User:Johntex/Talk01

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 04:21, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Turtle Bayou Resolutions
Hi there! I noticed you created turtle bayou resolutions; however, the subject is already covered at Turtle Bayou Resolutions (wikipedia is caps-sensitive). It would be great if you could incorporate all the information from your version to Turtle Bayou Resolutions that is not already included, and then turn turtle bayou resolutions into a redirect. You would do this by blanking the article, and then inserting this text: #REDIRECT Turtle Bayou Resolutions. This functions to automatically send anyone going to the redirect to the target page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Postdlf 04:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi John,

I wasn't quick enough! I guess someone pointed you at How to archive a talk page. If you have any other questions just let me know.

Dbenbenn 05:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)



Rooster Teeth Productions
Hey buddy, good call on the Rooster Teeth Productions article. I also note that you got your welcome message on the same day as me. :-) --Deathphoenix 23:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * hahaha... Sorry, I looked at it and I think it warrants a keep (I don't like how it has prices in it, though). I've seen your name many times and figured you've been here for longer as well. I look forward to bumping into you in another article as well. --Deathphoenix 01:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Johntex, you have your sympathy vote. :-) I voted on other VfDs before I got down to yours, and decided to vote for a Merge and Redirect. Cheers, --Deathphoenix 03:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Patent pending, Application
Thanks for the kudos! I'm still feeling my way around the wiki thingies, but I thought I could add something useful there and let some of you guru types rassul with the format. As for Patent_Application, should I write something and expect it to be moved/merged to be near Patent#Examination with a redirect at some point? At the very least, Patent will need some internal links to the resulting Application info. Any thoughts? Lupinelawyer 05:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Award
Thank you very much for the Exceptional Newcomer award! I really appreciate it. --jag123 10:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the very nice welcome! WildCard 07:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tagging major edits as minor
Hi John, can you avoid tagging major edits as minor ones? In particular I'm talking about changing "... without the explicit backing of the UN..." to "... with implied (but not explicit) backing of the UN ...". --Christiaan 02:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Christiaan, thanks for your note. I did not consider my change major.  The original text said, "without explicit".  I merely changed to "implied (but not explicit)".  That seems minor to me, and also accurate.  Before I made the change, I read over the talk page to see if this wording had been debated and it had not.  (Note - I did not check the archived talk pages).  I think this is very good due diligence to have applied - especially since the article does not carry any sort of request to talk about changes prior to adding.  So, I respect your view that it was a major change, but I disagree.  Best.  Johntex 01:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * From, How to edit a page, Minor edits generally mean spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearrangement of text. Your edit was a major rearrangement in the understanding of a constroversial aspect of the invasion of Iraq, therefore it doesn't come close to a minor edit. See Minor edit for more information. --Christiaan 10:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference, but I still disagree. I think my edit could qualify as a minor rearrangement of text. However, I will agree to keep my eye out for how other people use the minor tag in actual practice. Johntex 00:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huygens_probe
Hello! Yeah, I'm the resident 800x600 nazi. :'D I'll probably start a club it the future.

If you look at your edit it goes through the next entry, pushing down the wide centered image under it in IE6. This creates gaps, also if you view the page in 800x600 in Firefox the images overlap... and since by default I look at pages in that resolution I mentioned that is why I changed it. If I were to give an educated guess you are using Firefox (Mozilla) in 1024x768, since it looks pretty good with that setup; but otherwise its awkward (IE6) or overlapping (Firefox).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huygens_probe&oldid=9495008

So as to guidelines, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be viewable easily in a 800x600 screen (just in case its not maximized it will still fit) without a horizontal bar appearing. Usually this is not an issue, but if you put images close to each other, or close to templates you could/should do a quick check to make sure the dreaded horizontal bar doesn't appear (and there is no overlap). Check out my user page for further info on known 800x600 compliance bugs. And keep up the additions, its what Wikipedia lives for. - RoyBoy [ &#8734; ] 03:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome message. After some time (before and after I registered) tinkering here and there, I've finally taken the plunge and added a new article on the philosopher Lady Anne Finch Conway; any criticism welcomed). I'm now planning one on the jazz musician Don Rendell. Mel Etitis 14:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week
Military history of the Soviet Union is this week's Collaboration of the Week. Please contribute to it to help make it a feature article

Longhorn
Hey there, thanks for the comment! And for all the work on references on the Longhorn. As I mentioned on the talk page, I have no problem with adding information.. but Toiyabe chose to remove all references to barbed wire and with a weak justification of "I don't buy it." Show me the facts and I'm more than happy to listen. And, as I mentioned, adding information, as long as it's sourced, is never a bad thing! I thought your suggestion was excellent. Oh, and hook 'em while I'm at it. Katefan0 17:35, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * HA! I DID wonder where that came from.  An excellent bit of editing; you should get a Barnstar in fact.  That game was glorious; the only one I've seen in recent years that even approached it was during the Texans' first season when we whooped the shit out of Dallas.  I made all my friends up here in DC watch the Rose Bowl game with me even though only a few of them were Longhorns.  I even got a CANADIAN to watch it with me.  Anyway, I was just going through fixing all the disambig links from the UT page.  God knows why, I have to go to an early hearing tomorrow morning, I should be in bed.  Anyway, OH, and I wasn't on the TSP board (ptooie -- don't confuse me with that lot) -- I WAS on the staff of the Daily Texan for years, though!  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 03:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I looked at the Longhorn article recently, and was a little disappointed that more of the info from the talk page hasn't been incorporated. I especially dislike the "... (before railroads made cowboys obsolete) ... " statement.  I'm not going to bother editing that page with all the UT nuts watching it, so I'm hoping that you might give it another crack.  I have to travel to College Station once a year for work and that's all of that crap that I can take.  Toiyabe 22:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio poll
Hi. There is a poll going on at Talk:Autofellatio. We'd appreciate your vote. &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   04:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

VFD for Chu WIng Kit
Hey, Johntex: I've done a little research on Chu Wing Kit, and discovered that he is more commonly referenced under an alternate name. I wonder if you'd take a look at the information I've presented on the VFD Page and consider whether it changes your vote. Best, --Jacobw 21:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Playboy's College Girls
Hi Johntex! Thanks for starting the article on Playboy's College Girls. I too have worked on a couple of Playboy related articles and started the ones on Playboy videos and Wet and Wild: Slippery When Wet (2000). If you have time please have a look at these articles also and give any comments you have. They are still in a very rough state. Jester2001 08:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A chat I had today
I raised some concerns with David Gerard today, and he recommended that I put them to you. He says he shares them and he asked me to bring them directly to you.

A user, Achilles, observing the failure to gain consensus for deletion of an autofellatio image, clearly diagnosed the problem (correctly, in my opinion) as bias due to the fact that most wikipedians don't watch WP:IFD or Autofellatio. His solution: spend approximately seven hours between 9pm April 6 and 4am April 7 (UTC) contacting some fifty-five editors on the English Wikipedia and some half dozen or so editors on the French Wikipedia who he thought would vote for deletion, because they voted for deletion for the old Autofellatio picture.

Well you know, he could have gone to Village pump. I've done that in the past. Instead he did a targeted mailshot. He did a targeted mailshot of over sixty people, and it took him seven hours to do it. And it had a remarkable effect. Suddenly from being a no-hoper deletion the image seems to be close to deletion.

I don't care if that image is deleted.

But I do think that kind of campaigning is inimical to trust. Firstly he spammed a rather large number of Wikipedia user talk pages. People have been blocked for doing that. Why? Because it's a dumb and wasteful thing to do on a Wiki with watchlists. Secondly he did so in a selective manner, apparently aiming to subvert rather than aid the process of obtaining a view of the consensus of Wikipedians, but contacting only those who seemed likely to express a point of view he agreed with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * how is this any different than any other institution which sets policies and makes decisions by voting? you can never stop someone from doing this. it's a flaw in the system, as others have recently pointed out (and was definitely seen on the failed attempt to modify the arbitration policies..again) --Alterego


 * Just a note that I agree with and second the above concerns of Tony's. An arguably good cause (though I don't agree with the cause in question and voted 'keep' on the new image, because its copyright status is clear), but a stunningly bad precedent to allow someone to get away with pushing it in this manner. I ask you to consider at the very least asking Achilles not to do this (what could reasonably be considered spamming for votes, and targeted spam at that), and that others not do this - David Gerard 23:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to me asking for others' votes is a reasonable thing to do; people need to be informed one way or another. I don't see why it matters if they are contacted. The underlying message seems to be one of opposition to open participation in the vote. Everyking 00:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you should know that there is another way to look at this. Over 80 people voted to delete the Autofellatio image, more than 80% of the votes, and the image was deleted.   While copyright was an issue for many of the voters, the majority felt as you did that the image was "completely unacceptable" for Wikipedia.    Within a day of two of the completion of that vote, and the deletion of that image, autofellatio_2, a similar image, perhaps even more graphic than the first, was posted, and linked to Autofellatio.   Supposedly it does not have the copyright issues of the first one, but it is no less objectionable in every other respect.  User:Achilles, in his responses to the accusation of "spamming", made it clear that he thought that posting this image was disrespectful of the consensus decision and wanted to let the people involved in that consensus know that there intention was already being set aside, and that there was a new IFD vote in progress.  Many of the people whom he supposedly "spammed", including me, have expressed appreciation for being alerted about this, since they do not have WP:IFD or Autofellatio on their watch lists.  By the way, I would appreciate your expressing your views on these type of images again, or even voting on IFD, because there seems to be a group determined to have them on Wikipedia, including the good editors Gerard and Sidaway, and they don't seem to appreciate the reasons why they are unacceptable.   --BM 01:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't about a picture, it's about a form of activism, the use of targeted mailshots to round up activist voters to subvert the consensus-based decision-making process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Jimbo, just an update. The IFD vote on Image:autofellatio_2.jpg has finished, and although there was a majority to delete it, there was no consensus.   This is an image similar to the one that you described as "completely unacceptable" for Wikipedia, and "not even borderline".    Apparently, it was the copyright issue that put the previous image over the top for the required 80% consensus to delete it.   Enter a pornography web site delighted to provide an image in return for an attribution (i.e. a little free publicity on a Top 100 web site), and the copyright issue evaporates.   And so does the 80% consensus to delete a completely unacceptable image.   --BM 12:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It might also be interesting to note that a good number of those who voted (in both votes) Delete came from the french wikipedia and have made few to no contributions on en.wikipedia.org, in a previous discussion on the wikipedia-l it was pointed out that many of these people came to vote because the image was being interwiki linked into user talkpages by a vandal, and they wanted to remove the image to stop the vandalism. Seems like this is a pretty effective way for someone pushing image-deletion related POV to get their wish... I think that the issue of voters coming from outside our direct community (in this case the French wikipedia) is a complex superset of the issue of calling on specific people to come and vote.--Gmaxwell 21:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An interesting asymmetry
The 80% to delete creates an interesting asymmetry in wikipedia, because many other things such as selecting a version are often decided by a majority. Selecting a version of the article without the picture might be easier to do than deleting the picture, voting to have this unenclclopedic article moved to the dictionary. Often articles become featured articles with only 4 or 5 votes. Perhaps the 80% should be reconsidered as distorting a community that decides most things by consensus.--Silverback 12:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

A message to selected people is not spam
Achilles is getting some undeserved heat for his actions.

Calling his messages "spamming" is not accurate. Tony Sidaway stated on Achilles’ talk page "Spamming is sending the same message to lots of people." That is not a full or correct definition. For example, www.dictionary.com defines spamming as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." While it is true that his message could be considered "unsolicited", it was not sent "indiscriminately". He sent the message only to people whom you had reason to believe would be interested in the message. What could be wrong with reaching out to people who are likely to have an interest in a topic?

Ironically, Tony refutes his own word choice by claiming that Achilles’ so-called spam was directed "...*only* those who you thought would support you..." So, he is criticizing Achilles for making his message too targeted, too selective. He is actually being accused of carefully targeted spamming, which is an oxymoron.

Tony even takes pains to point out that Achilles had to take time and effort to send his messages over many hours. Spammers hit one “send” key and effortless direct their message to thousands of people.

Tony also suggests that Achilles should have posted to the Village Pump, thereby reaching a very non-selective audience. I want to hasten to point out that the village pump does not qualify as spam either. People have "opted-in" by the fact that they go read the Village Pump. But surely there is merit to targeting messages to people who would seem to be interested in them rather than to the entire community? Why would messaging a small set of people be more like spam than posting to the whole community?

Another interesting contradiction in Tony’s argument is the statement that “[he] spammed a rather large number of Wikipedia user talk pages. People have been blocked for doing that. Why? Because it's a dumb and wasteful thing to do on a Wiki with watchlists.” If watchlists were a complete solution to getting involvement in these types of situations, then why would Tony encourage Achilles to post at the Village Pump? The problem with watchlists is that there are changes in an article that can affect the whole of Wikipedia. I don't claim to know the motives of the person who posted a notice to the autofellatio page (T IMBO ) for a vote on an image so similar to one that was just deleted. However, the autofellatio page is obviously visited by people who have an interest in the topic, and in the manner of its representation in Wikipedia. It is reasonable to believe that a posting on that page will not reach a representative sampling of Wikipedians and that the set of people who would see it would tend to be enriched (compared to Wikipedia as a whole) towards those who would be inclined to support the image. It was logical of Achilles to believe that the message on that page would be seen mostly by people who would support the image. Whether or not that was considered by TIMBO I have no idea. I want to be clear that I am not accusing TIMBO of doing anything wrong. I think both TIMBO and Achilles were justified in their actions.

So, what did Achilles do differently than TIMBO? TIMBO's message was selectively sent to people who follow the discussion on the autofellatio article. Achilles’ message was sent selectively to people who had voted a certain way on an issue pertaining to the autofellatio article. So, he reached a more selective group. He directly argued for his vision of how Wikipedia should evolve. So what? Why would that be wrong? Surely discussing viewpoints and wikiwork in progress is a valid use of Talk pages.

Tony has accused Achilles of being "caught red-handed trying to cook a vote". This is an unfair characterization. If campaigning for your viewpoint is "cooking the vote", then anyone who posts an opinion on any page during any vote would be guilty. There is no harm in campaigning for your viewpoint.

For the record, I feel that the current situation, with the picture behind a link, is a pretty good compromise. I agree that having any pornographic image in any Wikipedia article poses all sorts of problems to us. We do Wikipedia a disservice if we allow a pornographic image to cause us legal problems, or if it causes Wikipedia not to be accessible to large groups of people because their school forbids it, or because their national government restricts access. If I saw strong evidence that the link itself was causing these sorts of problems, then I would be inclined to vote against retaining even the link. Johntex 20:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 *  A message to selected people is not spam

I'm sorry but that is just silly. Spam is the same message repeated lots of times. Putting the same message on lots of user talk pages is spam. But that isn't the issue, is it?

He didn't just spam, he intentionally spammed *only* those people who agreed with him. He tried to cook the vote, to campaign, to go against the consensual decision making that has served Wikipedia so well and turn it into a scramble for votes, and was caught red-handed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the proper etiquette is to continue this talk here or at Tony's page. I'll continue here for now but I'm happy to move this if that is better.


 * Let's set aside for now whether it was spam or not so that we may focus on what you say is the issue. You are equating a "get out the vote" campaign to "cook[ing] the vote.  They are not the same.  Cooking the vote would be using sock puppets to stuff the ballot box.  What he did was analogous to the Democratic party encouraging Pro-choice or gay marriage proponents to go to the polls in a United States presidential election; or the Republican party doing the same with senior citizens and members of the Bel Air country club.  Why is there anything wrong with appealing to people who are likely to be receptive to your arguments?


 * How does this go against the "consensual decision making" process? Were people intimidated to vote a certain way?  Did he tamper with the counting of the votes received?  No.  People were encouraged to speak up about an issue he felt they would be interested in.  In my relatively short time here, I've seen hundreds of examples of people doing the exact same thing without receiving criticism, and I don't see anything wrong with it.  Johntex 19:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow...
So forgive me for peeking through your talk page, but this Autofellatio stuff is really hardcore (no pun intended). I see it mentioned obliquely in other places but haven't ever gotten involved in the particulars until I read through some of it here on your talk page. How'd you get involved in the debate anyway? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:51, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is some interesting stuff isn't it? I actually do edit on other subjects besides UT and other topics related to Texas.  :-)


 * I really don't remember exactly how I got involved in the debate.  I may have been on sexual reproduction which led to sexual intercourse.  I noticed that there was some lively debate there, including some people making edits there which I didn't feel were in the interests of Wikipedia.  This led to me looking at some user pages to see what other pages these people were involved in.  That led to masturbation, gliding action and autofellatio.  Whew.  I hope you don't mind all the sex talk here!


 * You see a different side of Wikipedia on those pages where emotions run higher.


 * I feel it is very important that we maximize the usefulness of Wikipedia to the maximum number of people. I believe there are some who are more interested in promoting their viewpoint or lifestyle or morals. I also believe there are some who want to hold so firmly to their idea of the way the world *should* be that they forget the way the world *is*.  I am fairly certain that some of the more explicit images people have tried to add would bring harm to the project, so I spend a few cycles trying to keep us to tamer images that are probably almost as instructive but much less controversial.


 * Since you are someone whose work I greatly respect, I'd be very interested to hear your views about what you've read so far. Johntex 19:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at all, it doesn't bother me; people are too squeamish in general about frank talk if you ask me. I work in a newsroom where there are no sacred cows and that's how I prefer it.  My first internship, I had turned in a particularly good story and the metro editor turned to me and said, "Whenever I used to beat around the bush with the top of a story there was an old editor of mine who told me to just pull down my pants and screw.  Well, you sure know how to pull down your pants and screw."  That was a compliment!  Anyway, on to the other stuff.  I've looked around just a little bit but wasn't able to find too much still open... it seems to me like the substantive debates are over on this score and folks have settled into a compromise if not a happy medium, which I think is good.  I am not a huge fan of censorship, and Wikipedia makes it a point to state that it's not censored, up front.  Which I think is proper.  Information shouldn't be dumbed down, watered down or otherwise sanitized out of existence -- sometimes life is tough and uncomfortable, but that doesn't make it less true.  People I think would prefer sometimes, or most times, not to be confronted with unpleasantness, and I think that's a dangerous path to start down... in this particular situation I feel almost a tinge of homophobia, which is troubling.  Wikipedia is populated mostly by men and for good or ill, lots of men don't like being confronted with a visual of another man in a sexual situation.  On the other hand, there are ways of presenting a truth that are more and less tasteful and that achieve the same objective.


 * It seems to me like a debate between information and sensibilities. Do we need the information (in this case a photo) on the page, and does it add to the informational value of the article?  Some could argue here that if the answer is yes, you should include it, because Wikipedia isn't censored and that's stated outright; if someone's sensibilities are offended they can look elsewhere.  On the other hand, is there a point at which the information presented is gratuitous?  As I said above, there are more and less offensive ways of presenting something like this in a graphic form.  I looked at the state of the page now and it seems to me to be a fine compromise to have a more palatable drawing with a link to an actual photo.  The information is all there and available if someone chooses to pursue it, and nobody gets their sensibilities offended.  But this is just a first crack at thinking about it, and my opinions aren't totally formed... &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 20:23, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * In terms of emotions running higher on sexual pages, I've also found that to be true -- I just recently have been involved in a fairly nasty affair over NAMBLA because of a recent RfC, though it's calmed down a lot now. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 22:39, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Explorers and the OA
About ten years ago, the Exploring program of the BSA was split into the Venturing and Exploring programs. Venturing, which includes high adventure and hobbies, is still a part of the BSA. Venturers units are called crews, and Sea Scouts are now a part of Venturing. Exploring is now part of the Learning for Life division, which is affiliated with the BSA, but does not have the same membership requirements. Explorers are carear interest units, and are still called Posts. As far as the OA is concerned, neither group can elect candidates to the OA. However, membership in a crew is suficient to maintain membership in the OA, while membership in a post is not.

I hope this all helped. I was an officer in my post when we became a crew, so I remember most of the gory details. Gentgeen 23:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As an aside to Order of the Arrow, please read my latest comment. End of discussion did not refer to what you percieved as my lack of compromise, it referred to my position on placing safeguarded information on the page. Perhaps this was not clear to you, but I am letting you know that I am more than willing to listen to any discussion on the article, but I am not willing to give the impression that what's on the page already is the most important part of our organization, and I feel a spoiler warning would do just that. I'm leaving Wikipedia for a while, so if you would like to continue the discussion, please refer to e-mail address on my talk page. Later. KC9CQJ 19:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle
Hey John! I have no idea how you'd come down in this particular debate, and I promise I won't be offended if you disagree with me, but I'd like to get some more NPOV eyes, particularly those familiar with Texas politics, on a dispute between myself and another user, Rangerdude, over what's appropriate for inclusion in this article. We've both given here and there on smaller issues but are now down to the larger ones that we probably won't be able to agree on just between ourselves. If you're interested in weighing in, come take a peep at the talk page. I've just recently listed it on RfC so hopefully we can break our stalemate soon, however it shakes out. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was what initially caught my eye about the page -- the information in the controversy section added by Rangerdude completely unbalanced the article in terms of weight, even though it was sourced. (see Talk:Houston Chronicle/NPOV_tag) He did this, also, on the Sheila Jackson Lee page -- added a ton of what appeared to be cheap shots with no corresponding bio information, then glibly responded to criticism by saying well, just add more info.  It's sourced info, but he clearly has an agenda and has been frustrating to deal with.  But, that aside, I wouldn't at all object to forking the thing off into another article.  More information could be added about the context of the debate in general which has been going on for a long time.  Thanks for looking, look forward to your observations about the substance of the controversy section. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not surprised that it doesn't mention it. In terms of the general populace, it wasn't really that big a deal, people didn't pay too much attention to it -- I mean the average citizen.  It made a splash when it first happened, largely because the conservative blogosphere (and Houston Press, which always pounces on a chance to criticize the Chronicle, sometimes quite properly), seized on it.  But that was about it.  To the point about forking, I think that would be fine, and my initial impressions of your suggested articles I think are fine, though I'm not sure that I would make the metrorail controversies page the main one to host the Chronicle information.  It was about the paper, not really about the rail.  It did not significantly impact the public debate about rail, at least not in my estimation.  But I do think that there should be some mention in the main page space of course before referring to a fork page.  I anticipate that Rangerdude will resist this suggestion.  You might pose it on the talk page to see what others think. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 19:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have now made a proposal on this topic here: User:Johntex/Proposal

My RFA: Thanks
Thank you for your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Wikipedia. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle mediation
I've heard you were involved in a content dispute on this page, so I'm asking you if you'd be willing to talk about your views on the matter to help mediation. Please indicate if you are willing to do so and promise the follow these rules.
 * 1) You won't edit the article while mediation is ongoing. Suspected sockpuppeting should be reported to me personally for investigation.
 * 2) No comments aimed at the other party or their edits should contain loaded language that can be construed as offensive or otherwise hurtful.
 * 3) Mediation should be done in good faith without regard for previous editing behavior.
 * 4) Comments should be made about the other person's edits and not them as a person. If possible you should try to bring sources to the table which I can review.
 * If, somewhere along the way, you think there's a possibility to reach an agreement on any of the disputed points, let it be known as soon as you can.

Please respond on my talk page as soon as you can. -- Mgm|(talk) 18:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

American Old West at the US Collaboration
Some time ago, you supported the nomination of American Old West at the COTW. I have now renominated it at the new US Collaboration. If you are still interested, you can support the article with your vote there!--Fenice 08:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Vfd
The WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency article has been locked by an admin who is involved in the dispute and keeps reinserting his/her name in violation of WP:POINT. If your attitude about the project is sincere, you may wish to read through the project talk page and also to examine the behavior of those who voted "delete" and then sign on as members.--MONGO 20:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hubbert peak theory and Hubbertism
(At User:Zzyzx11's talk page) Hello, thank you for acting on my request for Speedy Deletion of Hubbertism. However, you have made it a redirect to Hubbert peak theory. I am not sure that is the best thing to do. I've read somewhere in Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines that an article which is a target of a redirection should use the redirected word somewhere in the first paragraph. The logic of this is so the person who went to the redirected word can quickly see why they were redirected. I would object to using Hubbertism in the intro to Hubbert peak theory because Hubbertism is a neologism that I don't think should be afforded that sort of prominence. I ask you to consider outright deletion instead. Thanks! Johntex 19:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Neologisms and subjects that could be inherently POV do not qualify for speedy deletion. And the practice of having all "inbound redirects" mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article is more of a style guideline with less rigid rules of thumb, rather than an actual set policy in which everyone is expected to follow. Obiviously, you and Benjamin Gatti are debating over the merit of this particular subject on the talk pages and thus you should consider applying some of steps outlined in Resolving disputes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Zzzyzx11, thanks for your reply. I have in fact been working down the steps in dispute resolution.  In addition to attempts to discuss the topic at the Article/Talk page, I have also attempted to engage other outside opinions by listing Hubbert peak theory at Wikiquette Alerts.  If that fails, I guess the next step will be a request for mediation.  As to Hubbertism, if neologisms are not candidates for Speedy Deletion, I will list it at VfD instead.  Johntex 19:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hubbert peak and consensus
Thanks for your help in keeping major changes to the Hubbert peak theory limited to consensus. I admit that Ben makes it hard enough for me to stay cool that I have to step back a bit. It is good to know that some people will help stand up to his war on wikipedia (thought to be honest I think he actually belives he is right even if he comess off as a troll more often than not). Dalf | Talk 07:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina
Hi. A press release from Repent America's webpage,, quotes Repent America director Michael Marcavage as stating: "Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city." How would you address this quote, with respect to the article? -- BD2412 talk 20:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the message on my talk page. As you correctly state, Repent America said "...Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city..."  That is not the same as them saying the city was destroyed because of Southern Decadence, or even because of "wickedness" in general.  It would clearly be fine to quote them as saying the city is "wicked" or to quote them as saying they believe this creates an opportunity for righteousness to emerge, but they never say that the "act of God" was caused by anything at all.   Johntex 20:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... that depends on whether "act of God" means "natural disaster" or "divine intervention." I think it could be interpreted either way, and I think it was so written for exactly that purpose. -- BD2412 talk 20:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That is possible. I'm not familiar with Repent America, other than what I read on their web page.  I don't know how they define "act of God".  THey may consider each birth and death and every event that takes place in the cosmos to be an "act of God".  I think we should not speculate about what they meant.  Now, if some other notable group happens to come along and interpret what Repent America said, we could certainly quote their interpretation - we just shoudn't interpret it ourselves.  Johntex 20:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've put the above quote in the article with the caveat that the meaning is ambiguous. Let me know what you think. -- BD2412 talk 20:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think your new quote is accurate and relevant. It gives enough context for people to get the gist of what Repent America said, and to follow the link to the press release if they want to learn more.  Good work!  Johntex 20:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks - now, can I sway you on deleting the article? -- BD2412 talk 20:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Boy Scouts
(On User talk:Evrik) Hello, I have reverted your rediction from Boy Scouts of America to [Category:Boy Scouts of America]. The category and the article are not supposed to be the same thing. In the future, please discuss major changes on the article talk page, and use edit summaries to let people know what you are trying to do. Thank you very much. Johntex\talk 19:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I see you have reverted my reversion.  Please explain why you are making these big changes with no discussion.  If you do not do so, then I will report this as vandalism.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 19:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi John, I wasn't quick enough in posting my comments! The Scouting page is too long and should be broken up. The category page is the best way to do this. bga evrik


 * Thanks for your message on my talk page. I am sure we can clear this up with some dialog.  I applaud your good intentions in helping us keep the size of individual articles down.  However, I don't think this is the way to go.  First of all, it seems as though you are taking the article content and pasting it over the category information.  That does not decrease the size of the article.  It only removes information about what topics are related.  If I am missing something, please help me understand what it is.  Thanks again - Johntex\talk 19:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Post Script: I want to reorganize the Category Page, but if you keep changing it before I can start placing things in categories it'll never happen! evrik


 * Hi Evrik - thanks for the new message. I'm sure you are trying to make things better, but I really can't see any way that moving the content of an article to a category is going to help.  I don't seem to be the only one who thinks that way, either.  As Tuf Kat said on the article talk page, these two things (articles and categories) are fundamentally different.  I suggest you create a working page, such as Boy Scouts of America/Sandbox and play with that page.  When you get it like you think it should be, then you can post a message on the article talk page letting all interested editors know about your proposed improvement.  Johntex\talk 20:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * John - I went back and replaced the text you deleted on the controversies page because I noticed you hadn't replaced it on the Boy Scout article. If you delete it again ... make sure you restore it from where it was originally taken. After having reread the the guidelines again ... I realized that TufKat was right ... but this is different. I have read the guidelines yet again, and do believe that in the case of the controversies page, the text that sits at the top of the page serves to introduce the issue and is not tooo long. In any case, I tried to make the category a subcategory of the BSA category. I do have a fundamental problem with the way many of the pages in wikipedia are organized ... and was trying to make the BSA page easier to read.  evrik


 * Hello Evrik, the problem with this approach is that when someone opens the Category, they see what looks like an article. They don't see the articles that belong to this classification unless they scroll significantly down the page.  I suggest in this case what may work well is sub-articles.  For example, at Hurricane Katrina, there is a brief description of the impact on New Orleans, but the reader is directed to the main article on Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans.  Similarly, Louisiana Superdome has some information about what happened to the structure during the hurricane, but readers are directed back to the "Effects" article again.  To carry the analogy to the current case, you could create an article Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America.  At that page, you could discuss each controversy very breifly, with a pointer to each controversy's individual article (currently there are 3 of them).  Those 4 articles would all be flagged withe the controvery category.  Finally, over at Boy Scouts of America, there would be a brief paragraph explaining that the orgainization has been involved in some controversies, and then directing readers to the main article at Boy Scouts of America controversies.  The way to do this is with the "main" or "seemain" template.  What do you think? Johntex\talk 23:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Texas Revolution
Sorry JohnTex, i am a Scotsman. I'm afraid I do not have the authority or the knowledge to re work the Texas Revolution article.

My RFA
Thank you so much for supporting my RFA; it meant all the more because I respect your contributions so much. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:52, September 12, 2005 (UTC)