Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buffs (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 9 February 2008 (add notice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Berkeley Breathed

Some of the stuff missing a source can be found on the site below, but it needs to be reworded as it rises to plagarism right now.

http://www.berkeleybreathed.com/pages/About.asp

--Beth Wellington (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I chose to write you because on the discussion page, yours was the entry most closely concerned with the issue. Beth wishes for the new year. --Beth Wellington (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

T:DYK.

No problem. Interesting incident that happened there. :P · AndonicO 08:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistance request

On an RfA, this comment was made. I realize this is an ArbCom issue, but I felt it should be deleted as a legal threat. Should I ever become an admin, I'd like to know your opinion on whether it should be deleted under WP:NPA. My opinion, yes. — BQZip01 —  03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a tough one. My general interpretation of the "no legal threats" policy is that person A is not supposed to make legal threats against person B or against the Foundation. The logic goes that if they are threatening to take legal action, then A should stop editing until A's legal action has run its course. If the legal action has run its course (including simply by A saying that a legal remedy is no longer being pursued) then A can edit again.

What we have here is slightly different. A is urging the foundation to take legal action. A is not saying A will take action so I don't think that qualifies as a threat.

If we classified this as a threat, then arguably we would have to make the same classification for any person who urges the foundation to pursue a course of action that is even vaguely connected with the law. Examples could include cracking down on people who are stealing our content and not using it under terms consistent with the GFDL.

Therefore, my read at this time is that I don't view this as a threat. Best, Johntex\ 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. — BQZip01 —  23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 FAU page

I have worked my tail off creating basically the entire Florida Atlantic University section on Misplaced Pages (from the school, to the athletics, to individual sports pages). I created them and you went on to the 2008 football page and added information that is not necessary to FAU. Now you ask me to stop reverting MY original piece and "talk" about it? The burden is on YOU to explain to ME why the additions are necessary. I will keep reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yezn0r (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Yezn0r. Thanks for your message; it is good to hear from you. Through dialog most things can be resolved.

I'd like to remind you that Misplaced Pages does not have YOUR articles or MY articles. We collaborate to make all articles better. It does not matter who started an article, anyone can come and add to it. Differences are resolved by discussion. If you continue to simply revert additions without discussion, you will be blocked from editing. Please review WP:OWN for a description of how this works, and of how you are not allowed to claim articles as "yours" and simply revert everyone else.

Thanks, Johntex\ 23:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation

Hello Johntex,

I recently nominated Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons for featured list status. However, to this point there have been no votes (or opinions) expressed, and I'm beginning to feel as though it will just slip through with no votes at all. It's not that I want my work (okay, okay, it's not MY work, but I did put a lot into it) to be recognized. I just want some honest opinions on how the page looks and maybe at the same time have it become a featured list. The nomination page can be found here and I would greatly appreciate any suggestion or comment you can make. I'm not here to ask for a support vote, but rather, I'm here just for some honest opinions. Maybe I should have done a peer review beforehand. ... Thanks in advance ... love your work on the Texas articles. Good job. CrdHwk (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New Semester, New Appeal

This semester I am teaching academic writing to a group of teachers at my school. This course starts on Monday Jan 28. I would like to know if you are still interesting in "mentoring". You can see the syllabus at Misplaced Pages:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/SyllabusIf so, please leave a message on my talk page and update the mentor's page Misplaced Pages:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors, if . If not, please remove your name and information from that page. Thanks! Thelmadatter (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for community ban

(Copied from WP:ANI) I request Heqwm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks and disruption.

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. He awarded me what he called an "anti-barnstar" and accused me of "maliciously writing outright lies about" him. I have not had any interactions with Heqwm for many months, and I have never posted lies about him. I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations. He declined to do so. Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack. Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page. I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it.

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. I warned him about personal attacks more than a year ago. He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation. I don't think I have had any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. In my statement at the arbitration, I provide plenty more diffs to spell out Heqwm's disruption. I certainly have not had any interaction with him for several months.

I believe the above diffs show clearly that Heqwm has made repeated personal attacks without any sort of provocation. His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? Johntex\ 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend staying away from Heqwm at this point. Don't post further messages on his talk page. If Heqwm continues to attack you, please report it to ANI or an administrator. Dreadstar † 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded thusly, in a new ANI thread (the old one was long gone by the time my block ended): A while ago, I made some edits that Johntex didn't like, and so instead of trying to resolve it on the article discussion page, he posted a wildly dishonest complaint in which he resorted to outright lying about me to get me blocked from editing the page for a month (his initial goal being to get me completely banned). I continued to be outraged at his behavior and the fact that he remains completely unpunished for his behavior, and posted complaints on his talk page. Once again, rather than trying to resolve it, he went here to lie about me in his continued belief that anyone who annoys him should be banned. And yet again, he posted numerous lies:

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. As explained above, the claim that there was no provocation whatsoever is an outright lie.

I have never posted lies about him. Another lie.

I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations. He declined to do so. Another lie. I pointed out that I had provided him with the diffs over and OVER again, and each time he simply lied and said that they don't say what he said they clearly said.

Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack. Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page. I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it. I discussed the charge on my talk page. And Johntes's recounting is dishonest, as it implies that my reposting the attack happened after Wizardman's warning, when in fact it happened before.

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. Mischief? Insisting that liars be punished is "miscief"? What kind of world do we live in?

He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation. Yes, on the basis of the very lies that are the issue here.

I don't think I have any any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. Abandoned after several weeks went by without any mediator stepping forward (and after Johntex engaged in behavior in blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF).

His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. After several years, with me not deleting anything, there are now several instances of people disagreeing with me. And...?

I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? I ask whether this is not a clear threat and an instance of Johntex's bullying.

To top it off, another admin came along and blocked me only a few hours after Johtex's request, meaning that I had no opportunity to address the charges.

---

Jonhtex responded "I request that Heqwm again be blocked for posting unsubstantiated personal attacks where he accuses me of lying." So... Johntex is allowed to attack me on ANI, but if I respond to his charges, I should be blocked? Yet another example of his bullying. As for "undsubstantiated, I have diffs and screenshots showing quite clearly that Johntex lied.Heqwm (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have diffs then you should provide diffs. Saying you have diffs is of no value whatsoever. Johntex\ 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I already said, I have provided diffs, and you have simply lied about what is in them. So clearly providing diffs is of no value.Heqwm (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're accusations are baseless. You either (a) have no evidence or (b) can't be bothered to provide it. Either way is telling. Johntex\ 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've already given you the diffs. Unless you're willing to give me your home address so that I hold your head in front of the screen and show them to you, I don't know what else I can do. Your claim that "you're accusations are baseless" is yet another lie from you.

1. I posted some claims on the BSA page. 2. I included links that I considered to be cites for my claims. 3. You said that I didn't include those links. 4. I repeatedly told you that I had, and even provided you with the link to the old version to prove it. 5. You sought sanctions against me, and based your case, in part, on your accusation that I hadn't included the links.

So, I'll offer you a deal. You list which of these claims you admit, and which you deny. If I can prove that any of the claims that you deny, I get to put a userbox on your user page declaring that you are a liar. Deal?Heqwm (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you are referring to diffs you posted months ago, you can't expect people to go back through your contributions in time to find them. You need to re-post them if you expect them to be re-examined. My recollection of the events is that your diffs did not support the claims you were making. Months later, you now come along and make a personal attack on me. That is uncalled for. Please see Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.

I think your recent block makes clear that it is inappropriate behavior for you to suddenly dredge up some argument from many months ago. So, I'll offer you a deal - let's drop the whole thing. Johntex\ 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pass the barnstars, please

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		Thank you for your work (over 1400 edits) to Texas A&M's pages. Thanks again, Basketballone10 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

Did you know that the article is among the top 20 longest pages of Misplaced Pages? BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind it being long, it's just nice to see the article on that list. These season articles need that amount of detail. You definitely write the best :) BlueAg09 (Talk) 15:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Texas

I have a userbox that says "This user has over 1000 edits," and the "over 1000 edits" bit links to an alternate tool for Kate's Tool, the editcount. It links to me, but you can also search other users. Cheers, Basketballone10 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Kwl

ANI

There's a thread about you, and since the guy who started it apparently didn't let you know, I figured that I should, in case you want to weigh in. -Hit bull, win steak 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Texas and BCS #1

Thank-you for your reasoning, however, The BCS Champion is crowned by the Coaches' Poll. The voters of this poll are required to vote the BCS Champion #1. Looking ahead, the 2006 Texas team's BCS #19 remains unchanged, the 2007 Texas team's BCS rank is not listed. It would be difficult to list a final BCS ranking for any team that does not finish the BCS Champion. I did not revert your edit. But, I think it should be removed. Bcspro (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glossary of Texas Aggie terms

I have nominated Glossary of Texas Aggie terms, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Texas Aggie terms. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Collectonian (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your feedback is appreciated. — BQZip01 —  22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

ThanksOldag07 (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the College football 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL

Apparently your opinions no longer count (read the last line). — BQZip01 —  05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that. For that to be true, my opinions would had to have mattered at some previous time. :-) Johntex\ 05:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

HEY!!! I resemble that remark... :-) — BQZip01 —  05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just for grins, but I'll bet the next edit he makes regarding your comment will be him changing his criteria for objecting to your inputs. — BQZip01 —  05:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but then people would use their userspace to formulate a response... — BQZip01 —  04:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

{{censor}} on Talk:2 Girls 1 Cup

The {{censor}} tag states: "Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter." I believe that this information about Misplaced Pages policy is extremely relevant and vital to the discussion of the 2 Girls 1 Cup article. There is discussion on its talk page about whether an external link to the video's website should be in the article and whether an image of the video should be in the article. The {{censor}} template reminds editors that their reasons for excluding or including that content should have nothing to do with how objectionable or offensive they find the video being covered. I do not understand your reasons for removing the template from the talk page. I do not think that reminding users of policy can be "prejudicial to discussion". It's not about if an "entity" or "central body" is trying to censor the page, it's used for articles prone to editors censoring objectionable content, which is what is occurring in the article. --PseudoChron (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• That is exactly why the tag should not be there. It comes across as though you are trying to use the tag to sway people towards your viewpoint that a link and/or picture should be included. If that is not your intent, then there is no reason for the tag. Johntex\ 05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that editors should follow Misplaced Pages's policies. I believe that WP:CENSOR is not being followed on that page. If you believe that the policy is already being followed, I don't see how stating the policy will sway people to a viewpoint that is contrary to guidelines. --PseudoChron (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• It is a matter of interpreting the policy. People may have reasons for not wanting a given link, or a given photo, or a certain paragraph of information for that matter. There are many reasons people may want to trim something out (length, accuracy, relevance, shock-value, spam-oriented nature), etc. Too often people cry "censorship" whenever someone wants to remove content from an article. Placing such a tag on the article is like trying to institutionalize the idea that this is censorship. It is not censorship. It is editors deciding how best the article should be constructed. We should encourage that dialog instead of trying to slap on official-sounding templates. Johntex\ 13:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of 9/11 Commission

Hi Johntex. About this edit and the creation of the new page Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report... agree with you that it needed its own subarticle. However, the criticism that you removed was criticism of the 9/11 Commission, and yet you have called the new page criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. These are two quite separate things and must remain separate. Would you have another look at it and see if you agree? I think the new page should be renamed Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. The 'main article' link also needs correcting. By the way, criticism of the report is at 9/11 Commission Report. Corleonebrother (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple Pre-FAC help.

Karanacs recommended you, saying you might be able to help me. I am trying to get 2007 Hawai'i Bowl and East Carolina Pirates football seasons to featured status. Since you have worked a lot in the CFB world, I am hoping your could give criticism. Also, I am trying to get East Carolina University to FA status as well. If you have the chance, could you look over some or all of the articles. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks, PGPirate 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My RfC draft was kept

Thanks for your help/perspective throughout the whole situation. — BQZip01 —  04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

TomPhan was a sockpuppet of a user I had a hand in blocking at WP:SSP: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/TomPhan — BQZip01 —  15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)