User talk:Ahodges7/Archive 1

Glad you are here
You seem to be off to a good start on Wikipedia and a quick study. Very glad you chose to join us...keep up the good work! ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

USMA alums
I didn't see the links at other points in the article, so just made the edit based on what I read at the alumni section. Either having or removing links is fine with me, but I for one often want to skip to an alumni section out of personal interest and follow links there, so it seems appropriate to have direct links at this point in articles. As always, be bold and make edits that you feel are appropriate. Talk pages can be used for further discussion if editors want to comment on your moves. Harro5 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

USMA help
Sure. I'd be happy to help. As far as "improving and then getting FA", I'd say scrap that plan altogether and just go for FA. I've brought two articles straight from stub class up to FA and it isn't that hard, but it can be tedious. In general, I think the article is almost there. The references seem pretty good and are varied. As a start on how to find stuff that will be a problem in the FA process, read User:BQZip01/FA Tips for more info.

A few things I'd run by first That said, there is a program I use that does a review. Here are its results:
 * 1) Citations - make sure they all use the EXACT same format and the links work
 * OK. I formatted them all wrong.  I'll have to go back and redo them all to WP:CIT standard.  dang, this will take a while, I had to go back to work today... Ahodges7 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Images - remove all pixel sizing. Use Image name.jpg add |upright in there if the image is a portait.
 * Complete!Ahodges7 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:MoS - I think this one will bite you the most. Do yourself a favor and at least read through it once (don't memorize it or anything, but be familiar with it).
 * Working through WP:MoS now. Will do best to conform ASAP.Ahodges7 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Realize that almost any number has an associated unit of measurement: 14 feet, 80 students, 190 classes of cadets, etc. and all need no-break spaces.
 * I think I've gotten them all. Ahodges7 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) After a glance through the lead, I noticed that a few terms did not have metric equivalents included (namely "acres"). If you'll look through Texas A&M's page, you can find a simple program that will provide automatic conversions with many of the measurements.
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 80 km, use 80 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 80&amp;nbsp;km.[?]
 * I think I've gotten them all. --Ahodges7 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
 * Complete.Ahodges7 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

That should give you a bit to work on for now. Once that's complete, let me know and I'll happily go through line-by-line

For your user page, be as creative as you desire. Some guys just put a picture of themselves up there and a few tidbits and then never touch it for years. Others (perhaps like yours truly) have small novels about themselves. I would caution you from using any information that could easily be directly traced back to yourself for the sake of OPSEC (As an example, anyone who knows me and reads my intro knows exactly who I am, but al Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Mohammed Ahkbar wouldn't have a clue unless he researched me quite a bit...more effort than I believe he's willing to put in just to learn about me even if I'm ever captured). Other than that, find a page that you like and copy what you like and delete what you don't, then tweak it to however you would like.

On a related topic...

Gig 'em! — BQZip01 — talk 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, what is that a picture of on your main page? — BQZip01 —  talk 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A burning Iraqi oil well outside of Taji, Iraq. Summer 2006. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you add that info on the image page? Right now, it doesn't have that information. BTW, I used your two images on a couple of pages: 12. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it? Does it have the info you need now?  If not, where do I need to input the info?  I added a better photo of that particular haboob.  I've got lots of good photos of that deployment.  More will follow... Ahodges7 (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would recommend dumping this all everything above BQZips' comments on user page on the peer review page rather than on your talk page for posterity's sake. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ahodges7 (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lookin' Good...sir! Thanks for the barnstar! — BQZip01 —  talk 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

USMA article
Howdy Ahodges, and welcome to Wikipedia! It's a pleasure to meet someone who went to both West Point and A&M - two of the finest institutions in the nation! I also found out from your user page that you served in Iraq - thank you very much for your service! As for the West Point article, you have done a tremendous job improving it so far! I'm very impressed, especially since you joined just recently! I apologize, however, for not coming to help sooner. For now, I am working on the references aspect of the article to ensure FA standards are met. I just shortened the footnotes which cite the same source (generally the books). This tweaking reduced the article size to about 77 KB; usually, featured articles don't go past 85–90 KB in size, so try to keep the size below that range if you intend to expand the article further. Anyhow, I will continue working on the article whenever I get the chance. Please feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page as you edit articles - there are a number of policies/style guidelines here that it's rather difficult to learn or remember them all! Keep up the good work, and happy editing! BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar! I have added it to my collection :) I've been wanting to give you one as well, so here it is. I'm sure we can get the USMA article to featured status in no time!
 * In that sense, it would be better to use "at". The sentence sounded a little awkward at first with the "at" in there. I changed it back--thanks for clarifying the appropriate usage! BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Images
Thanks for the barnstar! :) I noticed that you appeared to have uploaded at least 2 images from Iraq which I am assuming were taking during your tour(s) there (thank you for your service). I would recommend you tagging these images with the Army-specific template Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army since you cannot personally release the copyright if you captured the image during the course of your official duties (it automatically entered the public domain under US Law). Of course, you can still keep the credit and so forth. It's a trivial distinction, but just want to make sure we dot all the Is and cross all the Ts. I could be completely off in my interpretation of the policy, so it might be worth clearing up at WP:ICT. I look forward to seeing how USMA comes together and let me know if I can be of any help. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to figure this one out. Not sure how the licensing works. Technically, I'm always "on duty", so I don't know what would be considered an "army photograph" versus a "personal one".  The oil well fire was taken during a combat air patrol, but it was not during the course of a specific operations.  With the dust storm, I was just sitting in my HQ when one of my Soldiers came and and said "hey Sir, you gotta see this", so I don't really consider that being taken "during the performance of my duties".  I'm still chewing this one over. Ahodges7 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are okay on this one. My rationale is that you did not take those photos as part of your duties. I've taken many photos, but they were from my own personal camera and were not part of any official duties. I would consider those my images and I don't think the Air Force would disagree. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

USMA SAPR
It is no problem - I did not realize that the peer review was closed (it was still listed at WP:PR) so I fixed that. Enough people make that same mistake that I have a standard blurb to just paste in place - please don't worry about it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL
Very nice pictures. I think I'll add them to my page too... I needed a good chuckle after this debate (WARNING: EXTREMELY LONG READ with lots of people). — BQZip01 — talk 06:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, do you want me to add you to WikiProject Texas A&M? It's pretty much just an association with no responsibilities. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been added, but it would be nice if you could update the list with your class year. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Love those pics! I think the Aggie/Longhorn one will make a great addition to the A&M/Texas rivalry article I am planning to write soon. BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Howdy. I haven't introduced myself.  I am Oldag07.  I am your year.  WHOOP!  thanks for all you have done for this country.  message me if you need any help.  I am mostly concentrated on the state of Texas and Texas A&M pages, but I do dab in all sorts of pages. thanks for joining the project.  well than, best of luck.  Oldag07 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Status
No, an article does not have to pass through a hierarchy to achieve FA status. I have personally taken a C-class article to FA in one step (it was later featured on the main page!). I find this way is much better than going through the hoops of the other evaluation processes (especially if it is the end-state goal). As long as you have made a good-faith effort to follow the regs, any criticism should be in the form,
 * Oppose References 9, 11, 13, and 47 need to have date altering. I also have a question about XYZ, that doesn't seem to portray what is actually in reference 28. Lastly, I think ABC is too POV. User:SomeFictionalGuy talk 06:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In short, it won't be anything that can't be fixed. In order to keep it as simple as possible, when it's ready, I'll be happy to nominate it with you (and anyone else who desires credit) as co-nominators. I think we could do that within a week, but someone needs to create a to-do list...

...and, given my earlier promises, I think that might best be me. "To do" list to follow... — BQZip01 — talk 06:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer the rest of your questions...the "article history" will be automatically included once the article is nominated. I wouldn't worry about that. As far as content, I think it is pretty much there. I'll do a scrubbing (a.k.a. "to do" list) in the near future (probably tomorrow), but I too am busy in the next week (I have a check ride on Thursday. Yikes!!!). As for the history segment, I think it could use a few tweaks, but you're getting a lot of help on this one and I don't see it being more than a few weeks before we nominate this bad boy. No problem with the help. Perhaps, once we are done with this, you could assist in the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets article too and the mutual backscratching of the military will transcend into the virtual wikiworld... — BQZip01 —  talk 06:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ahodges, sorry I didn't get back with you earlier; looks like BQ answered your questions. The article is looking great now--I would go ahead and nominate it for FA status. The FA reviewers will give some useful feedback should the article need any improvement. BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer
Don't know how the Army does it (probably from my POV it's some bass ackwards way...), but I got a Q1 with no downgrades (basically, I aced it!). Thanks for the beer. After that stress, I needed it!. — BQZip01 — talk 17:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Constitution Island
I have created a stub of article about Constitution Island. I am sure that you, and others interested in the USMA and history can add to it. I am not sure if it belongs in USMA or not. What do you think? --rogerd (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gallery looks great. It is cool that we have a wikipedian who works at WP.  Thanks. I was noticing on google maps, it looks like Constitution Island is more like a peninsula than an island.  There doesn't seem to be any way to navigate the river between the island and the east bank.  I guess that is why they only had the chain from the island to the west bank, right?  --rogerd (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC nomination
I Nom'd USMA for FAC. However, seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP. — BQZip01 — talk 18:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess I could have included a link instead of being a smart-ass.... — BQZip01 —  talk 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed a few new tools on the right of the FAC. May have to check some dead links... — BQZip01 —  talk 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On a lighter note, it appears to be a good read. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Need your feedback on images on the page. I think simply giving them a department at West Point should suffice. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've answered the mail on some already. I don't work as fast as you do.  I'll do the rest tomorrow. Ahodges7 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't lose too much sleep over the image disputes. The article will likely be fine without them for FAC, you can get whatever permissions whenever that happens and put them right back in. I believe you and BQZip are handling opponents who have an overly-strict interpretation as well as can be expected. Everyone has their pet policy that they want aggressively enforced and it's always a roll of the dice in FAC which group of policy-adherents you're going to have to appease-WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. While I'm not advocating you do this, if and when USMA makes FA, I don't believe there would be any opposition among day-to-day contributors if those images re-appeared at a later date. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This may well be the most hard-fought FAC I've ever seen for a college/university. Keep up the good work. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

New signature
Just out takin' my new signature for a test ride. Ahodges7 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd add a link to your talk page. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about Wikipedia 1.0. All FAs are automatically included. It's been a project to release Wikipedia on CD, but there's not been a lot of backing for it and it hasn't yet been done. I'd worry about it only if they try and make an exception. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you're doing great. It is FAR easier to object to an article and point out simple flaws than it is to write one. Don't worry about responding to every critique right away. Fix the easy ones first then go back and tackle the big ones. The part that gets contentious is when someone has an objection that is based upon personal preference, not policy or guidelines. If you point out that policy or guidelines don't say what they want you to do, expect them to come back with some flipped out, microanalyzed, parsed version that supports them only marginally. Don't worry about it. The FA directors will ignore that objection and be happy to promote the article despite their objection(s). WP:CONSENSUS doesn't have to be unanimous.
 * The process takes time and this level of scrutiny is appropriate and common. If someone says a source isn't appropriate, but it is, then stand up and make the argument, I'll back you up if you're on the right track and the FA director/assistants will note accordingly.
 * In short, you're doing fine and we are in place to make it happen. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, backed the big rig back into the hangar and added the OEM talk button. How's it look now? Ahodges7 talk 12:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine (looked fine before, but now it's far more functional). As for Rlevse, having an admin "on our side" really doesn't matter much. An admin's opinion is no less/more valid than any other editor. I'm not trying to go head to head but to merely point out that his desire isn't a requirement. Personally, I like having all the citations in numerical order:
 * "ABC was XYZ.  "
 * ...instead of...
 * "ABC was XYZ.
 * ...but that isn't a requirement. I happily state my preferences, but I'm not going to withhold support for something that isn't WP:CONSENSUS


 * IMHO, I see this nitpickiness (is that a word?) as a GREAT sign that the article is 99.7% there with only minor tweaks needed. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you need a break and/or a good laugh... This website is pretty much gold for all aviators of all flavors. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Piece of cake
Now at 3 support !votes with no (significant) opposition. Everything's been addressed in the comments. Things are looking good... — BQZip01 — talk 01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough fiddling around. I have an EP Test to prep for tomorrow. I'm OFF! — BQZip01 —  talk 01:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've done my studying and I'm ready for it. Our Air Force T.O.s are all arranged the same way too, but with many different crew positions, it is split out a bit when there is more than one crew position. Our "Dash one" is the master and has all the common info plus everything you need to know about the complete checklist (not like the abbreviated checklist we fly with) to include what every crewmember does. A complete layout of the aircraft & systems is chapter 1, chapter 2 deals with the expanded checklist, chapter 3 deals with emergency procedures, and so on (it cleanly exceeds 1500 pages). I carry one crew book. The navs have another book. The radar nav has yet another. The pilots have an additional book...All told, we probably carry on 7000 pages of documents in the plane with us.
 * Within the checklists we have BOLDFACE which must be memorized verbatim (punctuation, capitalization, & spelling count!). Fortunately, those aren't too bad. (pilot training was a real b**** though!) Operations limits are also memorized by the pilots, though we all pretty much know the basics and back each other up.
 * Now we have a LOT of fuel on board. So much that, with a full load, we can't safely land the aircraft. We also do not have the capacity to fuel dump (now if you ditch purchasing a single F-22, we can modernize an entire fleet of BUFFs (big ugly flying f***ers). So with 7000+ pages to sift through plus no way to rapidly land, many inflight emergencies (once boldface is accomplished, if applicable) begin something like
 * Well, now you've gone and done it Now you have an inflight emergency. First thing you need to do is open your inflight meal and get some nourishment, cause we're gonna be here a while...
 * General knowledge/tactics/employment are simply different tests and they are a mix of everything.
 * My fish cush questions were much more difficult than EPs. I still remember them to this day.
 * I'll keep in touch and I'll let you know how my experience compares with yours
 * Mine Required landing distance is measured at over 9000 feet  Yours Required landing distance is measured in a few hundred feet.
 * Mine We're on fire: eject! (except the navigators who eject down...in a low-level emergency, sorry) Yours We're on fire: better get down quick.


 * Anyways, I'm gonna get some rest. G'night. Keep those army cadets in line. If any of them are doing research on the Air Force, point 'em my way and I'll help with what I can. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't mean to hijack the page, but Jappalang is completely missing the point of a copyright versus a trademark. A copyright restricts all usage. A trademark restricts commercial usage or usage in some manner by which the user of such a logo cannot profit or indicate endorsement by the entity. It really is that simple. I understand that USMA wants to protect its trademark, but its intended usage is for identification. They cannot request that no one identify them by it without their permission. Should they choose to copyright-protect such an image, they can certainly control it exclusively. I think that this page explains related concepts better than could I.
 * Like I said earlier, I don't like people substituting opinion for policy. There are too many people who are bullying others on Wikipedia so they can feel powerful. Quite frankly, I'm not going to stand for it. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you guys do formation work, but when USAF guys are talking, the lead handles all the radios (wouldn't want the formation to not sound cool). The wingman/wingmen are only expected to respond with their position number:
 * "Falcon Flight you are cleared for takeoff runway 23 left, winds 240 at 10, altimeter is now 29.99"
 * "Falcon Flight, cleared takeoff 23 left, altimeter 29.99"
 * "Falcon Lead, throttle 97"
 * "2!"
 * The saying in the Air Force goes "Lead doesn't want to hear anything from 2 other than '2!' and 'Lead you're on fire!'"


 * I say this just as a break in the train of thought, but also to let you know if I respond with "2!" it's because I agree and I'm on board.


 * That said, I'll fight the good fight (send in the company grade Os to do the dirty work while the field grade Os sit behind a desk in a cushy University job...I see how it is...). This is another great example of someone substituting their opinion for Wikipedia policy. I'll cut it off here before too long ("I guess we disagree then...") and just let the closing admin make the call.


 * 2 has lead... — BQZip01 —  talk 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm
In the Air Force, we have techniques and procedures. Procedures are mandatory and MUST be followed as lawful orders. Techniques are means by which people do things that don't have a procedure. To perform a landing, you must lower the gear (okay, you might not have to, but a good portion of the rest of us that fly have to do so), confirm it is down, set the flaps, confirm hydraulics are good, set the flaps (again, something you really don't have to do), set the speedbrake, and audibly confirm this to the rest of the crew. That is a procedure codified in our tech order. Then there's the art of actually putting the machine onto the ground once you've followed the procedure. You have to feel it in and there is no book in the world that can guarantee success, only experience and practice. That is technique.

Should someone accomplish a feat through means not explained in any book anywhere, such as getting a date with the hottest LT on base, someone might comment, "technique only." Should someone do something on our crew that is particularly stupid, such as dropping a bowling ball on their foot, someone might comment "technique only?"

To wrap this up and get to my point, I wouldn't hide the comments of anyone until they cross out the problem. They may have additional concerns (and I realize it is for an image for which the review doesn't apply, but the original contributor may have something to say about it like, "Oh, I see what you're getting at. That makes sense. I'd keep the image then." Hiding the comments hides the possibility of agreement. Once they've struck the problem, only then do I go back and hide them.

Technique only...

— BQZip01 — talk 00:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Problem is, those statues are also copyrighted. Yes, it is insane the lengths of copyright avoidance Wikipedia will go, but those are the rules. The other stadium picture is simply replacing one picture of (virtually) the same thing with another. I'd just stick with the one you have now for simplicity and consistency. Once the FA is over, you can tweak to your heart's content. One featured list I worked on recently had a similar issue ("hey, let's add XYZ!") and it was simply easier to wait until the whole thing was over to prevent any additional problems during the candidacy. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, it is perfectly appropriate to let the guy know on his talk page that his comments have been addressed and you request that he strike them/continue discussion. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "I imagine you're upset with me for rolling on Jappalang's insistence on the Fortifications image, but I actually do like the map sketch better anyway."
 * Not at all. That image choice is yours (and anyone else's...this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit). I choose to defend it. If you want to replace it or any other image, you can do so. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. If I disagreed, we'd just discuss it on the talk page and figure out what to do there.
 * "Question: why do you have to put 'upright' in the image code if the image is 'upright' already by its dimensions?"
 * EXCELLENT question. Images using standard sizing shrink a picture down to 180 pixels wide. The problem is that a standard portrait picture 180 pixels wide is significantly larger compared to a landscaped image. (see examples) The "upright" tag attempts to find a middle ground and have similarly sized images within the article.
 * "Now, I absolutely will not budge on the photo of the Supe. I think that's the only image still in question. That makes it 4 supports and one image oppose that really isn't legit anyway?"
 * Good assessment. The reviewing user(s) who have the authority to promote/decline the article will see it and dismiss it.
 * "Sorry about your friend."
 * Thanks. I wouldn't really call him a friend. I disagreed with him and he said some pretty nasty things about me and made some bad decisions. That said, I disagreed with him and that was it. Just because I don't think too highly of his contributions doesn't mean I don't respect him as a person and fellow Wikipedian. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "How do you know about the machine!?!?" Stewie Griffin. In all seriousness, I'm done studying for my exam and I needed some recreation. Wikipedia it is! — BQZip01 —  talk 01:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary
I would advise including a summary at the top. As much as I agree with you, for some reason, Sandy is extremely opposed to it and it will cause more problems with her than helping the rest of us out would balance out, despie no rule, guideline, or policy to the contrary WP:IAR, WP:SIGNIFICANT, WP:HORSE all seem to apply here...

In short, I would pass on the idea, but I'll also back you up if you decide to do it. People making arbitrary "I don't like that" decisions are the bane of existence within Wikipedia, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Corps Question
Answered. — BQZip01 — talk 02:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

USMA FAC
I have struck and replied with comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am sorry that this review has gotten more personal than I'd like. KnightLago (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Per your request, I have attempted to clarify the situation. However, I cannot strike Awadewit's issues as they are hers, not mine. I placed my further review at the end so as to make it easier for SandyGeorgia and other reviewers. Please reply on whether the reduction of the size of the ring's image is acceptable. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

USMA
All of my issues have been resolved and I have changed my oppose to support. I know that this FAC got more personal than I would have liked, and for that I am sorry. I want to congratulate you on an excellent job. Please let me know if you have any questions. And again, great job! KnightLago (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just heard
...about the suicides at USMA. So sorry to hear about them. As an A&M cadet, I can relate to the isolation that even upperclassmen can feel (if that's the root cause outside of the usual depression). If there is anything I can do, let me know. — BQZip01 — talk 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sup's photo
I was wondering why you switched image:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg for image:LTG F.L.Hagenbeck Feb 2008.png on the USMA article. I my opinion, the former photo is better, but I would be interested in hearing your reasoning. Thanks. --rogerd (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have missed that. I haven't followed the details of the FAC closely enough. Absolutely, this little thing can't slow down the FAC, even though it is clearly a PD image.  Thanks for the explanation.  --rogerd (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on USMA FA
Congratulations from me also. You have done a great job. Keep that camera going! --rogerd (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing
Yes, I can edit. If you are editing from USMA, it may be the commo nazis. — BQZip01 — talk 22:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's your problem...
 * FYI: Safari pushed a big update this weekend and they botched a lot of stuff. I was talking to my USAA rep and he said the phones have been buzzing because people cannot check their account status on Safari...on a payday weekend... — BQZip01 —  talk 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out drudgereport.com
http://www.drudgereport.com is reporting an uptick in troops in Afghanistan. Not surprising, but I thought you'd like the picture accompanying the headline. WHOOP! — BQZip01 — talk 03:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sedgwick's Spurs
Very nice image, with the monument in the background. Out of curiosity, have they ever had to replace the spurs, since they get touched so much. I kind of reminds me of the large bust of Lincoln outside of Lincoln's Tomb. It is considered good luck to rub the nose, so much that the rest of the bust is dark from oxidation, but the nose is quite bright, with no oxidation visible. --rogerd (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the answer to that. I don't think they've ever been replaced, but I'll look into it.  You can see in the photo that the tips of the spurs are discolored.   Ahodges7  talk 00:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Really good photos...
Cool! I have a Nikon D300. The D60 will be good for you. If you want to see some of my non-wikipedia stuff, it is on http://rogerd.smugmug.com. Good shooting! --rogerd (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)