User talk:Textorus

Before you post a comment here, be advised:

This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, 2 months and 12 days.

DGAF	This user does not give a fuck.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brown Building (Austin, Texas), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KBR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liz Carpenter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antebellum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robin Renwick, Baron Renwick of Clifton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chancery.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you recently edited the Justin Trudeau Wikipedia article. Please read the Justin Trudeau talk page, and join the discussion. Thank you,Peerreviewededitor (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biblical canon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Was wondering myself about the "and Jackson received schooling from two nearby priests" (especially that "nearby priests" part...) so I went hunting for when it was added to the article. It's been present in the Jackson article since April 2017 when it was added with this edit . Does Wilentz's 2005 biography say *anything* specifically about Jackson's early schooling? If he did that could certainly be of interest...
The text & source are as follows:

Jackson's father died in an accident in February 1767 at the age of 29, three weeks before his son Andrew was born in the Waxhaws area. Jackson, his mother, and his brothers lived with Jackson's aunt and uncle in the Waxhaws region, and Jackson received schooling from two nearby priests.

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "two priests" part jumped out at me, too. Obviously that edit was made by a child or an ignoramus with no concept of the time and the place where Jackson grew up. In a small, tightly-knit, very Presbyterian community, sending a child to two priests - presumably Catholic - would have been like sending him to the devil. I followed the link within the source link to the Wilentz biography, which on page 16 says the young Jackson was sent to two clergymen - a very different thing!

In the following paragraph, however, Wilentz says he was sent to a "religious academy" but does not name it or say where it was. On page 177, a timeline of "Milestones" gives the names of two men who ran schools (plural) that Jackson attended in 1775-1780. It is not certain that these are the two clergymen mentioned before.

All this was too vague and nebulous for me, so I simply deleted the false claim. If you'd like to take the time to stitch these fragments into the wikiarticle, by all means go ahead. I was just there to find out his birth and death dates, really. Thanks for taking an interest. Textorus (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see this nifty little reply link until I'd already replied to you on my talk page. Please take a look over there. Textorus (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, re the "priests" - made no sense. I do not have access to the Wilentz book. Can you put the names of those two men here? I can see if I can figure out if those guys are the two clergymen or not...little puzzles fascinate me lol, maybe I'll stitch it all back in at some point. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The link within a link is footnote 9 in paragraph 2 of the Early life section, but I'll save you a step: just go to https://books.google.com/books?id=1GhZl6KhM4cC&pg=PP8. Textorus (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. Actually Wilentz isn't much help at all on the specifics but at least I have found some names in other sources (TG we get jstor access around here now) - in Vol. 7, No. 1, MARCH, 1948 Tennessee Historical Quarterly... James White Stephenson(school on the Catabaw, prominent Pres. clergyman), Professor Branch, Dr./Mr. William Humphries (school at Waxhaw Church), Reverend Francis Cummins (prominent Pres. clergyman, classical boarding school), Robert M'Culloch (Jackson's last school studies occurred with a Mr. M'Culloch in an area of North Carolina called "the New Acquisition", happened after Jackson returned home after the Rev War and before he studied law - source The Complete Memoirs of Andrew Jackson: Seventh President of the United States : Containing a Full Account of His Military Life and Achievements, with His Career as President by John Henry Eaton, 1878 Edition).

Shearonink (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good find, I hope you will use it to improve the wikiarticle. I saw the notice about Jstor access some months ago but have never got around to signing up for it. I used to do more research like that before I retired, but now I mainly just do copyedits and easy cleanups. I'll be interested to see what you do with the Jackson article, which *could be* fleshed out in many ways. All good wishes. Textorus (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Jstor access is awesome, I love it. One of the best things about the Wikipedia Library. I'm going to poke around Jackson's early education and fix it up a little bit, that part of the article does seem awfully loosely cited and relying too much on generalities. All that is mostly because Jackson wasn't too precise about those things. As a teenager he came home ill and beaten, after being jailed by the British. Then his mother went to get some relatives out of a similar circumstance and she caught sick and died...his childhood, though not easy, was gone in an instant when his fierce protector died. I suppose he didn't care much to remember and reminisce about his education and what things were like when he was young. I'll at least get some of the names/places/schools in the article. Thanks for your help. Shearonink (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per your question here: As noted on the talk page back in January, we have left a birthplace claim out of the article since Santos's claim of being born in Queens cannot be (and hasn't been) substantiated (or contradicted) by any reliable source. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Case, thanks for letting me know. Though I think this situation ought to be at least footnoted in the Santos article. And it seems like some intrepid wikieditor or real-world journalist ought to be able to find out if the guy is even a US citizen or not. You remember how Obama was hounded about that point for several years. Oh well, I suppose it is a moot point now that Miss Thing has finally gotten the richly deserved boot. Cheers! Textorus (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, we had another (now-archived) talk page discussion about that issue, concluding that without reliable sourcing his place of birth we can't say for sure. (and here's a fuller discussion of that, CTTOI). I did note there (I think) that ICS apparently accepting his marriage as valid suggests that they were satisfied he's a citizen, but given that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the marriage was purely for immigration purposes, including two former roommates of Santos saying this on the record, you have to wonder how thoroughly they reviewed the case in this instance (and/or how effectively Santos and the woman fooled them).

I have, as a result of your edit, put an inline comment for future editors to tell us they completely missed while making the edit.

This story is not over, as I've said on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, :@Daniel Case, I see that this issue has already been discussed to death. No doubt it will be a fascinating study for future historians of American politics - or maybe it will just fade into oblivion as I hope the subject will. Though I doubt this bad penny can resist returning to the high-heeled limelight for long. Whatever happens, it would make a grand farce on stage or screen, wouldn't it? Reminds me of the time one authoress slammed another authoress for habitual lying, saying "every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'." It would all be so funny if it weren't so sad. Textorus (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Howdy! Just wanted to give a heads up in this edit to D'Hondt method, you marked a link that was indeed dead with the dead link template. The problem is that the tag was outside of the ref tags, whereas according to Template:Dead link they must be inside. I've noticed IABot removes these tags if they're outside of ref tags, since it doesn't know what they apply to.

I added archive link to the page here. Cheers! GrapesRock (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the friendly tip, User:GrapesRock. I've been editing Wikipedia for nigh on 18 years now, and this is the first I've ever heard of putting the tag *inside* the ref marks. Ya learn something every day. I'll do that from now on. Textorus (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

Sorry if I'm imposing, but I was genuinely curious and just wanted to know where the page history for the Westward Expansion page is, if you know. Thanks if you feel like responding. Remsense ‥ 论 22:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense - Sorry, I have no idea. I just went to look up the article a little while ago, and found only the DAB links. No doubt some wikiwizard could find the page history, but that's way above my pay grade. Though I would like to see it too, if you do find it. Textorus (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense - It occurs to me that the title could have been "Westward Movement in the United States" or Westward Migration, or something else. But even if I am completely mistaken, there damn well ought to be an article on that topic. And beyond that, for all my 18+ years on Wikipedia there has been PC editing in all sorts of articles, and especially in the last few years. It's not worth my time to lead a crusade here. But my protest against rewriting history remains, wherever the guilt may lie. Textorus (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think editors are usually pretty happy to acknowledge biases in their editing when given solid evidence of perspectives in sources. I understand that sounds naïve, but it's worth keeping in mind the outliers are the ones that leave a bad taste in one's mouth. Remsense ‥ 论 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have a sweet, simple faith in human nature, youngster. Hold on to that, and keep a smile on your face. Otherwise, you will end up a cranky old coot like me. Textorus (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have no such faith, and working through these things is quite a constant struggle for me if I can be honest. But I appreciate it. Remsense ‥ 论 19:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

As the creator and sole proprietor of the Territorial evolution of the United States article, I'm curious what other actions I may have done, and what motives you ascribe to me for performing them. I've never heard of this "Westward Movement" page but apparently I killed its puppy? --Golbez (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

You had me at "sole proprietor." There is no such thing on Wikipedia, as you well know, but I will congratulate you on a splendidly big achievement -- most impressive, really. However, notice that I did not name any names, nor do I care to prosecute the case, if there is one. I leave that up to the Inquisitorial Cabal. They know where to find you. Meanwhile, if the shoe doesn't fit -- don't wear it. Textorus (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

You came to the talk page of an article I built from scratch and made some weird accusation about hiding history and that we should not, quote, "act all shocked and surprised when other people do unto you," and to which I ask: what the fuck? If you didn't have issue with anything in the article then why post this nonsense there? --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2025 (UT)

If I leapt to an unwarranted conclusion about that article, which you do not own, I apologize for upsetting you. Again I say -- if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Textorus (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

... but the IP which introduced supermajority to the Churchill war ministry infobox here was American. DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I stand corrected, and I do beg your pardon. I will be more cirucmspect in future edit comments. But I have indeed heard and read British journalists and commentators using the word "supermajority" incorrectly quite a few times in recent years.13:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ned Wynn, a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Patsy was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I hate to correct an editor of 20 years, but see WP:LEADSEEALSO. The {{see also}} template does not belong at the top of an article (as you added it here). It seems there's a general lack of awareness among editors about when hatnotes should and should not be used, so I just want to spread the word where I can. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:10, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dear AAU, thank you for the friendly reminder, and also for noticing my 20 years' service - you're the only one who has! (Not that anyone but me cares.) I have reviewed the relevant wikilaws, and it appears that you are correct. However, before you slap the cuffs on me, Officer, allow me to mention the ancient truth that "general laws do not suit particular cases." What other way is there to alert the unsuspecting reader, before he wades into the subject, that there exists a parallel article covering nearly the same ground? With perhaps more or different useful references, charts, maps, data, etc., etc.

I have, therefore, used one of the legal headnotes to serve the purpose, if it meets with your approval. The two articles really ought to be merged - but I am a tired old man who lacks the enthusiasm for such a tedious task at this late age. Someone younger with a livelier mind ought to do it - how about you? Textorus (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If it helps, I feel a bit less bad now. — An anonymous username, not my real name 14:04, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't need your help. And since you have overridden my edit a second time, it is apparent that you have no real desire to be helpful to anyone. You are one of those fellows who take great delight in enforcing every minor provision of the law, rather than being genuinely helpful to readers. There is a word for that kind of personality, but I'm not going to bandy words with you, son. Go play on your side of the street. 19:15, 21 October 2026 (UTC) Textorus (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Wabash RR herald 1938.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Reading Beans, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements and
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight and
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

See WP:GNG, see WP:NPOL. Best,

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Brett Jones (sheriff) to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For answers to frequently asked questions see Frequently asked questions.
• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:16, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reviews, Beans, but I think you are full of beans. There are 3 perfectly good reliable sources, one from the Washington Post and two from The Advocate, a nationwide mass-market publication over 60 years old. And the subject is plenty notable as the first gay sheriff in Alabama, and is also a published author. Your judgment is quite flawed and supercilious. I want a second opinion, or someone to appeal this hasty judgment to.

Will you tell me where or do I have to raise a bit fuss? I am NOT some goofy little newbie who just wandered through the door. Textorus (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Textorus! Having a draft declined at Articles for creation can be disappointing, but don't be discouraged, it's common when creating your first article. Need help? For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know. To understand why your draft was declined, please read the reviewer's feedback and follow any links to help pages you've been given. If you're still confused, try asking for advice at the Articles for creation Help desk. For peer support regarding all other editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a friendly question and answer hub for new editors. We'd love to see you there! Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:16, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Brett Jones (sheriff). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, boys. I get the picture. A whole new generation is in charge now. If I move the article into mainspace, no doubt you or your little friends will just as quickly 86 it. Well, so be it. You all can play Wikipedia all you want, but I’ll never create another article. Don’t mind me, I’m just an unpaid janitor. I don’t even have to do that. Textorus (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Textorus, I would agree there is a topic worth looking into for an article here. There's a lot of coverage of the win, and there may be more press down the line. If there is disagreement on the current article, as there seems to be, drafts can get built on over time. Wikipedia has changed in some ways, but community discussion of article viability has always been present. Easier to work with people than not. CMD (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

And I also said that all you needed to do was find a couple more sources like the The Advocate source, @Textorus. No need to throw a tantrum. qcne (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply