User talk:Moonraker0022/Archive 3

Moonraker0022 Talk Page Archive (July 2008 to June 2009)

As a member of WikiProject Kansas City you may be interested in a skyline picture debate taking place at Talk:Kansas City, Missouri. If you would like, please stop by and voice your opinion. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do a search for articles with commonly misspelled words, then correct them. It's a silly hobby, but it keeps me editing. I use to write articles from stratch, but I don't have the time anymore. Clerks. (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you need to be more careful in your categorisation, for example, many of the cats you added here and here are a bit silly. The one that caught my eye was Category:Tennis - if you look at the contents of this category, you'll realise that these two articles do not belong in the general tennis category, and I'm sure the same is true for many of the other general sports categories you added. As a result, I have removed the non-college related ones. If you want to recategorise these articles, I suggest something more subtle, for example Category:Tennis organisations might be more appropriate for tennis, or you could create a Category:College tennis. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I've set up some templates for

So, it looks like no one cares about us, haha. No one ever seems to comment on SNU matters I hope for input on, so it looks like it's up to you and me to build consensus until we can find other editors to work with. It might be a bit rough since it's not terribly democratic, but it should be fun. :) This is what I think: there's a distinct possibility that the number of user's comments is fairly proportional to the notability of a subject. Assuming that's true, I think it's safe to assume that making lots of really small articles on several interrelated topics isn't necessary. As I've said before, my philosophy is that it would be better if we could create comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced articles on things SNU-related. If articles get large enough to separate one day, that's great, but we can't get ahead of ourselves. That said, perhaps it might make sense to have an SNU Crimson Storm article, simply by virtue of DI, but I'm not convinced that the SNUPY Awards, at the very least, merit a separate article. We can at least merge that into the Crimson Storm article, or perhaps even into the SNU article under Student life. The Sawyer Center is still depressingly small, but has some good information that could have been (and still can be) used to beef up other articles. I know that you intend to enlarge these articles, but I still think you're working too hard on making lots of articles without making any of them substantial. I've really enjoyed teaming up with other editors to improve articles in the past, and I'd love to help out on more Nazarene articles, so let me know your thoughts. Collaboration, yes! --Aepoutre (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ironically, we got some input on the SNU talk page today. Might even be a friend of yours! --Aepoutre (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I've never even been to the school. I troll around in the

College Football project and have taken an interest in NAIA schools. You've made some good efforts here -- keep it up!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

can you send me a link of the discussion page? i dont rember anything about going on the timber wolf article...--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't orinally remove it. A previous editor removed it, and I saw it and got suspicious, as I know the Nazarene Church is protestant. I reverted the previous edit restoring the article to the protestant cat. However, never wanting to undoe someone else's edit without getting all my information, I visited the Category:Protestant churches page and read the statement at the top of the page which reads, "This category is for buildings that are used as churches. For classification by denominations, see Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements." As this article refers to a denomination and not a church building I agreed with the earlier edit and reverted my revert. Hope this clears up any misunderstandings. Ltwin (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off on replacing the Template:NAIA Football Conferences with Template:NAIA Conferences. The discussion on the deletion of the template is looking very much toward KEEP at Templates for Deletion. If the consensus swings and it goes to delete, then fine go ahead. But until the discussion is closed, it might be best to wait for the result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I posted on Talk:Sawyer Center after reverting some of your recent edits. Remember that you need citations, no matter what you've heard. I need to be able to verify it, or it's not up to snuff. Also, keep in mind that even hidden, obvious non-NPOV statements hurt an editor's case and bely possible COI. I've said before that you need to focus on quality of information if you have any interest in making good SNU-related articles. I'm no expert, and ask a lot of advice from more experienced editors. Feel free to ask me for any help, of course, because I'd love to. Instead, we seem to be at odds over verifiability, mostly because of your POV, but I'd rather collaborate. Using talk pages for articles if you're unsure of anything is also very helpful, in my experience. Neither of us are immune to being wrong, of course, so those are especially helpful for getting others' opinions. Talk to you again soon! --Aepoutre (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a class of '03 alum. You? Ryan2845 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not worried about the template colours, so no worries there, but the process has made me curious about the college colours. First, I'm intrigued by the name "Crimson Storm" paired with the colour "Maroon". Second, since it seems fairly non-standard, are there really four colours (maroon, grey, white, and black)? Third, is there a media guide where you get your information? As to the last, having one might would eliminate some confusion, because I noticed the SNU article and the 'Storm article disagree and I can't find any sources myself. Talk to you soon! --Aepoutre (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I just noticed that the women's volleyball colours are different yet again from the college and main athletics articles. I'm even more confused now. Didn't you write in the colours for each of these articles? --Aepoutre (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found it. They are crimson and white. See [1]. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the edits, but that is not the intended purpose of the template. It is for all aspects of SNU. See also: Template:University of Oklahoma, Template:University of North Texas, and another style Template:University of Kansas, Template:University of Southern California. The unused links are removed, so all that information is there, and is in a concise listing. Moonraker0022 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I don’t think just changing redlinks to nonlinks is enough, and I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from. Perhaps I'll try better explaining, and ask you to please read

SNU Colors- Those are that particular shades of Crimson and White. The Visual Standards Guide is only available on the SNU website, it's not a third party site, so you got me there. Change the colors if you want, but remember assume

Good Faith. Visual Standards Guide or [2]

I have not seen any school having to source school colors... it's sorta a given.

The template is not effecting the content of the article in any way. The OU template also links to Daily Oklahoman so it is not ill-relevant to SNU. SNU does not link to Oklahoma Sooners, not sure where you were going with that. The SNU template also serves as a list, all the majors, facilities and other information, some of which is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. And like I stated earlier when I overhauled the SNU template, it leaves open the possibility of expansion. When someone is so led to create and article about the SNU School of Business, it is there ready to go. Until then, it is suffice to say, as it is listed in the Template: SNU has a school of Business. It works as a quick reference. SNU is a small school, and relatively low on the radar of all American culture.

Moonraker,

WP:VERIFY

). I'm just glad that you found a source for the college colours (which are totally different from what you originally put, so I didn't attack you in any way but cited Wikipedia policy that challenged you to work with me in making the article better), which are different from the athletics colours according to other sources. I totally assume good faith. If you were to have a non-NPOV perspective it wouldn't mean that you're being malicious or destructive. I've just been letting you know about Wikipedia policies you may not (and seem not to) have read, so that we might resolve our disagreement according to those principles.

The

MSA does not establish the same level of relation via RS (otherwise, one could argue that any college is related to any newspaper in which it has been featured, and link to that, or you could put University of Chicago in a Saint Xavier University

navbox).

Understand that this isn't some effort to destroy you somehow. One might call it an (unsuccessful) attempt to help you become a better editor by providing helpful guide links, much like the tradition of posting things like User talk:Aepoutre#Welcome to Wikipedia!, albeit more specific and interactive. It's nevertheless been met with indifference to more than one Wikipedia guideline and policy. Please understand that I don't send you links to make you feel bad or destroy an article, but so that we can both read them and reach consensus as to what would be best, according to set guidelines, for the article. According to what you say, we have the same objective. Let's work toward that objective without getting defensive and ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, if there are really press conferences then you should be able to find sources to cite that others can verify. Once again, I encourage you to do more research and focus more on article quality. --Aepoutre (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded