User talk:Johntex/Talk24

Johntex	Photography	Resources	To-Do	Talk

My contributions

My admin log

This is Johntex's talk page. To leave me a new message, please click here.

Talk Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

In memoriam

The Drag

Hello Johntex, i noticed you edited the drag, i really appreciate the picture. i wanted you to know that someone is trying to delete the page because the drag is not 'notable'. i am a new editor but i believe the drag is a notable cultural icon of austin. if you could improve the article or offer any suggestions i would greatly appreciate it. ron-neg-ron

help?

Johntex, can't seem to get my new signature to link to my talk page. Can you help me? BQZip01 ^{user | talk} 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird! It works after a few minutes, but doesn't seem to work right away. Any idea why that is? BQZip01 ^{user | talk} 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Figured it out! (I was testing on my talk page, so it eliminated that link...<insert Aggie joke here> BQZip01 ^{user | talk} 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture Licensing?

I recently uploaded a photograph (Image:William H Sewell.JPG), and I am unsure what kind of licensing it requires, or if it can even legally be on Wikipedia. I don't have much understanding of the Fair Use, Free Use, and copyright rules. As for the picture, it comes from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Archives, where I do believe it has a copyright. I contacted the Director of the Archives about the copyright status, and he replied that he has "no problem with [me] using the photos". I have included the letter here for all to see and enjoy :). This photograph is the first of many that I wish to add to wikipedia from the UW-Madison Archives; but I thought that I would first ask a more experienced editor on the rules and procedure of doing so. Any help and additional information that you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reponding! I think I found the site to post those permission letters at Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission. At the suggestion of another editor, I am sending another email to the Director of the archives to be more specific in the copyright licensing that we can use. Thanks! – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

VT

Are you willing to go through and make main|sub splits for the response section? We could have a Responses to the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, that would cover all of the "responses" sections in the current article. Then, as sections got too big within that, we could split them into sub-pages, or lists as appropriate. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

consensus

If not, it'll jsut get reverted, right? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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 BetacommandBot 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

IFD on Magazine covers

Hi, Johntext. I just noticed you recent interest in closing ifd debates. This is very noble, considering the current size of the backlog there. I wish I could help myself.

I hope you don't take it with disappointment if I say that I disagree with some of your recent non-deletions. For instance, here, you said that image should be kept because it was "historical in nature" and that the "image is properly discussed in the two articles where it appears". What do you mean by "historical in nature" (not a rhetorical question at all!).

Also, I must say that we disagree in our views of what "properly discussed" means. The image in question is used in Ray Mancini and Duk Koo Kim, and the only mention to the image in both article is a note that the image was published as a magazine cover! In Ray Mancini: "The week after his death, the cover of Sports Illustrated magazine showed Mancini and Kim battling, under the title "Tragedy In The Ring."". And in Duk Koo Kim it's just "The week after, Sports Illustrated published a photo of the fight on its cover, under the heading Tragedy in The Ring".

I have no objections to using historic images, as long as we're able to source the claim that the image is historic. Do you believe we can do it in this case? I even asked that during the ifd discussion, but the editor that claimed this images is historic, for some reason, couldn't reply. Are you aware of any published commentary about this image? Is it notable enough to be mentioned in the article?

Also, in this ifd closing you said there is a "valid claim for historical significance". Aren't you concerned with possible original research being involved in the analysis User:Lmcelhiney (the uploader) made in the ifd? Again, is there anything published about this image or we are being the first one to notice its relevance and influence?

Finally, reading the non-deleteion of this playboy cover, where do you see the image (and not only the magazine issue publication) being discussed? What's special about this cover? Was it controversial in any sense? Did the photo won some award? In resume: Did some independent source ever said something about this image, or we are again doing or own independent research here? Judging by the Ashley Massaro article's content, there's no such source. The article mentions that the person in question posed for Playboy (and for a dozen other magazines) but nothing about this image. When you closed the ifd you said "image is discussed in the article where it appears and passes the fair use test"? What "fair use test" are you referring to? The foundation resolution on unfree images, that says that unfree content usage "must be minimal" and used "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works?" This image (the work in question) isn't discussed at all! And discussing it would probably be original research as it's a non-notable work of art that has never been discussed before!

Johntext, as you learned (or should have learned) in a previous ifd discussion about a magazine cover you uploaded, we don't use unfree images of magazine covers just to illustrate text passages that happen to mention the magazine publication or that happen to simply describe the cover image itself. If the image notability can't be asserted, it can't be used.

I understand that you don't like Wikipedia's instance on unfree content. It's sad to me when I see an admin calling what I see as a mission, a "crusade". But I don't think you can't simply force your views in use of the admin powers that were trusted to you.

Please, consider deleting these images. Even though you would like this kind of unfree material usage to be accepted on Wikipedia, you perfectly understand it isn't.

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the IFD please also note the staunch opposition to the user's copyright paranoia on his afd John. He was told by several users that he suffers from it and his bullying ways were called into question. Trevor GH5 11:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Abu, thank you for your message. I did close several IFD's yesterday. Most of them I closed to delete, I believe, and deleted the corresponding image files accordingly. Not all IFD's end in delete, of course, that is why we have a process for deleting them. An admin looks at and evaluates the various arguments presented. Some of them are closed as keep.

I would like to make a slight correction to the impression you seem to have of me. You said on my talk page, "I understand that you don't like Wikipedia's instance on unfree content." This is not quite accurate.

I am very happy to promote free content. In fact, just yesterday I placed several new, free images (created by me) on Commons, added a couple of them into relevant articles, and added some more links from articles to their appropriate commons repository pages.

However, promoting free content does not and should not mean that we fail to make appropriate use of fair use content when it enhances our role of creating an encyclopedia. It is when we blindly or mechanically begin trying to remove all fair use content that we have gone over the top. We must balance the objective of promoting free content with the objective of making an informative encyclopedia.

As was argued successfully by other people at IfD, the images I kept were appropriate images. For instance, a magazine cover depicting the very blow that apparently caused a fighter's death is clearly a significant historical image. Johntex\^talk 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

When I say you "don't like Wikipedia's instance on unfree content", I'm referring to comments I have seen you made about how Wikipedia should allow more unfree material than it currently allows [1] [2], while the trend is visibly do decrease the amount of unfree material usage (see the recent foundation resolution, statements by Jimbo, etc).

I hope you're not referring to me when you talk about "blindly or mechanically trying to remove all fair use content". Indeed, I'm yet to know one Wikipedia editor that does image cleaning "blindly or mechanically". Those adjectives would, IMHO, more accurately describe the pace at which we're uploading new images.

Regarding your last paragraph, the only addressing my concerns, is it your last instance that the arguments at all the ifds I mentioned were successful? Wouldn't you have anything to add to the case-by-case explanations I gave on my comment above? Did they sound blind or mechanic to you? How are those successful arguments different from the ones you gave in a recent ifd of a magazine cover you uploaded (and that was ultimately deleted)? If you disagree the kind of images that are deleted on ifd, you should use deletion review, instead of imposing your opinion in similar nominations.

About the "clearly significant historical image", do you understand our use wouldn't be fair unless we're discussing the "clearly significant historical image" itself? Would we be able to source such discussion?

Please, let me know if that's all you have to add to my concerns. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abu, I appreciate that you disagree with me on some of the closures. You have the right to disagree. I don't have time right at the moment to discuss each image with you. If you like, I will review your objections in more detail when I have more time - which would likely be this weekend. As I said, from looking at the discussion on some of the IFD's, it seemed to me there was a good case for keeping a few of the images. I closed those in favor of keeping. Several others needed to go so I deleted them. Johntex\^talk 16:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Please, take the time you need to review these images. And, if you could, just please let me know when you have any position on the issue. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

John, I happened to see this conversation on my watchlist, and I wanted to say I'm very concerned about the Sports Illustrated Fight image not on foundation policy grounds but on legal grounds. Looking at the manner in which this image is used in the articles, it's clearly being used to illustrate the fight, not the single throwaway sentence about the issue itself in each article, and as such is competing directly with SI's use. (Your keep statement seems to indicate that you share this opinion, as you said "historical in nature as it depicts the final blow that led to the death of one of the two fighters".) Thus, I'm strongly inclined to say that this image fails the legal standard for fair use; I'm going to delete it. Please consider the legal question of whether our use is infringing on the image's value to the copyright holder when closing discussion such as this. --Robth^Talk 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely did consider the legal question. Our image is much smaller than their cover and I don't believe they are going to lose any sales over our reduced-size image being shown here. If you think there is some threat to their commercial rights then the best thing to do would be to make our image even smaller. Johntex\^talk 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is this: Sports Illustrated paid for that image to be taken so that they could profit off of it commercially by using it to illustrate that event (for example, by putting it on their website, where people who want to see it on the internet will view their ads while seeing the image). The number of situations in which we can claim fair use for an image from a commercial content provider for any purpose other than commenting on the content provider itself is tiny. By using this image to illustrate that event at an alternate site on the internet, we are clearly competing with Sports Illustrated's use of the image. This is not fair use. --Robth^Talk 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Any time the image is owned by someone else, they have a potential to be trying to sell it. The argument you are attempting to make could also be made for images like the photo of Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Fair use law allows us to make use of small sections of published works. That would include a suitable resolution image of a magazine cover. Johntex\^talk 18:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Any time the image is owned by someone else, they have a potential to be trying to sell it." True, but the point is that the owners of, say, promotional photos aren't trying to sell them--if they suddenly decided that they wanted to sell those images as commercial content a la Getty, Corbis, or SI, the argument for fair use would evaporate. The manner in which the copyright holder is using the content is extremely relevant to the potential of claiming fair use of that content.

With regards to "Raising the Flag...", your argument is clearly spurious; with that image, we're commenting not on the event that the photo illustrates, but on the (world famous) photo itself--a categorically different situation under fair use law (for the same reason, we have a rock solid fair use claim for, say, Guernica.) Taking photos from a commercial content provider, to illustrate the same event that the commercial content provider is using them to illustrate, is direct competition, and is a very basic fair use no-no. --Robth^Talk 18:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I still disagree with your interpretation. If the matter is important to you then I suggest you take that closure to Deletion Review. Best, Johntex\^talk 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you had the time?

Hi, Johntex. Did you had the time to review the points raised above? Thanks. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abu, I got a little distracted. I had an article that had been listed as a GA nom for a month, and someone finally reviewed it and had a bunch of things for me to fix. That took most of my Wikipedia-time for last week-end.

I think you saw one of the images did get deleted by a different admin. I have had in the back of my mind that perhaps some of the others should as well. So, I am sorry I have not gotten to them as expected, but I have not forgotten either. I want to review them thoroughly as I think they were not clear cut. Could I ask for your continued patience for one more week-end? Best, Johntex\^talk 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Have the time you need. We will gain nothing from a rushed judgment. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

2005 Texas Longhorns

Keen editor, aren't you? :D It's around midnight over here, so I'll have a look at it in the morning. Thanks again for your very helpful review of the BT19 article, I'm pressing on with answering your points (I hope!). Cheers. 4u1e 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. The only remaining point for me is the Kennedy quote. Have a look at my explanation on the talk page. If you can fix that, I'm happy to pass the article as GA. 4u1e 19:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 Longhorns

I think listing it at GA/R is the right thing to do, since if I'm right a consensus is better, and if I'm wrong the decision needs to be reversed. Hope you weren't too annoyed by my fail of the article; it's nothing personal of course. In any case good luck with the article and I look forward to reading the final version -- I live in Austin and took a few classes at UT, so I'm a Longhorn too. Mike Christie (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Alterations to Cenotaph. Whitehall, London

Johntex

You reverted the article on the London Cenotaph and took out my alteration on the of the virtual meeting point of the sides. the figure shown is 100feet and the correct distance is 1000 feet.

I accept that i did not give references.

My source's were

'The Architect' August 22nd, 1919 The website http://www.veterans-uk.info/remembrance/cenoptaph2.html

'The Secret of the Cenotaph' Andrew Crompton AA files#34, 1997, pages 64,67

Drawings in the article by Allen Greenberg, 'Lutyens's Cenotaph' Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, XLVIII:1, March 1989

and Finally

The Drawing in 'The Architecture of Sir Edwin Lutyens' A. S. G. Butler ISBN: 0907462723

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.94.232 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello, thanks for your message but I think you are mistaken. I believe I have only editted that article once, and that was simply to flag the fact that it did not have any references.[3]

Am I missing something?

Thanks, Johntex\^talk 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Baby Gender Mentor box.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Baby Gender Mentor box.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. 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}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. —Angr 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:BGM test step5 apply blood to the card included with the kit.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:BGM test step5 apply blood to the card included with the kit.PNG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. 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}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. —Angr 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chang_Wang_-_Acu-Gen_President.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Chang_Wang_-_Acu-Gen_President.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case on which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also note the arbitrators' comments here regarding scheduling matters. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Gustofsen

I feel like Jeffrey is continuing to be a problem for Wikipedia, though my only experience is with the pet food article so he could be doing good things elsewhere, but with his attitude it seems unlikely. He seems more interested in displays of power and egotism than improving the articles and he continues to harrass editors who disagree with him. I have posted a comment on his discussion page in accordance with WP:DR but figured I'd write to you as well since he'll probably just delete the comment. Any help or advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated.[[User:|Jfwambaugh]] 20:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My attempts to discuss JOG's behavior with him have been deleted from his user talk. I now think that it is reasonable to begin a request for arbitration and I am interested to know if you wish to participate. I believe that there is sufficient evidence and precedence ([4]) for action to be taken. I plan to request that he be blocked from editing pet food recall-related articles and that his administrator privileges be reviewed. Let me know if you are interested in helping. Jfwambaugh 14:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FTR, the only real dispute was my WP:BOLD edits at the outset. Aside from violating 3RR on the first day more than three weeks ago (which I admitted to, and apologized for), lest we forget an offense also committed by Jfwambaugh (a single-issue editor) that day, I have not violated a single policy on 2007 pet food crisis. I have still not used a single administrative action despite being the target of (continuing) personal attacks. I barely make substantive edits to the article - in actuality, the article as it now stands is largely being written, updated, and organized by another user altogether. Jfwambaugh's problem stems from losing "his" original article in my WP:BOLD edits, and has nothing to do with the current state of the article. Indeed, his only concern is to get me desyssoped, something he is actively campaigning for. For the record. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to actually share your opinion. While I agree that your edits have been hardly substantive, they have been distruptive since you have been reverting valid edits and reinserting text and images from your version of the article -- even when the content has not been deleted, but merely moved within the article. You have also deleted without warning attempts to create additional, related articles. I am not campaigning for you to lose your admin privileges, and even though you do appear to use them with like a bully, I requested only that you apologize and voluntarily refrain from any more pet food related edits. Since you deleted this message rather than responding, I am now pursuing arbitration. Finally, remember that one person's WP:BOLD is another's WP:VAND and in the midst of a health-related current event, it is far safer to assume the latter.Jfwambaugh 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't clog someone else's talk page with trying to rebut these attacks or to try to explain how mind-bogglingly off policy you are. Like I explained in that edit summary, you need to create an RfC before it even comes close to arbitration. I am really looking forward to an RfC, so, like I said, please, please do as you wish. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hello everyone. Sorry, if I had known visitors were coming I would have set out some tea and cookies.  :-)

I would encourage you both to follow the dispute resolution process. There are steps to take before going to arbitration. The first step is to try to talk it out. You are welcome to use my Talk page for that if you like.  :-)

If that fails, then formal or informal mediation is suggested. Then RfC, and finally Arbitration. I'm happy to help in any way I can. Johntex\^talk 15:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, DR would be applicable if there was a dispute between me an Jfwambaugh, but, aside from him being pissed about my initial BOLD edit, there is none. He says I have been "reinserting text and images from your version of the article" - which is perplexing, because "my version," if we want to call it that, is what the current article has been built from. I have put back the melamine diagram after he had removed it. However, another editor took it upon themselves to ad more diagrams, so "consensus" seems to be in favor of the diagrams for now. Indeed, any back and forth between myself and anyone else has never come close to 3RR, barely 1RR, and has usually found equilibrium to the benefit of the article. Which is how it always works, with collaborative editing, if you look at it. Jfwambaugh is a single-issue editor with little experience outside of his interactions with me, so likely does not know that the occasional back and forth is normal and encouraged. He repeatedly accuses me of WP:OWN, which is perplexing, because I barely edit the article. I never reverted his integration of "his" article, nor his rearrangement of the body of the article, nor his substantive text additions. And in the past week+, most of the editing has been done by User:AbbyKelleyite, a wonderful new user who has completely rearranged the middle of the article, added a TON of information, and more. Honestly, I am silently deferring to AbbyKelleyite in terms of the overall organization of the article and keeping things up-to-date. I pop in now and then to do stylistic tweaks and other quality control stuff, but that's about it.

There is a mild back and forth between myself and one User:Rodrigue over Timeline of the 2007 North American pet food recall. I deleted that article as CSD A-1, which it was. The user (who has left me several incomprehensible screeds) was trying to create a sub-article. Looking at the user's talk page, he has no idea how to do this effectively, and has had problems on other articles trying to do this, and has largely ignored any attempts at trying to educate him on proper sub-article creation. Nevertheless, I let him keep the Timeline article which he expanded a bit, then largely abandoned. He has, a couple of times, tried to put {{main|Timeline[...] in the 2007 pet food crisis article, which I have removed because, obviously, it doesn't come close to {{main|... . But, that has nothing to do with Jfwambaugh, although, in his canvassing to get me desyssoped, he has tried to make it his issue, too.

But, back to Jfwambaugh. As I have made clear, there just is not an ongoing dispute. He doesn't seem to understand this, and has said that he "invokes [his] right to DR" as if it is some kind of legal process, with his intention from the beginning to get me banned from the article and desyssoped. He has made the bizarre accusation that my edits have been POV and unsourced vandalism (which, anyone with half a brain-stem randomly picking any of my edits to the article can see is hideously preposterous), and continues personally attacking me by accusing me of somehow not being neutral in my actions. There just no dispute to resolve and his main goal really is to punish me for WP:BOLDly overwriting "his" article, an act he thinks was vandalism. No-one has bothered to try to explain to him how wrong he is on so many levels, he won't listen to me of course, and he had far too much egging on from a particular user who was relishing in attacking me and disappeared from the article after the first week.

Anyway, sorry to drag this onto your talk page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about dragging it here, that is not a problem. I think that if one party thinks there is an active dispute, then there probably is an active dispute. It may still stem from the very beginning of the article, but it does not seem to be resolved. Therefore, I do think DR is applicable. Of course, it is not really correct to speak of a "right to DR" in a formal, legal sense because we only officially have the right to WP:FORK or leave. However, in a less formal sense, DR is sort of the legal/beauracratic way that the commuunity tries to resolve these matters. Johntex\^talk 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, if DR applies although there is no active dispute what D do I need to R, because he has made it unequivocally clear that the only thing that will stop him from taking it to "arbitration" (which I don't particularly care if he does - he'd be soundly shot down) is that I apologize for my initial edit (sorry, that won't happen) and, and this is an actual, honest quote, that I "refrain from editing, deleting, or moving articles related to the pet food recall." Arbcom doesn't do that kindof thing to editors without months of laborious discussion with a zillion parties and huge never-ending edit wars (let alone admins who barely edit the article they supposedly edit war on), so I'd be damned if some new user who clearly doesn't fully understand our policies, procedures, and customs (if at all) tries to force that on me.

If the dispute is my initial edit, what am I supposed to do, go back in time and not do it? No, that is not a "dispute" - its a single-issue editor, a new user who got his feelings hurt and is being vindictive about an action nearly a month old and gone. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, give me a bit and I will leave a message for JFWambaugh. Johntex\^talk 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

No problem, glad to review the article. That minor mistake wasn't going to fail article. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Bull story

Thought you would get a kick out of this joke and story. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess you had to be there. Have a good day! — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 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 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19

Hi. Still not happy with the hide/show version of the key (see discussion here). I've put the full key into the article for now: probably best to pass/fail the article in its current state, it's been on hold for a while now and I'm starting to feel I'm stretching the rules a little far! 4u1e 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

hoi polloi image

Hi, I noticed you added the current image and caption to Hoi polloi last year. There's a discussion on the image and its caption going on at Talk:Hoi polloi that I thought you might be interested in.--Eloil 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities

Hello Johntex, Can you please Participate here? I didn't find your name there. Thank you :) --NAHID 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question on football team template

I think that took care of it. Note the changes to the template since it was modified for use on multiple sports. {{NCAATeamSeason}}.↔NMajdan•talk 20:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Fixed.↔NMajdan•talk 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

I just thought I'd notify you that another editor has brought up a discussion on an action you took at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johntex. VegaDark (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New Good Article

Texas A&M University We're shooting for FA status by the end of May. Just thought you might want to know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:BGM_test_step5_apply_blood_to_the_card_included_with_the_kit.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BGM_test_step5_apply_blood_to_the_card_included_with_the_kit.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see

...my post on the Talk:WikiProject Texas. Thanks. -JCarriker 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)