User talk:Johntex/Talk12

Dear Johnny, I was about to email you, but I see you might be around here now - are you? :) I wished to talk to you for a sec, if you can... *smooch* Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. I'd like to ask for your objective opinion regarding the discussion here, and in particular regarding this post [1] by InShaneee. While I do not doubt his noble motivation, I think he is simply going too far in this matter. If you can find the time I'd be glad to know what you think. Shervink 11:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal has been established, as a starting point for those wishing to learn more about the subject, with information and links on a wide variety of issues. It also contains news regarding the continent's various tribes and nations. It's a graphically pleasing site, and everyone is encouraged to check it out. Home Page Reorganization The project's home page has a new design, featuring tabbed subpages on participants, templates, articles, categories, and the to do list. Article Classification Move The Article Classification lists have been moved to their own subpage due to size. This is a sign of progress in the ongoing work of this project. New Talk Page Template The project's talk page template has been updated, along with the classification system, to include the assessment on the talk pages of the articles that have been classified and assessed.

Balance As the Project reaches its first six months of activity, the great effort all of you have invested in it has turned the vast information available on Indigenous North American topics from a deorganized cumulous into an excellent and easy to consult database. Although much work is still in order, few WikiProjects are able to obtain the amazing results we are proud to show today. To all of you, thank you and congratulations! What You Can Do to Help The assessment of articles within the scope of the project is still an ongoing process. We need people to help in this who are not contributors to the articles they are assessing. Also, there is the ongoing need for identifying and cataloguing articles that fall within the scope of this project. As of today, nearly 1,500 have been identified within the Project's scope. Signed by Aaron Walden & Phaedriel - 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex,

I read your latest contribution in the Pump. I was particularly taken by your reference to Katefan. I went to her User Page and was astounded by what I read. To put it bluntly, what the hell happened!?! I’m relatively new to Wiki (Jan 1 of this year) and I completely missed this. In her last remarks she refers to sending her an e-mail, but I couldn’t find one there. If it is not too inappropriate or presumptuous, I would like to e-mail her. What do you think about this?

Regards,

Michael David 22:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you Johnny! I can't say that too many times to the greatest Texan ever - and that's saying a lot! :) I hope to chat a little with you later - if you're not too busy, of course ;) Hope you're having an awesome Sunday, baby - hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 15:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution:

Okay, now i may be acting harshly. (I do not believe i am as this user isnt limited to causing disruption just today) but i wish to call for Ed's powers to been removed or for a re-call in that if users believe he should remain a sysop he will. I am asking if you would support me in asking for this users powers to be removed for abuse of a position etc and extreme violation of 3RR. I believe this would have to be done via ArbCom, right? however i have never presented a case before etc an thus would you be willing to provide help if yu are willing to support me. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathew. I certainly believe Ed has acted improperly. However, I believe this is the first disciplinary action ever taken against him. As a philosophical matter, I believe in giving people time to make ammends. We should see if he learns from this. As a practical matter, if no one has ever blocked him previously, then that may show that it would be difficult to get any consensus for desysopping. I think we should act magnanimously with respect to Ed and that we should take our energy and spend it on clarifying the policy that team logos can be used wherever the team is discussed. Johntex\^talk 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds fair. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling for desysopping already? This is all a little bit much. You do know that only comes through Arbitration, and this is barely arbitration-worthy as it is? Hell, you'd even be in for a ride just trying to prove that he necessarily did anything wrong ... copyright violations are a problem taken much more seriously by ArbCom than Wikipedians in general. So tone down the rhetoric please; you're not helping any matters by immediately pulling out the desysopping card. --Cyde↔Weys 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your comment on my talk page was directed to Michael, not to me? Just in case there is any confusion, I have not called for nor supported desysopping over this. I firmly believe Ed was in the wrong and that Freak was wrong to lower the block less than 3 days. Ed violated 3RR on 3 seperate articles. 3RR can only be violated in the case of blatant vandalism, which this was not. Desysopping is certainly not warranted, however. Johntex\^talk 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was directed at Michael, not you; as you have just stated, it was he who made the call for desysopping, not you, and the signatures involved weren't so elaborate that I couldn't discern who they matched up with :-P Cyde↔Weys 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I thought so, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't be associated with such an extreme position. I appreciate you taking the time to reassure me. Johntex\^talk 23:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: In re your comment, I wasn't asking anyone but Matthew Fenton to "leave it alone". In my judgement, that user's calls for punishment had crossed a line, and yours did not. I note that two other users also made that same judgement call. Jkelly 16:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarification. I appreciate it very much. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unaware of it, you should see

Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. We make an exception to 3RR there as well. Jkelly 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Woops! Thanks for pointing that out. I had forgotten about that. Re-reading the policy on 3RR, I see we also include a provision about reverting edits in your own user space. Johntex\^talk 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have mentioned you in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. I am unclear on whether or not you qualify as someone who can make the second endorsement; I don't know whether or not you discussed this particular issue with the user. Jkelly 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, an "Outside view" from you, who took the same position on the issue, would probably worth 20 endorsements from people who didn't... at least in terms of making clear that this about courtesy and not the other issues. Jkelly 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the birthday needed to be edited for Mr. Martinez. I got the information from the Texas Rangers magazine website, so it's already public knowledge.Konczewski 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a suggestion that perhaps we should limit ourselves to giving only the birth year of a living person, rather than their entire birth date. This is not official policy, but it has been discussed on the talk page of

WP:BLP and it seems like a good idea to me. One of the reasons for this is to prevent identity fraud. It just seems like there is little need for us to publicize the full date, even though it is available elsewhere. If you still think the full birth date would be better, then let's take this discussion to the Article Talk page to let others have a chance to comment. Johntex\^talk 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your reply; you make a good point. I'm content to leave your change stand.Konczewski 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for your reply and for your understanding. Johntex\^talk 16:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There has recently been some disagreement on what the intent of the policy is with respect to use of sports team logos. I have proposed a policy clarification on use of sports team logos at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\^talk 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that User:Ed g2s will not comply or participate meaningfully with any mediation results or process. I am thinking of withdrawing the request for mediation and submitting for arbitration, dispite the policy to attempt mediation before arbitration. I further think I should submit a case against ed as being an admin since his attitude doesn't represent Wikipedia well, being unwilling to discussing is a civil manner, contribute to the process or discussion and being uncooperative in general. What are your thoughts on this matter? --MECU≈talk 19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I agree that trying to desysopping wouldn't be prudent, since he didn't abuse his admin powers, it's probably not the right track. What about going for a RfC on him, merely requesting that he participate in the discussion more, instead of dogmatically holding his belief providing little evidence other than "it's policy"? I looked through the RfC stuff and found 5 policies I believe he's violated in his participation in this matter. Specifically:

WP:DR (Discuss with third parties and Wikipedia works by building consensus). I fear my inability to properly formulate and annotate the complaint (similiar to my AN/I complaint) will result in thoughts I'm being a poor sport, trying to continue my AN/I complaint, or trying to subdue ed, but it really isn't the case. I believe he has/is the strongest opponent on their side of the debate, but he fails to contribuite anything to the discussion and does not want to push or further the issue believing it is settled. This major problem with this is he is unwilling to even recognize that our side may have a point and address it (perhaps it is easier to ignore an issue than address it), and his steadfast claim (dogmatic belief perhaps) that his side is correct because it is based on policy results in no discussion or collaberation able to occur. Thus, mediation seems hopeless in my eyes, since I think ed won't comply with the results of the mediation. Short of Brad or the policy being changed (because it seems he only applies the letter of the law, not the spirit -- see wikilawyering again), his actions or behavior do not seem like they will ever change. Thus, the RfC request that he modify his behavior and collaberate and discuss the issue. Even awknowledging that there is an issue, that he should refrain from making future edits (which I have pleaded with him before to do such) would be a step in the right direction. I'm not asking him to give up his opinion, just to merely discuss and abide by any mediation (and of course arbitration) decision. Can you provide any more insight or assistance please? --MECU≈talk 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I just found an article that had been vandalized. I immediatley fixed it and I was not able to see who vandalized the page. It wasn't a wikipedia user, and was wondering how you can allow only wikipedians to edit the page, and please forgive my spelling, It is not my best quality. Bcody 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer this for Johntex. Go to

WP:RFP. Be sure to read the rules before requesting protection as they probably won't protect a page if it was only one vandal edit.--NMajdan•talk 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Amarttx, as I have previously mentioned on your Talk page, no one person controls that article. If you think their are important facts that need more coverage on any article - you may either add the facts to the article yourself, or discuss what you think are the ommissions on the talk page of that article. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, like this ~~~~. That makes it easier for people to reply to you. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I've added the page to my watchlist and now will make sure it is not vandalized. Another weird thing is happening though, when I go to click the log out button on the top of my screen, everything from my user page, talk, watchlist, and contributions move over to the side, does this happen to you to or is it just a glitch? Bcody 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a message for me, leave it on my talk page. If you want to point editors of pages to your debate, do so with a simple link. ed g2s • talk 16:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for the work you've done raising awareness of the logo issue and for the level-headedness in which you conduct yourself in discussions. Keep up the good work!! -- Masonpatriot 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Articles where it is likely the reader actually wants a Wikipedia policy article or similar, such as userbox. I think this would make this guideline more beneficial to the project. Johntex\^talk 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

You may be interested in this discussion --Trödel 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open your card!

Dear John, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
All the beautiful friendship you've gifted me in these months is so special to me, that I'll never be able to express it properly. You are beyond words, dear Johnny :) *hugs*

Phaedriel ♥ tell me

Please don't write drafts in the main namespace, and also please don't or put them into categories. They should remain in the talk namespace until they are appropriate for promotion. — Dunc|☺ 22:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johntex, you're probably sick of the subject by now, but I wanted to comment on our recent disagreement about Ed's personal involvement when he was trying to remove images for copyright reasons. I explained here why I felt that this was not a content dispute, since it had nothing to do with the fact that he didn't like a particular image, or that the image was flattering towards a person he disliked, or that it was unflattering towards someone he liked. You replied that it was a content dispute because "it is not at all clear-cut that the images used violate any policy. Ed is of the opinion that they were, but substantial numbers of people are of the opinion they are not."

I didn't get round to replying, and in my view, Werdnabot archives much too soon! But I fail to see how it can become a content dispute just because some people disagreed that it was a copyright violation. I confess I haven't looked carefully at the talk page in question, but I still think there's a huge difference between a copyright question (whether the editor is right or not, and I know that Jimbo wants us to err on the side of strictness when enforcing copyright law) and a content dispute. Let me give an example:

Sometimes people are engaged in a clear content dispute, and they refer to their opponents' opposition as "vandalism". For example, Sally inserts some weird fringe scholarship into an article, quoting some crackpot book. Jill takes it out again, and Sally puts it back in, putting in the edit summary that "removal of sourced content is vandalism". Now obviously if Sally puts it back in four times (or if she combines putting it back in with other reverts or partial reverts four times) she has violated 3RR, and can be blocked, even though she says she was reverting vandalism. It's clear that what she was doing was insisting that her version should stay. I've seen claims of reverting vandalism made when people change AD to CE (or vice versa) or when removing or reinserting POV tags, and none of those things counts as vandalism, so a person can be blocked even if he claims that "it doesn't count because it's vandalism". I very seldom do 3RR blocks, but I would feel that such a block would be appropriate.

However, if someone is not emotionally attached to a particular version, perhaps if he comes to an article through RC patrol, and mistakenly thinks something is vandalism when it isn't, I would never block that person. A few months ago, an anon (I think) inserted something into the Hitler article about Hitler having designed the Volkwagon Beetle, and I thought, "hey, that looks weird", and hit the rollback button. (I don't use rollback in content disputes.) I know very little about Hitler. The editor came to my talk page and protested, and I looked at the edit more carefully, and apologized. Now, I didn't violate 3RR with that mistaken vandalism revert, but I just give it as an example to show that, in my view, whether or not someone is in error over vandalism or copyright issues has nothing to do with whether or not it's a content dispute. I had no personal motive for wanting the article to mention, or not to mention, Hitler's involvement in designing a car. My error about the "vandalism" did not make it a content dispute. I'm not going to agree or disagree about whether or not Ed's beliefs about copyright are erroneous, because I don't know a lot about the issue (although I suspect I would support him), but I'm quite, quite sure that whether he's right or wrong, it was still not a content dispute. (Of course, that can be abused, if, for example, you don't like a particular image because it makes some hero of yours look halfwitted, so you start arguing about copyright, but I don't think that was the case here.) I just wanted to add that to my earlier comments, even though Werdnabot prevents me from posting it where I'd like to! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 14:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ann, thanks for your detailed message on my talk page. I think we may partly be dealing with a question of semantics. I use the term "content dispute" because I use that term for anything that is not a clear-cut legal or policy issue. I am getting the feeling you might like to use that phrase more selectively. However, I don't know a better phrase to use.

Your Hitler/Beetle example is different from this case now only because you did not revert multiple times, but also because Ed has stated that his objection to these images is not so much about the legality of their use, but rather his philosophical view that they are not needed and should be removed. Policy gives editors the right to work together to decide if an image contributes sufficiently to the article to justify its use. However, Ed is on a mission to remove lots of images from multiple pages. He is not a regular contributor to those pages, and he does not engage in discussion on the article Talk pages. He just wants to enforce his philosphical view on the rest of us. That is wrong.

We can come up with a different name for what he is doing if you would like, but whatever we call it, he can't continue to swoop in and try to enforce his will against the consensus already established at these articles. Johntex\^talk 16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things seem to be getting a little bogged down on the above, all over one external link by the looks of it. There is the same problem on Talk:WCW Disney tapings. Solutions welcome. Tyrenius 19:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Johntex. I'm sure you are well aware of the logo delima, well it seems that

I believe Ed has definitely gone too far. Ed seems to be using a statement by User:Kelly Martin to justify removal of the images. Kelly has made the somewhat extraordinary statement "If you choose to ignore the policy that I have decided is best for Wikipedia, you may find yourself blocked". I don't believe Kelly has any special authority to make such a unilateral decision. Discussion is ongoing here and here. I suggest that continuing to discuss this with Ed will probably not be productive until we first get to the root of the problematic behavior by Kelly Martin. Johntex\^talk 19:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex, thanks for creating Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2 to deal with the whole issue. Remember 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johntex I have made a comment on Kelly Martin's RfC. However I noticed that he has not been informed on his talk page. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Happy Editing. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aeon1006 - thank you for your note. However, I think you are mistaken. I did leave a note on Kelly's talk page about the RfC. It is no longer the very bottom comment, so I can see how you may have missed it. Johntex\^talk 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected! thanks Æon ^{Insane Ward} 01:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making 10,000 edits to Wikipedia. The project is 10,000 percent better with your involvement. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you! You comment means a lot to me today because I happen to be involved in discussing a somewhat controversial subject. However that particular debate turns out, it is nice to know someone cares about my contributions. Johntex\^talk 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johntex!

On the notability disucssion page, you wrote: "If Wikipedia was truly the reposoitory of all human knowledge then we would be accepting recipes and wikinews items and foreign language articles... We would never delete an article like Brian Peppers or Stolensidekick.com, which have both been deleted on the premise that the subjects were not notable. We would be accepting entire phonebooks and out-of-copyright novels."

Now, my question would be: WHY NOT? Why can't we include recipes and news items and out-of-print novels? Why can't we give Brian Peppers an article, whoever he is? It would really be wonderful to have a true online repository of human knowledge. My vision for Wikipedia is a one-stop destination where someone could find all the information he would ever want to find online! Well, true, verified information, for that matter... but anything that is true, verified, and NPOV should be included regardless of how trivial it is! If someone bothered to put it up, then there must be at least one person in the world who's interested in that stuff. For me, that's justification enough for notability =p --Lapin rossignol 03:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see my user page for more details on my viewpoint. --Lapin rossignol 03:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am not trying to be a bad guy here, but IMHO, I think some of the people who share my view about the use of logos have taken it too far. I do not even support what Kelly is doing, though she had sided in my favor. I am not blocking anyone over this, since wheel wars=A Bad Thing, plus we should do more discussing. However, if Jimbo or Brad come up with something before we do, then I will follow that. I will not bring it to their attention, since I know they must be wiped out from Wikimania. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zscout, thanks for your message on my talk page. I think I understand where you are coming from in general, but I am just a little puzzled about your opening line: "Look, I am not trying to be a bad guy here, but IMHO, I think some of the people who share my view about the use of logos have taken it too far."

Did I imply anywhere you have gone too far or that you are being a bad guy? If I did I apologize. This discussion has cartwheeled over so many pages now that it is a little difficult to keep track, but I don't think you have been a "bad guy". to the contrary, I think you have stated your reasoned opinion and have been open to discussion, compromise, and even mediation. I even got a good chuckle at that pig call you left for me.

The "bad guys" in my opinion would be the ones who are off unilaterally removing images and blocking people while others are trying to discuss the issues calmly.

Naturally, I share your concern about Wheel Wars. I also am with you that if Jimbo or Brad make an unambiguous policy statement, then the rest of us have no choice but to follow an imperial edict, if it comes.

I do hasten to add though, that I am not bound by an opinion by Jimbo when he offers it as an "opinion" or as something "he'd like to see". I respect him, I'll listen to his opinions and see if they sway my own, but if he takes pains to point out that he is just offering an opinion then I think the rest of us should treat it in that spirit and not fall over ourselves to make it policy. I only feel the need to mention this because at least one other editor involved in this question has tried to quote Jimbo's opinion on a different matter as if it somehow could be used to decide this case. Johntex\^talk 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did nothing wrong, so you do not have to apologize, but I just wanted to get those feelings out. As for the Pig call, I visit Arkansas every year and I watch the Hogs whenever I can. I personally have no clue if Jimbo or Brad or the Foundation has made a call before on this specific issue, but I will patiently wait. While I have said in the past that I compared fair use to a crack pipe, but given that none of us are lawyers, I bound to get things wrong. I am not quite sure what else I can suggest, since it feels like my suggestions are being blown out of the water. But, here is my opinion; it is best to not use logos in article not because of lawsuit issues, but because of what I call an "image overkill." Pictures are good, but too many can cause issues with either visibility or formatting. That is what hurt me at the Texas Longhorns article, since the bowl logos were overlapping a portion of the text. Could have the image been fair use; of course. But an image cannot do really well if the text that is supporting the logo is being overlapped by the image. Second, if the editors do decide that logos should be used; just use the logo once. I base that off of linking things; one link is fine, but two or more for the same link might be a bad idea. That is what I suggested for the USC logo at the Longhorn's article. The fair use photo for that magazine cover from Texas, I thought it was fine, since it was showing the local reaction (like how Newspapers here in SoCal talked about USC's streak being broken by Texas at the Rose Bowl). Others thought it was not, so with about 3>1, I lose. The website banner is fine, I am still a bit iffy about the Bevo picture, but I cannot really complain much or do much, since while I do not like what Kelly is doing, a block right now on any of us will be something that will just make this powderkeg explode, again. Once again, don't apologize, but thanks for hearing me out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urk, a good editor too. But nothing to be done about it, is there. Too bad. I hope we don't lose too many good editors over this. It's very depressing. Herostratus 06:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am new at this and not sure how things work. I made an edit to the John Gaddis article. Another user cut it out as not sourced. Fair enough. I want to re-insert it with the source. How do I do that? And is there anything to prevent the user from just cutting it out again? Thanks --Fitzwilliam00 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Fitz, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your question at my talk page. We do like to provide references for the information we put into articles. We are a long way from being perfect on this. You will find that some articles don't cite any sources, others cite a few, others cite a lot of differenet sources. For an example of a well-referenced article, please see George F. Kennan.
  

As to why your particular addition to

WP:BLP

. Basically, it says that we should really work hard to ensure we are providing a reputatble source for anything negative we say about a living person.

To learn how to cite a source, please see

Wikipedia:Footnotes. Basically, you put your addition to the article, then put those two tages right after the end of the sentence. Between the tags, you put the reference. There are templates that help you do this, like {{Cite news}} and {{Cite web

}}. You also need to make a section called "References" down at/near the bottom of the article. In this section, you add <references/>. This will magically make the text of your references appear in the right section.

I know it probably sounds a little complicated, but it is not that hard once you get the hang of it. You may want to look at a short article that uses this reference style - since it is short it has only a couple of references and it may be less confusing: The University of Texas National Championship 2005

It is true that no matter what you do, someone else can come along and change it. That is both the good and bad of the system. It helps if your contribution is well referenced, written in a neutral tone, etc. If someone takes it out again, consider leaving a note on the Article Talk page about why you think the information should be in the article. Hopefully they will discuss the matter with you and perhaps others who work on that article may join in. Johntex\^talk 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are hereby given these

Do we get an apology or some sort of retraction? --Cyde Weys 01:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeze Cyde, don't you think you're being needlessly antogonistic? There's no sin in assuming good faith until given a solid reason to do otherwise. Friday (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, everyone. Let's be

civil. There's no need to bait Johntex, or anyone, like this. John won't bite, but shame on you for trying. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Cyde, I think you are confused. That was you when you stuck up for Kelly Martin. Johntex\^talk 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, Kelly Martin turned out to be right in this, and you and your little sockpuppeting blocked "friend" turned out to be wrong. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support in any way Cardsplayer4life using a sock-puppet to evade the block. However, a call for apologies from people who argued against the block ignores the time-line of events. The block occurred first, then the sock-puppetry. Therefore, the sock-puppetry did not lead to the block and the sock-puppetry is irrelevant is considering whether the block was valid or not. The sock-puppetry does not change the fact that the block was invalid. Johntex\^talk 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what the sockpuppetry does is establish character. Whereas you could possibly give the user the benefit of the doubt under

WP:AGF and say that the block was unwarranted, now that we actually know what this guy was up to, it is quite clear that the block was correct. When I make mistakes I do apologize, believe it or not. By the way the current block is valid no matter what you may think of the previous one. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

First, I agree on the current block. It is warranted.

However, unless Kelly can read the future, she can't claim that her actions were justified by actions that Card had not taken yet, and which he couldn't have taken if not for Kelly's prior action. If she hadn't blocked him, he couldn't have been evading her block. That does not make either of them right.

Please consider however the following hypothetical parable: Tommy saves up money to buy a bicycle. He rides it past Bobby's house. Bobby is greedy and wants the bike. Bobby gets his mother, the sheriff, to arrest the kid and impound the bike. But Tommy kid breaks out of jail and throws stones at the Bobby's house, both of which are against the law. The fact that Tommy behaved badly after being falsly arrested does not justify the false arrest. Bobby's mother should not get a reward based upon future bad behavior of Tommy. Johntex\^talk 05:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your metaphor is flawed and doesn't correspond to real-world events at all. Here's what actually happened (no useless bicycle metaphor necessary): some users are edit-warring over the insertion of an against-policy fair use gallery. Kelly Martin leaves a stern warning not to do it or users will be blocked. So a user comes along and does it anyway, and not surprisingly, is blocked. Then, sometime in there, the user promises he won't do it again in an unblock request (which is accepted), while meanwhile logging out to make the same edit. Kelly didn't do anything wrong here while the user did everything wrong. --Cyde Weys 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Thank you for your time. Johntex\^talk 05:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference:ACC, GLIAC. It appears that Ed has, in his own mind, interpreted the usage of athletic logos and where they should and should not go. I'm going to another adm for clarification. This is ridiculous. American college football forever. Also, John, ya need to archive this page...my pc nearly had a coronary. 25px Noles1984 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the banner so that it is different in content from FSU's athletic logo... give me until the end of the day. 25px Noles1984 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "I'm not sure about the specific actions you are referring to." John, I was speaking of Ed's entire removal of logo galleries on conference articles. Specifically, I believe people recognize icons over a teams name right off and therefore need to be included on conference pages. 25px Noles1984 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your name there recently at the Fair Use Project, so I figured i'd ask about something at the article above.

I put alot of hard work into the infoboxes there, and the lack of the images there greatly decreases from them. It's been hard enough trying to find non-copyrighted images, can you explain how this FUC thing can be amended so the article doesn't look even worse? I'm slightly frustrated, thanks. Attic Owl 03:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S- Don't worry, Mr./Mrs. Martin and her cronies have been fairly rude to me as well. There seems to be no law and order on Wikipedia to be honest with you, it's like some kind of jungle.

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't copyright a link, and you can't remove other people's comments from the Talk pages of articles. (Removing other people's comments from your own Talk page is OK). We will be restoring the information you improperly removed. Johntex\talk 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I withdrew the request you posted for purposes of discussion. Therefore, to not confuse others with the assumption that the debate was ongoing, I removed the discussion since it was moot! Only trying to help! I noticed on the Martinez page that Sherurcij had removed another contributors input and he REMOVED IT! Is there a double standard here?71.121.103.147 22:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice in the link that it is copyrighted, therefore, permission has to be granted to use it doesn't it?71.121.103.147 22:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might help...Using copyrighted work from others All works are copyrighted unless they either fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a form letter asking a copyright holder to grant us a license to use their work under terms of the GFDL.71.121.103.147 22:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed the owner of "Voices" earlier. He's p****d at me for linking Copyrighted material. I removed it again for my benefit. His threats to sue seem sincere! Revert if you want. At your own expense! I didn't know about the flame war that led to the creation of the site, sorry!71.121.103.147 01:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At

I've removed your last bit of sniping, and I won't respond to any more in that vein. Let's try to keep this kind of thing off Wikipedia. I know you are upset about our disagreement, but I feel just as strongly as you about the matter. When I said that the accusation was "absurd on its face" I meant it. If I'm mistaken, tell me how I'm wrong. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony. I apologize for my last remark. It was not constructive. However, I feel you also owe me an apology. You called my good faith RfC "absurd". I think that was uncalled for. If my statement that your actions are absurd was a personal attack, then your statement calling my action "absurd" was likewise a personal attack. Let's remove them both, shall we? Again, I apologize for my statement and I appreciate your message on my talk page. Johntex\^talk 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I've rephrased. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did use the word "absurd", so I am disappointed you apparently think the full burden of the misunderstanding is on me. Never-the-less, I have made my apology and I'm prepared to move on whether or not you decide to make one. Johntex\^talk 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you misunderstood me, it's because I didn't make my meaning clear. That wasn't your fault. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's had a hand in the Entropia Universe article, I'd like to converse with you about an Anonymous user who is continually editting any sort of negativity out of the article. I'm concerned that this might degenerate into an edit war as they deleted a hefty section of the talk page too.

As someone with more experience than I, could I enlist your help?

AvanniaRayzor 23:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(could you reply on my talk page please? - Like I said I'm reasonably new thus I'm likely to get lost :-S )

My company is pretty well known around my local area and I was hoping to get the green light from you john to create a page called seo team. Thats my new company and I no longer work for primedia.

This is joe from primedia.

The

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I removed myself from the whole issue for several weeks, and in looking back now, don't seem to be able to find any new discussions or especially any conclusions or consensus reaching agreements. Thus, I'd like to submit to the

subst:smile3

}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

The ban is up. You posted that helpful contributions would be permitted after the ban. I have done so, and Sherurcij, as usual, wants to start (or continue a war). Would you please review the contributions and revert Sherurcij's reversions. Thank you! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Whitman&action=history

John, what ban is up? You've been banned indefinitely...several times. I don't know why you keep trying. It's not as if you're going to get around all of us who are watching the Whitman and McCoy pages. Give it up. It's a waste of your time. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

Is that your semen on the semen page? In the discussion some guy says 'nice going tex'. --Shamir1 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take an hour to search online for photos of Brittney Skye with her mouth closed, then you can tell me that statement was false. Until then, I declare your edit an act of vandalism. Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacstewie (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2006 September 20

The

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John for your kind comments. I was very surprised to see a Division II stadium get that kind of notice. But stemming from that you might be interested in an article I just posted List of presidents of the American Football Coaches Association. It should probably go in the wiki project also. Thanks again! Americasroof 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in honoring the wishes of a copyright holder. It is a cornerstone to my work in creating electronic documents and putting them online. Good will is everything, which is reflected in the

It is also my conviction that your viewpoint and those of others on this page is in error and that the use of this logo infringes copyright, even though it appears that it does not infringe trademark law. I have studied copyright law as in-depth as any non-lawyer can and I do not appreciate it when someone comes along and says "your are wrong because I say you are wrong." I am firmly convinced that the use of the logo here is infringing and it distresses me that a page on which I have spent a fair amount of time deliberately shows contempt for my church. That is my motivation.

In previous encounters on wikipedia, I have been lectured that only the voices present in a debate count and that going back through the pages or to other pages is irrelevant to the discussion. By that standard, there are only two voices against it. On the image page, only two of you are not content to let the dispute stand. On the

I do hope that, when the response of our church comes in that you will not contest the removal of the logo. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll let things be for awhile and see what develops. After waiting for opinions to come in, I'll likely want to take up this policy with those who have established it. Where would be the best place to go with it? I am curious as to what the legal foundation for an actiion that is a clear infringment in my understanding.

On the issue itself: If we were talking about presenting negative information, I would agree with you. As long as such information is well cited, it belongs in our articles, even if the organization is not happy with it. We would even want to present short and compelling quotes from them, counter their wishes. But we are talking something that is their intellectual property. We are displaying the whole thing. We are putting it in close proximity with some negative information that has from time to time misrepresented them. Assuming you are right on the trademark issue and supposing it is fair use on copyright grounds (which all I've seen to date leads me to believe it is not), why would we want to do this? It really tells us very little about the church and nothing that cannot be gleaned from the text of the article. In fact, I know of no publication outside of the LCMS that uses the logo, on or offline.

Anyway, sorry for the heat of this. The issue pushes my buttons (if you haven't guessed). --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]