User talk:John/Archive 2010

Hello, John. You have new messages at White Shadows's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It appears to me that a user you recently blocked (

Hmm. Oscar.dm was only blocked 24 hh as I recall so should be editing under his regular account. --John (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that now... Oscar.dm is still continuing to engage in edit warring and is uninterested in discussing the aforementioned issue with me. (

talk) 10:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply

]

Greetings John – and thanks for being out there.--Technopat (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, any time. --John (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to subst: it. Otherwise, the username won't show up in it. mechamind90 02:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thank you. --John (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, MWoodson here. Thanks for your interest in my small paragraph. Please see my talk page for a paragraph on the reasoning behind the Aviakor - investigator relationships before you delete my work again. And also discuss it with me first. Your boldness is your right, however, so is mine. I'm not going to let you delete my work without a very good explanation. Don't just refer me to a paragraph you think applies without first understanding my rationale for an entry or edit. I'll gladly extend the same courtesy to you.MWoodson (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have proposed a solution on your talk page which would be the

best way forward. --John (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi John, I have added references to the Ultan Conlon page, so its notability should no longer be in question. Regards, Donnacha 79.97.153.26 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. --John (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (This pertains to your recent activity with Namiba.) ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 07:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up message to let you know your Stromness photo File:StromnessJM.jpg has been copied to WikiCommons, by a portuguese editor, and not correctly attributed to yourself, as File:Stromness_2.jpg. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your comment at

I have noticed you have edited this page:Roald Dahl.

Hi. Could you have another go at User talk:Trocksuk4415. The user has ignored your advice to discuss his edits. Rettetast (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, just a heads up that I've opened a thread at ANI about some of this user's conduct toward me, and your comments on his talk page are mentioned in passing. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge_and_Bad_Medicine_.28song.29. Cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John,

I've been researching Prien's life since 2006 (as I do living history/reenacting as Prien) and I had come across in a book (I cannot remember if it was Phantom of Scapa Flow or not) that this incident regarding the collision with the San Francisco actually didn't happen. The book 'U-Boat Commander/Mein Weg Nach Scapa Flow' cannot be heavily relied upon for the most part because it was ghostwritten by Paul Weymar.

I'm trying to help get the best information that is factual on this page because there is no 'one spot' where there is all the factual information on Prien. I've had to dig through many books (other good ones are The Royal Oak Disaster and Nightmare at Scapa Flow) to really get to the bottom of things.

I was the one that helped with adding about the Cape Horn ships - Hamburg and Oldenburg, the mention of the book Wolfpack - The Story of the U-Boat in WWII as well to make things clear (I had a prior ID of Prien here).

Again - I'm just trying to help out with getting the facts out with regards to Prien's full career.

Sincerely,

KaptPrien (my ID here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaptPrien (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:V this would need to be identifiable to a particular page of a particular source before we could use it. --John (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

--RE John: Ok - I will see if I can find where I had come across it. I had tried to see if it was in the book The Royal Oak Disaster - as that author mentions about certain things that were put in by the ghost writer Paul Weymar. So, I will go back and check the Phantom of Scapa Flow to see if it is in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaptPrien (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John,

I had emailed HAPAG-Lloyd in regards to this (as HAPAG was the owner of the ship San Francisco) and this is what they had to say:

"It is with regret to mention, that we are not able to attend to your request.

We found no information regarding the mentioned accident near Hoheweg Lighthouse within our archive."

I don't know if this can be used or not - if so let me know and I can give you any other needed information. I am sure that it would have been in their archive had the accident actually happened.

Sincerely,

Kapt. Prien —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaptPrien (talk • contribs) 16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting and perhaps suggestive. Unfortunately it is also

reliable source. --John (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

RE John - Ok. So, we're probably looking at a book or article then - or a verifiable record/document. I'll try to get my hands on a copy of The Phantom of Scapa Flow to see...although I had also emailed the Deutsches Schiffarhtsmuseum on it as well (but that would also fall into the category of original research). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaptPrien (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you believe that your edit makes it sufficiently clear why there is so much controversy about the goal decision? I don't want to libel the referee, and I know that Coulibaly need not explain his reasons per FIFA regulations but I think the paragraph is unclear if it doesn't explain a little more. LovesMacs (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you understand why I removed it. The wording you prefer has since been restored and I suppose it isn't the most egregious. It's just that we don't generally report a negative, especially on a BLP article. --John (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is what I wrote defamatory?? The goal actually happened and he did not give any explanation to the press about why he disallowed the goal. Several sources cites that the goal actually happened and that he did not give an explanation.

And it seems like you don't. He doesn't need to give an explanation. See

WP:COATRACK. --John (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I included sources in the paragraph. The paragraph need some details. If you think what I wrote is defamatory, then you need to see

talk) 20:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your opinion. I am pretty familiar with

WP:BLP-related issues though. I would be sad to block you if you edit-warred to add contentious material to a BLP article, but I would do it nonetheless. Please don't make that necessary. --John (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It's negative because it states a negative which is not required. Compare "He did not masturbate furiously on the pitch"; "He did not plot to overturn the democratically elected government of the Comoros Islands"; or "He was not seen to pick his nose and eat the resulting boogers with salt". All of these negative statements are arguably true and verifiable, but, as a reputable online encyclopedia we do not use material like this on a BLP even when it is verifiable because it creates a problem of UNDUE emphasis. We should merely report in a proportionate and tasteful way what actually happened, not what did not happen. A football referee is, of course, under no obligation to explain his decisions so the wording (even if verifiable) is a complete red herring. Finally, edit-warring to restore material you have been advised contravenes BLP policy is poor form; better to discuss in talk towards a compromise. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're the one saying it "states a negative". It's a peculiar thing to masturbate furiously on the pitch; no reasonable person would expect a player to do so. It's a peculiar thing to plot to overturn the government of a country; no reasonable person would think someone might do that. It's a peculiar thing to salt and dine on one's boogers; one would not expect a reference to such except, perhaps, in the article on the dietary habits of booger-eating salt monkeys. It's not at all a peculiar thing for an official to explain a decision, as far as I know; perhaps it's different in World Cup Football? Is there a tradition of football referees not explaining controversial calls? I don't know one way or another -- and a curious reader would indeed want to know why that controversial call was made, and if the referee offered any clarification. That there was edit-warring going on is a different issue (and that article sure became a cesspool quickly.) No huge deal; it just doesn't fall close enough to BLP to use that as a reason to stop an otherwise annoying editor. I keep "so and so didn't happen" out of articles in general unless they can be sourced as otherwise significant on general principle, but I don't see it as BLP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with jpgordon. It was not negative and it is factual. He did not explain the call afterwards, and this is something Bob Bradley and Landon Donovan pointed out. He was not required to explain it, but he certainly could have. As it stands, we just have a clearly blown call and a referee not saying anything. Enigma^msg 02:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I value the input of both of you, but I stand by this being a BLP issue. It is very unusual for a ref to publicly justify a decision right after a game. Stating in the article that he has not (yet) explained what the infraction was, is tantamount to implying that he "ought" to have. This is the negative that we need to avoid. Refs (rightly or wrongly) don't owe players or fans an explanation of why they made a particular call. I think a lot of the misplaced anger against the decision hinges on this misunderstanding. We should not perpetuate it, especially at the cost of a

living person's reputation or feelings. --John (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• I have to agree with both Jpgordon and Enigmaman here. I do not see a BLP issue and the block of Sweetfornow seems to be a serious overreaction. I encourage you to lift the block, which Sweetfornow has requested. --auburnpilot talk 03:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The block has now expired in any case. It was only for 3 hours. --John (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I failed to notice the duration of the block and suppose there is not much can be done now. Best, --auburnpilot talk 04:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on your edit war with
  Sweetfornow, your poor judgment in blocking users, and other events, I request that you stop using your admin privileges on the Koman Coulibaly article - Gleconte1 —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply
  ]

I'll think about that, but I doubt it. What "other events" are you talking about, incidentally? --John (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history for the article. You continue to revert additions based on BLP issues when they should be allowed as they abide by the guidelines from the criticism and praise section. Just because the comments are critical does not mean that they are slanderous. - Gleconte1 —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I will treat it with all the seriousness it deserves. --John (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your last comment was not sarcastic then thank you for your attention to this matter. If it was sarcastic, that is further evidence that you should stop editing the article as you obviously cannot have cordial discourse on the topic. I believe that it is a "serious" matter as you have used your admin privileges to bias the article toward your own agenda. Thank you - Gleconte1 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my "own agenda". Your opinion has received my consideration. My "agenda" is merely that this article follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. You will get a lot further with me by being civil than you will by making demands. --John (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you look back at the progression of civility in this discussion it is heavily weighted in my favor. I have not made any "demands", only requested that you stop editing the article. My agenda is also to ensure that the article has a neutral point of view and follows BLP guidelines. Unfortunately, your actions have discouraged this from taking place. It seems, based on the opinions expressed by myself and others on this page, that a proper course of action would be for you to remove yourself from this discussion or at least reevaluate what viewpoints you should allow. For clarity, this is a request not a demand. - Gleconte1 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for sharing your opinion. In terms of civility, features of your communication style which are counter-productive in achieving harmonious discussion include "your edit war", "your poor judgment" and "you have used your admin privileges to bias the article toward your own agenda". I am glad however that you and I seem to share the same "agenda", and I look forward to discussing in article talk how to make the article better. --John (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is not a discussion on Koman Coulibaly but rather on the interpretation of admin guidelines,

Sweetfornow which is defined under the accountability section of Wikipedia:Administrators as an abuse of admin privileges. My subjective interpretation of your judgment, while negative, was in no way meant to be inflammatory. If you wish to end this discussion without a resolution, please be more overt. - Gleconte1 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

If you were to actually read the link you sent me, you would see that actions like the one I took are specifically exempted from the definition of edit-warring: "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant." It should have been pretty clear from my edit summaries that I was claiming this exemption. We all done here? --John (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you have missed the point entirely as your last comment seems to improve my position. You used your admin privileges to enforce what you deemed were "overriding policies" when in fact what you were doing was using those privileges to stop another user from posting facts that expressed a viewpoint that conflicted with your own, thereby violating the admin guidelines I linked in my previous post. The facts presented by

Sweetfornow were not "unsourced" and were not even "negative". That being said, you have not edited the page since I made my request and so, yes, we might be "all done here". In the future I suggest that you try to not only read but fully understand the arguments that are being given on this page. - Gleconte1 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you once again for all the thought you have obviously put into this. I think you have made your position clear and so have I. It is not likely we are going to improve anything by continuing the conversation here; we are clearly never going to agree as your interpretation of

WP:BLP is very different from mine. Perhaps if you ever become an admin you can try to do a better job than you think I am doing. You seem to have very strong opinions on these policy matters for someone with only 25 edits. Did you previously operate any other accounts perchance? Best wishes, --John (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I concur with your second sentence and thus this will be my last post unless abuse of the Coulibaly article continues. If you respond I will read it but not respond in-turn. Your digression from the given logic sequence is appalling for an administrator of an encyclopedia. I know nothing about your history as an admin and therefore made no comment on the entire body of work you have contributed on this site. I simply read some very elementary documents and noticed that you were in violation of the given policies contained in those documents for one specific instance. How you deduced that I think you are doing an overall poor job or that I want your position is extraordinary. Perhaps you should try and answer the questions that are being asked. Additionally, I had no idea that the intellectual validity of my contributions was not judged on substance but on the number of edits I have. This concept is foreign to me. Thank you for your time. - Gleconte1 (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information about the controversy in the match needs to be included in the article. Perhaps it could be reworded, but you can't just ignore the situation. This event should be included in the article because hardly anyone would know anything about Slovenia football if it wasn't for how they luckily/incorrectly pulled out a draw against the USA in the World Cup. —Preceding

I don't agree but would be happy to discuss in article talk to find an acceptable compromise. --John (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check the article talk —Preceding

Hey John, it's back on at Rangers F.C. - User:SeekerAfterTruth has reappeared. You're an admin, can you not just make him disappear? --hippo43 (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented in talk and reverted the changes on the article. --John (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John I am dismayed that you have chosen once again to back the revision made by hippo43 at the Rangers FC article on sectarianism. I believe you may have a Conflict of Interest, in that you originally created the section you seek to protect from modification and you and Hippo43's posting history may indicate that you lack a NPOV.

I see user Hippo43 has asked "You're an admin, can you not just make him disappear?"

As an Administrator, I believe using your position to silence those who disagree with you, or your friends, views is an abuse of WIKI as well as being quite disturbing from a community dedicated to the freedom of expression. I intend to raise this with WIKI for resolution. In the meantime, I would ask that you please do not delete my edits without the courtesy of discussion.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising your concern with me. I agree that if I tried to silence you that would indeed be an abuse of my position. As I have not done so but have merely reverted the deletion you made at the article, I don't think your concerns have any validity at present. Our community is not however as you state dedicated to freedom of expression but to producing a free online encyclopedia, which is a bit different. We use principles like

WP:SPA here, I don't think your complaint has any merit. I do agree with you that we could use more participation in the discussion and I look forward to engaging there to discuss a compromise. --John (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank your for your reply, in your role as Admin, I would ask you how I would proceed to raise my concerns regarding Hippo43 in this matter, as you seem to feel no action is merited. An editor asking an Admin for the removal of another editor is something I would assume is not taken lightly. My concern is that you as the originator of the section under discussion may be too close to accept any editing of your work, despite being shown Recentism and Undue weight, (much of the content is now covered in more detail on specialised articles,)hence your COI. I am also willing to concede that you may be being manipulated slightly by those who are pursuing an agenda different to your own. The idea of us all involving ourselves at WIKI, is to improve the articles we feel we can, to this end myself and others have sought compromise on numerous occasions. When no compromise is forthcoming and indeed further questionable or sloppy content is added, the article deteriorates, where a quick glance reveals that the section in question has grown so far as to outweighs it's relevance to the article as whole, to the extent that it now has it's own article, contributed in no small part by Hippo43. I apologise if I have raised these points in the wrong place, but the talk page on the article has become enormously bloated and my points are not being addressed as those who seek to maintain the status quo are quite happy to block all edit attempts.

best regrds

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, very sorry if my flippant, exasperated comment caused any misunderstanding. Let me rephrase. Given that SeekerAfterTruth has displayed neither the competence nor intent to contribute to a serious encyclopedia, and given that he has repeatedly engaged in unpleasant personal attacks and edit warring, and is clearly a single-purpose account with a clear POV to push, can you, in your role as a respected and experienced admin here, please take whatever steps are necessary to stop his behaviour? If that means some kind of indefinite block, or topic ban, or enforced mentoring so he learns to comply with policy, so be it. I don't fully understand admins' procedures, so if you feel this would somehow not be appropriate for you to do, as you have edited the article in the past, could you perhaps ask for assistance from an uninvolved admin who might be able to address Seeker's problematic behaviour? Thanks in advance for your help. --hippo43 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Hippo. Obviously I would like to focus on article content rather than personalities here; SAT is a SPA but may still bring up valid concerns. If his editing becomes seriously disruptive there are channels we can go through. Meantime let's focus on a compromise at article talk. --John (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are references for this referee's performance

http://www.goal.com/en/match/45993/argentina-vs-mexico/play-by-play http://www.sbnation.com/2010/6/27/1540066/world-cup-2010-argentina-vs-mexico-carlos-tevez http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gGSG1RCt4gal9FJXtjM4eFuY7A4QD9GJPVTG0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.127.153.184 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image you removed is not "fake". It may be staged. The subjects may be models. These are no reasons that it shouldn't be used. The image is an object of discussion. Please see the talk page and its archives. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and have commented at the article talk. --John (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it and look at it, the more it seems you are a minority of one in the discussion. If there are no pressing reasons to keep the image I intend to remove it again. Please don't restore it again without consensus. --John (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For going over some of my edits to U-27 and Rudyard Kipling and fixing them up :)--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 18:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Good work yourself. --John (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by

]

RFA Thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 10 support, 26 oppose, and 13 neutral. Your comments were much appreciated.

On a personal note, thanks for supporting me John (though you did switch to neutral due to a valid concern)--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 16:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to see how it turned out. With such a good nomination I was sure you would do it. Never mind, there were some very perceptive comments and ideas for you to improve even further. I am sure you will make a great admin around December and meantime I look forward to working with you on more naval articles. Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment ;)--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 17:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't have started this conversation. I was interrupted in editing another article, which I've now left, and I truly have little interest in

Replied at your talk. --John (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After I added references to the Ultan Conlon page, you said you would look into removing the question mark over its notablity. Any updates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.153.26 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better than it did but still is of questionable notability in my opinion. --John (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your photo or is it from someone else and published under the non-free 'NC' license? I noted that you deleted the image yourself on Wikipedia, it still exists on Commons however. --Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is from someone else. Apologies for the mistake; I had been editing WP for only a couple of weeks at that point. When I deleted the WP file I didn't notice it had been transwikied to Commons. It should probably be deleted from there too. --John (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, deleted it. --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, might be an idea to put some form of block on editing

Thank you for the heads up. --John (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see editors reverting back and forth on the Richmond Gang Rape article. Perhaps you can speak to them. Richmondian (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to visit all those warring, lest it look like you are picking sides in an edit war. It just so happens that the information you cautioned him about was in the citations (at least, it was last time I worked on the article in detail). Manuel Ortega[10] is one of the arrested that's over 18 so I'd guess that's why his name was included Richmondian (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I think there's a clear consensus in the article that BLP precludes our mentioning people's names and races at the moment. That template was the best I could find. be happier to explain in greater detail if you think that'll help. --John (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my warning. I'm on the road and can't run

No problem. --John (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please review my latest edit made to the Afghanistan page. I left a message here at another user's talk page. Your version seems biased, written poorly. This is a very sensitive section and try to focus on the issue. Thanks.--119.73.7.124 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is English your first language? If not, it might be worth taking your proposals to

referenced to reliable sources which was why I undid them. --John (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Enlish is my second language. What part of my edit needs to be sourced? If you want to dispute anything in particular try to add a citation needed tag and then I'll be more than happy to go and get you the information verified with a reliable source. The way your version is written is to try to make us believe that a number of border fightings occurred between Afghanistan and Pakistan but if you click on the Afghan-Pakistan border skirmishes it only talks about one incident which lasted for a few days in May 2007. And the reason for that is not that Pakistan wanted to violate Afghanistan, it's because the border Durand Line is poorly-marked. Click on the link and read it. The 1.7 million Afghan refugees can be verified by clicking on that link or on Afghans in Pakistan. And I told you in the edit summary that foreign relations don't mean cultural ties.--119.73.7.124 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the way it works. Anything you add needs to be sourcable. As I said, this needs to be discussed at the article talk page. The article as it stands isn't "my" version, and I agree there are some problems with it. --John (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your version as in the version you reverted back to it, I know you didn't edit that part. I'll raise my point at the talk page and see what others say. Thanks anway.--119.73.7.124 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John! I was recently warned for posting "disruptive edits" regarding the posting of links to video podcasts. The Hammer Museum has several video podcasts that enhance the viewers knowledge and understanding of the speaker, usually artists or others who drive contemporary culture. We merely include the Hammer name to site the lecture; we are not posting them to promote ourselves. Rather we think they are so interesting that the content will be of use as supplemental information for Wikipedia users who are trying to learn more about a specific person or topic. Is there a way we could do this that would seem less like "personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product"? We see ourselves rather as providing links that "contains further research that is accurate and on-topic" The Wikipedia guidelines encourage the posting of "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons." These video podcasts are a free, educational public service that we provide. Do you still object to our posting them? Is there a better way of making this supplemental information accessible on Wikipedia?

Thank you very much in advance for your time and comments. MelissaYvonne (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melissa. I suggest you post at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and try to attract a consensus there that the links add value to the articles, rather than vice versa. Thanks, --John (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Thank you! Is there any way you could tell me what exactly about the posts is considered "disruptive"? I'm not quite sure I understand. Thanks again. MelissaYvonne (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:EL. External links are not really welcome unless they can be shown to add value to the articles. Adding a great many of them, without permission, is definitely disruptive. No matter, good luck getting consensus. --John (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a note: wouldn't MeliisaYvonne be better off asking at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard rather than at the Village Pump? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant suggestion BMK. Thank you. MelissaYvonne, that would be the way to go. --John (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! MelissaYvonne (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just thought of letting you know that you are mentioned by Ariana310 at here and here--119.73.1.34 (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm putting together on article at Bull/proposed article to supplant the existing disambig page, which is a magnet for links intended to point at an article on the male of cattle. Since you did quite a bit of work on Cattle, I thought you might be able to help quickly punch this up to full-blown article status. Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you undoing an edit --that was approved of by Snowded, who has a barnstar for balancing POV's-- and your only reason given for undoing it was "not how we do things"?

Sure, Noam Chomsky is a father of linguistics, but today, decades later, many linguists are finding fault in one of his primary theories (UnivGrammar). I'm not sure how "we" (who are you speaking for?) do "things" or what you meant by such a vague & pithy statement, but:

• Verifiable and reliable info from a prominent Stanford U professor, which also is relevant to the content of that paragraph, is what you are deleting (not modifying, but wholesale deleting). Deleting info from a section where it is relevant, when the info also meets WP:Core_content_policies, without moving the content to the Talk page, nor even using the "edit summary" to give _any_ reason(s) which are related to WP content policies as an explanation for _why_ you're deleting it, is that how "things" on Wikipedia should be done? As an admin, shouldn't you especially be expected to know that WP policies say that's not proper (e.g. "generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages"...i.e. I had already given a briefer summary of my reasoning, now you're supposed to explain your reasoning (if you have anything that's supported by the WP staff's core content guidelines, etc.), instead of bitingly snickering at me with a "reason" of only: "not how we do things". I would have expected to see "see talk page" when you undid my edit, after I gave perfectly good [and much briefer LOL] explanations for why I made that edit; if you're editing in good faith, you'll finally maybe someday be kind enough to explain your own, contrary reasons, esp if you have any reasons in WP's content policies as support? ).
• Striking Prof. Boroditsky's info from the paragraph which summarizes Chomsky's UG theory appears to violate the neutral
  POV
  policy by not giving equal prominence to two equally-scholarly camps who disagree with each other; this is not some fringe group criticizing Chomsky's UG theory, many in the scientific community find fault with it. In study after study, scientists are reporting that they've found empirical evidence which disputes Chomsky's UG theory (I can cite even more studies by researchers who weren't noted by Prof. Boroditsky, but her article which I tried to cite in Wikipedia gives a good summary of her colleagues' studies, and describes the issue in plain English -- and plain English is what's most useful to most encyclopedia readers [i.e. non-linguists, laymen] who can click on the footnote if they want to look further into Prof. Boroditsky's synopsis of her colleagues' research).
• We also have: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." The criticisms section for Chomsky creates a "new article" and doesn't even mention that criticisms (of his theories in liguistics) even exist: "Main article: Criticism of Noam Chomsky. Much Chomsky criticism revolves around his political views. His status as an intellectual figure within the left wing of American politics has resulted in much criticism from the left and the right." Only politics, no linguistics. This is the epitome of a "POV fork"; see also [11].
• as a scientist, when I see a statement as strong as calling someone a "father" of any major field of research, and I have credible info showing that today's experts are pointing out that their "father's" research is not quite as widely accepted today as it was decades ago when he first published it, I realize that for encyclopedia readers --most of whom probably don't keep up with the latest scientific journals-- such a strong statement (which seems geared to give him god-like or fatherly status amongst linguists) can mislead laymen unless it is tempered and balanced by quoting today's expert linguists...especially because a major theory like UG is a big part of how he became a "father" of linguistics. This gives the reader 3 benefits which make the
  one-sided argument
  , (2) a more balanced POV, (3) and a sense of how the scientific process works.

Readers of Wikipedia are being done a disservice if they're not told the full picture, i.e. the latest state of this major theory of linguistics which is also a major, major part of Chomsky's career! Many people might not read beyond the first few paragraphs and leave with an impression of, "Chomsky's work makes his UG theories so valid and great, they call him the 'father' of linguistics," so at least a brief snippet about the more recent studies that contradict Chomsky views on UG should be placed where such info is relevant: in the same or adjacent paragraph to where his UG theory & prominence in linguistics was initially discussed (and discussed glowingly in both those paragraphs, in a POV

Hello, John. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

Hello Daven200520. When I went to look at the report you had filed, you had already struck it. I am glad that you now regard the matter you raised as resolved. Let me know if you ever need any more help in the future. --John (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John, Hi, how are you? As you may recall, I met you on the talk page of "Paul the octopus", several weeks ago. I appreciate the fact that you make your very best attempt to honor the WP guidelines scrupulously. And certainly the efforts of an admin were needed in order to try to keep some control over that article and its talk page during the most crazed part of their evolution. I also understand (from what I have read) that admins sometimes get pretty burned out from having to deal with vandals and trolls, and that this can end up making some of them seem less friendly.

In case this could perhaps be helpful to you, I wanted to let you know that some of the messages you left for me, and also for User:Truthkeeper, came across seeming unduly curt, and a bit harsh and disrespectful in tone. You did not apparently cross the boundary for incivility, but it seemed you were not following the guideline: "editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect." Some of the notes you left read as if they were dismissive in tone, and in your exchange with Truthkeeper on his talk page, you appeared to stray over (perhaps accidentally) into an intimidating-seeming tone. I do understand that probably none of this was intentional on your part, but I thought I would mention it to you, hoping that it could be helpful for you to know. Tone is a very tricky thing when writing short notes to people, especially when you are admonishing them about something. I realize you must have to do that a lot as an admin. However, it's really essential not to end up discouraging well-intentioned editors unduly, or to "sour" their experience of Wikipedia, because that can really take the wind out of someone's sails, and then they will contribute a lot less, or perhaps not at all.

One essential thing that keeps the engine of a successful collaboration like Wikipedia running smoothly and working well, is an lubricating oil that is composed of politeness combined with a good deal of warmth, a warmth that is sometimes known as Wikilove. A little bit of warmth and kindness goes a long way.

All my very best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Invertzoo. I appreciate your taking the time to write such a message. First of all let me apologise if my tone was suboptimal in any of our exchanges last month. If I recall correctly this came from my exasperation at the position some editors were taking about the reporting of the octopus's actions. The idea that Wikipedia should (for example) use "scare quotes" to denote our editorial skepticism about the subject of an article, is so far removed from proper scientific and Wikipedian principles that I found it difficult at times to hide my annoyance. Science, as you will be aware from your training, does not recognize

there are times when even an intelligent editor like yourself seems infuriatingly slow to get this point. I am sorry if the way I got the message to you was bruising at the time, but I remain convinced that the position I took was the correct one. Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Although you seem unable to hear feedback along these lines, I endorse Invertzoo's advice to you. I also experienced your general tone on and about "Paul the octopus" as an attempt to intimidate, if not outright bullying. Other established editors have also commented on the generally disrespectful and self-important tone you adopt towards content editors, and it would be good if you could allocate a little of your valuable time to reflect on why that should be so. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. As I said, I remain convinced that the position I took was the correct one. You may take my apology to Invertzoo as applying to you too, if I hurt your feelings in explaining our policies to you. If you remain seriously unhappy with those policies, you are free to try to have them changed.

WT:NPOV would be the best place to start. If you are seriously unhappy with our core policies and how they are enforced, it may be that this project is not for you. --John (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, that is an arrogant response. If you are seriously unhappy with our core policies concerning administrators, such as the requirement that they behave in an exemplary manner, then it may be that being an administrator is not for you. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am just fine with our policies as they stand and if I was not I would know where to go about having them changed. I do believe that I have behaved in an exemplary manner; if you have specific instances in which you feel I have not, please feel free to bring them to my attention with diffs so that I may reevaluate them. Sometimes it's hard to tell "arrogant" from "correct" when you are in the wrong, and I feel this may be the problem you are wrestling with on this occasion. I do remain open to discussion on the subject though. Best wishes. --John (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thought I'd join the conversation here since I've been brought into it. Here's a diff from my first interaction with you here. Ever. On the entire project. I have to agree with Invertzoo - it was off-putting. Not a good way to introduce yourself, so to speak. I commend Invertzoo's courage to bring this to your attention. Some of us lowly editors crawl into our holes and write encyclopedia articles after someone comes calling to chastise. But you know what - it festers a bit. So, I see you've defended your actions. But try to understand what Invertzoo is saying, because I don't think you're quite taking it on board, so to speak.

talk) 02:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Truthkeeper. Which part of the message did you find "off-putting"? It seems reasonable to me. --John (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to threaten me. Please leave me alone. I have asked you this before, your conduct has now become harrassment. I have broken no wikipedia policies. If you'd like go to the arbitration committee.

Richmondian (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I have done anything specifically wrong, please feel free to raise it with me. Such allegations are always taken more seriously when accompanied by diffs. Meantime I will continue to enforce policies as I have warned you on your talk page. Take care, --John (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you had to say, though you apparently knew exactly what I was speaking of. "Sorry about your recent bit of trouble with socks. I just noticed that on the 28th and 29th July you inserted racial information into the article. Just to be completely clear (my impression was I had already warned you about this but I may be mistaken), if I see you doing this again I will block you. If you need to read

An apology followed by a threat to block over an insertion of "racial information" two weeks ago and a false "BLP" claim, without any sort of diff. Its more than a little rude, its actually harrassment. I had asked you to leave me be some time ago. And I see multiple editors above had only recently spoken to you about this. As I said to you already, open an arbitration case if you must but otherwise leave me alone. Richmondian (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an apology and nobody has recently spoken to me about this matter but you. The consensus on the various discussions has been that there is no reason to mention the suspects' races. I contend that as these are living people, your continuing to add it constitutes a breach of

WP:EDITWAR. Having warned you about it, I will certainly block you if I see you do it again. If you wish review or clarification of this, you should say so now rather than repeat the actions you have been warned for. I obviously don't agree that this is harassment; all you have to do to avoid it is to avoid edit-warring over this info. --John (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The threats continue. You should really consider your role here. You came to do good, but are now just being mean to people, abusing the privileges you were given in trust. Take a look in the mirror. Read what people say here. People aren't coming here because you are doing such a great job blocking vandals.

An "edit war"? I've made something like 3 article edits and 50 talk page edits in the last 3 weeks. The talk page discussion was ongoing. Hardly a "war". If you really have some "BLP" violation, please share the diff so I know what part precisely you will block me for adding. I am hear to edit, but, I can't, because you are threatening me, and as you know, its nearly impossible for an editor to be unblocked here. Richmondian (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of what I mean. Don't make any other edits inserting racial information on the (living) suspects into the rape article, please, and we won't have to worry about unblocking. The consensus in talk and at the noticeboard is against you, and I interpret what you have been doing as a violation of WP:EDITWAR and of WP:BLP, as I already said. If that's the only thing that you are interested in doing on Wikipedia, maybe you should ask yourself why it is so important to you. --John (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again John,

I do appreciate your replying to me and apologizing, but in reality I was not looking for an apology, neither was I complaining about the points you were trying to make in your notes. I was attempting to explain that it seems to be the case that you need to try to pay more attention in general to the way you express yourself in your notes, your tone. Tone is extremely important in written communication, because the recipient cannot see one's face, and therefore cannot always tell whether one is being kind and friendly, or agressive and haughty. A written note always ends up conveying an emotional attitude, whether or not the author intends to do so or not. Without the deliberate use of friendly words (which need to be based on an inner friendliness), a note can appear to be quite rude.

I understand that you become frustrated (or as you say: exasperated or infuriated) when you are trying to make a point about policy that seems perfectly obvious to you, a point that you feel all experienced Wikipedia editors should already be familiar with.

However, the world-wide collaboration that is Wikipedia demands an enormous (even superhuman) amount of patience from us all. Successful collaboration requires flexibility and a great deal of respect for others, especially those who have already proven themelves as reliable contributors. All of us frequently have to deal with people who don't see things the way that we see them. This does not necessarily mean that one person is "totally right", and the others are "totally wrong"; there can be a genuine difference in interpretation.

When experienced editors with a good track record don't seem to "get" what you are saying, it is not because they are being stupid or obstinate, it's much more likely that they have a somewhat different interpretation of a Wikipedia guideline or Pillar than you do. Wikipedia is not static, it evolves, and our individual understanding of the principles changes over time, both unofficially and officially.

Even when you notice that an established editor has made an out-and-out error, perhaps one that is clearly against policy, the error has almost certainly come about as part of a good faith attempt to improve an article.

As a sysop, of course you have to think about the principles of Wikipedia a lot more than the average editor does, but it is not worthwhile to let the frustrations of Wikipedia communication annoy you or upset you. When that does happen (as it will once in a while) it is even more essential than usual to try to maintain a friendly approach to the people you are writing to. Not just civil, but friendly. As a sysop you have a responsibility to the Project to behave well, better than the rest of us. When you run out of goodwill and kindness and are running on exasperation and infuriation instead, then it is time to take a Wikibreak.

Yes, NPOV is indeed one of the Five Pillars or core principles of Wikipedia, but so is Civility. It's absolutely essential to "assume good faith" and to treat other contributors with respect. Actually, just being "civil" is not nearly enough, being respectful and kind and appreciative is necessary. And so is seeing others as being equal to yourself. That is what is meant by Wikilove. We are all volunteers. We do this work totally out of the kindness of our hearts. We all need encouragement and kind words. Without kindness the Project cannot thrive.

Best wishes to you John, and thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia, now and in the future, Invertzoo (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Invert, I just wanted to let you know that civility is not necessary any more on WP. Users are now able to be uncivil as long as they know they are right. Just see

Talk:2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash#Title, and note User:MickMacNee. He gets to behave anyway he wants. John has a long way to go before he's as obnoxious and uncivil as Mick! ;) John is pretty well behaved as far as I can tell. There are far worse users on WP, so why don't you go after the ones who need to reigned in? Oh, it would be too difficult to actually go after the bad users, so you have to pick on the good ones who are tough on the bad ones? Thought so! Sheesh! John, sorry if this is unwanted, but I see you getting alot of grief for trying to do the right thing, while the actual bad users escape notice. Good luck, John, and know there are people who support you. - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you both very much for your messages. I especially appreciate Invertzoo's message that kindness and inclusiveness are more important than

our policy on such matters (see #Stop harrassing me just above). I may though have to work harder at informing others which "mode" I am communicating with them in. Thanks, both. --John (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In any case, very best wishes for the future, good luck with everything, and here are some flowers for you. Invertzoo (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Really I was not seeking an apology at all, and I have no objections to your positions on content issues. I was merely hoping you might find a way to behave towards content editors in a more friendly, respectful, and less self-important manner. In this way, you would be a real asset, serving the community in a genuinely positive and constructive manner, instead of leaving a trail of bewildered and resentful wreckage behind you. As a community, it is important for content editors to trust and have pride in administrators, and to achieve this you need only adjust your tone. Best wishes, --Epipelagic (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the comments on MF's page, they occur on his friend's page in an atmosphere of informality. I have no concerns about them. This edit I might have concerns about, but the context is invisible. I don't particularly like to see users colleging together and being nasty to people, but the picture built on the RfA isn't full enough to prove this danger. You and I both have had not-so-nice moments too, even while possessing the mop. All in all I don't think a good case against this user has been made, considering his pros. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I do see the many positive attributes this candidates brings, and if you've reviewed diffs like this and think he'll do ok enforcing policy, I wouldn't dream of trying to sway you. Thanks again. --John (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate some advice here. I'm not trying to make trouble, and i understand this article is controversial. It needs a lot more light shed on the issue to make it less controversial. One of the elephants in the room for the this article is Megrahi's transfer to Libya (via compassionate release, nothing to do with the PTA). According to the article

I do understand the constitutional niceties here, but we would need to find a reference to comply with

original research. --John (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I see what you mean. However, I worry about the future of this article; there's very little substantive detail, and what there is seems muddled and selective, while it's not short of opinion and emotion of uncertain relevance. Zagubov (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to the above article was quite sweeping and given without summary, nor was it discussed here. Obviously it's hard to prove a negative (i.e. to find a source writing "KG200 was not a secret operation") but an extensive change such as your edit deserves some verification. One editor claims that Baumbach's memoir fails to mention KG200 - if this is the case, it could be construed as circumstantial evidence of KG200's clandestine nature. Other sources apparently state explicitly that it was secret. Are you disputing the widely-held view that KG200 was in any way a clandestine operation? If so, it would be good to read your reasons and the sources for your view. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have just finished Price's Last Year of the Luftwaffe, hence my interest. He states unequivocally that KG200 did not fly deception missions but just used captured types for their flying qualities. Most military matters, especially in time of war, are kept as clandestine as possible lest the enemy gain advantage, thus I did no think it worth mentioning. I thought it gave the article a slightly trashy flavor, to talk about it as a "secret" unit, which was why I removed it. --John (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, because it seems to relate directly to our recent conversation, I thought you might be interested to read this very brief Wikipedia Signpost news piece [12], which is about a Harvard study of communication norms on Wikipedia.

To quote the abstract of the paper: "These norms speak to the intentional stance and communicative behaviors Wikipedians should adopt when interacting with one another." The study contrasts "supportive communication" with "defensive communication", and explains that "Supportive behavior/climates are characterized by non-judgmental description, problem orientation, spontaneity, empathy, equality, and provisionalism. Their 'defensive' opposites are evaluation, control, strategy, neutrality, superiority, and certainty."

The study concluded that in the majority of the material examined, "Supportive" communication was the Wikipedia norm.

Thanks and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's interesting. --John (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent tag on the Creatures page seemed to me abusive. As the main contributor of that page, could you provide a few instances that urged you to put this observation?Carliertwo (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly the quality of the prose; there are many instances of sub-standard language. Perhaps a {{copyedit}} tag would have been fairer. Sorry if I hurt your feelings; nothing personal was intended. I'll show you what I mean later. --John (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John, Thanks for your friendly conversation on my talk page. I appreciate all of the volunteer work you devote to Wikipedia. I know you have all the best intentions as a fellow editor and administrator.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon, as regards the removal of the reviewer right from this user A3RO, you say there is community has lost trust for the user to have it, how do you know that? and has he misused the reviewer right in any way?

I know that because the user is currently blocked for a week for disruptive editing, and because there is a ban discussion currently under way about him at AN/I (albeit perhaps slightly prematurely). I'd say these are good indicators that community trust has been lost; if a consensus develops that I am wrong I will be happy to reverse this. --John (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Robert L. Fornaro page that is why there are so many edits by me. --airtran371 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.4.184 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. --John (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by

I would think we remove the vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should be clear. --John (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or made clear?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should be made clear, if it isn't clear already. What do you suggest? --John (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? --John (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian-Jewish must be friendly with Islam. --Videogamer13(talk). August 22, 2010 (UTC).

Hello, John. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.
Message added Smallman12q (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks for catching the huge spelling mistake I made repeatedly on the radioactive tracer page. Dac04 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Sorry for the edit summary. --John (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, as you've blocked Special:Contributions/24.180.106.75 once before, I'd kindly ask to check what you think of latest said IP's contributions, as I'm unsure whether those flagicons are really to be deleted.

Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ray. Personally I think these flag icons are stupid ("redundant" in the IP's language) and I therefore agree with these edits. However as I understand it there is a consensus to use the icons this way on the military infobox so I have undone the edits and suggested raising the matter at the relevant MoS discussion page. Thanks a lot for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i hope everything's good in your life. cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.114.230.21 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine thanks, pal. Do I know you? --John (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Understandable. Dapi89 (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I am not really familiar with Wikipedia so I hope that I'm doing the right thing putting my questions here. Having seen the comments which you put in January, I now understand what you were saying. So I entirely accept them, will abide by them in future and have no questions about them.

My enquiry relates to the page on Wikipedia. I apologise if it is rather long. (If this is not the appropriate place for it, please could you transfer it to the appropriate place and notify me.)

The situation is that I recently noticed that all mention of me had been removed from Wikipedia. There was subsequently a correspondence on Facebook about it. Rather than repeating that correspondence here, can I ask you please to go to this link and read the correspondence on 26 and 31 August about Wikipedia. http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Mystery-of-Lewis-Carroll/279783498065?ref=ts#!/pages/The-Mystery-of-Lewis-Carroll/279783498065

I am puzzled by a number of things arising from this. First, Jed Orianus quotes "Xxanthippe" who he says is an "Admin." I couldn't find the name Xxanthippe when I searched "Wikipedia admin" - so are you able to explain this, please.

Xanthippe removed a link to my website which I inserted on 15 January. I had not understood this was not allowed, so I do not question this removal.. But a subsequent link which I inserted, was a new medical update on Carroll's neurological condition, referenced my own 2010 biography "The Mystery of Lewis Carroll." This is authoritative new information. Jed Orianus says Xxanthippe removed this - I cannot see where, but Jed says he has reinserted it for me because I am not alllowed to do it myself as it would count as self promotion. I only cited my biography because it needs a citation and I cannot see why this entry constitutes "self promotion"

I have more questions about the page in general, but I feel this is best to deal with one issue at a time. I am sorry if I have misunderstood anything up until now. It is quite complicated! I have now made up my mind to get my head around Wikipedia as much as I can so I hope you can help in answering the above for starters. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennywoolf (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenny. You

should not add links or references to which you are affiliated like this. --John (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Anything which you think might be controversial should be discussed in talk first. If in doubt, discuss. --John (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, why did you remove all of my resource external links for US coins? Are you a coin collector and did you know that these were some of the best non-commercial highly-specific and relevant resources I've ever seen out of a single numismatic site online?

Please reconsider putting these back. You recommended talking about them in the discussion talk page, but many of these pages don't have anyone discussing the topic. I would be happy to discuss these resources as long as there are people to discuss it with. If you are into numismatics, view the links yourself and you will see how awesome this site really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickland (talk • contribs) 08:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the Numismatic Portal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Numismatics and it seems like it is completely empty, most of the posts being from 2006 and 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickland (talk • contribs) 08:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are quite the reference addict: Returning a "more references needed" tag to a small section that has 11 of them and is lacking references for just two TV shows! Seems overkill to me ... Still, your earlier tag did prod me into getting those 11 references, which should have been done ages ago. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB and the like are evidence that something existed; for inclusion in a list we need better sources. Thanks for the work you have done but if no better sources can be found I'd say this material will have to be removed. --John (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Predictably, your polite notice on his talkpage was met with another rant attacking myself and MLauba again and containing a number of complete untruths. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have blocked indef and taken the block to AN/I for review. --John (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you just blocked

talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't block for sockpuppetry but for continual and long-term disruptive and combative editing and failure to accept my offer at his talk. Amalthea is reading the AN/I section where I raised my block for review but I will notify as a courtesy as you suggest. Thank you. --John (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidently Amalthea just posted at ANI and doesn't see any further abuse so you can disregard my above comment.

talk) 14:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I dropped them a line anyway just in case they did not notice the post at AN/I. --John (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John. You have new messages at Doc Quintana's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doc Quintana (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily due to to the excessive block of me more along with some other offenses, User:Tango was desysopped....did you forget that part here...also I vividly recall your efforts to undermine the encyclopedic integrity of several 9/11 articles with repeated insistances of POV pushing conspiracy theories...under the current discretionary sanctions for 9/11 articles, if this behavior of yours was still ongoing, you would have been probably topic banned from them.--MONGO 00:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi MONGO, nice to see you. My point at the COI noticeboard was that you did not have a COI in that situation, but I don't think I agree with your edit summary here to the effect that the report was a waste of time; "outing" yourself as a

argument to authority

? Oh well, water under the bridge.

Your desysop in 2006 was a result of some 9/11-related incivility and personal attacks, I see on checking, as was your 2008 block which in turn, as you say, played a part in Tango's desysop. What worries and even saddens me (because I know you are a good guy trying to do the right thing) is the apparent lack of learning since in many instances he has reacted inappropriately to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner and misusing and threatening to misuse his administrative tools in 2006, to the fiery behavior in 2008 that got you blocked, to your recent tone, for example here. I suppose my question to you would be, in what way do you see such uncivil and non-AGF behavior, sustained over a period of years, after you have been repeatedly sanctioned for it, as an asset to the encyclopedia? Let me note that I broadly support your content stance regarding 9/11, I just don't see how trying to enforce it like this will help anyone.

Please feel free to post diffs of any recent or current "efforts to undermine the encyclopedic integrity of several 9/11 articles with repeated insistances of POV pushing conspiracy theories" that you see me make, so that I can deal with them. If you're talking about the edits I made (I think mainly if not exclusively at the talk page) as a newbie that were such a major topic at my contentious RfA in August 2006, I think I apologized for that four years ago and the community forgave me for my callow mistakes. I didn't properly understand NPOV in my first months here, I guess. I have always invited criticism over the years and tried to learn from my mistakes in this community, however slowly and imperfectly I have implemented that. You, on the other hand, seem depressingly stuck. Hope that my straight talking is of some help to you. Best regards, --John (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that you used to promote conspiracy theories, especially regarding WTC 7...I stated that if you still had this behavior, (which at times was pretty termagent), you'd probably have been topic banned under current arbcom rulings...are you unable to read my comments? You expect me to extend an olive branch and AGF with "editors" that do noting but undermine the integrity of our articles, yet come come after me with repeated attempts to find some way to oust me from 9/11 articles (usually because I'm not sweet enough to them)...articles in which I have helped bring several to FA level and they have done nothing but try to undermine those efforts, just like you used to do...you were an obstacle then, nothing more than that...The NPOV regulations regarding our articles had been explained to you ad nauseum, yet you persisted...and you're right, it almost cost you the silly admin promotion. My recollection is that you were a real pain in the arse on the talkpages but now you've had a chance to read some of the facts that people like myself have written and at least (possibly) in your case, we were able to educate you. I will also remind you that the main reason you got admin your first try is because I went against the tide and voted to support you...I could have presented a massive argument that would have upset it, but unlike the POV warriors promoting CT on 9/11 articles, I'm not a petty asshole...yet you persist in thinking I can't AGF...ridiculous.--MONGO 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to read, thanks. As regards "if you still had this behavior... you'd probably have been topic banned under current arbcom rulings", maybe you've heard the saying "If my mom had balls, she'd be my dad". The meaning of this is that we should focus on the real world rather than hypothetical considerations involving alternate universes.

While I do still appreciate the help you gave me in supporting my RfA back in 2006, I was mainly concerned about your edits in 2010 and how little progress you seem to have made over the years. Civility is not an optional thing; it's one of the

five pillars of the project, and we should all probably avoid editing in areas where we are unable to exercise it. Good to hear from you. --John (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

My bet is you chimed in at the COI noticeboard because the CTers were there. You made admin because I was civil and forgiving...bet on that...read the Rfa again...enough supports popped in and some opposes changed to neutral due to my comment and good faith...you're welcome.--MONGO 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well that's actually an example of the sort of thing I am talking about. I did not chime in at the COI noticeboard as part of some conspiracy (do you seriously believe that?) I saw the notice on your talk and actually went there to support you. But I couldn't help noticing that some of the combative stuff you were doing recently was in the same vein as you were desysopped for and then blocked for years ago. Consistency can be a virtue, but if it is failure to learn from experience, we depend on those who care for us to point it out. Hence my post. --John (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do...I think you are biased and I see now you're underminning Tarage's efforts in places to deal with POV pushers regarding the conspiracy theories. While I never believe in silencing dissent, the ongoing and neverending chatter about 9/11 conspiracy theories on the talk pages associated with these articles makes it nearly impossible for editors to be able to finally discuss how to improve the articles. You're in a position as an admin (and you keep bringing up the admin thing for no other reason than to insult...I DO NOT CARE about being an admin!...never did, never will...get it?) to apply discretionary sanctions to those that have nothing to add but conspiracy theory lunacy...yet instead you sidestep that and seem more worried about whether I am being civil enough to these time wasters...and your opinion is noted as to my level of discourse and I hope you understand that any misuse of your tools or your lofty position to shelter or protect these conspiracy theorists will lead me to file an Rfc on your actions.--MONGO 09:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I hereby agree to abide by the arbcom ruling and will be expecting you to make use of your admin rights to impose discretionary sanctions on all conspiracy theory POV pushers on 9/11 articles...as you are allowed to do so as detailed here.--MONGO 10:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit and went with "Breslau spotted the ships". There's a good argument that this is merely elliptical for "someone on Breslau spotted the ships and informed the captain", but my position is to avoid this kind of ellipsis because of the problem of anthropomorphism. Ascribing human abilities and emotions and actions to ships (and planes and tanks ... in general, any dangerous technology your life depends on) is universal in wartime. I think it's our job writing 100 years later to acknowledge that sentiment in various ways (which is why I'm fine with "she", despite what AP Stylebook says), while carefully avoiding the impression that we share the illusion. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought of that as I was doing it, not that I consciously reverted you. Think I have the perfect solution. --John (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, that works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the perfect solution. I hate the passive voice. Thanks to you too. --John (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic edits today, thanks. I'm noticing that lately, really good copyeditors like yourself, Finetooth and WereSpielChequers are getting more hands-on with the SHIPS FACs; even Tony1 is speaking approvingly. If we're doing something right, I'd like to know what it is :) I've always been impressed by the prolific SHIPS editors, especially when they let me paw over their articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and you too. Really enjoyed working with you on it. I had no idea you were improving it when I made my first few edits, but we seem to have worked in harmony to effect a really major improvement in the article. I think I still mildly disagree about the need to explain the short version of the ship's name in the lede, but no matter. I have the Van Der Vat source on this ship and might dig it out, but the sourcing really looks quite ok already. Cheers! --John (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to find the right balance. OTOH, we at

WP:&, and FAC culture seems to be even more anti-& than MOS is. But I don't really care. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think we should be ok with the ampersand. WP:& has "Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations, such as The Tom & Jerry Show or AT&T" and the

WP:DGAF approach to editing here, with mixed success. Good to hear from you. --John (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a good argument I think. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, one more thing ... whenever you need it, I'll be happy to copyedit any article for you if you'll copyedit any article at

Thank you, Dank. I replied there. I am really flattered to be identified by you as a "good copyeditor". I am always happy to help on any article without any quid pro quo being necessary. Not to say I won't ask you for help in the future anyway though! --John (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Since you just did one of Parsecboy's, he's got another one at

WP:SHIPA if you want to have a look at it, SMS Deutschland (1904), that will probably head to FAC afterwards, if you want to give it a whack. I've done 20 or so of his, they're pretty straightforward. And please let me know what you'd like me to look at. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Everything so far on Deutschland looks great, I'll eyeball it again when it's farther along in the review process. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, if we don't get a chance to copyedit them before FAC, the FAC delegates and some voters get annoyed. Yep :) We urgently need more non-ship people to get involved in ship articles at FAC, and all help is appreciated. (See Reviewers achieving excellence.) The ship articles dominate FAC, but most independent reviewers won't go near them because they are sometimes dry, jargon-filled, or burdened with excess detail, without telling a compelling story about the boat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largely agreed, and I think there are fixes, or at least we can push for fixes, do you mind if I copy this to

WT:FAC? (Or is there a better forum to get input from reviewers and copyeditors?) - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you both for the encouragement. I will continue working on Deutschland today. Take care, --John (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, there is a thread now at

WT:FAC with stats on the categories-- that would be a good place to expand on this. Warfare has the largest increase over the last two years, but too often, those nominators don't help out reviewing other articles, while the lion's share of the work at FAC is carried by a small handful of editors. That could (not sure) be another one of the reasons they don't get reciprocal reviews-- reviewers are overworked, and it's natural for them to help those who help others. (I've posted to both Ships and MilHist about the contribution to the FAC backlog from ship articles, but that doesn't seem to have helped.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I did as you asked. I note that there are now four editors including me arguing against the inclusion of this material and one defending it, yourself. Per

reliable sources is pretty low. I personally do not rate a tabloid much above a blog for this type of material. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok with the exception of Fox News which I know is not a tabloid which one of the sources are tabloids? I'm not one hundred percent familiar with UK papers and can understand a reasoning if they were all unreliable sources that this was giving things undue weight.

talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You seem to be assuming that anything that is published about Hendrix in a reliable source has to be included in the Hendrix article. If the article were

talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Occuli, and this is the prevailing feeling at the article talk as well. Of our policies, it is maybe WP:NPOV that is the hardest to grasp. Hence my change to the article which was reverted (twice) by Hell in a Bucket. --John (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and review again [[13]]I reverted once. We had a open discussion and the removal was not appropriate.

talk) 20:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

My apologies, you reverted once and the other reversion was by

the principle which guides our decision-making processes though. --John (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I've been rather clear and even painfully concise in why I've thought it should be included. You have made vague comments to policies. I think as is there is six lines that say there is or was claims and claims only made about the nature of death. I thought by making a subsection it removed fact from allegations. I'm not adverse ot losing the subsection but some detail at the very least should be included.

talk) 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I am awfully sorry but I don't think I can explain it to you any better than I already have. My "vague comments to policies" such as WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS are the clue you are not getting here. Try asking another admin and maybe they can explain it to you so that you can understand. I don't think I can. The fact that you are the only person arguing to keep this material should also be highly indicative if you are honest with yourself. Good luck. --John (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually referring to your references to wp:undue. If you recall I brought up NPOV in the debate and thought that airing the allegations in a small way was not going to give it undue weight and actually enhanced npov to article. As it is you are correct that consensus does appear to not support what I would choose. Thank you for taking the time to finish the discussion

talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:UNDUE is a part of WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, I'd be obliged if you could give a good look at this list whenever you can. It's currently at MilHist ACR. It's bound for FLC afterwards and I'd like to make sure that it gets a good copyedit before it gets there. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that would be a pleasure. --John (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, the topic has been discussed to death. The editor who keeps adding it refuses to address the questions raised on the talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The merge tag? Really? --John (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the merge tag, John, it's about the content that you want merged. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Viriditas. I only added the merge tag. You'll have to explain to me which content you think I want merged, because I haven't expressed an opinion on the matter. --John (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I appreciate you helping out, and normally, this kind of edit would be fine. But in a content dispute like this, it might not be helpful. Something to think about in the future, perhaps? Keep up the good work. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at the edits I made before you comment any more? I removed what seemed like an uncited sentence, and then I added a merge tag. I then restored the tag when you removed it. --John (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a failure to communicate. I maintain that adding merge tags for disputed content isn't helpful. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does. Why do you maintain that? --John (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, if you had bothered to follow the discussion on Talk:Challenger Deep and on the OR noticeboard you will find that nobody has argued for a merge. So, then, why did you add a merge tag? And if you had followed the associated ANI report on the matter, you would discover that FellGleaming duplicated the content in a disruptive, POINTy manner. Nothing needs merging. The subject is already covered in our article on high-level radioactive waste management, and is completely at odds with FellGleamings POV and our sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And

what makes you think I haven't? --John (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I just explained that above. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]