Jump to content

User talk:John: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→George Washington: new section
Line 375: Line 375:


Best wishes, [[User:Rougher07|Rougher07]] ([[User talk:Rougher07|talk]]) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Best wishes, [[User:Rougher07|Rougher07]] ([[User talk:Rougher07|talk]]) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

== Important message about recall ==

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #ff9; font-weight:normal;" |Hello fellow [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall|Wikipedia administrators open to recall]] category member!
|-
!style="background-color: #ff9; font-weight:normal;"|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron [[User:Brenneman|Brenneman]] and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.

But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for the community and bad for the admin as well.

I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my [[User:Lar/Accountability]] page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you.

But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived change in process.

Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Admin criteria|this table]] as a resource for the benefit of all.

Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.

I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.

Larry Pieniazek

|} ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
----
(the above is a message I am thinking of sending to every member of the category but am trying it out on a few folk, feedback welcome. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:48, 20 December 2007

  Welcome to my talk page! I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here.
When leaving messages, please remember these easy steps:
• Use a ==descriptive heading==
• Use [[wikilinks]] when mentioning users and pages
• Sign your post with four tildes ~~~~

Click here to leave me a message

Fork substitution

As the admin that endorsed my previous block, I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.

You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the advice Tony Walton gave you. You still seem to have quite a personalized dispute with this user. I tend to agree that your edits are good, but neither of you is helping matters the way you are doing it at the moment. One thing you may not have thought of is that an edit war between two people such as you two are currently having, puts off other editors from contributing. I'd place myself in that category; I wish I could help but the only way I can see that happening at the moment is by blocking (probably both of) you for continuing with a disruptive edit war after warnings and a previous block. --John 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very depressing and negative way of looking at things, John. Since my edits are mainly technical and uncontroversial, I would have hoped that you would have had the courage and perspicacity to examine the edits (rather than who was making them).
For example, are you really doubtful about whether there was a larger degree of self-rule before or after 1923? ("Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves until 1923" is surely inferior to "Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves after self-government began in October 1923 under the first Premier, Charles Patrick John Coghlan." ) Why are you in any doubt as to whether it is incorrect cite template usage to include (just) the "accessyear" if you have already included the full ISO format "accessdate" when the template documentation is readily acceptable?
Of course ordinary editors are going to be scared away by aggressive and persistent reverting if experienced admins with some knowledge of the subject matter seem to be neutral or uninterested in improving the article. Give a lead man and don't sit on the fence!
My dispute is personalised to the extent that it is impossible to reason or dialogue with the man - and I'm not the first editor to have come to this conclusion, as my sandbox pages would have demonstrated had they been allowed to remain.
This is a prime example:[1] Even when I point out that he has got the name in the biographical title wrong he still accuses me of stalking him and doesn't bother to change it! (You'll notice that I deliberately refrained from doing any edits to that article whatsoever because I knew he would just revert them). Alice.S 18:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Military Covenant (at Gordon Brown)

The military covenant does exist, incidentally, and was referred to in the sources for that section. However, I have added a further citation to an MOD Army Jobs page after my revert. Just a heads-up. :-) Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your endorsement of Perspicacite's position

Is this a correct statement of your position: [2] at User talk:Kirill Lokshin?

Do you indeed endorse User:Perspicacite alias Jose João's position (not my own - which is that he should simply cease reverting good faith edits and harassment of other editors) that an RfC would be a waste of time and that we should proceed directly to an ArbCom considering my conduct? Alice.S 09:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I already gave you advice which was to avoid interacting with each other. By ignoring that advice you maker it obvious to me that you do not value my advice. I find the behaviour of both of you rather disruptive and the disruption will need to be addressed at some point, unless you are both able to edit peacefully and harmoniously (something I do not consider likely to happen) or disengage. I strongly recommend the latter, again. --John 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting that a user is allowed to remove sourced material without anybody caring because he is very prickly. Why is it that you, with your knowledge of Africa, can not intervene? That is why I originally came to you and when you ignored my request he has taken that as a carte-blanche. Why can you not look at the edits rather than the editor that made them and adjudicate on the text? I don't have this sort of reversion problem with any other user (whereas P has it with a wide variety of editors - doesn't that tell you something) ? Alice.S 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I am suggesting no such thing. In any conflict there needs to be (at least) two people to conflict with one another. As you have ignored my suggestion about how best to resolve the situation, and have, in some ways, exacerbated the situation, I decline to get involved in trying to sort it out for you at the moment. Why not seek wider input from other experienced users? Incidentally, what is your idea of what a resolution of this matter will look like? What do you want to happen? --John 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish for someone with knowledge of the subject matter to examine the (mainly technical) edits I have made and tell me why they are being reverted (but only by P). I need to learn what it is that Perspicacite objects to. I do not now AGF with him and assume that it is the editor that he is reverting rather than the edits but I am fully prepared to be educated if there is actually something wrong with my edits. Most other editors are scared of being attacked in an ANI or ArbCom by him and don't dare comment but the only ones that have commented, have consistently failed to support his reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARhodesia&diff=174630777&oldid=174630708 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=174402424&oldid=174398606. Alice.S 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have consistently agreed that (of the edits I have examined), I tend to agree with you on your edits. However you are missing the point if you think an admin can act as any sort of arbiter on matters of content. What I can do and have done is to advise you to try to avoid interacting directly with another user with whom you clearly cannot agree. Wikipedia's strength and its weakness is that it operates by consensus, not hierarchy. Part of operating successfully here is knowing when to be patient and to let others sort something out. By personalising your various disputes with this user (you have even structured your user talk page into P and non-P sections), you have greatly exacerbated this dispute. What I feel like doing is blocking both of you for disruption. Instead I will follow my own advice, let patience prevail, and hope that some other experienced user may find the way of communicating a better way of working here which I have so clearly failed to do. Good luck, and please think about what I said. --John 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be true in theory that WP is not structured hierarchically but I can assure you that if a few sensible fellows like yourself would actually use the article discussion pages to achieve a consensus on specific material then the P problem would disappear. When he removes sourced material and introduces nonsense like confusing the names of Ambassadors he would be reverted once each by three knowledgeable users, he would ignorantly revert them despite discussion on the talk page and then he could be blocked for 3RR for increasing periods of one day. After one week even P would learn to edit rather than revert.
As for my talk page this was done out of necessity: One of the reasons for this division is the sheer volume of templated messages from P - measuring up to 105,077 bytes in one message!
If one did not assume good faith, one would assume he is attempting to drown out normal dialogue on my user talk page since, unless in extremis, I don't usually instantly expunge unfavourable comments (as P does on his own talk page).
Please note that I have no desire to get this prolific, erudite and intelligent editor permanently banned (unlike his own stance towards me). I merely wish him to change his behaviour and act in a more collegial manner towards his fellow editors by ceasing to label
a) anyone that edits an article that he previously edited a stalker
and
b) anyone that changes his version a vandal and his contributions vandalism
to be reverted on sight by him without regard to the content or merit of the specific edit. Alice.S 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Those sound like reasonable things to wish for. What action do you envisage taking in order to help the situation? What can you change to improve things? --John 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Most of the admins are too busy blocking IP vandals to actually examine an individual editors record. The fly by admins don't see any thing wrong bcause he removes all negative comment from his talk page instantly. The REAL archive I was keeping in preparation for an ArbCom if he did not reform was removed. It's really all a bit like the juvenile justice system in Sweden - teeenagers are sent entirely the wrong message that there are no consequences for bad behaviour.
What can I do other than what I'm doing? Leave him alone to cause real damage? (Not by his edits - the majority are good - but by driving away more careful editors by his aggressive reverting and bullying). Alice.S 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You could do what I asked you to do several weeks ago; leave him alone and stop making the situation worse, and let others with more experience deal with him. A single problematic editor is very easy to deal with, unlike the present situation. It is important that you both realise that either one of you can end this at a stroke by walking away and letting others deal with it. When what you are doing is not achieving the results you want, it may be time to change what you are doing. By 'Leave him alone' I mean do not edit his talk page, and try for a week or two editing only articles he has not edited in the last month. If you do that and there are still problems I will find it a lot easier to act or to find another admin to act, as the problem will then be clear cut. Currently it is not. For this to be solved, you both have to be willing to change. --John 20:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above statements would be an example of mass-spamming talkpages to make a point. Jose João 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more. When we have problems here we try to resolve them. I see both of you as having exhibited highly problematic behaviour, but at least I see Alice trying to resolve the problem by raising it with me. While you're here, let me repeat the same question I asked Alice. What are you going to do to try to help resolve the situation? --John 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun an RfC on her behavior. I'm still compiling evidence, but I'll let you know when I've filed the report. Jose João 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Please also be aware that an RfC will invite comment on all participants' behaviour. --John 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dana E. Levin

Hi John, you know a bit about MOS. Could you advise here I wonder? Thanks. Tyrenius 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Tyrenius (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I defer to your specialist knowledge on the subject area but I think Wikipedia guideline-wise you're 100% correct. --John (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gayetri Joshi

Respected John: I just created this article on this Bollywood actress, who is married to a very prominent builder in India. Unfortunately this article was deleted. Could you be good enough to restore it? Thanx in adv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunwanti (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject already exists on Wiki as Gayatri Joshi. Please delete my aritcle, as I have made additions to existing entry. Inconvenience is regretted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunwanti (talk • contribs) 08:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I hope you won't mind my coalescing your two posts into one here. If you ever need any more help in the future, just ask. --John (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note/worthy

Thanks a lot for your message, John. Despite our philosophical differences on a couple fundamental matters, I do regard you as one of those here who's truly committed to "maintain and improve" (per, as you put it elsewhere, the best rule of all). And, not only do I laugh whenever I think of the Snotcrust parody, it's probably spared us a couple supererogatory (ahem!) adjectives already. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIX - December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 11:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIX - December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 11:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Franz Ferdinand

Hi, I have to say, I'm sorry. The problem is you're edit came in bad timing and I'll explain to you why. I too have worked a lot on the Franz page, adding all the information I could in their history. CloudNine kept deleting all my information and I reverted just when you made an edit.

I tried to keep a lot of your information but it was kinda tiring. If you want we could work together in re-wording it and cleaning it up, but I wish to keep as much of the information I put in as possible.

Sorry again. --Paper Back Writer 23 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No problem. I'm glad you like my idea of working together to improve the article. I'll message you each time I make an edit and I'll tell you what I've done etc.

Thanks. --Paper Back Writer 23 (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2007

User:Farlack913

Could you please review the User:Farlack913 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and his contributions (especially some of the recent ones). With the exception of the change for GNER to NXEC on a number of stations the rest are badly spelt, are amending template fields to the point of corrupting the template display, and are poorly spelt. User:Signalhead and myself have been picking up some of these issues, however when messages are left on the Talk Page, there is little of no effect to the message. His recent comment his user page requesting message not to be sent does not demonstrate to myself a respect to the Wikipedia ethic. Youe thoughts please? --Stewart (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His is started again this evening with Stranraer Harbour railway station. This time User:Dreamer84 did the honours to revert his misguided edits. --Stewart (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments to this user. We will see what effect they have. --Stewart (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing these edits to my attention. I think this user means well but just doesn't know what they are doing. It might be worth keeping an eye on them and reverting any more bad edits they make. At this stage I still regard them as savable. --John 17:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your message in my user talk page

I received and appreciate your comment about the link to the Daytrotter session I added. We're not trying to increase search engine traffic. I believe the content we provide on Daytrotter is both unique and highly regarded.

We've been written up in Rolling Stone, Wired, Esquire, Paste, and several other print sources, and on several online sources too. Our mission is to spread the word about good indie music. Perhaps the Boston Globe explained us best:

Meet your new favorite bands If you love free music, but don’t love the idea of stealing it from your favorite, underappreciated musicians, Daytrotter.com is a small miracle. The site lures some big names in indie rock (Bonnie “Prince” Billy, Of Montreal, Grizzly Bear, Jolie Holland) and smaller-but-interesting acts (Whispertown 2000, Harlem Shakes, Jana Hunter) into a studio in Rock Island, Ill., to record “exclusive, reworked, alternate versions of old songs and unreleased tracks.” They then release eight of those songs every week for free.

But don’t be fooled by Daytrotter’s altruism or by the folky, hand-drawn art that the site’s illustrators pack onto every page. The Daytrotter Sessions aren’t some lo-fi scraps from a basement four-track — they’re high-quality recordings of intimate, impromptu performances that you can download to MP3, stream individually, or — if you’re in an exploratory mood — play in a randomized radio-station format.

The Morning News named us ....

Favorite Heir to the Throne of John Peel If you believe the internet only started mattering once it was ‘monetized,’ stop reading now. We can’t be responsible for the damage you’ll wreck upon your 42-inch LCD cinema displays. Because why, you might ask, would anyone record exclusive sessions and interview today’s best independent artists and bands, then post the results alongside original illustrations—for free? That’s exactly what Daytrotter does, out of a love for bringing together so many artistic media under one beautiful canopy. Truly the best of the musical web.

I'm just saying that we're not trying to do anything untoward or sneaky. We just believe that Daytrotter serves a purpose of introducing people to new bands and great music. Please feel free to stop by and check it out.

Sherloque —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherloque (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. How do I raise the topic for general discussion? -- Sherloque (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John,

I took a quick look at the Casiotone For the Painfully Alone page as an example of what might be displayed in an external link section. There were several external links on his page: three that lead to interviews with Owen, a link to the Last.FM page for his music, and links to his website and his label's site. A Daytrotter Session is a combination of a short interview/article with the artist, and a collection of songs recorded and released jointly by the Artist and Daytrotter. It seems to me that each of these other links is conceptually similar to the links to an artist's Daytrotter Session. With your permission, I'd like to restore the links to the Daytrotter sessions that were removed.

Sherloque (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk. --John (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment

John, could you look at the discussion here on my talk page, and see if you can help answer the question? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John/you gave me a stop message/could you help me out

You sent me a link telling me to stop. I understand why but I don't think you understand why I was adding those rad links. I have not been putting in references that were off topic, and they were external links sent to a website that does not use advertising. Fora tv is a cool spot and there are lots of conversations with all these top thinkers in the world talking and debating and discussing world issues. Plus, these video clips are not edited by some media spin, I think it helps the encyclopedia. I'm definitely a newbie, so guide me please... ;)

The Hitchens debates section add was cool because what makes Hitchens cool is his debates and those debates people can watch which normally people could not...

Listen it would be one thing if Fora was doing add sales or something lame but their content makes sense for external links for some of the wikipedia articles especially because it's not edited and it's not commercial. I don't see what someone wouldn't want to see Gloria Steinem give a talk or Jimmy Carter or whoever... now here is the kicker with Fora, it's like a youtube link in the sense that the content is from other sources such as CSPAN or The Long Now Foundation or The Aspen Institute. Many of those places could not host the video so it's hosted on fora but the content is rad and totally would be awesome for wikipedia. Listen, if there were ads or this wasn't a cool thing I'd be down and call my self spamming, but I know that there has to be a way we could work this out because the content is killer and is so obscure and geek that people just wouldn't know it's there.

creativearts4ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativearts4ever (talk • contribs) 09:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Adverb

User:Adverb is still trying to advert despite your earlier warnings. Persistent he is :D . At least it's not a flag icon. 156.34.216.38 (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's edited the Jimmy Page article twice after his last warning now. Funeral 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he won't be doing it for a little while now. Thanks for your help. --John (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup

Hi I see you have blocked User:SuperSonicx1986 for 3RR violation on the above article. I had been trying to help stop the Edit War by reverting the article back to the last version and asking those involved to discuss on the talk page. Unfortunately though the above user chose to ignore this and just left insults on my talk page. I have had to revert twice on the article to get it back to the last good version. Now the article stands at the edit made by the above user. If I revert it again I will then have reverted three times (even though it is to try adn stop an edit war!!!), so is it possible for you to revert it to the last good version, and hopefully then those involved in the edit war can sort it out on the articles talk page! Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tangerines. I am reluctant to get involved in a content dispute I have not been following. I encourage you to seek a wider consensus in article talk. Sorry I can't be of more help. --John (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Celebrate the Nun image

That image is from 1991 and they are no longer active as Celebrate the Nun. I believe the colour purple within the description that says Fair Use in Scooter Band [3] indicates that the image has already been approved as a non-free rationale by an admin, there are no free images available for Celebrate the Nun. They have not been active since 1991.--Harout72 (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've taken a slight liberty by declaring it a text only field. However, I feel it is justified under the following considerations:

  1. Fair use: The purpose of the "Name" field is to give the name of the band, which is possible without using a copyrighted image. It is therefore impossible to justify using an image for the "Name" field, as it breaks WP:NFCC#1.
  2. Accessibility: The field provides the heading for the infobox, which should be machine-readable (to assist screen-reader software and bot editors). I am not aware of any other infoboxes which use an image as a heading.
  3. Definition of logos: Some bands (e.g. Metallica) are closely identifiable with a unique, creative logo, and it would seem reasonable to include the image somewhere in the article (with discussion). Other band "logos" are just simple text renderings of the band's name, as shown on individual albums/merchandise. Where do we draw the line? If a band (such as Radiohead) renders its name differently in numerous places, which should we use in the infobox? I think in this case, it's impossible to say which "logo" (if any) best identifies Radiohead

I think the best solution for this issue is to:

  1. Insist that the "Name" field contents is a plain text name (not a logo)
  2. Add a "Logo" field to Template:Infobox Musical artist to contain the band's logo image (if one exists).

What do you think? Papa November (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am inclined to agree with you. I raised it here; I hadn't realised there was an ongoing discussion on the matter, had you? --John (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen the discussion, but it seems to have ground to a halt a few months ago. It would be nice if we could finally come to a decision about this though! Papa November (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there is no serious objection in the next day or two I don't see any problem with implementing your suggestion. Speaking as one who has added at least two logos to band articles, I agree that many of them seem unencyclopedic. Perhaps we should restrict our definition of 'logo' here to something which has appeared on two or more albums, what do you think? --John (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, although what about bands like Sex Pistols with only one album, but lots of merchandise featuring a very distinctive logo? It may be safer to leave out that criterion for now. Papa November (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I need to think about this some more. --John (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AWB encountered DllNotFoundException

Yeah, i just removed it as a duplicate, as it has been fixed for the next release

Sorry for not using a more obvious edit summary

—Reedy Boy 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Fleming (Irish republican)

If you are going to attribute the statemwnt to AP, then I want you to attribute EVERY SINGLE other piece of information in the article. We dont attribute statements from AN unless it is contradicted by another source.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? While you're here, how about apologising for the ridiculous and insulting statements you made about me on the talk page there, then withdrawing them. Maybe then we can discuss the article. Have a think about it. Cheers. --John (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to avoid the issue - possibly hanging about with Batsun too long! Which comments in particular concerned you? --Vintagekits (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ones which focussed on your opinion of my motives rather than on improving the article. I see at least one other admin agrees that the comments were inappropriate. --John (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Love Spit Love

MOS goes neither way. I guess it's a personal choice, but, strictly, it's an issue of accuracy.

If you look at the album cover, there's only one name on it - all it says is "Love Spit Love". It doesn't say "Love Spit Love - Love Spit Love". (It's the same on the spine of the CD.) In the case of eponymously-titled albums, the band's name is not a clear-cut title - it's just the band's name. That's why self-titled albums are often referred to by the color of the artwork instead of the title - the band's name isn't necessarily a title.

If you use it only as a way to identify the album (eg, "Love Spit Love was released..." with "The completed album" removed from the front), that'd be fine. The current wording is also fine (there aren't any guidelines restricting the wikilink as it currently stands). But Love Spit Love isn't specifically a title, so it shouldn't be used as one. -- ChrisB (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrox24

Heh, ditto. I got the "already blocked" message, you must've got there first by seconds :) BLACKKITE 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


More snags cleaning flags.... the trouble with Chubbles

I've been poking away at WP:FLAG for a while but every now and then I run into someone who's personal pov outweighs the guideline and they continually rv and sort of crufty cleanup. If you have a minute could you speak to Chubbles about not undoing a perfectly good "do" over n over n over. Thanks. 156.34.216.38 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating. Mr Chubbles has rv'd me 4 times on the Autumn article. He's normally a good user. I don't know why he's putting personal agenda above wiki guideline? He's followed some my edit history and rv'd some of my other flag cleaning edits in other articles. I give up. 156.34.216.38 (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have enough articles on my watchlist that 156 edited several of them at once. I see no reason to prohibit the use of flags in band articles; WP:MOSFLAG does not discourage their use in that setting, and I find them useful but I don't care nearly enough about it to keep fighting. Do as you like. Chubbles (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it isn't worth edit warring over; nothing is. What do you find "useful" about using " United States" as opposed to "United States"? --John (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally use both the flag and the country name, just the flag. It's really neither here nor there to me, so long as the country of origin is mentioned. It was really angering to have 156 cite a guideline, get reverted by another user who said the guideline does not discourage the flag's use, and then continually restore his edits by citing that guideline again over and over. Chubbles (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. As I say, I much prefer to do without flags in a situation like this, as I believe words are clearer and avoid giving undue weight to nationality, but I'll have a word. It really isn't worth edit warring over. --John (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrderOfSaddam

I am confused as to what all this users sock puppets are. So far I think he has the following puppets:

OrderOfLaden (talk · contribs) Hytioplion (talk · contribs) OrderOfBush (talk · contribs) OrderOfBush2 (talk · contribs) (recent) Dangolaenican (talk · contribs) User-multi error: no username detected (help). (according to Wwwhatsup (talk · contribs) on Talk:Punk) DGJSNRNKJB K (talk · contribs)

I wouldn't at all be suprised if there are more. --Nn123645 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence for Dango being a sock; all the others I agree with you on. I thought the way you and Wwwhatsup dealt with the user's concerns may have made the situation worse; there may have been legitimate concerns about the article. Per WP:BITE it is better to err on the side of good faith with new users. While the user's edits may arguably have violated WP:NPOV, and certainly WP:3RR and latterly WP:SOCK, calling these edits vandalism was not necessarily the best way to defuse the situation. Just my 2c worth. --John (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally I did take it to talk. It wasn't until he was obviously violating WP:Point that I started reverting him (specifically when he added the article to the propaganda catagory is pretty much where he lost good faith). Wwwhatsup opened a checkuser case on all of the above at WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/OrderOfLaden. --Nn123645 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A checkuser isn't really necessary for obvious sockpuppets like this. Read the 'unacceptable requests' section on WP:RCU. Funeral 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gahan

Hi John,

I've added this tag to the article:

Template:RFCbio

Somebody with various IP addresses beginning "76" keeps claiming that his family and/or father were Jewish. I have nothing against that if it were true, but this user does not provide any reference or cite for this info. Can we please confirm that he was or was not Jewish? What to do about this user's continued (apparent) vandalism? User's IP is 76.208.131.15 (earlier) or 76.237.41.62 (latest). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will keep an eye. --John (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB SVN Version

Hi, [4] - If you report any bugs, please make sure you change the bug report to include SVN Revision 1898

Hope this works fine for you!

—Reedy Boy 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bat signal hung out again

John, please look at Eurofighter Typhoon talk page. FWIW, sorry to get you involved, I also asked Trevor MAc to look at the issues. Bzuk (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Debbie Arnold

In the Debbie Arnold article why did you delete the category "English vegetarians"? She is/was apparently quite vocal about it. Did you want a citation to a reliable source? --Bejnar (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. If she has been quite vocal about it that should be easy to find.--John (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Regarding the reverting of my addition of flags to a few infoboxes as per WP:MOSFLAG, I had inserted them only after seeing these flags in info boxes elsewhere. It certainly was not my original idea.--PremKudvaTalk 05:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

risk/reward cycle

Is also used in stock investing and other business models than gaming. If your article focuses on it as a math concept it is more notable and may survive deletion. Alatari (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah wrong user. Sorry. Alatari (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could you????

WHy did you delete the M. Nicole van Dam article? That is just awful!!! WHy would you do that? I don't understand! Please explain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNikiNiki (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:N. --John (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleted?

I realy have no idea why you deleted the article I added: Artist Slobodan Pejić (1944-2006) whos teacher was Karl Matzek... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpsuser (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:N. --John (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, but can't see what I'm doing wrong, do you have any short suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpsuser (talk • contribs)
Sure. Make sure you mention in the article you plan to write why the person is notable, and include good references to back this up. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentland Hick - not speedy deletion, please.

The guy seems notable enough to me -- Founded a large theme park and two publishing houses, at least one of the three are also in the 'pedia.

There's no call that I can see for speedy deletion. The article is properly referenced, has some sources, and is neither marketing nor promotion.

If you really think it's not notable, please, as a courtesy to a fellow Wikipedian who's been editing here since 2003, please allow it the policy-suggested 5 days to debate, ok?

Thanks, Steve Rapaport (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I've done that. It desperately needs some proper sources. Let me know if you need any help with that. --John (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the courtesy, John. I'm sure we'll all find it easier to source if it remains undeleted for a few days. I'd love some help with that, though. What do you suggest? Nearly everything in the article can be confirmed with a source in a simple google search ::An interesting point to consider: There's a form of "present chauvinism" present on Wikipedia. Someone who was notable before, say, 2000 has to meet a higher standard of notability since it's harder to find offline sources. But it seems to me that this subject's notability, which peaked in the 1960s, has remained fresh enough to still be found at 100 places in Google, which isn't bad. Steve Rapaport (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BDSMBooks

Blatant advertising, eh?

Probably looks like it, but check out the article Silver Moon Books, which has been restored by consensus and which has nearly identical text. Maybe they're both advertising. Funny thing is: Silver Moon Books is mentioned in the article BDSM and has been restored by consensus there as well. Yet "Silver Moon Books" is about 1/10 as notable (as measured objectively by number of Google hits and PageRank) as "Bdsmbooks". And of course both were founded by that same Pentland Hick, a few years apart.

My contention is that if the BDSM article wants to reference leading publishers in the field, the tiny Silver Moon might deserve a mention, but the much larger Bdsmbooks deserves one for certain.

As for the assertions on their various talk and deletion pages, the "sold on high streets" for one and "abuse of minors" on the other are both unverifiable. As far as I can tell, one has a friend who's willing to fight for it, is all. So I'm coming in for the other side now. Steve Rapaport (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Bdsmbooks

I just wanted to let you know that I was not trying to undermine your authority in any way by nominating the article for deletion rather than applying the WP:CSD#G4 tag to it. I happen to fully agree with your prior deletion. I just thought it would be a good idea for the original author to see consensus on the issue so it can be finally laid to rest. If I handled this incorrectly, by all means let me know how to handle situations like this in the future. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have no problem at all with there being a discussion towards consensus on whether the article is to be kept or not. --John (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with merge. Makes sense. Thanks for kind words. Here's the latest: J.B. Manson. What a character! I'm sticking to art for now... Tyrenius (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't make it up.[5] I've answered MOS query. Does that work? Tyrenius (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is fantastic! As for the MoS my recollection is you may be wrong. I'll have a look sometime and report back, it isn't terribly important. It really is a fascinating article; thanks for writing it. --John (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana chestnut...

Hi there, I'm at work once more in the Augean stables: you might like to pick up a shovel... Hope all well with you, JackyR | Talk 11:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice or suggestions

John, I would like to make a complaint against an Admin, who I consider is abusing their admin tool. Dose that fall under the normal request for comment, or is there an alternative forum. What would you suggest to be the appropriate course of action, based on your experience. --Domer48 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domer. I suggest posting at WP:AN/I in the first instance. As it says there, "If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. But this is not the Wikipedia complaints department." Of course, as with all these things, you should be aware that the behaviour of all involved parties is likely to be closely scrutinised. I hope that helps. --John (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that John, I'll check it out. --Domer48 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depeche Mode - sockpuppet is alive and even more kicking

This is truly outrageous, isn't it? "Gore is incorrect"?! Garik 11 (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree it is another sock and have blocked the account indefinitely. --John (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My posts

And what about the other websites there? Such as SOADFans... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.99.21 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby give you permission to carefully read WP:EL and remove any links you find which do not conform to it. This would be better than adding spam links to articles as the latter just makes work for those of us who have to remove them. --John (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington

Thanks for informing me.

The WP:MOSFLAG reads "Flag images, especially flag icons in biographical infoboxes, should not be used to indicate birth or death places, as this may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality." I am using the images not as birth and death places but as nationality indicators. The Washington was a citizen of the Kingdom of Great Britian at his birth and was a citizen of the United States at his death. The manual makes it clear that they are not to be used for location only but makes no reference to indicating nationality. In fact it even encourages such use. "Flag icons may be appropriate in tables or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand" Those flags are tied to Washington because they show the change that happened during his lifetime. America going from British to independent rule is a major event in history and Washington played a crucial role in that. I changed the icons to reflect that flags used by the Kingdom of Great Britian at his birth and the flag used by the United States at his death.

Best wishes, Rougher07 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important message about recall

++Lar: t/c 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(the above is a message I am thinking of sending to every member of the category but am trying it out on a few folk, feedback welcome. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John&oldid=179081053"