User talk:Moonraker0022/Archive 3

Moonraker0022 Talk Page Archive (July 2008 to June 2009)

Kansas City skyline picture

As a member of WikiProject Kansas City you may be interested in a skyline picture debate taking place at Talk:Kansas City, Missouri. If you would like, please stop by and voice your opinion. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:WOF 08 003.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:WOF 08 003.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NAIA pages

I do a search for articles with commonly misspelled words, then correct them. It's a silly hobby, but it keeps me editing. I use to write articles from stratch, but I don't have the time anymore. Clerks. (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello - Categories

Hi, you need to be more careful in your categorisation, for example, many of the cats you added here and here are a bit silly. The one that caught my eye was Category:Tennis - if you look at the contents of this category, you'll realise that these two articles do not belong in the general tennis category, and I'm sure the same is true for many of the other general sports categories you added. As a result, I have removed the non-college related ones. If you want to recategorise these articles, I suggest something more subtle, for example Category:Tennis organisations might be more appropriate for tennis, or you could create a Category:College tennis. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Hey there! I've set up some templates for Talk:Southern Nazarene University#Merger proposal and posted info at Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers to see if we can generate any discussion on whether or not we should have separate articles for history, athletics, buildings, awards, etc. I'd cast my vote with the idea that, if well-crafted, the content can all be included in the main article, but I don't feel as if one man's opinion matters quite enough to start creating and destroying willy-nilly. That said, I think we should be paying more attention to content and references than creating new things without content and/or references. We might even get a GA article if the former is our main focus. I apologise if I'm a bit indelicate in trying to relate my priorities; I hope my anticipation of umbrage is unwarranted! It's rather a source of frustration for me that I don't have enough published material on Nazarene schools to craft more comprehensive articles. Aepoutre (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So, it looks like no one cares about us, haha. No one ever seems to comment on SNU matters I hope for input on, so it looks like it's up to you and me to build consensus until we can find other editors to work with. It might be a bit rough since it's not terribly democratic, but it should be fun. :) This is what I think: there's a distinct possibility that the number of user's comments is fairly proportional to the notability of a subject. Assuming that's true, I think it's safe to assume that making lots of really small articles on several interrelated topics isn't necessary. As I've said before, my philosophy is that it would be better if we could create comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced articles on things SNU-related. If articles get large enough to separate one day, that's great, but we can't get ahead of ourselves. That said, perhaps it might make sense to have an SNU Crimson Storm article, simply by virtue of DI, but I'm not convinced that the SNUPY Awards, at the very least, merit a separate article. We can at least merge that into the Crimson Storm article, or perhaps even into the SNU article under Student life. The Sawyer Center is still depressingly small, but has some good information that could have been (and still can be) used to beef up other articles. I know that you intend to enlarge these articles, but I still think you're working too hard on making lots of articles without making any of them substantial. I've really enjoyed teaming up with other editors to improve articles in the past, and I'd love to help out on more Nazarene articles, so let me know your thoughts. Collaboration, yes! --Aepoutre (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, ironically, we got some input on the SNU talk page today. Might even be a friend of yours! --Aepoutre (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I've never even been to the school. I troll around in the College Football project and have taken an interest in NAIA schools. You've made some good efforts here -- keep it up!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

timberwolf

can you send me a link of the discussion page? i dont rember anything about going on the timber wolf article...--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nazarene Church

I didn't orinally remove it. A previous editor removed it, and I saw it and got suspicious, as I know the Nazarene Church is protestant. I reverted the previous edit restoring the article to the protestant cat. However, never wanting to undoe someone else's edit without getting all my information, I visited the Category:Protestant churches page and read the statement at the top of the page which reads, "This category is for buildings that are used as churches. For classification by denominations, see Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements." As this article refers to a denomination and not a church building I agreed with the earlier edit and reverted my revert. Hope this clears up any misunderstandings. Ltwin (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NAIA Football Conferences template

Please hold off on replacing the Template:NAIA Football Conferences with Template:NAIA Conferences. The discussion on the deletion of the template is looking very much toward KEEP at Templates for Deletion. If the consensus swings and it goes to delete, then fine go ahead. But until the discussion is closed, it might be best to wait for the result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sawyer Center

Hey, I posted on Talk:Sawyer Center after reverting some of your recent edits. Remember that you need citations, no matter what you've heard. I need to be able to verify it, or it's not up to snuff. Also, keep in mind that even hidden, obvious non-NPOV statements hurt an editor's case and bely possible COI. I've said before that you need to focus on quality of information if you have any interest in making good SNU-related articles. I'm no expert, and ask a lot of advice from more experienced editors. Feel free to ask me for any help, of course, because I'd love to. Instead, we seem to be at odds over verifiability, mostly because of your POV, but I'd rather collaborate. Using talk pages for articles if you're unsure of anything is also very helpful, in my experience. Neither of us are immune to being wrong, of course, so those are especially helpful for getting others' opinions. Talk to you again soon! --Aepoutre (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OS

I'm a class of '03 alum. You? Ryan2845 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

SNU template

Hey, I'm not worried about the template colours, so no worries there, but the process has made me curious about the college colours. First, I'm intrigued by the name "Crimson Storm" paired with the colour "Maroon". Second, since it seems fairly non-standard, are there really four colours (maroon, grey, white, and black)? Third, is there a media guide where you get your information? As to the last, having one might would eliminate some confusion, because I noticed the SNU article and the 'Storm article disagree and I can't find any sources myself. Talk to you soon! --Aepoutre (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I just noticed that the women's volleyball colours are different yet again from the college and main athletics articles. I'm even more confused now. Didn't you write in the colours for each of these articles? --Aepoutre (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. They are crimson and white. See [1]. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the edits, but that is not the intended purpose of the template. It is for all aspects of SNU. See also: Template:University of Oklahoma, Template:University of North Texas, and another style Template:University of Kansas, Template:University of Southern California. The unused links are removed, so all that information is there, and is in a concise listing. Moonraker0022 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although I don’t think just changing redlinks to nonlinks is enough, and I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from. Perhaps I'll try better explaining, and ask you to please read WP:CLN and WP:NAV. I'll quote from the above sources, the first of which is a Wikipedia guideline. Starting off, in reflecting on why/how the template was originally created, I'll quote from Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Properties, under the heading "Navigation templates provide navigation" (emphasis not mine), where the first and third bullets comment on both ends of the spectrum: "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" and "They should not be too small. A navigation template with less than a handful of links can easily be replaced by 'See also' sections, or relevant {{main}} and {{see also}} links within the articles' sections." But more to the point, under the heading "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles" (emphasis not mine), the first bullet reads: "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Then, under the heading "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles" (emphasis not mine), the first bullet reads: "If the series of articles is not established as related in the actual articles by reliable sources, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them." Finally, under the heading "Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative", the first bullet reads: "There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles."

From Wikipedia:CLN#Navigation templates: "As with categories, all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box. Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it? If the answer is 'no', a category or list is probably more appropriate." Also, #3 under the heading "Disadvantages of templates": "Often inadvertently push a POV and suggest that one aspect of a topic is more important than others, being used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places, or asserting project proprietorship. Templates can go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion if they appear to push POV. Trying to remedy this by adding more templates might lead to the disadvantage described in the previous point."

Just in case, also consult WP:OWN and, if necessary, WP:COI.

Starting here, the emphasis could be argued to be mine :). As for your last comment: Oklahoma, Kansas, and USC don't use piped links or redlinks. Those navbox templates exist as navigational templates for existing articles. They also use links for related articles rather than articles the editors wish were related. Case in point: just as the University of Oklahoma doesn't link to the Southern Nazarene Crimson Storm in a navbox, neither should a Southern Nazarene University navbox link to the Daily Oklahoman. I admit, the North Texas template is terrible (your first example to me, as I recall), but I care more about the articles and templates under the WikiProjects to which I belong. As for the template colours, you might notice that I did research to find that information, yet you insist on choosing arbitrary and impertinent colours. As for redlinks that should have existed before template creation, I have yet to see you, the one person pushing the template, create them. I'm working on my own well-sourced articles on the history of some towns in Massachusetts before linking them, creating templates, or adding what would now be red links. Unless you can provide evidence that the template isn't in violation of WP:CLN and WP:NAV guidelines, and that your argument isn't simply a matter of WP:OWN and WP:COI/WP:POV issues, I'll revert the template so that it can stay 1) properly coloured, 2) linked to existing articles, and 3) linked to related articles, all per the above guidelines (which also call to question the rationale for its creation). Let me know if I'm being too harsh or if I actually make sense, because I'm only going for better Wikipedia coverage. --Aepoutre (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Noticing your latest edits to Southern Nazarene University, I'm glad that you found the seal and college colours. I'll pass on the fact that you cite www.snu.edu and "SNU Visual Stanards Guide" as the sources, since I know how hard it can be to actually link those, just know others could still see them as in violation of WP:VERIFY. --Aepoutre (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

SNU Colors- Those are that particular shades of Crimson and White. The Visual Standards Guide is only available on the SNU website, it's not a third party site, so you got me there. Change the colors if you want, but remember assume Good Faith. Visual Standards Guide or [2] I have not seen any school having to source school colors... it's sorta a given.

University templates are all in there own school colors, that's my justification. To be honest, this is frustrating me.

I am not adding, or promoting my so SNU's interests, I am stating, as plainly as possible, facts about the school. So there is no COI or OWN. The majority of my edits aren't about content but about presentation. I've tried to make the SNU as quality as possible. I do change things when vandals come in.

The template is not effecting the content of the article in any way. The OU template also links to Daily Oklahoman so it is not ill-relevant to SNU. SNU does not link to Oklahoma Sooners, not sure where you were going with that. The SNU template also serves as a list, all the majors, facilities and other information, some of which is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. And like I stated earlier when I overhauled the SNU template, it leaves open the possibility of expansion. When someone is so led to create and article about the SNU School of Business, it is there ready to go. Until then, it is suffice to say, as it is listed in the Template: SNU has a school of Business. It works as a quick reference. SNU is a small school, and relatively low on the radar of all American culture.

Moonraker, maroon is not a shade of crimson, as they are both separate shades of red. The Visual Standards Guide is great to have, IMO. You're right that most college articles don't require citations for their colours; however, citing sources is a policy for the very reason at hand: the colours were wrong, so I did the research and found a source with the necessary information. It's safe to assume that most college articles don't cite source colours because most editors get them right, and because no one denies sources in favour of their opinion (since that goes against WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY). I'm just glad that you found a source for the college colours (which are totally different from what you originally put, so I didn't attack you in any way but cited Wikipedia policy that challenged you to work with me in making the article better), which are different from the athletics colours according to other sources. I totally assume good faith. If you were to have a non-NPOV perspective it wouldn't mean that you're being malicious or destructive. I've just been letting you know about Wikipedia policies you may not (and seem not to) have read, so that we might resolve our disagreement according to those principles.

The Daily Oklahoman's online edition has a specific link for the Sooners,[3] demonstrating that it meets criteria for relevance (recall "If the series of articles is not established as related in the actual articles by reliable sources, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them" from the guidelines I referred to earlier) and therefore merits inclusion there. SNU does not meet the same criteria, as simply being the subject of a news article or being in the same MSA does not establish the same level of relation via RS (otherwise, one could argue that any college is related to any newspaper in which it has been featured, and link to that, or you could put University of Chicago in a Saint Xavier University navbox).

Articles are different from lists are different from navboxes, and none of them should include a list of majors. That's usually deleted or it can get an {{advert}} tag slapped on a college article. There's no reason for a majors list except for advertising. Furthermore, the SNU business school, as WP:UNIGUIDE suggests, would not be notable enough to be created anyway. Declaring the non-notability of your college might be atypical, but it doesn't provide a strong argument for your article- and template-creation. Sure, expansion is great, but navboxes are not for expansion, they are to link existing articles (I've already sent you links for those guidelines, WP:CLN and WP:NAV).

Understand that this isn't some effort to destroy you somehow. One might call it an (unsuccessful) attempt to help you become a better editor by providing helpful guide links, much like the tradition of posting things like User talk:Aepoutre#Welcome to Wikipedia!, albeit more specific and interactive. It's nevertheless been met with indifference to more than one Wikipedia guideline and policy. Please understand that I don't send you links to make you feel bad or destroy an article, but so that we can both read them and reach consensus as to what would be best, according to set guidelines, for the article. According to what you say, we have the same objective. Let's work toward that objective without getting defensive and ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Southern Nazarene University

Template:Southern Nazarene University has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Aepoutre (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY

Moonraker, if there are really press conferences then you should be able to find sources to cite that others can verify. Once again, I encourage you to do more research and focus more on article quality. --Aepoutre (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:SNU Crimson Storm logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:SNU Crimson Storm logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:SNUseal.jpg)

You've uploaded File:SNUseal.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Play-in game requested move

Moon, I followed the procedures outlined in WP:RM. IMO it's not an obvious move, so I followed the non-uncontroversial steps. You can weigh in here to support the move (or not I guess :) — X96lee15 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Play-In Game a different title by copying its content and pasting it into NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Opening Round Game. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. The move in question has now been completed after following the proper procedures from WP:RM. Thanks,--Aervanath (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Kansas City Chiefs

Since I see you are a member of WikiProject Kansas City, I invite you to join and help out whenever possible with the official WikiProject of the Kansas City Chiefs. Thanks! conman33 (. . .talk) 06:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Kansas City Chiefs, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Kansas City Chiefs. Simply click here to accept!

DII Tournament Articles

Hi, thanks for the support! The NAIA articles are great as well. You are correct that it is time-cnsuming work, especially since I am reconstructing the brackets from the NCAA record book, which only includes game scores. Based on what I've found, there is not much else to put on the articles besides a list of participants and the backet (I created the individual NIT articles as well, and that is what most of them include except for the most recent ones, which have more information). After creating the individual articles, I hope to create some records compliation articles that will mimic the ones that exist for the D-I toruney. I will add the linkst to the see also and will put the project tag on the discussion page as well, as you suggested. If you have any suggestions or ideas, feel free to share them! Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

As promised, I'm responding to your last comment here instead of at Talk:Southern Nazarene University. I've contributed to various city, town, biographical, and university articles. I do use my "passion" to edit those, thank you. You may notice that content is often added when research is done, too. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, I also have a life outside of all this and can't edit everything at the same time with the same critical eye. I'm aware of Ursuline College, but I just recently overhauled Elmhurst College and I'm moving on to Trine University. I have plenty to do without fixing mistakes at MNU and SNU's articles. You also have passion, Moonraker. I like that. But it needs to be focused by familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It takes a lot of time and effort, as well as various mistakes. But if you read what guidelines others, like me, are willing to share with you then you'll become a better editor! And who isn't interested in a little personal growth? Talk to again soon! King of the Arverni (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally vindictive edits that destroy sentence structure and hidden messages such as this are not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'd prefer not to report you. Please stop. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

SO when I remove unsourced information, you call it "crippling the sentence structure" and then put it back in. But when you remove information uncited, you are protecting the integrity for the article from "harmful and destructive" edits. And if I were to re-add the information you tell me to "stop it" and I am "starting an edit war". This is highly hypocritical. You did a 180, reverting my edits, only to added them back later, still uncited, then removed them and added them back with references. Under the guidelines, I can remove those offending sentences, which you have said is acceptable policy, you yourself follow. SO basically I am so confused to your logic of reverting my edit. and then removing the information, that I had previously removed yourself, then added it back with sources. (Which is a good thing, but I'm confused on the progress by which you went about it.) And we'll probably go back and forth on the athletic logo to, but seeing as how MNU has used the wagon in the past, it is more identifiable to the the college more so than the gender specific pioneer man. I had them both on there at the start, for the wagon is used on there Facebook Fan Page. There is no reason to why there can't be two. I also added a caption about the 2009 re-branding. I think there can be both.I gave a very logical and sound reason for having the color order Red Blue White, or even letting it be Blue Red White. I in no way changed the color or deleted the colors off there. So I fail to see how the trivial issue of color order is "harmful" to the page. If I didn't give a reason, that understandable to change it back, but I expressed that since White is MNU's accent color, it should be listed last. Check out University of Kansas colors order.Moonraker0022 (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Your response here isn't a minor edit. Be careful with that check box.

2) In your haste to take my WP:V recommendations to the extreme, you did leave incomplete sentences in your wake (no, a noun isn't a sentence, as I've just addressed).

3) You'll notice I did remove the information, carefully and appropriately, that wasn't cited, and did research for the rest. It's not hypocritical to undo destructive edits (it seems this is the bit to which you take the most umbrage), remove uncited information, and add cited information. Your pleasure or displeasure at the timing of my research is irrelevant.

4) Your wagon assertions constitute OR, and violate both NPOV and RS. Since you are fond of precedent instead of regulation, see [4]. It's particularly relevant since you recently praised that article's structure. I also provided an explanation for any recent edits on the article's talk page.

5) I'm sorry if the logic confuses you. It doesn't confuse me, and it wouldn't be an issue in any case if you didn't take it so personally.

6) There is a very reasonable explanation for why it shouldn't have two: it doesn't need two, which only serve to overwhelm an already small article. Focus on researching the college and adding cited content. The attempt at compromise by adding both pictures is not compromise.

7) I have no issue with the colors at present, aside from your inappropriate hidden comment about them. It's clear you hadn't read this addition to our discussion before adding that comment, or responding here. As I said, it seems that you take umbrage at the "undo". I can understand that, but inferring such an offense is unnecessary. King of the Arverni (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MNUpioneers.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:MNUpioneers.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Marking major edits as minor

I noticed that this major edit was marked as a minor edit. Please refrain from marking major edits as minor. I noticed this tendency earlier and called your attention to it then, as well. King of the Arverni (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hola

I'm appointing you the SNU-colors "defender of the faith" or something. There are literally 8 options for this color and it's pretty obvious that, in terms of VERIFY, no one is actually better than any other. You care way more about this than I do, so go nuts with it. I hope you're not so angry that we can't still collaborate on these articles. You may not believe this, but I've almost always assumed good faith on your part, doing "sneaky" things during content disputes notwithstanding, and your assumptions that I don't assume good faith on your part are actually pretty rude. I hope that if and when we do collaborate from now on, you can refrain from personal attacks and letting your frustration get the better of you. Frustration, understandable as it may be, doesn't give you any right to be anything but civil, especially when you appear to take Christianity seriously enough to implore me to "remember my baptism." I can't, since I've never been, but you should probably take your own advice, whatever you meant by it. Anyway, take care and I'll see you around! Great job with adding {{WikiProject Universities}} to all those articles, by the way; I've been pretty excited about that. :-D King of the Arverni (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Project tags

Actually, considering the Christianity project banner now includes material for each of the child projects as well, it would probably be best to use the Template:ChristianityWikiProject with whichever subproject-specific parameters are appropriate. Do you have any particular school in mind? If so, I could probably do the changes myself. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For Lutheran schools I would probably add the following text:

:{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=|importance=|lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=}} and remove the separate Lutheranism banner. The Christianity WikiProject has an article alerts section on its main page which allows the project to be informed of any major developments regarding articles tagged with that banner, while the Lutheranism project doesn't yet have that functionality. Also, in general, that is true with most of the other Christian projects and their banners. In general, I think it would probably be best, if you believe that you have the time, to replace any extant banner of one of the Christianity WikiProject's "child" projects for specific denominations or groups with the {{ChristianityWikiProject}} and whatever additional parameters, like those for Lutheranism above, are appropriate. Then remove any banners which are duplicated by the Christianity banner. That reduces the talk page clutter, while at the same time increasing the functionality. Also, in some of these cases you might check to see if the existing categorization of the article indicates the school's religious affiliation. If it doesn't, by all means add whatever category is appropriate to indicate the school's affiliation. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bearing gifts (sort of)

Hi! How's life been of late? Since our Wikipedia history together is so intertwined with it, haha, I wanted to share a discovery I recently made with regards to Pantone 201. MIT also uses 201 for "Cardinal Red" but doesn't use the hex found at cardinal red -- they use #993333 (http://web.mit.edu/graphicidentity/colors/index.html). Seems anyone and everyone uses Pantone 201 and assigns a different hex to it. Insane. One of my favorites was the source that said MIT's official colors have "spurred such controversy" (http://web.mit.edu/graphicidentity/symbols/colors.html). Hah! Well, take care of yourself, Moonraker! --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Great work

Hey! I wanted to let you know what a great job you've been doing with talkheaders, bannershells, and wikiprojects. Just so that you know you're appreciated. And thanks for the catch on the SNU athletics bit, too! :-) --King of the Arverni (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying to update the NAIA schools. Smaller schools usually have lower quality articles. Here's a question that maybe you can help me with. Sometimes I see Project Banners for Education and Schools in a US College/University talk. So far, I've been changing those out for the University Project tag, so there is a wee bit of uniformity. Am I right in doing so? It is very rare to see one, but just doubling checking. PEACE.Moonraker0022 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)