User talk:Johntex/Talk23

Berkeley Breathed

Some of the stuff missing a source can be found on the site below, but it needs to be reworded as it rises to plagarism right now.

http://www.berkeleybreathed.com/pages/About.asp

--Beth Wellington (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I chose to write you because on the discussion page, yours was the entry most closely concerned with the issue. Beth wishes for the new year. --Beth Wellington (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

T:DYK.

No problem. Interesting incident that happened there. :P · AndonicO ^Hail! 08:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistance request

On an RfA, this comment was made. I realize this is an ArbCom issue, but I felt it should be deleted as a legal threat. Should I ever become an admin, I'd like to know your opinion on whether it should be deleted under WP:NPA. My opinion, yes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a tough one. My general interpretation of the "no legal threats" policy is that person A is not supposed to make legal threats against person B or against the Foundation. The logic goes that if they are threatening to take legal action, then A should stop editing until A's legal action has run its course. If the legal action has run its course (including simply by A saying that a legal remedy is no longer being pursued) then A can edit again.

What we have here is slightly different. A is urging the foundation to take legal action. A is not saying A will take action so I don't think that qualifies as a threat.

If we classified this as a threat, then arguably we would have to make the same classification for any person who urges the foundation to pursue a course of action that is even vaguely connected with the law. Examples could include cracking down on people who are stealing our content and not using it under terms consistent with the GFDL.

Therefore, my read at this time is that I don't view this as a threat. Best, Johntex\^talk 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 FAU page

I have worked my tail off creating basically the entire Florida Atlantic University section on Wikipedia (from the school, to the athletics, to individual sports pages). I created them and you went on to the 2008 football page and added information that is not necessary to FAU. Now you ask me to stop reverting MY original piece and "talk" about it? The burden is on YOU to explain to ME why the additions are necessary. I will keep reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yezn0r (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Yezn0r. Thanks for your message; it is good to hear from you. Through dialog most things can be resolved.

I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia does not have YOUR articles or MY articles. We collaborate to make all articles better. It does not matter who started an article, anyone can come and add to it. Differences are resolved by discussion. If you continue to simply revert additions without discussion, you will be blocked from editing. Please review WP:OWN for a description of how this works, and of how you are not allowed to claim articles as "yours" and simply revert everyone else.

Thanks, Johntex\^talk 23:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation

Hello Johntex,

I recently nominated Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons for featured list status. However, to this point there have been no votes (or opinions) expressed, and I'm beginning to feel as though it will just slip through with no votes at all. It's not that I want my work (okay, okay, it's not MY work, but I did put a lot into it) to be recognized. I just want some honest opinions on how the page looks and maybe at the same time have it become a featured list. The nomination page can be found here and I would greatly appreciate any suggestion or comment you can make. I'm not here to ask for a support vote, but rather, I'm here just for some honest opinions. Maybe I should have done a peer review beforehand. ... Thanks in advance ... love your work on the Texas articles. Good job. CrdHwk (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New Semester, New Appeal

This semester I am teaching academic writing to a group of teachers at my school. This course starts on Monday Jan 28. I would like to know if you are still interesting in "mentoring". You can see the syllabus at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/SyllabusIf so, please leave a message on my talk page and update the mentor's page Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors, if . If not, please remove your name and information from that page. Thanks! Thelmadatter (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for community ban

(Copied from WP:ANI) I request Heqwm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks and disruption.

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. He awarded me what he called an "anti-barnstar" and accused me of "maliciously writing outright lies about" him.[1] I have not had any interactions with Heqwm for many months, and I have never posted lies about him. I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations.[2] He declined to do so.[3] Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack.[4] Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page.[5] I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it.[6]

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. I warned him about personal attacks more than a year ago.[7] He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation.[8] I don't think I have had any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. In my statement at the arbitration, I provide plenty more diffs to spell out Heqwm's disruption. I certainly have not had any interaction with him for several months.

I believe the above diffs show clearly that Heqwm has made repeated personal attacks without any sort of provocation. His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? Johntex\^talk 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend staying away from Heqwm at this point. Don't post further messages on his talk page. If Heqwm continues to attack you, please report it to ANI or an administrator. Dreadstar † 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded thusly, in a new ANI thread (the old one was long gone by the time my block ended): A while ago, I made some edits that Johntex didn't like, and so instead of trying to resolve it on the article discussion page, he posted a wildly dishonest complaint in which he resorted to outright lying about me to get me blocked from editing the page for a month (his initial goal being to get me completely banned). I continued to be outraged at his behavior and the fact that he remains completely unpunished for his behavior, and posted complaints on his talk page. Once again, rather than trying to resolve it, he went here to lie about me in his continued belief that anyone who annoys him should be banned. And yet again, he posted numerous lies:

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. As explained above, the claim that there was no provocation whatsoever is an outright lie.

I have never posted lies about him. Another lie.

I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations. He declined to do so. Another lie. I pointed out that I had provided him with the diffs over and OVER again, and each time he simply lied and said that they don't say what he said they clearly said.

Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack. Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page. I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it. I discussed the charge on my talk page. And Johntes's recounting is dishonest, as it implies that my reposting the attack happened after Wizardman's warning, when in fact it happened before.

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. Mischief? Insisting that liars be punished is "miscief"? What kind of world do we live in?

He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation. Yes, on the basis of the very lies that are the issue here.

I don't think I have any any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. Abandoned after several weeks went by without any mediator stepping forward (and after Johntex engaged in behavior in blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF).

His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. After several years, with me not deleting anything, there are now several instances of people disagreeing with me. And...?

I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? I ask whether this is not a clear threat and an instance of Johntex's bullying.

To top it off, another admin came along and blocked me only a few hours after Johtex's request, meaning that I had no opportunity to address the charges.

---

Jonhtex responded "I request that Heqwm again be blocked for posting unsubstantiated personal attacks where he accuses me of lying." So... Johntex is allowed to attack me on ANI, but if I respond to his charges, I should be blocked? Yet another example of his bullying. As for "undsubstantiated, I have diffs and screenshots showing quite clearly that Johntex lied.Heqwm (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have diffs then you should provide diffs. Saying you have diffs is of no value whatsoever. Johntex\^talk 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I already said, I have provided diffs, and you have simply lied about what is in them. So clearly providing diffs is of no value.Heqwm (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're accusations are baseless. You either (a) have no evidence or (b) can't be bothered to provide it. Either way is telling. Johntex\^talk 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've already given you the diffs. Unless you're willing to give me your home address so that I hold your head in front of the screen and show them to you, I don't know what else I can do. Your claim that "you're [sic] accusations are baseless" is yet another lie from you.

1. I posted some claims on the BSA page. 2. I included links that I considered to be cites for my claims. 3. You said that I didn't include those links. 4. I repeatedly told you that I had, and even provided you with the link to the old version to prove it. 5. You sought sanctions against me, and based your case, in part, on your accusation that I hadn't included the links.

So, I'll offer you a deal. You list which of these claims you admit, and which you deny. If I can prove that any of the claims that you deny, I get to put a userbox on your user page declaring that you are a liar. Deal?Heqwm (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you are referring to diffs you posted months ago, you can't expect people to go back through your contributions in time to find them. You need to re-post them if you expect them to be re-examined. My recollection of the events is that your diffs did not support the claims you were making. Months later, you now come along and make a personal attack on me. That is uncalled for. Please see Wikipedia is not a battleground.

I think your recent block makes clear that it is inappropriate behavior for you to suddenly dredge up some argument from many months ago. So, I'll offer you a deal - let's drop the whole thing. Johntex\^talk 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pass the barnstars, please

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		Thank you for your work (over 1400 edits) to Texas A&M's pages. Thanks again, Basketballone10 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

Did you know that the article is among the top 20 longest pages of Wikipedia? BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind it being long, it's just nice to see the article on that list. These season articles need that amount of detail. You definitely write the best :) BlueAg09 (Talk) 15:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Texas

I have a userbox that says "This user has over 1000 edits," and the "over 1000 edits" bit links to an alternate tool for Kate's Tool, the editcount. It links to me, but you can also search other users. Cheers, Basketballone10 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Kwl

ANI

There's a thread about you, and since the guy who started it apparently didn't let you know, I figured that I should, in case you want to weigh in. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Texas and BCS #1

Thank-you for your reasoning, however, The BCS Champion is crowned by the Coaches' Poll. The voters of this poll are required to vote the BCS Champion #1. Looking ahead, the 2006 Texas team's BCS #19 remains unchanged, the 2007 Texas team's BCS rank is not listed. It would be difficult to list a final BCS ranking for any team that does not finish the BCS Champion. I did not revert your edit. But, I think it should be removed. Bcspro (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glossary of Texas Aggie terms

I have nominated Glossary of Texas Aggie terms, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Texas Aggie terms. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Collectonian (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your feedback is appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Oldag07 (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I was excited about changing the name of the Glossary to a list is because we could in turn nominate the page for Wikipedia:Featured lists status. Oldag07 (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL

Apparently your opinions no longer count (read the last line). — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that. For that to be true, my opinions would had to have mattered at some previous time. :-) Johntex\^talk 05:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

HEY!!! I resemble that remark... :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just for grins, but I'll bet the next edit he makes regarding your comment will be him changing his criteria for objecting to your inputs. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but then people would use their userspace to formulate a response... — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

{{censor}} on Talk:2 Girls 1 Cup

The {{censor}} tag states: "Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter." I believe that this information about Wikipedia policy is extremely relevant and vital to the discussion of the 2 Girls 1 Cup article. There is discussion on its talk page about whether an external link to the video's website should be in the article and whether an image of the video should be in the article. The {{censor}} template reminds editors that their reasons for excluding or including that content should have nothing to do with how objectionable or offensive they find the video being covered. I do not understand your reasons for removing the template from the talk page. I do not think that reminding users of policy can be "prejudicial to discussion". It's not about if an "entity" or "central body" is trying to censor the page, it's used for articles prone to editors censoring objectionable content, which is what is occurring in the article. --PseudoChron (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• That is exactly why the tag should not be there. It comes across as though you are trying to use the tag to sway people towards your viewpoint that a link and/or picture should be included. If that is not your intent, then there is no reason for the tag. Johntex\^talk 05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that editors should follow Wikipedia's policies. I believe that WP:CENSOR is not being followed on that page. If you believe that the policy is already being followed, I don't see how stating the policy will sway people to a viewpoint that is contrary to guidelines. --PseudoChron (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• It is a matter of interpreting the policy. People may have reasons for not wanting a given link, or a given photo, or a certain paragraph of information for that matter. There are many reasons people may want to trim something out (length, accuracy, relevance, shock-value, spam-oriented nature), etc. Too often people cry "censorship" whenever someone wants to remove content from an article. Placing such a tag on the article is like trying to institutionalize the idea that this is censorship. It is not censorship. It is editors deciding how best the article should be constructed. We should encourage that dialog instead of trying to slap on official-sounding templates. Johntex\^talk 13:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of 9/11 Commission

Hi Johntex. About this edit and the creation of the new page Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report... agree with you that it needed its own subarticle. However, the criticism that you removed was criticism of the 9/11 Commission, and yet you have called the new page criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. These are two quite separate things and must remain separate. Would you have another look at it and see if you agree? I think the new page should be renamed Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. The 'main article' link also needs correcting. By the way, criticism of the report is at 9/11 Commission Report. Corleonebrother (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple Pre-FAC help.

Karanacs recommended you, saying you might be able to help me. I am trying to get 2007 Hawai'i Bowl and East Carolina Pirates football seasons to featured status. Since you have worked a lot in the CFB world, I am hoping your could give criticism. Also, I am trying to get East Carolina University to FA status as well. If you have the chance, could you look over some or all of the articles. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks, PGPirate 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My RfC draft was kept

Thanks for your help/perspective throughout the whole situation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

TomPhan was a sockpuppet of a user I had a hand in blocking at WP:SSP: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TomPhan — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Could use your certification

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Cloud#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

2007 ACC Championship Game

Thanks for the FAC review! I've fixed all the critical things you suggested and most of the non-critical items as well. When you get a chance, I'd really appreciate it if you could swing by and see if it meets with your approval now. Thanks again. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your input on that article; it definitely made it a lot better. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony Randall and Tonight Show appearances

Unless I am greatly mistaken, it was the Guiness Book of World Records. Bob Hope was a very close second, and Steve Martin, the comic, was a close third.

Steve Martin may have surpassed Randall's record on the Tonight Show since Randall's death, but I do not know for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caracaskid (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Cloud

I see that you have added your name as a certifying party on this RFC. I've asked you there to point out your prior disputes and efforts at resolution. My understanding of the RFC process is that you need to show this in order to be a certifying party. Hopefully, you can show this within the next 24 hoursm otherwise the certification will be cast into doubt. Thanks. Franamax (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the message. I was still working on that. I have posted a diff now. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Johntex, I hope you have something better than that, involving a prior dispute with CC. What you're pointing to is a dispute over the dispute itself (or something like that), on a page where disputes are pretty much meant to be aired. That whole issue was hashed over at great length in the MfD, BQZip only modified the language after enormous drama, and the closing admin (Riana) pretty clearly indicated it was only acceptable for imminent preparation of an RfC - and that was what CC was arguing all along. Do you have any diff's to show disputes with CC in article space? Franamax (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I hope so too. --TheOtherBob 08:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Any word on when BQZip01 plans on checking in? He was online today about three hours ago, but didn't drop by the RfC to offer his insights. I'd kind of like to see this thing wrapped up pretty quickly, so if you knew of some time frame he has for concluding this process, I'd really appreciate knowing what it is. Thanks for your help on this, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm - try again - again lol

I type slow and think slow, events caught up awhile ago on the RFC, there's no point raising drama there when there are signs the two main guys might be approaching some kind of conciliation. I'll mish-mash a response here, then go sleepy:

• The "shatter my faith in humanity" thing - not you, it's all struck, I won't repeat the words that spurred that. It's over.
• The "which do you prefer" question - well, I put myself into that rhetorical box, didn't I? I'd already excluded the possibility that I would be the one who misunderstood RFC procedures, so logically, those were the only possibilities I could offer. Your way out was to question my own understanding, which you did, and that's where we'll continue to disagree.
• My "failure to assume good faith on the part of BQ" - can you check that with BQ? I don't think I've ever done that and I don't think BQ has ever thought I've done that. I can count at least four good fingers for BQ, I'm sure he's got at least one raised for me ;) And when the troll rattled, I called him out.
• And I would be a good mediator, 'cause I don't give a f about nothin', to quote a firefighter friend of mine "I'm not prejudiced, I hate everyone" :) I wouldn't let any bull slip by, no matter where it was squirting from. The best solution here would be to get these guys to shake hands and smile, get a real mediator and do the same, or use me instead. An RFC out in the spotlight is just dumb. I do note BQ has responded and CC has said nothing on that topic, but that means nothing until 48 hours is up, there's time yet.
• All said now. If there's more about myself you'd now wish to strike in the RFC talk, I'd appreciate it, if not, no prob, life goes on. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Franamax, thanks for your message. I'm feeling pretty good about the latest developments. I'm looking forward to BQ coming back online and seeing CC's offer. Hopefully we can end this whole sordid affair soon and get on with happier and more productive things. I thank you for your attempts to help the situation. Best, Johntex\^talk 15:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of an MFD page

You mention on BQZ's page that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments may be deleted. Why would we ever delete the MFD page itself? There is no reason to. Lawrence § t/e 17:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for calling that to my attention. I said the wrong thing. I did not the mean the MfD page. I meant the sub-page that was so controversial: User:BQZip01/Comments. I was offering to delete that, if BQ agrees. Sorry about the confusion. Johntex\^talk 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BCS national championship trophy and Bevo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:BCS national championship trophy and Bevo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC certification was never done within allowed time

You are incorrect. User conduct RFCs must be certified within two days by TWO additional people per the RFC procedures, rules, and templates themselves, not one. Lawrence § t/e 21:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The specific language, copied now from the Archtransit RFC:

"In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with Lawrence § t/e 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)."

The RFC in question was only certified by Johntex. The filer is not a certifier. Lawrence § t/e 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message but you are mistaken. "Two people" includes the person who files the RFC. That is clearly the interpretation that was being used during the discussion on the RFC. That discussion centered around whether or not I had certified it. If I, as the second person, was still insufficient to certify, then the conversation would have been completely different. It would have centered around whether a third person was stepping forward. Johntex\^talk 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, and this needs wider review, on ANI. The harassment of Cumulous Clouds will be stopped no matter what. Lawrence § t/e 21:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsense. CC is being harrassed by no-one but his own errant actions that have come home to bite him. Johntex\^talk 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I could attempt to resolve some of the concerns you have and thereby removing any basis for dispute, allowing you to remove (if you're satisfied with the changes) your certification. No discussion is occurring on the RfC and BQZip01 has apparently gone on hiatus so I was trying to get this thing resolved, so we could all move on. I apologize if I've stirred the pot in doing so. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll triple-super-second this motion, if there's a way we can bring this to rest, let's do so. CC, can you add some specific admissions and commitments? (put a "without prejudice" in front of them just to be sure) I'm going to go nudge BQ about this too, he's busy but can hopefully help out. Franamax (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my reply at the RFC.[9] Thanks, Johntex\^talk 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of Texas Aggie terms FL nomination

What the heck. . . Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Glossary_of_Texas_Aggie_terms Oldag07 (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad news, the List of Texas Aggie terms failed FL nomination. Negatives, we did not make it, positives, this article greatly improved. I need a huge break from wikipedia, as shown on my profile, but maybe a GA push would be more appropriate. I think the article could pass now honestly, if someone wants to do that. I might push few months from now. Thank you much for the help! Oldag07 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your update on the Glossary article. I'm glad to see that it improved through the process and I agree with you that it will probably pass if renominated shortly down the road. I hope you enjoy your wikibreak and I hope to see you back in the not-too-distant future. Best, Johntex\^talk 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

2007 Texas Longhorn football team‎

Hi Johntex. I've removed the 3rd GA nomination from the ArticleHistory template, as it doesn't appear to have failed/succeeded. The absence of a current status or whether the GA failed or not creates an error in the AH template. When a current status is decided, the 3rd nomination parameters can be replaced. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 19:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can do as you wish to the article concerning splitting the games, which might work. Overall, the coverage and sourcing in that article is extraordinary. I worked a lot on the 2007 California Golden Bears football team and I wish it looked more like your article.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I took a quick look at the Cal Bears article. It looks very good at first glance. I fixed a small reference format issue. I suspect this could make GA, although I did not go through it in detail.

I'm pretty happy with the structure of the 2007 UT article as it stands (all one article), but I know some people prefer shorter articles. I don't mind splitting off sub-articles, except that I sometimes have to waste time keeping them from getting deleted, such as I had to do with 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game. After the AfD it made GA on its own.

There is no 2007 Arkansas State Indians football team so I suppose I could create that article to split off info, but I don't want to write a full-blown season article with schedule and roster and all that. I'll hold off for now and see what suggestions come in. Johntex\^talk 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hey there. If you're too busy to make changes, I'd be willing to dig in and do a full-fledged copyedit and trim/move of some of the more esoteric facts. I wanted to give you a chance to do some trims on your own, but if need be, I'll make them myself. That's the main thing keeping me from approving it right now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you are splitting out a great deal of content, I'd suggest trying to use existing articles wherever possible. I'm sure that you — being a Wikipedia expert — already know that, but it helps to remember that your focus should be on cleaning up this article, not worrying about all the child articles you create or link to. It's easy to get overwhelmed if you give those equal importance to the parent article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I think you're right about Arkansas State. I guess for now, you'll just have to create a stub, then throw the extraneous game information in there. It'll make the article kind of lopsided, but at least it's guaranteed to be well-cited, accurate information. Better to have a lopsided article than have it missing altogether. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Fantastic work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, just two more things. Fix reference 264, and decide on a consistent name for the article. Right now, you seem to have equal numbers of Texas Longhorns and Texas Longhorn references. Now, I think the name of the article should be Texas Longhorns football, since that seems to be the official nomenclature, and it pops up over three times as often on Google when compared with Texas Longhorn. It'll mean an article move, and you'll have to do a find/replace for the entire article, but that should do it for the GA review once those two items are done. I'll come back and do a copyedit for flow and style. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fine by me, but I'm sure someone will bring up the subject during the (eventual) FAC. I'll take a sweep through the article when I get home from work, then sign off on it once I make any necessary changes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Logo inclusion in season articles

Hello, Johntex. I hope all is well. I started a discussion about the inclusion of logos on college football season infoboxes on the WikiProject College Football's talk page here. I would appreciate your input. Thanks in advance. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry for causing a big fuss about this. You must have been a little annoyed by it. Anyhow, it's official: our game has been moved to Thanksgiving. Source I'm going to go ahead and update the articles. BlueAg09 (Talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Toilet Paper

I removed the part about most places not flushing it, thanks --72.209.8.205 (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 6 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort Guijarros, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Texas football suspensions

Long long time no hear. :) Just letting you know that I moved 2007 Texas football suspensions to 2007 Texas Longhorns football suspensions. I did that because to a non-fan, "Texas" could mean just about anything. Plus it matches the main article title. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm still as active as ever but it's sort of underground. What do I mean? Well it's mostly categorizing templates. It's about as obscure as we get around here. But I like it because it tends to be quiet. Take care. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Timothy Shepherd

An editor has nominated Timothy Shepherd, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Shepherd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input to the AfD. I think moving the article to the new title would be much better. Anyhow, I remember hearing about this case when it happened a year back, and boy I got really grossed out by it. I had never heard of anything that gruesome. Tynesha's family requested to have her Silver Taps ceremony the following August, which I attended. It was really touching. As for the alleged perpetrator, I found his Harris County jail record here (search for Shepherd, Timothy). Looks like he's still in jail and is awaiting a court appearance on 06/05/08. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess we can give the AfD another day or two to see what others have to say. As for Tynesha, there haven't been many references to her life in the sources I read. There shouldn't be a problem, though, including some bits about her life. We already have that she was a freshman civil engineering major at A&M at the time of her death. I'll try to look for sources that reveal more about her. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Big 12 Championship Game

By the way, don't you think we need to disambiguate the title Big 12 Championship Game? There are several Big 12 championship games. Another user even pointed this out here. Perhaps we can rename it to "Big 12 Football Championship". The former needs to be a disambiguation page with links to the championship game articles (other than the football one) we have on board: Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament and Big 12 Women's Basketball Tournament. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the way it is currently handled (going to the football championship) is the best way, for several reasons:

1. To my knowledge, college football is the only Big12 sport that is decided by one championship game, as opposed to a tournament
2. Wikipedia generally prefers shorter titles as much as possible. We have Colt McCoy not Colt McCoy (athlete) or Colt McCoy (college football player) - we should move to the more complex title only if we are forced to do so.
3. Even if another sport has a championship game as part of the tournament, football is the most popular sport and most readers will be looking for football
4. For readers that may find the football game while looking for basketball, we have a {{seealso}} link at the top of the page. Johntex\^talk 07:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all that. The "Big 12 Championship Game" title for the football game is fine. I actually meant to ask if we could disambiguate the Big 12 Championship article. Currently, it redirects to the football game. The Big 12 calls the whole basketball tournament under the same name.[10] BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. That is the first time I have ever seen/noticed the basketball tournament called simply "Big 12 Championship". I thought they referred to it differently. I don't have strong feelings about this either way. My thinking is that the the {{seealso}} link is sufficient so that is my slight preference, but I don't really oppose a disambiguation page.

One correction to my earlier post, the UT and A&M pages are not actually using the {{seealso}} tag; UT uses {{redirect|University of Texas|other system schools|University of Texas System}}. The affect is similar but not identical.

Again, I don't really have a strong opinion. You could post on some pages and drum up discussion, or as far as I am concerned you could go ahead and move it if don't mind moving it back if people complain or get confused. Johntex\^talk 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I boldly went ahead and added the links to the various tournaments here. Sooner or later we could have articles on the tournaments of the other sports, so we wouldn't want to clutter the Big 12 Championship Game article with {{seealso}} links. I think the disambiguation page works better. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

Three cheers for Johntex, for he has successfully passed yet another Good Article! Break out the champaign, balloons, and cake — but don't party too hard. After all, Featured Article Status is waiting just around the corner!

(Incidentally, I copyedited the lede for grammar and flow. If you like what you see, I'd be happy to go through the rest of the article. If not, just change it back, and I won't bother you again.) JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

2007 Texas Longhorns football suspensions

On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2007 Texas Longhorns football suspensions, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Haven school Skittles incident

I have nominated New Haven school Skittles incident, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Haven school Skittles incident. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sandstein (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts on this

Funny you should mention it ... the Tri-Valley article and obvious hook got turned down for DYK on exactly those "undue weight" grounds. But it remains in the article largely as is. I knew it would never fly as a separate article, certainly not when we hadn't yet written an article about a school undeniably notable since it's the only school in that district.

Just because it may be the only thing we can write about besides the basic information available online (for NY schools, in this case) doesn't, to me, mean we should write about it as a separate article. See, for instance Pine Bush High School (where, full disclosure, I'm sitting typing this right now) and the gun incident from a couple of years ago, and Monroe-Woodbury High School and the food fight. And also see Middletown High Schoool for an instance where several news events have been neatly compressed into one article. There's enough sources to justify separate articles if that were all it took, but to me they're news events over and done with.

The tampon protest may seem like undue weight only because we haven't yet been able to do full research on the history of the school (and, in Tri-Valley's case, the district since the two are pretty much the same). But if someone argued that the section should be reduced to a sentence or so for undue-weight reasons, I'd argue in return that:

• the absence of other information which could be in a school article besides a recent news event does not mean that a lengthy section on said news event should be reduced, because it is eminently possible that other editors will be able to research and expand the article to an extent that puts the news event in perspective without reducing the section.

• In any event, it doesn't matter whether it's one sentence or 30 on the news event besides the intro; if there was nothing else in the article and you applied undue weight strictly that single sentence would be too much and you'd have to get rid of it entirely, which IMO would be contrary to the goals of the project.

• By using and citing multiple sources and providing a fuller, NPOV perspective on the incident, it provides a necessary corrective to the misinformation about this event that is elsewhere on the web (I think you had the same goal in mind with the Skittles incident). This is consistent with Wikipedia's mission.

I've certainly been in your position on an article (see Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out, which it has taken two AFDs to keep). But in cases like this I really think, and have seen in my three years as an editor and later admin, that time will put it in perspective. Consider that Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxster) was a separate article at first but has since been merged into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, since there was really nothing to write about him outside of that incident.

I had not raised any objections to the categorization, but now that you mention it I think that, too, is only justified if you can maintain it as a separate article, and I know how these things go and I don't think you will be able to. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Haven school Skittles incident, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

New Infobox to toy around with

Hey again. I made a new infobox to spice up the alumni pages of our dear university, Template: Infobox TexasAlumni. I didn't want to put too many fields for now, but if you think of some other field that might be useful don't hesitate to change it or reply back for me to change. Any guesses as to who is listed in the example infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surelyitsjohn (talk • contribs) 09:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

2005 ACC Championship Game

Crap, I didn't even know that FAC page still existed. If you want to throw your stuff over onto the talk page for the article, I can get to work on it when I get a chance. I'm a bit busy with other stuff right now, but I really appreciate you taking the time to look it over. I'll make those changes when I get a chance, and get back to you. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles) Chevrons (2000 articles) Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles) Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles) Third place overall Second place overall First place overall

2005 ACC Championship Game

About a month ago, you graciously reviewed the article 2005 ACC Championship Game for me. During the past month, I've upgraded the article and incorporated your suggestions. I've just recently resubmitted the article for featured article candidacy, and I'd appreciate it if you could take another look at the article to see if it now meets your FA standards. Any comments, questions, or support would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ping! JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in the first go-around. I've still got one more thing I need done to complete a Featured Topic involving the ACC Championship Game — get someone to do a Good Article review on ACC Championship Game. If you have the time, do you think you could take a look at it? If not, let me know and I'll find someone else. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate it. B gave me a long list of things to change in it as well, so once you read it, it should be good to go. Thanks again! JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain about the SEC-ACC connection. The SEC was the first so-called "superconference" when it hit 12 teams in the early 1990s, and was the first conference to hold a big championship game as well. After that came the Big 12, (which you're probably more familiar with), and then the rest. Since the SEC is the closest conference geographically to the ACC, and because it was the first to do so, it had the largest influence on the ACC's decision to expand. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing that. I really appreciate it. I'll probably work on your Texas article next to get it ready for FAC submission, if that's all right with you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you mean 2007 Texas Longhorn football team? If so, I think that would be fabulous. I've been letting it sit for a bit to allow me to achieve some "distance" between the push for GA and FA. Reading it again today, I see some things that need work:

1. Intro is a little choppy.
2. One of the KState photos is from 2006 and should be moved.  Done
3. Need info on Longhorns taken in the 2008 NFL Draft

How about we collaborate and get it up to FA standards? Johntex\^talk 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I do, and that sounds like a great idea. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just woke up; but I've got a few minutes before the bathroom becomes available. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have much choice if it's occupied. ;) JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Red county

Would like to create "Red county" to balance out the Blue county I already created. Trying to create led to the Admistrator's noticeboard. Tried the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard but it's so busy that I get a consistent "Edit Conflict" when trying to post a question... can that attempt to create an article be unlocked? Noles1984 (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't get redirected to the Admistrator's noticeboard after getting your note. Go figure. Thanks. Noles1984 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Texas page

I got addicted to wikipedia again. I think I have done what I set out to accomplish, improve the Texas page. I figured i'd ask around for some fresh eyes to go over it. I am going to take a break for a month or so, so take your time. After that I am thinking about getting it to GA or maybe even FA standards. CyaOldag07 (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

Okay; I've completed most of the trims that I wanted to make. Unfortunately, I didn't quite succeed in making the 25% trim rate I was hoping for. Still, the article is now a svelte 162k, over 40k less than what it was before. There's a few trims to the Texas Tech section I think I should make, but I feel as if I've taken a meat axe to a baby in trying to trim this down; I really don't like to do it.

That being said, it's shaping up nicely. I'll ask some folks to put eyes on it and give feedback, then once that's done, we can think about submitting it to FAC. The child articles can come as they will. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Since you were heavily involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals some time ago I thought you might be interested in discussing the merits of a similar but slightly different proposal here. I would be very interested in your opinion. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Johntex, it seems that the idea of a closed mailing list for reporting violence/suicide threats on Wikipedia may be feasible. The response to this idea at WP:VPR#Threats/suicide admin. notice board has been positive.

The idea I guess is that this would be modeled after Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. As an admin, do you have any more of a clue how this could be set up than I. Ideally I believe the mailing list should be left open to trusted non admins. More users will guarantee a faster response. Requests for oversight is an account owned by the Arbitration comity; I’m not sure who should own the account for Wikipedia:Violence threats (or whatever it might be called). --S.dedalus (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Texas Longhorns football under Mack Brown

Hello Johntex! How are you? I have created this article since the Texas section received a little too much coverage on the Mack Brown article. I will leave it up to you to leave the necessary info and trim out the rest on Mack's article IAW WP:SUMMARY. If you don't have time to do that, I'll go ahead and do it myself. BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what do you use?

A recent edit in F-20 removed two characters and stated that the MoS says not to use quotations around non-quotes. MoS is now so long that is spans dozens of pages and I cannot find any statement about anything. What is the rule here? And what is the way to point out the term in question is pejorative? Maury (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Longhorn revamp

I have recently overhauled the project page for the UT Austin WikiProject in an effort to rekindle a once active and still worthwhile goal—improving UT Austin-related articles. I noticed you are a member of the project and just wanted to invite you to get involved again however you can. Hook 'em Horns! --Eustress (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject University of Texas at Austin Collaboration for August 2008

The current WP:UT collaboration for the period ending August 31, 2008 is: List of University of Texas at Austin alumni Our September 2008 project is TBD. If you would like to nominate an article for a future project or see what articles we've already collaborated on, please visit the Collaboration talk page.

Thanks to all those who helped out with UT Austin-related articles this last month. This month's collaboration needs help with transferring alumni names into the organizational tables in prep for FLC. I look forward to working with you. Hook 'em Horns! --Eustress (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Featured Topic Task Force proposal

Hey Johntex, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kings_of_Texas_by_Don_Graham_book_cover.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kings_of_Texas_by_Don_Graham_book_cover.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Nv8200p talk 13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Renert the Fox stamp 1972.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Renert the Fox stamp 1972.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Texaphrin superimposed on lone star in Texas flag.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Texaphrin superimposed on lone star in Texas flag.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —Bkell (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Texas Longhorn football team

It was good to hear from you in my talk page. I've never heard of the Wikipedia policy regarding non-breaking spaces and quantities. Do you have a link to that policy? Expired references are just confusing. I hear what you are saying, but I don't know what to do about it. Is there a special markup that lets you leave the ref, yet declare that it is now non-existent? The closest I've come to that is one time a website was not there anymore, and I moved the URL to point to the Google cache version. But in this case, that would not work. If the "Wayback Machine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive#Wayback_Machine was curently functional, there might be an opportunity to point to archival captures of that weather page. - Bevo (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject California roll call

Hello from WikiProject California!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

• Main Page
  
• Talk page
  
• Cleanup listing
  
• Template list
  

As well as the existing pages:

• Assessment
  
• Article Worklist
  
• Deletion sorting
  

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi! Optigan13 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football October 2008 Newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

As a current or past contributor to a related article or as someone who may otherwise be interested, I wanted to let you know about WikiProject Texas Tech University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Texas Tech and the Texas Tech University System. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of tasks. Thanks! — Wordbuilder (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Colt McCoy

Thanks for your edit. Hook 'em! JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

#1

I'm shocked we moved ahead of Alabama. If we take care of the rest of our schedule, hopefully we'll get to play them on January 8. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely surprised - we had an impressive win. All day long Sunday, as I wore my burnt orange on a trip to the east coast, complete strangers were commenting on the game. Having said that - it is an amazing feeling. We've not had this feeling mid-season for a long, long time.

Now we have to hold on through murderers row: Missouri, Ok State, Tech, Kansas, and the grudge-match against Aggies, then if we make it - play a ranked Big-12 north team in the Conf Championship. I'd love for it to come down to us vs. Bama. It would be a great chance to take on the SEC. Even better if Penn State finishes unbeaten and third place. If beloved Jo-Pa got left out like that, we might finally see some colleges in favor of a limited play-off. Johntex\^talk 12:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

hey

wat u doin mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.173.1 (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Texas Peer Review

Texas just got promoted to GA, is now on a FA run, and it would be nice to have all the input we can get in our peer review. Thanks for the help. Oldag07 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Officer Houston McCoy as grand jury is convened - 1966-08-05.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Officer Houston McCoy as grand jury is convened - 1966-08-05.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Damiens.rf 12:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO

As a member of WikiProject Pornography, I'm just letting you know there's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography about changing the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)