Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:44, 12 January 2008

Archives

Archive 1: 14 February 2007 – 6 May 2007 Archive 2: 10 May 2007 – 20 June 2007 Archive 3: 21 June 2007 – 31 December 2007

Links to my subsection pages:

User:BQZip01/AggieTrip

User:BQZip01/FACReviewBox

User:BQZip01/FA Tips

User:BQZip01/FTAB

User:BQZip01/IFeltaThi

User:BQZip01/IFletaThi

User:BQZip01/SledQuote

User:BQZip01/ThreeE Disruption

User:BQZip01/Wishlist

User:BQZip01/sample

Photo editing

First off, happy new year. second, i wanted to ask you if i could photoshop this picture to make it a little brighter. http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Yell_Leaders_doing_pushups.JPG have a good oneOldag07 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Yell_Leaders_doing_pushups3.jpg Oldag07 (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the picture on the Midnight Yell page. Oldag07 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars

Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars. Thanks. Badagnani (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: WTF

lol, I'm bored. Sorry to hear about your son - hope he gets well soon. Happy New Year btw. I'm already counting the days until football season starts. BlueAg09 (Talk) 06:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly on all all fronts! Take good care of your son and have a Happy New Year! I also hope you can forget about the Alamo as you look towards the new year. Best, Johntex\ 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Bowie

Hi BQ. Haven't seen you around lately, so hopefully everything is going to be okay. I have a favor to ask, if you have time and energy. I have Jim Bowie nominated at FAC, with one support and 2 comments asking for a bit of copyediting by a disinterested party. You do an awesome job of identifying prose issues. Could you possibly take a look at the article and help me tighten the prose just a bit? Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

USS Illinois FAC

I have taken a stab at improving the article since you've been gone; would you consider giving the article another look? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Campus of TAMU

First off, happy new year. next. I am trying to update the Campus of Texas A&M University page. I have a rough draft done, and I would like someone to look over it before I post it. Oldag07 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kyle Field Expansion.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kyle Field Expansion.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re. RFA

Thank you for contacting me, BQZip01. It's good that you expanded your answer, but I shall maintain my oppose this time. I believe that you need more experience in admin-oriented areas, as is patent by some terms you use (such as "blocking authority"). I recommend that you withdraw this RFA and greatly increase your participation in tasks that usually require admin intervention. Keep it up for a couple of months and you're likely to succeed. Regards, Húsönd 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can substantially increase your vandalfight with the help of a tool such as WP:Twinkle. Report vandals to WP:AIV when they have transgressed their last warnings. Request protection for heavily vandalized pages at WP:RFPP. Participate in WP:XFD. Etc. There's plenty. :-) Regards, Húsönd 05:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

I have been waiting for two and one-half week for an answer from you. That's more than 14 days, sir. Suppose for a moment that situation was reversed, that you were the one waiting for answer from me, and having not gotten one left three messages on my talk page looking for one only to be (seemingly) ignored. How would feel? Then apply those feelings to an absurdly long wait from an admin after asking for his or her help to -protect a page? -block a vandal? -report a misbehaving isp address? Its too long, and from where I sit it is inconsiderate. And for the record replies to an FAC would go directly on the FAC page, not on the FAC talk page. Its your responsibility to check back on that page to see if the nominator has addressed the issues present, and you are suppose to check back and update your oppose as needed. From where I sit, numbers 2,3,4 and 9 were fixed last year and still no post assessment tweaks to your comments. Reviewers who object at FAC are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. That written right into the opposition section. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, what specifically has been addressed? I haven't seen anything to indicate what has been altered. I have no intention of re-reading the entire article over and over every time you make a single change just to see if you addressed my objection. Please specify. — BQZip01 —  07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you oppose instead of comment? If you have no intention of revisiting the article each and every time someone makes a change to it how will you handle edit warring, or articles that have disputed content tags, or original research, or other mediation related templates? Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made. Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list:

• "...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms
  • It isn't there anymore
• Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"
  • It has been fixed
• Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.
  • These were merged.
• Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • It should be out of the article now.

Now I am not an admin, but I am a coordinator, and though the tools are different the work is essentially the same, although in an admins case it is not limited to a project. You can tell a lot about someone from the simplest of things, and from where I sit your inability to follow even the basic suggested and unenforced requests casts a very dark shadow not only for this FAC but for your adminship as well. If I can't count on you to step up and take a more active part for a trivial FAC how can we expect you to step up as an admin? You had damn well better put some thought into your answer, sir, because your response to it will likely be the deciding factor in my decision to support or oppose your rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom I recommend you reconsider your above comments because they read like a personal attack please remember to comment on the content not the person. Gnangarra 13:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA was withdrawn

Hi BQZip01. I have withdrawn your RFA as it did not currently have a chance of succeeding. Please consider the comments that were raised and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello BQ, I am sorry to see your nomination did not succeed. I was on my way to support and I saw what happened. RfA's often have this problem where people find one or two things to seize upon and just focus on those things vs. looking at the big picture. There are some that say that adminship is "no big deal" but there are others that point out that it is almost impossible to loose the admin bit once it is granted, and that we have to be extremely vigilant to never promote a questionable candidate. Don't worry about it too much. You will certainly succeed if you let some time pass and try again. Best, Johntex\ 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this happen, I know from personal experience how tough RfAs are to go through. I think you probably learned from it, especially about friendly notifications..;) If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest getting an admin coach, they can be enormously helpful in learning about the various aspects of being an admin. Dreadstar † 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i am sure you will do well next time. gig em! BTW, i am going to teach my co workers in Ohio how to do a fightin texas aggie yell practice on friday. it is going to be great Oldag07 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good gracious no! Leave the poor Ohio people alone - they've suffered enough!  :-) Johntex\ 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Check

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65) for feedback. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I owe you an apology for my behavior and my attitude over the last few days. I have been off my meds for three days now, and as a result have been sleep deprived, underfed, and dealing with a with a never ending case of heart burn for which I have managed to drain two entire unopened bottles of pepto bismal in a vain and fruitless attempt to settle my stomache. All of this translates into an increase instances of stress, and since I can not work my stress of by exercising (that, too, makes my violently sick to my stomache) I have resorted to yelling at anyone I can find to make myself feel better. All of this aside I have been way out of line insofar as interacting with you for the past few days, and I feel badly about it, so if you can find it in your heart to except my apology I hope we can put this whole incident behind us. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to here it. I will look into adressing the specific objections you brought up at the FAC page a little later (tommorow maybe), but right now I need to step back from everything for a little while and catch my breath. Clearing my head would be the best thing for me right now, before my momentarily substandard judgement gets me into even more trouble. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding RFArb

You wrote: I was involved in this discussion, but was never informed of ArbCom. Given the sheer volume of the discussion, I really don't mind so much, but I wish I had been notified and no malice is assumed unless proven otherwise (I don't expect that to even be possible).

Given the sheer number of involved editors, I undoubtedly missed some that should have been included. If you wish to add yourself as a party to the case, you can do so yourself (As Remember did) - after all, this is a wiki *grin*. I did post a note about the ArbCom request on the talk page, to notify editors I may have left out. henrik•talk 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)

I have nominated this page for AFD. Since you're disputing the prod, you may want to give an opinion here. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I should clarify something here

Because of our recent disputes at Kyle Field and Michael Q. Schmidt (actor) I feel that my intent for the original edits at Kyle Field has been misinterpreted as being malicious. It has never been my intention to undermine your efforts to bring A&M related articles to FA status. I acknowledge that you have done this several times before at Aggie Bonfire and Texas A&M University, both of which I have read completely and enjoyed. My edits to Kyle Field were not meant to be a jab at the stadium's de facto status of being an intimidating venue, but were meant solely to bring the title and that section in line with Misplaced Pages protocol. Furthermore, I do not wish to eliminate or crop information from the article that promotes Texas A&M University, its athletic program or its facilities (as long as NPOV is maintained). In fact, I think the information at Kyle Field should be expanded and I hope that one day it becomes a Featured Article.

My edits were solely technical in nature and were not necessarily content disputes. If you wrote that "so and so called A&M the most intimidating venue ever" (with a source) that would be fine, wouldn't be OR and would agree with NPOV. Since it doesn't cover anything that isn't in the citation, it is perfectly acceptable. I probably have a more stringent view of OR than most, but I believe that holding editors accountable for what they write makes the information in the article more reliable. I recognize that your attendance at A&M makes you more familiar with those topics, but I would ask that you please please cite your sources so that when it comes time to promote these articles, other editors won't have these same disputes.

As for the nominations for Michael Schmidt, my reasons for removing those articles are based on violations of WP:AUTO where I believe that Schmidt authored that article to promote himself. He has already said several times that he paid somebody to promote him (though I dispute this and believe he performed the edits himself) through Misplaced Pages. Again, I believe that that transaction, regardless of any and all WP:COI concerns, makes the writing unsalvageably unencyclopedic and thus should be deleted. Because of the many and numerous attempts by sock puppet accounts to override the removal of this material, I reacted harshly to your removal of this template. Had I read the talk page for the ip account, I would have quickly realized it was not a sock and therefore not vandalism. I apologize for this accusation. Since you are a unique user, your removal of the prod was fair within WP:PROD, though I wish you had provided better context for doing so.

If you agree with me that some of the material on Kyle Field can be rewritten to improve the form and thus satisfy the POV concerns, I will remove the RfC immediately. I do not wish to engage in any content disputes with anybody on the project, so it would be great if we could resolve this amicably. If you do leave a reply to this, please do so on my talk page so I can respond faster. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)