Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:45, 15 April 2006

Johntex	Photography	Resources	To-Do	Talk

My contributions

My admin log

Talk Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Thanks

UserPage Update

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics

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

WP:CIVIL

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Schools

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

Notable alumni of Pearland High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History deletions

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

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

Try it with User:Guettarda/Sandbox 6:

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

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

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

The Psycho

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

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

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

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

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

Resid

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