User talk:Tlmclain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Click here to leave me a message
Unless you tell me otherwise, I will respond on your talk page


Messages before November 15, 2006

Contents

[edit] New categories/organization in Category:University of Georgia

I've been thinking about some additional categories for UGA. Specifically, creating a University of Georgia people cat, with subcats underneath that of faculty, alumni, presidents, and athletes. Then I suggest placing Georgia football players as a subcat to that. Also, for now I've put all non-graduates that attended UGA in the main UGA cat. instead of the alumni cat. Not sure if I should just start throwing all attendees into the alumni cat (not sure about double-categorizing the athletes though). What are you thoughts?--Roswell native 04:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a pretty thoughtful response. I'm still digesting it. If you want to verify if folks have graduated from UGA, try here. Once you register you can search the alumni database and get degree info and years.--Roswell native 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appalachian Mountains geology

Hi. I have responded to your concerns on my talk page. There's some history on this newcomer I only learned about late last night. --A. B. 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Catfish Smith.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Catfish Smith.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Fair use question

I won't claim to be the highest authority on fair use, but I believe {{fair use in|whatever}} is the most apropriate tag, {{historicPhoto}} seems to be more geared toward historic events, and these are just generic headshots. They also need a fair use rationale explaining why the image is believed to be fair use in the article it's used in, and preferably also why it's used within Wikipedia's fair use critera (such as why a free licensed alternative that convey the same information can not be created (person is dead, image show what they looked like when they where still active or whatever, how it improves the article etc.). Without proper source data we can't rely asert that they are public domain, they might well be, but we need to be eable to "prove" it before we can make such a claim, so stick with fair use unless you can dig up more detailed info on them. --Sherool (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 142.166.158.73

I've found vandalism by User 142.166.158.73 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:142.166.158.73) on the Wintersleep page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wintersleep&oldid=89654615#Videos). I've removed the offense, but I see this isn't his/her first time vandalising. Please consider a ban.

Thank You

Response left at User talk:74.100.162.185.--Tlmclain | Talk 16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LisaCoole.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LisaCoole.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The bot seemd to have marked this in error. See discussion below.--Tlmclain | Talk 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page for Carnildo, Tlmclain wrote:

Carnildo Either I incorrectly added the fair use rationale to Image:LisaCoole.jpg or your bot didn't see it. I have duplicated the rationale once again in the image description, but you may want to check on how this particular image was handled. Thanks.--Tlmclain | Talk 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a combination of a mistake on your part and a bug in OrphanBot. The parameter for the {{fair use in}} tag is only supposed to contain the name of the article the image is used in, and the phrasing you used managed to miss all the words the bot is looking for. I've added a half-dozen additional words and phrases to OrphanBot to cover this in the future. --Carnildo 06:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy harper

You've been here awhile, so you should know better than to make random nonsense pages like this one. Use the sandbox in the future, please. -- DiegoTehMexican 18:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize; I saw that page and snapped at you without thinking. -- DiegoTehMexican 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page - no problem.
For the casual reader who is wondering what this is all about, the orginal Timothy harper page was not created by me and a second page was inadvertantly created while I was trying to tag the first one for speedy deletion. See my comments to an administrator here and my full response to DiegoTehMexican here--Tlmclain | Talk 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
USC's great, especially being in the marching band. It's kind of weird having Saturdays free now; I'd almost forgotten what to do with them. -- DiegoTehMexican 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, don't worry, it's gone now - good call! Deb 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Takis Mpountalas

Well, first things first--I zapped that article for lacking content. Secondly, {{db-nn}} is not a tag we encourage using, since what the speedy deletion criterion looks at is whether notability is asserted, not whether it's notable. It's a tiny difference, but it helps to reduce the amount of subjectivity that goes into new page patrol. The other thing is that creators are not permitted to remove the speedy deletion tags from articles they've submitted, which is what that user did. Before I had the deletin' powers, I used to periodically check through my contributions to see if there were any I had tagged for speedy deletion that were, y'know, still there, and no longer had (top) next to them. But that's a lot of work, and doesn't always catch them. This particular case is a bit fuzzy since I kind of, well, ignored the rules and deleted it anyway. Were I a non-admin, I would have tagged the article with {{prod}}, added it to my watchlist, and then taken it to WP:AFD if the prod tag had been removed. I hope that this was somewhat helpful. Really, the best resource for speedy deletion stuff is just to read WP:CSD periodically: it contains all the criteria clearly laid out and lists the appropriate templates to use in each case. Longstoryshort, that article was crap and you did all right.  :) -- Merope 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Neville

Yes, usually there are a few attacks like that every day, though this is one of the worst ones. I'm going to figure out whether it's today's featured article or something. Those are attacked often. If not, I'm going to protect it. Academic Challenger 22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Gwernall just protected it. Academic Challenger 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fauna of Minnesota

Thanks for the heads up. Minnesota just attained FA and will hopefully soon be on the Main page, so I want to make sure that all of the links from that article go to a page with at least some decent content. I don't care much about Flora or Fauna, but I do care about the impression that readers get when they link from an article I do care about. I still need to work on Demographics of Minnesota, Politics of Minnesota, Economy of Minnesota, Music of Minnesota, Transportation in Minnesota, Climate of Minnesota, History of Minnesota, Geology of Minnesota, Sports in Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, and Minneapolis. So, if you'd like to look at and contribute to any of those, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Appraiser 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pleased with it. The biggest problem was paring it down to a reasonable size. And that didn't really work well until we created all the sub-articles (like the ones I mentioned). After that, each contributer who had their pet projects could be satisfied by putting all the detail they were interested in, into the sub-articles. Then we could write a fairly brief summary in the Minnesota article, referring readers to the more detailed ones.
Earlier this year, I was hunting around for a copy of Grace that was in the public domain. I never did find one, and although it is the State Photograph, I'm not sure we have the rights to publish it.
My suggestion isn't so far-fetched. I've contributed some to North Carolina because it was a Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW. I tried to bring to the table some of what I learned from Minnesota, and I think I helped some. Appraiser 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia (U.S. state) edits

Hmm, looks like I caused more harm than good. Feel free to edit/remove any additions I made, I was basically playing around with the tables since your original edit looked so good.--Roswell native 04:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:New categories/organization in Category:University of Georgia

OK, I am finally responding to your proposed category organization, I put my suggested changes and comments in bold so they would be easier to see since this is somewhat long.

Subcategories for University of Georgia

  • University of Georgia people
    • University of Georgia alumni
    • University of Georgia athletics personnel (I don't even like my own suggestion, but we need something that covers athletes/coaches/athletic association folks in one term)
    • University of Georgia faculty, staff and administration

** University of Georgia non-graduate attendees

how about just leaving the non-graduates in the UGA People cat?
      • University of Georgia presidents (moved this one sublevel down)
      • University of Georgia trustees (no one after 1931 would be in here since this moved to Univ. Sys. of Georgia)

One additional issue to address with athletics is whether it is necessary or appropriate to distinquish between male and female atletics in common sports. That is already being done under basketball. If so, the above hierarchy would extend one more level. Basketball would look like this:

This looks good to me

The current structure of University of Georgia basketball and Georgia Bulldogs football also highlights another issue - do players get listed as subcats of the team category and the athlete category or do we re-organize so that they appear in only one place?

Just list the player cat under that team sport so, category:Georgia Bulldogs football players cat would be the listed under category:Georgia Bulldogs football instead of all the individual players. What do you think?

It may be pre-mature to add some subcats at this time. For example, my perception is that there aren’t that many Georgia baseball players in Wikipedia at this time, so the subcat could be unpopulated or under-populated.

I would say anything team with less than 10 existing entries should just have the players listed under the Georgia Bulldogs athletes cat.

Some double-categorization may be inevitable, unless you tuck a subcat in more than one cat. With the hierarchy above, a football player would wind up in University of Georgia alumni and Georgia Bulldogs football players. Alternatively, you could make Georgia Bulldogs football players a subcat of both Georgia Bulldogs players and University of Georgia alumni and perhaps avoid double-categorization. However, I don’t mind double-categorization since part of the goal of categorization is to make it easy for users to browse through similar articles. In other words, since some may browse by alumni and some by player, double-categorization may be a good thing. :I agree, I'd rather double-cat in this case.

Finally, as if this isn’t already a big enough project, it may be a good idea to look at managing the various lists in existence (and any that are needed). In other words, how should the athlete listing List of University of Georgia people be managed vis-à-vis the list Georgia Bulldogs football#Former Notable Players and any list that might be created to list all former players.

I have mostly avoided the list as it's hard to maintain, once I have exhausted finding existing UGA related bios and creating ones that I have on the plate, I might focus on that list. I watch the similar page for Michigan, and it gets numerous edits a day with much potential for spats and that has made me gunshy about a list.

You'll probably never ask me a question again. Tlmclain | Talk 14:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, we have a lot of similar interests but are focusing on different things for the most part so that should make for some good future collaboration. Thanks for putting so much thought into this, I would have been more haphazard in my approach.
--Roswell native 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't seem to edit my other comment ( I screwed up your talk page, huh?), but with respet to a UGA Wikiproject, I am not familiar with them at all, but he ideas we have are basically part of what a Wikiproject would be, putting templates on the talk pages, etc. So, why don't we launch the new cats. and we can discuss if a Wikiproject is justified and worth the planning. What say you? --Roswell native 04:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Going live with new UGA cats and reorg

OK, sounds like we have a plan. I like the idea about putting the info on the talk page. Let me know if/how you'd like to split it up and we'll get started. --Roswell native 05:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly headed towards a UGA Wikiproject

From your last response on the UGA cats. sounds like you might be intersted in starting a Wikiproject. Check out the one for UT Austin.--Roswell native 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For all the hard work

The Working Man's Barnstar
For all the excellent work on articles relating North Georgia that otherwise may not have seen the light of day...HowardSF-U­-T-C- 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Corydalis sempervirens.jpg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cymophyllus fraserianus.jpg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum.JPG

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Smithsonian Images

I added a comment (and a possible replacement) on the image page in question. Not sure if I can add so much more to the general discussion though. If the plants are very rare and hard to find that does seem like a good argument to keep an image though, just make sure that is made clear on the disputed image talk pages. Rare plants and the difficulties in photographing them is not rely my strongest point I'm afraid. --Sherool (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, the Trillium discolor is aparently common enough localy (though I'm no expert on how far into "nowhere" one would have to hike to find any), so as long as it's not unreasonably hard to find and photograph a plant we should not be using a fair use photo of one (I added a photo request template on the articles talk page either way). So if you are willing to help out by culling some of your own uploads that you agree can be reasonably replaced that would be nice. Hopefully we can find free licensed photos of them sooner rater than later. --Sherool (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New UGA cats and UGA template

Looks good. Let me know which ones you'd like me to create or when you've hit a break and I can just pick up what's left. As far as the UGA template - after I started to populate it, I realized that it was mostly full of non-existant entries so I started on those instead (and have gotten sidetracked on several other tangents). It still needs some actual entries. Feel free to add as you see fit. We can take it live I suppose if you like.--Roswell native 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UGAcat template

Took me a while to remember how I set that table up - 5 columns wide. The two middle columns that contain the cats and the info below the cats had a width of 5 columns (the entire width of the table), but should have only been three columns as I have a column on both ends that makes the black border (which I don't really like - I was trying to make those end columns 1 px wide and could not get it to work).--Roswell native 03:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UGA cats

Thanks for the note. Basically, your heirarchy should follow the split (which I never wanted, by the way, but lots of others did) that keeps men and women's teams separate. The split has the following definitions:

  • If the men's and women's programs have the same name, the umbrella category is "Georgia Bulldogs basketball" and the split subcategories are "Georgia Bulldogs men's basketball" and "Georgia Bulldogs women's basketball".
  • If the men's and women's programs have different names, the umbrella category is "University of Georgia basketball" and the split subcategories are "Georgia Bulldogs basketball" and "Georgia Lady Bulldogs basketball."

Unless you know of a change I don't, the latter rule applies. The Lady Bulldogs can't go under "Georgia Bulldogs basketball," and we don't want two categories in category:College basketball teams, so the only possibility is to follow the second rule above. Does that make sense?--Mike Selinker 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Absolutely you can withdraw a nomination. Just say you're withdrawing it, and why, on the nomination, and I'll close them.--Mike Selinker 17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulldog articles

I've noticed you've been busy creating articles regarding the Georgia Bulldogs. There is a WikiProject tailored to college football and you're more than welcome to join. One thing that we've discussed are the minimum requirement for articles regarding individual team seasons. Unless an article can contain detailed descriptions of what occurred during the course of the year, such as preseason expectations, game summaries, post-season analysis, etc, we feel that creating individual pages for each year is unneccessary and maybe overkill. What the members of the WikiProject decided was best was an article for a team under a certain coach. For instance, Georgia Bulldogs football under Pop Warner. You can see the discussion that has taken place regarding this issue here. We'd love to hear your opinions on the matter.--NMajdan•talk 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Response posted here--Tlmclain | Talk 23:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at your sandbox and posted my reply here.--NMajdan•talk 14:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Georgia Bulldogs football team

Let me know when you make this page and I'll make sure it gets linked around like the other SEC pages. CJC47 23:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 22:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood - any unsigned comments are merely an oversight.--Tlmclain | Talk 22:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College football barnstar

The College football Barnstar
I, User:BigDT, present you with the new college football barnstar for your work with college football articles this season, particularly the Georgia articles. BigDT 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'll add it in to the Tennesee pages today, and maybe some others. CJC47 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melvin M. Dickinson

Hi Tlmclain, in looking through various sources, I keep seeing Dickinson's first name quoted as Marvin, not Melvin. I'm also finding that some refer to him as Marvin D. Dickinson. Do you see any consistency in your sources? The Georgia season pages look great. --Roswell native 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting my External links

Timclain:

Why are you removing my external waterfall photo links? They are relevant to the subject and I don't see it as spam.

Npeeff

Responded at User talk:Npeeff--Tlmclain | Talk 02:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Richt.jpg

Tlmclain, did you contact Stephen Poff, the photographer prior to uploading Image:Mark Richt.jpg? I ask because, you have marked it with a different Creative Commons license than he declared at Flickr. His stated license includes the Non-Commercial and No-Derivatives designations which are both incompatible with the GFDL. If you discussed with him changing the license type everything would be fine (better if he were the actual uploader with an account here); otherwise the image should not be used. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries and realize I wasn't trying to be a pain or cause you extra work, but it's one of those nasty little license/copyright, etc, etc. issues. I am glad you found that though, because now I'm going to plan to get over to B'ham for 2007 Media Days - access to all 12 coaches and selected (2 per team) players.
As to your sandbox, I applaud the effort, but I don't know if I deal with all that red and orange together in that table. I would suggest switching AU wins to blue, but it would obscure the visibility of some links I'm afraid. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the orange text on blue works pretty well, but damn, that's a lot of markup to get to the team colored results like that. I wonder if there's a way the template could be modified to do that more automagically. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 05:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Trillium catesbaei was taken by me personally and down loaded on open license. 68.239.42.39 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanx for the welcome

to Wikiproject CFB but I've been a member for quite some time! (I discovered the participant's grid yesterday and filled in the items after my username) But thanx anyway, and that brings up: another project I participate in uses a monthly newsletter to project members sent to their userpages to keep people current on doings--including improvements such as the participant's table. I recommend we adopt such something similar.--Buckboard 11:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image of trillium

It looked to me like you deleted my image. I may have misread history for trillium catesbeai. If so I apologize. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halpaugh (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Re: 1927 Georgia Bulldogs football team

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't know what has been decided about redirects. I would say they can be removed. I mean, we have the article Oklahoma sooners football which redirects to Oklahoma Sooners football, but I don't see a reason for having a redirect on that page. Might be worth bringing to the Project. I also noticed you nominated some articles to be merged (Auburn, maybe). Its been awhile since you nominated them so I say, when you get the chance, go ahead and merge those.--NMajdan•talk 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: National Titles

I'm slightly confused by your message. I briefly looked at your template sandbox and like it generally. But I'm not sure how it applies to other article and "infoboxes"? Also, I'm not sure starting discussion "away from the group" specially for that purpose is a good idea. I'm pleased you considered me, but Wikipedia is not about exclusion. I'm fine with working with you on developing the template in order to present it. I've got a few I like to "keep hidden" until they're ready so people can evaluate how they really are and not just some idea or something. Anyways, I'll defiantly re-read your comments tomorrow. If you could try and explain your thoughts a little more to help me, that would be great. Thanks. --MECU≈talk 03:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I think I understand now, thanks for the good explanation. I generally like the table, as it then would clear-up the confusion, but I have only a few complaints. Eliminate "Poll" from all the title blocks. I'd also like to see a % of polls that voted for that team on the table (before the Wire column). At the bottom, the orange and yellow shouldn't go all the way across the table, it's too eye catching and distracting, make it like the Coach year-by-year for consistency. While I think you only intend for this table to go into one place, it could be used on each team article with all their votes and such as well. Also, it sounds like there can be up to 4 consensus titles, which is confusing. How can 4 teams each receiving 25% of the vote get a consensus title? Is consensus 25%? Would a policy here at WP be allowed with 25% support? Also, unfortunately, you can't claim something on a page and cite another Wikipedia article as reference. Linking to it is okay, but not referencing. I still think "Wire" and "Consensus" and "Other" aren't good titles, but I still can't think of anything better. But I do like the idea generally. I think the project will accept the template, but it may not solve the problem we face. --MECU≈talk 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Tennessee is hotly contested. I can't remember any others. There was discussion on the 2006 season talk page where this all started. I'll try and get the coach year-by-year to work. --MECU≈talk 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I thought this was a template system, but it's... not. Just a table. That's a lot of work. Granted, it is lots of work to write the template code, but, wow. Do you want to develop this into a template system? I could help (I've only got 500 other projects I'm working on, always seems to be the case). But the other template coders like NMajdan and PSUMark2006 (who wrote the coach one). Also, I removed all the None. from the table. WP:CFB has consistently decided that leaving a cell blank is preferred over N/A or something of the sorts. --MECU≈talk 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I very much like that table. I don't think there is any need to convert that to a template. Templates should be created to be uniformity to multiple pages. I don't foresee that information going anywhere beyond the page.--NMajdan•talk 15:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCAA Division I-A national football championship

While I agree with your comment that CFDW does not recognize Helms beyond 1935, the text in the description box above the list for Helms says, "Retroactive 1883-1941, Contemporaneous 1942-1982; Table below reflects selections from 1883-1953." It should be changed or Wisconsin should return. Any thoughts. Rkevins82 04:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the discussion. I don't have a preference regarding Wisconsin, I just wanted to see the article become more consistent. I'll await some resolution from the project page. Rkevins82 06:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Amos Alonzo Stagg Award

An editor has nominated Amos Alonzo Stagg Award, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Sports Academy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] monotropia picture

The image you included in Monotropa uniflora appears to be copyrighted [1] and may not appear under any of the licenses availabe to wikipeida.Pdbailey 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just to add on, I noticed that you have a number of images from the USDA PLANTS database that you have posted. It appears that posting to that database may but does not always indicate that there is no copyright. Specifically, many of the images appear there under a copyright allowing them to be used for non-profit uses (this is not compatable with wikipedia's copyright scheme). I think you should probably go through and review all of the images you have posted from this database. I already checked

and it appears to have no copyright restricitons. while

appears to have a copyright below it where it appears [2]. Pdbailey 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Backpacking

 You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!


[edit] Oconee National Forest

Thank you for the Wikipedia page on the trails of the Oconee National Forest. I live in Macon, and enjoy hiking and mountain biking in the ONF. 
One of my hobbies is map making. I have created a maps of trails near Macon including the Ocmulgee River Trail. You are welcome to link to the map if you find it useful. I hope to continue the project by mapping the Kinnard Creek and Wise Creek trails.

What is a "talk page"?

Kevin Haywood http://pages.prodigy.net/bikemap/ http://www.geocities.com/haywoodkb/Horse_Maps.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.192.175 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Response

Timclain, in my opinion, organizing notable alumni by the merit/importance/relevance of their accomplishments is a more proper way of listing them. The reason is pretty obvious, plus Furman needs every tool available to increase its brand name. Furman has a couple of alumni that are worth placing above the rest. In case a potential prospect plans to attend Furman, he might check our Wiki page and breeze past our Notable alumni only seeing the couple first names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luzyfer (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/l/m/User_talk%7ETlmclain_3ea7.html"