User talk:Johntex/Talk07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Thanks

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

[edit] UserPage Update

Hi! See Your user page needs adjusted FrankB 08:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• You got it tex! FrankB 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi John, the discussion on the WIkiethics page is continuing at the personal confict level. If you believe the important of the proposal I would apprecaite for your contributions and appearance on the discussion page. Please note that this proposal cannot be completed or become successful without your contributions. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

(copied from User_talk:Thivierr
I consider your statement to me "you simply don't know what you are talking about" to be a violation of WP:CIVIL. It is obvious that you and I disagree on whether there should be a notability requirement for schools just as there is for Bands, Websites, and basically any other article on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, we are each entitled to our opinions and I think I am deserving of more respect than your statement.
In the future, please try to frame your arguments about the facts and not about the other editor. Thanks very much, Johntex\^talk 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't sling mud, and duck behind WP:CIVIL when somebody replies. Since you can't handle a proper debate, I'll try to limit future responses to you. --Rob 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The person who can't handle the proper debate would be the person who resorts to incivility. Nominating a non-notable article for deletion is not slinging mud. It is taking a step I believe is in the best interest of the project. I welcome you to hold another opinion, though of course I hope you eventually come over to my position. Maybe I'll come over to yours, we'll see. In the meantime, I urge you again to keep WP:CIVIL in mind and reply to the arguments, not the editor. Johntex\^talk 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When I made my "sling mud" comment, I did give a specific link to what I was referring to. Accusing people of being in a cabal, is about as uncivil as one can get (not to mention just plain silly). So, consider following WP:CIVIL if you want to cite it. --Rob 04:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if that seemed uncivil. It was not my intent. The existince of various "cabals" are regularly tossed around wikipideida as a sort-of-joke. I was not trying to be "silly" as you say, but I was trying to be somewhat humorous while still making a point. Reading through the discussion of WP:SCH, it is very clear that a large portion of the regular contributors use it as a "save all school articles" rallying point. That is what I meant by cabal. Please note that this comment came only after you accused me of "not knowing what I was talking about". I do appreciate your more recent comments to the AfD discussion, however. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 05:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Schools

The problem with this type of edit is it spurs others to make more of this type of edit. Now, I didn't revert you, because I don't want a revert war. I did revert Grace Note, who made a very pro-school message. Perhaps, a more constructive approach is write-up you're own essay/philosophy on schools, in a user sub page, where you can say what you want. If others agree with you, it could be "upgraded" into a project page in the future. I don't think its constructive for people to edit Wikipedia:Schools with a series of more "pro/con" points, that are all said elsewhere (where you can add to, if you wish). I hope you'll note the fact I did revert Grace Note (an inclusionist) and didn't revert you, is an indication I'm being fair to your side of the debate. I feel Wikipedia:Schools should remain as a historical record of attempts at compromise. I'm asking you to please consider reverting yourself on you're edit. --Rob 06:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable alumni of Pearland High School

Hi Johntex. Might you be able to provide a source which shows that Spencer Goodman attended Pearland High School? Rob added multiple {{fact}} tags to both alumnus, but I was only able to locate a source for Miss Lauren Lanning. May the source be with you. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have a cite-worthy source at the moment. I definitely understand the need for sources. On the other hand, there are lots of other unsourced claims in the article, like:

1. Future Problem Solving has also started a club at Pearland High School. (The club is not mentioned on the school website, and the official school websites are the only sources given, except for the two sources on the two alumni.)
2. Despite the wide number of clubs, the administration spends very little on the majority of them, favoring to spend most of the budget on Football. (unsourced and arguably POV)
3. The Academic Decathalon team made it to state this year and won more than twice as many medals as the previous year. (unsourced, club not mentioned on the school website)

These are just a few. Perhaps they should all be marked with {{fact}}? Otherwise, it could seem as though we are picking and choosing which facts we'd like to verify or promote. Johntex\^talk 13:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did you originally obtain the information from about Goodman? If you see additional areas which cannot be confirmed through the sources already provided within the article, yes, I agree that they should be marked with {{fact}} or removed until a reliable source can be cited. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of ZZ Top and I have college friends who are from Pearland. I remember at the time Goodman was arrested, the Houston Chronicle and the Pealand Reporter both had articles mentioning that he had attended Pearland High School. Neither of those papers seem to have on-line searchable archives from that time period.

There are so many facts in the article that are not verified by the School websites, which are the only sources given for the article. I listed a few of them above. I think rather than marking each one {{fact}}, we should mark the article {{sources}}. What do you think? Johntex\^talk 15:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a {{fact}} tag for anything involving a unfavourable fact (e.g. murderer alum), and the general {{sources}} for the rest. Also, I think some stuff, that's not written about, could probably just be removed as trivia. For example, if "There is also a computer club which focuses on making programs using Game Maker." isn't mentioned anywhere, then maybe it can be removed. --Rob 17:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indent for info copied from Rob's Talk page) I've been giving that suggestion some thought. At first blush, it has some appeal, but the more I think about it, the more I think it is not the best solution. Firstly, it is redundant to apply one template the the whole article as well as a second template to a fact within the article. Secondly, it is POV to hold facts perceived as "negative" to a higher inclusion threshold than facts perceived as "positive". Johntex\^talk 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

When I said "negative" I meant, almost, but not quite (legally) defamatory. We absolutely do hold a special standard for such facts. Per WP:LIVING (I know this is about a school, not a person, but I think similiar principles apply). I beleive Jimbo's personally removed/deleted a number of items, based on the premise the potential defamation or harm to character requires exceptionally high sourcing standards. What we can't allow is for people to use Wikipedia to attack an entity with unsourced claims/associations. It's far to easy for people to slip negative things like this in. A kid (or anybody) just lists some notorious killer as an alum. Now, I realize in this case, its true (I do trust you, seriously I do), but we can't pick and choose who we beleive. I have fact checked hundreds of schools, and I can't play "who do I trust". I also can't remove all unsourced facts (I would be blocked if I tried). Many unsourced facts pose little harm if left in temporarily. Some facts do pose harm immediately.

Also, I'm still being NPOV becaue *all* unverified information will be removed eventually. I am not suggesting unverified information can remain. I'm just saying, I have priorities, about what to remove first (The {{fact}} tag warns somebody, which item is likely to be removed first). Somebody should have recognized the negative rumors of John Seigenthaler, Sr. were somehow more important than other types of unsourced claims.

Now, if you seriously wish to treat all the unsourced information in the article "equally", then I will cheer you on, if you remove *all* unsourced information. This will give you full neutrality. Even if that means making it into a substub. --Rob 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Added: I just decided to go ahead and remove what's not sourced (e.g. not on the school web site, or anywhere else I can find, after I looked). There may be more that needs to be removed. --Rob 23:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks for your reply. Here are a few of my thoughts:

1. Please post me a note on my talk page when you reply. If you want to centralize discussion in one place, that is fine - just a simple "replied on my Talk - Rob" would be fine. Then I get the little Pavlov's Dog message notice.
2. I agree with you that anything that is potentially libelous should get special treatment.
3. I appreicate your trust in me that I would not make this up. However, someday, you and I will both be dead and gone and hopefully Wikipedia will still be going. Eventually, perhaps, no one will remember whether I was trustworthy or not. Also, even generally trustworthy people get facts wrong, misinterpret policy, etc. Therefore, I wouldn't expect my personal say-so to be definitive in such a case, at least not forever.
4. I don't agree that there is anything potentially libelous in this informaiton. If his status as a murderer were in doubt, that would be one thing. If we said he committed murder because of a twisted environment at his high school, that would be another thing. However, we are just noting that the school has a famous alumni, who happens to be famous for a negative thing. There is no potential for libel against the school in that statement, therefore, I think it is wrong to compare it to WP:LIVING or to hold it to a higher standard.
5. I don't agree that this fact should be any quicker or slower to be removed if it is not verified. Since libel is not a concern, then there is no reason to treat a negative fact differently.
6. I think we have to be careful that Wikipedia is being used right now as a source, not at some future date when it is finished or something. Therefore, we need to be NOPV in today's version, not at some future date when all the facts are supposedly checked and verified.
7. There are 3 NPOV options I could support: (1) Tag the article with {{source}} but don't pick and choose which facts to tag a second time. (2) Tag all unsourced facts with {{fact}}. (3) Remove all unsourced facts.

I think (1) is the best solution. (2) is my second favorite. (3) is my least favorite. In some ways, (3) should be our ultimate goal, but doing that would be to hold this one article to an extremely high standard which I don't think is practical. Even articles that achieve "Good Article" status make it to that status without every fact having an in-line citation. Johntex\^talk 23:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History deletions

Saw your comment at AN/I. The simplest way to delete something like that from the page history is to move the page (e.g, to User:XYZ/temp, then delete it, then selectively undelete the unwanted versions, move them (e.g., to User:XYZ/delete), delete them again. Then return to User:XYZ/temp, undelete it, and move it back to User:XYZ.

You could also delete the original page in place, but, iirc, that's a bad idea if the original page is heavily linked to (as this screws up the servers). The other advantage of the double move is that it hides the final destination of the unwanted material, so its location isn't apparent to everyone. Guettarda 21:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Try it with User:Guettarda/Sandbox 6:

1. Delete the page
2. Restore the second to last version
3. Move it to User:Guettarda/Sandbox 7
4. Return to User:Guettarda/Sandbox 6
5. Undelete the page
6. Purge your cache (you can do this by closing your browser and re-opening it)

Give it a try. Guettarda 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot one step - after step 3, delete User:Guettarda/Sandbox 7 again. Guettarda 00:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Psycho

Thanks for the indefinite ban. This user has been a real problem for weeks and it was long overdue. If you take a look here you'll see more of his historical sockpuppets that probably need blocking. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that for that indef to stick, you'll need to unblock him and re-block him. At the moment the one month block is the one in effect. I'd say don't do anything about it for a day or two to see what the responses are on AN...since its not like you're pressed for time with the one month. --Syrthiss 02:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I didnt check the blocklist to see when the expiration time was... just the block log as linked from his contributions. You're right:

# 01:48, April 15, 2006, Johntex (Talk) blocked The_Psycho (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (Immediately after being blocked for one month - attempted to evade block with sock-puppetts)

Heh never mind my above comment then, at least about the time limit =D --Syrthiss 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resid

I do not see an improvement in his behaviour towards me (he continues to troll and be uncivil, yet claims he isn't), I've reprotected his talk page. If you really want to fight this case for him, I would strongly suggest going to Arbitration, as what you just tried to do obviously did not work. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:45 UTC (2006-04-15)

[edit] Image:Anti-IE.JPG and other images

I noticed you marked the image publicdomain with the note that you uploaded it yourself, since that tag is now obsolete and is no longer really used you might want to change the tag to {{pd-self}} for images you created yourself or one of the alternatives for other images. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SimplePilgrim unblock request

As well as this now User:Trollwatcher has also a request for unblock pending as a result of the same thing. They had the information about the link posted to their talk page, but if they posted it on elsewhere or were otherwise involved is not clear (as the edits will have gone...). Do you know anything more about this or the legitimacy of the block? --pgk^(talk) 18:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I read your message to Trollwatcher, which led me here. I have been in touch with a bureaucrat with usercheck access about this, and have copied e-mails to Jimbo. I'm on holidays at the moment, and am typing lots of messages from my hotel room, and may lose internet access shortly, but for the moment I will say that there was and still is a huge problem with sockpuppetry and revert warring at the Christianity article. The sockpuppetry was established and some accounts were blocked. Around this time, a few users started showing up on Wikipedia in support of the culprits, gathering "case studies" about how the established editors were persecuting them. One such user was John1838, whose user page was deleted as an attack page. He created it again, and it was deleted again and protected. He then registered a new account as J1838, and created a user page with the same material. It was deleted, and he asked for a deletion review, which was unsuccessful. Trollwatcher took part in the same attacks. He claimed on the Christianity talk page to be gathering evidence about the "Trolls" (i.e. the Christian editors). He made the same kind of posts as John1838, and didn't really contribute to articles, except to add the same external links to various articles — which were usually deleted by other editors. An anonymous user posted links to a website on 6 April. This website was based on the deleted user page of John1838, and on the accusations that Trollwatcher had made. It named several Wikipedian editors, and criticized them heavily. It did not give their real names at that time. One of the users who received that message (King Vegita) assumed that it was from Trollwatcher, and answered the post at Trollwatcher's talk page. Trollwatcher showed no signs of being puzzled. I then suggested on the Christianity talk page that Trollwatcher had posted that link anonymously, and he didn't deny it — he said he was assuming I was referring to "this very interesting website" (link removed) and he'd be happy to put his name to future invitations to people to visit it.

At the end of last week, when many of the Christians were on wikibreaks for Easter ceremonies, an SimplePilgrim, who admitted to being John1838, began to post links to that website on various pages. The website had been updated, and now gave what it claimed to be the real name and photo of one of the editors it was attacking, plus a link to his personal website, which had information about his location, his wife's name, etc. SOPHIA reverted him, and HK30, who shows all the signs of being one of the many sockpuppets on that article, followed her around Wikipedia and reverted her additions of that link, and also spread it elsewhere — writing on the talk page of one of the users attacked on that site that it seemed to be true, and asking that user did he have a photo. Three more sockpuppets appeared and posted the links and/or creepy messages on someone's talk page, with information that could identify that user. The whole mess took about four hours of admin time to clear up, with removal of the link from the history of pages. I'll give you a list of pages which these users posted the links to another time. Hope that will do for now. We've lost a very valuable editor over this harassment. Trollwatcher's purpose on Wikipedia, as shown by his username, was simply to criticize the Christian editors. And by the way, a bureaucrat with usercheck, who saw the website at the time that it had photos and names of two of the editors it was attacking, plus attacks on several more has denied a lifting of the block. I'll give more information later. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the added informaiton. I support increasing these blocks to "indefinite". Johntex\^talk 20:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your attempts to unblock Rgulerdem. I request you to please continue with this endeavor. Netpari 20:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As clerk to the Arbitration Committee, I have removed some threaded discussion from the application for leniency for Rgulerdem. If I inadvertently removed something you wished to raise in your statement, please feel free to add it back as part of your statement. Please keep the application clear by refraining from threaded discussion of other editors' statements. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello and Thank You

Hi Johntex, thanks for your note of welcome. Good luck arbitrating the editing wars. -DevinMcGevin 06:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the message/request no problem

Yes thats no problem, Ill change it asap. DannyM 21:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

John---thanks for unblocking me. I talked with another person at my school and he noticed he had been blocked as well, so it may be that we all are coming in with the same IP address--although I don't see exactly how that would be true. If that is true, it could be problematic, since it is virtually impossible to prevent occasional anonymous vandalism by students at our school, and that will just build up a longer and longer record of vandalism on that IP address. Not sure what to do, besides your suggestion of a possible future way to block only anonymous (not signed-in) users. Anyway, thanks -- Spireguy 20:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isle of Man article reversion

Hi Johntex,

I am very new to Wikipedia and was hoping that you could explain to me why you decided to revert my changes to the 'Isle of Man' article.

In my opinion I was adding relevant content to the piece and can't directly see why such a change should have been reverted.

I am looking for advice on where I have gone wrong, and how I should have either, conducted the change, or why I should not have attempted the change in the first place.

Thank you for any time that you can spend in answering my query.

Kind regards,

Neal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NealKelly (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2006 April 25 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:NealKelly. Johntex\^talk 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting article work

If you are getting this, it is because you do or did work on Scouting articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Participants_and_primary_areas_of_interest).

As the Scouting WikiProject has been formed since early January 2006, we've had many great improvements made in this area of Wiki and I want to personally thank everyone for their help. We don't always agree on things, but we keep moving forward. YIS, Rlevse 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi John, I would like to thank you very much for continuous efforts to unblock my account from idefinite block. I do appreciate for it... Best, Resid Gulerdem 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

to John for his positive attitude by Rgulerdem

[edit] administrator privilege abuse

Hello Johntex,

I know you as a fair administrator, which is why I'd like to ask you for help. I'd like to file a complaint on WP:RFC/ADMIN#Use_of_administrator_privileges, because I have strong evidence for administrators abusing their privileges by clearly violating WP:BP. The problem is, that at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint, but those users who could are blocked. How am I supposed to proceed? Should I file my case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard instead? Do you want me to email you my evidence?

Raphael1 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heymann

• Good work fella Deizio 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So... am I going totally out on a limb to think that we might be able get our old buddy to featured article status? Let me know what you think. I can try to get a real picture of Mr. Heymann here at Texas, if so. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 19:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Living People != Living people

Hehe figure it was a miscapitalization typo but with the recategorization bots not working atm, your addition of Opie and Anthony to Category:Living People wasn't the intended Category:Living people. Just wanted to ping you in case it wasn't a typo. Cheers! --Syrthiss 12:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ah geez.....

Why the hell did the ex-Oilers have to pick Vince Young? Now my loyalties are divided. I can never root for those betrayer Judases, and yet I'd love to see Vince kick ass. O cruel world! · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it makes sense. Carr's a good quarterback, our line just can't keep him protected to save their lives. Another QB wouldn't have helped that, and neither would a running back. I think they probably made the right choice. But the Young pick just makes me mad! My whole family's in a quandary. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi John, thanks your help again. Without you, I couldn't be here anymore. OK dear mentor, here is what I think: I would like to complete the proposal I have started. I did a few minor modifications already. Since Wikiethics is inactive now, further changes and improvements should not cause any edit wars. When it is ready, I would like to start an approval poll. How does that sound? Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 20:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi John, I do not want to announce the poll at the V Pump this time. I will ask you or Netpari or anyone willing to do so, to post the note. I know that there are a few people out there who are ready to say 'no' whatever I say and just because I say it.

Second thing is, since the proposal is inactive, I am not expecting that someone come and revert our edits. It does not seem to me practicle to carry it to my account, especially after all what has hapened. What do you think? If necessary we can do it of course. I can copy paste a version and leave the current version there as a reference. Resid Gulerdem 05:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Resid. I really think it would be best to avoid controversial issues. Making non-controversial edits to the main article space is the best way to let people improve their impression of you. Then they won't be able to accuse you of someone who is here just to argue over policy rather than help build the encyclopedia. I recommend doing other work for a month or so. After that, if you want to work on Wikiethics, I suggest you do it in your Sandbox to start out with. This is not any sort of direct order or anything, but it is my strong recommendation. Johntex\^talk 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

John, I understand your concern and it is reasonable. I will try to do that as much as I can. While doing that, I have a plan below about the Wikiethics proposal. Please let me know what you think?

[edit] Future Plan

• Let us not touch WP:ETH page. Leave it as archived for a while.
• Using the two version User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics1 and User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics2, we can quickly finilize a new version: User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics. Wikiethics 1 is an old version, Wikiethics 2 is the current version.
• In the new version, your rewording and contribution will be critical as I have put almost all I believe should be in. It is hard for me to see my mistakes and typos. You can see and modify on the other hand. We can discuss any inclusion or exclusion...
• Then we post what we have to WP:ETH page and start a poll. During the poll since noone will edit it, there will be no danger of edit wars. I think the duration of the poll shout at least be 4 months.
• If it goes well, fine...
• If it gets rejected, we can collect the objections to revise the text.

Could you please let me know if this sounds like a plan? Best, Resid Gulerdem 23:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] oral sex image controversy

So I guess you are asserting the final say on the oral sex picture controversy. I am afraid do do much else over there because you have administrator powers and I don't. However, this issue seems far more ambiguous (at the least) than you and one other user have made it out to be (although I imagine you have already read the long discussion regarding this issue on the article's talk page). Interestingstuffadder 22:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message.

I think you may be thinking I removed the image a second time, but if you check the article history, you will see that it was a different user the second time. Therefore, I have not exerted "final say". I have been involved in the discussion on the page in question, as well as similar pages, for a long time. If you checked my contributions, you already know that. The rough consensus established over these pages has generally been that such a graphic image is not necessary to illustrate the given article.

I agree there is some ambiguity about what the law will and will not permit. As an administrator, I try to err on the side of caution in protecting the Wikimedia Foundation and this project from legal problems. We do not have a lot of cash in the bank, and we can't aford to spend it just for the sake of supporting some sort of free speech crusade. Pictures of oral sex are widely available on the internet. There is a small benefit of convenience to our readers to have one right on the article, but the benefit is very small compared to the potential risk. Johntex\^talk 22:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the impression I get from the discussions is 1) there is a split on the graphicness issue; 2) there is a sense that the prior image is not sufficiently illustrative. Also, sorry for implying thatyou were responsible for that second revert -- I saw that it wasn't you and I didnt mean to imply anything. I do find it a bit insulting that you accuse me of engaging in "some sort of free speech crusade" and thus imply that I do not also care about the foundation's well being. Frankly, my position (having read some of the relevant law but admittedly being no expert) is that in the context in which this image is being used -- an educational one -- the legal risk is close to nil. But, I imagine the "legal argument" is a silver bullet that conclusively justifies this images exclusion. And I also imagine that I am a little guy around here and you are an experienced administrator so there is really very little I can do to retain this image as part of the article. Interestingstuffadder 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey man, Heymann

Perhaps we should send the article to peer review. What do you think? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ced is still stubby, but if it's exapnded, yes. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 00:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Major Applewhite Rice University.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Major Applewhite Rice University.jpeg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Hetar 07:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, tagged {{Promophoto}} Johntex\^talk 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Cedric Griffin, 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.

--Cactus.man ✍ 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johntex, my apologies for the late reply but I received a message from Trident13 just five minutes after yours. When I got the new messages flag this morning I just checked the new section at the bottom and missed yours (must remember to check the history when new messages flag up after an overnight break!). Anyway, the 27 April entries just didn't seem to be as interesting to me, so I started with the 28th April entries and wanted to get a good balance of articles. I'll have another look and see if I can do an update before midnight UTC as they would still be just eligible. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hook 'em!

Thanks JT! --Grouse 20:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Always good to know. Thanks for the message. Hook 'em! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Walter Cronkite? Haha, I try. I ought to rerecord, as the article's been updated, though. On another note, I like the UT rival evidence subpage you made for that OU argument that keeps coming up. I was going to say something earlier...but ended up taking a nap instead. Nice work. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Johntex! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

==Michael Griffin (football player) It needs a new start.CubsFan2006 01:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Michael Griffin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael Griffin.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, tagged {{Promophoto}} Johntex\^talk 02:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)