User talk:Johntex/Talk17

All-district performer in US high school sports (football)

Hello, I am looking for a citable source with a good definition of "all-district performer" in US high school sports. This is to improve our article on Vince Young. Every sports site I can think of takes for granted that the reader already knows what this means. Google brings back plenty of hits, but all the ones I have checked are all just saying "so-and-so was an all-district performer". Vince Young played high school football in Houston, Texas if that affects the definition. I don't know if the criteria is standard across the nation or not. Thanks in advance for any help. Johntex\^talk 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a tough one, as it is a relatively new term and seems to be used loosely in most cases. However, this indicates (to quote) "Being chosen All-District is quite a high honor because it shows the kids' talents are recognized by other coaches in the (eight-team) district." The article continues in that general vein, making "All-District" sound like a runner-up to MVP. Any other information would need to be inferred from the context. V-Man737 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Googling indicates it likely means he was among the best in Division 5-A, or the quintile of Texas football-playing schools with the highest (male) enrollment. -- Mwalcoff 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in this case it means he was rated as one of the top performers at his position among the players at the 8 schools in the subdivision (district) of AAAAA that his school played in. Being among the best in all of AAAAA would be "all-state". Other possibilities are "all-area" (group of districts) and "all-region" (group of areas) and "all-city" (best in metro area, regardless of district or school size). *Mishatx*-In\Out 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AAAAA? V-Man737 03:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AAAAA as opposed to AAAA AAA AA or A. Now you see why we need a good source to help explain this nonsense. *Mishatx*-In\Out 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention a more convenient style of referring to different groupings. V-Man737 03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(grin) True, they are often spoken as 5A, 5A, etc. - so at least it is easier when spoken. Johntex\^talk 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mishatx, from your definitions above, it seems like "all-district" is a distinction given at the school district level? Is that right? If so, then it seems like the honor would mean considerably more or less depending on the school district. Some districts consist of just the one high school, for instance. Do you know any source that defines these terms ("all-district", "all-state", "all-area", etc.)? Johntex\^talk 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's given at the district level, which is a division with the conference. For instance, 25-AAAAA is a district consisting of schools from the Austin, Bastrop, San Marcos, and Seguin school districts. [1] All school distict or all-city awards might only be given out in larger cities where it makes sense, if given out at all. In Texas, all-district teams are selected by coaches in the district. All other teams are usually selected by a newspaper or media organization. I'm looking for good cites. *Mishatx*-In\Out 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See page 5, paragraph 13 of this document. *Mishatx*-In\Out 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also page 19, section 28. *Mishatx*-In\Out 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAA! 69.81.50.3 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for articulating that better than I could've! [2] — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated A&M Rank, check it out!

Made the picts myself - link:Texas A&M Corps of Cadets BQZip01 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article (the book of muscle)

Hi Johntex I noticed this article 2 (25th February) days ago without any deletion notice on its page. But it's been deleted within 2 days or may be less. How can it be possible? I searchED in WP:AFD Log/February 25,26 and 27 for its archieved debate discussion, but didn't find. Above article discussion page link shows the article had lack of book notability.An editor stated it. But it doesn't mean it will get deleted within 1 or 2 days without any discussion(At least 5 days for certain deletion template).His contribution history doesn't mention that he took this article for AFD(You can check its talk page history). As a reference, Ian King, this article also once deleted and riderected as Ian King (businessman) within 1 day or may be in some hours. I retrived it by notyfing the admin who deleted it. But Deleting article / image without any discussion stands against the policy. Can you please clarify and help me to find out its debate discussion.Thanks --NAHID 12:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this comment

Why do you purpose that this option should be added to the template? "Customizable" templates go against consistent and professional outlook; we shouldn't allow editors to put the colors per their own likings, as this might be harmful to the NPOV design of Wikipedia. Furthermore, colors generally don't add any encyclopedic value into articles, but Myspace characterization instead. You've also mentioned that they were other templates that enable this feature, can you please provide them? I'm due to submit a deletion review, and some opinions of keep !voters would be helpful. Thanks. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that any colors added by editors do have a POV because they choose it from what they believe to be corresponding to the the article's subject. The default color of the template is meant to be as neutral as possible in order to be acceptable by anyone at all articles. In case color does add classification, why shouldn't, say, water-related articles have all their templates colored with blue? Of course, it might add some additional clarification for viewers, but it will also prevent any consistency among articles. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not propose that editors choose their own colors. The colors should follow a classification scheme such as we already use for music albums. To your water example, it would not make sense to simply color all water-related articles blue. However, if we had a color coding system for chemical compounds, a scheme could be devised where all acids are blue, bases are red, organics are pale in color while inorganics are bright. Then an orgainic acid would be pale blue. Similarly, we could use color to organize species. Mammals could be one color, amphians another, etc. Again, we already do this for music albums. Johntex\^talk 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Date

But User:Uucp tagged this article on January 31 (From his talk page discussion). Then How can it comes up with the date 26 February, that he tagged again on 26 February.Is that a problem with deletion history? --NAHID 19:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. And also How can I see admin's deletion history? I noticed some admin mention their deletion/log history in their userpage and some doesn't.--NAHID 20:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My contrib history shows that deleted book link is still exist ([3] that I talked with him), but Uucp's cotrib history doesn't show he tagged on 31st January and again on 26th February([4] and [5]).Does it mean that after deletion process, its history autometically be removed from tagger history's page and exist in creator's page?--NAHID 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Why this still Exist The Book Of Muscle. I think the problem is about redirection article at severel times.

• The spelling is different. Article titles are case sensitive. The Book of Muscle, The Book Of Muscle, The book of muscle - these are all seperate articles. The way to fix this is to decide on the best title, write the article there, and then turn all the others into a redirect. Johntex\^talk 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

About University quality

Johntex, I left you a message in about University quality section at second paragraph (Where I mentioned a univ name International University of Business Agriculture and Technology). Can you please take a look on 2nd paragraph and give me feedback.thanks --NAHID 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like a great start overall. Here are some suggestions for improving the article:

Wikilink Banglahesh.

After giving the name in English, how about giving it in the Bengali language?

Dhaka is mentioned in the infobox but not in the text. The location should also be mentioned in the text. A map might be useful. You could use the map from Dhaka.

I don't understand the link to Assumption University, Thailand. It would be nice to explain why this university is tightly tied to a university in Thailand.

Photos would be great.

Most of the article is composed of list. It would be great to include more prose. I am not sure what to suggest in this regard since I am not familiar with the topic. More information on how the decision was taken to create the university perhaps? Does it have sports programs or student groups that could be discussed. Any famous faculty or students?

There is a WikiProject:Bangalesh. The members there may have other suggestions. Also, that WikiProject has a Talk page template. You can see an example at Talk:Independent University, Bangladesh. It might be good to add this to the article. It makes it easier for people to find articles of interest and also helps recruit people to help out.

It looks good, keep up the great work. Johntex\^talk 15:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My point was...

I wanted late you know the following matters about International University of Business Agriculture and Technology. You'll find some information in it's description page. Take a look on it and feedback pls :

It was one of the 11 universities that went operational without University Grants Commission (Bangladesh) (UGC) approval which was made a necessity under the Private University Act (1992) in Bangladesh. And, it was one of the 10 univerisities that the UGC issued a deadline of one year to improve qualities. It also introduced new academic courses without UGC approval along with a number of other private universities.

Here comes to the point.As this Univ's improved quality then these stuffs may not be added to the article.And the Footnotes are backdated. The university's already established linkages with foreign universities. You may check its website for further information (faculties, facilities etc.). Few years ago, UGC ordered to improve qualities of some private univs in Bangladesh. But now they are following UGC'S rules (like other univs) and operating as full-fledged university. --NAHID 15:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be better to keep the information. It is information supported by the footnote, so it is known to be true. It is recent history, so people are likely to be interested in it. I don't know that anyone would object if you take it out, but I think it is better for it to be included. If you lengthen the article more, then probably it should no longer be in the lead section, but further down the article in a "History" section I think. Johntex\^talk 05:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cotrib history

I think I left you this:
My contrib history shows that deleted book link is still exist ([6] that I talked with him), but Uucp's cotrib history doesn't show he tagged on 31st January and again on 26th February([7] and [8]).Does it mean that after deletion process, its history autometically be removed from tagger history's page and exist in creator's page? Can you clarify it to me --NAHID 15:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. After a deletion event, those edits dissapear from the contribution history of the person who made the edits. So, if I have contributed 10 edits each to 30 articles for a total of 300 edits, and someone deletes one of the articles, my edit count would fall to 270. If the article gets undeleted (not just recreated) then my edits would be reinstated. Johntex\^talk 05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Image

And:

WP:FUC says, we can't use fair use image in Userpage, Subpage and My Sandbox. Therefore this image is Image:The Book of Muscle.jpg fair use and we can't use it, right. I have this Book, so I'm thinking to take a picture of this cover page. Is it okay to upload this cover page under free license? (Since I'm the creator). And can I upload any advertisement image (That was taken by myself) in both wikipedia and wikimedia under free license. Is {{Redundant image}} used on both free licensed and fairuse licensed image? I would be happy if you answer my queries (including above matters) :) --NAHID 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we should not have fair use images in the userspace or talkspace. They are only allowed in the article space and even then only under strict rules. For your sandbox, it is best to just link to the image, as you have done here. There is a chance that someone may delete the image because fair use images not used in articles can be deleted. If that happens, you can re-upload the image once the article is creted again. It would not help for you to take your own photo of the book cover. Under US copyright law, a two-dimensional image of a two-dimensional image is still covered by the original copyright. Therefore, your photo would still not be free-use, it would still be covered by fair use. Johntex\^talk 05:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

Removed link from the sandbox. Can I use any image link or whole image (that's released under free license), interwiki links and article link in my My Sandbox sand box? You can check here.

• Image:Brahma beer advertisement.JPG, since you were the creator of this image, then why someone claimed that this poses copyright problem and should be deleted? Advertisement image is fair use, right. If I found that type of image in public place then can I upload that one too.Here my q. is, Why adverisement image in public place is free in wiki but not wikimedia?

The person who wanted that deleted was simply mistaken. They were trying to hard to find bad images to delete. It is not possible to say "advertisement image is fair use". It depends on the use. If it is to illustrate the subject of the advertisement (beer) then the answer is generallly yes. However, if the beer advertisement featured two women in bikinis it would be fair use for the brand of the beer, but not for our article on bikinis. Commons has different rules because some European countries do not have the same concept of fair use that we have in the United States. Wikipedia mainly goes by US law since our servers are in the US.

• Replace this image1.svg(Cindy Crawford)this image is quite interesting to me. How can I use this image to my sand box? Is there any other images are also available in this category (i.g. other object into the image than that person)? Why this image doesn't have any license?

That is a new, special feature. I am not familiar with how it works.

• Unencyclopedic self-created image

  I found lot of self-created image's going to the WP:IFD. If I upload my own image, then someday, will it be considered to be a unencyclopedic?? The term quite confusing to me --NAHID 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "unencyclopedic" is used to represent the opinion that something does not belong in an encyclopedia. For instance, we are not a free photo hosting service. If you take 100 photos of your friend's birthday party and upload them to Wikipedia, they would probably get deleted. They are not needed for any article, and they don't help build the encyclopedia. Sometimes we get rid of one image becuase we have found a better one and there is no reason to keep the original. There are many different reasons to delete images. For anything you put on Wikipedia: image or article, there is no guarantee that it will not be deleted.

• Can I use reduntant template both in free and fair user licensed image, if they have multiple copy?

I don't understand this question. Could you give more explanation please? Johntex\^talk 08:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Image2

• It is not possible to say "advertisement image is fair use". It depends on the use. If it is to illustrate the subject of the advertisement (beer) then the answer is generallly yes. However, if the beer advertisement featured two women in bikinis it would be fair use for the brand of the beer, but not for our article on bikinis. Bit unclear about these statements.

It means we can use that beer advertisement image (that featured two women in bikinis) in Bikini article??? why would featuring two women in bikinis be fair use for the brand of the beer?? Is that a main point for using this image? That image features a bottle and can it be used as fair use image in article named Bottle??

I think you may have misunderstood me. I said it would Not be fair use at bikini. As you say, the image of the Brahma (beer) advertisement is fair use at Brahma (beer) but it probably would not be fair use at bottle. We can create a free image of a bottle because there are bottles in the world that are not trademarked. However, no matter what we do, we cannot create a completely free image of a Brahma (beer) or a Coca cola can. The reason is because the product packaging itself carries trademarks. That does not mean we can't use any images of these subjects at all, but we have to use them appropriately. The Apple computer article can use the Apple computer logo even though it is trademarked.

• It depends on the use. If it is to illustrate the subject of the advertisement (beer) then the answer is generallly yes.

Does it mean it ilustrates Brand image and Brand image is not fair use. The image is used in Brahma (beer) andBrazilian beer. Can you pls explain a bit simple way?

• If I take a picture of company billboard, its Product and some books or magazines and more than multiple DVD covers in the shelf, then will it considered to be a fair use or not??? Please clarify it to me. I'm thinkig to upload this type of image in future and want ot reales it under free license. For example, Image:Zeitschriften.JPG. I found an image about multiple DVD in shelf, but forgot the image location.

Fair use is always a judgement call. The concept of "fair use" is that it is a valid legal defense against claims that we have taken work that belongs to somebody else. Ultimately, "fair use" is just an idea until someone hypothetically sues us for abusing their brand. At that point, we would argue in court that the "fair use" doctrine covered the images we used. It would be up to the court to decide. There is no way to know 100% ahead of time what the court would say. In some cases (like Apple Computer we can be very confident. With other images we can tell right away our argument would not hold up. For instance we could not use the Book of Muscle cover to illustrate weight-lifting. We have to go take our own picture for that. Other cases are harder to know ahead of time.

• What about this image Image:Pizzahutpanpizza.JPG. Is this advert image is fair use. If not then why??

An argument could be made to use that image, but the argument does not apply unless the image is actually used in an article. Again, there is no such thing as "this image is fair use". That does not exist. When we say such a thing, what we really mean is "We believe there is a fair use defense we can make for our use of X image in Y article because of the following argument...." That image is not used in an article, so it is not possible to fill in the blanks of the preceeding argument. IF that picture were to go into the Pizza Hut article and IF someone put a fair use rationale on the image page, THEN it would probably be usable.

• {{Redundant image}} we use this template for deleting image if the image has multiple copy. Then can I use this template for fair use image if that has more than one copy ? Thanks

I don't understand. Are you trying to delete an image that got uploaded twice? If so, then Yes you can use that template.

• Can I use any image link or whole image (that's released under free license), interwiki links, article link and writnig another article below the book of muscle (test article) in My Sandbox? You can check here.--NAHID 09:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Johntex\^talk 15:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Image used by permission and its license

Most of the time, when user's get permission from the author to use their image in wikipedia, they release it in {{cc-by-sa}}, {{GFDL-self}}. But they don't ususally use {{self2}} or anoher version of its copyleft. Why don't they use it? Is there any difference between these three licenses (or free licenses)? Can I use {{self2}}, when I get permission from the author to use their image in wikipedia and wikimedia (by mentioning permission link in image description page)? --NAHID 10:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You should never use the "self" template if you did not make the image. That is reserved for the person who originially created an image. It is plagarism to claim that you created something that was really created by someone else. For the difference between the free licenses you can read GFDL and Creative Commons. This is a complicated matter. When Wikipedia first started, it chose GFDL. Some people think GFDL is not a good license for images and that Creative Commons would be better. But Wikipedia already had lots of images under GFDL so it is hard to go back and change things. For this reason, a lot of contributors now "multi-license". This means they put both tags on the image and then the next person is free to use use whichever one they like better if they re-use the image.

P.S.Can I upload image under above license in wikimedia, if I get the permission from the author. Should I mention permission link in wikimedia too??--NAHID 10:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean on Wikipedia Commons then the answers are Yes and Yes. Johntex\^talk 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagging image

• One of my image is just tagged Image:Ianking.jpg. I've mentioned that it's didputed. Can you please give your opinion regarding on this image.

• 2 more images of mine Image:STU-siddeswari_.jpg and Image:STU-dhanmondi.jpg are also tagged. Here another image (Image:Bashundhara city.jpg that has same license but uploaded by someonelse. Do you think, is it also likely to be tagged? If not then why? (I don't want to get that image deleted, just want to be clear about the matter) What's the difference between these three images ( Image:STU-siddeswari_.jpg, Image:STU-siddeswari_.jpg and Image:Bashundhara city.jpg) regarding on tagging process? I'm hoping you'll answer me --NAHID 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The law is not the only things that matters. Wikipedia policy also matters. We would like to try to find free images where possible. That leads some people to conclude that we should not have any fair use images of living people because theoretically you could go to meet that person and take their picture and then we would have a totally free image. By that theory, the image of [:Image:Ianking.jpg]] is not usable based upon Wikipedia policy. This is controversial. Can we really get a free use picture of Osama bin Laden? Our rules on this have changed in the past an they will probably change again in the future. It is not possible to know for sure that any image will be kept for eternity.

Image:STU-siddeswari_.jpg and Image:STU-dhanmondi.jpg were not taken by you. You found them on a website. You are not the copyright holder. Only the person that holds the copyright may release the copyright. If that website says somewhere that they release the images under CC license, then you should point to the page where they say that. Currently, you do not provide any information to support that the image is under CC license. We can't make that decision for the copyright holder. That is not our right.

Image:Bashundhara city.jpg is very different. The person who uploaded it claims to know the person who took the picture and claims this can be verified by e-mail. That is a big difference compared to just finding an image on a website.

Johntex\^talk 15:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For you...

		The Original Barnstar
		I award this Barnstar (the first I ever awarded) to Johntex for his kindess and patience. You are really helpful person. :)--NAHID 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A Failure to Understand

Even though I am not supporting Pornopedia any further, I watch passively as the train wreck of the Ejaculation article continues (it's like reading the Enquirer). I am baffled though, just you as an administrator, do not step in to stop it or help those involved bring this to Arbitration. Every person that has brought up objections has been called a variant of a bible thumper by Atom, which is actually a violation of the whole WP:Civility. And, despite all Wikipedia policy on the matter, Atom is insistent that people should change for the image and not the other way around. Each substitute image gets thrown up on the page beside it, and now sock puppets are beginning to show up and proclaim innocence to knowing that their contributions had been altered by themselves? At what point does it stop being constructive and just become an absurd parade of people trying to do the right thing versus those who are pushing their own agenda? At what point can it be said that this is actually hurting Wikipedia rather than making it better? Looking at the User_Talk pages of many of the people with objections, Atom tries to push the parts of policy that are convenient to him on them in an attempt to shut them up. This is yet another form of abuse. And lastly, how many of these discussions involve Atom talking about his own size, his own ejaculations, how extraordinary they are and how it is all "normal".

Face it: Atom is a troll, not a contributor.

And he's being allowed to abuse other users while walking all over and reinterpreting Wikipedia policy as fits his want.

Trevor is most likely either a sock puppet or a friend of Atoms, and this too, I believe is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Should you or anyone else finally take actions against him, I will be there to support you. But I will not take any steps towards that end on my own. It is my ever so humble belief that Wikipedia deserves to suffer this kind of stupidity until it can have enough collective sense to fix itself. That does not start on the bottom with people like me. -- jsa 09:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Brahma_beer_advertisement.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brahma_beer_advertisement.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —xyzzy_n 10:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

2006 Longhorn Football page

Johntex,

There is some serious POV involved in the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Texas_Longhorn_football_team#Texas_A.26M

I think the pass interference call on Sweed was pretty well summed up by the ABC announcers "Oh you gotta call that..." While there was the possiblility of a a late hit by Heard, there certainly wasn't an "eviction"...maybe an "ejection," and it was nowhere near the sideline. I think the talk page expresses it pretty well, so please take a look and tell me what you think.

I would be happy to edit it myself, but I think I would be reverted ASAP. It is amazing that this is told exclusively from a one-sided argument and I think it reflects poorly on your institution. If you'll back me up on at least adding the other side to the argument, I'll take the time to add it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2007 March 3

Indefinite block of BabyDweezil

Hi John, as you've dealt with this user before, would you mind commenting on the indefinite block? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

The Commons Barnstar
Just because it was a good idea

--evrik ^(talk) 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In re legal threats

In re this revert, I respectfully disagree. WP:NLT doesn't require a legal threat to be "specific". The user is inviting an unnamed "someone" to take a legal action against Wikimedia. The user is not posting a reference to a law in furtherance of his or her position on the matter, but merely stating that if someone files a complaint with the FL atty general, Wikipedia will be screwed. This clearly falls outside the accepted form of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Most importantly, it functions to chill vigorous talk page debate on the subject by implying that a legal complaint could be filed if the image remains. As I noted at AN/I, I believe this isn't a call to imminent legal action (which isn't a criterion at WP:NLT, by the way), but is functionally a threat against Wikimedia. Anyway, perhaps more discussion at AN/I would be appropriate. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jersyko, thanks for your message. I was unaware of the ANI thread. I have replied there.[9] Thanks again for contacting me about the revert. Johntex\^talk 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Si cov 010606 300.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Si cov 010606 300.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SI cover November 1998 Ricky Williams.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SI cover November 1998 Ricky Williams.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. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anti-IE.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anti-IE.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —xyzzy_n 16:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this can be deleted. I am deleting it now. Johntex\^talk 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please remove Image:Brahma beer advertisement.JPG and Image:Renert the Fox stamp 1972.jpg (both fair use images) from User:Johntex/Gallery01. —xyzzy_n 17:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Johntex\^talk 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Allerca

Johntex

We are new to Wikipdeai and looking to try and correct our entry or at least provide a rebuttal to the information posted, i.e. ALLERCA. I noted you had edited the page and ask for your advice as a Wikipedia expert on whetehr the comments we just posted have been placed in the appropriate place, and whether additional information needs to be provided.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allerca (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2007 March 8

Thank you for your note. I will take a look when I have a little more time. As a general rule, we discourage people from writing about themselves and their company. This is discussed in Wikipedia:Autobiography. The reason for this is that it is hard to be objective about yourself or your own company. We do make an exception for small matters of tidying up - for instance, if a person wants to correct their biography from saying they have 2 children to saying they have three. We also don't expect people to sit by and let vandalism sit in their article, either.

I appreciate the fact that you notified someone about the changes you have made.

By the way, please sign your posts to talk pages such as this one with 4 tildes, like ~~~~. Best, Johntex\^talk 00:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Texas A&M

John, a user created a redirect for all of the Texas A&M colleges as well as The Battalion. He actually did it without making any mention of it on the talk pages. I would like your thoughts on this matter. Thanks! Blueag9|^Talk| 06:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I left a message for the user asking them to discuss on the Talk pages before going on such a unilateral deletion/merging binge. I have attempted to restore all the pages. If I missed any, please either fix them or let me know if you need help. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot JohnTex. As an admin for wikipedia, maybe you can explain why we don't restrict editing to members only. It seems like it would cut down on vandalism and increase membership. Your thoughts? BQZip01 16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Johntex for all your hard work to restore all those A&M articles. The unilateral deletetion on a such a grand scale without prior discussion was unwarrented and I appriciate the action you took to correct those articles. -- Hut101 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think?

This user believes free images should be moved to the Commons.

Just curious. --evrik ^(talk) 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• What about a template? Where should we put it? Should we link the box to a category? --evrik ^(talk) 17:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Should we build a user box template ... and if so, where should it go? --evrik ^(talk) 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• With the whole userbox migration, I'm not sure where to put the temnplate. --evrik ^(talk) 16:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Pornography

Hi –

I'm contacting you because you're listed as an active member of WikiProject Porn stars. I'm interested in creating a WikiProject Pornography and have started a poll to see whether WikiProject Porn stars should be merged into that project or remain separate. I'm fine with either. Please weigh in at: Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Porn stars: Proposal: WikiProject Pornography

Thanks – Iamcuriousblue 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

HangOutWith.com

The purpose of adding Hangoutwith.com is to introduce a new social networking site. HangOutWith.com is a new site and is gaining traction among Indian community. Alexa ranking jumped from 4,192,740 to 679,506 in the past week (Source: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=hangoutwith.com&url=hangoutwith.com). It is growing fast and will be a good site to be added to the list of social networking sites. This is a niche social networking site and is growing popular among Asian Indians in US and in India. Hangout 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not pass WP:WEB for notability, and that's why you have been informed on your talk page that the article was speedy deleted. And sites cannot be added to List of social networking websites unless they have a Wikipedia article. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

This may be of interest to you. Kind regards, Orsini 09:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration re: Abu badali

Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi, can you please tell me why you have added a blocked tag? I have done nothing wrong. Mr.bonus 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I put that template on your user page on 5 March 2007 when I blocked you for 24 hours for civility - I think you just did not notice the template on your User page until now. I know you saw the comment on your talk page because you specifically erased it.[10] I blocked you for calling another editor a "moron".[11] Your edit before that one, where you called Wikipedia a "pile of shit and a joke between [Universities]" was not helpful either.[12] Please stay away from the profanity and definitely refrain from personal attacks such as name-calling. Thanks. Johntex\^talk 15:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out why you did it. More than one user uses this account and I didn't know what edits they may have done. That's why I was confused about the message on my user page. Thanks. Mr.bonus 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for your work:

Wow! Quick work on creating Interdental plate per my request on the rewards board. A barnstar for you -- Spawn Man 06:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I always make good on my promises & as per the reward board bounty, you have been rewarded a barnstar. Great work & fast too. The article looks great & should be a great help to me. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. The request on the rewards board has been archived, but your name as the rewardee is on it. JSYK. :)

The funny thing is, is that you explained the way the interdental plate relates to paleobiology uncannily well. I'm in the paleobiology crowd, so I've added the stuff about that aspect. Probably not as well as other's would have, but it's a start. Thanks again. :) Spawn Man 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Book

Proded (The Book Of Muscle) :)--NAHID 13:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vince Young, mack brown

Remember th 3RR rule on these, and if ou want a fan pe, get another website, the Wikis should be facts not your orangeblood pride —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.10.172.159 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

You don't seem to understand. You can't add erroneous statements into articles and expect that they won't get reverted. You are just trying to push your own POV. Removing blatant POV is not counted in WP:3RR. I suggest you go join a Sooners fan-blog or a Trojan fan-blog if what you want to do is push your point of view that those teams are somehow better than UT. Johntex\^talk 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards and service badges

The awards section of your user page will look more organized like this. Feel free to paste that code into your user page. You should also create an awards subpage, maybe something like User:Johntex/Awards01? --Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 00:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Commons Ambassador Barnstar Redux

		The Commons Ambassador Barnstar, Redux
		I know you already got one, but I wanted to acknowledge all the work you've done uploading free images and integrating them into the project, especially public domain United States government-produced works. Thank you. Yours, Smee 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to add to your user page and/or leave on your talk page as you see fit. (Except of course this last message itself, hehe.) Smee 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar. I looked at your table and agree it's sad (just kidding, nice to see all those GAs on there though). But I do have a few ideas to spruce it up, but I can't work on it for a few hours yet. I'll definitely do something tonight, unless I forget, which is about 50/50, and if I do forget, you have the right to take back the barnstar. Thanks again. --MECU≈talk 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't tip my hat now, but to try and avoid even more of your frustration, I'll tell you I'm working (albeit passively) on a stats template for any/all positions. User:Mecu/FBStats Start, but it's a good bit from done I think. But shhh! This will be our little secret. --MECU≈talk 18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It would figure I make a claim like that and my internet go out at home all night. Argh. Anyways, do you really want/need the table to be sortable? I'll make a few other changes here shortly. --MECU≈talk 12:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I added back sortable, but it won't sort on the columns that use the check mark image, which, sucks. Sortable tables are fun, but the sorting function is too in its infancy to really be useable except in basic cases, I think. But, that's about the extent that I can do for your table. You can replace the images back to "yes" if you want the sortable on those columns, but I think a static table is just fine for those purpose. You could try asking for help from the VP (technical), but I dunno if anyone will be able to solve it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --MECU≈talk 15:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA/Ben

Hi John. Do you really believe adminship to be a responsibility that we need to be certain people would be able to deal with? I guess I've never thought of it as such ... it's just a few handy extra buttons to me, which is why I thought Ben would make a good candidate. Altjhough, that's an aside ... I just wanted to make it known that that your reasons to oppose the candidacy ("we don't know if he'll be able to cope") doesn;'t seem like me to be really a reason to oppose, as he's done nothing wrong, it's effectively reasons not to support. Would you consider, possibly, reconsidering (to neutral?)?

And I'm sure he'll enable his email (if I had realised, I would have asked him to do so before making the nomination). Neil (not Proto ►) 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Neil, thanks for your message. At this time I see no reason for me to change my statement/vote. I think that it is all too human for someone to start out well and then hit a rough spot. We need to see how Ben does when he hits a rough spot. "So-far-so-good" only works if "so-far" is a pretty good length of time. Why not give people adminship after just one week? For that matter, why not just give everyone the admin tools when they join? After all, a new user has not done anything to lose our trust.

Any criteria for adminship are subjective. Personally, I think one-year is a good period of time to truly understand the community and to have encountered enough bumbs in the road for us to see how the candidate will behave on a bad day. I don't hold to one-year as any sort of absolute. I will support giving someone adminship if I see massive evidence of their good works earlier: say 9 months or maybe 6 months. 3 months is just stretching it too far for me.

Besides, you certainly knew that the nomination would be controversial, you even mentioned it in your nom. You must have expected or at least suspected that there would be some opposition. Johntex\^talk 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I did, but I expected it from people who were new! :) I appreciate your viewpoint, I just wanted to understand your position a little better. Neil (not Proto ►) 23:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a strange suspicion you are trying to compare me to a Noob but I'll let it slide. If anything, I would expect those of us who have been here the longest would be the most likely to object. We have been here long enough to see the horrible abuses that certain admins have committed, and we know that it is next to impossible to get rid of a even a horrible admin. Johntex\^talk 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

shrubbery

Hi Johntex. I made a procedural nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Shrubbery; I think it needs discussion instead of speedy. — coelacan — 09:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for being the ray of light in my cloudy day. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 18:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It was your patching-of-the-differences comment on my talk page that made my day better. (That, and being dismissed from school an hour and a half earlier due to inclement weather.) Can you tell me how anyone finds voting on strangers on RFA bearable? ;) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay Controversy

I am attempting to organize and expand the article but I am met with great resistance. This is becoming a controversy within a controvsery. I suggest a large group of administrators get involved and help to resolve the issues. The pictures should stay. They should be in the gallery section. I added references that support my additions and still they were reverted. Sentences are being written over which altered the facts. We can't rewrite history. The article should have the categories for notable Wikipedians. Common sense and neutrality should be firmly enforced. A bit of law and order is needed, This is getting a bit out of hand. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I added information to the article and it has been reverted. I discussed it on the talk and now on being told I have to persuade others to add info to the article. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am essentially blocked from editing the article. I made a simple edit and I was reverted. The wikinews boxes looks like they have been oddly modified without dicussion. I fixed the boxes. I restored removal of info in the see also section by an editor who did not discuss it. I restored the removal of the Essjay letter information. It was never discussed the removal of this information. I even fixed a link and that too was reverted. I added a link and that was reverted. I expanded the article. Expanding the Essjay article is now against their consensus and is forbidden. Consensus was NEVER reached to remove the photo in the first place. There is no such thing as BLP concerns when the media is using it. It is time to contact the big boss upstairs. This is becoming funny. Wikipedia deserves better. The completeness, accuracy, and neutrality of articles on Wiki is in line with the mission of the founding fathers. Godspeed and hooray to Wikipedia. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 08:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Education in Bangladesh, please, help

I have started working on the article Education in Bangladesh. It was in an extremely bad shape. The last few edits were turning it into a motley hotchpotch of text, link and image for private university/English medium agenda-pushers. Even without that the article had little content. I have began by putting in an enormous amount of fresh text, and even more massive amount of resource links (Banglapedia, government sites and downloadable pdf links). Now the real work should begin. Would you lend a hand in this? I can't do it alone. Do you have anyone else in mind who might help? That person doesn't need to be Bangladeshi. Aditya Kabir 18:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page

• Ooops.--NAHID 08:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message. I have a lot on my Wikipedia-to-do list at them moment, but I did take a quick look at the article. It is certainly a helpful article already, even though of course there is work to be done. I made a few small changes to the article. I also imbedded a couple of questions/comments into the first part of the article using hidden text that you can see if you go into edit mode. I will try to help a bit more as I have time. Best, Johntex\^talk 06:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet again... Vince Young

I know that you have personally reverted edits by 67.10.172.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I have recommended that he be blocked at WP:AIV, but I thought it would be good if you looked at it because you have dealted with him before. Thanks, --Wikihermit 20:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Just replied to your comment on my RFA, as far as I was aware my email had been activated for ages, but after you mentioned it I checked and it had been deactivated somehow! But I had set it to receive emails ever since User:Ginkgo100 suggested I do so, and have received emails from both Patchbook and Tony and Kintesbuffalo many times. I hope this helps answer your concerns! SGGH 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

Essjay
The image some people don't want you to see!

diverse subjects

please see my talk page for further comments pursuant to our exchanges. regards, Ohconfucius 10:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration

I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Vince Young

Hey,

I deleted some stuff about Vince Young that was not true and mean spirited. I didn't mean to delete the links...sorry. Thanks Choke976— Preceding unsigned comment added by Choke976 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2007 March 22

Category Handbook of Texas citations deletion

Hello Johntex, I noticed that this category was deleted today. We're you aware of this? I know that you are heavy into the Texas Wikiproject and might have objected. I think the deletion should be reviewed. Do you think the category was inappropriate? Postoak 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting another person's personal information

Hi, Johntex. Plase, reconsider this. Posting another person's personal information may be considered harassment. Please, take this as a good faith warning. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take your message as harrassment. That photo was released to Wikipedia under the GFDL and we have the right to post it where we like. Johntex\^talk 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith on me. I don't really have an opinion on either or not that image should be posted. The confrontative tone you address fellow wikipedians in the image caption is what doesn't seem in line with the project culture. But I just intended to warn you about a harm you could be doing to yourself. I understand you're free to ignore the warning, but there's no need to take it as harassment. Stay cool. All the best, --Abu badali ^(talk) 10:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for supporting my RFA, Johntex. It ended successfuly :D Cheers SGGH 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

Nice

Dayummmm nigga you so PIMP... do u go to UT??? I wish I knew you. MongooseTwelve 06:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Wayne Shepherd

Thanks for working on the article on Timothy Wayne Shepherd and its link to the Quanell X article. Deatonjr 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sports_Illustrated_cover_02_10_07.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sports_Illustrated_cover_02_10_07.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. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Atomaton

Thank you so much for unblocking Atomaton, I'm sure he will be encouraged as a result not to drive-by revert to his preferred version of contentious articles. Oh, that was a bit sarcastic, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 08:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Shahbag/archive2

I have just put the article to peer review. Would you care to take a look? Aditya Kabir 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Godzillatron Pic

Hornfans links are pointless because the threads "expire" in 2 weeks, so stuff gets deleted quick. I messaged the poster to upload it here, but he was too lazy to make an account and instead gave me permission to do so. "I dont have a wiki account. The link is from my photobucket... feel free to update the pic yourself. "

I replaced the older pic(s) because

• It shows the split version of the screen, which was scrapped after the first home game.
• It doesnt show the board in HD, which was scrapped after the Ohio State game (2nd home game).

Hence, in my opinion the older pic is very out of date.

And I thought I had fixed the appropriate captions, but I didnt. Sorry about that Corpx 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thanks, i guess. I really want to make some consructive edits but I never revert vandalism fast enough, and all the things i know have already been put in the articles...editing is harder than it looks, also on another note,please try to relax, acting like a Bot will drive you crazy, All due respect --ÄtΘmicR€£igione^sїgñ

Editor review

You should know that I never edited Jimbo's page. Others did, and I support that, but I never did. Thank you for the review, however. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, no offence taken. Thanks very much for the review -- I corrected you on my review page. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close contested

See reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Speedy_close. Sorry it took so long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My RFA nomination

Thank you for nominating me. I have accepted your nomination and added it to the main RfA page.↔NMajdan•talk 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Spring Game

I was there, but I was "working" as an usher, so couldnt take pics. Corpx 04:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hello

The article looks great so far. I will try to help with it more once the season starts. By the way, it was smart of you to use a wikitable for the schedules instead of the CFB template. That template is a bit complicated and takes up more coding space.
Also, I would like to be an administrator someday. I'd like to be a top-notch candidate, so do you have any suggestions? Obviously, one of them would be to focus more on articles not related to A&M.--Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 05:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Straw polls

Johntex, given your commentary on Wikipedia talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion I thought you might like to join me in updating Wikipedia:Straw polls to be descriptive of current Wikipedia practices towards having an effective poll guideline. I've initiated talk about this. I encourage you to join in the re-development of this much needed guideline. Thanks. (→Netscott) 13:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to help. I have a lot going on at the moment but I will do what I can. Thanks for the message. Johntex\^talk 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Annoying spaces

My bad. I misinterpreted what you put there. Really big mistake on my part. Yeah, it should go in there. BQZip01 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rape statistics

I've put a note on the article's talk page about "Individual rape cases". --VSerrata 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Images on my page

You have a point. I removed the images. I wish we could get images to link to something other than the image page. If we could get them to link to another site, then I think I might be able to justify it. Any other comments on Zero U? BQZip01 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OUCH! Sand Aggies...wow. Hadn't heard that one. Zero-U was one someone came up with on Texags.com. I know you might not really think much of Aggie stuff, but there is some interesting reading on that site. Secretary Gates used to read and post there under the name Ranger69. The whole NCAA scandal with Bomar at Zero-U was first broken there about four months before it hit the AP. With a rumor of our Basketball Coach being bought out by another school, this board managed to get almost a thousand people to show up at his office to show our support. (I've checked these out and they are legit claims). Point being, if you want to get a feel about how the Aggies see a certain POV, Texags.com is a great way to see how they really feel. (You should see the football board during the football season.) BQZip01 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

all matter is made up of elements

Thank you for explaining how everything is made of elements. It really opened my mind to learn something new about such a fundamental part of, well, everything. It was rather big-headed of me to assume a conclusion about something I didn't fully understand. Thanks for putting me right! Think outside the box 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message. You are very welcome. I am glad you took it the right way and didn't get upset at being corrected. It is kind of a confusing area, actually. As someone pointed out, certain terms as used by lay-people do not have exact definitions in science. What is a "rock", scientifically speaking? Or a "mineral"? And that's even ignoring the really complicated stuff like anti-matter and elemental particals like quarks, etc.

I remember distinctly something that happened to me once in school. I had been on a family trip where we saw a barn that had a "tin roof" and a different barn that someone said had a "metal roof". In school, I kept insisting that metal must be *an* element if tin is an element. It took me a while to figure out that the person who described the "metal roof" was just being less precise than the person that was talking about the "tin roof".

I find that when terms overlap, confusion often results. Thanks for helping out at the reference desk and keep up your thirst for learning! Best, Johntex\^talk 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia was a mistake

I came here to make simple improvements, but you have made this impossible for me. I am not interested in all the stress and nonsense of mediation to prevent your damage to the project. Wikipedia is obviously disfunctional, so I am no longer interested. The bad things I have heard about it are true. Dominictimms 09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I believe I have politely explained to you why you were misguided in what you were doing. Good luck in your future endeavors. Johntex\^talk 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass reversion

Johntex - It appears you've gone through my list of contributions, which I worked hard on, and reverted a large number of them. This behavior is clearly inappropriate. I can see no reason besides retribution for our disagreement on the Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal page. If you have a legitimate problem, the appropriate way to resolve it would be to leave a message on my talk page. If you will undo your reversions as an act of good faith, I will be happy to discuss any reasonable objections you have. I'm always glad to find ways to improve my work, and Wikipedia. Guanxi 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Guanxi, thanks for your message. As you know, you don't own the articles and changes to them do not need to be approved through you in advance. I believe every change I have made has been to the benefit of the article in question. If you will post specific diffs, I will be happy to discuss them. Best, Johntex\^talk 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. Those aren't the issues I brought up. I'd like to find a middle ground. From my point of view, compromise involves giving up something you want and consensus involves good faith (as in AGF). How the heck can I compromise with someone who ignores my concerns, acts unilaterally and won't give an inch? And how can I have good faith in someone who seeks out my edits across multiple pages and reverts them? And without compromise and consensus, what's left? Capitulation? Edit wars? This bickering wastes our time and doesn't help Wikipedia. If you'll show some good will, as I said in my original post, I will have nothing but good will for you (I don't think you'll find any post or action of mine has been otherwise, and I apologize if it was). Let's wipe the slate clean and start over? I'm interested in learning more about Wikipedia, and you seem to know a bit ... Guanxi 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it is exactly what you brought up. You stated on my Talk page "If you have a legitimate problem, the appropriate way to resolve it would be to leave a message on my talk page." That sounds to me like you expect people to approve changes through you on your talk page. When you took out material, did you first contact the person who originally placed that informaiton to say, "I see you added some info. I'd like to take it out. Let's talk about it and see if we can reach a compromise." I don't think you did. Therefore, I think it is unfair of you to post on my talk page saying If you didn't do that with the person whose writing you deleted, isn't it hypocritical to expect that from others?

You also stated "If you will undo your reversions as an act of good faith, I will be happy to discuss any reasonable objections you have." That unfairly puts the burden on my to justify my edits, vs you justifying yours. It also seems to assume a prior that some of my objections are not reasonable. I think I already justified every edit I made with an informative edit summary, which is something that I see you don't use very often.

Sometimes compromise is good, sometimes it isn't. I will take an extreme example. If person A wants to put in 10 false statements and person B wants to put in zero false statements, compromising at 5 is not necesarily a good idea. Real world examples are usually less clear-cut. That is why I will be happy to discuss specific edits with you if you provide diffs. However, I won't agree ahead of time that a compromise is the goal. You may be able to convince me 100% to your position, or vice versa, or maybe we will both be convinced of our own positions. As I said, provide the diffs of the edits you want to discuss and we can discuss them.

You act like I simply went through and reverted all your changes. That is not the case. I went through the page history and considered several contributions by you and other editors. I left several changes that seemed to me to be good or neutral, including some of yours. I took out some that seemed like bad changes. I have already gone part way towards leaving your edits because those edits seemed OK.

Again, please provide diffs to whatever you want to talk about. That would be more helpful than generalities about "good will" and the like, I think.

If you are not sure how to take a diff, please see Help:Diff. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that you are unwilling to address my concerns seriously (other than continuing to twist and misstate the issues) or give any ground. It's unfortunate that these issues have to waste so much time. Guanxi 13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you feel that way. You are very much mistaken. I have not twisted your words at all. To the contrary I have quoted exactly what you said and given you my honest impression of your words and your actions. I have also told you several times I am willing to discuss specific edits with you if you will provide diffs instead of platitudes. I even showed you how to do this in case you didn't know. You are apparently refusing to do so. Therefore, I feel it is you who are wasting time here. Johntex\^talk 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi. In this edit to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 8/Template:Linkimage, you wrote "I would like to ask JeffG for an explanation of how he chose whom to invite." I am replying here because the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 8/Template:Linkimage is now closed. I think I chose to invite Atom by adding to that user's user talk page because of that user's contributions to Template_talk:Linkimage, and I chose to invite many other users by adding to their user talk pages for the same reason (and for contributing to Template:Linkimage) - sorry, I don't remember exactly. I also chose to invite watchers of multiple relevant article talk pages (for articles which used Template:Linkimage at the time) by adding to those article talk pages. I did this all over a two-hour period from 22:10 on 8 March 2007 to 00:08 on 9 March 2007 (UTC), mostly in the first 1.5 hours. All of these invitations were in direct compliance with "Please consider adding {{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} — ~~~~ on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion" in the "Give due notice" instructional subsection of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to use this page. I am sorry if I chose too broad an interpretation of "relevant".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, thanks very much for your reply. The reason I asked that question is that it seemed to me (I may have been mistaken) that you posted on several relevant Article Talk pages (a good thing) but also posted at a very small number of individual User Talk pages. The later concerned me somewhat because I could not figure out how you selected those people and so I was trying to figure out if the pool of people notified were representative of different sides of the issue.

I don't at all mind broad notification so long as it fairly reaches people on different sides of the question at hand.

I am content with your explanation and I thank you again for you taking time to reply. Best, Johntex\^talk 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Query

I'm perhaps over-sensitive on this point, but Everyking began his statement by calling me "dishonest and hypocritical." This dates back to some unpleasantness between the two of us some two years ago. I don't believe I've interacted with you before. Do you agree with that part of his statement as well? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your question. No, not that was not my intent. As an uninvolved third party, it looks like you did something wrong in that situation, but you have apologized for it and I mean do not mean to be citing that as a reason for opposition. I will clairfy my comment on the RfB. Thanks very much, Johntex\^talk 23:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, I just wandered by and I realized a contradicted myself above. I have fixed it. Sorry about my inept use of English. Johntex\^talk 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Carbon nanotube GA review

Hi Johntex, you reviewed the Carbon Nanotube article back in January, and found some problems. I think I've fixed most of them. Would you like to take a look at it again?? Snailwalker | talk 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor typo

I know I'm probably nitpicking, but at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Death_of_Gas_Guzzling_SUV.27s, you accidently said a family uses "$800 gallons of gasoline" when I think you meant to omit the dollar sign, Just for the benefit of all reading, it would be clearer if you omitted it. I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way. Happy editing :). --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 01:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please talk to Jfwamaugh again

[13] - He's continuing to accuse me of working for someone in editing the article and questioning the veracity of my editing here. I consider these personal attacks. If you don't mind talking to him again, that is. Either way, thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping you would bring some of this stuff up on our respective user talk pages rather than the talk page to the article. The talk page for the article is already pretty clogged up with unrelated back and forths, and more dirty laundry doesn't really help, I feel. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The user who's comments you put back has a history of assuming bad faith and personal attacks, see his talk page. "but it was because he might have omitted some salient fact like this in allegedly writing from scratch..." Everything in that section screams bad faith, unfounded assumption of corrupt activity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that you were right to remove his first comment. It was over-the-top and needed to be removed. However, once he changed it, it seems OK to me. Johntex\^talk 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good grief... Please have a word with Jfwamaugh... The whole commenting on the author thing is beginning to get out of hand... Indeed, the talk page is turning into a forum for just straight up trolling. I am trying to discuss article content there, but those two users have other intentions. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sorry to keep bugging you about this stuff - usually I am in your position, warning and blocking and whatnot... I've never quite been in this heated a conflict, ever, so your help is appreciated. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Bugging you again. (If you would like me to find another uninvolved admin, let me know). Andyvphil, who has a history of personal attacks and trolling, is at it again on the talk page. While the ingenuity with which the user is continuing to attack the author rather than (or while still) discussing the issue is somewhat entertaining, it is annoying, innapropriate and against policy. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Johntex!

Wow, thanks for The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar and for your praise Johntex! I hope the proposal turns out to be useful. S.dedalus 04:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game

I've nominated 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Sorry, I don't mean to knock your hard work, really. And I have seen you around and know you are a good editor, nothing personal here, so please, please don't take it that way. I just don't believe this topic is inherently notable. IvoShandor 10:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Life

		The Barnstar of Life
		For hard work on Longhorns football related articles. IvoShandor 14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I certainly understand your position, and, yes I am just doing what I feel is best, and I am not wedded to my position or nomination. My statement at GAC wasn't meant to imply that games shouldn't be broken into their own article, I just wanted to leave a quick tip, I should have elaborated. I have two ideas. One would be to encompass the season in a series of articles, games one thru whatever, etc. The other idea is to just condense down what you have in the original article on the team, not every detail need be included. Surely you could include a comprehensive external link that could provide the more nuanced game summary detail. These are just a couple ideas that I batted around in my head while thinking this over. IvoShandor 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You could probably making a solid case for the season broken down by series' of games b/c it was a National title year, IMO, but the thing about the single game article is it sets precedent to include articles about all sorts of single games, that's generally not good, also my opinion. IvoShandor 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I just don't see anything particularly notable about this individual game, that's not to say my mind can't be changed at AfD. IvoShandor 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of Schedule, roster, and season. I figured that would be hashed out in the review. I should have elaborated instead of trying to leave a quick comment with a snippet of time. IvoShandor 18:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another photo

I have no idea if this is helpful at all or has been brought up yet, but I don't really want to read all the previous discussions about including Mangum's photo (and don't really want to get involved), so I thought I'd just provide you with the information so you can do with it what you wish. I don't know if people have attacked the reliability of the photo released by KC Johnson because it's a blog, but The News & Observer has just released the same photo [14] (albeit at a far worse resolution). They also released a photo of her during the lineup. The caption of the photo, however, only says "Mangum has avoided reporters" and gives no sense as to the date or source. The same article also gives more details about her life including alcohol abuse, etc. I'm leaving this same message on Duke53's page. -Bluedog423^Talk 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request

Hi John, I would like to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia to enforce a wikibreak. Finals are approaching soon and I have to start studying now. Blocking my account will eliminate my urge to log on to Wikipedia. I tried using the wikibreak enforcer, but I found it to be inefficient. I plan on coming back May 9th, the day finals are over, so please block my account until then. Appreciate it! BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)