia - [west leeming primary school] symode09 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC

Hi there - thanks for the attention! Want to giive us a few pointers so we can move the page on from our B rating? Cheers, Cardinal Wurzel 18:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That'd be great, thanks again. No rush! Cardinal Wurzel 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, I began writing football articles only a couple of months ago, and I was amazed that many bios of All-American and Pro Bowl players were missing, that's why I keep doing those bbios in my spare time. Thank you for your help.Gypaetus 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In reverting my recent edit to this article, you cited WT:CFB (Feb archive) as your reason. Until being told, it is very unlikely that anyone without prior knowledge would be able to even find that discussion. While I disagree with the thin consensus reached there, I will abide by it. It seems that making a reference to a game that may never be scheduled is more hope than fact. An encyclopedia is the a place for the latter, not for the former. --Wordbuilder 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nmjadan, my compliments and thanks for your enormous assessment work! Please keep in mind to clean the listas values if needed. Thanks again, and cheers, BNutzer 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for answering me in the admins' noticeboard about my question. I apologize for having put the question there, I didn't know where to put it. I will do as you suggest: create the modifed article in my own userspace, then ask for the others contributoirs if they agree with the new version. Then I'll propose it as a featured article.

The article I want to rewrite is about Rene Guenon.

Thanks again,

TwoHorned 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Nmajdan/Archive 1 for tirelessly assessing hundreds of Biography articles as part of the assessment drive. RHB Talk - Edits 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole "Fair Use Rationale" thing is done, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Goofyll8.jpg . If it's STILL got some problem with it, please drop a message down on my talk page explaining what it is and how to correct it. Yengkit19 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if it isn't formal enough, but I tried my best to follow the guidelines.

Thanks for uploading Image:UASeal.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - cgilbert^{(talk|contribs)} 17:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. I edited the stuff you told me to, and I hope everything is ok now.

Oh and one question. If I got an approval from Marija, Would I be able to upload any photo with her? Would that mean that I could upload her photos found on any website? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darko serbia (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the note about the fair use on Image:Argo_Gulskii.PNG, I do believe I've satisfactorily added a rationale. If there are any further questions/problems please contact me. Comic 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

THankyou for rationaling my Indonesian film poster. I forgot - I did the screenshots but forgot the poster. Thanks - I had the notcie I was about to do it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm re-reverting the album cover that you reverted. The reason is that at 600x600, the image is not cosidered to be high resolution. Fair use dictates reduced resolution (generally about 50% of the original printed quality). If I was to provide the resolution of the original image at 12.5cm x 12.5cm scanned at 300dpi as was the printing resolution, the image size would be 1500x1500 approximately, meaning that at 50% the image would be 750x750. As this is not the case, and the image I uploaded is less than this, it is considered fair use. 200x200 is hardly an adequate image size to be able to indicate the item in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincalinca (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

No. I use 300px wide as a standard default, but my attempt to get that standardized failed. Anywhere between 300 and 400 is probably acceptable, and 400-500 questionable, and above 500 probably not acceptable. But, these are just my informal opinions. --MECU≈talk 12:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nmajdan,

I'd like to be adopted by you. I'm not a new user, but i've seen you describe yourself as a template guru and as one who understands and uses ParserFunctions. These are topics i know nearly nothing about, but would like to know more. I'd like to be given small projects to work on, preferrably such projects that can actually be useful to Wikipedia, and to have guidance at hand when i need it, while i carry them out. Would you consider adopting me? Itayb 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded. Itayb 15:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded. Itayb 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nmajdan,

I won't be able to study templates in the near future. I have to attend to my University chores. I've been using Wikipedia as an excuse to avoid facing them, but this is really not very wise. I do wish to study templates, but it would just have to be postponed until my studies cool down a bit, which is not expected to happen in the near future. So i probably won't be in touch with you for a while. I hope you understand. Itayb 09:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. :) Itayb 14:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw your request on my bot's request page for adding College basketball project tags on talk pages. Do you still need help? I saw your name on the Kingbotk plugin user list. I am hoping you figured out doing this yourself. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your msg. on my talk page reg. images buddhafilm1, buddhafilm2 and buddhafil3. These images have been created by me from the movie posters. I dont want the images deleted. What do I now do ? How do I add the GFDL tag after I have uploaded the image. Can you help me. Yugeshp 09:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)YugeshpYugeshp 09:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nmajdan, it was my failure it is free as a download-image. Look at the summary of the Image:NaomiCampbell.png under sources, please. User:Captain Future

May I use any wallpaper as an image for this article?

Your little welcome script is not working. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 10:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just forgot to refresh my browser's cache. Does it work for cologne blue? - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nmajdan,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for letting me know. I accidentally forgot to license it properly. How do I CHANGE a license once it's incorrect? I am not sure how to do so. • Harish101 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. One more question then. I've not been told to give a fair use rationale before, so I'm afraid I'll have to ask if you could briefly elaborate on what I'd have to write. Sorry about this. --Harish101 18:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Any luck yet with the script? I looked at your monobook.js, which appears fine. However, you do have a lot of stuff in it, and I wonder if something is conflicting. I have one question and one suggestion. First, what browser do you use? Can you try a different one, just to see if it works in that browser? Second, you could temporarily blank your monobook.js, leaving only the assessment script, do a reload, and see if it works in that base case. As far as I know it is generally working for other people (and for me). Oh, finally, is it possible you are running a previous version of the script from cache? To reload, press CTRL-F5 in Internet Explore, or ctrl-shift-R in Firefox. (Sorry if you know these things.) –Outriggr § 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We've done great work so far on the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive, reducing the 135,345 backlog by 38,626 to 96,719 as of March 20, 2007. We have only 6,720 more to go to get below 90,000. That would be outstanding and any extra effort that you can offer in these last few days of the drive (which ends March 24, 2007) would be much appreciated. If you haven't already, you may want to load Outriggr's assessment script in your monobook.js. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them on my talk page. -- Jreferee 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have fixed the conflict between the two scripts. Per my script talk page, please try them together again. –Outriggr § 00:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you've been doing to standardize ((tl:WikiProjectBannerShell))! I'm so glad to see other banners getting fixed to handle that format :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This actually looks pretty good, and I would be happy to use it on all athletics pages instead of each sport having its own template if it can be customized enough. You may want to look at the wrestling template to see my proposed changes- I think listing years should be done in the body of the article, the championships field should have the number, not list individual years (for instance, Oregon State wrestling has won their conference title 46 times- That would be a lot of individual years to list. I think this should be done for all sports, a number seems sufficient. VegaDark 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I switched from the hidden begin/end templates which use NavFrame where you can't control the collapse state to just a table that collapses. I think we could make this a template (or figure out how to use the navbox templates that do basically the same thing). You can see the example at 2007 Colorado Buffaloes football team. Using tables with the collapsible allowed to control the collapsed state and force it on/off. --MECU≈talk 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can fix the hidden begin. I know we could change it to use tables, but that may not be good for all uses, for some reason. I'm thinking making a new one like that, but we may be able to use an existing navbox form as well. I'm not very good with this area. --MECU≈talk 12:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Yah, that would be a much better way then I was thinking of. You can copy the code I did on the 2007 CU page, at least to get you started perhaps. --MECU≈talk 12:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but I kinda liked the colored header bar to tie in the header (now "2007 Recruits") and the show/hide link. On my 1600x1200 the show/hide is so far from the 2007 Recruits it doesn't seem connected. Colorizing the header might be a good idea to connect to two better. --MECU≈talk 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Darien Williams somebody of importance to OU? I was getting ready to prod/AFD it and saw you had edited it so I thought I'd ask first. The article doesn't purport any notability, so if he is, you may want to add something to help with that as well. --MECU≈talk 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have a first draft up at User:Nmajdan/Test. Take a look at tell me what changes should still be made. Specifically, I'd like input on if I handled the NCAA (or NIT) tourneys appropriately. Also, I have two Asst Coach fields. They are both optional, and they could both handle multiple names. So if there are 2 asst coachs, put one name in each as I did. If there are three, put two in the first one and one in the second one, and so on. Also, if these changes are sufficient, I might be able to combine the basketball and football templates into one. We'll see.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's looking great so far! I don't know too much about basketball, so I asked a friend that does. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Any news on this? If you're happy, we should go ahead and move it to template space and start using it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have included a fair use rationale to explain why i uploaded this picture, i hope everything is ok now

Hello.

Next to your message on my talk page, I inform you that every images I uploaded on Wikipedia are made by myself. They are under the Attribution ShareaLike. So, please remove your tag on them. Thank you very much. Martial BACQUET 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to my attention the fair use rationale and source issues on this image. Although I have written 35 or 40 articles by now, last weekend was the first time I had tried working with images in Wikipedia. I had expected everything that I needed to do to be included on the 'upload' page for the images, but I should have known it wasn't that easy! I will go through the other images in the next day or two and get those fixed up as well.Shocking Blue 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to tag the articles in that template - I'll be putting a more detailed set of tags (with Biography parameters filled in) on them shortly. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, FYI, I added the NFLproject template to the assessment script as you requested. You'll need to update your "included projects" setting in monobook.js. –Outriggr § 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nmajdan, Thanks for the notification about the revert. I'm new to Wikipedia and appreciate the guidance. I had intended to put in the citation information, but I was still getting used to the formatting rules. I still need to clean some things up on the page when I get the chance. Thanks, Springer a 23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Urgh . . . How do I remove the tag from below the picture. There isnt an edit for that portion of the image article. I read through alot of help topics and couldn't find an answer. I hate to bug you about this, but I have tried to find an answer on my own and haven't been able to do so (or I've just been looking in the wrong place.) Thanks for the adopt, looking forward to doing more.S.Bowers 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed you got the assessments started off for the NFL WikiProject, which is great. I'm runnign the Big Ten WikiProject, and am having some problems getting the assessments done properly. The categories up (such as Category:WikiProject Big Ten articles), and the assessments on the template work, but WP 1.0 bot won't begin sorting them in a table by quality. I'm not sre how to get that to happen, so if you could help me out that would be helpful. Thanks, Wizardman 02:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I'm bad with the technical stuff so thanks for the help.--Wizardman 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I revert pages that you have deleted? I feel that you deleted material because you aren't intelligent enough to understand it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigam41 (talk • contribs)

Since you continue to delete my response on your talk page, I am adding it here.↔NMajdan•talk 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(moved here from his talk page) First of all, please remain civil. I don't appreciate your remarks towards me. Also, I have not, personally, deleted anything. I am not an admin and so I cannot delete. It appears another editor reverted several of your edits where you blanked a significant portion of a page and I added the warnings to your talk page. Also, I tagged an article you created for speedy deletion and it appears an administrator agreed with me and deleted the page. If you wish to contest the deletion, you may do so at deletion review. If you have any further questions, please check out the help desk. Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, edit more carefully.

Where can I report abusive users?

Where can I report your abusive deleting and comments?

I was accused of deleting material. I am not the one that deleted material. I am attempting to report the abuse of Nmajdan who flags inappropriately.

Please, stop moving pages. I am in the process of reporting you but you continue to delete this information.

You are moving my user page and another user's page. I have the right to revert your vandalism on my page. If you have an issue with the article you created that was subsequently deleted, please bring it up at deletion review. You are only hurting your chances by continuing in this manner. Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 15:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Look what Trigam41 is up to now. Blog Entry I'm waiting on a call back from the Nashville police to make a report. Hatch68 17:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have not already done so, I would recommend going to WP:ANI. - Adrian M. H. 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for voting in my RfA. I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I saw that you are a member of the Templates project, and thought it would be good to bring this to your attention. I have made a proposal that would take care of the userbos issues and the general clutter of the Template namespace. Please see it here and make comments conserning it. Thank you for your time. SadanYagci 14:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I was wondering if you would be interested in being an admin. I think you'd make a great candidate. So long as you're not in any disputes now it would surely go smoothly. Just let me know if you wish for me to nom you.--Wizardman 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I was a little late, lol. I'll certainly co-nom you though.--Wizardman 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions! -- WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless and endless efforts in assessing biography articles, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Working Man's Barnstar. 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognize of your particularly fine contributions in assessing biography articles, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Original Barnstar.16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. In the past couple of days, you have left two messages at my talk page regarding Fair use images, pointing out that they are lacking a detailed Fair Use rationale, and that the "Book Cover" boilerplate is not enough. For each of these images (and every image I have uploaded), I have provided the source, the full edition details (presumably detailing the copyright holder), and have identified these images as low-resolution and intended only for use in articles about said book, and the artist (if known). I am curious what else is required - do I have to type out the rationale given in the boilerplate myself, or something?

I am aware that there is something of a crusade going on now pertaining to the wholesale removal of these types of Fair Use images from Wikipedia. As such, I stopped uploading these varieties of images (and contributing to Wikipedia in general, I guess) a couple months ago, waiting to see what would happen with this. Is this the sound of the other shoe dropping, perhaps? Has the Foundation Board finally directed everyone to scour WP free of these types of images? -- Antepenultimate 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get the purpose of retyping the fair use rationale for every book cover. Does my rationale for A Day No Pigs Would Die.gif suit your request? I believe it is generic enough to be applied to every book cover graphic in the encyclopedia. How about we just add it to the template and be done with it? I don't object to a bit of possibly over-the-top copyright caution (whether it's necessary or not can be left for another discussion), but wouldn't our template system be a wonderfully elegant technical solution to this problem? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 00:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As requested. Regards, — BillC ^talk 00:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just came across your WikiProject. Was WP:TECH helpful in your layout design? I'd like to point out that I've made a couple improvements to certain pages (mainly, the todo and how to contribute). Also, don't be afraid to put your article link template into the main Template: space, where it won't be broken on the subpage. Other projects may want to use it at some point. I know ((attd)) isn't much, but it has spread to other projects that are ultimately based upon WP:TECH. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the College Coach template! Вasil | talk 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on template limits in the Help Desk. I've got a couple ideas that I am going to work on to try to solve my problem. Thanks again!! - Masonpatriot 23:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a fair use rationale to this image. Please could you tell me if it is enough? Thanks Belovedfreak 12:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Belovedfreak 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you clear out Category:Unassessed college football articles awhile ago? MECU≈talk 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are hereby awarded the Working Man's Barnstar (second award in ribbon form) for clearing out Category:Unassessed college football articles. The boring, tedious, important and unglamorous work is very valuable to the WikiProject College football and also Wikipedia. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On 9 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George B. Schwabe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, block anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion for more than 5 days (provided there's a consensus), protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=
 PS Please add you name to WP:LA!

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So I don't have to spam everybody's talk page, a big thanks to all those that supported my RfA!↔NMajdan•talk 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations!! Another much needed sysop :) - Alison^☺ 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• A big congratulatory Hook 'em from Johntex\^talk 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, John, that hurts! ;) Gratz, NMjadan, and good luck as a sysop. z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Congratulations from downunder.--VS ^talk 22:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

..has added a comment to his/her talk page, and a fake unblock request/grant - would not an indef be better here given the sentiments and the level of disruption over the last 15 minutes? EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I was just wondering what need sto be added to the images i've uploaded as i've used the same template as the one on the Nature image [3]. Thanks Alex

Thanks for the quick reply, i've added the template to the page, could you just check to make sure that it is filled out right please. Thanks Alex

Hi, was wondering if you could have a word with User:Belovedaunt. This user keeps adding unsourced, copyrighted and POV material to this article Enderby, Leicestershire. I have requested that they cite sources for some of the claims and the reply was "I have local knowledge". I have no wish to engage in an edit war but I do keep removing the unsourced material only to have it reverted, please help!--Speed Air Man 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• scratch that request have flagged it to another admin, sorry! --Speed Air Man 17:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you've copied the version linking to Pitt's specific assignment and used it as generic in other articles...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nmajdan, I'm having a problem with a template ((WikiProject Alabama)) I'm working on and could use your help. I'm getting a spurious "))" at the bottom when the template is invoked. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Вasil | talk 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're the Man! Thanks a lot. I followed your advice on removing the auto-categorization code. BTW, congrats on making Admin, it's well deserved. Вasil | talk 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject has gone live. Your participation is welcome. Durova^Charge! 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, in the deletion log for an image on the William H. Natcher Parkway, you indicated that the image was deleted as a duplicate of an image on the Commons. However, the image name was not changed to reflect the new location of the image before it was deleted. Do you know what the image is named on the commons so I can restore the image to the article? Thanks in advance, TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This comment is kinda off topic so I didn't want to post it at the AfD. I think that the editors need to decide what merits inclusion in the article and what doesn't. I really did think it was so long, the original article, while I appreciate it for its thoroughness, to be really useful to people it shouldn't be so encompassing, IMHO. The original 2005 Texas Longhorns football team article was one of the first AfDs I ever commented on, with something like this is insane to even be considering...blah blah blah. I don't know what to say really, perhaps a discussion along those lines is in order, I didn't read the entire current GA review, talk to that editor too. Hope that helps. IvoShandor 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, why did you delete my images?

[4] [5][6]

I am the photographer and released them under GDFL licenses. I don't understand why these images ought to be deleted. If there is a version existing in Commons, please replace it, and don't just delete outright. Thanks. Vesperholly 09:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The images were being used on Figure skating spins. That "What links here" link in the toolbox would've told you where the image is used. Thanks. :) Vesperholly 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Vesperholly 08:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)