User talk:Disavian/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Your GA nomination of Calvin Johnson (football)

The article Calvin Johnson (football) you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Calvin Johnson (football) for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Good Work!  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Source for Calvin Johnson

Don't know how else to respond to your question about my source, I haven't done a lot w/ Wikipedia... I found the source here it is: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=ap-confidentjohnson&prov=ap&type=lgns 24.40.144.24 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)15:49 8/2/07 I'm the one who put the thing about Johnson and Pinkney

Thanks! I added the source to the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

William G. Thrash

I apologize for the "Vandal Rollback" - I am a still a neophyte with these script options - I merely meant to edit, not vandal revert. The reason I was editing was because you mispelled his last name as "Trash" is all of his category details. --Ozgod 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry about that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Shelly Jamison in WP:P*

She's not really a porn star, just an adult model, so not suitable for the project per se. Maybe if the project scope expands as suggested, but not yet. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. My bad. Would you prefer WP:P*/D only cover porn stars, and not adult models, or should that page be broader in its coverage? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is how I found the AFD, and I suspect that swayed the opiions to make the difference, so I won't object. :-) It's not overloaded. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Russ_Chandler_Stadium.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Russ_Chandler_Stadium.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO reversion

Could you comment on the line you reverted on WP:PORNBIO in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#"do not on their own establish notability"? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

LaMenta3 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I think we all need it :) LaMenta3 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mary Anne.

I responded on my talk page with: Thanks; but I saw it. Why are you telling me this? (No disrespect intended, just curious) Acalamari 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My talk page response. No, no; you didn't make any mistakes. I was only curious. You were being helpful; there is no need to apologize for that. :) Acalamari 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Clough's pic

Just curious about why you removed it from the Modern History section of the Georgia Tech site, since it does mention a few words about Dr. Clough. —Gintar77 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone added a picture of the campus there, and his picture no longer within the section. I'm thinking of going back and moving the new picture somewhere else in the article; perhaps a panorama at the beginning of the campus section would look nice. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how's that? We now have a nice panorama on the "campus" section and Funk Masta G. Wayne is back where he belongs. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! :-) I'll look into being part of the GT wiki project. It's been so long since I graduated though, and I spend enough time on the wiki, so we'll see. Thanks! —Gintar77 11:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

COM

I'll see what I can do about some stubs for notable COM alumni. I'm going to busy until the end of April so it might be awhile. Thanks for the great work on the COM article. By the way, in this viewbook is a list of notable COM alumni. I'll be adding some of the more prominently titled alumni to the page. http://mgt.gatech.edu/downloads/2005/2005_mba_viewbook.pdf Informed297 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

In order to nominate an article for deletion (as you tried to do with Tanner Agle), you must follow all of the steps listed at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. That involves:

1. Adding the deletion notice to the page you are deleting
2. Creating the deletion discussion page
3. Adding the deletion discussion page to today's deletions

I have completed the process for you, and you may comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanner Agle. If you have any further questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea how to do it. I just know it needed to be done. (You see, that page was created and deleted multiple times.) So now I know the process. Thanks again. I'm guessing the author is going to change it back though. --Donignacio 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If the author deletes the AfD notice, you should put it back. Only the user (usually an admin) that closes the discussion is allowed to remove AfD tags. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I mean that the article itself (that is the Tanner Agle page) had already been created and deleted. I looked at the author's talk page and looked at the previous discussions. If I read policy right, that even qualifies it for "speedy deletion." (P.S. Thank you for excusing my newbieness.) --Donignacio 06:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably qualifies for speedy deletion; if you think it should be speedy deleted, say so in the AfD nomination. And everyone starts out as a noob at some point, you're allowed to be one. Before you know it, you'll be lecturing someone else on how to do something. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

William Bradford (professor)

Hi, you removed my prod nomination here (fair enough), but your reason isn't sensible. "article asserts notability. take it to AfD.)". An assertion of notability is a reason not to speedy delete something (that's why I didn't speedy it), however it is NOT a reason not to delete it. I don't believe the assertion of notability makes the article encyclopedic - if you do, and you think the article should be kept, fair enough. But you should only remove prod tags if you personally believe the article should be kept, not simply to force an AfD delete, as that defeats the purpose of prod. The purpose of prod is to prevent us having an afd if no-one actually wants to argue to keep it. Do you believe the article should be kept? If you do, we can discuss this over an afd, if you don't, then can you replace the prod tag and we'll see if anyone does think it should be kept.--Doc^g 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doc^g 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be de-prodding the article again. Technically, it's not even eligible for PROD, since it's already been through two AfDs. Checking back through the history, I realized you already know that, since you're the one who initiated the second AfD just last month! In the past few days, the article has been gutted as Bradford's sockpuppets/SPAs have knocked out the reliable sources for the unflattering facts, recharacterized them as the false accusations of "liberal bloggers," and after failing to get the article speedied, manipulated well-meaning editors to use BLP to remove them wholesale as "unsourced" and PROD the article to bury it entirely. Although the obvious way to repair the article would be to revert it to a version from a few days back, some of Bradford's points/edits do in fact have some validity, so I'll have to study the different versions to figure out which changes to integrate into the article. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into that. Yeah, I'd actually forgotten that I'd AfD'd it. I was wondering about those changes. They seemed kind of questionable to me, but I've been dealing with some other things and didn't think about them too much. The article should probably stay, because there seems to have been some controversy over him. However, it's hard to tell what's true/false/relevant. I'll go on a limb and say that any change that deleted a reference was probably a bad change. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good. I went and fixed a couple things with one of the refs. Did you see that massive talk page message, apparently from the subject of the article? I think that most of his concerns have been met, as far as I can tell. I'm also kind of upset at myself for not realizing that Past AfD --> no prod. Duh. I know better. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some sockpuppetry going on in that article, all of the work I did to verify it was reverted by someone while I was asleep. Perhaps this should be investigated. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would, please take a look at the post I left on the discussion page concerning the article about me that appears on Wikipedia. As I noted in that forum, the wild rumormongering and speculation is terribly harmful to me in my professional life, and it is grossly unfair to me, my wife, and my children. I have NEVER made any claims about my military record to anyone, and inaccurate reports in the press have been taken up as cudgels by those who opposed my tenure to blame me for them and to seek to damage my reputation. I never gave anyone any information about my military record, nor has anyone, save for on blogs or on Wikipedia and always anonymously, ever claimed that I did so.

Wholly apart from that, although I achieved some success as a law professor, I certainly did not achieve the notability that should be required to be included in an encyclopedia of any kind. The only reason anyone outside my former field knows my name is because I sought tenure, and the only reason my tenure case became news is because I was denied tenure on the ground that I refused to sign a petition in support of Ward Churchill. My military record was never at issue, and in retrospect I believe my tenure opponents may well have been the source of the misinformation to the press.

At any rate, I would like to ask you to please desist from posting information about me that is untrue and harmful to me. I hope you would wish that I would treat you fairly if the roles were reversed, and I encourage you to act upon your nobler instincts.

Thank you.

Bill Bradford

First of all, inclusion in Wikipedia is not up to you, or me, or any one person. Given that there are at least ten published secondary sources about you, it is highly unlikely that your article will be deleted, so you have to live with it. If you think the statements made in the press were defamatory, you should take it up with them. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that can only rely on published primary and secondary sources, preferably ones that can be reconciled and corroborated. I am sure that if you asked Frontpage Magazine.com to print a retraction of the facts about your military records, they'd go along with it. That's the source for that, you know.

I'd like to point out what I've done to the article so far:

1. Nominate it for deletion; it was then cleaned up, satisfying my initial concerns.
2. Remove some of the personal attacks
3. Add several more sources, the basis for verifiability.

So, last night I endeavored to support the article with published sources, and more than doubled the number of references. You should be happy with me. I suggest that you review WP:AUTO and the policies there. Given that your article is unlikely to go away any time soon, it would be more productive if you contributed to it in a constructive manner. If you believe that a specific fact is wrong, ten state which specific fact is wrong, and back it up with a secondary source. In the meantime, I will try to clean up some of the remaining bias in the article. I suggest you get an account and contribute by adding positive things to the article. For example, the positions listed in your profile at William & Mary seemed impressive to me. Why don't you elaborate more on that? Most biographies of living people have their birth dates. (Or at least birth year). Why don't you add that? I'm sure you can think of something positive you have to say about yourself. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In my post, I've stated which specific facts are wrong. No reliable source has ever claimed that I was the source of misinformation about my government service record, and as I'm sure you know, it's not possible to provide a secondary source to prove a negative. E.g., "prove that you've stopped beating your wife." Not possible. I can't prove that I did not make claims about my government service record; I can only make the claim that I served honorably in intelligence and that beyond that the details are classified. For editors to say that I made any statements or claims solely because they drew that inference from something they may have read elsewhere it logically fallacious, false, and libelous.

My sense is that there are persons who take delight in the sport of trying to destroy people from the anonymity of cyberspace, and such persons will never let the truth get in the way of their fun. I hope I'm wrong.

I maintain and will continue to do so that I never discussed my military record with anyone who did not have clearance and the need to know, and that I've always stood behind whatever information is publicly available through government agencies. To claim that "Bradford claimed" anything else is simply not true.

I'll have a look at the wording. That section does look like it needs to be rewritten. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved to WP:AN/I#William Bradford (professor). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The AIV discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive220#William Bradford (professor). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Cryptic C62#Zoobkar

Thanks for your message, but the circumstances that precipitated my use of that template were special. First of all, I know Cryptic personally and was conversing with him over AIM when he created the article Zoobkar and told me about it, as a joke. I marked the article for deletion and merely used that template as a way of saying, "Don't act like a common vandal"; I was almost making fun of him, in a good natured, albeit public, way, of course. We discussed on AIM this very out-of-character action and the matter was resolved quite pleasantly. Please understand, this was not a matter of disagreement, but a joke which he took too far, and for which I told him off in a light-hearted manner. -- Rmrfstar 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay! Good enough explanation for me. Sorry to bother you, have a good day :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Funk Masta G. Wayne

Hi Disavian, It's amazing what just a few words can do. I have no objections to the article as it now stands and reverted my tag. Thanks for being receptive to feedback. Party on, G. Wayne. -- Shunpiker 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

You unprotected the article, and then added the {{protected}} template. Just trying to help you here :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, thank you for letting me know. The article has now been protected, I have also responded on AN/I.--Jersey Devil 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pensapedia

Greetings! This is the Pensapedia admin. Thanks for stopping by. I'm a bit new to wikis and didn't realize the animus towards Creative Commons licensing, but it's GFDL now. You're a fellow IBer, I see, and a GT student to boot — permanently cementing your life-connection to a certain red-bearded teacher, if I'm not mistaken. Anyhow, I hope you will be able to contribute to our little corner of the wikiverse sometime. Cheers! --Pensapedia 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did happen to particularly like a certain red-bearded teacher, and he probably affected me ending up here. :) Are you currently in high school or college, and what is your name? I'll add you on Facebook :) As for my contributions so far, I've worked a lot on the Pensacola, Florida and Jeff Miller articles. One day, I'll get it to GA status. Just not today. I recommend that you change Pensapedia's reference style to match Wikipedia's. There are instructions on how to do that here. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary of posting my proper name on Google-indexed pages, but I was IB class of '99. Nearly went to Tech, but bailed out and got a useless English degree at FSU instead. In a sense, Mr B influenced my decision as well, by making it obvious that I didn't have the 'hard work' gene to survive in a real science program. (You probably heard my name mentioned as a prime example of slackmanship.) One of my best friends, however, went on to Tech and is now a doctoral student at U of I Champaign. If you want, you can email me for further correspondence. Cheers! --Pensapedia 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ronald Collé

I honestly don't remember exactly why I removed the notability template, but I think it was the discussion on the talk page and the discussion on the AfD. Apparently he is notable due to his position and works published. (WP:PROF is pretty open to these kind of bios). But you bring up a good point: there might just not be enough published information available to make an accurate article, especially where WP:BLP is concerned. Someone did mention some sources "who's who" on the talk page, but they do not look accessible. Hopefully someone will find something. Oh, and feel free to re-add the notability template if you want. It might encourage other editors to try to improve it. I won't remove it. Danski14^(talk) 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I put it back. If nothing has changed in a month, I think it'll be time to run it through AfD again. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I renominated it, but WP:V doesn't seem to matter. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpages etc.

Hi, Disavian. Wikid77 here. Yes, I checked several userpages and liked your content-layout best. Other users linking to your userboxes led me to your userpage: we use your USA-userbox ("This user comes from the United...") due to some guff about kicking your userboxes out of an official area. It's all okay, because most everything on WP is fleeting and changing. Is there a budding "alternative WP" where we can plant some copies of our articles? The future is all about "offspring" (as I recall from Johnny Appleseed), although it is great that Google, so far, gives WP articles high page-rank.

As for the late Gov. Ann Richards ("a woman's place is in the dome"), as guys in Texas, we were scrambling to keep photos undeleted: I tried fair-use rationale and public-domain phrases as a "shotgun approach" to deter deletion. Weeks earlier, someone had deleted my NOAA photos of Hurricane-Katrina landfall maps because their "source" was questioned, honestly (no joke, people couldn't figure out what NOAA was: try to thank God everyday you're intelligent). Now I use the license template "{{PD-NOAA}}" or use "NASA" because people don't seem to question whether NASA is PD (months later, I found those NOAA photos again & stored them in Commons). Wiki photo experts even experience several "random" deletions from Commons. However, a shotgun approach is best for everything: multiple photos per article; multiple articles per subject; and repeat key details in the talk-page for an article, lest censorship or Wiki-rot trash major points from an article. We also need multiple WPs, so I try to store key facts in German or Swedish or whatever foreign-WP articles. Plant seeds everywhere, just as Andrew Carnegie funded multiple libraries. Later.... -Wikid77 (^talk/_contribs) 04:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you consider using {{Non-free fair use in}} on that particular photo. Your story about the NOAA photos is fairly amusing. If you're unsatisfied with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, as many users are, you could try copying content to and from one of the other Wikis. For example, porn star articles get copied to Boobpedia (especially when they're about to be deleted); Pensacola-related articles could be copied to Pensapedia; star trek articles to Memory Alpha; Star Wars articles to Wookiepedia etc. Once those wikis are sufficiently developed, they cover their subject better than Wikipedia does. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GT Navbox Template

Didn't know who to ask about this, but I know you're really involved in WP:TECH, so I'll give it a shot. I noticed that the Georgia Tech pages do not have a generic navigation box for the university, and I decided to try my hand at developing one. I just don't know where I'd go about asking permission to place them on all the appropriate GT pages. Right now, I'm testing it out in my sandbox. Would love to hear any suggestions/comments and what I should do next. Thanks!—Gintar77 10:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be the one to ask :) It looks good, but you can't use the institute seal on it, because it's considered "fair use." Beyond that, I'd also like to include History of Georgia Tech, List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, List of Georgia Institute of Technology faculty, and maybe even Georgia Tech in popular culture. I'm not sure what category they'd fit into, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant it violates "fair use". But why? Wouldn't it qualify as fair use for the same reasons you state on the image page, especially since the nav box would (and should) only be used on a GT-related page? I removed the logo for the time being, though.

Also, I included a new category, "People and History" where I put the links you suggested. I moved Funk Masta G. Wayne down to this section and added Georgia Tech traditions to this section as well (had it on before, but got lost in one of my edits). —Gintar77 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe "violates" isn't the word I was looking for. Fair use images are generally discouraged on en-wiki, and I'd prefer to avoid using one in a template on a lot of articles if I can avoid it. It would make/will make featured article promotion harder on the articles where it is transcluded, because you have to provide a very detailed fair use justification for each page. If you really wanted to use an image, there are several cc images that would work just as well to illustrate the institute. You could even draw a rendition of the "shaft" logo and use that (see {{Dukeschools}}). Aside from the image, I really like it so far :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now what? How about a name for the template, say {{Georgia Tech Navbox}}? I'll let you place the template on whatever pages you feel is appropriate. Also, could you review the categories at the bottom of the code to ensure they are correct? Thanks! —Gintar77 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the categories and then copied the template to the name you suggested. I'm not sure I'll use it just yet, (aside from the core pages) because I'm writing something for the 'Nique, and have a test tomorrow. But I'll be thinking about where I want to include it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you're poking the schedule present in 2007 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team. Anything I can help with? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... was I not supposed to fiddle with it? I didn't really change anything substantive. I only converted from the wikitable format to the template used for the 2006 schedule. This will make it much easier to update when the season rolls around. I also added the fact that the Army game is HC. I'm going back to the roster on the GT home page so I can update all the new signons from February. Hope you don't mind. How's that studying coming? :-) —Gintar77 00:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I finished the article for the 'Nique, my paper's deadline got pushed back, and I decided to not study for my Internet Law test until I got home from Technique deadline. Which... will be sometime tomorrow morning :/ Oh, look at the 2006 football page, I ghetto-hacked some references (Nique articles) onto it. I haven't finished going through the season, but it looks pretty good already. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, it is ghetto-hacked! But it looks good on screen. :-) BTW, I noticed going through the roster that at least one person (Eric Oetter) no longer shows up. Do you know anything about this. I'm pretty sure he was on the team last season, but I don't think he played. Did he quit/get kicked off? He still technically has a page, although so does Calvin Johnson who's going off to the NFL. —Gintar77 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I love the look :) They (the GTAA) have profiles for players that have been gone a long time, so I assume they're kept for historical reasons. If he's not on the current roster, then there could be a ton of reasons for why he's not coming back, and I'd prefer to not speculate. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Farris

Well, I'm his wife, so close enough. I found Jeremy's page and got all excited. He was less excited than me and wanted me to delete it, but then decided it was really having a picture up that bothered him, so I took it away. Hope you don't mind.

Thanks! lisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhofler (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 March 2007

Ah. I'm the one that created the article, by the way. I've been working very hard on List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni as part of a project for WikiProject Georgia Tech, and I figured that Rhodes Scholars would be a nice addition as Tech only has three so far. I'm sorry that he doesn't want his image on his Wikipedia article, but I suppose I can abide by that :) As he knows more about himself than I do, I'd appreciate it if he (or you, for that matter) helped out on his article. Just so you know, the image is still technically on Wikipedia (Image:Jeremy Farris.jpg and List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni#Rhodes Scholars), but it's not on his article. I'd *really* appreciate it if he didn't mind those, as the list is going through a Featured List Nomination, and it's a 100px thumbnail. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

UGA Chapel Bell

Hey, I saw your comment on the UGA Talk Page. The Chapel Bell has not been stolen by Georgia Tech, but another bell on campus has been; I will find out for sure which one within the next few days.Pruddle 06:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. The sentence in Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate I'm investigating is the following:

The UGA Chapel Bell and the Georgia Tech [[Rambling Wreck|Ramblin' Wreck]] have been rumored to have been stolen numerous times by their respective rival before, after, or even during major sporting events between the two schools.<ref name="wreck">{{cite web|url=http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/reck/wreck.html|title=The Ramblin' Reck Club: History of the Ramblin' Wreck|accessdate=2007-03-04}}</ref>{{Fact|date=March 2007}}

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Any news on this? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry about the delay. According to the UGA Visitor's Center, the Chapel Bell has not been stolen by Georgia Tech, but they may have stolen the bell from Park Hall. Park Hall currently has a bell tower with the bell missing. Pruddle 05:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source somewhere that we can cite about that? Preferably online, but I suppose citing a book would be okay. Also, feel free to update Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate with that info. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea on the source, but I'll check some books that may have that information. Pruddle 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re : Hint

Thanks for the reminder, my bad on this one. =P - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppps! =P - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rv

Thanks for the heads up as I was kind of curious about why the vandal was so determined to vandalize userpages, after returning from a block. Well, have a good day. - Gilliam 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

George P. Burdell GA on hold

Just a note to let you know I've placed the GA for George P. Burdell on hold; it just needs a fair use rationale for the image. Mike Christie (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rationale has been added. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, looks good. Passed GA. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unanswered comment

Sorry, I must have missed your first comment, I can't get Werdnabot to work for some reason so my page is cluttered. Ya know, looking at the article now I am not really sure what I was referring to. I thought there was something in there more comparing stadiums or academics, it just seemed that the article was primarily supposed to be about the sports rivalry, perhaps that was my perception at the time, though now, I am not really sure what I was referring to. IvoShandor 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oklahoma

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)

Yes, WP:OU is based on WP:TECH (which in turn is based on WikiProject Turnkey Project) but it was WP:TECH that let to be Turnkey. Thanks for the comments. I may add the template to actual template space.↔NMajdan•talk 17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I did it. I moved the template to {{laabbr}}. Thanks for the advice.↔NMajdan•talk 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

YouTube Screenshot

Disavian, I just simply put YouTube's url into http://www.media-convert.com/ 's box in the page. It created a nice .png screenshot, which I uploaded here.

Goose31 01:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game

Thank you very much for stating that you think we should have this article and also for giving it a rating. Best, Johntex\^talk 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any rule against nominating an article for GA while it is at AfD. I doubt the situation has ever come up before. The person who suggested a merge could not have read the article very closely, of they would definitely know that both teams have an article about their season. You could nominate the article for GA. Anyone can nominate and review articles for GA. You could even evaluate it yourself for GA so long as you follow the GA criteria. Given that this is at AfD, I would suggest that you follow the criteria very closely if you decide to evaluate it. Best, Johntex\^talk 02:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wintour GA nom

Thank you! I'm touched ... it's the second time that someone else has nominated an article I've done most of the work on for GA (the other was New Coke). Of course, I was grooming it for a nomination myself, so it wasn't totally out of the bluw, but it's nice that other people can see the hard work you did.

Most of what was suggested by User:Yannismarou in peer review has been addressed, so I would certainly consider it ready for consideration. I've been working on the Wikiquote page; I was going to start the GA after that. But having someone else make the nomination gives me a little more room to work on splitting up The Devil Wears Prada and prepping that for a GA nom.

Oh, wait a minute ... I did want to do a full copyedit from a printout that's been sitting atop my desk for a week or so. Better take care of that.

I will add a little note on the talk page to try and address some possible concerns a GA reviewer might have (something I would have done anyway).

Once again, thanks! This will be a good thing for the new fashion project. Daniel Case 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an impressive article, and I'm no stranger to WP:GAC :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I know, it's going to take a while ... I don't mind, but I'd rather have this copyedit done than have to explain that it's on my list of things to do. Daniel Case 04:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nested banners

Hi, Disavian! Thanks for your note! In general, I try not to leave WPBIO and the others inside the nesting, but I have left a couple. From the discussion at the project's talk page, they should be upgrading their template fairly shortly, so I figured a couple days of looking horrible wouldn't be too bad.

I hope I haven't left many more like that - I've been working on upgrading banners and articles quite a bit, so if you see any like that, I probably just haven't gotten to it yet — but will. Hope that clarifies things :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're working hard there! I'm taking the time to document my BannerShell hack for the time being. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kewl :) And would you do me a favor? If you add the nesting functionality to a project banner, would you add the project to the doc? My bot will then lets me know which ones to add the WPBS to. Thanks for your help!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Jordan

These are supposed to be discussed on each talk page first, also people in general should not go around inserting their preferred templates into talk pages as their only contribution to the article. See here. Quadzilla99 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't get this to work right, see this section: Self defeating? or is it just me? Quadzilla99 23:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another link we probably need to bring this up at the Village Pump, with the several banner shells, the small option, and the question of whether an editor's only contribution to an article is changing the talk page templates there's a lot of confusion. Quadzilla99 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just in the shower, so I'll respond to your various comments and edits.

1. A user requested that it be added to Talk:Michael Jordan, which is why I was there.
2. Which changes do you oppose? If you simply oppose the change from {{WikiProjectBanners}} to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, then you should have kept the other changes I made (in particular, assessing and use of small=yes).
3. In addition, why did you remove nesting support from the WP:NBA and WP:WPHALO templates? Supporting it and using it are entirely different animals.
4. Do you not agree that my changes to Talk:Michael Jordan improved the clarity and facilitated the purpose of the page?

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I preferred the old format, I'm bringing it up at the Village Pump that should help clarify it. This conversation is so much bigger than just one page. I think the consensus may be going in your direction so don't worry we'll see. As for reverting the options see the discussion I mentioned the creator of that template said he/she only inserted that option after discussing with each WikiProject first. Quadzilla99 00:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll try to get some of these issues dealt with at the Pump and then we can figure it all out as this relates to every page on the project obviously. Quadzilla99 00:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Quadzilla - I used to bring it up with each WikiProject - mostly because a) it was a really new option, and b) I dealt with the super-huge projects first (Bio, MilHist, India, France, Album, etc). But in the past couple weeks, it has taken on a life of its own - there are several editors not only adding the Banner Shell to articles, but updating banner templates as well. As you probably saw on the WikiProject Council page, I've been meaning to bring it up at the Village Pump, but haven't gotten around to it yet. If you do so, would you leave a message on my talk so I can see how it goes? Thanks much!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to keep adding it there - if he doesn't want it, that's fine. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WPBio template

is now compliant! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-ACLU

I noticed that the userbox User:Disavian/Userboxes/Anti-ACLU, apparently designed by you, is gone. If it was relocated, could you be so kind as to tell me where it is now? I had it on my page and would very much like to put it back up. Ben 10 13:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where it went. Apparently, it was a redirect to someone else's userbox that was deleted. I'll look into it and tell you if I find anything. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. Ben 10 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to User talk:Cyde#User:Disavian/Userboxes/Anti-ACLU, this particular userbox was "distract[ing] from writing the encyclopedia and foment[ing] conflict" or something like that, so it was deleted. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit summary

In a recent edit, you removed a stub and wrote "wtf...not a stub" in your summary. This may have been a violation of WP:CIVIL. A better edit summary might have been, "Removing stub template; article is now long and well-developed." It's not a big deal, but be careful when writing anything that other users might see. YechielMan 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WPWI Banner

Hi, and thanks for fixing my mistake on Template:WikiProject Wisconsin. I was wondering if you could help me out with something. I can't figure out how to make the importance option disappear when the page is not an article. (Compare Image talk:000 0060 2.jpg to Category talk:Major league baseball players by team.) I also am not sure how to make the wording of the template on non-article pages to not use the word "article" in the line "This article has been rated..." (again like in the example). Do you know how to fix it? Thanks. —Mira 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How's that? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...that works, although it wasn't exactly what I had in mind. I'm just a little worried that (for normal articles) if people don't see that the importance is unassessed, they might just not assess it at all... —Mira 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So you just want to show them that importance hasn't been assessed if it's an article talk page? Sounds doable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Right...I think. Heh, this has been a learning experience for me, I'm not used to dealing with that much code. —Mira 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did that fix it? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it did, but this image talk page still shows "This article has..." Would you just need to add "Image talk=image" in where you did this edit? —Mira 06:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Would you prefer Images to be "NA-class" or would you like an "Image-class"? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...you know, it might be interesting to have an Image-class to work with. I suppose we could do that. —Mira 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And would you want a category to go with that? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, yes I would. —Mira 07:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also went ahead and removed the importance categories from non-article talk pages. You'll have to create your category now and place it where you want it. For now, I have it as Category:Wisconsin images or something like that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. —Mira 07:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for all of your help.

Thanks for the wikicookie :) It's now on my userpage under "Awards." It's interesting that our paths should cross again after all of that userbox crap. I pretty much ignore all of it nowadays, as I'm more focused on the project I started and its articles. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even make the connection until you mentioned it. I took a long wikibreak to get away from those evil userboxes, and I'm very glad I did. It's much more fun (and productive) that way. —Mira 08:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Once I came back, I pushed them aside, and have focused more on actual content. I'll always have that spike of ~2.5k userspace edits, though :p —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have 5,000 (10,000 if you count my other account), so I guess I win there. Yuck. —Mira 21:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Tech traditions

Article has been passed for GA. Looks good. Hope you can find sufficient references for the Budweiser song thing, but it's not all that important to GA status for that part to be in. Your initial assessment on removing it and putting a note on the talk page was correct. Cheers! Dr. Cash 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)