User talk:John

A Note on threading: Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page. If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it. If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it. I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to. please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

(From User:John/Pooh policy)

Click to show archived versions of this talk page

User talk:John/Archive 2006 User talk:John/Archive 2007 User talk:John/Archive 2008 User talk:John/Archive 2009 User talk:John/Archive 2010 User talk:John/Archive 2011 User talk:John/Archive 2012 User talk:John/Archive 2013 User talk:John/Archive 2014 User talk:John/Archive 2015 User talk:John/Archive 2016 User talk:John/Archive 2017 User talk:John/Archive 2018 User talk:John/Archive 2018-2022 User talk:John/Archive 2022-2024

Aleister Crowley mess up Oops! Looks like we're both trying to make some improvements to the same section on the Aleister Crowley page; I ended up accidentally undoing some of your edits while implementing my own, and then you undid my edit. I'll go ahead and fix it so that all of our edits can remain. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks. --John (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Great to see some effort in trying to improve that page. Eric Corbett 20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC) It could do with some help all right. He is an interesting character. --John (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC) One of my anti-heroes in fact. Eric Corbett 23:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) That article needs an awful lot of work, even to meet the GA criteria I think. How it managed to get through GAN I can't imagine. Eric Corbett 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, I did wonder. --John (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC) I'm on the verge of nominating this rambling and rather poorly written article at WP:GAR. It should never have been passed as a GA. Any thoughts? Eric Corbett 22:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Tom Daley Even with a reference, I wonder if that content is too much personal information?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC) The father's death or the gay relationship? --John (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry, been a tad busy. I meant the information about his home location. (although naming his boyfriend may not be appropriate unless this information is clearly public and non controversial).--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Michael Peter Woroniecki On July 16, 2011, you contacted user Joshua Woroniecki with this message on his talk page: "I'm awfully sorry but I have to insist you do not edit an article on which you have an apparent conflict of interest again. The next time you do that this account will be blocked indefinitely. --John (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)" Only 7 days later, on July 23, 2011 an anonymous editor (quite possibly the user you warned) at 64.79.101.170 added to the article an "unduly self serving" third party sourced quote originally from the family's website that serves to promote the family's ministry by soliciting contacts from the public: “Are you willing to look deeper, beyond it all? Please give us a chance to help you. It will be well worth your time. What we offer you is not a new group, “church”, formulas, self exaltation or doctrines. What we offer you is the love of the living Jesus who has the answers that you are looking for.” This quote is "unduly self serving" according to WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:ABOUTSELF and is therefore not permissible even as third party sourced material. I believe the family has been using this wikipedia page as a promotional platform, particularly through said quote, to solicit greater contact with the public, which in turn favors increasing their financial support base. Over the last 30 days, someone has tenaciously refused to let this "unduly self serving" quote suffer removal, despite the clear reasons provided and rules cited that disallow it. (Please see edit history page.) I believe only the Woronieckis would go to such lengths to refuse to let such a self serving quote be deleted. Several reverts were made from IPs in North Carolina and Georgia at the same dates the Woroniecki's unique protest sign messages were tweeted or reported on in these states or around the times they moved through these states. The Woronieckis protest against Churches with provocative banner signs in an itinerant fashion from campus to campus across the US and were seen traveling south through eastern US seaboard states from NY-GA in Oct and Nov 2013. www.theslateonline.com/article/2013/10/jesus-banners-wave-at-su Oct 9, 2013 Shippenburg Univiversity, Shippenburg, PA https://twitter.com/KellyFairbanks Kelly Fairbanks ‏@KellyFairbanks 13 Nov All of these "church is a joke" banners around Tate are actually kind of making me angry Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite More Nov 13, 2013 University of Georgia, Athens GA religionnerd.com/2013/11/19/believe-in-jesus-read-the-bible-dont-go-to-church/ Athens, GA University of Georgia, Nov 19, 2013 I'm persuaded the Woronieckis are monitoring the article and maintaining their promotional/diluted noteriety bias through anonymous edits. There is another edit made on this date: (cur | prev) 02:59, 27 September 2013‎ 108.120.226.7 (talk)‎ . . (29,020 bytes) (-298)‎ . . (removal of unsourced and potential "invasion of privacy" statements) (undo) Which was a reasonable edit made by the family, who was seen at Univeristy of Illinois Urbana on the date the edit was made according to this tweeted photo: http://www.eyeem.com/p/19713731 I cite it merely to show they are actively monitoring and anonymously editing the article. Despite clear BLP rule violations the delete sought to fix, an anonymous IP in the UK steps in, disregards the already discussed reverts, favors the violations of the Woroniecki edits, just as user: Off2riorob aka youreallycan (a blocked administrator) and user: Kevin (demoted administrator) favored the edits and stealth edits Joshua Woroniecki made in the article which removed very well sourced information from major publishing house books, city newspapers and mainstream US news outlets that clarify the allegations reputable sources made regarding the preacher's affect on Andrea Yates, like the two quotes seen below: 1-"Yates had suffered from mental illness for years -- depression with bouts of psychosis, suicide attempts and hospitalizations. Soon after the birth of her fourth child, Luke, she began to have violent thoughts. Her delusions were fueled by the extreme religious beliefs of a bizarre, itinerant street preacher named Michael Woroniecki whom her husband, Rusty, had introduced her to." http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2244865 2-"Here is where the Woroniecki doctrinal muddle sets in. Whether to the casual observer or to those who had tried to follow Woroniecki for years, the streets of heaven seemed empty. In spite of the ransom given for all men for all time, the numeric set of the "saved" seems to number only 8 people, his wife and his children. If you count his mother--who was on the "maybe" list--9. For those who were drawn to Michael Woroniecki for the sincerity of his beliefs and his walking the walk he talked, there seemed little if any hope to equal his personal success. For those who like Andrea Yates, were both sincere and driven to please, following Woroniecki could lead to ruin." Author and Yale University Instructor Suzanne O'Malley, Are You There Alone?, p. 109 Simon & Schuster Publishers. www.suzanneomalley.com The quotes highlight the court documented psychotic scripts Yates revealed in her post arrest psychiatric records, which are also enumerated in O'Malley's book. Both she and the children had to die because she was a bad mother headed for hell, and she was damaging her children which would cause them to stumble and go to hell. These thoughts were demonstrated to have come from Yate's preaching materials. Joshua also removed the reason the Woroniecki's have notoriety in the header, the seemingly unconstitutional (which wasn't, as the articles revealed) ouster from his hometown in Grand Rapids in 1981 which made national news in the US and the international story about Andrea Yates killing her children in 2001 and his media alleged role as her minister in effecting that result. Joshua substitutes his campus protests as the means to notoriety. This low level of notoriety that excluded the controversial matters disqualified their page on their father in Spanish Wickipedia as promotional, which was being made around the same time the English page was being biased in the favor of the Woroniecki's. According to http://www.apologeticsindex.org/w16.html "In what comes across as somewhat of a PR campaign since early in 2010 the Woroniecki's have established on online presence, including a website, a blog, and videos on Vimeo and Youtube. At the same time they have attempted to purge information posted elsewhere by critics. In some cases they have succeeded in doing so (e.g. Wikipedia and YouTube). Apologetics Index was asked by Joshua Woroniecki to remove this page. However, our policy is to encourage visitors to research any and all topics included in this website from a variety of perspectives. That is why we attempt to provide links to a variety of research resources -- which can include pointers to pro- contra- or neutral information about the subject." Discussion on the talk page has done nothing to rectify the new bias of this article over the last 4 years. User Jibbytot gave up in frustration trying to effect change on the talk page. I believe whoever the anonymous UK editor is knows this, so when he makes the revert to the original article keeping the "unduly self serving" quote and refers to make discussion on the talk page, he expects nothing will change as it was before. I believe what the Woronieckis have done is simply contact one of the editors, possibly Off2riorob (who was a UK editor watching the page for years and favored them 4 years ago) through private email, and he returned to the page he had been watching and guarding years ago before he was finally blocked for harassing other editors. If I am not correct, and I have misinterpreted the WP BLP rules concerning promotion and unduly self serving quotes from third party sources, I apologize. Nevertheless, I think it is clear the Woroniecki's have a biased stranglehold on this article that has been facilitated and protected by at least two discredited editors for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.191.202 (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) What would you like me do? Obviously I have noted everything you have said. --John (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC) I would ask that you read the rationales given in each reversion comment and arbitrate a decision on whether the "anonymously" installed third party quote of the family's website is "unduly self-serving" because of its promotional soap-box nature--using Wikipedia to solicit public contacts. The quote is an invitation, not their "message", as the restorer argued. I would ask that Woroniecki's true notoriety be restored to the header paragraph--the national/international story about his court documented and media reported alleged negative association as Yates' preacher. If he wants to be known as a street preacher of 30 years, that's fine, but that's not what made him internationally newsworthy. "Michael Woroniecki is an international, non-denominational Christian missionary and itinerant street preacher, mostly widely known for his alleged negative influence on Andrea Yates, the Texas woman who in 2001 drowned her five children." Emphasis on alleged keeps this from being a libelous accusation. It is merely the reason for his notoriety and justification for inclusion as a noteworthy Wikipedia entry. Finally, considering the truthful notoriety of the preacher, I would ask that you use your authority and oversight to allow for better treatment in the article to what was reported about the preacher so a reader can come away with more than a family watered down allegation he influenced Yates. It would seem that a few quotes from mainstream media describing how he affected Yates like the ABC-Primetime and O'Malley quotes already provided would be appropriate, along with Andrea's delusions and their court documented connection to the preacher's teaching materials be provided. Otherwise readers come away with the possible notion that these allegations have no basis in reality and the press in general was merely having a field day persecuting a bible believing Christian. The preacher's defense as read in the media should be presented rather than the one substituted in the article by JW. Michael Woroniecki's defense in a letter he wrote to O'Malley dated Oct 24, 2002 and printed on page 97 of her book originally read as, For whatever it may be worth, I want to reiterate that Andrea's sole motive for her diabolical actions was revenge. It was deep and it was intense. She had told me on several occasions of her intense hatred for Rusty. She pleaded with me for an answer on how to live with him. She despised him. Matters concerning God had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. All the usage of Christian rhetoric, by her or the media, was nothing more than a smoke screen to cover her true motive. There is only one major variable. To what degree was Andrea drug induced at the exact time of her actions? If she was intoxicated with those drugs (as I am convinced she was by Rusty whose motives in dispensing these drugs was sinister, contrary to what he outwardly conveyed). He wanted to silence her while at the same time using her as his slave to take care of the kids. In this case, there is no doubt that Satan took full advantage of her by filling her mind diabolical delusions with twisted 'Christian' conclusions. That was Woroniecki's defense as reported in the major press. If he wants to add in other quotes about how he loved the Yates and told them to love their children, that's fine, he said that in the press as well, but not to the exclusion of the defense given above, which again, highlights specific allegations that help the reader understand Woroniecki's media stated position on why Andrea did what she did and why he's innocent. Those simple changes I believe will bring encyclopedic balance to the article. I can't make these changes without fair oversight which hasn't existed for the last 4 years--the last month of reverts and an anonymous IP police action restoring the article to its promotional state only underscores this problem. If I were to make these changes myself, the people JW persuaded 4 years ago to help him get the article to where it is today will return and mop up the changes.71.251.178.167 (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC) 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash Just a small query regarding your revert of my addition of two wikilinks to eurocopter. I may be missing something, but the article doesn't seem to have any links to the wiki page for this company directly even although it is mentioned significantly. This is a separate article to the one about the eurocopter helicopter. Removing one of the links might have been reasonable, but why both? Hope this makes sense --nonsense ferret 12:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC) It's what we call chain-linking, Nonsenseferret. The company wasn't involved in the accident, but one of their products was. The article at Eurocopter EC135 has a link to the company article. We don't need to include every single possible link, and adding two was certainly over the top, as you've conceded. If it's important to you to have one, I probably wouldn't fight it, but really, why? --John (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I've re-added one of the links. I think it is entirely reasonable and helpful to have a link to Eurocopter when the paragraph is discussing what the company did and advised, as distinct from the details of the helicopter. --nonsense ferret 21:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC) I saw. I think that's fine. Two was definitely too many. --John (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC) personal attack removed At the Daily Mail talk page. Please note that I am not adding to the list at AN/I here -- but I suggest you understand "verb sap". Collect (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean. Are you sure you're not mixing me up with someone else? It's true that I commented that your source does not back up your statement, but anyone reading the page can see that. This does indeed make your statement a lie (if it's intentional, unless you're claiming insanity, possession by demons or the like), and it does indeed make your statement "bullshit". How are you getting a "personal attack" out of that though? I am commenting on your dishonest behaviour, not on you as a person, and I very much stand by my comment. Wouldn't it be better to provide a source that says what you want to say, rather than one which doesn't, or to admit you are wrong? I really do feel sorry for you as it seems you have dug yourself into such a deep hole with your lies and you cannot resist continuing to dig.... Others are not daft and they must be drawing similar conclusions to mine at the moment. Are you a bit stressed? Do you need to take a wee break? Cup of tea? Good night's sleep? Think about it. --John (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC) The Gage matter I think I did a bit too much at the COIN in regards to the issues, but I've spent too many hours reviewing the information given that Gage was quite the interesting fellow. I do acknowledge EEng as an expert, but I disagree that the vast majority of such a detailed page should come from him or his co-author. I was worried about the matter following my reading of that GAR. Fleischman's work (not the user, DrFleischman) was the first result on Google and Amazon and scholar and while I found several more, I was disturbed by the reading in the new Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 3 which presents the information from many authors which Macmillan's work and EEng has so derided.[1] I'll leave it in the communities hands, but I do hope EEng is capable of working positively to address the issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Me too. Let's see how it goes. --John (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Pardner Pump John, I noticed that you are an administrator and also a member of project firearms. I was doing a little editing to H&R Pardner 12GA when I noticed that the name seems to be at odds with the way shotgun articles are typically named on Wikipedia. Usually a specific gauge that a gun is offered in doesn’t get its own page. Also the manufacturer calls the shotgun the “Pardner Pump”. I understand that I (as an IP editor) can’t rename the page, but would you be able to? Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)