User talk:Johntex/Talk05

Check it out! I made the DYK Section!

Thank you for submitting my article! Sarum blue 20:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rape analogy

In this thread User:MX44 has personally attacked me, which is why I warned him on his talk page. The user just removed my NPA warning. Do you have any suggestion how I can deal with that? Raphael1 16:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

This article has been labelled again by anonymous user as NPOV. Could you please review and see what needs to be changed to removed the label. Thanks.--Beth Wellington 22:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4? hmm maybe I'm not reading it right, can you verify, which are the 4 reverts? It's certainly possible that happened, I made a lot of edits to the article today, wasn't intentional. There is an anon sock puppet who has been refusing to discuss issues on the talk page is the real problem that's been ongoing for days. -- Stbalbach 22:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here is my count, please let me know if you disagree. Please note that you do not have to restore an identical version, or delete the same text each time, in order for it to count as a revert. Our definition says "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that."

1st revert: 10:32, 8 March 2006,
2nd revert: 10:36, 8 March 2006,
3rd revert: 10:56, 8 March 2006
4th revert: 13:19, 8 March 2006
5th revert: 13:50, 8 March 2006
6th revert: 14:07, 8 March 2006
Above by Johntex\^talk 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I guess you got me. Like I said, the first three are an anon sock puppet who is essentially hacking the article those reverts are almost akin to vandalisms so I had discounted those, but I guess they are valid for the 3RR. I'd rather work out the issue on the discussion page and if we agree to remove the self-referential I'll remove it, I don't think reporting me would be productive. -- Stbalbach 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your owning up to your mistake and your willingness to engage in discussion about this. I agree discussion is prefereable, that is why I came to you first rather than making an immediate report. I have posted a reply to you on the article discussion page. I will see you over there... Best, Johntex\^talk 22:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon Rebel

That was a very clever edit on the Canon Rebel page. I was trying to figure out a way to avoid the conflict with the info box. Thanks! Miskatonic 01:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, glad I could help. Johntex\^talk 01:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I try to upload a few new pictures every week. Miskatonic 02:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow awesome picture. Hey you are an admin right? Check out the Oakland City Center article. I am not sure how to deal with the person that keeps reverting the article back to a rant instead of a neutral point of view. Miskatonic 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Sorry to disappoint you, but no matter where I go to school, I'm still a Texan. Ha. Yeah, I was afraid you were going to revert on that one, I figured I would Be Bold and write a description I felt was more apt. Naturally, if the consensus is king there, then by all means I'll just have to live with disagreeing with it. At least I aimed for neutrality, unlike aggy of all colors around here... hah! Help with the OU page would be great, it seems that my fellow Sooners aren't nearly as enthusiastic as the Burnt Orange Wikipedia platoon seems to be. Tmrobertson 08:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

I am trying to make some improvements in the project Censorship. I thought you might want to know about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to write a new policy Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I am very busy but believe strongly on having some standards in Wiki. I would appreciate if you can review it and incoorporate new ideas you might want to add. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. I cannot finish it without help. Best. Resid Gulerdem 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject University of Texas at Austin

I've created a WikiProject for The University of Texas at Austin. I intended to make this announcement on University talk, but every time I attempt to edit there my browser crashes. (Maybe it's time for an archive?) jareha 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the birthday greetings, they're much appreciated. -- Francs 2000 22:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentoring

I saw you wrote that you were mentoring Raphael last week. Thank you.

I had trouble logging into wikipedia last weekend, after you asked me a question, so I forgot to think that I should perhaps have copied the answer to your talk page. Instead of spamming your talk, here is a link to my old answers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DanielDemaret/Archives/Archive_5

I have simply been trying to avoid writing in any article where I see his name in talk, hoping that he will go on to bother other people instead. DanielDemaret 08:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates

I think you misinterpreted what God O War said. You said:

Agree with God of War - this template should be judged the same as the one before it. I say Keep deleted to both.

God O War's comment said to be judged the same as the election below it for Template:User queerrights, not the previous election for Template:User marriage man-woman. I thought I would just point this out... Moe ε 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, thanks for clarifying. Moe ε 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Texas_Exes_Logo_from_website.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Texas_Exes_Logo_from_website.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

jareha ^(comments) 03:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was obsoleted by Image:Texas Exes.gif, which is in the proper format (.gif). To speed up the deletion process, as you are the original uploader, you can comment here: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 14. jareha ^(comments) 03:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johntex\^talk 03:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OA Spoiler Vote

I started a vote on the spoiler on the OA talk page as that is the one thing without a clear consensus and took the liberty of putting you down as suporting it. Rlevse 11:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College football

I was looking at the college football section, but I accidentally deleted a section. I don't know how to get it back, though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickdsub (talk • contribs) 15:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting someone know - I'll look into it. Johntex\^talk 22:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, thanks for the message on my talk page. I actually put the informaiton back the same day you removed it. Here is some info you may find helpful:

Every article has a "History" tab. You can look at this tab to see who else has edited the article, and when. If they left an edit summary, you can see that there as well. You can see that I removed your change because you did not give an explanation for the large removal of informaiton.
If you ever need to un-do changes you accidentally made, you can do what is called a "revert". Instructions are at Wikipedia:Revert. This is what I did to remove your change.
It is very helpful to your fellow editors if you yourself use edit summaries. This helps us to see what changes are being made to a page. Please see Help:Edit summary.
It is very helpful to your fellow editors if you sign your posts on talk pages (and only on talk pages, not articles). This lets us know who you are when you leave us a message. To do this, type four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message.

Please let me know if I can ever help with anything else, or see WP:Help, since I am not around 24/7. Best, Johntex\^talk 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop nom

John! Thank you so much for your offer to nominate me for administrator. I would like to just ask you a few questions through email before I make my decision. Please send me an email through Wikipedia, and I will respond. Thank you so much, again!— Scm83x ^talk 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johntex\^talk 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions

Hi again. Just two questions. 1. What kind of "powers" do admins get? 2. How is the coaching of Raphael going? I am editing in the cartoons article again, and he has not bothered me for two days now, but I can not help noticing that others are not that lucky.DanielDemaret 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, thanks for your messgae at my talk page. I'm glad to hear you have not had direct troubles recently with Rahael. To answer your two questions:

To me, being an administrator means two things. The first is that sometimes some people will look up to administrators and treat what they say with just a little more consideration. I'm not saying this is good or bad, or that we deserve it, or that we shouldn't be given even more respect, or anything other than to observe that this is the case. Therefore, we have an opportunity and also an obligation to try to use that to help people adjust to Wikipedia, to find their way around, and to contribute productively. The second thing being an administrator means is that we do have a few "special powers". These include the ability to "roll-back" a mischeveous edit with only 1 click instead of the several that it takes a regular user. It also includes the ability to block a user temporarily, and to protect a page temporarily from editing if things are really out of hand. You can read all about this at: Wikipedia:Administrators.
As far as my mentoring with Raphael, I hope I didn't give you the impression I have taken him on as some sort of full-time understudy or something. I've left several messages for him, which he does seem to have heeded. But this help is very informal. It's been about about a week since I last worked on the cartoon article, and consequently, its been that long since I've had any contact with Raphael. I am sure I will be back before too long, and I'll try to help him again if I can, but I have been working on other things recently. If you think additional eyes are needed on Raphael's actions, you can point me to something specific, or you can go to Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention and ask another admin to look into it.

I hope this is helpful. Best, Johntex\^talk 15:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious about the powers. Thanks for the link. I have been editing since 2004, and I have never before now seen any need for any special handling, so I never bothered to find out what administrators do before now. Consensus has always been quick before, even in ambiguous cases. I suppose I was both hoping, and at the same time realizing that you did not mentor him any more, since many have talked to him but even if he has changed, all that has changed are new imaginative and inventive ways of causing egregious disruptions, surreleasitic misunderstandings and defamations galore. But its not just him. The cartoons article is not your average article. We may simply never reach consensus on that one. So I shall let it cool instead for a bit. We all have more sensible things to do, don't we :) DanielDemaret 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) Images

Hi John, I saw your comments about the images for the article. The publication was a public Cherokee Nation Election Circular mailed out to all Citizens. This mailer was passed out free in all the communities like the ThriftyNickle. It's not a "book" and there is no copyright notices anywhere on it. The photos were taken by BIA Marshalls and are publicly available. There is also no copyright notice on them either. And its not a book. What would be the best way to proceed with this. I only posted the article to verify that the shocking info it contained was really true. I really am unconcerned if its removed. The photos do tell the story well. Please advise. Waya sahoni 06:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waya sahoni,

I am not a copyright lawyer, though I do spend some of my time dealing with copyright issues. Based upon what you told me at my talk page, I think the photos may be usable, but the whole pages from the publication probably are not. Here is my thinking, based upon the points you left for me:

You said: The publication was a public Cherokee Nation Election Circular mailed out to all Citizens. - I don't think the Cherokee Nation disavows copyright for works produced by the nation. I'm not sure about this. Some governments, like the US Federal govt does, but other governments, such as the state of Texas, do not.
You said: This mailer was passed out free in all the communities like the ThriftyNickle. - An author may give away copies of his work for free, but that does not nullify his copyright.
You said: It's not a "book" and there is no copyright notices anywhere on it. - I used the word "book" because if you zoom in on the first page, it says the text is used by permission from an authors unpublished book. It doesn't really matter if we call it a book or a flyer. In US law, one does not need to put a copyright notice on something for it to be copyrighted. It works the other way. The copyright is assumed to exist unless the author specifically disclaims the copyright. I think this is a bad law, especially in today's world filled with web pages where people pretty-much expect to have their content borrowed and reused, but its still the law.
You said: The photos were taken by BIA Marshalls and are publicly available. - I think this may be the key to using the photos. Please take a look at Work of the United States Government. This explains that "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" is considered to be public domain. Therefore, if BIA agents tooks the photos as part of their official work, then it would seem that the photos themselves could be used, but we would have to crop down the images to show only the photos, not any of the surrounding flyer.

Does that sound sensible to you? I think the photos do add much to the article, if we can find a way to use them legally. Please let me know what you think.

Best, Johntex\^talk 15:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to use these images if they can be shown to be available also. Unfortunately, while some of them look like photos the BIA/Cherokee Marshalls would plausibly take, many others look much more likely to be press or private photos. It's hard to establish the truth in midst of many contrary claims from the uploader of the images, but the framing and subjects are suggestive (e.g. the Marshalls would typically photograph protesters, not a line of Marshalls themselves, especially framed in that very "pool photographer" style). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lulu, thanks for your message. I agree with you that it is difficult to ascertain the origin of the pictures. I don't know how to solve that problem. I personally don't think it is terribly unlikely that a BIA photographer would have taken some photos of the BIA agents. If I were a BIA photographer, I'd want photos of my group as well as photos of the other group. This is just my speculation, though. I've got zero proof either way. Johntex\^talk 17:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, certainly. Any guess I make about who took a photo based only on the framing an composition is just that, a guess. We may or may not differ on first guesses from such framing, but it sort of doesn't matter. To use images on WP, we need clear evidence in the affirmative of their origin. Actually, as I've commented at the Joe Byrd talk page, I'd really like higher quality images; the ones currently seem to have gone through several rounds of printing and compression degradation (probably scanned from newsprint by someone, and most lately compressed as JPG, which is lossy). Nice crisp photos (which the BIA originals presumably are, or whatever the source) would add snap to the article. Obtaining that actual Cherokee Nation flyer might allow a better scan (though it might itself alread be generations removed from the original photos too). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sessler and Texaphyrin

Oh, definitely. Thanks for your help. My source for the original wording was Sessler's corporate biography at Pharmacyclics.com; it's probably been rewritten and sanitized so many times that a fact dealing with his intentions and thoughts can't possibly be accurate anymore. You always do your research thoroughly and impressively and it'd be great if you could make the DYK change. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. It's not like "expanded porphyrins" would have been useful context to the general reader, anyway. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Chitra indica; Skirgaila; William C. Powers; A Hard Road; Schloß Artstetten; USA Hockey; Texas State University System; The Daily Texan; Roy Williams (safety); Don't Mess with Texas; Whitewater Valley Railroad; Keep Austin Weird; Texas A&M University-Riverside; Wayman Tisdale; Plano East Senior High School; Midway Airport (British Columbia); Recreant; Broadcast designer; Gregory Gymnasium

Cleanup: Missouri Tigers; Eli Manning; University of Southern Mississippi
Merge: List of English words of Yiddish origin; Moblog; Gravitational slingshot
Add Sources: Ciro D. Rodriguez; Mohammad bin Sulayem; Alley catting
Wikify: Gordon Longhorns; Lipid peroxidation; Texas Junior College Student Government Association
Expand: Pluralism; Bowing (social); Texas Air Museum

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

usmc

Thankyou for your note regarding my edit. I am surprised that you could consider it either original research or personal opinion, since such concerns are often reported in the press, at least in the UK. My phrasing referred to concerns, which may or may not be well-founded, rather than my own opinion on those concerns. When i have time i will try to find some relevant articles. In the meantime your flagging it as unsourced does not seem unreasonable.

Thanks

I, Waya sahoni, award you this Legion of Merit for your exceptional contributions, leadership, and guidance with the Indigineous Peoples Project. Your efforts have produced articles of exceptional quality related to Native American Subjects.

OK

I think my e-mail is added. Why don't you try it? --Grouse 07:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK query

Hi Johntex, the edit summary in my update was "(Update, Jan. 12 doesn't qualify - more than 5 days old)" - according to current DYK guidelines, none of the articles should be more than five days old when they make it to the DYK in Main Page. That was the reason why it was not selected. I've just checked my contribs. and the edit summary reads Jan. 12th, not Jan. 14th. Also, it is advisable to list suggestions from an article as soon as it is created. Hope this brief note helps, --Gurubrahma 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No article should be more than 5 days old when a DYK fact from it makes to the main page. This article was created on March 12th, hence the last possible date it could have made it to main page was the 16th, yesterday. By the time you had suggested it, it was already 17th (UTC times) and thus the article was disqualified. --Gurubrahma 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pfheller (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)==Saint Patrick's Day== heres a link for the scranton st patricks day parade. mediaroom.visitpa.com/files/pacalendarofevents2006.doc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.198.240.130 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing that link. Hmmm, fourth largest in the US. I guess technically it is one of the bigger ones, but so is the fifth, and the sixth, ... is the tenth largest one of the biggest? What about the 20th largest? There are thousands of citites in the US, probably a hundred or more have a Saint Patrick's Day Parade. We have to be careful or the article becomes just a list of parades. Johntex\^talk 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I trimmed Savannah, Georgia, Cleveland, out of the list. I left Scranton in. Johntex\^talk 02:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you check out that link that goes to the Scranton parade - the claim of 4th largest was edited at the end. 100K is no way near the other size. Pfheller (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Mel Ettis on category ordering

(posted to Mel's page)Hello, I noticed in a recent post to you said that date-based categories should be listed first on articles. I am not aware of any such guidelines as to what order categories should appear. I don't see order mentioned at all at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. I wonder if you could please provide a reference? Also, the Category:Living_people is not really date-based, people are in there whether they are 10 years old or 100 years old. There is actually some discussion[1] (no consensus) on the talk page that perhaps this category should be listed last, so as to call less attention to it from casual editors. There is also discussion about renaming it to something cryptic like Category:*. This would hopefully cut down on all the people who see it and think it is a joke.
Personally, I think the category is the worst waste of time - It does nothing to protect us from libel problems because a vandal could libel (for example) Bill Gates at any of Bill Gates or Microsoft or Monopoly or Bondage or Redmond, Washington. Putting all those articles on one watchlist is a lot of work for approximately zero reward. Johntex\^talk 17:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I said, not that there was a policy on this, but that it was standard Wikipedia practice. To the best of my knowledge, having seen thousands of articles on people, I'd stick by that. Whether there's an officail policy or guideline I'm unsure — I'd be surprised if it hasn't been discussed somewhere (everything has at some time). Having a reasonably standard ordering makes life a little easier, especially when there are long lists of categories, as there are on many articles nowadays. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, for the clarification. Actually, I just checked, and your exact quote was "The normal Wikipedia ordering is..."[2]. It seems like with our hundreds of policies and guidelines, that if this is "standard Wikipeida practice", someone would have condified it into a guideline by now. That is basically the definition of a Wikipedia guideline, after all. I'm not at all disputing your observation. I was just initially confused because I interpreted you to be saying that there was a guideline and I couldn't find one. Now I'm just surprised that we don't have a guideline. Johntex\^talk 18:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"User page"

Hi. I think I did realize it was some sort of work-in-progess and not a user-page, but I was quickly working through a large number of pages in the birthdate-based categories (a lot of cleanup and such). So thanks for understanding and not getting mad. JackO'Lantern 18:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, featured articles I've checked out, like Lindsay Lohan, have alpha-betical ordering (with birth date first and living people in the "L"'s). I think it's usually up to the editors working on a page to decide the order - and argue it within themselves as to what it should be. I think alpha-beta is the best way - because who is to decide which categories are more important? Like in Mischa Barton's case - which started this - I guess "american television actors" should come first? What next? Living people? Naturalized US citizens? English Americans? Alpha-beta solves all that. Also, what do you think, if anything, on her being put in an "Irish-American actors" category - her mother's Irish? JackO'Lantern 18:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is a US citizen - it's not in the article (heck, I'll add it) but the category "naturalized us citizens" is there. I put up these two questions (alpha-beta and Irish) on her discussion page. I dunno, I think we need to formulate some official Wikipedia policy on categories, otherwise this kind of confusion is always going to happen on how we're supposed to order them. Whaddya say? JackO'Lantern 18:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Nomination acceptance

I humbly accept your nomination of me as an administrator. Thank you for everything over the past year! — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 20:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Your photos of SD Meetup

[3]: you are sorely mistaken. those photos have nothing to do with me except that i have categorised them. so i don't know anything about them. we have never talked. -- Zondor 03:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]