User talk:Buffs

File:American flag vertical.jpg

I hereby explicitly request that any individuals with whom I have worked that wish to apply for adminship please request my review on my talk page. This applies to parties with whom I have both agreed and disagreed (or even those with whom I had no opinion). This also applies to anyone who has noticed my interaction with the subject of an RfA. Notification on my talk page should not be construed as a violation of WP:CANVASS, but an answer to the above request. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

edit count | edit summary usage

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

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)

The Geek Is Back

(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)

BQ Bowl

[1]

Happy Holidays

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)

too many times blocked?

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)

Hainan Island incident tag removal

Please see Talk:Hainan Island incident. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

T-37

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)

USS Liberty

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)

Just want to let you know you, USS Liberty incident/sandbox needs to be moved to a better name. I assume it is a derivative of USS Liberty incident; I'll let you figure out what to do. Cheers. - Canglesea (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just poking my head in to say thanks for attempting to mediate the article - takes a lot of patience. Oh, and if the black helicopters come and take you away, say hello to the Men in Black for me, will you :) Skinny87 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

It is ready to be archived. Some issues were taken care of privately. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Not sure why. [2] Is there a purpose in doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.245.9.144 (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Probably some t.u. student (the IP address originated in Austin, Texas, the home of my archrival). I fixed it and no big deal; vandalism is usually easy to fix. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

"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)

There's no need for a discussion - there was a 6 - 2 preference by involved editors not to use that quote which is, prima-facie, a lie. And yet, two editors are still insisting it be there and defying consensus over it. That's almost the definition of an article that doesn't need mediation, but enforcement of policy.

However, even this obvious example no longer matters from the point of view of a mediation - the 5 other editors who were needed on board are hardly likely to sign up now they've seen how even careful and well-referenced dissent will be treated. Please don't take it personally, I'm sure you'd do an excellent job away from this subject and topic. PR^talk 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, those other 5 have not said one way or another that they would/wouldn't be involved in mediation. I don't think you shold speak for them. Let them speak for themselves.

If there is something that requires enforcement, please take it to WP:ANI, present your case, and an administrator will assist as necessary. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel about my asking another (uninvolved) editor to act as our mediator? I don't want to give you the impression that I've simply rejected you out of hand, but other additions to the discussion may have had the effect of frightening off even those people who were about to accept your offer. PR^talk 20:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem asking another user to mediate; I don't personally need be involved in the mediation, it was just an offer. I disagree with your implication that I am (somehow) an involved editor and I do not agree with your assertion that anyone has been frightened off; there is ample evidence to the contrary as you are the only one who does not agree to it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with getting to pick and choose mediator then becomes what if Jayjg decides he doesn't like the person PR picks? And so asks someone he likes? It could descend very quickly into farce. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur that is a risk, but the process of mediation is a far more important step than who actually mediates it. It is a step in the Dispute resolution process. The important part is that an attempt (or multiple attempts) at this step are taken. I believe PR's objections to be frivolous, but he doesn't have to agree to mediation either. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't. As I said on the page, I would be willing to work with those already signed up, though obviously, it would then leave a stage after mediation where no doubt PR would voice some good faith objections. What I don't think is ok is what is going on at the minute where we are just stuck in limbo waiting for PR to make up his mind (Yes, I know he has said no, but he has said no and then gone 'But....convince me". Could we set a deadline perhaps? Say, by this weekend an attempt at mediation will go ahead with those signed up and we will get to work looking at the article? I'd rather we did something creative rather than sitting on article talk sniping. God knows it doesn't bring out the best in me and it doesn't make me love PR any more. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is highly misleading to suggest that I'm an obstruction. Almost none of the people dis-satisfied with the current state of the article are signing up. Now, I may be at fault because I've pointed out previous severe problems with mediation, and raised a non-personal objection to the mediator, however, to suggest that it's somehow "my fault" almost ranks as a personal attack. Other editors are hardly likely to accept the first mediator on offer because there could be problems with the second one too.

Another obvious problem is probably frightening away other editors - the bull-headed obsruction to implementing at least one point of pretty general agreement on the article. There are 6 5 to 2 in favour of excluding a particular quote (with at least one other editor calling it a lie) from a profoundly non-Reliable Source. It's essential that editors accept properly arrived at conclusions. There are huge other problems at this article injected by partisans, some of them probably more serious than this one eg treatment of the Moorer report. I'm concentrating on this particular one because it's the most clearly anti-policy, and a very simple one for a new mediator to get his teeth into. PR^talk 11:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhm. I'm certainly not happy with the status of the article, PR, nor have I seen anyone signed up state they are happy with the article. Please either stop misrepresenting peoples views or just stop talking for them. You don't want to take part, fine. We'll get on with it then. Think we have enough of a group to move ahead BQZip? --Narson ~ Talk • 11:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we just move on, this is just soapboxing, its not in any way shape or form, useful. Justin talk 14:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Almost none of the people dis-satisfied with the current state of the article are signing up."

• Then their voices won't be heard. You cannot claim support from those who do aren't voicing their opinions.

"...to suggest that it's somehow "my fault" almost ranks as a personal attack."

• To the contrary, you are the only one who has said "no". Therefore, you are the only one who is stopping the process from moving along. That said, it's not necessarily a bad thing to not be involved with mediation; that's a choice you have to make. Like I said, you don't have to participate, but you are also the only one actively opposing it.
• As I've stated numerous times before, the rest of your problems (the content to which you have an objection) will be addressed in mediation, but I am not willing to discuss them and the merits of their arguments/counterarguments here.

PR, are you in or out? This is getting too long to be considered a simple discussion. Seriously, it's nonbinding and you can leave any time you want. You have nothing to lose by participating in such a discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Aggie Terms

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)

Hi, I replied at Talk:List of Texas Aggie terms#Recently Reverted. Thanks for your detailed explanations. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Houston

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)

Seasons greetings

MERRY CHRISTMAS (or other winter holiday) AND A HAPPY GAMEDAY

--B (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

More ENJJPT edits

BQZ, would you take a look at this diff, and the edits before it? It involves the same user whom you reverted on the T-37 page,and the same issue. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

featured topic

I appreciate the initiative in nominating our subject. we will see if it makes it. but look what happened to MSUOldag07 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The "take risks and try it philosophy" especially in this environment is definitely a good idea. Little to lose, much to gain. we will see. lets note however, that our athletics page also isn't a GA, as is our campus pages. it is section 1d of the ft criteria that really made me give up trying to reach for this goal. that being said, i personally think it would be better for wikipedia to loosen its FT standards. or at least its GT standards. I think it would motivate more editors to try to promote more topics. that i assume is the goal of the featured content of this site. we will see. Oldag07 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

One vote of support is good so far. And I would agree that the featured topic system is way too limiting. oh well. Oldag07 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As for FT, you might find this page that i made over a year ago interesting. 02:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Howdy! I'm an instructor at USMA. My wife is an Aggie ('96) and I received my graduate degree from Aggieland (MS in Kinesiology '07). I must say I'm impressed by the quality of A&M articles on wikipedia. I'm still new at editing articles and I've been working hard the last month to improve West Point's wikipedia article. When I started on it, it was awful. I'd like to think its a lot better now, but I still need lots of help. Could you please take a look at it and give me some pointers. My eventual goal is to see it make FA. What do you think? By the way, I'm an AH-64D pilot myself. I need to square away my use page as well, so any pointers there to get me started would be great. Thanks! Ahodges7 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The photo on my user page is an oil well not far from Taji, Iraq. I spent the holidays of 2005 and most of 2006 in and around Taji. That thing must have caught on fire 4 or 5 times while I was there. It would burn for days when it did.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Comments

...at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/T-37 student pilot. Fair enough, I suppose. It was taken on a bright, sunny day. The blacks are going to be brighter and the whites are going to be a little washed out simply because of the sun. Can you assist in making tweaks to the photo? If not, can you recommend someone who can? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, it is possible something can be done with the blacks - simply a levels adjust or a brightness/contrast in photoshop might be able to fix it. The whites may not be recoverable though, if in the original image, much of that space is completely white. This would be the case if there are many pixels with the RGB value 256,256,256 (or FF FF FF), which can also be checked in photoshop. de Bivort 18:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at it in Photoshop, and it was as I suspected. Much of the white space is blown out and unrecoverable. Not much to be done about that, I'm afraid. de Bivort 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The blacks are recoverable, but that isn't enough. The photo could be taken with a shorter exposure time so that there was still detail in the fuselage, so I expect other FP participants will also find his problematic. de Bivort 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

File:T-37 solo student pilot.JPG

I've optimized this photo, removing haze, adding better sharpening and contrast and re-uploaded it to the Commons under the slightly different title : Commons:File:T-37 solo student pilot.jpg. If you compare it to the original, you'll see the difference. I think this photo will be a better featured picture candidate. JoJan (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Logos on individual game articles

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos, there is indeed consensus that team logos are not permitted on individual game articles, although there is currently no consensus about their use on season articles or rivalry pages. You are welcome to comment there if you feel this is in error, but please don't disrupt Wikipedia by continuing to edit-war against consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with ESkog. Of all the things in that RfC that didn't achieve consensus, this is NOT one of them. There is consensus to remove these logos from individual game articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  Hardly a shock that you agree with ESkog, no need to warn me twice...but in retrospect, your comments are much nicer. Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it needs to be done...
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)