User talk:KnightLago/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear KnightLago/Archive 1: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Rockpocket (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! You are very welcome - happy editing! Rockpocket (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Florida Atlantic

I see your point. Every school does have nicknames. But sometimes these nicknames become part of the common parlance regardign a school and at this point they become notable. The fact is, nicknames are an important part of the lore of institutions of higher learning. College is not just about majors, buildings and faculty, it is also about a sense of institutional identity, about campus lore. Some of this lore is negative and some is positive. Either way, this lore is an important defining characteristic of any institution. As a Floridian and a person familiar with FAU, I can tell you (as I suspect you know) that this nickname is extremely widespread. In terms of widespread usage, it seems undoubtedly notable. Although the column may be imperfect and may be biased, it is a worthwhile source because it features a well known columnist (and former Sourth Floridian) writing for what many in the know consider to be Florida'a most repected newspaper (the state's only remaining major independent newspaper) using this nickname. The fact that it would be used by such a person in such a publication, regardless of context, speaks to notability, which is the core criterion for inclusion in wikipedia. So, in short, this should stay because it is extremely well known in Florida and the source should be viewed merely as verification of this widespread usage / notability. Interestingstuffadder 13:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due

Thanks for giving me credit for adding positive content to the FAU article... Interestingstuffadder 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Maloney

Hi there; I still think that the Thomas Maloney article, which is clearly a non-notable biography, warrants a speedy delete. I note that you removed my speedy delete tag; I have not re-inserted it because that's playground childish, but really you should leave it in position until an admin can consider it. Edit wars are silly, and we should not generate them.--Anthony.bradbury 00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment, and obviously I have not altered anything that you have done: but I would say that a simple assertion of notability made within an article is not of itself a proof thereof. I can detect no real evidence of notability here except that the editor says that he is notable. Anyone can say that.--Anthony.bradbury 00:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I know absolutely nothing about igloos. Let us just leave it alone and see what happens.--Anthony.bradbury 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FidoCent

I went ahead and speedy deleted the FidoCent article as it clearly fails WP:CSD:A7 (no assertion of notability) and could also be considered to fail CSD:G1 (patent nonsense). Thanks for catching this one. Best, Gwernol 14:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Moogle Mafia

You proposed said article for deletion for being a dictionary entry. It doesnt look like one to me.68.109.11.36 16:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Amend AfD

I'm merging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SteakandCheese into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SteakandCheese.com. Same article, only without .com has a dozen external links inline. I don't think you'd have any objection to this. Kevin_b_er 19:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

I've been running speedy deletion duty, and I've noticed that you've tagged a few articles as patent nonsense that really don't quite fit that category. As per WP:CSD: This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes.. As much as I would love to speedy alot of that stuff, it really needs to by sent to VfD some of the time (such as in the case of Starving Jesus). Sorry about that. – ClockworkSoul 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure: that's what I do. :) – ClockworkSoul 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shula Bowl

I've notice you been working on the Shula Bowl article and like the changes you've made. I've updated the page to have each logo (w/o borders) appear on each side of the table. I think it looks better and wanted to know if you felt it was a better look. Well keep up the good work. Cheers! Evill72 03:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. Evill72 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

New userboxes

Per the terms of the German userbox solution new userboxes should not be created in template space. Please read up on the current practices. That page has instructions on how to properly create userfied userboxes. --Cyde Weys 20:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

wakesurfing

Hi KnightLago.

First I want to say that I'm new to wikipedia - as I'm sure you can tell. I've obviously got some issues with posting images / copyright knowledge. For that I'm sorry and I'll work to increase my knowledge.

I see you redirected the wakesurfing page to wakeboarding. I'm sorry, I wasn't completely done with the wakesurfing page. Thought I would post it, thinking it was good enough to post, and that others would build upon it as well. I guess I was incorrect in posting prior to thinking it was 100% complete.

Wakeboarding is a completely different sport than wakesurfing.

You probably looked at the wakesurfing page and saw that there were similar terms used among the sports. They use similar lingo, but are completely different.

During wakeboarding a rider holds onto a rope the entire time. While wakesurfing the rider doesn't hold a rope at all. As mentioned in my page, a rider rides the wake behind a boat just as someone rides a wave at a beach.

Also, a wakeboard has bindings which keep a wakeboarder completely bound to his board. In wakesurfing, just as in regular surfing, there are no bindings and a rider moves all over the top of the board.

There are competitions specific to wakeboarding and competitions specific to wakesurfing.

The only thing the two sports share is that they are done behind a boat.

The images I posted were of my friends, I realize they don't contain the correct copyright marks. Frankly, it's very confusing, I tried my best. I'm happy to get them to post them, or to have them say it's OK for me to post them.

Now that my posting has been marked as questionable though, I'm wondering if my uploading will ever be trusted again?

A response would be appreciated.

chathamsolutions Chathamsolutions 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User FAU

Please be aware that User:Cyde deleted your FAU userbox template inappopriately. I have placed the following message on his talk page. You should also request that he (or preferably another admin) restore your template.

This is not "per GUS" as you claim. The section of GUS that states "no new userboxes in templates" is in between << double brackets >> which according to GUS itself should not be implemented until there is consensus. As you can see from the Straw poll, there is not consensus that education userboxes should not be in template, therefore speedy deleting new education userboxes cannot be done "per GUS." I kindly request that you respect GUS, reinstate this template and not SD new userbox templates in categories that do not have at least straw poll consensus. --NThurston 14:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the strawpoll, education userboxes are probably going to end up on Template space. For consistency, I propose to move the FAU UBX back to Template, unless you have some major objection. Feel free to do it yourself, or if I don't hear back in a few days, I will take care of it. --NThurston 18:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
WWE RAW (video game)
Ron Zook
Eliseo Quintanilla
Growing Up Gotti
Carolina Mudcats
State Road 808 (Florida)
Florent Pietrus
State Road 809 (Florida)
Cold case
Kostas Vassiliadis
Fenway-Kenmore
State Road 800 (Florida)
Sam Clancy, Jr.
Angela's Ashes (film)
Roger Dean Stadium
Independence Middle School
Jupiter Hammerheads
South Florida Fairgrounds Expo Center
Palm Beach Cardinals
Cleanup
Forest Hill Community High School
State Road 377 (Florida)
Frank Gotti
Merge
Stanley Jones
Hairspray (film)
Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens
Add Sources
Kraze and Krush Stadium
Busta Rhymes
Jason Reece
Wikify
COBIT
Knoxville Zoo
Delegation
Expand
Sun-Sentinel
State Road 60 (Florida)
Tourism in the United States

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Georgia Supreme Court

I think that the observations you made on Talk:Georgia Supreme Court are correct and I agree with your proposal.--Tlmclain | Talk 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As per Tlmclain, I agree with you proposed renames and just left "support" notes on the talk pages for both articles. --Roswell native 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I'll thank you to be more careful about accusations of vandalism in the future. Remember to assume good faith. It may or may not also interest you to know that I've placed the article up for deletion, since you've declined a redirect. If so, your comments would be welcome in an effort to reach consensus. Shimeru 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

DRJHS

Thanks you you adding more info to the article, but "The school is most notable for having received an "Excelling" rating from the Arizona Department of Education, signifying that the school is meeting all requirements of No Child Left Behind Act." is wrong. NCLB and the Excelling rating are two different things. Meeting the NCLB requirements is quite easy but the AZ Learns rank of "Excelling" (this is the highest rank) is much harder to get. BJTalk 19:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What you have in the article is correct and much nicer but just wanted to clarify what I was saying. We are talking about two different systems. NCLB which is federal is a meet or fail system, if you fail your school loses federal funding. AZ Learns is a state ranking system that has 4 or 5 levels, if you school is failing it is in danger of getting closed. BJTalk 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Stono Bridge

Nice rewrite!--Kevin Murray 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game) s-protect

I guess this depends on the definition of 'pre-emptive'. I would argue that if we're assuming good faith and we believe that semi-protection shows disrupters that they cannot game (lol) the system, then the previous semi will have shown that they'd be wasting their time trying to disrupt. I would argue, then, that the previous afd's should be discounted and that protection would be pre-emptive on this page. Obviosuly, I can see how previous admins would have interpreted vandalism on past AfD's meaning that semi-protection on subsequent AfD's was not pre-emptive; if they were doing it without this justification (which I disagree with but would accept as an explanation), they were protecting pre-emptively and violating policy.

Obviously, given the past history, more than a few of obviously sockpuppet/first time voters and semi-protection would be resonable. I reckon we have four or five who could come into this, though the only reason to suspect that they do is the subject's past history. I think semi-protection may prove appropriate in a day or two if this appears to be a continuing trend. I wouldn't revert or complain about other admins protecting this page, by the way.

Additionally, any decent admin looking at this when closing the debate should take into account the fact that this isn't a vote and that a large number of "newbie" keep comments v well reasoned and policy-supported delete comments from respected users should still result in a deletion. --Robdurbar 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Stono Bridge

Hello, you are very polite and I appreciate that. But I will be a bit blunt, to save time. I rewrote that article a couple of days ago to save it from deletion. What I found there today was a mess of redundancy and superfluous wording, some of it appeared to be verbatim from sources. I spent a long time today trying to keep the essence of what you had added, put back in some of my prior work and trim the fat and redundancy. I'm offended that you would revert all of that work.

I'd like to work with you on the project, but not through reversions. Let's talk.

--Kevin Murray 06:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Working together to rebuild the Stono Bridge

Thanks for your understanding. I think that most of the variances between our approaches come from differing opinions on the overall goal of this article. I think that you are approaching this as an historical essay, where I see this as a very short piece about a marginally notable subject. Which is more encyclopedic? Clearly there will be different perspectives.

I think that we also differ in writing styles. It seems that you construct your paragraphs to be absolutely complete within themselves, and your sentences are similar. In a short article I feel that the sentences support each other, and since this article has a very narrow subject matter, the paragraphs do to. For example you tend to restate nouns such as: “the bridge” the old bridge” the “Gelegotis Bridge.” frequently. Alternatively I have a tendency to substitute pronouns because the article is only about the bridge.

I think that we can also trim some wordiness, which I think came for the sources. For example:

  • allows faster-moving vehicular traffic to continue over the river
can be
  • allows traffic to move faster

We already know what type of traffic and where it is going.

From my perspective, I think that less is more, as too long of an article can hide the pertinent details from a reader who is quickly seeking the bare facts. In an essay or major article I agree with your premise that there should be a leading summary-paragraph, but in this case what I perceive as the entire article, would be just the introductory paragraph for an essay. Short and to the point!

Am I right? Who knows? There are many cases where the Wikipedia guidelines are conflicting; in one area these stress brevity and in another these imply styles which compete with brevity. It is up to the editors to make the judgment of which is more pertinent case-by-case. There is no absolute right or wrong.

My rationale is:

  • Short introductory paragraph conveying the basic facts
  • move right into the history for two reasons (1) introduce the history close to the beginning of the article to support notability (2) putting the discussion of the history before the details of the new bridge allows the reader to benefit from the historical information when reading about the new bridge.
  • provide crisp pertinent details about the new bridge in the final paragraphs.
  • provide section headers which guide the readers to their areas of interest.

Today I tried to address some of your concerns at the article:

  • I have rewritten the introduction to reference history significance, and tried to improve the flow by rearranging the sentences.
  • I have eliminated the external links to which you objected -- they are of little importance except when the artice was at risk
  • I included the information about the bridge construction and delays, which I previously deleted.
  • Later in the day I did some more research to support the information on the golf cart tunnel. In the process I found some other infromation. Once there is an agreement as to the form and content, I suggest that we move the salient items to footnotes.

Another issue is the information about the namesake. You removed that from my article. I don't see this as a major issue, but I thought it addded a bit of human interest.

I look forward to working with you.

--Kevin Murray 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please give the reader some credit that they will understand that cars go on top and boats go under a bridge. vehicular sounds officous like a police report -- someone trying to sound important. Less is more in superior writting!

--Kevin Murray 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding -- looks great! Will anyone ever read it? On to the next project.

PS: One other contributors to the AfD discussion suggested that the article be moved to Stono Bridge and redirected from the other names. I don't really care, but I told him we would consider it when the editing was complete.

--Kevin Murray 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Desert Ridge Junior High School DRV

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the DRV opening before the AfD was closed. The AfD was closed at 20:49 on the 29th, and I opened the DRV at 11:22 on the 30th. -- Kicking222 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. It's an honest mistake that everyone (especially myself) makes. Though we disagree on the article's status, your opinion was, aside from the minor time issue, still completely valid. -- Kicking222 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Buffyverse nominations

Since you've nominated so many articles with similar reasons in different AfDs, and it seems to me that most of the responses are getting quite redundant, I thought I'd bring up some of it here. First off, your nomination reasons were incorrect. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia policy against locations in fictional universes having an article, whether it be on a television show or in a book. If there were, we'd have to delete literally thousands of articles. I can understand that there are trivial locations that deserve at most a mention in the show's main article, or an individual episode's article, but all of the entries you proposed were places involved in many episodes. As such, they are possibly important enough to have an article on your own. Calling them fancruft though, certainly doesn't help.

Your concerns about notability are closer to the point, but you could have addressed that with {{importance}} instead of going to deletion. A similar resource could have been used with regards to lack of sources and the {{unreferenced}} tag. Or you could have expressed your concerns on the Buffy Wikiproject. As I see it, all of your issues are clean-up problems, with the most being done being a merge to a single article on locations for the respective series. There was little reason to take it to AFD, and plenty of reason to take other steps first, as that would have given folks more of a chance to take action, and shown some good faith on your part.

I would also recommend only nominating one article to test the waters first. Then act further depending on the results. While mass nominations can be a bad idea, so can multiple similar or identical nominations on the same subject in short order, without even testing the waters. Basically, while I do not think you intended to cause harm, I think you may wish to consider taking different steps in the future. I know I feel some serious concerns about the situation, and I'm worried it will get worse. FrozenPurpleCube 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply: Hard feelings? No, and I do agree that the White Room was lacking substance, but given the age of the article, I would have suggested messaging the creator first, to see if they were planning on expanding it. Or using a tag like Bwithh did before your nomination. You nominated it within an hour of its creation. put an importance tag on it, so the creators didn't even have time to respond. Now I personally think that it should be a section in the Wolfram and Hart article, and would have gone with a merge tag myself. Possibly would have gone straight to a redirect, and edited the White Room Disambig page. FrozenPurpleCube 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Samek

Hey...i found a link where someone else has mentioned Camp Samek, but I have a feeling that "the government", even though I work for it, has gotten rid of sites that dealt with Camp Samek. Now here is a [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1578634/posts link] if you search the page, you'll see someone has mentioned about Camp Samek being at Kandahar Airfield. I was there and have pictures but to not compromise where Camp Samek is at Kandahar Airfield I am advised not to post pictures on the net. --DJREJECTED 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no pamphlet, there use to be, but as of September 2006 (which I found out more research from speaking with Air Force personnel that I work with) the base (Camp Samek) became defunct due to the International Security Assistance Force taking over Kandahar Air Field. Air Force personnel are still there but there is no such thing as Camp Samek anymore.

--DJREJECTED 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:BofB poster.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BofB poster.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Nv8200p talk 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD and Merge/Redirect

For your information, a keep decision in an AFD does not prevent a merge or a redirect. Those are separate editorial decisions to be made in the normal editing process, and discussed on the relevant articles talk page. GRBerry 18:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

eliot kleinberg edit

hey do you know my dad? I noticed you were from south florida, do you work for the post? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twirk88 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:0 dmica.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:0 dmica.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. Chowbok ☠ 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:FAU cysnf0tyo6fi5lqjn6p7.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:FAU cysnf0tyo6fi5lqjn6p7.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:FAU Seal Small.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 100-Hour Plan

KnightLago, good evening. I've observed your edits on the 100-Hour Plan article, and I'd like to thank you for your help. I've tried to address the concerns raised by Behun, and would appreciate a constructive dialogue. Please join me on the article's Talk page. Thanks. Dino 03:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:KnightLago/Sandbox

Looks like a great start. Please do continue; thanks for volunteering. Ral315 » 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article a bit; it looks good to me. Ral315 » 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FAU 044 (Medium).jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:FAU 044 (Medium).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Strangerer (Talk) 01:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion?

Hi KnightLago,

May I offer a suggestion that I think would improve your story about the Encyclopædia Britannica? You might consider moving the discussion of the Nature study to the end of the article. Right now, it breaks up the flow of your article and might come across in the wrong way. It's kind of tangential anyway, right?

One episode during the FAC might also be newsworthy, although it should be handled delicately and courteously. The EB seemed to respond to our article, since they removed some false claims about themselves on their "Open Britannica" website about a week after we critiqued those claims. For example, they claimed to have been the first English-language encyclopedia. It's discussed on the EB Talk page, and during the FAC.

More generally, you might want to note that the FAC was characterized by respect and courtesy towards our fellow encyclopedia, and that we Wikipedians have been trying to build positive relationships with our counterparts at the EB. For example, we recently expressed our condolences for former chief editor, Warren Preece, who passed away on the same day as our article became Featured. His son was so kind as to alert us on the night of his passing, which has now been verified by a NY Times obituary. Although his Britannica biography has not yet been updated, I feel certain that the Britannica will do something to honor his memory; Preece directed the massive effort to develop its 15th edition in 1974, which endures to this day.

Thanks muchly, Willow 10:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 76.109.150.183

KnightLago -

Here is a weird one. I got a message from you re: unconstructive edits. I didn't make any edits today, but my IP is shared with 3 others.

Anyway what is weird is that I am a PhD student at FAU - and it seems you have something to do with FAU too.

What are the odds of that? Was the page something to do with FAU?

Duracell 03:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edits by 76.109.150.183

I edited this article on march 30th without logging in. I added a link to the wikipedia entry about my boss, as you can see in the history.

The vandalous edit on April 16th was by 207.254.208.192, not me. You reverted back to my last edit, which was the one before the vandalism.

That is why we are connected via FAU, despite the fact that I did not vandalise the article.

I guess you should send a note to 207.254.208.192, and remove my IP from any lists suggesting I've been vandalising the encyclopedia..

If I were going to, it would certainly be alot funnier than this fellow's ;)

Duracell 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fau logo small.jpg

Hello, KnightLago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Fau logo small.jpg) was found at the following location: User:KnightLago/Drafts/FAU. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Florida Atlantic University op 800x578.jpg

Hello, KnightLago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Florida Atlantic University op 800x578.jpg) was found at the following location: User:KnightLago/Drafts/FAU Scratch Pad. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

FAU recognition by The Princeton Review

Hello KnightLago,

I noticed you moved The Princeton Review designation of "Best Southeastern College" from the intro to FAU down to the Recognition section. While I understand why you did that -- we have the Washington Monthly ranking and the US News Ranking there as well -- I do believe it should be in the intro to mirror similar statements in other Florida university intros:

Perhaps most similar, in the intro to UCF:

The University of Central Florida is listed in “The Best 361 Colleges: 2006 Edition” by The Princeton Review.

In the intro to FIU:

FIU is ranked as a Carnegie Doctoral/Research Extensive University in the High Research Activity category of the Carnegie Foundation's prestigious classification system

and

FIU is ranked among the top 100 public national universities in the U.S. News & World Report's annual guide to "America's Best Colleges." FIU was the youngest institution in that group. U.S. News & World Report's "America's Best Colleges" (2006 and 2007) also ranks

In the intro to FAMU:

In the fall of 1997, FAMU was selected as the TIME Magazine-Princeton Review "College of the Year"

In the intro to UF:

The University of Florida is ranked by U.S. News & World Report as the 13th best public university and 47th overall among both private and public "National Universities".[5] Listed as a Public Ivy,[6] the 2006 Academic Ranking of World Universities list assessed the University of Florida as 53rd among world universities based on research output and faculty awards

etc etc

The Washington Monthly ranking and the US News Ranking are not really noteworthy (although they do make sense to have in the article somewhere else) but the Princeton Review is definitely a plus for FAU. Furthermore, the Recognition article, much like the Miscellaneous article, should probably be cleaned up and incorporated into the main article since a number of people have made that comment; that's another reason why I put the TPR ranking in the intro... to avoid lengthening the already-lengthy Recognition section.

Can we agree to put it back in? I definitely want to be diplomatic about this but I do feel it would improve the FAU page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Go Owls (talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 May 2007.

FAU

You make an interesting point about the Princeton Review list -- which brings up the question of why they even have a "Best of" list if they're going to include every southeastern college anyway. To be honest, I wonder if FAU even cooperates with those U.S. News/Princeton Review surveys that are then fed into the rankings. I asked one of the deans if the faculty/administration have recently (or ever) discussed raising FAU's star on the U.S. News rankings and I got an apathetic shrug. Pretty disconcerting of course, but maybe it was too comlpicated or thorny of an issue to discuss at that time. I do feel that Brogan's goals are pushing us toward winning some of those awards; I know he has stated a goal to breach the $100 million mark for research, "the point at which you're considered a 'major player' in the research market." So I suppose these distinctions will just have to be added when they come to pass.

With regard to your second statement:

I am going to try and cleanup the article some, it seems to just be an ever expanding mess and I would appreciate your help. To see what a featured university article looks like see Duke University

I feel more than partly responsible for the "ever-expanding mess" since I keep adding things to the article. As such, you're likely to be tearing down a couple of sections that I created and I'd be happy to reform some of them ... really, to streamline them into more compact, readable articles.

I don't know what sections you are particularly unhappy with, but I dislike the intro, the history, the research section, the miscellaneous, and (even though I added it) the campus dining section. The intro focuses too much on the history (I also dislike the commuter school comment because it is not included in any other SUS commuter school intro that I'm aware of (I've found sources saying USF and UCF are commuter schools but there's no mention of that in their intros, for instance), so it seems a cheap shot at FAU). We have two history sections -- which is one too many. The research section is too long and boring. The miscellaneous is almost entirely irrelevant except for the first and last comment (for example, the police comment is unnecessary).

I now noticed that you've been hard at work to change some of this already. I lament the loss of the Barry Kaye College of Business picture (since I went to great pains to get it and was frustrated with the results as well) but I'm happy that you kept the spirit banner picture -- Wikipedia is supposed to educate people, especially people who think there is no school spirit here.

Anyway, I'll work on it to help you streamline it. The Duke article is great. Go Owls 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

FAU Pictures Question

Hello again.

In regard to your question about whether I took a library picture with less people in it, the answer is no. I purposely wanted to include them... my goal was to show two things:

1) The library has been repainted and looks better than in the previous picture

2) FAU students in and around the library

In my opinion, it makes the picture more interesting by having the people there. It worked out well too I think because the people are to the right side and you can still see everything you could see in the original picture -- my intent was to closely mirror your (?) original picture as much as possible. If the students were clouding the view, I wouldn't have used it. I took the same approach with the SO building photograph.

To support my "people make a better picture" argument, I want to point you to some pictures on the UCF site for campus life: [1]

You can imagine that, without the people in those pictures, they'd be pretty bland indeed. I fully understand that Wikipedia is not the same as the UCF site, but again I stand by my argument that the people (as long as they aren't obstructing the view) make the picture more interesting. Especially when you have pastel squares for architecture... as FAU does.

In regard to your question about the University Village apartments... I tried numerous different angles including the one you suggested (the wide shot from the road showing the berth of the apartments). The problem is that an inconveniently-placed row of trees and shrubs pretty much hides the entire village in a picture. I could put up a shot like that but you might as well have no picture at all since you can't see anything. So the best I could get was this picture at this angle. I'm not thrilled with it -- I'm not thrilled with the architecture and colors of the building in general -- but I thought it might be better to have this picture than nothing. My goal is to attach a picture to each section on the FAU page.

If you can get a better shot, by all means put it up and we'll discuss which is better.

In terms of signing my comments, I thought I did...? Interesting. I'll be more careful in the future. Go Owls 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

You have once again changed the "commuter" line back to "commuter school" despite the fact that you have stated you have 'no stance' on the topic. For someone who doesn't care, you sure add it back in very often.

There was nothing wrong whatsoever with the line "providing for the educational needs of commuter students." That statement is absolutely true and no one would contest its validity. More importantly, it covered the 'commuter' part in a way that is consistent with FAU's mission statements ("providing educational opportunities for our service regions" etc etc) without directing calling it is a "commuter school" -- a contentious topic for multiple people as you are well aware.

As such you have also disregarded why I changed it; I noted several times that it is not stated in any other Florida "commuter school" (USF, UCF) Wikipedia page. If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't oppose it.

Out of all the universities in Florida covered by Wikipedia, FAU is clearly at the greatest disadvantage because -- while other Wikipedia pages (see FIU, UCF) are flooded with positive, often POV information (for instance, FIU's item about their Student Government states that they are "highly influential") -- several Wikipedia editors have seen fit to play the police card and keep the FAU page as downright unappealing, ambiguous, and unimpressive as possible. Anything positive is degraded to a concise, inane statement to the tune of "FAU is" or "FAU has" and tucked away in a boring paragraph that no one will read through. In contrast, anything negative is given a huge spotlight. Before we changed it, the entire Academics section ... the ENTIRE section... was negative.

The handiwork of impartial contributors? I think not. Go Owls 04:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

finally responding

Hi KnightLago.

I'm not even sure if I'm doing this correctly, sorry if I am not.

I'm responding to your notes on a page I created back in 2006. Search: wakesurfing

The pictures are WP:GFDL Or whatever needs to be used for them to be freely used. The pictures are open to anyone using them, and to be posted on the internet. I own the pictures. Anyway, please make any necessary changes so the pics don't get deleted.

It appears someone after you posted a message to me about the images as well. Please clear this up for me.

I tried to look for the image, but couldn't find it or the drop down menu you referred to in your original message to me.

Anyway, thanks for your help. Chathamsolutions 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

FAU Heads-up

Thanks for adding more info on the other campuses. I'm going to take some more pictures in the next couple of days (for instance, of the new sign) to add to the article... the page is so bland having so few pictures.

Also, have you seen the info box on the Wikipedia page for Florida State University? It's a specially-made yellow and red box and it looks amazing. I'm not HTML-savvy enough to do that for FAU (red and blue), but do you think you could take a crack at it so we could have the exact same thing on our page? Go Owls 05:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: FSU Box: Damn, you can't do it either. I was looking at the code and if we can get the color codes (red/blue) then we should just be able to copy it and change the color codes/text.

RE: Greek picture permission: Essentially all I did was contact the president of the Inter-Fraternity Council and asked him to send me a picture to put up on Wikipedia. He forwarded my email to another girl named Peggy who then, after three weeks of waiting, sent me that group shot. I asked him why they didn't try to frame the Owl like a crown and he said, "We had hundreds of very tired people who had been up since 7 am. We did our best just trying to get them IN a picture, let alone a NICE picture." And that's the story. I don't know the best way to go about describing that on Wikipedia in terms of licenses and whatnot, but that's the story and it's really important to me to keep the picture (until we get next year's picture)

RE: Apartments picture: If I can get in there, I'll take it. They might be closed for the summer.

RE: Pictures: What I'd like to do in general is have one picture for each section, preferrably on the left. So one picture for the Greek section, one picture for Housing, etc. I just think it's best to have a picture to accompany and illustrate the text. Don't know how you feel about that, though. Go Owls 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I took multiple pictures of the apartments, including the one you wanted from the second story level. I think there were better in concept than reality. But here is the one you wanted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apts_1.PNG

The other one I put up on the page. That way you can look and see which one you like better. You had also asked about getting a long shot of the apartments from the outside and as you can see, there are trees in the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apts_3.PNG

So we're going to have to go with one of the up-close shots from inside.Go Owls 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)