In accordance with your wish to be notified when user with whom you have worked recieve rfa noms I herby notify you that one such nom has been opened for me. You are welcome to comment on the rfa, if you wish. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
All the rest aside The Texas A&M University System recognizes 1876 as the official date of establishment of Texas A&M as is clearly shown here: http://www.tamus.edu/univ/tamu.html. Why can you not allow the facts to be shown on the page?
"The Texas A&M University System—although not officially recognized as such until 1948—got its start in 1876, with the establishment of the state’s first public college, the land-grant Agricultural and Mechanical College (A&M) in College Station."
This is the exact quote from the Texas A&M University System History page. It clearly states that the first public college in Texas was established in 1876. We know that Texas' first public college was TAMC, currently Texas A&M, therefore Texas A&M was established in 1876.
The Texas State legislature set aside money in 1871 for the formation a public college. Texas AMC did not come into being as a state university until 1876, most importantly: 1876 is the year that Texas A&M claims its origin. If you continue to disagree, I would suggest that you Consult the Official Seal of the University where the year 1876 is clearly displayed in the manner that is traditionally reserved on a seal for an establishment or founding year.
Senate bill # 276 April 17 1871 house passes a bill entitled: "An act to provide for the Establishment of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas." That Provision was money ($75,000, if you look further into it), which would later be used to establish the College. If you look at the wording of previous acts they are all stated in an "active" manner, For Example:"act to incorporate 'X'" & "Act to Authorize 'Y'," or in A&M's case "Act to Provide for 'Z'." The act authorizes the providing of $75,000 so that the College could be established, nothing more.
The wording of the bill was copied exactly from page 1073 of the official record of the 12th Legislature of the state of Texas, if you would like to verify
If that is not enough follow this link to another page in The Texas A&M University System website and see when they consider A&M to have been established... http://www.tamus.edu/univ/tamu.html
so please allow the proper year of establishment to show on the page, prospective students commonly use wikipedia to research their University options and it would be a shame for Texas A&M's page to be erroneous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzeppelin ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The
July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do some editors combine/mismatch colon-indents and bullet-indents? You do (seen here), but so do many other editors, and I've never seen why. Combining different editors' styles of indenting frequently ends up breaking somewhere along the line, and I wondered what the stylistic/technical reasons for doing it differently are. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The memorial sounds specifically awesome, and I wish there were more pictures of the specific elements. On the twelve portals, are there any notes with regards to where they're pointing specifically?
Lastly, and I know you didn't ask for, but I'm really impartial to left-aligned images unless there's a reason they can't be right-aligned. Frequently they screw with other article elements and make it look wonky. Point in case, in the Bonfire Memorial section, there's no need to left-align the image, but it does make the bulleting and line breaks look all out of whack. See Image:Bonfire SS.jpg. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit ( talk) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Invite appreciated. Bhaktivinode ( talk) 23:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I intend to take practice using the tools for a few weeks before going "live" with the tools. I have never had these buttons before, but I expect I will be able to pick up the finer points quickly (military brats usually do :) Thanks for the message. On a related note, have you given any thought to filing another rfa? The last rfa you had was a few monthes ago (I think six, but I wouldn't swear to it) and with the admin-related work you've been doing I think others would be more open to supporting you the next time around. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi BQ, I'm not sure if you were aware, but the comments you left at WP:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America had an onlyinclude in them. This made the FAC nom not transclude at WP:FAC. I've fixed it, but if you have the same type of comments saved somewhere just be aware to remove any onlyinclude tags before posting at FAC. Karanacs ( talk) 17:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:In_Wikipedia,_X_is_an_Article,_not_Evil#.22What_do_you_mean.2C_.22Me.22.3F.22
It was like taking a laxative and a sleeping pill in one night: it makes no sense!
Hi, I notice you often respond with "uploader status irrelevant" at WP:IFD when someone notes "absent uploader". Actually, the uploader status often isn't irrelevant. The point the people are making is that the problem with the image might be solvable if the uploader were still around to fix it, but since he isn't, the problem isn't going to get fixed. — An gr 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, having the same input as another editor but not duplicating such specifically in words doesn't constitute constructive input and should not be weighed duly. See my input and reply at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 10#Image:The Family of Blood.jpg. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In advance of filing another rfa for you I need you to head to User talk:TomStar81/Sandbox and answer the questions there. I will start looking into your contributions and such tomorrow after school, and if I have any more questions I will ask there. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to ask if this is something y'all do regularly? Ndunruh ( talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I thought my comments on the reversion were clear (over zealous deletion of fact...) instead of requesting citation, which I then added in the second edit. In a complex edit you deleted a clear, simple, linked fact about the location of the skull. I restored that fact, and requested citation for the section that was unknown by me. My current PC config does not encourage meaningful changes to graphic layouts so I assume that someone/you will edit the images. Regards. Autodidactyl ( talk) 00:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked a question of one of your comments on IFD - I'd appreciate a reply (there, not here or at my talk page). JRG ( talk) 06:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry - where does it say that I am wrong on the ages thing? A picture of someone at age ten is not replaceable by another of them at age 50. It's as simple as that. The non-free content criteria which you showed me does not say anything about that. I'm asking that we interpret this sensibly and according to ordinary meanings - the image is simply not replaceable because a replacement of it with another of that person at a different age is NOT a replacement. If you agree with what I'm saying then you need to be bold and stick up for users like myself and the others who agree with me, not just blindly supporting what masquerades as "policy". What you call "policy" was decided on by a handful of pro-deletion users, not by the majority of WP users and needs to be adapted from time to time, that's what things like WP:IAR are getting at. I'm glad you agree with me but I appreciate a little common sense put into decisions from time to time by WP users, so some support by you against those who don't display common sense would be nice. I and others have tried arguing on NFCC, but it doesn't work. You don't get listened to. (Please reply here). JRG ( talk) 03:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the source of that Keating photo, by the way. The web address was wrong. JRG ( talk) 03:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
BQZip01, I have never had the pleasure of interacting with you before, but since I have seen you around, I was wondering if you could help me. I would like a free image of the "Tangüis cotton" which I would like to place in the article of Fermín Tangüis where the subject is discussed. Do you think that you can help me here? Tony the Marine ( talk) 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
CC has a question for you on my talk page. This is a crucial piece of info. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Still going through the thing. Sorry for being slow to respond, I got an email the other day informing me that I had been dropped from one of my classes for not paying for it and I am now having a large gunfight with the adminstrative people over the matter, so my time here got cut back even more. I am looking into though, trust me, its just going slow is all. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm advising all participants in the IfD discussion for the Image Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg that a subsequent DRV was filed here. Your participation is welcome. Dreadstar † 01:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
CC, Franamax, and BQZip01, how is the situation that was discussed on my talk page coming along? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sir, I am the uploader of This image and this image must not be deleted because its from my own camera does it needs GNU License. Cutie guyx22 ( talk) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Félix Houphouët-Boigny needs to be copyedited and peer reviewed. We would appreciate any and all help from the crack members of the FA-Team! Sign up here. Merci! Awadewit ( talk) 12:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen some of those links to what are essentially "cover pages" for the broadcast audio or video, so I knew to look for the easy-to-miss "play" link, which also happened to list the running time (in small gray letters). I just got around to listening to it and it's not bad -it shows a different side to the topic than already in the artilce or the other external sources. It was interesting to hear the "thunk" of the cannon and to hear the fire control officer diligently reviewing potential targets. Anyway, thanks for working on the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've looked over everything recent and did not find anything of grave conern, and the three questions you answered cleared up the remaining unknowns. I see no reason to delay any longer, so here is your rfa nom. Good luck (you're going to need it). TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"Should anyone require a further explanation on my answers ... ask followup questions." Well, the're asking :) Just making sure you know. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I was not familiar with your contributions to Wikipedia prior to your RfA nomination. In view of what you have brought to the project, I would like to offer this token of my admiration and appreciation:
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
In celebration of expanding the depth and scope of Wikipedia's content and strengthening the level of Wikipedia's character. Ecoleetage ( talk) 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC) |
Keep up the fine work. Ecoleetage ( talk) 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's distract you for awhile.... I have been working on THIS in order to show a notability for a film trailer. I am trying to show how this clip... because of who did it, why they did it, and the results of their doing... has attained notability. An article... three sentences and no sources... about a future film failed NFF at an AfD and was deleted. During the course of that AfD, I created an article about the film's trailer.... which has been out for over a year. Here's my start just after I added some EL's from which to work... and heres' the finished article which was moved to the old title. This article about the trailer was moved to the space of the deleted article because of naming conventions and was then put in AfD for a 2nd nomination. Yikes. It sure wasn't the same article that lost previously. However, and the AfD aside, this has encouraged me to further expand the article now at AfD to modify and underscore its focus. So in my sandbox is the article as I am reworking it. I invite suggestions on content, context, and title. You have been a guiding light in this confusing World of Wiki, and I deeply respect and trust your opinion. If you feel I am beating a dead horse, I will let the matter rest. Whatcha say? Schmidt ( talk) 07:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC) (clarifications)m Schmidt ( talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Now THIS was a surprise... but I figure it only bought me a little time. I have set up a plan of attack in my sandbox to very carefully address the concerns raised at the AfD. I think I am mis-using the external links section and not taking full advantage of certain sources even the AfD conceded were reliable. If I build upon good secondary sources and only use tertiaries that are supported by the secondaries, I should still have a decent source base. Am I going about this the right way? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Genuinely sorry to do this. Hope RfA's not bruised you. I'd love to see you as an admin one day. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Tough break, though truth be told, it'll be nice to retain the only set of eyes reviewing images for deletion. It always bugs me a wee bit when IfDs just go nom -> del, without intervening eyes. Wily D 15:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Given the extensive and high-quality work you've done on articles related to Texas A&M, I would like to solicit your feedback on the state of MIT's article at its peer review for whatever changes you feel would be necessary to secure your support at a future WP:FAC. Madcoverboy ( talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I am sure you already know about Intellipedia, but I just read about it today. It is brilliant, and I am sure you would be an expert at it. I was wondering how active you were in the Intellipedia community? Well, hoping you are doing well. as for me, it is good to be back in Texas! Oldag07 ( talk) 04:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The article and external links section has been tagged for numerous problems, including unallowed sources, NPOV, original research, and more and is currently being cleaned up. If you'd like to defend some of the deleted content, I welcome the comments, but your revert has restored self-published sources, erroneously attributed claims, repetitious statements already addressed elsewhere in the article, and other garbage. You've also reverted corrected grammar errors. Blindly reverting the lot wholesale is not constructive at this stage, not in an article that so requires cleaning out the trash. It needs more thoughtful justification to defend the content you've restored, which includes dead links, self published content, claims misrepresented to sources, and more. The policies you've cited in the revert don't apply in this revert. Professor marginalia ( talk) 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
How come nobody deleted Image:Imslayout.PNG yet? Noble12345 ( talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain why this article was deleted? The source you cited for its rationale states that there was no consensus... — BQZip01 — talk 18:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The
September 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you, with your doubtless superior knowledge of Wikipedia culture and the English language, please consider explaining to me where I "insulted" this person? Also, it would be very conductive to an assessment of your highly appreciated and helpful efforts at the RfC if you could educate me about whether you read this section before you inserted your views. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the unrelenting attacks that are leveled on him would make anybody incivil. Corvus cornix talk 03:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
BQZ, I thought it might have been you, but the edit summary was unclear. You have some "interesting" wiki-adversaries, so I decied to go ahead and delete. I figured if it was you, that you'd let me know and revert it. You did. :) - BillCJ ( talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As a partipant in the IFD, closed as keep, you may be interested to know that it is now at DRV and I invite your comments. Justin talk 09:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks unlikely. Darn. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The
October 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | Please accept this notice to join the
Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!--
LAA
Fan
sign
review
02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) {{{1}}} |
An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Q. Schmidt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination). Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
Could you look at THIS and advise if I am preparing it correctly, as I have never done such before. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem! If you feel the Aggies are hard done by, as many colleges in the same situation remain in the head-cat, after I gave up cleaning it up for now, please carry on the good work, and/or comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Military_schools_and_military_academies, where I've raised the issue. Johnbod ( talk) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a 19 year Air Force pilot. I've never done maneuvers, only operations (real world) and training. Mohrflies ( talk) 01:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Texas just got promoted to GA, is now on a FA run, and it would be nice to have all the input we can get in our peer review. Thanks for the help. Oldag07 ( talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:TAMUQ_Profs_and_Students.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse ( talk) 06:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much! I'll be doing the rest of the Laughlin squadrons in the coming days so it's likely to happen again. I'm sure the bot is designed to error on the side of caution, which I can respect. Hopefully it won't cause too much pain. Ndunruh ( talk) 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have replied on my talk page. CIreland ( talk) 15:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
ooops : Bwmoll3 ( talk) 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you !!
[2] use on AFROTC and/or Corps page? — BQZip01 — talk 06:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be uncivil, and I'm sorry if I came across that way. I do have a bit of a bad habit of getting somewhat sarcastic when I get tired, and it was rather late when I posted that. I'll try to keep an eye on it in the future. Thanks for bringing it up with me. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's me wot U found on Facebook. And I was glad to get your request! And I'm wearing a retro Tiger Band uniform in the pic! Mark Sublette ( talk) 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette ( talk) 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I doubt you'd shed any tears over them, but their article was in an absolutely atrocious state. I went through with and chainsawed large sections out and put in some generic descriptive info today, but I wonder if you wouldn't mind swinging by and giving it a once over or list of recommended improvements as well? Madcoverboy ( talk) 23:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Please use IAR sparingly, mainly where it improves Wikipedia, not to get the last word in a discussion. And please don't confuse "editing" someones comments with undoing an action. I have just removed your comments because the discussion was closed, I have not edited your comment. Fram ( talk) 10:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In particular, I was unconvinced by the relevance of the arguments that a player's position on the field was relevant to if they "played at the highest level" and the idea that an essay could be cited as something relevant to a decision about notability. However, if you wish this decision reviewed, please feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The
December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
02:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(for now...)
After a lengthy "wiki-break", I'm back to editing the 'Pedia, although probably not at the rate I was. Just thought you might want to know.... :-) - NDCompuGeek ( talk) 23:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a safe and sane holiday season home with your family and friends. Always glad to see your input and to know your wisdom is nearby. Best. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is finals season at most Colleges... and the Univerity of Washington is no exception. Maybe he's been hitting the books. ? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Hainan Island incident. Thanks. -- John ( talk) 14:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Good work!! I spoke with the Support Sgt. at Sheppard AFB and he confirms that 80th Flying Training Wing is still flying the T-37 in limited numbers. I will know tomorrow what their plans are for the aircraft, and will update the article to take that into consideration. My understanding is that there are only a couple Tweets still operating at Sheppard, but I'll know more tomorrow. - Ken keisel ( talk) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Any idea why Sheppard got to keep them, while everyone else has transitioned? Also, do you know how many are operational there? - Ken keisel ( talk) 23:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you know how many of the 60 are USAF aircraft, and how many are foreign owned? - Ken keisel ( talk) 18:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This is rather interesting. It means that the USAF is still operating five squadrons of T-37 after their official retirement ceremony. I do wonder how many of them are actually USAF aircraft, especially since none of the Columbus based aircraft were transferred to Sheppard to relieve any of the oldest planes based there. I'm particularly surprised that the T-37 is still being used for regular U.S. pilot training. I could see the foreign nations contracting with the USAF to provide maintenence and training for their pilots using their planes, but from what you are saying the majority of the trainees are U.S. pilots. - Ken keisel ( talk) 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
When you said there were 60 aircraft I figured 5 squadrons of 12 aircraft. Is it two squadrons of 30 T-37 each? Those would be awfully big (huge) squadrons. The maintenance staff would have to be at least triple the standard size, and I imagine the squadron CO would have to be a Col. at minimum from the staff size. Any idea the percentage of U.S. pilots to foreign on the current roster? I wonder if any of the advanced trainees are intentianally trying to go to Sheppard to get jet time instead of training in the T-46? - Ken keisel ( talk) 02:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth, thank you for trying. Seems all roads lead to stuck in the mud. -- Narson ~ Talk • 00:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
It is ready to be archived. Some issues were taken care of privately. -- Avi ( talk) 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why. [4] Is there a purpose in doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.245.9.144 ( talk) 01:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"I give you fair warning, I'm thinking of statements such as 'Boston's evidence of a cover-up derives not from his own part in the investigation'?" We'll discuss those in due time and see what we can do to build a consensus on the phrasing of that sentence (for which you obviously have a problem). — BQZip01 — talk 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for nominating our page. I am proud of all the efforts we have put on it, as well as our other A&M pages. Oldag07 ( talk) 00:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Should Texas A&M University, Prairie View A&M, Sam Houston State University and Stephen F. Austin State University be listed at List of colleges and universities in Houston? Please see Talk:List of colleges and universities in Houston. Your input is appreciated, Thanks Postoak ( talk) 03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)