User talk:Ufwuct/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ufwuct/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  —Khoikhoi 00:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the List of oil refineries

I really had nothing to do with the refineries listed in the List of oil refineries. All I contributed was the the following paragraph:

"The Oil and Gas Journal, a widely read and respected weekly magazine in the petroleum industry, publishes a list of all the refineries in the world ... usually in one of their December issues. That annual list is about a 45-page, refinery-by-refinery in country-by-country tabulation including (for each refinery): location, crude oil daily processing capacity, and the size of each process unit in the refinery. The list is updated each year with additions, deletions, name changes, capacity changes, etc. I think this article should include information about the Oil and Gas Journal's list, so I have added that information."

As for the accuracy of the Oil and Gas Journal's list, I think it is probably about the most accurate list available ... but that is just my opinion. - mbeychok 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Possesive form of Texas

The possive form of Texas is Texas' not Texas's, so I have corrected your changes of Texas' to Texas's. When a word ends in th letter S only the apostrophe is added. Thanks. -JCarriker 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JCarriker and disagree with your wholesale changes to the possessive form of Texas. Your explanation, "grammar/punctuation: possessive form of "Texas" not of several "Texa"" may sound cute, but is not valid. Please see the Wiki Style manual:

Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Achilles' heel" and "Jesus' tears".

Texas' is entirely acceptable and does not mean the plural possessive of 'Texa'. Please refrain from the wholesale alteration of long established articles until this issue can be discussed by the community. SteveHopson 12:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoned response, I agree with your two-fold approach since context is a factor in the edits. SteveHopson 22:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I support your change from Texas' to Texas's. —RJN 06:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I also support your changes, but then I am not one to make up my own punctuation rules. And I do pronounce the H in humble. So maybe I am an idiot? Nova SS 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

NY Metro

I did figure that people unfamiliar with the area would benefit from the inclusion of a link to [[New York metropolitan area]], but I found that simply saying "<Borough> is part of the New York metropolitan area" gives the impression that it isn't part of New York City. If only it were as easy as Brooklyn and Queens, which were quite conducive to seamless inclusion of the link! I'm sure one of us will come up with an equally seamless way to work it into Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 22:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

UNPP link

The esa.un.org server seems to go down every now and then. I have seen this happen a couple of times. Just wait a few hours and it should be back up. --Polaron | Talk 01:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

metropolitan areas

Hello Ufwuct. I found my old proposal - it's in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 4. As you can see, nobody responded to it. Here's the text of it:

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in creating a wikiproject on U.S. metropolitan areas. At present, the articles are a mess, and mostly use obsolete definitions, rather than the new ones (the new ones being the Metropolitan Statistical Area/Micropolitan Statistical Area/Combined Statistical Area rather than Metropolitan Statistical Area/Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area/Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area). For instance, we still have an article Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area, even though Baltimore and Washington are now in separate Metropolitan Statistical Areas (although the same Combined Statistical Area). It seems to me that it would be nice to try to bring some order to the chaos, and to have articles on the officially defined metropolitan areas, as well, perhaps, as on the officially defined urbanized areas, information about which is also available. Anyone interested? john k 04:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My basic concern here was that our articles are incredibly unrigorous. In general, they use an informal, common name for a metro area, like Delaware Valley or Metroplex, but at the same time, define that informal area in terms of the formal census definitions, and specifically, in terms of the old formal census definitions, rather than the new ones that came out in 2003 or so. It seems to me that if we are going to have these articles be based on census definitions, we should be clear on what this means. Greater Los Angeles Area should say that what it is mostly discussing is the census-defined "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA Combined Statistical Area." And so forth, and we should be fairly rigorous about this. Is this what you were interested in? john k 18:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point on the names like Delaware Valley and Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. Rigor is lacking in many of the articles. I think each Metro area article should be based on the new definitions, with only secondary mention of the CMSA (or separate article only if it's absolutely necessary). There seem to be a lot of passions regarding the new definitions of Metro areas, so I expect to encounter opposition. Some hate how Miami grew and "messed up" the ranking of their city or how their city of Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Boston or Cleveland (or whatever) has shrunk despite population growth in the area.

Do you think we need to set up a formal project to set out the standards, or do you feel more comfortable doing it informally? I'm flexible either way. By the way, until we get the Wikiproject page set up (if we do), feel free to just post on this page; it appears Polaron is also interested in helping. Ufwuct 02:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in this project as well. I think there should be consistency throughout all of the articles on metro areas in the United States. For example, the article on New York metropolitan area should only talk about the New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island MSA with a population of 18.7 million, not the CSA. I think a lot of people like to use CSA just so they can inflate the population of their metro area—not impressive to me at all. I think the only article that doesn't use the CSA figure is Greater Houston. I am oppose to using CSA figures when referring to any metro area in the United States. In my opinion, MSAs are the closest definition to a metro area, not CSAs. I think starting this project would be a great idea and will promote consistency throughout. I look forward to collaborating with you on the Houston article and many other U.S. metro area articles. —RJN 07:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar. It was a slow day and what better way to waste time than to edit Wikipedia pages :-)

I see that you are working on a metropolitan areas project. I would actually be interested in participating in something like that. Let me know what I can do to help. --Polaron | Talk 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Houston article

No specific timeline, hopefully peer review and nomination in the fall. Thanks for your help with the article. Postoak 04:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, my friend. Postoak 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In the future if you have any problems with me

In the future if you have any problems with me or any of my actions please bring them to my attention rather than about me to another user]. I had to log off the internet quickly and wanted to bring your attention to a sizable reversion of your edits and offer my reasons for making those changes. I chose to extend the courtesy of a response—albeit a flawed one—rather than make a delayed explanation my actions. If you had "expended the effort" to communicate with me you would have learned that, and probably would have received an apologized for the brevity and sloppiness of the post. Since you do not think very highly of me, I will endeavor to interact with you only when necessary, but please do not disrespect me by bad-mouthing me to others without even taking the time to inform me of your complaints. -JCarriker 10:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"In the future if you have any problems with me"

I had no problems with you. I discussed issue with another user who appeared showed me the courtesy of, well, see the discussion to see the four things for which I praised him. As I said before, your mistakes in grammar, spelling, capitalization, or anything similar, in your recent post here or elsewhere should not enter into my judgment on the validity of your argument (and it's one of the prejudices that Wikipedians sometimes stuggle to ignore). However, when these mistakes appeared in a "discussion" about grammar and spelling, you made it all too easy to conclude that you didn't have a grasp of the rule, or (as I have assumed) you couldn't spend your time on someone like me.

"I chose to extend the courtesy of a response"

Thank you. You did give a response and why you reverted. That was the right thing to do. It was a explanation for your reverts. But would you really label it a "discussion"?

"bad-mouthing me to others"

I suggested that you were "very talented and well respected in other areas". This is bad-mouthing? I didn't even suggest that you lacked grammar skills; I only suggested that you didn't feel I was valuable enough to justify spending your time to give me a reasoned response. If my assumption was a slight towards anyone, it was towards myself; I was assuming that you had more important things to do as a "semi-retired" administrator than to devote time to a discussion with a relatively new editor like me. Obviously, you have proved me incorrect on this point (see below). Moreover, it shouldn't matter whether I "bad-mouth" you on other pages, especially where I do not mention you by name. Your username will not even show up in a search of Wikipedia; the allusion to you will be clear only to those familiar with the discussion. In fact, feel free to say whatever you want about me, my character, my mother, etc. Even use my username if you'd like. You can even do so without fear of retribution (unless of course, you start a movement to have me banned (without justification)).

"Since you do not think very highly of me"

Once again, I did not have a low opinion of you. I suggested that you were "very talented and well respected in other areas". I didn't look at your edit history but did see that you were an administrator.

"I will endeavor to interact with you only when necessary"

As you have done here? I'm not sure why you've now decided to expend the effort to follow my comments to another page and risk escalating this argument. If you wish to minimize our interaction, I would suggest that the first step might be to avoid my talk page; I will reciprocate and avoid yours and articles to which you frequently contribute.

Sincerely, Ufwuct 15:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps we got off to a bad start. Talk pages are not private conversations and are read regularly by others, including cross-referencing with other pages to understand the context of the conversation. As a result, it is generally considered poor form to respond to one person and then talk about another person you chose not to respond to in another post. It is also likely that they will see it eventually, but perhaps you were unaware of this. Please make no further assumptions about me and I will make no further assumptions about. By the way, nothing you have said or done warrants a ban or even a block from this website. If someone has been threatening you with a ban or block for actions similar to the misunderstanding you have had with me, please let me or someone else know, as such a threat from an administrator is inappropriate and may warrant disciplinary action. Thanks. -JCarriker 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"As a result, it is generally considered poor form to respond to one person and then talk about another person you chose not to respond to in another post."

I see your point.

"If someone has been threatening you with a ban or block for actions similar to the misunderstanding you have had with me, please let me or someone else know, as such a threat from an administrator is inappropriate and may warrant disciplinary action."

No, I've experienced nothing like that yet, and I hope not to (and I hope you don't either). I was just listing a hypothetical of something that would bother me if it happened (but not ALL implying that you would do that). As far as I know, I don't have any unresolved disputes at the moment. But thanks for your support on this matter. It is appreciated and good to know that I can rely on support from you and other administrators. Ufwuct 19:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Help (already resolved)

I'm looking for help on how to move a renamed article back to its original name.

Help:Moving_a_page suggests the following: Note that you have to be logged in to rename a page this way; regarding the set preferences:

1. there is no button for this in the nostalgia skin;

2. the button is in the quickbar, so this must be on.

With the correct page displayed, click on the "Move" tab near the top of the page. You'll be asked for a new name for the page, and given the option to also move the page's talk page. NOTE: Unless you know what you're doing, it's safest to say yes.

From MediaWiki 1.5 the reason for the move can be given, like an edit summary.

Click the "move page" button and the page will be renamed to the new title. The old title will become a redirect page, so any links to the old title will still go to the new page. However, note that double redirects (pages that redirect to the original page), will not automatically follow to the new page, so you will have to refer them manually (as explained below)

• Is there a way to move the page without the quickbar, by simply typing in text?
• If the page move cannot be done without the quickbar:

• What is the quickbar?
• Where do I get it?
• Why is there no wikilink for "quickbar" in Help:Moving_a_page and no page called "quickbar"?

Hi, Ufwuct. I believe the quickbar that they are refering to is a series of tabs located along the top of a page. You will notice one of them is marked "Move." GofG ||| Contribs 17:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I just figured it out. I don't even know why I didn't see it to begin with. I'll delete that section on my talk page. Thanks again. Ufwuct 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Response

heh, it's fine. I didn't know about that button for a long time. Just as a warning, it's rather looked down upon to remove anything from your user talk page. Rather, when your user talk page gets too large, you should archive. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 17:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WatchlistBot

Sorry about that. The bot made a mistake, and tagged a bunch of articles it shouldn't have, including some in Category:Hurricane Rita. So, I went back and untagged all the articles in the categories that shouldn't have been tagged. So, some articles that should be tagged got untagged. But in the next couple of days, I will run through all the categories that are in the project, and tag or retag them. This is the first large project I've tagged, and I'm working out some of the details as I go. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ingrid 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dallas metro area

My preferences is to stick to official census population estimates. While the source you cited uses Census data as a base and applies a common projection model (compounded constant annual growth rate), it is a projection (as opposed to an estimate), i.e. a reasonable guess rather than an actual count. That assumes that birth, death, and migration rates for 2006 will increase at the same rate as the previous year. Changing the Top 5 to 2006 projections while the rest of the entries use 2004 estimates also doesn't make sense.

2005 estimates for counties are available so we could use that to arrive at a more current population estimate (2005 vs. 2004). However, the 2005 metro area estimates are scheduled to come out in September so it might be pointless for us to do the work of adding up 2005 county estimates for each listed metro area.

One option would be to add a footnote saying something like "based on recent population growth rates, it is expected that the Dallas metro area would be larger than the Philadelphia metro area in mid-2006" and put a citation to the source you mentioned.

--Polaron | Talk 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm in full agreement with you on the source. If someone wants to spend their time adding up the (7/1/2005) population estimates for counties for the top 25 metro areas before September, I won't stop them, but I don't think adding estimates of estimates is appropriate. Thanks for your time. Ufwuct 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Serial POV vandal from 70.134.*.*

Hey, I am documenting this 55 mph vandal on my talk page. Nova SS 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry

Sorry if I messed up something you were doing. I'm done for now. I just updated the list of 25. --Polaron | Talk 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hype about Hydrogen

Thanks for your help on the article! --Ssilvers 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at the "Critical Reception" edit war I am having at The Hype about Hydrogen? An editor added the section in order to quote what I think is (1) a biased review, (2) they failed to quote the parts of the review that admitted that Romm is right anyhow, and (3) they failed to cite the bulk of the reviews of the book that are in agreement with it. Any advice? --Ssilvers 04:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

Reverting vandalism does not count towards 3RR. You can revert blatant vandalism (as is the case at San Diego) an unlimited amount of times. 3RR applies mainly to content disputes. Kafziel 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Unsourced changes to statistics if repeated by the same user after being told so is vandalism. So don't worry about reverting. I'll also keep an eye out on the page. Cheers. --Polaron | Talk 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Greater Hartford

Hi. I saw you changed the Hartford metro definition to the standard MSA one. In the New England region, the NECTA definition is a better approximation of the true metro area and that was what was used in the article previously (so it was a census definition except it uses town units instead of county units). This is especially true in CT where counties are archaic. But in the interest of consistency, I think the using the MSA is fine. --Polaron | Talk 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

When I saw that no information had been updated and that parts of counties (Litchfield, for example) were being included for Greater Hartford when they were part of another MSA (in this case New York... MSA), I changed for consistency and to avoid overlap. Because the U.S. Census Bureau does still define MSAs for New England (Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, Providence, Hartford, Portland, etc.), I think the changes should stand up to scrutiny. Thanks for the input. Ufwuct 15:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

George Allen

Thanks for your message. I jumped ahead a bit. Perhaps our vandal will disappear now . . . · j e r s y k o talk · 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative. Ufwuct 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas State Highways

Hi, I had noticed that you have edited a number of articles that fall under our project. If you are interested, we are always looking for more help on the project. With over 3,000 state highways, loops, spurs, farm and ranch roads in Texas, it is a daunting task. --Holderca1 19:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'll take a look. I would love to help out. Ufwuct 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Washington MSA

It looks like the article is still here. The link you put on my Talk page is not a red link either so you might have just encountered a server problem at the time you tried to access the article. --Polaron | Talk 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's weird -- I can view the article just fine. If you're still having problems, it might be worth asking the Village pump. --Polaron | Talk 00:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Concede"

You have to understand, I can't possibly "concede" because I was never arguing that Allen should be listed as Jewish in the first place, just that we should follow the sources on this. See, I don't really believe in "discussion" on Wikipedia, just sources. It doesn't matter to me if Allen is listed as Jewish and I have no opinion on whether he should or should not be - what I was trying to say is that we have to let the sources tell us who is Jewish, Scots-Irish-American, etc., because there are a lot of cases out there where editors stick people in 10 X-American categories for every ancestor. So, I brought out all the sources I could find on Allen, and it doesn't look like there is a really reliable source that calls him Jewish, so that should absolutely be removed. Same thing, btw, for Scots-Irish-Americans, because I don't think there is a source for that either, and it seems he's 1/4 of that. So, you should definitely remove both categories until a good source comes up that calls him either Mad Jack 21:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, since we last spoke, there's been a bunch of stuff that calls Allen "Jewish", like [1] [2] [3] [4], and this article ponders the question of whether he is or not [5]. I'd guess there'll be plenty more eventually. Most of them are bringing out the whole "Jewish mother" thing, so I guess we can Mad Jack 18:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the effort to find the sources. It looks like the source 3 does the trick (saying definitively that he's Jewish), and possibly source 4. So I would have no problem including him in Category:Jewish-American politicians, along as a note is put on the category page which says something like: "This includes politicians who are practicing Jews and also those with significant Jewish heritage.", just so there's no confusion. Also, it looks like source 5 is a nice counterpoint which argues the other side. I think this would clearly belong in the discussion. Thanks again for your time on this issue. Ufwuct

Importance assessment

I'm wondering how the importance assessments work for WikiProjects (specifically for Talk:Climate_of_India (this diff spans four revisions)). Is it decided by consensus? Or can it be decided by anyone? Even anons? Wikipedia:WikiProject_best_practices#.22Importance.22, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Meteorology, Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment, Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic do not appear to have the information I'm looking for. Thanks.

Yes, anybody can assess articles for WikiProjects.

Then I suppose that anyone can change it back. I think the user might be violating WP:POINT, but it's a new user, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt. Cheers. Ufwuct 15:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, a second question, I'm wondering how to determine ifthis would be a fair use image. It's from a governmental agency (India Meteorological Department), but I'm not sure. Thanks. Ufwuct 15:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read through the Indian government's website, see if they release their copyright, and see if that applies to their agencies as well. It wouldn't be usable under a fair use guideline in any case. Cheers, Tangotango 15:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping if there was any quick guideline regarding these types of agencies. My cursory examination of the website didn't come up with anything; I'll look again. Thanks for your quick response. Ufwuct 15:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardy Toll Road edits

Heh... first time I've been accused of snarkiness, POV or otherwise, in the edit comments during my time at wikipedia. More an honest mistake, as I now read a more official definition of ostensibly - I should probably edit while more than half-awake, I suppose. Thanks for giving the page a look and improving it. --Souperman 20:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

...and the HCTRA page, which is where it actually happened. Thanks for looking at that one, too, and improving it. --Souperman 20:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, of course I'm not offended... I'll occasionally put comments like that in the edit summaries myself - I found it amusing, and the word did need to be changed, since it didn't mean what I thought it meant. Sure, I'll take a look at the section - not sure how it should be worded or if it's really even relevant, but I'll see about taking a stab at it. Best, Souperman 07:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest buildings in Texas

Hey, I have no idea where I got the 12th-tallest thing. I know that It's the 4th-tallest in Dallas.. I wish I had been better about citing the information I put on the Wikipedia back then (now I cite practically every prose addition I make). I'm so very glad that you helped fill this in! I really appreciate it. And there aren't any buildings in Dallas suburbs that are that significantly tall

• Dallas suburbs:
  • Irving: Williams Square Central Tower which is 109 m (358 ft) and 26 stories
  • Richardson: Palisades Central Tower II at 62 m (202 ft) and 16 stories
  • Addison: Millennium One at 53 m (175 ft) and 14 stories
  • Farmers Branch: Centura Tower I at 62 m (203 ft) and 15 stories

drumguy8800 C T 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked Plano, Irving, Richardson, Arlington as well. Maybe I'll just change it to #10? Ufwuct 17:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, thanks for reminding me about the sources. I'm usually a stickler for that kind of thing but I forgot this time. Ufwuct 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your missing building is the Tower of the Americas in San Antonio, it is 229 m (750 ft) tall. --Holderca1 18:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually wondering about that a few days ago. I checked Emporis for all of the cities in Texas, so I don't know how I could have missed this. Ufwuct 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I had to read the Suez Canal article today for a school project and your recent edits to it made it a much smoother read. Thanks for your efforts. -- Karma Thief 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Houston portal

Please visit Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates if you have the time. I nominated Portal:Houston and would appreciate your feedback. Thank you, Postoak 04:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ufwuct, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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! 

Thanks for your work on the Anglo-Saxons article! CMacMillan 23:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that!

I just noticed that I put the thanks on your user page! And added a welcome 'cause it didn't seem to be there. Doh! Sorry. CMacMillan 01:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Houston

Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston has been established to encourage collaboration between the editors of the Houston, Texas article and related articles. Please stop by and become a participant! Thank you, Postoak 05:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are invited to visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Houston to participate in Project discussion - Guidelines (November 11, 2006). Thank you, Postoak 22:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review is in progess for Houston, Texas at Wikipedia:Peer review/Houston, Texas/archive1. Please participate with the article improvement suggestions that will soon follow. Thanks, Postoak 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see proposal December 27, 2006/Featured article nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston/Administration. Thank you, Postoak 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you have a minute, please go to Talk:George Bush Intercontinental Airport, evaluate the photo that is being disputed and provide your input. Happy New Year! Postoak 21:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been "slacking" lately and have not been checking Wikipedia much. I'm happy with the result of this discussion. Mediocre (certainly not "terrible") image quality is no reason to remove an image if no better one exists. Happy New Year. Ufwuct 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)