User talk:Johntex/Talk04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Johntex Photography Resources To-Do Talk
My contributions My admin log
This is Johntex's talk page. To leave me a new message, please click here.
Talk Archives: 1, 2, 3

Contents

[edit] Johntex is on Wikibreak

I am very busy at the moment and will not be around much this week, maybe 2 weeks. We'll see how it goes. Johntex\talk 16:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

I'm in no hurry. Just a heads up, I'll probably be on wikibreak March 3 for a week. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Gourd Dance, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 05:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmf164

If you haven't gone completely into wiki-break yet, please follow the above link. Sorry for beating you to the punch. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:21, Feb. 14, 2006

[edit] Happy Valentine's day, dear John!

Happy Valentine's Day, my sweet dear John!
Phædriel


[edit] Sup Johny!

I'm so glad you liked those popups thingies, Johny, but you should really thank Lupin, not me! ;) Aww, holding out on you? You've discovered me! What else should you actually know about me, hm? Now that's a tempting subject... how about... a confession that I actually hate football? Yes, a Sooner here telling you this - now go ahead and make fun of me, I deserve it! Your turn now - is there anything I should know about you? I'm all ears ;)
Now seriously, I was so pleased to see your article at the Main page, hun, and a double pleasure that it was one connected to our project. Don't be modest - you made it! Congrats, I told you it was a magnificent piece of work! Big hug, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC) PS. I had Mark give me a huge kiss for you - but let's keep it a secret between you and I, ok? I hope you're doing fine on your wikibreak, and I pray that it shortens as much as possible... two weeks without you around seems a loong wait... :(

[edit] RFA Thanks!

Thank you!
Hello Johntex/Talk04, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux Talk

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 09:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bevo and the National Championship Trophy

After the Tech game you commented on my talk page that you had taken a screenshot of the trophy with Bevo in the bkgrd or vice versa. Do you still have that picture? — Scm83x talk 19:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deep in the Heart of Texas!

I just created Deep in the Heart of Texas, which is very DYKable. In addition to the LHB article, that could be two on the main page at once. You created the LHB article so go for the DYK. — Scm83x talk 05:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing the Deep in the Heart DYK right now. The UT band one is def not too long. Be sure to wikify all the president's names. I think that's a really cool fact! — Scm83x talk 05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for originally suggesting RFA and supporting me. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism. Needless to say, if you notice me doing something not quite right or have questions about any of my actions, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article The University of Texas Longhorn Band, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

John, you're so hot when you ... research. Nice job! · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bigger man message

if you help me get an account on Gamefaqs. I will stop editing the Wunderlic page. I was banned from that message board and haven't found any websites to go too. so I use my extra time editing the wunderlic page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.115.75 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for the message. Unfortunately I don't know anything about Gamefaqs. How about helping us build an encyclopedia instead? Johntex\talk 22:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We Did it!!!

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

<laugh> That was highly satisfying. Thank you! · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rail station

Don't worry about it. Peace! —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actually it is fair use

Read their copywrites page. Download available for educational purposes.

Thanks Mmeinhart 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)--

[edit] What gives?

Why you hatin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.123.208.4 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your kind words! Nach0king 09:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protocol for Editing Someone Else's Article with Touchy Subject

Thank you for responding so quickly to my question. I shall raise questions on the discussion page at Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Sarum blue 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very kindly for the comments! The Episcopal Diocese of Dallas is my second work. My first is the Cathedral Church of Saint Matthew, Dallas, Texas. A fellow wikipedian asked me to write something for the Diocese of Dallas. (That was when I stumbled into the one at Fort Worth that I don't like!) Main page! That is so awesome! I hope it or the cathedral article makes it! Thank you! Sarum blue 18:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] consensus?

I followed the talk pages for quite a while and can't see a consensus at all. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.116.76.117 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] playgroud

I don't consider this a game. The display of the cartoons is a violation of the Wikiquette ("Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion.") and the No personal attacks policy ("Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult."). Raphael 62.116.76.117 23:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] imprisonment

Of course not. I value free speech. But because the right of free speech is so powerful, one should be careful not to abuse it.


[edit] Mohammed Cartoons Talk

That particular anon is not adhereing to WP:TPG in terms of comment format. Just FYI. Haizum 15:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

I'd be glad help hammer out a clearer consensus with regards to censorship policy. Right now I'm going on no sleep so I just added a supporting comment or two. If you want, you can direct me towards threads that are ongoing (where you might need some backup). I'm relatively aggressive with other editors, often pointing out fallacies and attacking any and all logical weak points (which are often mistaken for personal attacks), but this topic will favor logical and pragmatic opinion (rather than rebuttal) so I should be able to stay out of trouble and therefore avoid damaging the credibility of the argument. Anyways, let me know where I'm needed. Haizum 20:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] McCoy on DYK

Hi, you have updated the DYK with the John McCoy entry but I have several concerns. Please note that adminship is no license to update DYK out of process. For example, the article you created was not listed on Template talk:Did you know. The reason the suggestions need to be listed on this page is that other editors find potential problems. Just as the FA director does not update articles to FA status (he follows a process), so should be the case while updating DYK. With the general distrust for admins on the rise, I have always felt that we should never give a scope for other users to claim admin abuses against us. Anyways, next time you have an interesting suggestion from a new article, please add it to the template talk. Also, the article that is being referenced to in DYK must be bolded to make it stand out from the other wikilinks in the entry. Next time you update DYK, please keep these in mind. If you need to reply, please do so on my talkpage. TIA, --Gurubrahma 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gurubrahma, thanks for the message. I'm sorry if my update of DIY was out of process. I was trying to be very careful, but it was my first time to do a DIY update, so it does not surprise me if I made a mistake. Here is what I did:
  1. First, I did list the article at Template talk:Did you know. [1]
  2. After a time, however, I realized that it was the only article left for March 1, and I knew that on the weekend we run the picture of the day instead of DIY. Therefore, I was afraid the McCoy might be overlooked on Friday and that it would be inelligible by the time Monday rolled around.
  3. At that point, I read all the rules about updating the page, including that any admin can do it, and the guidelines for how long an article should probably stay up (at least 6 hours, no more than 24). I saw that the Jordanhill railway station had been up for quite some time - not unexpectedly since it is our millionth article. Still, it seemed like there was time for a short listing of McCoy before the weekend.
  4. So, I put McCoy into the Template, and I removed it from the Template:Talk listing. At this point, I was a little confused by the instructions. There is information there saying "please archive the article" until it is stable, but there is also information there that talks about auto-archiving by a bot. I decided that what the instructions were asking me to do is to remove the article from that Talk page and place it on the relevant Portal history, which I did [2].
  5. Unsure if I did everything correctly or not, I stayed on Wikipedia for several hours [3] to see if there were any issues with the process I followed and to watch for any vandalism to the articles linked in the DIY.
I see now that I missed the part about Bolding the article name. I'm sorry about that.
Did I also do the wrong thing at Step 4 about the archiving? It seems that the way I archived it led you to believe I had never listed it there on the talk page. As I exlain above in points 1 and 4, I did list it, but I removed it myself [4] , following what I thought was the process.
As for the opinions on the wiki about admins, I agree with you that it is very important for admins to set a proper example. Appearance of impropriety can be almost as unwelcome as actual improprietry. However, as I hope you agree, we do have jobs to do, and we will make human mistakes. I feel that users here who are so suspicous of admins that they can't assume good faith, at least long enough for the admin to explain his/herself, can be invited to leave the project with no reason to miss them. All I can do is to read the instructions, try to follow them as best I'm able, and learn from my inevitable mistakes.
I don't know that I will ever have another occasion to do a DIY update. I certainly don't plan to make a habbit of updaing it, though I do anticipate I will list future articles for consideration. In fact, earlier yesterday, I did list Episcopal Diocese of Dallas at DIY. Unlike the Joseph McCoy article, I had nothing to do with writing this one. I just found it as a result of answering a question at the new-user Help desk.
Just in case I ever do update DIy again, can you please help me understand how the archiving is supposed to work? Thank you again for contacting me, and for all your hard work at DIY. Johntex\talk 18:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johntex, thanks for your message and sorry for the delay in my replying. You listed the suggestion on Template talk:Did you know at 2130hrs on 3 March 2006 and later added it to the template - an objective of adding it to template talk is to give other editors enough time to comment. When you updated the template, it was one of the few occassions when an old entry was still around and could be removed - which you did right (The Jordanhill one). However, I did not see the need for your removing the existing picture and replacing it with the image of a cow. Anyways, if you see the history of DYK template, you will find that someone else removed your DYK fact - as it was on the longer side - I typically find that long entries on template talk are immediately modified by other editors. Also, the template talk mentions the "next updation time" and we shouldn't be updating it before the time. As far as archiving goes, it is the last section on the template talk and the archivals should be added at the top in that section - this ned not be done as I had already archived Jordanhill (this being an entry in 2 DYK updates). Thanks a ton for your explanations, and I am sorry if I came across as bit harsh. I know that articles created on a tuesday or wednesday have most of the problems because their ddeadline coincides with the display of POTD on weekends - I myself suffered once due to this and it (ability to update DYK) was one of the reasons that led me to seek adminship. It is generally a good practice to mention the suggestion on template talk as soon as the article is created. Anyways, this "weekend problem" will disappear with the new design of main page where DYK and POTD would be available on all the days of the week. You may want to vote for that new version - that link can be found on Talk:Main Page. You may also be interested in WP:BAP#Action as you are interested in DYK. It is nice to clear-up things with you, --Gurubrahma 18:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

Nice answer on the help page!, maybe the best one I have seen so far. :D - cohesion★talk 07:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR

Rgulerdem is the person who violated 3RR. Did you actually look at the diff's you posted on my talk page. Adding a contradict tag does not count as a revert. Gerard Foley 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO he did violate 3RR, however I prefer discussion rather then "ha, ha, you're banned for 3RR". It's the easy way out. Gerard Foley 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Censorship

A poll has been started on the censorship talk page. You're a major proponent for compromise on this issue, be sure to chime in. Haizum 11:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need advice regarding Raphael1

Raphael has changed my texts previously, personally attacked me and others and otherwhise vandalised articles. I do not think that he has done so to be deliberately obnoxious, but he does seem to have trouble understanding what he reads. Perhaps someone should could volonteer to become his mentor? Not me. I fear him, and I fear writing any answers to him. At least he now has an account. Might it be because his numbered account at one time had a tasc's "last warning" in it, which he cleared that way? Anyway, he is not like some who just vandalises for the sake of it, he believes what he is saying. At the moment, in the cartoons section, he is winning the battle arguing successfully that the "no personal attacks" policy means that he is allowed to attack us contributors, but we are not allowed to hurt the feelings of muslims if they claim they are offended. He is winning since he is tenacious. I do not think he will win in the long run, but he has been making several just as alien claims using similar tactics , and I know at least two others who have decided to stop writing in the article talk areas, at least for a while, because of him. That makes three of us. I don't mind user talk areas, since I don't think he is even aware of them. Since you are an administrator, I thought perhaps you might had some good advice? DanielDemaret 13:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I am sorry to hear that Raphael1 (formerly 62.116.76.117) has casued you trouble. [5]
I haven't reviewed everything this user has done, but my casual observation agrees with your observation that at least "...he is not like some who just vandalises for the sake of it, he believes what he is saying." I have tried to do a little coaching to him already. For example, I urged him to get an account [6], and I've urged him not to expect opinion to change swiftly, and not to interpret a few positive comments on a sub-page discussion to be sufficient grounds for changing the content of the cartoon article. [7]
Please be aware that Raphael1 did not remove Tasc's warning. Tasc lowered that warning himself. [8].
I presume Tasc lowered the warning because I left a message for Tasc saying that I felt a {{test4}} warning was over-the-top and that a {{test1}} or {{test2}} might be appropriate. [9].
I will see what he has been up to since creating his new account and I will try to see what other advice I may be able to give him. Hang in there, Johntex\talk 19:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, JOhntex and Haizum.

I should have explained more about the editing. It sounds a bit worse than it was. Let me repeat what I told you before Johntex, that what Raphael did, I do not think it was intentional. I would not have brought it up at all, if it were not for the fact that he kept doing it after I asked him not to.

What was done repeatedly I think might be better termed "slashing into my text". The problem with this, was that when I, or anyone else read it, since he did not always put his signature, it looked as if I had signed some of his text, and and sometimes it looked as if he had signed some of my text.

So it looked as if Raphael had changed my text at several places. Again, not intentionally. It is the kind of thing one does sometimes with email, but it really doesnt work here, especially if not every line is signed by the slasher.

I should also note that when I asked him to clean it up, Raphaels did try to do this. Unfortunately, it was not enough. Some of my text was gone. So, I added a note to the section that it would be better to start anew that to try to salvage the old.

And then, unfortunately, slashing happened again. I still do not think that it was intentional, so there is not point in tedious looking into history to look for it. I have also seen it being done after that in the mohammed talks, and there, since no cleaning was done, when last I looked, one can find instances of slashing into Haizum's text. I did not check whether the texts there were confused or not.

I hope this clarifies things. I accept the apology that Raphael has made me, of course, and I will apologize for being unclear about the exact nature of my accusation. DanielDemaret 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] extremist

You are probably right. I don't want to antagonize people. I just feel extremly frustrated about the non-muslim majority showing no respect for the muslim minority. I can't see any reason, why people don't want the linkimage compromise, exept to offend muslims on purpose. Raphael1 21:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TPG

I'd appreciate it if you would address inappropriate comments/format on my talk page from Gerard Foley.

He has also ignored and deleted my requested posted to his talk page 3 times now. Haizum 23:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gmcfoley&diff=prev&oldid=42551541

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHaizum&diff=42551506&oldid=42492589


Thank you for your help. Please review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gmcfoley&action=history

I do believe, "FUCK OFF" is a personal attack, especially when I'm reminding him of WP:TPG. Haizum 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'm not going to tolerate you trolling my thread. Got that?

I don't think such a post on a persons talk page is needed.

What Haizum does with his talk page is up to him, just as long as he leaves me alone. I don't think that is asking too much. Gerard Foley 23:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WP:Censorship

I believe I have already voted in that poll, thanks anyway. As someone who just arrive at that page, it is rather difficult to follow the long discussion. But if there is any other related poll either in WP-space or in articles, and I've missed it; please kindly inform me. Thanks! --Vsion 00:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)