User talk:Johntex/Talk10

Unfortunately, I am afraid so. I think Colt McCoy lacks the versatility of Jevan Snead, who is similar to Ben Roethlisberger in his playing style. Mack Brown has not shown that he learned anything from the Major Applewhite/Chris Simms fiasco of a few years ago, and I think that will cripple the team early on. Once we get past the Ohio State Buckeyes, I think the season will be mostly smooth sailing, with possible challenges against OU and Nebraska. The 2006 Texas defense will be stronger than this past year's championship squad, and several key offensive starters (such as Jamaal Charles and Jermichael Finley) will really take the pressure off the quarterback dilemma.J. Charles Taylor 04:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia apparently says yes, citing two independent sources. ;) --Grouse 07:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johntex,

since you've been Rgulerdems mentor, you might be interested in

]

On Talk:Oral sex, I posed the question, "Does the statement 'cunnilingus may be a way for women to achieve orgasm with a partner' really require a citation?" Since you've reverted another editor's removal of these "citation needed" tags, I'm wondering if you'd like to explain (here or on Talk:Oral sex) why you see the need for them. Catamorphism 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catamorphism. Thanks for your question. I replied at Talk:Oral sex. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God, there's no hope for me now. I'm actually just be-bopping aroung 'pedia trying to relax and go to sleep and I found something that raised a question for me.

On

]

Hi Geneb, thanks for your question on my talk page. I hope your cruizin of the pedia was able to put you to sleep - if not then I guess you'll see this very soon. Thanks for your question about

GFDL, we do use content under the fair use

principle as well. This gives us the right to use copyrighted material, under limitations. One of the main limitiations is that we must be using the content to illustrate an article. Another criteria relates to how much of the material we use.

Therefore, it was inappropriate for the copyrighted material to be on a user page, but it is OK for a limited amount of copyrighted material to be in an article, so long as it is relevant to illustrating the article, no free content is available under GFDL, etc.

You can find more about this at Wikipedia:Copyrights and that page has links to more pages that go into even more detail. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Johntex\^talk 13:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I appreciate the clarification on the subject. Man, there are soooo many pages to read just to be familiar with how Wikipedia operates, let alone when I get caught up reading up on a subject, much less writing! Regards, --

]

Sad day for Wikipedia

I imagine you've heard Katefan0 has left the 'pedia. One of the reasons I've enjoyed this project so much is because of her and all the other great Longhorns here. We've got a strong community and it'll be lessened without her. jareha ^(comments) 03:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did you read your e-mail? Johntex\^talk 08:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've wanted to become an administrator, but after seeing the outcome with Kate — and other good (as far as I know) administrators — I'm definitely concerned about personal attacks. (Especially as I've made my identity readily accessible.)

That said, I don't intend to be intimidated by the actions of a few and will continue on with the good intentions I've always had in this "grand social experiment" of ours.

I'll check my email now. jareha ^(comments) 08:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'm going to take a short break - back in a few. Thanks for the nice copyedits as always! Johntex\^talk 08:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you sent the email through the email user form? If so, it didn't make it to me. (I just double-checked the email address I have set in preferences and it's correct.) jareha ^(comments) 09:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer - it was kind of long - wonder what happened. Oh well - I will try again from my mail account. Johntex\^talk 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to have your e-mail address in my mail client. I just sent you another message through Wikipedia. Can you try e-mailing me so I can reply? Johntex\^talk 09:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were listed as a Participant in the

]

College football on television

Could you write a brief intro to college football on television? I promise to copyedit your addition the moment you're done. :) jareha ^(comments) 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK will do. I will probably be able to do that on Wed night. Johntex\^talk 21:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove this information? I replaced it. If you want to remove it - please justify why it should be removed on the Article talk page. Johntex\^talk 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because there is no AP national championship. There is an AP poll, in which they were ranked #1, but no championship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.67.109.85 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2006 June 14

Thanks for your reply. I think that is splitting hairs. The NCAA does not recognize a Division I-A football championship at all, officially. However, they list the winner of the AP poll on the their website alongside the BCS winners. Johntex\^talk 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made an attempt to reword the statement.[1] I am not opposed to your new wording, however, it is inconsistent with the wording on the page with regards to other championships. For example, immediately above the USC entry, there are two other teams listed as being the AP national championship. There are also teams listed as the UPI championship. I think leaving them all called championships is cleanest - but if you want to change them it seems they should all be changed. What do you think? Johntex\^talk 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. It certainly flows better. I won't object if you change it back. I may do a little research to see how other universities make similar claims. That particular year weighs heavily on me because I'm, admittedly, an LSU fan and I got tired of all the claims of a split national championship because there's no such thing. Even though the NCAA does not recognize a champion, USC signed up to play by the same rules as other schools so that a champion could be crowned, and they were not it that year. I digress, though, and I'll agree to your wording until I do a little more research. Thanks for the civilized discussion. Browsing the history of this particular article, it seems this is a rare occurrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.67.109.85 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2006 June 14

Thanks - I know what you mean. I am no huge fan of the BCS. Don't get me wrong, it was better than the old system where the top two teams only met rarely and then by random chance alone. However, it is so inferior to a true play-off system. Even if the play-off system only includes 4 or 8 teams, you would have a much greater chance that the "true" top 2 teams would be in the mix. We could still have all the other bowls played before hand and they would be no more nor less meaningful than they are today. I agree with your point that USC signed up to play under the BCS rules and I have made that point myself on many occassions. On the other hand, the AP notably did not agree to play by those rules, and I think the AP would still consider their poll to be a championship. I will continue to consider all these championships to be somewhat "mythical" until there is a play-off. The only exception would be in the rare years that the system gets lucky and there are exactly 2 unbeaten teams. I do consider the

2005 Texas Longhorn football team to be the legitimate champions, and I think that is a NPOV statement even considering my affiliations. Johntex\^talk 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, if you want to do so, you can type ~~~~ at the end of your talk page messages and your Username (or IP if you have no user name) and date/time stamp will automatically be included. It is not a policy but it is general practice. It makes it easier to follow discussions. Getting a username also helps. Although Wikipedia is officially just as open to IP address users as to users with usernames - human nature is to place more trust in someone who has a nickname that is easier to remember. It also ensures all edits are known to be yours, even if you switch computers or IP addresses. Otherwise, editors can never be sure if it is the same person, or a new person who just happened to be randomly assigned the same IP address. I look forward to working with you on more articles! Johntex\^talk 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex, you are the only user I know is an admin, and I would guess that means you understand the policies better than most users. The article

]

Hello False Prophet - thanks for putting your trust in me! I read the rule you mentioned and I also read the comments of the others at the GA review. Here are my thoughts:

1. Firstly, a disclaimer: while I am in fact an admin, though I don't spend too much time on GA to know those particular policies and customs in intimate detail. We have too many policies and little niches for anyone to know all the customs, I think.
2. I am very certain you did what you think is best, and I think your statement is very defensible under a reading of the GA rules - therefore, I hope you are not worried too much about anyone complaining about your actions.
3. I read the rules as well as the comments being made on the GA review. I tend to agree with the comments there that this rule #5 is really trying to prevent articles that have ongoing edit wars and massive content changes from making it to GA. If the issue is that the article tends to be in "state A", then gets vandalized, then gets put back to "state A" or something very similar to "state A", then I don't think that would be a reason to automatically fail it.
4. If on the other hand, people are arguing about whether criticisms should get included or not, whether the article is balanced or not, then that would be grounds to fail, I think.
5. There is argument on the Talk page about whether the criticisms section is representative or not - this is concerning changes within the past 24 hours - that is a clue to instability for sure, though I wouldn't say it is definitive.
6. Over the past 7 days - there have been approximately 200 edits. Here is how much the article has changed in that time:[2] Is that stable? I'm not sure what the precedent is because again I don't spend that much time on GA.
7. It is interesting to note that the semi-protection of the article was not in place 7 days ago. Therefore, your suggestion to take it off for a few days and see what happens may be a good suggestion. Johntex\^talk 20:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

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. 02:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Johntex\^talk 02:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to User:Johntex/monobook.js. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'dates' tab to press in edit mode. You will also get a 'units' tab. Use it lots! bobblewik 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should not conflict with existing stuff in your monobook. Just add it at the bottom. bobblewik 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi johntex, please delete Image:Ejac.jpg to allow an upload with modified content. thanks a lot --CSCS 07:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CSCS, I have just deleted the old image. You should be able to upload the new image now. Best, Johntex\^talk 07:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi johntex, final question: after re-submitting the image under the same name, why do the old Image:... links not work?

--CSCS 07:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Talk:Ejaculation? If so, then the link there is working. It is just that I put a colon (:) in front of the name, that turns it into a link rather than showing it in place. We often (but not always) do this on Talk pages if we think the image may be distracting, or if it may have copyright issues, etc. Originally I put the colon there because of the copyright issue. If you go to the Talk:Ejaculation page and search for Image:Ejac.jpg you should find the link and clicking on it should bring up the picture. Johntex\^talk 07:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, i was a bit confused by a piece of Lizard's contribution which read Ejac.jpg and now is Image:Ejac.jpg!

thanks again for your patience.  :)

--CSCS 07:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Johntex

I appreciate your positive response, but I think you are unaware of some of the flow of communications. The user reverses work I do without discussion, despite my appeals for him to talk to me. My edits are accompanied by explanations (see discussion in gluten free beer section of discussion for the beer article) but they usually just get reversed without comment or discussion. The user has tried to establish my personal identity (wrongly) and keeps insisting I have a website that I do not (see my user talk pages).

The user follows me to areas of my personal expertise and interest, then reverses work that he knows nothing about. Which is fine, anyone can edit anyone's work. But I do not follow him to his topics of interest. And changes I make are accompanied by explanation. He has suggested that I stop using wikipedia! I have asked him to discuss any disagreements. If he follows me to areas that I know a lot about, would it seem right to reverse what I do without some efforts to communicate or share reasoning?

Only when I pasted the appeal did he begin to make some effort to entertain a discussion. Yes I was curt. But I had long since requested he ask someone else to look at my work as he lacks perspective. But any change I make to the beer section just gets reversed - and note my polite request for an explanation before doing so. In his communication (which I had long begged for) he makes a childish remark about an individual's face. He thinks he has identified the individual as myself, but he is incorrect. I think a reading of the discussion at beer, his talk page, and mine, will show that this user needs to agree to the many offers of peace I have offered. The alternative, that he get an outsider to try to be objective has been ignored.

I know that this sounds a petty squabble. But when one is disabled and the PC is one's link to the outside world, it can be very frustrating to be followed around and one's serious work dismissed. Hence the feeling of being bullied. On the other hand, since pasting my appeal some of the harassment has ended, and my work (for example see

was responsible, intelligent, and improved the article, regardless of whether I personally agree with all that they say. And note that in every case I thank the editor for their interest etc.

I know you were not offering your services. But I did want you to know that there is more to this than one episode, but getting on to a month of negativity where anything I did was negated. If the appeal does nothing more, it allows the user to see that what they do may be under the observation of others. Nothing is worse for the bully than exposure!

Thank you for your interest, and your time, please feel free to watch events as I believe that will help ensure that there is more responsible editing in future.

wikwobble

Thanks for the comment. I have asked User:ClockworkSoul to look informally into the matter. Wikwobble is clearly upset by what is happening and now sees me as a bully. His rage and hurt is palpable, and I do not wish to hurt him further. At the same time it would be wrong to allow Wiki articles to be influenced by emotional behaviour. I feel I am perhaps too close to the matter to be able to judge clearly if what I am doing is right any longer, so your comment was very welcome. SilkTork 12:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While is is unfortunate that Juneteenth is apparently not a public holiday where you live, there are celebrations occurring in Oregon. [3] I hope one of these might be close enough to you for you to join in the celebration. I have now sourced the relevant statement in the article - thanks for your conributions there and elsewhere. Best, Johntex\^talk 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's nice to see it is being celebrated here, even if at a much smaller scale than elsewhere. Looking at that site it seems pretty clear it isn't something entirely known in some areas yet. For instance, Utah, Vermont, New Hampshire, Montana and the Dakotas have no events listed and Washington has only one. Although I don't doubt it's spreading into these areas, the article should still clarify in some way that events remain largely centered in specific areas, and that it's not widely known or celebrated in many parts of the country. Sarge Baldy 22:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. The article should be more specific. I'll work on it again. Johntex\^talk 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On June 20, Red River Shootout trophies, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

— BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 02:37

hi! this is m:User:Suisui."ウィキペディアへようこそ" is "welcome to wikipedia!" it's just a welcome message on ja. if you expect further information, visit ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo for Non-Japanese Speakers. Enjoy ja! --Suisui 00:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I spend most of my time here on the English Wikipedia. I occassionally visit some other Wikipedias to see if I can contribute any images. I was not sure if your message was a welcome message or if you were possibly asking me a question or informing me I had made a mistake. Thank you again for your welcome and for your clarification. Johntex\^talk 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I originally created the article. Sorry about the typo! :D I really hope wikipedia puts in a spell checker tool for editing. Thanks for expanding the article. I did as much as I could. If people just keep adding little bits of info, like you and me, that is how a truly great article is formed. Cheers, Jam01 07:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "{{

]

I would disagree, but if you want to remove the PROD tag for now then I will not take it to AfD untik the report is out. Sounds fair? Batmanand | Talk 09:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the ejaculation picture was exploiting a loophole in terms which effectively CENSORED WIKIPEDIA. The new ejaculation diagram is uninformative, as it does not actually display the ACT of ejaculation, rather just the path, which could be found in other articles such as

) 09:32, 2006 June 21

Thanks for your message, but you are mistaken on many levels:

1. I removed no image - check the page history
2. Censorship is what happens when the government tells you not to do something. If you choose not to do it, it is not censorship. We made editorial decisions all the time about what is best for the project. When we decide to leave something out is an editorial decision not censorship.
3. Images of sexual acts are pornography - ejaculation is a sexual act
4. There is a consensus on the talk page to show one diagram and link to one photo
5. You don't
   WP:OWN
   the page, so I suggest you not hold yourself out as some sort of final arbiter of what the page should look like

Also, please add sections at the bottom of Talk pages, and please sign your posts. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 17:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the ejaculation is not pornographic in any way. The fact that this keeps getting reverted to inline simply shows that a mojority of wikipedians are male and connot handle a picture of another male ejaculating. The sexist bias is also seen in american popular culture, where it is more acceptable and common to show nude females than males. I think the picture of a male ejaculating is much more informative and relevant to the article than say, a nude woman tanning in the

]

Hello, thank you for your message.

1. I find it interesting that you use the phrase "what could be considered a sexual act is disputed." and yet you also say "The image of the ejaculation is not pornographic in any way." You are so open to possibilities in the first phrase, and so authoritative in rejecting possibilities in the second.
2. I think people spend way too much time lookinf for systematic biases and prejudices on Wikipedia instead of
   Neutral point of view
   as the person complaining of bias.
3. I think you misuse words by equating editorial standards with censorship.
4. I think you misread policy by equating what is essentially a disclaimer with a call to include objectionable content.(
   WP:NOT
   censored is simply putting people on the alert that vandalism happens and that they may find objectionable content here - it is not meant to encourage us to host objectionable content or to someone criminalize people who work to remove it) with censorship.
5. I find you mistaken in point of fact and point of law to say that United States law has no relevancy to a project headquartered in Florida which has most of its principal contributors and readers based in the United States.
6. I find you are finally correct about something when you say that
   WP:OWN
   applies to me as well as everyone else.
7. However, you spoil that by insinuating that I am attempting to own the page and by implying that I have removed a photo from the page. To the contrary, until recently there was no photo at all. I worked with other editors to establish a consensus that we could add one if it was linked and not in-line. This compromise has worked very well on a similar article.
8. I find it dissapointing that you want to spend time arguing about this when what we have is a reasonable compromise and when so many real issues exist with the article (like no in-line references). After all, the picture is available to anyone with one simple click.

Johntex\^talk 23:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps this is all a misunderstanding. Are you aware that my previous edit to the page was to restore (not remove) the linked image?[4]

Oh wow sorry for some reson I was looking at an older version. Omgitsasecret 00:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, thanks. No problem at all. I'm sorry I got so worked up in the above reply. I wish you peace, long life, and happy editing! Johntex\^talk 00:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet of that account. Stop adding these messages to my talk page unless you can provide "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence to prove the statement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.148.166.5 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2006 June 21

That's interesting. You certainly seem to have similarities with the blocked user Defleppardsdrummerhasonlyonearm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who uploaded the image. I'll assume good faith and remove the template based upon your word. Plese remember to put your new talk sections at the bottom of talk pages and to sign your username wtih ~~~~ on Talk pages. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 23:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]