User talk:John Reaves

Sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end and use a section header .
Click here to leave a new message.

• OTRS • commons • irc:JohnReaves •

---

Inappropriate Userpage.

Thank you! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ROT26 Decoder Ring (talk • contribs) 08:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

RainingmySoul

Can you block this guy? Seems to, somehow, avoid the sock blocks imposed by the RFCU case. Thanks for the block of the sockpuppeteer. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 06:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Liao/Raining Sockpuppets

As KZ mentioned the case directly above this post... I want to thank you for helping block the sock puppets that Jessica was using.. I have tried really hard to follow proper procedure and I'm glad it looks like I can finally put her vandalism and rash string of edits behind me. Thank you for your quick action this case. MrMacMan 07:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisting RFD Nominations

Please don't relist RFD nominations. If you feel there is not enough discussion to close, just leave that day's page transcluded on the WP:RFD page. The page is not long enough to justify the disconnect copying causes in the history. People shouldn't have to go through multiple days history to validate the discussion if needed. Also, the default answer to RFD is delete (see guiding principle #3). If no one comments on the nomination, it should be deleted, not relisted. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 11:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Seaned

Hi John, I know I jumped the gun last time on reporting this guy to AIV, that's my bad and I'm sorry, but he is continuing to blank his talk page leaving messages such as "screw you" and edit summaries calling people stalkers and threatening to create a new account. Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_{Leave Your Mark} 16:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My User page

Cheers for the semi-protection. I can get on with doing something productive now! TheOne00 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

JD

Thanks for the protect, but he's now applied for unprotect.HarvardOxon 01:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RFPP - Heroes

John, I just edit conflicted with you at WP:RFPP on the Heroes request. Are you sure that's wise- I was going to decline it. The issues haven't gone away and unless a consensus determines that this redirect page should point elsewhere, I don't think its a great idea to unprotect it at the request of one editor... WjBscribe 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it and reprotect if the revert warring continues. It just seems to me that the only reason to unprotect a redirect is to change its target- and changing the target of that redirect will probably start an edit war... WjBscribe 01:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support.

Dear John Reaves,

Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.

Best wishes,

-- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

I respect your decision to not unblock me, but everyone is overlooking the 2,000 pound elephant in the room....Calton. He violated the same 3 revert rule, no block. I do, trying to reach consensus on a page, trying to do the right thing. He brates people left and right and has an RfC about it, no one notices. I use a word that might be in the slightest bit rude, I get snapped at. 2,000 pound elephant in the room...and it ain't me!

Please, take a look at this rouge editor, who has had 3 blocks on him already, more than one RfC (one still open) and numerous complaints and yet he continues to be here with on consequence. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Thank you very much for protecting my page. --Meaneager

WikiProjects

Thanks for unprotecting my userpage. By the way, what WikiProjects are you working on?? If there's any disputes or articles that need work, I'll gladly help you if you want.... --SunStar Net ^talk 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage and blocking the user who vandalized my user page. Amos Han Talk 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi John Reaves, could you also fully protect the User talk page, cheers! Tellyaddict 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Sdfne

This page appears to be an odd honey trap for a curious vandal. He randomly changes verb tenses in articles and templates. He appears to be User:chrisaldous and a variety of IPs, see [1]. I recommend blocking Chris Aldous indef and tracking this user. He may also be a sock of User:Jj0909jj, see [2] (more random tense changing) and [3] (same ip being identified as Jj0909jj) by User:Warrens. I don't know who the original puppeteer might be though. Nardman1 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates

True, but I don't really care about them. And anyone noticing them is more likely to look askance at him. Michael Sanders 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive revert editor / will not respond to discussion page / I have reverted three times so can do no more

Would you please review Panties in which the editor User:Robotman1974 has repeatedly reverted my edits, calling them "unsourced" and "OR?" I have moved the objectionably material to the discussion page until it can be sourced, but Robotman continues to revert my other changes to the page regardless. Robotman will not respond to posts I made on his talk page. He refuses to discuss or reach consensus. 67.101.243.74 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• User:Robotman1974 has now posted three different warnings. We both warned the other initially, and after he removed his, I removed mine. Now, however, he has reverted all my edits to the article in question and added these three different warnings to my talk page. ---- I apologize if this is not the usual way to report such activity. Please let me know how I should do so better in the future if that is the case. 67.101.243.74 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The reverts in question are here, here and here. Each time I removed content that was entirely unsourced and to my view constituted original research. As far as I understand the policies at WP:ATT, WP:CITE and WP:OR, I was right to remove this content. As for the claims of edit warring, I hardly think these three reverts on this article can be called that. I need to ask John, do you really think my actions on this article amount to an edit war? If you don't, then please remove or strike out the statement you left on my talk page saying that I am edit warring. On to the issue of discussion with the user. The claim that I "will not respond to discussion page" is false. For the first revert, I left no message. For the second, I left the standard level 1 unsourced message. The user at 67.101.243.74 then left a level 1 deletion message on my talk page. I removed this warning as bogus because it is. To remove unsourced material and original research from an article is not a violation of policy, and is not a mistake or an action taken in bad faith. If you believe I shouldn't have removed this warning John, you're welcome to restore it to my talk page. The second message I left the IP user can be seen here, along with a restoration of the previous warning and a message not to remove legitimate warnings from talk pages. That was after I had removed the unsourced information (which now contained less text) for the third time. I don't believe any of this can be seriously called edit warring or refusal to communicate. If you think otherwise John, please let me know. I would also very much like to know if I have made any violations of Wikipedia policy in my actions. If so, and upon your request I can restore the bogus warning to my talk page, restore the unsourced material to the article or remove the warnings I left at User talk:67.101.243.74. Please let me know. Thanks. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for the quick reply. Point taken on that. What about the other questions I asked though? Was I wrong to remove that content? I ask because I frequently remove unsourced statements and original research from articles while I go through my watchlist. Is this the wrong thing to do? Should I stop? Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RE

I meant to bring it up yesterday, but it slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder. I'll do it now. Peace, -- The Hybrid 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

DFTT. ;) —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)