The Big 10 marching bands template is great. Thanks!

Brad Halls 01:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I received specific permission to post everyone of the images that I had on the IU Marching Hundred page. How do I not make that clear? What can I do to get them back up (as in, what licensing, etc. do I need)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhardiii (talk • contribs) 12:44, October 23, 2006

Okay, thank you. I've contacted Geni about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhardiii (talk • contribs) 13:51, October 23, 2006

You wouldn't happen to know why I cannot get the last image on the page to show up, would you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhardiii (talk • contribs) 02:47, October 24, 2006

The image has a very odd aspect ratio, that's probably the problem. That's why it would show up in full view in the "Logo" area of the marching band info box, but not in a thumbnail fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhardiii (talk • contribs) 03:16, October 25, 2006

I'll see what I can do, but I'm pretty busy during football season so I wouldn't be able to attempt to put anything together until after the first of the year. I've seen a couple other people floating around here who may currently be in the band so maybe something will happen with it before then. Gopher backer 14:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the reversion--I was trying to get those nowiki tags at the bottom and apparently reverted instead. Mr Bound 19:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was attempting to remove some of those links myself - the original UMinn edits were by user 156.98.187.230. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on the NUMB page. Please note that today, "grynder" is spelled with a "y"; as a current member, I feel I can accurately attest to this. I don't know how it used to be spelled--with an "i", whatever--but the two articles cited are either out of date and/or incorrect. Please respect this current state of the SpiriTeam. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.71.254 (talk • contribs) 23:22, December 25, 2006

Thank you for your work on the NUMB page. It is appreciated. Best Wishes, --VentrueSabre 03:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, we haven’t met yet, say, do you find that world trade centers and control demolition theories go hand to hand? It's quite popular theory, mind you… Well, sry for speeding, thought I wouldn’t be caught!:) & thx for warning, have a good hunt. Lovelight 16:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting my supra entries this is not spam! and it is not a POP UP like you suggested Parkerd 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)april 20th[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Illinois Fighting Illini. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. 207.114.16.210 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As a courtesy follow-up to you EA request, I wanted to find out if you were interested in working to improve the article you had issues with. If so, we can work on that together. Please let me know if you are interested. Cheers, --Aarktica 01:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you reviewed What is a good article? What ideas do you have for improving the article (i.e. Fighting Illini)? --Aarktica 14:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove trollery from my Talk page the annon who is posting to my talk is being disruptive with It's edits. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're absolutely sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See WP:VAND: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".

I agree, you need to take it easy with your warnings and your tattling, etc 207.114.16.210 16:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, the anonymous user you reported for a 3RR violation has again violated the rule under an alternate IP. I think you might need to make a new report (that includes a reference to the old report) on the administrators' board rather than adding to the old one, since it appears no one has seen the additions. I would do it myself, but, being fairly new to this, I would probably botch the report somehow. Thanks. ~ João Do Rio 05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing me up on the non-delete. I believe it was in bad-faith too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've gone and done it and the Aggie Band article is up for Featured Article status. Any feedback (especially support) would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how articles about organizations that exist at only one school and have only one source can be of significance. Bassgoonist 19:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I plan to start reading more marching band pages, most of them seem totally insignificant. Not all are speedy deletion candidates, but most warrant it. Bassgoonist 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Invited!! Based on your Wikipedia contributions, you may want to consider joining WikiProject Marching band. More information can be found on the project page. We hope you'll join us!

.

--Littledrummrboy 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this; please tell me which redirects you want me to delete. Anthony Appleyard 22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at Talk:Tone about the links you re-added. Propaniac 02:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...the changes by User:ThreeE to Fightin' Texas Aggie Band? I can't without a 3RR problem. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Upholder. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning ThreeE's conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by "ThreeE" in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE, where I would appreciate your participation and comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both BQZip01 and ThreeE broke various policies, but it looks like neither of them are willing to fully take responsibility for their actions. Continued pressure isn't going to change their minds at this point, so it's a largely futile exercise. And since they've agreed to take on a new approach to editing (mind you, this came after the diffs you provided), let's just move on and give both of them a second chance.

But if you'd like to continue hounding one or the other, I suppose I can't stop you. -- RG² 06:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Upholder,

I reverted the Chief-Rose-parade graf that you put back up on President White after I reverted because of factual errors and irrelevancies. I urge you to not re-revert.

Here's why:

President White has not been involved in the Chief issue since last spring’s Board of Trustees action. At that time, the trustees directed the Urbana campus to handle the details of the Chief’s costume, licensing, trademark and other issues. This included the homecoming parade, which is a campus activity.

Therefore, White had no part of “banning Chief imagery from the parade” as the graf in question implies.

We don't need an edit war here. I am appealing to your sense of justice, integrity and fair play to do the right thing.

Thanks and regards,

Champw1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Champw1 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the Board of Trustees ended the Chief tradition, they directed the campus to determine dealing with regalia, licensing, trademark ... and Homecoming. Because Homecoming is a campus function.

The president is the chief administrative officer of the U of I system ... The chancellors are the administrators of the campuses. So White had nothing to do with parade decision. Rep. Rose apparently did not understand that. His letter isn't relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Champw1 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've decided to apply to join the dark side. As a user with whom I have interacted, I would appreciate your input on my nomination. This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated, but simply a request for feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any information on the Student Senate's interest in documents relating to the Chief Illiniwek decision? I served on the student senate for four terms. I am rather protective of it and would hate to see events misreprestented. Do you have any citations? I am not saying the information is wrong; I just would like to verify it. Thanks for your help. H.al-shawaf (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should either find a source or remove the content. I will do a few google searches. Perhaps it was covered in the Daily Illini.H.al-shawaf (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I knew the student senator referred to in the article. It's up to your judgement if you want to include his name in the article. I'm not sure if it would be relevant.H.al-shawaf (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was well covered both by the DI, News Gazette, and ESPN radio. It should be included. P.S. I talked to Nugent yesterday and he was proud of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.252.64.254 (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Emergence cover first edition.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an infobox to the James J. Stukel page, but the image I have is of a poor resolution. Do you know how I can shrink the image? I've tried a few "px" tricks, but can't figure it out. Even if you point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it.H.al-shawaf (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions?H.al-shawaf (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Upholder. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]