Jump to content

User talk:MECU/Archive/1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:MECU

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MECU (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 17 August 2006 (+to archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, MECU/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Johntex\talk 05:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome!


I need help in learning how to edit the sub-boxes that go on pages. For example, the box at the bottom of this page [1] I believe should include Grand Junction, CO in the list of "largest cities" but I don't know how to edit those boxes. I'd also like to create one of those boxes for University of Colorado system but I don't know how to create one either, and I can't find the help page for it since I don't even know what they're called. Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated! Mecu 20:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is called a template, for help on how to make and use them, have a look at Help:Template. The one on that page in particular, can be found at Template:Colorado. The use of {{ }} brackets denotes to include a template on the page. -Dawson 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you need any more help with these or anything else, feel free to ask me. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



CF Rating system

Hi Mecu, thanks for starting us out on the college football rating system. I think this will be very helpful to us. My initial impression is that it is off to a good start. Two suggestions that I have are (1) we should have a sub-page listing articles that have been rated, who rated them, what the reviewers comments were, etc. An example is at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. (2) we should include a request asking people not to review articles where they have created the article or been a major contributor. This will make the reviews more objective. Again, thanks for getting this started. Best, Johntex\talk 16:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, Just trying to help out. In the "FAQ" on the ratings page, I said not to rate your own article above a B. The standards for Sub/Start/B are fairly clear that I don't think anyone is going to be partial to over-rate and even if they do, a B level isn't that big of a deal. I've been going through the unrated category and just slapping some tags on so it doesn't look too bad for us. I don't know if having a reviewer sub-page will be useful and probably will increase the workload too much. But I'll take a look at that other page and see how they do it. Mecu 16:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good point on the Sub/Start rating. I'm just back from travel and I only skimmed the page you created, so I missed that bit. Johntex\talk 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's too much work to generate that table and maintain it and ask people to review something and then go edit this other table. I would rather get all the articles rated, even if they are somewhat subjective and then uniformly go through the articles and re-rate with a well defined system and submit articles as needed for GA and A class. We'll also need a peer review system for GA and A class. Mecu 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the table is important for several reasons: (1) it gives us a vivid snapshot of where people can go for high quality articles, as well as a snapshot of where we have the most work to do. (2) Having comments from the reviewer gives us something actionable to work on. I don't think it should be too much work. A reviewer should be spending a fair amount of time to review an article (at least on the longer ones). Capturing a record of that work should be a small bit of work in comparison. (3) Having this sort of table helps avoid other tables. For example, there would no longer be a need to list out all GA's or FA's of the project, since they would already be captured in one place. I'll be glad to start the table but I don't think I can get to it today. Johntex\talk 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will run at about 3am UTC tonight and generate some of this for us. If you look at the Military History page for their stats and history and log (I hope you have a highspeed connection), this covers all that you want (especially [2]) except a reviewer's comments on why it needs improvement. But that could be covered in a Peer Review group rather than the assessment team which currently would just rate a page and then a peer review group could go through and evaluate and provide feedback as need? Mecu 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on getting some of the Big XII templates made up

I had set up the major conference school's pages linked up so if anyone (like you) were willing to take the time to create templates, they could easily. Great job. I just had to fix up a few of the templates though to make the font sizes of the letters smaller however though (They were being cut off). PYLrulz 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the compliment. I had initially used the athletic logos from the school but that lasted about 2 days before someone ripped them out due to WP policy. So I just threw in the letters really quick as a quick fix and forgot (though I rather liked the CU letters super big.) --Mecu 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I belive it has something to do with copyrights. I noticed OSU, Texas A&M, and I think one other school (forget off the top of my head at the moment) has the logos, so if those turn up to be in violation of policy, and you have to put in the letters, put the letters in at 20pt (That usually seems to be what fits best for the templates). PYLrulz 10:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding CFB note

I would suggest changing your policy in adding the College Football Project note to people's user pages. Most of this note is the generic newcomer information, and this information is not needed for people who have been here a while. (If you saw my talk page, you would see the same info on top). Also, I suggest you follow the policy you're leaving in these notes, and sign your name with four tildes. Simon12 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I completely have forgotten to sign my name, my apologies. I do agree the format is very generic and mostly for new folks, but some of the people we try and recruit are new folks. I guess the generic Wikipedia welcome would be more appropriate to add that and then ours. --Mecu 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Noticed the project... I will add various Info on SEC teamsCJC47 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like, you can add your name to the "roster" on the Project page. --Mecu 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Thing! CJC47 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit nonplussed upon receiving the CFB WikiProject {{welcome}} , inasmuch as I've been here a long while, and, even as I wasn't at all irked, I imagine that some users might be (the fact of which observation oughtn't to be construed as a condoning of such reaction); you might do well to consult Wikipedia:Welcome templates in order that you should better be able to tailor a welcome to your purpose (viz., to apprise both established and new users of the existence of the WP and to help new users in navigating, perhaps simply by referencing WP:WELCOME). In any case, I found your cordial welcome to be quite nice, and I hope that other established users who are miffed about being welcomed realize that one isn't harmed by his/her being welcomed again; after all, civility, especially where tailored toward a specific encyclopedic goal (here, the recruitment of individuals to maintain and expand articles about college football, an area in which Wikipedia can use help), is something of which we can't have too much. Good on ya! Joe 22:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Version of the welcome that I received was just right. Anyways, I will certainly check it out. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coach stubs

Mecu, please make sure you are removing the American football coach stubs from the article if the person was not a professional coach. If he was just a college coach, he only needs the college coach stub as it is a more specific stub and the american football coach stub is a more generic one. I'm seeing some articles you've added the college on but left the american football one and they were just college coaches. Thanks for helping out with this.--NMajdan•talk 15:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I didn't want to remove any of their stubs since I wasn't sure of their/the policy. --Mecu 15:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
American football coach stub is a more generic coaching stub. Generally, if they are also a pro coach, I'll leave it on there.--NMajdan•talk 17:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went through all of the {{Collegefootball-stub}}s an if they were a coach, changed it to the coach version. So, that's done. Could go through the coach stub and if they're solely college remove the Amfoot one, but for now, it's good enough. --Mecu 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig test

--MECU≈talk 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC) --MECU≈talk 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC) --MECU≈talk 16:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC) --MECU≈talk 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) --MECU≈talk 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC) --MECU≈talk 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:2006_Colorado_football_team_media_guide_cover.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There is no need to ever link bypass redirects unless you plan on deleting the former link or for double redirects. For example, the edit you did to Charlie Weis was pointless and a waste of Wikipedia and your resources. See [[WP:REDIRECT#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken -- KelleyCook 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I thought the wikipedia policy was the reverse, so thank you for the info. I was kinda confused since I was doing my first move of what exactally I needed to do to avoid the double redirect so I thought I'd fix most of the redirects anyways. Can you tell me, if I'm making another edit to a page, and notice the redirect problem, is it okay to fix that as long as I'm making another edit as well? --MECU≈talk 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simple redirects are not usually a problem, so there is normally no need to fix them; unless it was for a typo or clarification. One big exception is if you find any links that currently go to Disambiguation pages (for example if you change a page to be a disambiguation page). Please fix those to go to the correctly disambiguated page. Since you look to be doing some more advanced things, I also would highly recommend that you look at WP:POPUP as it makes automatically fixing these things much easier. -- KelleyCook 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. That's pretty cool. Thanks for the hookup and all the info. --MECU≈talk 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The College Football Project

Hello. Just got your message on my page. It may interest you that I have been attempting to clean up/add to the stadium and arena pages for college football (as well as college basketball & hockey) teams. I could definitely stand to help you out.

So far, here's what I've hit. Some of it may still need expansion, but it's a start.

  • Ivy League
  • Big East
  • Big Ten
  • SEC
  • ACC
  • Big XII (currently working on it)

What I've done for all of these is made sure that each has a uniform stadium infobox, added on architectural information (such as, what it looks like, what's near it, etc), and, in the case of some of the Ivy's, added my own pictures. I have also created a few pages for defunct stadiums, such as Archbold Stadium, Clyde Williams Stadium, Stoll Field/McLean Stadium, etc. I plan on finishing both the football & basketball stadium lists identically, and as soon as possible, for the major conferences (still need to hit the Pac-10, MWC, WAC, MAC & Sun Belt, as well as the three independent teams).

I have also started a page for the SIAA, the parent conference to the Southern Conference and original conference of all the SEC teams and 2/3 of the ACC teams. I need to look up more information from the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia, but that's what I have so far....

ToddC4176 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I ran accross you when you edited the Folsom Field page I've got watched. I saw a lot of your edits were stadium related, and although the stadiums aren't really a part of the project (even if they were, they would be low), I think it's important to have them covered as well, and figured you might want to help out with other areas about college football. I think there's a stadium project or something of the sorts perhaps (maybe it was a portal or something else?). --MECU≈talk 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football image

Sorry, wasn't me. I had nothing to do with that image. But, I took the liberty of moving your comment on my page to the appropriate page (User:CJC47).--NMajdan•talk 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for moving it for me. I double checked and could swear it was you. Ohwell. --MECU≈talk 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main articles template

Good work on this, it looks like there's a lot more to done, unfortunately it has to be done manually (I guess?) because the formatting is kind of inconsistent. --Cyde↔Weys 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yah, there were over 500 articles last night, and there isn't an easy way to do it. I find using notepad with the search (CTRL-F) for "{{main articles" helps, but then I still have to manually make the rest of the changes. There's a few pages that have ""{{mainarticles" as well, but they're clearly listed on the "what links here" page I'm using. If you plan to help, please start at the bottom of the list so we don't overlap for awhile. --MECU≈talk 14:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted at History of Poland

For some reason your edit corrupted all diactrics, up to and including interwiki links, so I was forced to revert it. Please find out what was responsible for this problem and avoid it in the future. You may also want to check your recent contribs if they did not display similar problem.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it. Thanks for notifying me. --MECU≈talk 14:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought whenever I was editing and saw ??? ??? it would remember the codes and display them correctly to others (even though I'd still see the ??? ???) but that doesn't seem to be the case. My home PC seems to be a greater problem than this one, but I don't know how to fix it. But if I do see the ??? ??? from now on, I won't edit it. I guess I need to add language files or something? --MECU≈talk 14:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This computer doesn't seem to have the problem, as I just re-did the changed to the article and it worked out okay. I'll look at my home PC later. Thanks again. --MECU≈talk 14:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, this problem is likely very rare, since diactrics are quite common and this is the first time I have seen such an error. See Wikipedia:Unicode - maybe it will have some ideas. PS. Please consider copying your reply to my talk page as I rarely check talk pages of other editors for their possible replies (this is what 'you have new messages and reply idea is for, as well as link to my talk page in my signature).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  15:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's pretty rare, then I must believe it's because on my home PC I swapped Microsoft's Notepad with another "notepad" client and it cannot handle such items. I will definately swap back and stick with notepad then. --MECU≈talk 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wisconsin, not Wisconson

Just wanted to let you know that Wisconsin is misspelled in the Badgerscoach template. If you could fix it, or tell me how to, it would be greatly appreciated.Football79 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it. Just go to here: {{BadgersCoach}} and click the edit button like any other article. If you have more questions, let me know. --MECU≈talk 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Nigeria?

Mecu, what's up with this edit to the Nigeria? Arx Fortis 02:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I need to explain myself because of the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy, but I am going through to change all the {{main articles| to {{main| to orphan the previous template. I am using an external editor to help speed the process, and probably was making changes to the Korea article and acidentally pasted that article in as well. No one is perfect, especially making the same edits to 500+ articles, I'm bound to make a few errors. --MECU≈talk 12:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...wasn't accusing, just asking. Arx Fortis 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:LonghornsFootball

  • Hello Mecu, thanks for lettin me know about this one. I disagree on this one because so few of the individual team seasons have their own articles, and I don't think that will change in the near future. The sucession box expects "before" and "after" entries. Since they don't exist, that seems like it would be confusing. Johntex\talk 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main point is that for Colorado I could create a template with a year for each year they played since 1890. That's a list of 117 years, most of which would never need a team by year page for it. But since it exists there, someone would come along and put together a little page by clicking on the link and then we have 117 (minus a few) stubs. I don't think we want that. I agree that succession box isn't a perfect solution, since, for example, the 1990 Colorado team wouldn't need an 89 or 91 team page so those would be empty... but is seems obvious that 91 would follow 90 so they would search for it if they wanted that (or not?) or just link to the main football article (ie, Colorado Buffaloes football) for more info about season records at the minimum. I just think that if we allow these types of things there will be no end and there will be templates for each game in a season because then we need an article for each game.... Look at the recent USC example. Most of the content generated was plagerized, and the user made 4 (or so) pages when they didn't need to be made. We're only inviting this things with these templates. --MECU≈talk 14:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

I just discovered this page User:Sheath/Géorge W. Bu$h which seems fairly standard stuff until you get to the Assassination section. This has to be against WP policy, but I don't know what. Further, this probably should be referred to a government agency (FBI, police, something?) so they can investigate? I don't know what to do, just nominate for speedy delete? But then maybe the FBI would want to see the page? Thank you for your help. --MECU≈talk 16:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that page is not appropriate, Wikipedia:User page is the guideline on the topic. I will delete and it and speak to the author. I won't contact the Secret Service (I'm not American and think it is just a prank) but if someone wants to and they want to see the deleted page, they can ask an admin (so yeah, speedy delete would have been the right way to go).--Commander Keane 17:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Football rankings

You think that page is ready to be put up for featured candidacy yet? I believe it is.--NMajdan•talk 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have someone else go through and verify the data first. I'd hate to put it up and have some stupid error. I also think we should link to the sources of the data we use first. --MECU≈talk 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should just be able to use ESPN.com. That is where I got most of my data.--NMajdan•talk 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been grabbing the data from the BCS Harris Poll and BCS site, for those polls. --MECU≈talk 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{bv}} sign

Please be careful when using this sign. The user whose edits you called unconstructive ([3]) did not deliberately destroy the article. He is a relatively new user who forgot to preview his edit. Thank you. Orane (talk • cont.) 01:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that assessment, because they had done it several times and the one that I reverted had some very rude language and other items that aren't needed. Although you would handle it one way, I handled it differently, but in the end, we're all here for the same goal. --MECU≈talk 02:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make was that someone is not a vandal unless he or she deliberately makes bad faithed edits in an attempt to compromise the credibility of Wikipedia. Based on 72.177.166.209's edits (the fact that the editor was pleading his/her case through an invisible note [4], or the fact that he/she tried to justify the edits made on the article's talk page [5]), it would be unfair to lablel him/her as a vandal as he/she had no intention of 'destroying' Wikipedia. I'm not trying to reprimand you or anything — in fact, I applaud your dedication to the "goals". However, I'm just pointing out that you should use {{bv}} sparingly. (See Wikipedia:Vandalism.) Orane (talk • cont.) 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Your edit summaries are duplicated.

Since you didn't sign your name or care enough to give more information, I have no clue what you're talking about. --MECU≈talk 22:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College Football HoF too?

Would it be possible to make a orange cell for members of the College Football Hall of Fame in the same manner as the Pro Football HoF? I always find it interesting who was one, but not the other, and who was both. Any thoughts? Who knows how to do this? —Xanderer 04:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MECU≈talk 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YES! YOU ARE THE MAN! If you want something done, ask a Marine —Xanderer 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea

Florida Gators football is now up and running, though I will need to tweak it and add more stuff in the next couple of days. --Travis 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The logo is already used in the section about sports at the university. There's no need to have it twice. ed g2s • talk 18:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The templates suggest where they should be used. Please read the introduction to WP:FUC. We should only use fair use for critical commentary, not just when the subject of the image is mentioned. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean to illustrate the player, but to illustrate a relevant point about the player. ed g2s • talk 19:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am making a relevant point about the player: That he is noteable award winner. How else would you use a promotional image to make a relevant point about the player? --MECU≈talk 19:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a picture to say that. Using a picture because the guy is mentioned is not why we allow fair use. ed g2s • talk 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comment - there are lots of things that can theoretically be said without a picture, but if the picture helps to say them, and if its use is legal, then it may be preferable to say it with a picture. I haven't reviewed the case in question, so this is just a general comment. Johntex\talk 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not on Wikipedia, where our primary goal is to publish free content. Accordingly, our fair use policy is not just "if it's useful and legal it's okay". And in this case, a picture of the player does not better explain that he won an award. ed g2s • talk 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, our primary goal is to make a useful encyclopedia. It is a corruption of our mission to lessen the effectiveness of this work because of theoretical restrictions on what can be done by people who want to re-use this work. The people who want to re-use our content for their own purposes can take their own time to go through and determine if their use of a logo is fair use. Johntex\talk 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MECU/Archive/1&oldid=70279676"