User talk:Johntex/Talk15

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.

I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.

This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.

So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki email & another thing

OK.. I've seen Wiki email and would like to set it up. Send me a "how to" article. Also, is there a cool tool bar that you use for your admistrative work that's available for us lowly contributors? Noles1984 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Alamo Bowl

I was already applying the edits and previewing when you must have added the in use template. I'm not making any further edits. Have at it. Clipper471 02:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The crowd is only a record for a sporting event in the Alamodome. The 1997 Billy Graham Crusade had 66,835 in the Alamodome. The Pope's visit in 1987 drew over 100,000+ in Northwest San Antonio. I've corrected the references to the Alamo Bowl article and the Alamodome article, but I'll wait until you finish with the 2006 Alamo Bowl article to correct it there. Clipper471 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct... for a sporting event. ESPN is shooting from the hip if they said a record crowd for the city. The Pope drew 100,000+, and the Alamodome had a higher attendance for the 1997 Billy Graham Crusade. So I had corrected your entries of, "It was also a new attendance record for the city of San Antonio" in the Alamodome article and, "this was a new attendance record for the Alamo Bowl, the Alamodome, and for the city of San Antonio, Texas" in the Alamo Bowl article. Clipper471 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your request for improvement of 2006 Alamo Bowl on my talk page... no suggestions. The next logical step would be to go for "featured article," but that's uncharted territory in my experience. Nicely done on the Alamo. Go Big Red... and Hook 'em, Horns! — Kghusker 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Texas Longhorn football team

I made some minor changes to the article and then went through and made comments on a subpage. Let me know if there's any section that is bugging you in particular, and I'll take a look. Happy New Year to you and yours! May 2007-2008 bring one of these and one of these home to Austin! — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I also suggest (whether now or in the future), peer review.--NMajdan•talk 15:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I have requested peer review here. Have a Happy New Year! Johntex\^talk 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 Alamo Bowl is about to appear on the Main Page DYK. Also, I have replied to peer reveiew suggestions on the subpage Scm83x created and at the peer review page. Johntex\^talk 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia additions

Our goal is for people to add more details to the APDIP wikibooks created. Since Wikipedia is utilized widely via searches, relevant pages would have displayed the wikibook links with brief description. However, if this cannot be done, can you recommend an approach I can follow so that wikipedia users are aware of the APDIP wikibooks? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjjupadhyay (talk • contribs) 10:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have a link to your project? That might give me some better ideas before I reply. Best, Johntex\^talk 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2005 Texas Longhorn football team depth chart

Hi. You created Template:2005 Texas Longhorn football team depth chart over two weeks ago and haven't done anything to it since. Do you plan to use this? I was about to TFD, but saw you created it two weeks ago so figured you maybe were still planning on using it and would ask you instead. --MECU≈talk 00:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibook additions to Wikipedia

There are up to 15 primers on wikibooks. Examples of links are:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Information_Age

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Internet_Governance Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjjupadhyay (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have not received any updates from you. What is your recommendation to the wikibook links on wikipedia? Thanks. I need to complete this task soon. Thanks.

College football barnstar

		The College football Barnstar
		I, User:BigDT, present you with the new college football barnstar for your work with college football articles this season, most notably, continuing work on the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article. BigDT 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you very much. This is indeed an honor. And thanks for creating the award for our project also! Johntex\^talk 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BSU page

Check out 2006 Boise State Broncos football team, which has a great feature on the roster: the redshirt icon (). — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that on another page - OU I think. I was going to use it for the 2005 UT page, but my source for the roster (MackBrown-TexasFootball) did not indicate which players had red-shirted. With more research we should be able to add the icons appropriately. Johntex\^talk 03:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, 2006 Alamo Bowl, was selected for DYK!

On January 4, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2006 Alamo Bowl, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude?

Ok... If i want to make the page that I edited a discusion page, i just want to ask the people what they think

If you have a problem get back to me

Wrestling Maniac 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:WrestlingManiac

You are a writing machine.

That is all. (Oh, and Hook 'em. Excited for next year.) —bbatsell ¿? 07:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I confess my eyes are getting a little bleary tonight, so your comment is just what I need to perk up a bit. May I inquire what particular piece of my writing happened to catch your eye? And, oh, yes, by-all-means Hook 'em! I don't know if we can get all the way back to the top next year, but we should be in the mix again, for sure. Johntex\^talk 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No pieces in particular (but I obviously follow most of the same articles you do, 2005 team, Colt, Vince, etc.). I tend to get distracted and forget that we're—you know, writing an encyclopedia—and it's always a nice reminder to see your name all over my watchlist. —bbatsell ¿? 08:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A2M

Thanks for pointing out the double redirect. I hadn't noticed that. The article where it is redirected specifically mentions A2M and already had the term mentioned in bold. It is explained in that article, so it seems to be an appropriate redirect. I don't see a problem. -- Samuel Wantman 09:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberAnth

Hi Johntex, like me, you are involved in discussions with CyberAnth. I would like to point your attention to this short discussion I had with him just now: User_talk:CyberAnth#Believer.27s_baptism. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibook additions to Wikipedia - APDIP discussion

Thank you for the detailed response and sample sites. In the interest of time, I will make the following entry into wikipedia:

Include wikibook links to the "External Link" section only {brief explanation of the books}, and the below link http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:APDIP_Books

I will add the above link to the various wikipedia search keyword entries. I hope this will not trigger my entries as "spam" and suspend my usage? Please confirm.

Hello, thank you for your message. I agree that sounds like a reasonable thing to try. That solves the problem of formatting and of undue prominance to a particular source in the headings of an article. It does not adress the question of how anyone knows that the source is reliable. Because of that, I can't guarantee how the links will be received, or that someone else does not remove them.

I don't fully understand the time pressure you are under, but I don't think this can be done all at once. I suggest that you add such links to a few articles (<10) and see how it goes. Check back in 1 day, 3 days, 5 days, and see if anyone has removed the link. Check the Talk page of the article to see if they have been questioned. If you add the link at the bottom and do it on a small number of pages, I personally will not remove the link. I will wait to see what other authors do.

When someone adds such a link to many articles at once, it gives the impression they have not really taken the time to ensure the link is relevant to the topic. Again, we usually have only a few links per article. Therefore, when authors add a new link, we expect them to effectively be declaring "this is one of the very best links I could possibly add to this article." If you just go through and add the link to lots of articles - it looks like you are just adding the link everywhere you can think of. That is why we tend to view such links as SPAM. If you are careful and deliberate, then the links may be well received.

Good luck, and please let me know if I can answer any other questions. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 16:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State Buckeyes National Championship Game -- 2007

Thank you for letting me know what I can do with the other article. I now see why you wanted me to delete the other article -- thank you for changing the article name so it could be redirected to the original national championship article for 2007. Jordanrschroeder 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Texas tags

I'm glad you care. LOL. With so little participation within the project group, I'm skeptical of it’s immediate impact on articles relating to Texas A&M University. At some point a line must be drawn to prevent users from adding every related project group, alive or dead, to a discussion page. I’ve noticed the current Collaboration of the Month is the Strand. I’ll see if I can’t help later this week on that article. I happen to have lived there for a year while attending Texas A&M at Galveston. Also, I believe at some point you were wondering about collaborating with editors over on the A&M articles. Are you still interested? -- Hut101 06:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the feeling of being alone when working on a project. I came to Wikipedia with only the anticipation of working on articles relating to A&M. I really couldn’t care about other articles. However, now with considerable help from other enthusiasts, I now might have some time for other articles of interest. As for collaboration, I would like to do additional background research into Bevo’s name. Among A&M students it’s established that Bevo received it’s name because of the 13-0 branding. However, as pointed out, there are other possibilities. I would like to conclusively determine the truth. Also, I’ve recently found out that Reveille V was taken by UT students some time around 1990, and I would like to find additional information about that incident. Also, historical significance of the wording in both A&M and UT’s fight songs. I hope that through collaboration, we can reach a mutually acceptable neutral point of view. -- Hut101 06:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

BEVO

I've done some background research, however, determining any facts after nearly 80 years is difficult. Through both A&M websites and UT websites I've been able to find supporting information relating to historical events that happened during 1916. I will attempt to explain them as best as I can. While reading - http://utopia.utexas.edu/articles/alcalde/hornery.html?sec=sports&sub=athletics - it stated "His disposition certainly didn’t improve when the two cowboys entrusted with his handling attached cables to his head and dragged him onto Clark Field" showing a picture of BEVO being drug onto the field. Next I found pictures at Cushing Library at A&M - http://cushing.tamu.edu/collections/images/Pages/basicsearch.php?s=browse&tid=3453&route=basicsearch.php&sterms=BEVO - that clearly shows several pictures of men in front of what looks like a 1916 Buick, I presume to be O.K. Johnson, though I can't confirm is existence. Also, a picture of what looks like BEVO, including the same picture form the previous website, and an invitation to BEVO barbeque, though it doesn't say BEVO. Though this does not clarify BEVO's name, it's at least some historical references. I was wondering if you could do some background research into The Alcalde. I don't have an account for their website, and don't really plan on it. If we could get access to the actual article that first uses BEVO, it would make a much better argument on in the article. Also, if you would be able to contact the Texas Exes and see if they have a historical copy locked away somewhere. I'll begin contacting individuals at A&M Traditions Council and see if I can get some information on the 13-0 hide that was supposedly given to the Aggies. -- Hut101 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reveille VI

Wrong Reveille. It's Reveille VI. Heres what I had found earlier: "During her tenure as mascot, she survived a prank kidnapping by a group of students from the University of Texas at the age of four months before the annual A&M-Texas game. She eventually was found tied to a tree near a lake in Austin and is in the history books as the only A&M mascot to ever have been stolen." I did find a great article about it at - http://giving.tamu.edu/content/tamufoundation/essaycontest/battalion-90s.pdf - Check the second page, half way down. Maybe you can find additional information as to whom committed this act. Also, that article states that BEVO was taken twice by Aggies, but I only know of the once when we branded it, something to look into I guess. -- Hut101 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pig

I'm not sure about this article but I will think about it. Its just I have little interest in articles not in some way relating to A&M, but I do believe it's an important article that needs to be written. -- Hut101 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Status

Maybe we can work on insuring both articles relating to A&M and UT meet Featured criteria, and follow the University Project group recommendations. -- Hut101 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tu, teasip

Is it Teapsip, teasip, tea-sip, or something else. I can't find any historical reference for the beggining of this word. Right now I simply posted the more well known story under the Traidtion of Texas A&M. -- Hut101 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

It would be great if you could get another contributor to look into those records. I would presume that they would have an actual physical copy within their records. I'll continue contacting the administration here and attempt to locate the 13-0 hide. If there is some historical record that confirms it was never re-branded, it would finish the matter. With what time I have left before school, I'll continue work on Reveille. If you ever come across articles making references to the UT students who took Reveille, please pass them on to me. Thanks! -- Hut101 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something

Dear John

Greetings from Bangkok! I am UNDP-APDIP’s Programme Specialist on Content Development and Knowledge Management and would like to add to Sanjay’s comments on the Wikibooks.

These wikibooks were originally UNDP-APDIP’s e-Primers. I understand your concerns about the reliability of the resources so please allow me to briefly explain how UNDP-APDIP e-Primers are developed, how they are being used and translated by governments and others around the world, and why we have donated our e-primers to Wikibooks.

15 UNDP-APDIP e-Primers are currently available on Wikibooks for all to use and update. The e-primers are intended to help laypersons and decision-makers understand the various terminologies, definitions, developments and issues surrounding the different aspects of information and communications technology for development (ICT4D). Nine of the e-Primers are part of UNDP-APDIP’s "e-Primers for the Information Economy, Society and Polity" series that detail the concepts, issues and trends surrounding different ICT4D issues such as e-commerce, education, e-government, Internet governance, legal and regulatory issues, and ICT for poverty reduction. Six of the e-Primers are part of the "e-Primers on Free/Open Source Software (FOSS)" series that introduce various aspects of FOSS, including education, government policy, licensing, localization and open standards.

All e-primers are written by experts in the field, selected by UNDP-APDIP’s staff, partners (http://www.apdip.net/about/partners) and advisory panel members (http://www.apdip.net/about/advisory), and are published by UNDP. All e-primers also undergo peer review. Draft of the e-primers are posted online for all to review and comment. They are also sent to our partners and advisory panel for review and comment before they are finalized and published.

The e-primers have been used by governments, academic institutions and others in training and education. For example, the e-Government e-Primer (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/E-government) is used In India by the National Institute for Smart Government (NISG) as reference material in their training course. It is also used as the e-government handbook for all civil servants in Sri Lanka. Moreover, the e-primers have been translated or are being translated by different organizations into Vietnamese, Mongolian, Sinhalese and Tamil, Portuguese, Farsi and Chinese at their own cost.

Below are some relevant accolades for your reference (http://www.apdip.net/about/accolades/apdip):

• I want to thank you very much for the [FOSS: Licensing e-primer] and encourage you to continue publishing such guides. They are really useful quick references. - Pierre-Paul Lemyre, LexUM - Université de Montréal (5 January 2007)

• We find the e-Commerce and e-Business [e-Primer] by Zorayda Ruth Andam very useful and informative and thus we would like to incorporate it in our forthcoming executive reference book "Innovation: An Effective e-Business Management Tool." - Arindam Basu, Research Associates, The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India (14 April 2006)

• We had given the soft copy of [the e-Government e-Primer] to the participants in one of our one-week IAS officers training. This was used as reference material. We now plan to use the material in the e-Gov Champion programme - Piyush Gupta, National Institute for Smart Government, India (16 March 2006)

• This [Internet Governance e-]primer can be of interest to many, as are the other publications of APDIP - a programme worth of praise for its pro-active role in effective knowledge dissemination. - Michel J. Menou, France (9 December 2005)

• I am a lecturer at the Stellenbosch University, South Africa. I present a module on aspects of the Information Society. One of my themes is : e-government. I found your e-primer [on e-Government] on the internet and reckon it to be excellent. May I photocopy parts of this [e-]primer to hand out to my 60 students? - Willem van der Merwe, Stellenbosch University, South Africa (5 November 2005)

• Firstly, congratulations on the excellent e-primer series. I am writing to you because I am currently writing a course on ICT for Development, which will form part of a Masters degree in Sustainable Development, offered by distance learning. Our programme has about 800 registered students...I would very much like to include the following material(s) that you have made freely available on your website. - Jon Gregson, Manager: Learning and Development, Distance Learning Programme, Wye Campus, Ashford Imperial College London, United Kingdom (January 2005)

UNDP-APDIP decided to donate the e-primers to wikibooks because it facilitates collaboration. Every day, volunteers are improving wikibooks, making many changes, writing, updating, and correcting books. At the same time, wikibooks maintains quality control and has policies and guidelines that users need to follow. We hope by adding the wikibook links in the relevant wikipedia articles, this would help to strengthen the articles.

You mentioned in your discussion with Sanjay that “if a wikibook was somehow proven to be a reliable resource, we would prefer that some fact be taken from the wikibook and incorporated into the article, and then the wikibook given credit by way of a footnote.” This is what we have in mind and we believe would add value to the wikipedia articles.

Hope this email clarifies some of the questions you have, and let me know if you require further information. We look forward to further collaborations with the wikipedia and wikibooks communities in making knowledge freely available and facilitating knowledge sharing.

Best regards

Christine

Dear Christine,

Greetings to you in Bangkok, such a wonderful place. I hope I am able to soon renew my acquaintance with the city.

I am personally inclined to believe that these e-primers are quality works. That was the impression that I recieved from my glance at them, and it is reinforced by the testimonials you provided.

I don't know how much you know about Wikipedia, but please allow me to mention a few things that may or may not be known to you.

First of all, I do not have any special status to make decisions for Wikipedia. I am an active contributor (one of the 800 most active users if judged purely by the number of edits I have made), but clearly there are many others as active or more so than me. I am an administrator (one of about 1,088) so that means I am required to understand our basic policies and to act on them if I feel they are being broken. (There are also avenues for review if anyone believes I have acting improperly.)

We are a very decentralized operation. We do have policies, but often these policies leave room for individual interpretation. Most decisions regarding content of individual articles are made by the specific volunteers who happen to have an interest in working on that particular article.

We do not have a specific policy for or against citing a WikiBook as an external link or as a source for an article. We do have several policies that are relevant in a general sense to this question:

WP:V - Full policy - his states that articles in Wikipedia should be "verifiable". We sometimes say we strive for "verifiability, not truth". An author may know for certain that his dog has lived twice as long as any other dog of that breed, but she would not be able to write an article on her dog unless this fact could be verified by other people.

WP:RS - Guideline, not policy - this says that sources cited in Wikipedia should be "reliable sources". Some cases are clear-cut. The BBC is considered reliable. An obscure blog that gets 15 visitors a week is not. There is a lot of grey area in between. Interestingly, Wikipedia does not consider Wikipedia to be reliable in the sense of this policy. It would clearly be no conclusive proof if one article here cited another article here as proof of its veracity. That would be a self-reference that would prove nothing. The fact that WP:RS is a guideline as opposed to a policy should perhaps be viewed as meaning that the concept is extremely important and well-accepted, but the specific examples cited are more open for debate.

WP:SPAM - Guideline, not policy - Adding the same external link to multiple pages is frowned upon. Again, this is a guideline, so there is some room for debate about how rigorously this should be enforced.

I initially reacted negatively to Sanjay's addition of the e-primer links for several reasons:

Since I was not so familiar with these particular WikiBooks, but since I know that WikiBooks can in principle be editted by anyone, even vandals or those pushing an agenda of some kind, I was worried that these links may not be reliable sources.

Sanjay was adding the same link and the same or very similar text to many articles - this seemed to point to a WP:SPAM case.

The format Sanjay was using was unorthodox, in that he was adding a seperate heading into the article to talk about the wikibook. This is definitely not consistent with our existing articles. Please see WP:MOS for our Manual of Style.

The combination of the 3 things above caused me to react swiftly to revert the changes, and I left an explanation for Sanjay. In cases of clear-cut policy violations, depending on the severity, administrators can block access to a user to prevent them from editting Wikipedia. We generally issue a warning first, because a genuine mistake or misunderstanding should not be treated too severly. We don't want to scare away new contributors who certainly can't be expected to know all our policies and preferences.

So, where does that leave us?

Since I hold no special status to make decisions for all of Wikipedia, I cannot promise to keep your links in place. What I can do is to advise you on some things that may help:

We don't like too many external links. One of our other policies is WP:NOT which lists out some things that Wikipedia is not. One fo these is that we are not a "link farm". This means we tend to prefer adding to our content vs. just linking to external content. Therefore, it might be good to incorporate a fact from your wiki-book into our relevant article each time you want to add a link. I can help you with the formatting of this if you need help. Basically the idea is to add some text and then add a foot-note that lists your wiki-book as a source.

We don't like it when people copy and paste the same exact link to multiple articles. That makes us suspicious. I recommend going slowly with a few articles at a time to see if there are objections raised. If you are using the wiki-book as a source instead of just adding it as a link, this will help with this situation as well. Each fact that you add to each article would presumably be a bit different to suit the individual article. They would not be copy-and-pastes of each other. It would be more apparent to any observer then that you are woking to improve the article.

A third suggestion would be to use the special template indicating that an article has realted content available in the form of a WikiBook: Template:Wikibooks. Since this template was specifically created for this purpose, it may be better accepted. I was unaware of ths template myself when I first contacted Sanjay about his additions.

I cannot over-emphasize the point that all articles are ultimately written by whatever volunteer authors gravitate towards them. Therefore, I encourage you to try a few links and see what kind of reception comes from other editors.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance and I will try to help out.

Best, Johntex\^talk 02:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support!

Johntex and Ruhrfisch:

Thank you for your compliments on all of my hard work! This has been a new experience for me to edit and even start new articles on Wikipedia. I have been with Wikipedia for some time and I have decided since I am reaching my final semester before I graduate that I would leave Wikipedia. I have an abundant amount of work that has to be completed before that time, so I have decided I will unregister with Wikipedia on January 31, 2007. My last edit will likely be on January 30. I hope to sometime return and even begin a new username! Thank you for your support and helping me throughout the process of creating good articles. Jordanrschroeder 22:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2007 BCS National Championship Game

I would agree to that as well. We want to reflect the state of the teams coming into the game.--NMajdan•talk 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Boss 0

These images are important to PDL and myself personally. They must be kept beacuse I will soon be creating a PDL artical. However our policies differ with wikipedia on the rules and effect changes reguarding PDL. I am taking up all my time worrying about losing my images when I should be editing wikipedia instead. It would be a great help if they were kept so I could move on th other things. I am logging off after this and I will view your response tomorrow. Big Boss 0 04:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC) As far as our policies differing from that of wikipedia everything that we put on that artical will be voted on by us to see what we will and will not add. We have to vote on every last detail. I also need a little more information on horus to begin the artical. Next of all it took me FOREVER to get those images set up. But I cannot start on the artical until those images are left intact. We all agreed that they are needed for use in our artical. They will be added ASAP but I must keep them on wikipedia. It always seems like time and everything else is against me. I will need time to start the artical and fully educate those I have brought into wikipedia. So I need things left as they are to go back to editing wikipedia rather than worrying about these important images being deleted. Big Boss 0 14:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template protections

Johntex wrote: Hello Gurch, I hope you are doing well. I noticed that you perm-protected Template talk:WikiProject Texas and some other templates today. If you don't mind, I would like to inquire as to your reasoning. That particular template has existing for a long time without any trouble. Did something specific prompt the protections? Do you have a certain criteria you are using to decide which ones to protect? Thanks very much for satisfying our curiosity. Johntex\^talk 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Apologies for any inconvenience this protection may cause, however, it's part of an effort by myself and Misza13 to increase template protection in response to recent events. Most vandalism affects only one page and can be reverted quickly, but templates require special consideration because changing them will affect many pages at once, and features of MediaWiki markup such as transclusion and parser functions can caused problems if abused.

You may or may not be aware of the Main Page vandalism that's occurred over the past month; if not, what essentially happened was that vandals kept finding gaps in the protection of the Main Page (it's set up in a very complex way and although administrators are meant to protect everything, the occasional error is made), and inserting obscene images into it. This happened at least six times. Obviously this template is never going to be displayed on the Main Page, but these vandals were clearly trying to get attention, not just targeting the Main Page specifically, as evidenced by their attempts to do similar things with unprotected templates on the Featured Article of the Day. Protection of templates on the Main Page and the Featured Article of the Day is now being monitored much more carefully as a result; it is likely that the vandals will seek other ways of getting attention, and templates used on many thousands of pages are an obvious target.

Another worrying incident happened two days ago (9 January 2006); for several hours that day Wikipedia slowed to a crawl and the Spanish Wikipedia had to be temporarily shut down. I don't know the details, or whether it was accidental or intentional, but someone edited a template that was used on many pages and filled it with extremely complex markup; as a result, the servers spent so long rendering it that there was no capacity available to serve the other projects. The developers had to intervene and delete the template from the database directly. Template:WikiProject Texas isn't used on nearly enough pages to cause this, however by editing a large number of frequently-used, unprotected templates there is a chance that a vandal could cause a similar situation (especially given the much higher traffic to the English Wikipedia).

One template which was completely unprotected until yesterday is used on over 420,000 pages; editing it to, say, transclude another very complex template and inserting an obscene picture could easily have caused something similar to one or both of the above incidents had a malicious user found it. I've decided that all templates used on 10,000 pages or more should be fully protected to minimize the chance of abuse, unless there is a good reason not to. 10,000 is quite a large number – only 150 of our tens of thousands of templates are this heavily used, roughly half of which were already protected. As Template:WikiProject Texas is used on more than 10,000 pages (12,221 as of November 2006, probably quite a few more by now), I have protected it. Again, apologies for any inconvenience – Gurch 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Songkhla blocking

I have now left so you can block the whole of Thailand if you like. Adam 11:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder

Please try to take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Oklahoma/archive4 soon if you could. I may go for the FA nomination next week.--NMajdan•talk 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great review, I really appreciate it. I've made a lot of the changes you mentioned. Some of them will require some additional research on my part so I will address those in due time. If you get the chance, take a look at the changes and let me know what you think.--NMajdan•talk 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TCU

Johntex, thanks for your comments on the TCU Horned Frogs page. Do you think athletics sites need something about all varsity sports? It's pretty hard to get history on some of these olympic sports. What's your expierence been?

Thank You

Thank you for encouraging me to get involved with the discussion on Talk:Ejaculation about the image. However, I do not feel that it has been to any avail, as the image is still displayed after non-discussed reverts by a third party citing me to the discussion without doing so themselves and marking the change as vandalism.

After reviewing the history of the image, I now feel that the discussion has boiled down to the par of children covering their ears chanting "la la la, I can't hear you, no it isn't." I do not feel that there will be a compromise with Atom specifically, as he repeatedly denies that there is any room in the image for offense, or that the image is even of a person masturbating. This, in spite of the fact that the user who submitted the image submitted it as an example of masturbation for the page on masturbation, and has been cited within Wikipedia as an example of masturbation.

I personally suspect that Atom is somehow behind the image (or even the image) and has personally vested interest in maintaining it. He seems to have been involved with it at every junction of dispute with it thus far, and the ejaculation page does not appear to be the first. I do not see objectivity towards it, I see intent to impress it upon people. I think that any attempt to rectify or compromise will be met with escalating reversions, even if the image is replaced with a more relevant one.

It strikes me that common sense alone would be enough to say the image doesn't need to be shown on the main page until the ramifications and merits of its use have been presented. Instead, what I see if a war of wills where one person simply undoes what the other has done and condemns the other for conflicting their will. This is not due process, and it does not strike me that there can be due process unless such behavior is put in check.

This encounter has left a bitter taste in my mouth for a project I have lauded and cited (and made minor edits to unregistered) for several years now. I am not frustrated, I am fed up. I have spent a lot of energy in the past few days putting my reasoning forward rationally, only to have the most blatant and self evident aspects of it denied with childish fervor. The issue seems to be more about sizing me up as a censor happy ultra conservative with some self-righteous motive for sanitizing content than it is about the relevancy of the content itself. This could just be me being paranoid, but I've read enough about Onanism on the talk page alone to make me not do it, just because Onanism has now become a dead horse to me. It isn't even relevant to the topic of ejaculation as presented, and is just a means of running around in circles.

Since I feel that you are somehow more that just the average contributor here (administrator?), or at least more knowledgeable in the procedures, I implore you to return to the issue. To decide for yourself if this matter requires some "next level" of mediation. If I am unable to convince my friend to draw the technical image to replace the current one, I doubt I will be around to make much further of the subject. I've done what I felt was the responsible thing to do here, but cannot continue to run the in same moot circles.

Please forgive me for leaving this on your talk page, as I do not know how to leave private messages for people via Wikipedia. -- Joseph S Atkinson 10:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph, thanks for your message. I will be away from Wikipedia for a few days, but I will study the matter when I get back. Please hang in there and be patient. Nothing here is permenant. Best, Johntex\^talk 14:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things seem to be going better at this point in time. I basically just exploded at one point and spelled out everything I could find on established guidelines and law concerning this, as well as objectivity as an editor, to thwart the "you are only imagining he's touching himself" arguments. Hopefully I stayed on the right side of the line for civil discourse. In any event, that line of argument seems to have stopped there and moved on to how to replace the image. Also, from looking at the history, I think a few other people have had comments removed. At the very least, others have come along and pulled the image themselves, leading to more revert waring.

The most interesting thing in this thus far has been noting that Atom has worked on the WIP guidelines along with you. And that in those discussions he seems to be much more rational and reasonable about it, often advocating points that echo my own with the ejaculation image. You two seem to have quite a history of going around with similar issues elsewhere though. -- jsa 11:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of students

Hi,Johntex. I'm having trouble with number of students on an university article. If an university claims to have more than 2000 or approximately 2000 students in their website, then what should be the exact number in infobox? Will it be 2000 students or more than/approximately 2000. How can I rectify this? Thank you NAHID 14:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would use the tilde symbol to represenent "approximately", so "~ 2,000". I guess you could also use the greater than symbol, "> 2,000". That is probably sufficient. Enrollment vaires from year to year so that should be close enough. You can also include a footnote to your source. Let me know if you have any trouble with that. Best, Johntex\^talk 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the symbol. You may check the article Daffodil International University and its link(here, at the bottom of this page) that indicates the number of students.Recently, I've started this article. Thank you :) NAHID 08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing about fair use.I've got some idea about fair use but bit confused about {{promophoto}} and {{promotional}}. They fall in fair use though. I don't know whether there is any differences between these two licenses and other fairuse licenses or not. Can you please tell me about it. Is it replaceable image image:Ianking.jpg. Thank you NAHID 09:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi. Glad to hear from you and see you're still around. BigDT, another project member just made admin. Someone put in a formal Rfa for me, but I turned it down. Twice before people verbally asked me. Maybe I'll give it a run one day.Rlevse 10:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For A&M Contribution

I appreciate all the pictures you've posted to A&M articles over the past day and the Wikimedia Commons section containing all of them. Some time in the future, I would like to take pictures of “all things” Aggie related, post them to the Commons and replace what is currently on the A&M articles. Also, maybe work out something with Cushing Library so that we can use their database of over 1 million photos. Also, how about that Fightin’ Texas Aggie Band? -- Hut101 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to what extent the Band needs mentioning on the main A&M article but I agree it needs integration into the history section, and student organization section. -- Hut101 06:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Why are the images I uploaded blocked? They were legitimate images depicting the subject matter of the articles I posted them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverine101 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 2007 January 23

Ohhhh..... I see.

Re: CFB Schedule templates

Johntex, that field was not added as I believe it was agreed upon to not include it.--NMajdan•talk 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we decided not to add it. Nevertheless, I went ahead and added it to the template. See the example here: Template:CFB Schedule Start#Example 3.--NMajdan•talk 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to just use Red River Shootout because the Dallas Morning News will always list Texas first, since it is a Texas newspaper. This can avoid further debate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnshimko (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2007 January 25

No, the fact that the game goes by other names is already explained in the article. If you want to find something useful from an Oklahoma paper where they call the game OU-Texas, you are free to add to the article. However, you should not delete existing material without reaching consensus on the talk page. And we never change things that are directly supported by a source. Doing that makes the source worthless at confirming what we put in the article. It is not up to us to change what the source siad. Johntex\^talk 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself calls it the Red River Rivalry! Stop being so particular as to the order of the schools and just list it in something that both sides can agree on!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnshimko (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2007 January 25

First of all, please WP:Sign your posts on talk pages, it makes it a lot easier to reply to you.

Secondly, there is no reason to add an exclamation point to your reply.

Thirdly, your reply proves the point. The article is titled Red River Shootout yet also uses other terms in the article, such as "Red River Rivalry", "Texas-OU", "OU-Texas".

Most importantly, when citing a source, we go with what that source says. Why don't you try to find something new and important to add to the article instead of trying to promote OU by (a) captitalizing "The" in front of University of Oklahoma and (b) changing wording to a form that is not supported by the source? Johntex\^talk 18:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michael Griffin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael Griffin.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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.

The same for:

Best regards, Abu Badali 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Image:Cat_Osterman_publicity_photo_USA_olympic_team.jpg

Hi, Johntex. Could you double check this image's source info? It gives me a 404 error. Sorry if this is a problem with my computer or my network's settup. Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:The Masked Rider of the Texas Tech Red Raiders.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Masked Rider of the Texas Tech Red Raiders.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cat Osterman publicity photo USA olympic team.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cat Osterman publicity photo USA olympic team.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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. Abu Badali 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Out!

Your concerns have been taken care of. (Ibaranoff24 22:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Free information

In fact, the wikimedia foundation was founded on the principle of providing free (copyleft) information, (as well as 4 other principles). The consensus to retain our m:Foundation issues is very very strong indeed, and is carried across all the different langauges and projects of the wikimedia foundation. If you disagree with them, then of course you are free to leave. Even so, I hope that before you decide to do so, you might want to think about them for a bit and discuss with people why they feel they are so important.

Feel free to contact me as well! I'm also available on IRC, on irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia, and you can use the e-mail this user function on wikipedia as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'm aware of that link. It doesn't say that no fair use images are allowed. Nor does it specify how much fair use should be allowed. As long as the foundation allows fair use, then we on .en Wikipedia are free to discuss how best to utilize free use content. If Jimbo ever decides by fiat to remove all fair use, or to specify exactly what fair use is allowed, then on that sad day there will be no more room for discussion. Until then, I will keep trying to make this a better reference work by openning our eyes to the advantages of legally permissible fair use.Johntex\^talk 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation issues say that all content should be copyleft licenced, if at all possible. Fair use is not copyleft.

To check: do you fully understand what copyleft is, and why people think it's important? --Kim Bruning 15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, I'm really trying to check that our definitions are in sync, so as to prevent us talking past each other.

In the case of fair use, it becomes really hard to copy, distribute, move, print, burn or otherwise use information.

Now fettered encyclopedias already exist. And they sometimes even include very good paid for images, for instance. Wouldn't I be better off just buying a copy of the encyclopedia britannica, rather than working on wikipedia? If not, why not? --Kim Bruning 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think objective third party research shows that wikipedia can still use a lot of improvement, but say that you are right, and we have the best single reference work on the planet.

Let's assume that's true. According to you, by which mechanism(s) did we arrive at that point? --Kim Bruning 04:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I didn't answer your questions so much, because (from my current position at least) the answers were not very enlightening. But, since you insist, perhaps you can find some use for them:

Yes. (who doesn't? :-))
No. I assign a low quality value and a low usefulness value to fettered information. (Though I'm guessing you assign values differently?)
Mu. It's very difficult to answer this question without contradicting myself or my answer to question 2.

I'm sorry I can't provide a more enlightening answer to each of those. --Kim Bruning 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FT9708.jpg (and beach)

I hope you don't feel offended or attacked for knowing that the image Image:FT9708.jpg you uploaded under a fair use claim is no longer being used and was tagged for deletion. Please, don't take that personally. Yes, I usually read through the upload log of people I interact with. Please, don't feel specially "targeted".

By the way, some of the images you uploaded we're taken in a beach in the city I live in, I confess this brought back the feeling of "real person on the other end of the line" that I somewhat almost lost during our last iterations. Do you usually visit Rio?

Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing some text to justify a random image

Respectfully, Johntex. Don't you think this kind of edit is dangerous to Wikipedia? Adding some text to justify the presence of an unfree image that happens to be in the article? Shouldn't images be used to improve the text? Please, think not only on this specific case, but think of the potential for abuse of this behavior. --Abu Badali 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replaceable fair use

Hello there! It appears that there is a bit of conflict brewing on the template I mentioned. Since the template is protected (ergo all the warring parties are admins), page protection doesn't seem to be an action for ending the fighting. In any case, please discuss things on the talk page because it's much better than wheel warring. (I'm giving people involved in the RV-athon this message. If you know someone else who needs to read it, send it to them, too.) ★MESSED ROCKER★ 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Image" is up for deletion

I figured that you might like a bit of heads up that "the image" Ejaculation_sample.jpg is now being discussed for deletion. I am inviting you to chime in on this matter. Additionally, there has been more revert warring with this same image on the Ejaculation page by the same group of people. Currently there are two phallic images in place, as one of our all-too-eager users decided to reinsert the image after it had been replaced a few weeks back.

I think it's pretty clear that the majority view is to pull the image even if what it should be replaced with isn't quite so set in stone. Atom is back to the old trick of dictating his take on the Miller test as Wikipedia policy to new objectors and declaring that the consensus is in his favor. As I said above, the image was replaced, but then reinserted. Attempts to pull the image are met with the same "wikipedia is not censored", "image stays until consensus", and "there is nothing objectionable" jargon. I am of the opinion that this user is harmful to Wikipedia because he cannot keep his personal views from interfering with his editorial discretion. In the case of this image, its reversions, and playing dumb about the nature of this image just to keep it online as his "pet" project, are this users edits not actionable? I feel he is fully aware that this image violates the Wikipedia standards. It is beyond a doubt to me that his main intention is to frustrate the process until detractors just give up and leave.

Please tell me what I should to to raise objections against this user. I am struggling to maintain civility as his brow beating and re-envisioning have crossed the threshold of lying in my book. -- jsa 08:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also to bring to your attention, it appear that Abu badali is still on his one man crusade to remove your magazine covers. As of the 29th, he has undone your update to FT9708.jpg (Girls of Big 12) and re-marked the image as orphaned. I have made a comment and attempted to revert the change, but "undo" didn't undo it. Abu seems quite proud of his RFC page too. I am eager to throw in my vote against this user after reviewing his edit history (I just need to know how). It's yet another case of some Wikipedian's personal preferences interfering with Wikipedia's normal operation. -- jsa 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OU article up for FA

First of all, let me thank you for your tremendous help with the University of Oklahoma article. This last PR (its third) was by far the most helpful. I believe I addressed all the issues in the PR and have nominated the article for FA. Please let me know if there are any further issues that needs to be addressed or if you feel the article is now up to FA standard. I look forward to your comments. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Oklahoma.↔NMajdan•talk 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to look at this yet? Apparently, my FAC has stalled.↔NMajdan•talk 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your image is on the front page!

Hi. Just a quick note to let you know that the image you took Image:Ralphie the CU Buffalo at the Big12 Championship football game 2005.JPG is on the front page as part of the DYK for Ralphie. Congrats! --MECU≈talk 13:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I submitted the DYK without an image, so whoever picked it for DYK went and picked your image. Nonetheless, getting anything on the front page is a cool treat and though I'd point it out to you. --MECU≈talk 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:FT9708.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:FT9708.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 23:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Big Ten newsletter, February 2007

Hello all Big Ten Wikipedians, here's the manual newsletter (becuase I suck with templates :P) on February. As it says on the Wikiproject, this month's main article is the Big Ten Conference, primarily because that article needs so much help right now. Everything seems to be going well so far. I'd be helping more but I had other things I was doing. Glad to see a lot of members joining though. I'm thinking of starting an assessment division of our own, but I'm not sure yet. Give me your opinions on if we should start tagging people as well btw. If you guys wish to start tagging college presidents of them, that would be a good start. The project is still partially in development, so any advice helps. Go Bucks! (and spartans, badgers, wolverines, illini, etc.)--Wizardman 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]