User talk:Disavian/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disputing replaceable images

Hi... I have no problem with your disputing the images I've marked "replaceable", but I was wondering if you could add your arguments to the image talk pages rather than inline with the disputed tag? It would make addressing your arguments easier. Thanks! —Chowbok ☠ 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:P86.jpg

Something weird is going on with that one. It's like "half" Commons, or something. Like a DB glitch. I asked an admin to take a look at it. —Chowbok ☠ 07:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Images on commons exist on WP, that's how it works. That's how I'm able to categorize GT-related images on both commons and WP. If you deal with that image, do so on commons. The "copy" you're seeing on WP will change accordingly. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving images to Commons

If the image has the same title here and at Commons, you can use {{NCT}}. If the title is different at Commons, use {{NowCommons|ImageNameOnCommons.ext}}. —Chowbok ☠ 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Other image stuff

I'm not sure if there's a speedy template for duplicated items; I've not run across one. Images that are just too low-quality or that should be deleted for other miscellaneous reasons should go through IFD. —Chowbok ☠ 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Promo Photo Advocacy

Hi Disavian. I've noticed you might be an interested party in the fair use debate, so I thought you might like to know about a new Wikiproject I've started to try and organize our dissent to existing interpretation of Wikipedia policy when it comes to fair use publicity photos. Please check it out at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Promotional_Photo_Advocacy. --Jeff 05:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Tech Tower

Glad you liked the photo! I liked yours enough to start the Tech Tower article. Please work your magic to make it better. MaxVeers 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

On December 25, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tech Tower, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 18:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

_{(Yoinked from User talk:MaxVeers because I helped :) —Disavian (^talk/contribs) 19:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC) )}

J.M. Tate High School

Dear disavian , you are obvious a very smart individual. im just confused a litle about your edit deleting emmitt smith field as being unencyclopedic. If you will look you will see emmitt smith is already in wikipedia so how can he be unencyclopedic smart guy?????? : ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knowledgebase11 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

I assume you are talking about this edit, where I removed the following content:

“ J.M. Tate High School is located on Tate Road off Highway 29 in north Escambia County, north of Pensacola, Florida. The area is designated as Cantonment rather than the City of Pensacola. A brief history of the school can be found here, courtesy of Louise Robinson Davis.

Tate High Aggies was the 1980 Class AAAA State Football Champions. Tate was quarterbacked by Keith Leonard. The leading rusher was Sam Brown, who gained over 1,000 yards. The defense was led by FS Paul Brown, LB Jon Langston, and SS Rocky Colburn. Tate won 13 straight games after a season-opening loss to Fort Walton Beach Choctawhatchee. Included in the playoff victories were three road wins at then #1 Panama City Mosley, Orange Park, and #2 Winter Park. In the championship game, Tate beat Miami Christopher Columbus 35-7 at Escambia's Emmitt Smith Field. The team finished with a #4 national ranking.

The Tate High School Baseball team were national champions in 1984, and state champions in 1962, 68, 76, 84, 86, 98, and 05.

Tate High School is home to the "Show Band Of The South" Official Website

”

That was all very unencyclopedic. Admittedly, the article is rather short in its present state, but there is more to a high school than the accomplishments of its sports teams almost three decades ago. For an example of something constructive to add, see the other high school articles linked from Escambia County School District; in particular, see Booker T. Washington High School and Pensacola High School. Good suggestions are the school's history, demographics/enrollment, and academic performance. As for "deleting Emmitt Smith field" ... well, not everything named after somebody notable is itself notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gatech buzz.gif

Is there a higher-resolution version of Image:Gatech buzz.gif that we could use? Preferably something around 300px wide, or even better, in SVG format. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I don't have anything like that myself. You might try asking Courtarro - I think he works for The Technique so he might have access to one. Don't forget though that we shouldn't have a logo resolution any higher than absolutely necessary (see {{fairusereduce}}, etc) -SCEhardT 14:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see/talk to him on a regular basis, since I work there too. He's the online editor. Perhaps the sports editor would have something like what I'm looking for...? I'll see all of them Tuesday night, so maybe I'll ask them then. As for image size, I agree, nothing larger than 300px. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I found what I was looking for thanks to a Google Image Search: Image:Gatech buzz.jpg :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Institute of Technology#Profile

Can you cite your addition? The paragraph is stating that every single department within GT's College of Engineering ranked in the top 10. Is the same true of MIT, or did you misread and assume it meant "both the undergraduate and graduate rankings are in the top 10"? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the link [1] to show that each of MIT's engineering programs also ranks in top 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MITBeaverRocks (talk • contribs)

Calvin Johnson

Thanks. I was looking at the article and saw it had little about his career, and seeing how he might be #1 Draft pick, I thought I might expand it.

Thanks. John 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Georgia Tech

Wow! I didn't notice you had been hard at work on the History of Georgia Tech article. Great job. I'll pitch in as soon as possible. MaxVeers 00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been working hard on it, as it's the last major part of the article Georgia Institute of Technology I think needs work. I've also been maintaining the to do list, so have a look at that, too. Technically, it's the WP:TECH collaboration, but nobody else has been contributing to it. In other news, have a look at the article list; I made a fun template to give me talk and todo links. Also, I created Dan Radakovich last night. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Disavian, I'm new here, so forgive my ignorance, but after I created my first page, a message was sent with your name on it saying the page had been reverted or removed. I have no complaints about this, but I wasn't expecting ANYTHING to occur for a few hours at least. Oh, and when I created the page, the text was in a box and was double-spaced. I don't remember setting it like that, and I can't seem to change it. I'm really sorry if I'm bothering you, but could you please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okarenrenos (talk • contribs) 11:52, 24 January 2007

I'll be happy to help you! :) Are you talking about your userpage, or another page? As for the text in a box: delete any spaces between the beginning of the line and your text. Observe the following example:

text in a box

text not in a box

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll try to work on a few other problems by myself before I try my hand at page writing.

U.G. stub type

From my stub suggestion:

“ I created it, and will populate it as soon as I have time. Should Category:University of Georgia stubs be deleted (and all of the stubs within moved to this category)? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) ”

If so, how does one go about doing that? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, yes. The procedure is to list it at WP:SFD, which page also has the instructions for doing so. Let me know if you need any assistance with that (or otherwise). Alai 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Any objection if I speedy the redirect {{Georgia-university-stub}}? Alai 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and do that. Once I realized my mistake, I moved it and AWB'd the ones I'd been through to use that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I missed this stub discussion, but I created Category:University of Georgia stubs many months ago - did it in a backwards way, but I did go through the requisite approval process and discussion so coming back this many months later to discuss deletion doesn't seem to be going in the right direction. Since there are 79 stubs (most of which are accurately labeled IMHO - and with more that should probably be added) that was above the general recommendation of at least 60 needed for stub creation. My $.02. --Roswell native 03:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it as a subcategory of Georgia universities. There aren't enough stubs for a Tech subcategory, by far. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding WP:TECH to the "related projects" section of WP:GEORGIA?

Unfortunately, I have no idea. I'm just a participant of WP:GEORGIA, others proposed and created the project. --Roswell native 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

deletion

Thanks for the note, I'll give it some thought, but it makes the process much slower, especially when trying to clear a backlog (most of which is unmitigated junk). Don't deletions show up on a watchlist? jimfbleak 06:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they do not. When an article is tagged for speedy deletion, it theoretically shows up on the watchlist of the editor who created it, assuming they are still watching the page. In my experience, however, articles are deleted before your average editor checks his watchlist to discover that. I can understand the need to speed the process given the backlog. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images aren't allowed in user pages

You can't have Image:The Technique 12-01-2006.jpg on your user page. It is a fair use image. Rule #9 of the fair use image rules prevents images from being on user pages. If you don't understand that, Durin is very good at explaining it. You can ask him at his talk page. I intend to check back tommorow. You need to remove that image by then or I will. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Do I have rights to use the image in my userspace if I was a participant in its creation? Specifically, I am cited in the colophon of The Technique. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do assume good faith. You will note that I did not just remove the image in question. However, I am interpreting a strict policy as best I can. Since, I don't see any replies from Durin, I have to believe the image must be removed. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As to my reminder of good faith, I suggest that you find softer language than "You need to remove that image by then or I will." It is better to educate a user than forcefully remove content from their page. If they continue to (clearly) violate fair use guidelines, then you are allowed to drop your assumption of good faith. As to the image, what does Durin have to do with this? You're the Wikipedian describing the policy, and you would be the one to remove the offending image. Please take responsibility for your own actions.

Finally, as I am one of the creators of that issue of The Technique, I have a partial copyright to that image. Therefore, I will use it as I please within my userspace... unless the man behind the curtain says otherwise. In the latter case, I know the editor personally, so it would be a matter of asking her to give me a short statement and relicensing the photo. However, given that the only uses of the photo are

1. On a page in which fair use is valid and
2. A thumbnail on my userpage,

it is not worth the effort given that I have partial rights to the image anyway. Your thoughts? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Durin is an Sysop. I know he spends quite a bit of time on this issue. However, since my understanding of the rules are, as I said, strict, you might want to ask at the policy portion of the Village Pump. Since you appear to have at least partial ownership of the copyright, I am inclined to allow the image for now until I hear otherwise. Even then though, I suspect, if needed, you will always be able to change the license to GDFL. You might post a link to your Pump discussion here so I know what to do in the future. Some partial owners might not be able to use anything besides fair use (not enough ownership). Will (Talk - contribs) 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea about asking Village Pump. I'll do that. Link to that discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Partially owned images on user pages —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Disavian, Will is correct about the policy in that this image may not appear on your userpage and is correct that it needs to be removed. This is covered by Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. I'm sure that Will meant no threatening offense with "or I will". We should all remember that textual communication has its limitations of expression. Even the best poets suffer from interpretation shortcomings at times. Whether you had a hand in creation of the image is insufficient. If you're an employee of the organization, then they have paid for your time to help develop that page. In that case, you have (usually) no rights to the image. If you released certain materials to the paper under license to them, then you have rights only to the material you released to them, but not to the remainder of the content. Thus, the paper retains rights. In either case, or really any case, the paper needs to specifically release their rights to the newspaper cover under a free license, such as GFDL or a Creative Commons license such as {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}. It is probably unlikely they would be willing to do so, since such a release would also include their rights to all graphics on the page including the newspaper's logo. If they do so, they will also need to have that release communicated to the Wikimedia Foundation which can be done via the OTRS system. You can find more information about that at m:OTRS and m:OTRS/permissions-en-guide. Until such time as these rights have been released, the image needs to be removed from your userpage. I am doing so now, along with a few other images in the gallery on your userpage. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I like what you've done with it, by the way. Very clean. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

VC

Right now I am editing with the Wii Browser (my computer isn't working), so I can only edit small sections (which is why I can't reply there). I was just opposed to some of the other edits that had been made. If you can keep the table how it looks NOW while having the option of sorting them, I am all for it. Also, anytime someone wants to make a huge change they should discuss it first. TJ Spyke 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing with your Wii Browser? That means you have a Wii. I am envious :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the sortable columns, it's just other things like yes and no being linked (what is the point of that?), useless coloring of the controller compatibility columns, and having a price section in the Future Release section (since prices are rarely known ahead of time). TJ Spyke 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Template spam

Would you mind telling me how "Wikiproject Biography" has contributed to the Pinkerton article? Just out of curiosity. I mean I can see your edit where you added the "Georgi Tech alumni" cat. Aside from that, has the Wikiproject done anything except mark its territory? AlistairMcMillan 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WPBiography is large, I'll admit. However, WPBiography participates in assessment and prioritization, and therefore increases the chances that that article will be included in some DVD or print version of Wikipedia. I am not a participant, but I have found that the template features (needs-photo and needs-infobox) have aided me in editing biographical articles. While unrelated to the WPBiography, I have found that the {{todo}} template to be extremely useful and include it on all of the pages in my WikiProject. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Tech: Informatics

Seems like a good suggestion to me.—Michael Fourman 08:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WUSTL WikiProject

Thanks for your visit! Your page and the Cornell project page are outstanding. I see now that you created WikiProject Georgia Tech. I am learning the ropes-- the turnkey templates (I believe) are the best way to organize a project page-- the WP:TECH pages certainly sold me on the idea. Hopefully we can get our modest WUSTL article series up to par and at least get the main article to featured status. So far, there hasn't been a stampede to join the project, so we will see how it goes. . .

I don't have any questions for you yet, but I certainly appreciate the offer for assistance. It seems the biggest challenge will be to find people willing to contribute content and not merely provide edits.

Let me know if you would like to be added either as a "sister project" or just as a link from the WP:WUSTL page. Kindly, Lmbstl 06:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Cornell's layout is copied from WP:TECH, too. However, I copied my article list from Cornell and added the {{attd}} list later on, after I gave all of my articles todo lists. I might link to you from the see also section, I suppose. I do have some advice for you; your template inclusion system is a little odd. Most notably, your project "template" is entirely too large. Drop the talkheader and the userspace templates, except possibly on the main university article. The "jump to table of contents" template is only necessary when there is an extremely large number of templates (see Talk:Georgia Institute of Technology for an example of that). The project template and the todo list are a little clunky, but I've made sure to use the todo list on every article, or I've at least made an attempt to that end. I have more advice about templates, but I need to get to bed... class tomorrow. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the other thing I reccomend for when your project gets a little larger (in terms of the number of articles in the project... perhaps >75?) is to have a class rating in your project template, something I implemented very recently. Also, I've been working on adding options to my project template; I can make it small, apply it to non-article pages, hide the todo box, etc. I don't think smaller projects (which I consider WP:TECH to have been when I started it) need the ratings, but they are useful once the project gets a substantial article base. The colorful quality box on the new "Assessment" page is autogenerated by a bot once you have the templates and the categories set up correctly. I don't have any other suggestions for the moment :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I know that some of the items in the WUSTL Project are typically for bigger projects. The main reason for the "clunky" templates on many talk pages is simple: publicity. And, for simplicity, all articles in the WUSTL series use the same header template. Maybe we will change it, but there haven't been any complaints yet...

I added the assessments function also, partly for the fun of it, and partly because I want to have a framework in place for anyone to come in and administrate the project. I don't know how much time I will be able to devote to managing it myself; at least, all the pieces can be in place if it takes off.

WP:TECH is also listed in our "see also" pane, under "Projects we admire." --Lmbstl 09:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Other GA noms

I like where the Technique article is going, but I don't think it has quite enough content yet to be considered for a GA nomination. I'll have to think about other articles, but nothing's jumping to mind right now. MaxVeers 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for all your hard work with the History of Georgia Tech article and the Georgia Tech WikiProject in general. MaxVeers 16:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots of Windows Vista

Please refrain from uploading screenshots of pre-release versions of Windows Vista. Themodernizer 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

The article Features_new_to_Windows_Vista you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Features_new_to_Windows_Vista for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Funpika 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Tech Page Edit

You asked me about a source for my change to the endowment part of the Georgia Tech page. Here it is:[2] Sorry, I meant to cite the source orignally, but I got sidetracked. Then, I just tried to do it, but didn't want to screw it up. So, I thought I give it to you, and just let you do it. Thanks, Ammhoops

thanks

I thank you for your generous comment at the Bradford article. The general use of such comments would go a long way to keeping AfDs from being restarted continually. DGG 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I was trying to fix a large series of articles that were spammed earlier today, and I walked right over your subsequent edit at Refined Printing Command Stream. Sorry about that, didn't mean to create more work for you... Kuru ^talk 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wallenberg

Raoul Wallenberg, please take a peek and see how the update looks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Budweiser

This week I'm making a trip to the GT Archives to get a bunch of sources together for a multitude of GT articles. I just noticed the Budweiser song info was missing so I put it in before I forgot. I will get a bunch cited before Monday. Excaliburhorn 21:40, 13 Feb. 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly are the archives? I might want to go down there at some point, too. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the positive feedback, I'm not really a fan of any one college team though. I just created the Crittenton article because I felt he needed one as he is a stud. He could be a starter on 10-15 NBA teams now imo. I did a little work on the Mouhammad Faye article and removed the db notice though. Quadzilla99 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Failing articles for unreferenced

Disavian, I have noticed that you failed several GA articles for the reason of lack of reference. However, as you see in those articles, they have a "Notes" section, which is de facto reference section, so it can be easily done by just substitute the heading "notes" to "references" instead of failing an article. Wooyi 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific article you're referring to? I know what a Notes section is. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was partially refering to John Paul Stevens, and also in some extent Hampton House (which I did not participate in editing). That house one only has two, but I'm not familiar with that subject. But, the Stevens article has five reference, and the content is enough detailed. Wooyi 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For articles as detailed as those, five notes/references aren't enough. I've added ones I've failed primarily per lack of references to Unreferenced GA Nominations per GAC instructions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I got it. Thanks, and I might add references to his article in future. Cheers! Wooyi 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I helped you out a little there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GA review of Isiah Leggett

Thanks for your GA review of the Isiah Leggett article. The picture was deleted for copyright reasons soon after I nominated it, which is why there was no image with the article when you reviewed it. Can you clarify something for me, though? You also suggested that the lead needs references. I was told by SandyGeorgia in a FAR discussion that the lead does not need referencing if the facts contained therein are referenced later in the article. Is there specific guidance on this? Mocko13 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Take his word on that over mine. I honestly don't know of a policy one way or another on that. In order to find a picture, try searching Flickr for CC images of him. You never know, you might find one. You might also be able to upload a photo and claim it under fair use, but you need to add a fair use guideline stating why a free image can't be found. Other than the two things (a picture and adding a couple refs to the first two sections), I'm very impressed with your article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Chloe Vevrier

Hi. Please have a quick look at my notes on the above article's talk page if you are interested in this matter. Cheers. MadMaxDog 05:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Akhtar Hameed Khan

I have edited the article as per your objects., added few refs and removed redundent external links etc. Could you have a look again now for GA or would you rather renominate?--IsleScape^Talk 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Renominate it, and I'll pass it when I get home from school. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Vista Flip 3d.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vista Flip 3d.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 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mouhammad Faye

I uploaded the pic for him to Wikimedia Commons as that kind of pic should go there that way it can be used anywhere in Wikimedia. I also cropped it. Here the pic:[3] Thanks for finding it. Quadzilla99 18:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thaddeus Young, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 10:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NCAATeamBasketball

Ok, I have a first draft up at User:Nmajdan/Test. Take a look at tell me what changes should still be made. Specifically, I'd like input on if I handled the NCAA (or NIT) tourneys appropriately. Also, I have two Asst Coach fields. They are both optional, and they could both handle multiple names. So if there are 2 asst coachs, put one name in each as I did. If there are three, put two in the first one and one in the second one, and so on. Also, if these changes are sufficient, I might be able to combine the basketball and football templates into one. We'll see.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's looking great so far! I don't know too much about basketball, so I asked a friend that does. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never really received any feedback on it. If you think its ready, I'll try to get it moved early next week.↔NMajdan•talk 15:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I opened up a discussion concerning the new template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Need opinion on a couple templates. Please feel free to share your opinion.↔NMajdan•talk 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we have that all figured out. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of YouTube

The article YouTube you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:YouTube for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 20:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)