Johntex | Photography | Resources | To-Do | Talk |
---|
My contributions | My admin log |
Talk Archives: 1, 2, 3
I am very busy at the moment and will not be around much this week, maybe 2 weeks. We'll see how it goes. Johntex\ talk 16:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry. Just a heads up, I'll probably be on wikibreak March 3 for a week. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 03:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Gurubrahma 05:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If you haven't gone completely into wiki-break yet, please follow the above link. Sorry for beating you to the punch. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 21:21, Feb. 14, 2006
I'm so glad you liked those popups thingies, Johny, but you should really thank
Lupin, not me! ;) Aww, holding out on you? You've discovered me! What else should you actually know about me, hm? Now that's a tempting subject... how about... a confession that I actually hate football? Yes, a Sooner here telling you this - now go ahead and make fun of me, I deserve it! Your turn now - is there anything I should know about you? I'm all ears ;)
Now seriously, I was so pleased to see your article at the Main page, hun, and a double pleasure that it was one connected to our project. Don't be modest - you made it! Congrats, I told you it was a magnificent piece of work! Big hug,
Phædriel ♥
tell me - 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC) PS. I had Mark give me a huge kiss for you - but let's keep it a secret between you and I, ok? I hope you're doing fine on your wikibreak, and I pray that it shortens as much as possible... two weeks without you around seems a loong wait... :(
Thank you! Hello Johntex/Talk04, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux Talk |
Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.
Kind Regards, Elf-friend 09:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
After the Tech game you commented on my talk page that you had taken a screenshot of the trophy with Bevo in the bkgrd or vice versa. Do you still have that picture? — Scm83x talk 19:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I just created Deep in the Heart of Texas, which is very DYKable. In addition to the LHB article, that could be two on the main page at once. You created the LHB article so go for the DYK. — Scm83x talk 05:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for originally suggesting RFA and supporting me. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism. Needless to say, if you notice me doing something not quite right or have questions about any of my actions, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 16:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Gurubrahma 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
John, you're so hot when you ... research. Nice job! · Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
if you help me get an account on Gamefaqs. I will stop editing the Wunderlic page. I was banned from that message board and haven't found any websites to go too. so I use my extra time editing the wunderlic page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.115.75 ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Johntex\ talk 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Peace! — Eternal Equinox | talk 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Read their copywrites page. Download available for educational purposes.
Thanks Mmeinhart 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)--
Why you hatin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.123.208.4 ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words! Nach0king 09:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so quickly to my question. I shall raise questions on the discussion page at Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Sarum blue 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I followed the talk pages for quite a while and can't see a consensus at all. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.116.76.117 ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider this a game. The display of the cartoons is a violation of the Wikiquette ("Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion.") and the No personal attacks policy ("Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult."). Raphael 62.116.76.117 23:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. I value free speech. But because the right of free speech is so powerful, one should be careful not to abuse it.
That particular anon is not adhereing to WP:TPG in terms of comment format. Just FYI. Haizum 15:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd be glad help hammer out a clearer consensus with regards to censorship policy. Right now I'm going on no sleep so I just added a supporting comment or two. If you want, you can direct me towards threads that are ongoing (where you might need some backup). I'm relatively aggressive with other editors, often pointing out fallacies and attacking any and all logical weak points (which are often mistaken for personal attacks), but this topic will favor logical and pragmatic opinion (rather than rebuttal) so I should be able to stay out of trouble and therefore avoid damaging the credibility of the argument. Anyways, let me know where I'm needed. Haizum 20:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you have updated the DYK with the John McCoy entry but I have several concerns. Please note that adminship is no license to update DYK out of process. For example, the article you created was not listed on Template talk:Did you know. The reason the suggestions need to be listed on this page is that other editors find potential problems. Just as the FA director does not update articles to FA status (he follows a process), so should be the case while updating DYK. With the general distrust for admins on the rise, I have always felt that we should never give a scope for other users to claim admin abuses against us. Anyways, next time you have an interesting suggestion from a new article, please add it to the template talk. Also, the article that is being referenced to in DYK must be bolded to make it stand out from the other wikilinks in the entry. Next time you update DYK, please keep these in mind. If you need to reply, please do so on my talkpage. TIA, -- Gurubrahma 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice answer on the help page!, maybe the best one I have seen so far. :D - cohesion★ talk 07:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Rgulerdem is the person who violated 3RR. Did you actually look at the diff's you posted on my talk page. Adding a contradict tag does not count as a revert. Gerard Foley 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
IMO he did violate 3RR, however I prefer discussion rather then "ha, ha, you're banned for 3RR". It's the easy way out. Gerard Foley 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
A poll has been started on the censorship talk page. You're a major proponent for compromise on this issue, be sure to chime in. Haizum 11:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Raphael has changed my texts previously, personally attacked me and others and otherwhise vandalised articles. I do not think that he has done so to be deliberately obnoxious, but he does seem to have trouble understanding what he reads. Perhaps someone should could volonteer to become his mentor? Not me. I fear him, and I fear writing any answers to him. At least he now has an account. Might it be because his numbered account at one time had a tasc's "last warning" in it, which he cleared that way? Anyway, he is not like some who just vandalises for the sake of it, he believes what he is saying. At the moment, in the cartoons section, he is winning the battle arguing successfully that the "no personal attacks" policy means that he is allowed to attack us contributors, but we are not allowed to hurt the feelings of muslims if they claim they are offended. He is winning since he is tenacious. I do not think he will win in the long run, but he has been making several just as alien claims using similar tactics , and I know at least two others who have decided to stop writing in the article talk areas, at least for a while, because of him. That makes three of us. I don't mind user talk areas, since I don't think he is even aware of them. Since you are an administrator, I thought perhaps you might had some good advice? DanielDemaret 13:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Raphael, JOhntex and Haizum.
I should have explained more about the editing. It sounds a bit worse than it was. Let me repeat what I told you before Johntex, that what Raphael did, I do not think it was intentional. I would not have brought it up at all, if it were not for the fact that he kept doing it after I asked him not to.
What was done repeatedly I think might be better termed "slashing into my text". The problem with this, was that when I, or anyone else read it, since he did not always put his signature, it looked as if I had signed some of his text, and and sometimes it looked as if he had signed some of my text.
So it looked as if Raphael had changed my text at several places. Again, not intentionally. It is the kind of thing one does sometimes with email, but it really doesnt work here, especially if not every line is signed by the slasher.
I should also note that when I asked him to clean it up, Raphaels did try to do this. Unfortunately, it was not enough. Some of my text was gone. So, I added a note to the section that it would be better to start anew that to try to salvage the old.
And then, unfortunately, slashing happened again. I still do not think that it was intentional, so there is not point in tedious looking into history to look for it. I have also seen it being done after that in the mohammed talks, and there, since no cleaning was done, when last I looked, one can find instances of slashing into Haizum's text. I did not check whether the texts there were confused or not.
I hope this clarifies things. I accept the apology that Raphael has made me, of course, and I will apologize for being unclear about the exact nature of my accusation. DanielDemaret 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You are probably right. I don't want to antagonize people. I just feel extremly frustrated about the non-muslim majority showing no respect for the muslim minority. I can't see any reason, why people don't want the linkimage compromise, exept to offend muslims on purpose. Raphael1 21:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would address inappropriate comments/format on my talk page from Gerard Foley.
He has also ignored and deleted my requested posted to his talk page 3 times now. Haizum 23:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Gmcfoley&diff=prev&oldid=42551541
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AHaizum&diff=42551506&oldid=42492589
Thank you for your help. Please review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Gmcfoley&action=history
I do believe, "FUCK OFF" is a personal attack, especially when I'm reminding him of WP:TPG. Haizum 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to tolerate you trolling my thread. Got that?
I don't think such a post on a persons talk page is needed.
What Haizum does with his talk page is up to him, just as long as he leaves me alone. I don't think that is asking too much. Gerard Foley 23:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe I have already voted in that poll, thanks anyway. As someone who just arrive at that page, it is rather difficult to follow the long discussion. But if there is any other related poll either in WP-space or in articles, and I've missed it; please kindly inform me. Thanks! -- Vsion 00:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Johntex | Photography | Resources | To-Do | Talk |
---|
My contributions | My admin log |
Talk Archives: 1, 2, 3
I am very busy at the moment and will not be around much this week, maybe 2 weeks. We'll see how it goes. Johntex\ talk 16:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry. Just a heads up, I'll probably be on wikibreak March 3 for a week. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 03:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Gurubrahma 05:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If you haven't gone completely into wiki-break yet, please follow the above link. Sorry for beating you to the punch. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 21:21, Feb. 14, 2006
I'm so glad you liked those popups thingies, Johny, but you should really thank
Lupin, not me! ;) Aww, holding out on you? You've discovered me! What else should you actually know about me, hm? Now that's a tempting subject... how about... a confession that I actually hate football? Yes, a Sooner here telling you this - now go ahead and make fun of me, I deserve it! Your turn now - is there anything I should know about you? I'm all ears ;)
Now seriously, I was so pleased to see your article at the Main page, hun, and a double pleasure that it was one connected to our project. Don't be modest - you made it! Congrats, I told you it was a magnificent piece of work! Big hug,
Phædriel ♥
tell me - 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC) PS. I had Mark give me a huge kiss for you - but let's keep it a secret between you and I, ok? I hope you're doing fine on your wikibreak, and I pray that it shortens as much as possible... two weeks without you around seems a loong wait... :(
Thank you! Hello Johntex/Talk04, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux Talk |
Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.
Kind Regards, Elf-friend 09:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
After the Tech game you commented on my talk page that you had taken a screenshot of the trophy with Bevo in the bkgrd or vice versa. Do you still have that picture? — Scm83x talk 19:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I just created Deep in the Heart of Texas, which is very DYKable. In addition to the LHB article, that could be two on the main page at once. You created the LHB article so go for the DYK. — Scm83x talk 05:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for originally suggesting RFA and supporting me. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism. Needless to say, if you notice me doing something not quite right or have questions about any of my actions, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 16:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Gurubrahma 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
John, you're so hot when you ... research. Nice job! · Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
if you help me get an account on Gamefaqs. I will stop editing the Wunderlic page. I was banned from that message board and haven't found any websites to go too. so I use my extra time editing the wunderlic page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.115.75 ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Johntex\ talk 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Peace! — Eternal Equinox | talk 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Read their copywrites page. Download available for educational purposes.
Thanks Mmeinhart 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)--
Why you hatin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.123.208.4 ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words! Nach0king 09:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so quickly to my question. I shall raise questions on the discussion page at Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Sarum blue 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I followed the talk pages for quite a while and can't see a consensus at all. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.116.76.117 ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider this a game. The display of the cartoons is a violation of the Wikiquette ("Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion.") and the No personal attacks policy ("Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult."). Raphael 62.116.76.117 23:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. I value free speech. But because the right of free speech is so powerful, one should be careful not to abuse it.
That particular anon is not adhereing to WP:TPG in terms of comment format. Just FYI. Haizum 15:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd be glad help hammer out a clearer consensus with regards to censorship policy. Right now I'm going on no sleep so I just added a supporting comment or two. If you want, you can direct me towards threads that are ongoing (where you might need some backup). I'm relatively aggressive with other editors, often pointing out fallacies and attacking any and all logical weak points (which are often mistaken for personal attacks), but this topic will favor logical and pragmatic opinion (rather than rebuttal) so I should be able to stay out of trouble and therefore avoid damaging the credibility of the argument. Anyways, let me know where I'm needed. Haizum 20:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you have updated the DYK with the John McCoy entry but I have several concerns. Please note that adminship is no license to update DYK out of process. For example, the article you created was not listed on Template talk:Did you know. The reason the suggestions need to be listed on this page is that other editors find potential problems. Just as the FA director does not update articles to FA status (he follows a process), so should be the case while updating DYK. With the general distrust for admins on the rise, I have always felt that we should never give a scope for other users to claim admin abuses against us. Anyways, next time you have an interesting suggestion from a new article, please add it to the template talk. Also, the article that is being referenced to in DYK must be bolded to make it stand out from the other wikilinks in the entry. Next time you update DYK, please keep these in mind. If you need to reply, please do so on my talkpage. TIA, -- Gurubrahma 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice answer on the help page!, maybe the best one I have seen so far. :D - cohesion★ talk 07:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Rgulerdem is the person who violated 3RR. Did you actually look at the diff's you posted on my talk page. Adding a contradict tag does not count as a revert. Gerard Foley 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
IMO he did violate 3RR, however I prefer discussion rather then "ha, ha, you're banned for 3RR". It's the easy way out. Gerard Foley 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
A poll has been started on the censorship talk page. You're a major proponent for compromise on this issue, be sure to chime in. Haizum 11:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Raphael has changed my texts previously, personally attacked me and others and otherwhise vandalised articles. I do not think that he has done so to be deliberately obnoxious, but he does seem to have trouble understanding what he reads. Perhaps someone should could volonteer to become his mentor? Not me. I fear him, and I fear writing any answers to him. At least he now has an account. Might it be because his numbered account at one time had a tasc's "last warning" in it, which he cleared that way? Anyway, he is not like some who just vandalises for the sake of it, he believes what he is saying. At the moment, in the cartoons section, he is winning the battle arguing successfully that the "no personal attacks" policy means that he is allowed to attack us contributors, but we are not allowed to hurt the feelings of muslims if they claim they are offended. He is winning since he is tenacious. I do not think he will win in the long run, but he has been making several just as alien claims using similar tactics , and I know at least two others who have decided to stop writing in the article talk areas, at least for a while, because of him. That makes three of us. I don't mind user talk areas, since I don't think he is even aware of them. Since you are an administrator, I thought perhaps you might had some good advice? DanielDemaret 13:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Raphael, JOhntex and Haizum.
I should have explained more about the editing. It sounds a bit worse than it was. Let me repeat what I told you before Johntex, that what Raphael did, I do not think it was intentional. I would not have brought it up at all, if it were not for the fact that he kept doing it after I asked him not to.
What was done repeatedly I think might be better termed "slashing into my text". The problem with this, was that when I, or anyone else read it, since he did not always put his signature, it looked as if I had signed some of his text, and and sometimes it looked as if he had signed some of my text.
So it looked as if Raphael had changed my text at several places. Again, not intentionally. It is the kind of thing one does sometimes with email, but it really doesnt work here, especially if not every line is signed by the slasher.
I should also note that when I asked him to clean it up, Raphaels did try to do this. Unfortunately, it was not enough. Some of my text was gone. So, I added a note to the section that it would be better to start anew that to try to salvage the old.
And then, unfortunately, slashing happened again. I still do not think that it was intentional, so there is not point in tedious looking into history to look for it. I have also seen it being done after that in the mohammed talks, and there, since no cleaning was done, when last I looked, one can find instances of slashing into Haizum's text. I did not check whether the texts there were confused or not.
I hope this clarifies things. I accept the apology that Raphael has made me, of course, and I will apologize for being unclear about the exact nature of my accusation. DanielDemaret 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You are probably right. I don't want to antagonize people. I just feel extremly frustrated about the non-muslim majority showing no respect for the muslim minority. I can't see any reason, why people don't want the linkimage compromise, exept to offend muslims on purpose. Raphael1 21:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would address inappropriate comments/format on my talk page from Gerard Foley.
He has also ignored and deleted my requested posted to his talk page 3 times now. Haizum 23:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Gmcfoley&diff=prev&oldid=42551541
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AHaizum&diff=42551506&oldid=42492589
Thank you for your help. Please review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Gmcfoley&action=history
I do believe, "FUCK OFF" is a personal attack, especially when I'm reminding him of WP:TPG. Haizum 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to tolerate you trolling my thread. Got that?
I don't think such a post on a persons talk page is needed.
What Haizum does with his talk page is up to him, just as long as he leaves me alone. I don't think that is asking too much. Gerard Foley 23:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe I have already voted in that poll, thanks anyway. As someone who just arrive at that page, it is rather difficult to follow the long discussion. But if there is any other related poll either in WP-space or in articles, and I've missed it; please kindly inform me. Thanks! -- Vsion 00:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)