Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:10, 7 December 2006

Johntex	Photography	Resources	To-Do	Talk

My contributions

My admin log

Talk Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

New Topic

Barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		The Running Man Barnstart: given in appreciation for so manysubstantial contributions to existing articles about University of Texas, 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and college football

CJC47 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

I appreciate the Barnstar and the gracious way you handled our dispute. It's kind of odd being on the other side of the fair use argument. (Normally, I'm the champion riding that horse!) Out of this whole thing I'm gaining a better understanding of the copyright law, which is always good.

Anyway, I hope we end up on the same side someday. Let me know if I can assist with an issue somewhere. Normally I moderate and work on the good articles page. --CTSWyneken 01:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you'd seen the way others have acted in intense controversy, you'd see that your actions, rise to mildly irritated. 8-) --CTSWyneken 10:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Barnstar

- A hearty thank you for your steadfast, tireless, and quality contributions to Scouting articles over many months. Rlevse 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in portals

I created an amendment for fair use in portals, as well as submitted to village pump, see here: Misplaced Pages:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals#Also. It would be great if you could express your support there. ddcc 21:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

LSU tigers deletion nomination

I'm not nominating these articles because I think they are bad articles, or are poorly referenced, I'm nominating them because its silly to have a unique page for each season of each team for one sport for each school in Division 1. Any easy fix for this would be to merge them into one article for each team, with a different section for each season/year. If you all don't agree, then you're blind to your own bias, and life will go on. DesertSky85451 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I won't use the phrase "blind to your own bias" because I think it is a bit rude, but perhaps you should examine your own bias before you make claims about anyone else's? Even if you don't think that college football is important, you may want to consider that perhaps lots of Misplaced Pages readers do think it is important and would expect us to contain thorough knowledge of the topic. Johntex\

I don't know shit about LSU, or the Longhorns, and I don't care, but I also don't like the deletion of useful information from Misplaced Pages. I do, however, like a neat and orderly wikipedia, and these articles offend my sense of cleanliness. What is your objection to a merger into one article for each school's football program? DesertSky85451 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps seaons by decades, like LSU has for 1893-1899 > see here? There has to be a way to make this neater. DesertSky85451 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that there are very few of these articles, but I'm worried that we're headed down a slippery slope. Soon there will be articles for Duke Blue Devils 1975 basketball season, Baylor Bears 1955 bible-thumping season and Harvrd Crimson 1990 lacrosse season. Where will it end? Also, do I actually stand a chance of getting these merged, or should I just give up? DesertSky85451 01:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're an admin, so tell me: How do I withdraw the deletion nomination? DesertSky85451 15:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to talk about this. I'm going to assume that since you and I tend to feel the same way about an overabundance of articles on this encyclopedia that you'll be a force for reason and restraint in College 'ball wikiproject. I think the lesson I'll take away from this is to start the dialog more gently next time instead of using an AfD. Time for me to take my deletionist agenda elsewhere. DesertSky85451 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

response to greeting.

Thank you for the message you sent me.

Fusion 7

AfD closing

Could you do it? There are lots of pages....? Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh thanks

Yes, I am feeling sad at so much of wastage of resources at useless discussion here. I feel a bit relieved that there are wikipedians like you who care about fello-wikipedians. Thnaks. --Bhadani 02:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Arch Coal

re Arch Coal - I agree - in fact I think WP:CORP should change to indicate taht NYSE listing is enough - the requirements to be on the exchange are onerous enough. And Arch Coal seems an obvious keep to me - but having a discussion about a product - that would be like having an article on my Pilot G-5 pens - probably more well known, and more widely used. --Trödel 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx for the comments - I support such a change to WP:CORP - as, unlike some other exchanges, the NYSE requiurements are well known and clearly indicate notability - I bet London does too.

Personally, I think such products should be aggregated, and standards of notability set like for music albums must do this - singles must do that if not singles go on the album site, if album not notable goes on singers article, etc. But developing the standard would probably be difficult. --Trödel 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

XIII

Yes, a sad day for all Longhorns. Thanks for your excellent additions to the article. I'll certainly be sure to visit the new Silver Spur/BEVO Center when it opens later this year. - Bevo 14:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Johntex, thank you so much! That has really made my day. :-) SlimVirgin 00:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Housewife Bangers

First of all, hi! Second of all, i'm not a porn star *snicker*. Three, I have sales figures I found on a DVD site that i can add. I also think this movies won a AVN Award too. Please bear with me, its my first article and its a work in progress ok? :) UCF Cheerleader 01:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe...Oooh you bad boy you! Encouraging me to do porn already? hmmm.... :) In any case, I used wikipedia for a while before registering an account. I made some edits without an account before but just miscellaneous stuff. Cya.UCF Cheerleader 01:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you see what that guy left on my talk page about my photo? Doesn't anyone bother to read things anymore? Jeez...UCF Cheerleader 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Zzyzx11‎

He removed all the categories the page was placed in so i re-added them. ~Cooljuno411

RfB With A Smile :)

Something you wrote...

"The German Misplaced Pages has run afoul of German law before and content has had to be removed on more than one occasion. One of these cases dealt with holocaust-denial. I don't remember the details at the moment, but I can find them for you if need be."

I think this is in error, you might want to review the facts again. :) --Jimbo Wales 14:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo - Thanks for the message. When/where did I say that? I don't recall ever doing so. I can easily believe I did though - judging by the quote - it looks like I was admitting to being uncertain about the details. I'll certainly endeavor to be more careful. I'm sorry for creating confusion. Best, Johntex\ 14:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I still don't know why/when I made that statement. But in trying to retrace my steps, I did find German Misplaced Pages threatened with injunction, which does say the site had to be taken offline temporarily. I'll do more research later. Johntex\ 15:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't trust the media. There were widespread reports that German Misplaced Pages was taken offline, all completely false. here is the quote --Jimbo Wales 14:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New Pictures

Hey John I managed to make it out to the Baylor game so I took some pics. I saw the image on the Longhorn Band and noticed you uploaded it, didn't want to replace it without asking you first. I uploaded the image to the right and you can use it if you want for that article. If you need other images from the Baylor game, let me know and I'll see what I can scrounge up. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoch Lai (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2006 October 16 (UTC) Johntex\ 10:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Enoch, that is great! We can always use more images. I see you added a Baylor pic for the 2006 page. Although I am fond of the UT band picture I put on that article, it has always bugged me that the safety net from behind the goalposts is in the way. Yours is a better image so I am making the swap. I think mine is availalbe on Commons, so I'll add a like to Commons as well. Thanks for the new pictures! Best, Johntex\ 10:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fsu-students-performing-War_Chant.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fsu-students-performing-War_Chant.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 06:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Boy Scout article

We have another one. See the revert war and Controversies section of the talk page. What should we do here? I'm so sick of the agendaists that constantly attack Scouting in wiki and won't follow policy. Rlevse 09:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

hi

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whitman...again

If you're around and willing to help, I wouldn't mind if you'd help me keep an eye on the Charles Whitman article. It seems our friend John Moore has returned with his trolling ways, and I'm wary of violating WP:3RR myself. Much thanks. Sherurcij 01:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johntex, you may be interested in this. Best, Gwernol 13:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK: World's Largest Texas Flag

Well, I think I added it to the template page correctly. Thanks for the suggestion. Mishatx 06:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the Largest Flag article, I'll keep a look out on the DYK section ;). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoch Lai (talk • contribs) 06:48, 2006 October 20 (UTC)

The lighted path

Hi. Do you know about Diwali? I wish you All The Best on the ocasion of the Indian festival of light, Diwali. I am sure that the light of hope, confidence, and all positive attributes shall always remain inside you – lighting your path and guiding you to attain higher and higher levels of excellence in all your endevours! And, ID Mubarak too. All the best! --Bhadani 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I also thank you and remember you for your kind words sometime back. --Bhadani 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 21 October, 2006, a fact from the article World's Largest Texas Flag, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Srikeit 18:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Texas Flag at DKR - North Texas vs Texas 2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Texas Flag at DKR - North Texas vs Texas 2006.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page of the image. -- tariqabjotu 22:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Tariqabjotu - thank you for your messages and for your help with the situation. Yes, I agree with you, the Image should not have been used on the second page. That was my mistake. Most images I upload are free because I have either taken them myself, gotten permission for them, or gotten them from the US govt. I forgot that image had a non-commercial license. I have removed it from the article where it was not fair use. Thanks again, Johntex\ 22:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Alright; I'm glad that got straightened out. It was an honest mistake; it happens to the best of us. -- tariqabjotu 22:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Keira Knightley

Hi, I'm pretty new to wikipedia from the editing aspect, and I was wondering what the protocall was for adding potentially damaging material to a biography of a living person, Keira Knightley. In another wiki, I found references to a topless scene she did in the movie "The Hole" at the age of 15. However, adding this material was reversed by a mod.

Links are below. I wasnt sure who to ask, or where to look to get the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Keira_Knightley

http://en.wikipedia.org/Nudity_in_film

http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Keira_knightley_16.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willowhawk (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2006 October 22 (UTC)

OK - I'll check it out and see if I can give you any advice. Johntex\ 03:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I checked the article and here is what I see:

1. You have not editted the article under your current user name. Therefore, I am guessing that you are the anonymous editor using your IP address. While edits from IP addresses are absolutely allowed, people are more likely to trust a user who has made a user name. It tends to indicate that you are serious about contributing.
2. You did not provide a reference for the information. That article has several references, so you can look at them and see how they are formated. You can also review WP:CITE about the need to cite sources in general, WP:R about what constitutes a reputable source (E.g. not a blog), and WP:BLP which talks about how sources are extra important for biographies of living persons.
3. In this case, you are claiming that she appeared topless (which is easy to prove) but you are also claiming that this was controversial because of her age. You can't say that just because it is your opinion that it was controversial. You need to find some reputable source that actually claims it was controversial. Otherwise, all you can do is mention the fact of being topless.
4. I don't see that you discussed the issue on the article's talk page. This is not required, but it is good practice if the edit turns out to be controversial.
5. Checking the article's Talk page, I don't see any discussion about the topless scense on the Talk page itself, but at the top of the Talk page is a link to the Talk page Archives. We archive discussions after they get too long. In this case, there is older discussion about that specific topless scene. The claim is that she was 16 at the time and that is a legal age in the United Kingdom
6. I suggest you look for a reliable source and that you discuss it on the Article Talk page.

Out of curiosity, how did you decide to bring the question to me? I have never editted that article. Johntex\ 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Johntex,

Ricky has 4 children: 1) Marley; 2) Blaze (the one with the woman who now lives in Hawaii); 3) two children with Kristen Barnes.

Have a nice day~~

fair use images policy

thanks for reminding me I had completely forgoten -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that you were involved in that huge debate with Ed g2s regaurding fair use of images in lists and was wondering if that ever came to a conclusion. Considering the number of pages he spread that debate across I'm having a hard time tracking down whatever the resolution was if any. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  09:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Last Paragraph in Martin Luther lead

Would you do me a favor and drop by? I'm having a disagreement with several folk on the language of the last paragraph. It is complicated by emotional attachment to different aspects of this subject. I'm trying to get a neutral view of the quality of the writing here. --CTSWyneken 22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want you to get into the substance of the fight over Luther's words about the Jews (which is almost the only real heat-bearing issue here) The heat comes from the determination of some to make sure what they see as the role of Luther in the Holocaust is never down-played in the least and others of us, who respect the work of Luther, wanting to see it be put in pespective. (at least I like to think that's what we want) 8-)

Anyway, I'd suggest you run far away from THAT issue.

What I'm trying to do at the moment with the article is streamline it. I and several others have been trying to do what the FA standards suggest, creating subarticles, porting detail to them and moving to summary style. In addition, I've been trying, with success in every spot in the article except this paragraph, to break up long sentences, move from passive to active tense, etc. I thought that when I did this here we were fine, until Slim came by, reverting it out of hand (you know how that pushes my buttons from unfortunate first-hand experience. 8-) )

Anyway, if you're game, I'd be interested in your take on the quality of writing in that paragraph. Am I crazy or just a flame-thrower?

Of course, if you want to help with the trimming, I'd welcome that, too, but for obvious reasons, I'm avoiding the "On the Jews" issue. --CTSWyneken 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 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 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal Directory

I don't think that those are the only places those portals are listed. I tried to put them in, as it were, reverse-outline form, so that the various projects could see which portals were closely tied to their own subject area, as well as effectively letting them look "one-rung-up" to see which other portals might cover subjects which relate to part of their project. I know, for instance, in the new Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Germany, which I helped start up, we have three separate portals listed as being ones which could be closely tied to some articles in the scope of our project: Portal:Nazism, Portal:Ancient Germanic culture, and Portal:Germany. I just want to make sure that all the other projects at least have the opportunity to contact all the portals which might overlap their own subject to a degree. There is, of course, no obligation on the part of the portal managers to actually accept any content they don't want. And the list was intended for use in no other ways. Actually, I was intending on having it deleted on the 1st. You are, however, free to make any changes you see fit. Badbilltucker 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyle Field

This is a response to your message. If the stadium in Austin is indeed larger, then the information I found on the stadium's article would be incorrect. "Seating capacity overall will rise to more than 90,000 from the current 85,123, surpassing Texas A&M University's Kyle Field as the largest football stadium in Texas." This is the last sentence under the section "2008 expansion." --Blueag9 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. That sentence was in error and I've corrected it. Thanks! Johntex\ 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Essay and Linkimage

I don't know if you recall this, but many weeks ago you and I had a rather extensive dialogue about censorship and the use of Linkimages. I had encouraged you to try to collect your writings into an essay and now I'm wondering if you made any progress on that. I'd like to re-read it all myself and be able to refer others to it as well; I think that it would be very useful in a number of ongoing discussions throughout WP. On a seperate but closely related issue, there had been a discussion here about the use of Linkimage regarding a specific image used for that article. The resulting concensus supported the use of Linkimage in that case. Somewhat later, the original image was deleted as copyvio and then replaced with a different image. The new one was not Linkimaged since the discussion was limited to 2 editors; one supported it and one opposed. I'm wondering if this is a situation where a "Straw Poll" would be useful? I don't want to just reapply the Linkimage without discussion since the image has changed, but a debate between 3 lone editors is unlikely to produce a true consensus. Any thoughts on how best to proceed? Thanks for your time, and happy editing. --Doc Tropics 18:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the link. I know you're busy and I appreciate it. I had made the same observations you did about the new image, which is part of my current ambivalence. See you in the trenches :) --Doc Tropics 18:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin infallibility?

Interfereing with an administrator is against policy. ... You should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity. Johntex\talk 16:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johntex. I think I have a problem with the above. It seems to be putting admins above 'ordinary' users? I'm not saying that Duke was right or that you were wrong. But 'because I'm an admin' doesn't seem like much of an answer to the questions he was asking. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins are definitely not infallible. However, they do deserve the benefit of the doubt and an ordinary user should never revert an admin if the admin is stating they are taking an action AS an admin (this has nothing to do with regular content editting). If the ordinary user feels the admin has made a mistake, they should discuss it with the admin first. If that fails to satisfy them, then they should file a complaint at WP:ANI or some other appropriate venue.

I stand by my statement: " should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity." Johntex\ 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't agree with that statement. I think it's the word 'never'. Admins can make mistakes. Admins deserve the benefit of the doubt, but so do all users. If an ordinary user suspects an admin has made a mistake, they should discuss before correcting the mistake, in case the later knows something the former doesn't. And if an admin suspects an ordinary user is wrong, they should discuss first, then act, for the same reason. But that is when there is doubt. If I know that you have made a mistake, I'd correct it, and I'd expect you to do the same for me if things were reversed. I agree that it can lead to problems, such as one user mistakenly assuming that another user is wrong, and I agree that it is more likely than a random admin is right than a random user. But it happens. Remember that some of our ordinary users are more experienced that some of our admins, especially if you take off-wiki experience into account.

Saying "because I'm an admin" doesn't educate anyone. The important thing is the rightness of the action. If you really can't explain why you think you're right, you may still be right. But I'd rather see "Trust me, I'm an admin, I know it's the right thing to do" than "Because I'm an admin, that makes it the right thing to do". That's not quite what you said, but forgive me for saying this, it comes close. Regards, Ben Aveling. PS. No reply necessary if you've seen it, but if you haven't, I've also replied to your other message on my talk page. Sorry for the slight fractured conversation. 11:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:MikeMotney

Can you block this user for vandalism? He's been warned by several users and seems to be persisting. Thanks Dubc0724 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Texas Hex rally

I see that you are an admin here and have made edits to many pages. I was reading about the Hex Rally and saw the blurb about losing 18 straight times to A&M. Knowing that they've only beaten us something like 34 times EVER, and with many of those wins coming in the cheating years of Jackie Sherrill, this didn't sound right at all.

I used this link (http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=1349&change_well_id=2) to check the facts, and they were waaaaaay off. The 18 years prior to the 1941 game actually had Texas with a 10-7-1 series record, a far cry from 0-18.

As I'm not familiar with editing Wikis, I figured I'd pass this information along to you and you'd know what to do with it. Thanks so much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.234 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I made this change. In fact, Texas had not won in College Station in 18 years, but in typical fashion, the Daily Texan article used as a source said "UT beat the Aggies for the first time in 18 years, 23-0." Mishatx 06:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice firing line response :) - ChrisKennedy 09:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fabulous

12-7. Gig 'em! Blueag9 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on the win. We'll let you win another one in about seven more years. If we didn't let you win one occassionally, you might refuse to play. Johntex\ 20:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 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 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Win

Well I think it should be more of the 2:1 ratio. That's nearly the ratio of wins, Texas:Texas A&M. So far I think it's 73-35-5. As long as we have McGee, Goodson, and J-Lane, I think we have a good chance the next two years to win. Blueag9 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are definitely right 2:1 would be more realistic. I think you definitely have a good chance for 2 in a row with Kyle Field on your side next year. Good luck in your bowl game. Johntex\ 05:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaceability guidelines

Per your "Agree" vote at Misplaced Pages talk:Images of living people I think you'll find my proposed replaceability guidelines worth a look. Daniel Case 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Class A Terminology

Johntex, It has generally been decided for the purposes of the BSA uniform article that "class A" is not proper Scout terminology. BSA uses "field uniform" and "official uniform" to refer to the uniform in the picture. The addition of the sash doesn't change things. Please consider reverting to one of these options. Thanks. --NThurston 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

<raspy voice> Well, back in my day, we had Class A uniforms and we were thankful for them - we wore them all day every day - to school and back - in the snow - uphill - both ways... </raspy voice>. Interesting. Thanks for informing me of this. "Back in my day" we always used to use the term "Class A" as an official term. We would never have considered a merit badge sash or OA sash to be part of a "field uniform". I will gladly revert myself to "official uniform" since you have clued me in. Johntex\ 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on Kalduny

I'm willing to see where it lands. :) However, I have another question. How long does an Afd last? The reason I ask is here there are 12-13 votes to delete, 2 redirects, and one (almost rabid) keep. Granted the one keep is the author but doesn't this qualify as WP:SNOW? Just wondering. Nashville Monkey 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you decide to keep, then I think the article stays. But, the article needs clean up. Because, if you are voting to keep (and you nominated it) instead of delete, then I think the nomination is withdrawn. Bearly541 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd interpetation of WP:NOT censored

Where did you get the idea that it only applied to vandalism? While it does apply to such things, the policy states quite explicitly that it applies to articles about offensive subjects: "articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content". --tjstrf talk 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It also says that "obviously inappropriate content...is usually removed immediately" - that still leaves up to the editors to determine what is inappropriate. Citing WP:not censored is equivalent to linking to a policy that says "Editors decide what should go in the article, unless it is illegal or violates other policies". Citing WP:not censored does nothing to prove that an image should stay. Johntex\ 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It does prove that objections to it based solely on its sexual nature without other considerations are invalid, however, and that relevant images, links, etc. may stay. Those are the bits we are citing it for. --tjstrf talk 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't prove that at all. It is up to us to decide what goes into any article. If we want to decide to keep something out, for any reason we may do so. It is up to the editors. Johntex\ 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, any policy may be overruled given the right circumstances and needs case by case judgment. We occasionally keep bio pages written by their subjects against the advice of WP:VAIN, for instance.

However, the purpose of policy is to reflect prior consensus. Simply because judgments need to be made case by case does not mean we cannot cite a policy which contains statements regarding the subject at hand. If you preferred that I cite other discussions in which it was determined that offensive images could stay, or other people who agreed with me, or dug up a comment from Jimbo on censorship, or copy-pasted the content of the relevant WP:NOT section instead with the prefixed statement "According to Misplaced Pages policy..." I could do those things as well, but it's a lot easier to type WP:NOT#CENSORED and most people complaining about the lack of censorship are honestly unaware of the policy. There is no purpose to reinventing the wheel every time we receive another instance of a perennial complaint, the entire purpose of policy is that it be cited in an informative manner in these circumstances. --tjstrf talk 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving just a link to WP:NOT#CENSORED smacks of jingoism. It could also be interpreted as a scare tactic in that the word "censorship" carries negative connotations for many people. But most of the time the word "censorship" can more accurately be replaced by "editorial judgement", which carries a positive connotation for many people.

If we decide to leave something out, it is not censorship, it is editorial choice. Censorship is action taken by a government or other central body. It is not a relevant term to use in a discussion about whehter something should be included or not.

At AfD and other places, people scream "Deleting my article is censorship", yet they still get deleted if they meet the criteria for deletion. Editors may say "Don't delete my addition to the article, that is censorship." In reality, we have to prune articles and remove bad prose, useless links, etc. All of those things are individual judgements. There is no 100% foolproof way to say if an external link or bit of text or image adds to an article or not. We have to discuss it.

In the end my point remains the same - simply linking to that policy is not a good argument for whether something should stay. Johntex\ 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I generally pipe the link so that it displays "Misplaced Pages is not censored" so that it's less esoteric. Those other types of censorship complaints are related to freedom of speech rather than appropriateness for minors. Numerous debates have upheld the principle that relevant offensive images should be included in articles, so consensus holds that "Misplaced Pages is not censored" has a meaning beyond simply forbidding institutional censorship, applying to editorial censorship without broad consensus as well.

The majority of cases where censorship is brought up are not debates over the specific appropriateness of an image, they are generic complaints along the lines of "that picture offends me, get it off!". For most of these cases you simply need to inform the person that something being inappropriate for minors to view is not a reason for removal. And what better way is there to inform a new user that Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors than linking them to the official policy statement that says so?

When a real debate starts over an issue or image that entails concerns beyond appropriateness for minors, then there will be additional arguments that are necessary to make regarding the relevance of the image. Even then linking to the policy is appropriate because it is the basis for the relevance defense.

In summary, Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors is the perfect answer to a complaint from a new user who is concerned about an image being inappropriate for minors. If they press the issue, dispute the relevance of the image to the page, or otherwise raise additional concerns, then a detailed argument in defense of the image may be necessary. --tjstrf talk 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the original poster's comments. They make an analogy that we do not show child pornography on the paedophilia page. Showing child pornography is illegal. Many lolicon images would be illegal. They are saying that we can't show an image that is illegal. Citing WP:not censored does nothing to refute this. Johntex\ 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if an adult is saying that an image offends them, then linking to a policy that claims "we don't censor for the protection of minors" is still meaningless. If we want to argue for a particular image to be kept, the best thing to do is to explain what it adds to the article. Johntex\ 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I responded to the original poster's analogy with an argument regarding legality, actually. (Indeed, it appears I never even linked to WP:NOT.) I've been using this user talk thread to discuss the issue of our differing interpretations of WP:NOT#CENSORED in general rather than simply as regards a specific case. What Lolicon images are you claiming would be illegal in Florida anyway? Certainly not the one we presently use, which is just a girl in a swimsuit. Even if it involved a real human, it couldn't even be ruled lascivious. --tjstrf talk 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not replying to your post. I was replying to the post by Eyrian. Eyrian is the one that linked to WP:not censored without making any sort of actual statement. I did not criticize the current image, or any image. I am fine with the current image. My entire point is that some people link to WP:not censored as if that policy prevents us from removing things. That is not the case. If we think something should be removed, we can decide together to remove it. That's all. Johntex\ 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Teensy little question....

I removed the {{linkimage from Creampie and Autofellatio per WP NOT and that states:

Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.

and from the The Content Disclaimer

Misplaced Pages contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.

Could you please explain your changes?

Booksworm Talk to me! 09:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Those two disclaimers serve to put people on notice that we may feature content that some people find objectionable. They do not obligate us to do so. It is up to us to use our best judgement. In fact, WP:not censored specifically says "objectional content is usually removed immediately". In any case, I did not remove any content, I preserved it behind a link. This is a very reasonable compromise. It has been used before and in fact Autofellatio has had this image linkimaged for long periods of time. As we have discussed (and seemingly agreed) on those talk pages numerous times, using the linkimage is a great compromise between people who say we need these images and people who say we would be better off without them. Johntex\ 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For example here is a direct link to a very exhaustive poll on the subject. Johntex\ 12:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Excessive moves

If you are an admin, can you pleaase block User talk:Yaksha ? it has come to my attention that that user has made excessive moving of pages without consensus, WP:ANI shows a member of the MedCom agreeing with this request, thank you,

See here as well

WikieZach| talk 02:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)