User talk:Jareha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Blue October

Is there a reason you created the Blue October page at Blue October/Temp instead of at Blue October? I'd like to change the stub tag to {{band-stub}} instead of {{music-stub}}, but I don't like messing with temp pages in case someone's actively working on them, or they are potentially deletable. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Created Blue October/Temp because Blue October had a copyright violation. That temp page should become permanent soon, so feel free to edit away. Jareha 06:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, read "In addition" at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. Pretty much says what I just did.
Thanks—Wahoofive (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Handbook of Texas proposed deletion

Please go here and express your opinion on whether Category:Handbook of Texas citations should be deleted. As a Wikipedian in Texas, your opinion on this topic is particularly valuable. 66.167.253.162 17:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Keyra Augustina

Saw you worked on her page, thought you'd be interested: Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Keyra Augustina —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.201.180.226 (talk • contribs).

Voted, thanks for the heads up. jareha 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Saw you discussed this before, people are trying to delete it AGAIN: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyra Augustina (third nomination). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AriGold (talk • contribs).

Voted already, but thanks for the heads up. jareha 03:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Witcher Astor

On 21 Sept 2005, you seem to have placed a "cleanup" tag on the Nancy Witcher Astor article, but you don't seem to have made any suggestions on the talk page about what needs to be cleaned up. What did you have in mind? - Nunh-huh 00:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Nunh-huh. I've added my reasoning for the notice at the article's talk page. jareha 19:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Longhorn Althetics

Hi Jareha - thanks for your edits to Texas Longhorn Athletics. I was just thinking to myself that the title to the rankings was too long and wondering what should be done about it - when you solved the problem very gracefully. Best, Johntex\talk 20:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I could help! jareha 21:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
<Chuckle> Hey Kate, I think he may have you there with some good logic, though TSP does roll off the tounge a little better, IMO. </Chuckle>
Jonathan, thanks very much for dropping by with your kind words, for your support of my nomination for adminship, and of course most of all for your contributions to the the 'pedia. I'll definitely wander over to the TSM article and see if there is anything I can add, and I look forward to seeing you around all our favorite articles. Best, Johntex\talk 23:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

I see you changed the logo. 1) The color is wrong. 2) How come you haven't joined the discussion for a new logo at Talk:Texas Longhorn Athletics? I made some new logos, with HIGHER QUALITY resolution, with smaller samples on the talk page. Please join in. WikiDon 06:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks WikiDon for your comments. The color of that photo is indeed wrong, thanks for pointing this out, and I've joined the discussion at Talk:Texas Longhorn Athletics. jareha 07:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I've temporarily changed the logo at Texas Longhorn Athletics to the official version available at the university's Longhorn Logo Visual Guidelines page. jareha 08:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
CHECK > Talk:Texas Longhorn Athletics. WikiDon 03:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The old one also has "rough edges" (the exact same edges) its just so small you can't tell. Mine is "cleaner". Look at them when they are the same size:
Image:UT Logo with Texas and Longhorn image.JPG or Image:TxSOLID.PNG
There is NO comparision. And mine has ZERO bleeding. Also, there IS one on their site that does have a border; the one in the top row. Theirs is a mixture of white and black, I just made it all black. WikiDon 21:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I've already conceded that my first uploaded logo had the wrong colors. The one I support now was the second one uploaded by me. And as I've said before, the latter should only be temporary — that is, until I hear back from the trademark office. jareha 05:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voluntary Wikipedia questionnaire

My name is Oliver Metz. I am a student at Brent International School, Manila, an International school located in the Philippines. I am doing my last year of school (12th Grade) and I am writing a research paper (about 4000 words) on Wikipedia in ITGS (Information Technology in a Global Society). Of 10 randomly picked people you have been chosen as one. If you are willing and have the time to answer a few questions I would be grateful if you could fill out a short questionnaire of 6 questions.

Some Information about my essay:

My essay topic is about the freedom to collaborate and the usage of the Internet as a tool to do so. I will analyze topics such as Altruism versus Egoism as well as the Product Wikipedia itself.

My Thesis Statement:

The Internet is not only a medium for communication, information and marketing but also a place for altruism, collaboration and cooperation. Wikipedia is the product of a voluntary collaborative effort that defies commonly held beliefs about human nature.

If you have any further questions or requests you would like to pose before filling out the questionnaire I'd gladly answer them.

you can write to: taklung@gmx.net (I check this e-mail address regularly)

Questionnaire:

Please answer the following questions by either inserting the answers or sending them to me via e-mail.

Name: Jonathan Horak
Age: 22
Nationality: American (USA)

1. How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia?
Since 2004-05-02 as jareha and 2004-02-27 at a now-unused (by me) IP address — 67.96.48.35.

2. Have you or are you planning to donate money to the Wikipedia cause?
I don't think I have donated money to Wikipedia. Not that I haven't meant to, just that it slipped my mind during the last donation drive. Thanks for (unintentionally) reminding me.

3. When you first heard of Wikipedia and the concepts it is based on, what did you think about it and did you believe it could work? What do you think now?
I can't even remember how I first heard of Wikipedia. I've always thought it a terrific concept and still believe it will work/is working. The community and this project impresses me everyday.

4. Why do you think people contribute to Wikipedia? With it being voluntary what interests do/did you follow when contributing to Wikipedia?
I believe people contribute to Wikipedia for many of the reasons I do. There's something to be said for a project that never stops improving. I may never see the final iteration of Wikipedia. As it is open-source, hopefully no-one ever will. That's exciting! One day, the sum-total of human knowledge could be at this site. How cool is that?

5. Do you think that Wikipedia appeals to Altruism? If yes, do you think such a thing can exist in our society in which greed and consumption apparently drive the world?
Wikipedia definitely appeals to altruism. Although greed and consumption play a driving role in society, people, for the most part, are still well-intentioned. There are the vandals that muck up the encyclopedia, but the sheer good-will of the community overpowers the bad, by a factor that is only made obvious when watching an article.

6. What do you think makes Wikipedia most beneficial to society?
I've got a rambling blog entry which does answer this question at my website.

Further comments:
Thanks for this survey. Hope the corresponding project goes well!

With kind regards,

Oliver Metz -- TakLung 05:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

[edit] RFA for Johntex

Hello Jareha, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I'm looking forward to using the new tools in the fight against vandalism. That survey (above) looks kind of fun - I'm jealous I didn't get picked out the 350,000 Wikipedians! I hope I see you around Wikipedia soon. Best, Johntex\talk 00:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Punk

I noticed your recent edit to Punk. Just thought I'd let you know that disambiguation pages are not articles and as such have their own style guidlines. This includes having only one wikilink per line, and keeping explanations to a minimum - just enough to get a reader to their desired location. There's more info at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), and I'm always happy to discuss disambiguation.--Commander Keane 17:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Collaboration of the Month

Hey there! Have you considered moseying over to the Texas Collaboration of the Month? We're currently trying to select which article should be improved next. If you're interested, you'd be most welcome. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for University of Texas at Austin

Hey Jareha. I've noticed that you've made a lot of great copyedits to the UT article in the past, thought you might be interested to know that I started the peer review process. Thanks. -Rebelguys2 12:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions

To the first, yes, a user can blank his or her talk page. It's considered bad form, but technically they can do as they please with the talk page (as long as they aren't actually MODIFYING other users' comments). All the information is still available in history, so it's not that big a deal. Blanking an article talk page is a definite no-no, however. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 14:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random thanks

Just wanted to thank you for sticking around on the Charles Whitman article - seems like there are one or two people who have a radically different view of the event than 'mainstream'. I'm at the point where I'm almost ready to suggest they start a page similar to 9/11 conspiracy theories or Nick Berg conspiracy theories for Whitman. It just seems completely unfair that they can claim it's a "memorial to victims and damning the University", when really neither should be Wikipedia's role. Anyways, much thanks for sticking around, and sticking your nose in as often as needed - it's not as clearcut as some vandalism, but in the end it's more damaging when people are allowed to hijack articles for their personal interest. Much thanks for being there for the long haul, the article is much better thanks to your work! Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 01:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, glad I've been able to help! And thanks to you as well! You had the patience to be (nearly) the sole article caretaker there for a while. Even when I joined the fray, it didn't seem like enough. Now that I've pulled Kate in and Alf has helped, we can hopefully get by without breaking the three-revert rule, which I was in danger of in at least one timeframe.
As for splitting a conspiracy page, so long as proper sourcing can be mustered, I don't see why not. (Stating the obvious, but it sadly isn't to all.) jareha 09:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm now at my 3-revert limit as well for the day unfortunately, so I guess if we don't want him to revert back, we now have a Sysop ban him for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR rule himself (7 actual reverts, so far as I can tell, in the last 24 hours, then countless little edits/vandal/etc) Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 01:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whitman injury and death list

Thank you Jareha for your efforts to clean-up the lists. I was in the process of doing the same (with different views) when I found you had edited as I tried to save. I'm trying as I hope you have noticed to become compliant with the rules and sources. I hope you are satisfied with the source and others who may feel compelled to change things due to prior issues that I prefer to keep in the past. With all that said, we need to re-visit the issue of numbers and who should be counted among the numbers. As discussed, even demanded by myself, while opposed by you and others, the unborn child of Claire Wilson remains a topic of discussion. Permit me to make my point. The source I gave, lists the unborn child among the dead. The number of dead in the source (which used the Austin American Statesman as a source) was 17, exclusive of David Gumby. Please go back and count if I am not believed. Within the article itself on WP, (Under Chas. Whitman, end of second paragraph) the number is 17. Look at the injured list, prior to edits, and Claire Wilson is listed alone as injured. I would suggest to you, that the count now is 17 if Mr. Gumby is counted, however, the original list, which you edited, would only be 16 dead. If the original list was 17, and Mr. Gumby dies in 2001, the number should be 18 dead, not remain at 17. I realize you do not want to make this a political issue, nor do I! Abortion, C-Section and all other points of view do not change the original numbers, regardless of political, religious, moral, ethical, philosophical or any other thought out there. I ask you to use good judgement. Review the possibilities of the numbers and you will see what I mean. If you still do not agree, which you have the right to do, let's have an administrator other than Kate (no prejudice intended, it's just that she graduated from UT and I ask her to be recused of the issue) to settle this matter. I ask you to do this in good faith, because the numbers do not add up to me. Thank you and seasons greetings to you and yours! (A copy of this will appear in the discussion page)Subwayjack 03:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Response at Charles Whitman discussion page. jareha 04:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vesta Meteorites

Thanks for your work on the HED meteorites and sub-articles. The referencing method that you used is far more convenient than the kludge I was using. I've changed the heading back to "References", though, to indicate that they are the source of the information. Have a good day! Deuar 10:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your nomination of Image:CVMS.jpg

Hi there! Thank you for looking out for images without source information and Image:CVMS.jpg's nomination for deletion. However, when nominating images for deletion, you need to add {{subst:ifd}} to the image description page of the image in question. While you did notify the uploader, I am withholding deleting the image under the image deletion guidelines due to the lack of a image deletion warning on the image page. (This will only delay the deletion of the image by one day, seeing as you tagged it {{no source notified}} on the 19th.) Should you have any questions, please feel free to ask! Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 16:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bicycle userbox

Sorry about that, I've reverted the edit. Is it possible to have the "Category:Wikipedians interested in bicycling" tag without having the large (and somewhat ugly) space below the userbox? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morgan695 (talk • contribs).

Hmm, I don't see any space below the userbox; personally I'd find that ugly as well. Removed linebreaks — please let me know if that helps. jareha 03:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hook'em!

Image:SI cover 1973 10 10 Hook em horns.jpg Hook'em!

--bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Texas Longhorn Football Team

A new article awaits your edits...Johntex\talk 13:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates in baseball

Thanks for your support. Cheers – MusiCitizen 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Firefox image

That specific image you reverted is only used for the userbox. I highly doubt that images are not suposed to redirect to articles, I think that a image link has not been implemented yet. I do not see any harm done by that link. What do you think? —This user has left wikipedia 23:05 2006-01-26

I found the redirect harmful. The general Wikipedia user (e.g. myself) would expect an Image: page, not an article — which could've been found by clicking the Mozilla Firefox link in said userbox. jareha 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You may be right, I'm a recent newcomer to the wikipedia culture. I'll take a straw poll at the template page. Thx for the feedback. —This user has left wikipedia 23:23 2006-01-26
No problem and welcome to Wikipedia. Keep working towards consensus — as you're doing here with a straw poll — that's one of the easiest ways to keep this community civil, in my opinion. jareha 23:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UT Austin Wikimeetup

With the March SXSW conference coming soon, I thought it'd be a good idea to start having regular meetings. Since everyone listed attends the University, I thought we should meet somewhere on campus in the next week. Please come to Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin and let me know what you think. — Scm83x talk 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, let me know when and where. (I'm watching the Wikimeetup page, so you don't have to actually notify me.) Speaking of this, I've thought of creating a Wikipedia student group, but that might be just a little too geeky. jareha 06:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha! There's always the Facebook group here. -Rebelguys2 06:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Awesome! Joined. jareha 07:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Related: may I present my first accidental revert. jareha 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've updated Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin with the group photo, which can also be found at Image:Austinmeetup04feb2006.jpg. Nice meeting you. Hook 'em! — Rebelguys2 talk 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That was quick. Awesome! jareha 00:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Holmes

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 18:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook

They're doing yet another vote on page moving. Since you voted in the last move I figure you should know about it. Mike H. That's hot 08:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That's just ... wrong

News to me! · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I messed up!

Hello, I just reverted an edit of the Stephen Crane Article which you had just previoulsy edited. I messed up the edit summary. It reads that I reverted your edit. I didn't; I reverted the edit of 204.234.247.21 who had edited it just after you. In other words I reverted it back your version. I'm fairly new here. Sorry. Michael David 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's no problem. Welcome to Wikipedia! jareha 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We Did it!

Johntex\talk 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environment Agency

Thanks; that looks totally snafu free (I'm not sure that there is a commonwealth English synonym for snafu so we must be grateful for both Boston and tea)! Velela 23:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! jareha 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locks of Love

Hello - thanks for cleaning up the typos I introduced to the Locks of Love article. (I'm learning the formatting as I go, it seems. Would you be willing to cast an editorial eye on the Heifer International article too? If you don't have time to do it, that's okay. Thanks again, Sszark 20:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just copyedited Heifer International here and there. Hope that helps. jareha 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

Thanks for your concern, but since I am not a blocked user trying to remove warnings, and the semiprotection was meant to protect my own talk page from anon vandalism, I would say the edited version of notice is more appropriate. --BorgQueen 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I switched the template so that your talk page shows up in Category:Semi-protected user and user talk pages instead of Category:Semi-protected. jareha 05:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I just manually changed the category so now it shows up in Category:Semi-protected user and user talk pages. Thanks. --BorgQueen 05:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chavez High School

With schools its not a good idea to move the page. Disambiguation is always needed with schools. I'll set up a disambig page at "Chavez High School" WhisperToMe 03:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of this policy. Thanks for the heads up. jareha 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma infighting

This is a great diff with a great edit summary. Johntex\talk 08:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Classic! jareha 16:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject University of Texas at Austin

Thanks for stating the wikiproject! I've added my name. I also archived the UT talk page and put a notice there. You know this will probably keep me from leaving the house this weekend, right? Too bad, its nice out, oh well. Johntex\talk 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[Insert evil laughter here.] jareha (comments) 22:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Curse you jareha, curse you! (Oh, and take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin/Collaboration Notice) Johntex\talk 23:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Awesome! (Oh, and take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin/Articles.) jareha (comments) 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Question for you at [1]. Johntex\talk 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the deal with reverting the Charles Whitman page to an ancient version?

I just looked at your user page; it doesn't appear that you are the type of guy who would intentionally vandalize an article. I was just looking over the Charles Whitman page and noticed that you reverted it to an ancient edition. Please tell me this was inadvertant.

I recently spent a great deal of time adding facts; improving syntax; correcting spelling errors as have several others. I did not remove anything anyone else had done, albeit a few sentences were moved to improve the chronological flow of information. Hokeman 01:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure you're referring to the right user? Seems you meant to direct your comments to BIG Tuna. jareha (comments) 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You are right. My apologies. I was so flustered there for a minute that I didn't look carefully. Big Tuna does not have a User page and does not appear to be a serious Wikipedian. Therefore, no guilt in reverting. Hokeman 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for verifying this. You had me nervous of my own actions there for a second! :) jareha (comments) 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Gifs for logos, eh? Hmmphh. Johntex\talk 03:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. SVG are best (as they are vector based) for logos, but PNG and GIF also work well. JPEGs work best with photographs. jareha (comments) 03:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:University of Texas at Austin

I know what you are up to today... This is not fair. You beat Scm to the wiki-project and now you beat me to the portal!!!! Grrrrrr!!!! Johntex\talk 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, [insert evil laughter here]. jareha (comments) 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
An Award
I, Johntex, award this Barnstar to Jareha for his tireless work in maintaining all things Longhorn and especially his initiative to create Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin and Portal:University of Texas at Austin. Congratulations!

[edit] More Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin

Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin/Resources - in case all these articles aren't already on your watchlist: This will let us look at any recent change to any UT related article (assuming it has one of these category tags). Johntex\talk 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another proposed set of notice tags. Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin/Page Notice The idea is whichever one we select would go on the Talk page of all articles in the project. It has the benefit that it automatically adds the article to the UT category, though of course we have to take care of subcategorization manually. Johntex\talk 01:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you moved the proposed collaboration notices to a more general "templates" page. In the meantime, I have been busy making some proposed article and stub templates. I agree with you that eventually these all belong on one page. However, I think we should "approve" them first. What I mean is, I have created several vesions, and I expect others may want to contribute version, and we may need to discuss and possibly have a straw poll. Therefore, I think putting them all on one page would be too busy, untill we decide on an "approved" version of each. I put "approve" in quotes because of course nothing is permenant and they can always be changed later. What do you think? Johntex\talk 02:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All good points. Made Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin/Templates the location for finalized templates. jareha (comments) 02:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, how many people should we get to join the project, and how much discussion should we have before we plaster these notices on the relevant pages? Putting them on a bunch of pages is a sure-fire way to generate traffic to both the project and the portal. When do you think we'll be ready? Too bad we just missed March 2 (Signing of Texas Declaration of Independence) though we do have some time until April 21 – Battle of San Jacinto. Looking at History of The University of Texas at Austin, we don't have many precise dates that could serve as a logical "launch date". Johntex\talk 02:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see around ten active project members, personally. And I'd say we're ready for a large push after, at least, the Longhorn-Wikipedia veterans have signed off on our new templates.
Also, is Katefan0 aware of the new WikiProject? Haven't seen her in and around there yet. jareha (comments) 02:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. Thanks for handling the page moves. Katefan0 has now been made aware: [2]. I know you have told Scm. What about Bevo, Bbatsell, Rebelguys2,...? Johntex\talk 03:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page notice

Hello. I'm surprised you went with option 1 at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin/Page notice since you said earlier you are not wild about that photo of the tower at night. I could make a 1(b) variant with a different image if you want to try one more. Myself, I do like the nightime tower shot. As a photo, it is just a little less-than-perfectly-sharp. But as an icon of UT, I don't think we have anything that can top it at the moment. Johntex\talk 20:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good catch. I like the content of that photo, just not the quality. That said, option 1 is the one I'd like to go with (no need to make a variant). jareha (comments) 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I made a variant anyway. Now that I am getting a little better at this markup, I had to fiddle with the text alignment. I've thrown my support behing Option 1(A). Johntex\talk 21:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Good article

Template:Good article has been listed for deletion. Please vote to keep this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article. The {{good article}} template places a small Good Article symbol (Plus icon) in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. —RJN 14:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I want to give you a Texas-sized thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longhorn Bomber Command

I didn't even know UT owned an air force base. I haven't gone out to verify ownership of the land - I found the article that way. Johntex\talk 20:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 01:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of references font-size specification?

In this diff, you removed the font-size specification for the references section. Your edit summary was "Remove font-size declaration."

References sections are often scaled down to 92% or 90% in large articles, and I was just following usual practice. (I see that in fact it's now part of the {{footnotes}} template itself.) I'm reverting, because I don't know why you removed the font-size declaration. Anyone can click diff to see what you did; it helps in these cases if your edit summary explains the purpose of the edit, so that others don't have to guess. Thanks. --TreyHarris 15:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Before making that edit, I looked through the Manual of Style and found the following in the formatting issues section:
"Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases."
I had not realized that font-size was specified by {{footnotes}}, but I do not consider footnotes a "special case". Font-size should not be hardcoded in the article space and should instead go in stylesheets. jareha (comments) 16:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue, as I understand it, is that small references sections in small articles are typically presented at full size, whereas large references sections are presented in smaller sizes. That's a judgment call that can't be encapsulated in the style sheet. I would certainly be in favor of moving the actual font-size specification into the style sheet and let it be called logically with "large-references" or "small-references", but that doesn't exist today. --TreyHarris 16:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clenched fist

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! (Your edit.) jareha (comments) 02:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your message to me about Clenched Fist, you're misreading the diff... I did not replace the page with blank content. I simply removed a header which was heavily politicized and substantially disagreed with the body of the article. (Which I did not touch.) Nentuaby 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You didn't blank the entire page, but did remove a good portion of it (the entire intro). In the future, please discuss content you disagree with on the talk page — instead of simply deleting it.
In your edit summary, you wrote:
Massive "viewpoint" statement out front- fascists are not leftists, and I'm sure those black olympians would really agree that it means "we support oppresion." [I fixed a minor typo in your edit summary for clarity.]
The intro doesn't equate fascism with leftists. Also, I see nothing in that paragraph contrary to the meaning of the gesture as used by either Olympian. Please re-read it, as I believe you'll agree.
Hopefully we can clear this slight misunderstanding up. jareha (comments) 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of an intro paragraph is to set the tone for the remainder of an article... It stated that the main purpose of the clenched fist is to "express support for fascism [...] and other leftist regimes" and totally disagreed with the body of the article. The information I deleted probably should be reincorporated with the article, but as a section, not a header, and with a total rewrite. I stand by my deletion in the form in which it existed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nentuaby (talk • contribs) .
You deleted the following:
The clenched fist (also closed fist or raised fist) is a symbol and salute most often used by communists, anarchists, socialist, and other leftists to display their ideological convictions and opposition to an oppressive order.
Nowhere in there does it say the clenched fist supports fascism — unless you're equating communism, anarchism and socialism with fascism? jareha (comments) 04:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitman

A reincartion of SWJ now having been through an anger-management course, or no? I'm having difficulty telling, I mean he lacks a WikiPage (same as SWJ did), he has few edits outside this article, and is taking issue with the same facts (Whitman's drug use, McCoy's name being linked, pop culture references - and in the usual combative stance that it's the editors conspiring against him. (Let's form a cabal!). He even refers to us all by name, which just inches that eyebrow further to the top of my forehead. Anyways, he's not nearly as abraisive as SWJ was, that's why I was curiuos whether you had any thoughts on the matter. (I'll also point out when I headlined his complaints "SWJ Jr" he made quite a show of (feigning) misunderstanding, asking what on earth I meant...whether theat's a strike for or against, I don't know :P ) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Before you'd even mentioned it, I'd noticed most of this as well (especially re: cabal). There are a few other strange similarities, arguably coincidental, but they add up:
  • Subwayjack has been the only person to refer to me as "jahera" on Wikipedia (see Talk:Charles Whitman/Talk2) that I'm aware of. Organizedconfusion now marks the second. (Subwayjack has also called me "jahera" via email as well, but that's another story.)
  • When Subwayjack did sign his messages, a trailing "Subwayjack" always followed — something I've always thought quirky. Organizedconfusion's signature ends with "Or".
  • In one of Subwayjack's emails to me, he took particular issue with the Houston McCoy article. So a particular edit by Organizedconfusion regarding the officer definitely caught my eye.
  • Organizedconfusion has gone up the tower multiple times. I've been a student at The University of Texas at Austin since 2001 and I've only been up once (in 2001). Now, I would imagine Subwayjack (if he is indeed John Moore) would've gone up the tower multiple times as well. I realize I may be grasping at straws with this one, but it could be considered worth noting.
jareha (comments) 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Awww, I'm glad he took issue with the Houston McCoy article, not that...I created it simply because I realised how much his lawyer would probably dislike me doing so...eyeshifts. I hadn't noticed the Jahera thing, I think that's a pretty good indicator as well. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Texas!!! [3] Johntex\talk 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedits

The Working Man's Barnstar
I award this barnstar to jareha for his tireless work in copyediting articles to the highest standard of readability, substance, and form. Johntex\talk 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind a second barnstar from me, but I really appreciate your great edits to Cedric Griffin, as well as all the other countless articles you've helped clean up. Johntex\talk 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. They are much appreciated! :) jareha (comments) 21:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to say the typo was a deliberate test for you, but - well, let's just say that I'd like to say it. Johntex\talk 21:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:St. Thomas High School crest.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:St. Thomas High School crest.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Longhorn Athletics

Thanks for the revert here: [4]. As I told the anon editor, I decided to limit myself to WP:1RR in this case, and was considering contacting you or User:Johntex to get a second opinion if the edit stayed there. Thanks again, and let me know if you ever need any help in the future. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for making it easy through your solid reasoning. jareha (comments) 06:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AP reference restored

Thanks, I screwed that up! --Jimbo Wales 00:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observer

Sure thing, I always admired the Observer, and I've met Nate Blakeslee, the guy that broke the Tulia story, a few times; Ronnie Dugger too. I wish I could find more information on Dugger, I'd like to write a short bio on him. He's been published a ton, but I haven't found any real profiles of the man himself. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 16:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austin PD

I have removed CSD, since it's your intention to add to the article, and you have started on that process. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Austin Police Department patch.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Austin Police Department patch.gif. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parkour picture

Jareha,

Thank you for doing the research regarding our image of Rip from 'Space Chase'. You are right about me owning the copyright and me submitting it for the Parkour page on Wikipedia.

Thanks again,

Stephen

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:C Everett Koop.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:C Everett Koop.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete images

He, I got along you second speedy delete because you had uploaded a different one but you can upload a new version directly over the old one. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 08:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I follow... jareha (comments) 09:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Austinlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Austinlogo.jpg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's your prediction?

Will Colt McCoy be the starter for the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team? Johntex\talk 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I expect McCoy to start, he'll have great competition in Harris (who I'm especially excited about) and Snead. jareha (comments) 04:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I've not heard much about Harris at all. I only hear about McCoy and Snead. Clearly we need articles on Snead and Harris... Johntex\talk 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You create the articles — although we may want to wait a bit for notability purposes — and I'll copyedit. :) jareha (comments) 05:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's funny you mention the notability angle. I had written a draft of 2006 Texas Longhorn football team and a draft of Colt McCoy in my user space. I was holding onto them until the first game. Today I happened to notice that someone created the team article recently and that it had been prodded already. So, I de-prodded and began expansion of that article. Then I checked on Colt McCoy and learned that the article had been created and speedy-deleted 3 times already! Each creation was just a single sentence, though. I decided if that many people are interested in Colt McCoy that I'd go ahead and unleash my somewhat longer version onto the world. It asserts notability so it is not speediable. It would at least have to go to AfD, where the inclusionists seem to want to keep almost anything ayway.
So, I may go ahead and create them if I have time and if I think I can make a good article, otherwise I'll follow your advice and we'll wait until they are on the field at DKR.
I also think it would be nice to leave the Snead article uncreated until game time. Then, as soon as he takes a snap, there can be a DYK saying something like "Did you know that Colt McCoy and Jevan Snead both took snaps in the innagural game of the defending national champions in college football, the 2006 Texas Longhorns? Johntex\talk 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The one problem I see with the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team article isn't with notability, but that it started with an unsourced cut and paste job — introducing concerns from me over copyright. (On this note, I just noticed the 2006 Rose Bowl article today. Considering previous interactions I've had with Levineps, I'm also concerned whether that article was a cut and paste as well.)
As usual, I think we're on the same page. The complication: others seem anxious to get some of the above-mentioned articles up, speeding (pun not intended) the article creation process, prior to a reasonable basis for notability. jareha (comments) 06:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut and paste

Yes, I agree we're on the same page. We have a problem with information dispersal and synchronization, and also with well-intentioned people jumping the gun a bit. Like you, I was surprised recently to stubmle onto 2006 Rose Bowl, and I just found these three today:

  1. 2005 NCAA Division I-A football season
  2. 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season
  3. NCAA football bowl games, 2005-06

If you compare the 2006 Rose Bowl article to the appropriate section of 2005 NCAA Division I-A football season, you will see they are virtually identical. Are you concerned this content was cut&pasted from an external source, or just cut&pasted from within Wikipedia? If it is the former, that is troublesome, but it could be fixed with a judicious re-write. If it is the latter, it is an interesting issue. The GFDL technically requires us to keep track of authorship, but that is very difficult to do when it is just a portion of a page that is being split out. Also, we allow our content to be re-used by so many sites that do nothing or virtually nothing to comply with the license, that I sometimes find it a little hard to get worked up about that particular issue. Johntex\talk 06:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And here is one more you might like to know about: College football on television. Johntex\talk 06:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've edited college football on television many times and am familiar with the user who created that article (TMC1982). jareha (comments) 06:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't check the page history to see if you had been by before. I added in the 2005 and 2006 Rose Bowl games. Johntex\talk 07:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As for the rest, I'm confident those cut and pastes are from content created both for and within Wikipedia (through assuming good faith). That said, and even considering the mirrors which don't credit Wikipedia, I don't want to see the articles we work so hard on face potential risk in the future. (More on this in a second — attempting to avoid another edit conflict.) jareha (comments) 06:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
From an administrator's standpoint, do you have any thoughts about how we could correct these situations? jareha (comments) 07:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
My interpretation of Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves is that the stickiest cases can't be directly resolved. If content has been pasted from A to B, and then edits have been made to both A and B such that interleaving their histories would be confusing, then the best thing to do may be to leave a note at B_talk to the effect that some of the informaiton in B comes from A and referring the reader to the edit history of A.
As far as our hard work being jeapordized, I am not a patent lawyer, but I'm not sure what the risk would be. We are not going to sue ourselves for copyright infringement. I suppose a contributor could sue for them not being given proper credit as an article - but what possible damages could they prove? They weren't making any money by being properly credited anyway. There may be an argument that if we don't enforce the GFDL internally, that we can't hold anyone else accountable to it. But we don't seem to be able or interested in holding anyone else accountable anyway, so again I don't see what the practical implication would be. Johntex\talk 07:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Aggie Athletics

Well, well, well. Look what we have here - brand new today: Texas Aggie Athletics. Johntex\talk 06:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, what a great article start! (I'll definitely help out there where I can.) jareha (comments) 06:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vijay Mallya.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vijay Mallya.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kate

  • Oh yes, I am very much aware and I could not agree with you more. I am very sad about it. I hope that it may not be irreversible, but I fear that it may be. We'll see. It is clear that all admins are now targets, even if they have never abused their admin "powers" in the slightest. Johntex\talk 04:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL

As a result of your question - I just forced myself to re-read, twice, the Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License. First I must state that I am not a copyright lawyer, or a copyleft lawyer, for that matter. However, I found it to be an illuminating experience.

I've seen people complain that the GFDL license is not well suited for Wikipedia. I am forced to agree. One of the the simplest problems with it is that it does not deal well with making copies of a portion of the published work. For example, if a professor wants to print out a one page article and distribute it to her 10 person class, she has to print out a multi-page licensing agreement and distribute that with each copy. This is clearly impractical. The beauracracy is even worse if there are 100 or more copies to be made.

One of the stated goals in the preachy preamble of the license is that it provides a method for authors of an original work to receive credit (but no blame for changes they were not involved in) whenever a derivative work is created. Well, sort of, but not really. It actually says that you are required to list at least 5 authors, or all the authors if there are less than 5. I'm sure I don't need to point out that the more topical/important/informative/referencable articles here have been edited by 5 or more people - even if one of them was the main driver.

I could go on about the short-comings I see, but I'll skip to the situation at hand - the issue of copy-and-paste moves. I conclude that (a) if the goal is to keep track of who were the original authors of text that is copy-and-pasted from one point of Wikipedia to another then putting a notice on the talk page of the new article does this. However, this may break down if a second person comes along to copy content and does not capture the note from the talk page, or doesn't follow up on it to collect the original edits. (b) it makes no difference anyway since someone reproducing all of Wikipedia apparently only has to pick 5 authors to acknowledge. (c) philosophically, the traditional idea of authorship breaks down in a medium where someone is technically an "author" even if what they contributed was vandalism which was reverted but not deleted or just plain poorly written verbiage that got removed or re-written out-of-existence.

Therefore, as of now, I am resolved that I will not waste time worrying about the authorship of articles. So long as with stick with the GFDL, it is clear to me that our system is fundamentally flawed and it is useless to waste time on it. I would appreciate your thoughts on these matters if you have time to read the license.

Finally a bit of irony - the text of the GFDL license is provided under copyright with no permission to modify. It must be included with no modification in all future works. While at a certain level this is understandable - at another level it is quite funny to me that the document spelling out the right to free use and free modification of a freely editable encyclopedia should itself be none of these things. Johntex\talk 05:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I've meant to respond to this already. Hopefully I will soon... jareha (comments) 06:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vince Young

Oh talented copyediting one [5] , do you think there are any findings from the first GA that we should actually act upon before the new nomination makes it up for consideration? Johntex\talk 20:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked over those initial findings when first offered and honestly haven't since. I'll take a look again — in just a bit — and offer up my advice there. jareha (comments) 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I did the same thing - I haven't revisited them since they were first posted. I have to go attend to something right now - but I'll check for your comments later and then see where I can pitch in. We'll definitely get zinged quickly if there are valid criticisms that were made that we have not moved to address. Johntex\talk 20:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I need to attend to my wrists — all this copyediting causes some major damage. jareha (comments) 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article candidates

OK, I don't know about you, but I think VY is ready now. Thanks for your help in the clean-up. It would be nice to have more about his personal life. The section on college accomplishments is mostly re-written from mackbrowntexasfootball - it seemed pointless to add footnotes, these are all in the record books. What do you think about that section? Johntex\talk 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Vince Young article looks great. I like the college accomplishments section — maybe we could just add a single reference there? (Also, we can fine-tune that section as the details shouldn't change much now that Vince has moved on to the pros.) jareha (comments) 06:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been editing a few articles unrelated to UT lately. One of them, Hoi polloi, I've just nominated for GA. If you want to lend any of your copyedit mojo before it comes up for review of course that would be great. The article does not get many regular contributors so I don't have many outside eyes on this one. Johntex\talk 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Did a little copyediting (mainly just catching the obvious stuff) earlier. Tomorrow I'll read the article aloud to pick up anything missed during the glanceover. jareha (comments) 06:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Profit/loss arrows on Company Infobox

Hi. I'm confused! Surely a green up arrow does not simply signify profits, but that profits were up. As it stands a company could go from making profits of $1 billion to profits of $1 and we would still add an up arrow! Surely it should be {{profitup}} or {{profitdown}} rather than {{profit}} and {{loss}}. What do you think?. Mark83 13:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, we use {{profit}} for a company making profits (even a dollar, as you say). And {{loss}} for a company losing money — again, even a dollar. Does that answer your question? jareha (comments) 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I understand how it is used at present, my question is is it correct? I'll try and explain what I mean more clearly — A company could go from making profits of $1 billion to profits of $1, which is a catastrophic downturn. However, as it stands the up arrow would be applied, signifying profit. My argument is that the arrows should be applied not on a profit/loss basis, but on an upturn/downturn basis, i.e. in this case the down arrow should be applied signifying smaller profits in FY05 than FY04. By the way, I'm not discussing it with you because I think your responsible for every other editor who uses the profit/loss templates! ...just that your an interested party and I'd welcome a second opinion. Mark83 21:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the following, from Template talk:Infobox Company/Syntax Descriptions#Style, shows that we are to use the templates in the way you've described:
Prefix a revenue indicator, {{profit}}. {{steady}} or {{loss}}, to revenue value. This indicates the change in revenue compared to the previous fiscal year.
jareha (comments) 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
But "change in revenue compared to the previous fiscal year" is not what's being adhered to, and not what you said in your first response. Any profit (even $1 to continue the example) is being given an up arrow (profit template) when it should be given a down arrow according to the reference you've just given me (i.e. profit down from prev. year). I propose the templates be renamed profit up/profit down or revenue up/revenue down to make this clear. Mark83 01:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
When I included the usage instructions above I should've also pointed out that my first assumptions were wrong. Feel free to bring up your valid concerns on the appropriate talk pages. jareha (comments) 04:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello, I'm just eavesdropping, but I'm going to butt in. If those templates are to be used in the manner described (For example, to use {{profit}} when revenue increases) then those templates should be renamed. It is entirely possible for revenue to go up and for the companies losses to deepen. This happens a lot with fast growing companies - you only need expense to rise more quickly than revenue and you get a loss even though revenue is up. I think {{profit}} needs to be renamed to {{revenue-increase}} and {{loss}} needs to be renamed to {{revenue-decline}}. Johntex\talk 05:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Told you I was confused, but I think I've got it straightened out now. Agree 100% with Johntex, what we need to do is rename the templates. At present they are being applied to both revenue and profit figures. They are not suitable for revenue figures as a company's revenue can be up year on year but the company can still go from profit to loss as a result of other cirumstances. Mark83 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but what is the point of having {{steady}}? The chances of a company posting revenue or profit figures exactly equal to the previous year would be something like 0.000000000000000000000000001. Ceteris paribus does not apply in the real world!

[edit] Meetups, events, &c.

Hey Jareha,

There's currently some discussion about whether and how to set up [a] US wikimedia chapter[s]; among other things this could help better organize meetups and gatherings at large events and cons. I'm notifying people who have been involved in local meetups; if you are interested, see the mailing-list and meta-page on the topic. Cheers, +sj + 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texan Collaboration of the month

Texas needs your help!!

The good news is the most recent Texan Collaboration of the Month - Juneteenth has recently been featured on the Main Page! The bad news is that we chose this article six months ago and we haven't kept up to date with choosing and improving a new article.
This page is traditionally administered by Katefan0 and JCarriker, but since they are both semi-retired, Johntex is filling in. (Yet another reason to hope Katefan0 and JCarriker come back soon!!)
We are going to pick up right where we left off. Please visit Texan Collaboration of the Month and help select the new collaboration - we'll begin working on the selected article 1 July 2006.

[edit] College Football Project

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you! --Mecu 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote

Every do any work at Wikiquote? diff1, diff2.

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Indiana University Art Museum.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Indiana University Art Museum.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Durin 14:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article I mentioned

Here's the article that I mentioned: Dr Pepper Ballpark. Had a great time tonight. Hope to see you around. — Scm83x hook 'em 04:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Kim-il-sung_Kim-jong-suk_Kim-jong-il.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kim-il-sung_Kim-jong-suk_Kim-jong-il.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plus/Minus disambiguation page

The bottom link (for the American Rock Band) redirects to same hockey page as the link above it. I'd fix it, but I don't know if there even is a page for the rock band or ever was. Do you have any idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.24.44 (talk • contribs) .

I'd created a page at +/-, but it has since been deleted. What a shame. Guess that's what I get for not being an active contributor for the past couple of months. jareha (comments) 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Review

Hello, I am getting ready to propose 2005 Texas Longhorn football team for consideration as a featured article. The article has had one reveiw already and I believe all issues raised there have been addressed. I have also used the semi-automated review script to look for small things that need to be changed. The article is meticulously referenced with 121 in-line sources. It contains both free-use images and appropriate fair-use images. It attempts to follow the standards set out by the relevant wiki projects.

In watching the nomintaion of the OU football program, I see that the OU article has received some objections on the grounds of supposedly being overly positive and for listing too-many awards. I have reviewed the 2006 UT article in light of those objections and I am prepared to argue that every positive thing said is relevant and attributed to a specific source. As for the awards and accomplishments, I think all the ones listed in the UT article are notable and justifiable, but I'd like to get more feedback from other editors so I invite you to review the article if you please. Johntex\talk 09:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Forgive Durden.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Forgive Durden.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 08:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Honda Unicorn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Honda Unicorn.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --RobthTalk 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:High Falls Brewing Company logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:High Falls Brewing Company logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Honda Unicorn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Honda Unicorn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sup

I'm in your govt class... Corpx 00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Which one? (I'm in two of them.) jareha (comments) 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The American Presidency Corpx 16:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Mack_Brown_with_the_Golden_Hat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mack_Brown_with_the_Golden_Hat.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Gillispie article

Thanks for the help in removing vandalism in the Billy Gillispie article. It's more than one person can do! Thanks SonPraises 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what SonPraises wrote.--Blueag9 (Talk) 01:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Glad I could help! jareha (comments) 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/r/User_talk%7EJareha_74e6.html"