User talk:Johntex/Talk06

JackO'Lantern

Hi, this is User:JackO'Lantern again. I've been blocked indefinitely by User:Jayjg as a "sockpuppet of vulturell", though I have not worked on or been involved in the long discussion he is involved in, and we have never worked/voted/etc. on anything together - i.e. not comitted the crimes of sockpuppetry. His reason was "block evasion" as vulturell has just been blocked - but my three recent edits after vulture's block, again, have had nothing to do with the subject matter, and were in fact reverts of outright vandalism. I've done nothing but clean-up work, AFD'd inappropriate pages, and added sourced information in my recent history, and have not been involved in any kind of edit war. I e-mailed Jayjg and asked to be unblocked, but he has not responded. So I'm asking you for help, since you're the most recent administrator that I've been in contact with. I would really appreciate it if you could either convince Jayjg to unblock me or unblock me yourself. Thank you. Oh, and please respond on this page if you do. 24.141.147.6 08:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have e-mailed Jayjg. Meanwhile I am looking into why he performed the block. Please wait a bit... Johntex\^talk 08:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - he just e-mailed me back - and I answered him just now - so maybe we can resolve this. I definitely appreciate it regardless. 24.141.147.6

OK great. I was just about to go-off line for the night. If you don't have this resolved by tomorrow - drop me another note. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, go ahead, I didn't mean to keep you. I'm sure I'll be back as JackO'Lantern tomorrow and everything will be settled. 24.141.147.6 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Johntex. CheckUser confirms that User:JackO'Lantern is a rather obvious sockpuppet of User:Vulturell, and whenever the Vulturell account is blocked, he simply continues editing with the JackO'Lantern account, which is an obvious use of sockpuppets to violate policy. I haven't blocked his other sockpuppets, since he hasn't used them to violate policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason a checkuser is performed is to determine whether two editors who work on the same page/discussion/vote are the same - there has been no request for Checkuser and indeed no grounds for a request for checkuser because vulturell and jacko'lantern have never edited/voted on anything together. JackO'Lantern's edits have not had anything to do with vulturell's various problems, and have in fact most recently been reverts of some obvious vandalism (see the latest in Channing Tatum). But anyway, Jayjg has e-mailed me back again, so we're going to settle this anyway. 24.141.147.6 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jayjg has sockuser privileges, so he could perform the check himself without it being listed. I'm glad the two of you are in contact so hopefully you can work it out. Again, if you still have trouble tomorrow, let me know, or post to WP:AN, or put {{help}} on your talk page. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 09:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious from Vulturell's behaviour that another account was editing. Vulturell wouldn't edit for hours or days, then show up within minutes whenever List of British Jews was touched. Plus, Vulturell boasted on Wikipedia Review that he was planning to use sockpuppets. Finally, JackO'Lantern was, in fact, engaged in the same problematic behaviour on other Jewish lists as Vulturell was. Suspicion of use of sockpuppets to violate policy, or evade blocks, is certainly grounds for a user check. I also note that continuing to post to this page is further block evasion. Vulturell, since you and I are now having a lengthy e-mail correspondence, please desist from this continued policy violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP- workshop

Hi there. In answer to your question, I simply searched for NLP in Wikipedia, and then followed some of the links.

Should it be of interest to you, my main defence of NLP would be that many of its working premises are clearly and explicitly shared by brief therapy and solution focused therapy, both of which I believe are pretty respectable and part of many standard trainings in counselling and therapy. This is not touched upon in the page. However, I don't have the dedication or the inclination to get involved in the hornets nest of discussion pages. I also think some of the NLP criticisms are perfectly valid, but the whole article reads like the author(s) had a lot of bile, and at times this reaches comic proportions. My edit was to try to reduce the surreal overtones of one particularly absurd example.

Can I ask who you are, and why you ask? I hope I haven't broken etiquette?

Ian.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IanBlack2 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2006 March 20 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am a Wikipedian who likes to welcome new members to the community. I was intriqued by your edit because it was the first one you ever made here. The page you edited is an unusual page in that it is not the main copy of the article - it is a working copy being worked on by some editors who are trying to reach a consensus about how the article should look. There are very few links into the article, which means that few people would find it by random chance. That is why I asked. Why do you ask if you have broken etiquetee? Do you think you have done so? Johntex\^talk 23:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

You are now a mentor at Neuro-linguistic programming. Thanks for volunteering. Please check your email as well. :) Dmcdevit·t 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

I would appreciate for your contributions on Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivium/Trivia

Kudos to you for being the first to have queried me on this topic; I fear, though, that I have sent you Googling without good reason, for which I must apologize. Accepting as I do the etymology of trivia as the conflation of "tri" and "via", where "via" is the Latin for "road", and not, even as it ends in "a", necessarily a plural, I adopted the "trivium" locution in a jocular spirit, mainly as a tweak at the hyper-corrective nature of many of us (read: of me) to insist on Latin plurals where ease of usage militates against their use (e.g., stadia, radii). In essence, it's a send-up of my own idiosyncracies. I do think, though, that it's a fun word, and, so, I've adopted it; perhaps my using it here is untoward, but I don't think it causes any real harm, and it's let me meet another editor similarly interested in all things...trivial. This discussion brings to mind, incidentally, a William F. Buckley piece in National Review a few months ago to the effect that, as recently as 1900, "news" was taken in the plural sense, such that, IIRC, a Hearst reporter in Cuba covering the Spanish-American War had occasion to write that there was "not one darned new". Cordially, Joe 06:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page notices to vote on

Where are they? I am confused. Sorry. --Grouse 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Hi Johntex! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 20:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments

And also your suggestions. The White House Tee Ball Initiative article is better as a result! Joaquin Murietta 23:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 50-miler award, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Could you take a look at the four most recent images (As of yesterday 22 March 2006): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NThurston and let me know which (if any) you would like on Commons. NThurston 19:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm working on it, but Commons won't allow me to create a Userid right now. NThurston 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally... Look in Category: Scouting on Commons. 3 pix available. NThurston 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - photos really add a lot to the stories. Good work. NThurston 23:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / ~~opposing~~ / ~~vandalising~~ my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now ~~still a normal user~~ / an administrator / ~~indefinitely banned~~. Your ~~constructive criticism~~ / support / ~~foulmouthed abuse~~ has ~~given me something to think about~~ / helped me immensely / ~~turned me into a nervous wreck~~. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ~~ask someone else~~ / ~~suffer and die~~ / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Makemi RfA

File:Stick insect02.jpg

Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Mak emi 05:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

statistical improbability

digging through some old bookmarks i came upon this: http://www.westnet.com/~crywalt/Bucky.html it reminded me of a phrase timothy leary used, "reality tunnel". so i looked at the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel and landed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshop

i'm now finding myself dancing around intellectual quicksand and i'm afraid i might fall in. anywho, i write because according to what I've gleaned from the nlp workshop is that someone posted some nasty comments and the community is trying to recover from that. i don't know how deep this rabbit hole goes, but i did a google search and found this page:

"NLP has no empirical or scientific support: What remains is a mass marketed serving of psychopablum" (Eisner 2000). http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Psychopablum

The small print of that article: This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.

So if this is removed from the main article, this is still floating out there in googleland. (sorry, i couldn't find a reference to the inventor of this term). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arclyte (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2006 March 24

My successful RfA, thanks to you!

Thank you so much for nominating me for my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I absolutely have to thank you for watching over my edits, your passion for collaboration between us, and believing in my abilities as an editor and now as an administrator. You are a wonderful Wikipedian, and I am glad to have been nominated by you for adminship. As always, if you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. Thank you again, John. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Johntex/Talk06, thank you you for voting on my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for your comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Although you voted oppose I appreciate your remarks.

¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 06:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTexas-stub

It's considered good form (and is as per guidelines) to propose stub types at WP:WSS/P before creating them. Admittedly there's not much wrong with this one: adequate number of stubs given there's a wikiproject. OTOH, the stub category name doesn't quite match that of the main article, and of the permanent cat. Alai 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alai, thank you for your message. I'm sorry about that. This is the first time I've ever created a stub and I didn't notice the guideline indicated it should be proposed before implementation. What should I do now? Johntex\^talk 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry over-much, it's not a big deal, and I mention it mostly for reference for the next time. Technically, you could list it at the "discoveries" page, though that's possibly redundant as you've already listed it at WP:WSS/ST. Or even, retroactively "propose" it. I'm minded to put it up for renaming to... oh, you've fixed that already, or hang on, did I misread the category name in the first instance? D'oh. The discoveries listing should suffice, I'd think. Alai 20:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have now listed it at "discoveries".[1] Do you think you could provide support for keeping it? Of course I don't mind at all if it gets renamed, but having this stub category is very useful to our project to improve these articles. Johntex\^talk 20:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, {{University of Texas at Austin-stub}} would not be an option. Not enough hyphens, for one thing. I toyed with suggesting {{Uni-Texas-stub}}, but as the parent doesn't use {{uni-stub}} anyway, that seems a little pointless. Alai 21:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jester Center

I had contributed to the old Jester Dormitory article, and there was some good content there before it was deleted as NN. I'm glad that you found the "largest at the time" fact to make it notable. What do you think of the content there in the deleted edits? Is any of it worthy of bringing back? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 02:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcomes

Sorry, thanks yeah I need to subst my messages. I do that with test warnings but I think I keep forgettting to with my welcome messages, I'll fix that right away. Thanks for letting me know. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 03:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Hello Johntex,thank you for your help!

Ooops,forgot my signature!--Captain ginyu 18:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Austin being the 16th most literate city.

Here is the reference:

http://www.ccsu.edu/amlc/Overall_Rankings/Numbers11-30.htm

And yes, I need to make a wikipedia account considering I've been using it and reading it since near it's inception. Good and fast catch.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.14.142.164 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2006 March 28 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a reference to the article. Best, Johntex\^talk 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primou

Hello, I'm just wondering if this information: [1] might lead you to support keeping the Primou article if it is renamed to Primo?

Possibly. I think it would be even more helpful if there were an article explaning the entire software-base used for Genome analysis. But I don't have anything like the knowledge to write something like that. :) — RJH 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Heymann

Hi, The article has become quite interesting and well-sourced. I have no strong feelings about the personal info - it's fine where you moved it (I wouldn't have included it myself, but that's just subjective). Well done with the rewrites. Dlyons493 Talk 16:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag

Hi,

I saw your comment on the talk page of the Societal Attitudes Towards Homosexuality article: "There are definitely still POV problems with the article." [2]. I completely agree.

We are making some progress on the article, but it is still POV and the reader should be informed of that until the POV problems are hammered out. I have added the POV tag to the top of the article several times, but the group that controls the article keeps reverting my changes. They claim that since I am the only editor adding the POV tag that it is against consensus. That is clearly against Wikipedia's policy, but they say that if another editor adds the POV tag that they will honor that and the tag will remain until the article is fixed.

Would you be willing to add the POV tag to the top of the article? Lou franklin 01:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion at Wikipedia:Profanity

Most editors take it really amiss if someone reverts them with a rollback. I'm not a vandal and I have every right to edit the article in the manner I choose. Please don't do that again. If you disagree with my edit, discuss it on talk. Grace Note 06:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't just revert me, dude. You used your rollback button. You're supposed to do that only in cases of clear vandalism. Please don't do it again. Also, you may not feel you are obliged to discuss your edits, but you are. If you don't like that, why are you working in a collaborative project? Grace Note 23:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]