User talk:John

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

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

Anonymous101621 john is unliked because he told me to stop "vandalizing" articles and i will be relived of my editing thing too bad i can make a new account —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous101621 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Yes. Wouldn't it be better to find another hobby or even edit constructively, which is a lot of fun. Good luck anyway. --John (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC) The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008) The September 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC) As I Lay Dying Ok, it's just that this user has a complete disregard for relevancy and insist that it should redirect to the book. The band is more notable and is view around x10 more times than the book. – Jerryteps 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Replied at your talk. --John (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Spelling error Hey, I was just checking your user page and I notice that you like to fix spelling mistakes, I also notice that in the same sentence you spelt "errors" wrong by spelling it "erors". If this was intended as a joke, I apologize but this is just a heads up. – Jerryteps 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks Jerry, you're right it was intended as a joke but since you mention it it isn't really all that funny any more. Feel free to correct it, or else I will. --John (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Thinking about a return Hi John, I'm thinking about coming back to editing. Reading over the WTC collapse article, I've noticed a lot of small things that could be improved. Also, after my departure, no one seems to be working to bring it up to GA status, though it was almost there at the time I was banned. I have mentioned this to Jehochman, who had already asked me if I wanted the ban lifted. At that time I said no thanks, and I still have my doubts. I'm not likely to edit very differently, which will probably be perceived by the same people who got me banned as POV pushing. They seem to get what they want, and they still have that ArbCom ruling to invoke when they get annoyed. I was encouraged a little by Jehochman's suggestion, since his opinion of my editing has been quite poor. But I think I'm still of the mind that in order to come back, ArbCom would have to rule the the original ban was unjustified. Otherwise lifting my ban would implicitly be predicated on time served and a promise not to do it again. Like I say, I am likely to do it again. My editing was improving the article(s), and improvements seem to have stalled. Do you have any advice on this?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I personally would support your return. I think things are gradually changing in this area and my hope would be that you could be part of the solution in improving these articles. What would you like me to do? --John (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure. I think Jehochman is right that I could get the ban lifted by applying to AE. But I how can I do that without admitting any wrongdoing?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I've asked Jehochman directly. Let's see what he says. --John (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for this. I'm looking forward to hearing the "advice", conditions, etc. BTW, It looks like activity is picking up again. But if I'm not mistaken my contributions will not be welcome. It looks like I'd be in opposition.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC) The Sewer Cover Barnstar The Sewer Cover Barnstar You have been awarded the Sewer Cover Barnstar. You have received this, in part, because you were “the first on your block” to link to the page. More important though, you are helping to spread the message among the Wikipedian community that links within our articles should always be topical and germane, that properly chosen links anticipate what the readership of any given article would likely be interested in further reading, and that judiciously selected links invite exploration and learning. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Wow, thank you very much. I have placed a copy on my awards page. --John (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Eighteen awards!  The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. I’ve only got one barnstar. Congratulations. :·P Greg L (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC) I tried to even it up slightly. --John (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Believe it or not, I wasn’t fishing. It seems there are barstars for everything: For major contributions to articles on Lithuanian Seikh Ph.D. physicians who worked at the Mayo Clinic. Quite unexpected. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Delinking dates Hi, John. I noticed that you used a script to delink dates within references on Doctor Who. That's fine (I know that linking dates is now deprecated), but it has a side effect: many of the dates in the references are now displayed in ISO 8601 format, which is not widely understood among readers. I think that in a case like Doctor Who, it's appropriate to format those dates in the standard UK format (11 October 2008), and WP:MOSDATE#Strong national ties to a topic agrees. Is it possible for you to adjust the script you're using to change these ISO 8601 dates to the British standard, or to the American standard (October 11, 2008) for US-related articles? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Nice comment. I noticed that as I was doing it. Maybe a word to the script creator to include ISO conversion is in order. The real damage was done of course by whoever thought it a good idea to use this format in articles. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks. The use of ISO format in citations is very widespread, because it was actively encouraged in the examples for a long time. (I think that some citation templates actually worked only with dates in ISO format, although I'm pretty sure that's no longer the case.) I don't think there are many dates in ISO format in article text, but there are probably millions of cases in citation footnotes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Technicolor Web of Sound Bios You Deleted Not sure if your going to get this or not, but Technicolor Web of Sound is a legitimate source for Beatles, Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, etc., bio information endorsed by many of the artists featured there themselves. The bio information would be considered very uselful by WikiPedia users....this is not spam. Please reconsider your deletion of the bio links we posted and get back to me either way at paulmaze@techwebsound.com. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmaze (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC) You might want to have a look at this comment and this thread. Ward3001 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Question Do you really believe that those frustrations were caused by my actions?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Nice question. It reminds me of the advice an old boss of mine once gave me: that we should try to judge others by their intentions and ourselves by our results, rather than vice versa. It is extraordinarily hard to do and yet vital on a project like ours. If you can do that more I think you will have no problems in coming back. --John (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC) But hold on a second: I was banned for making an edit (once) that I had discussed on the talk pages. How did my judgment of others (and myself) bring that about? More significantly, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of judging people by their intentions. We have such imperfect access to them (especially in a project like this). We should judge Wikipedians by the work they do, not what we think their game is.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I am like TheGoodLocust?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Well, to the degree that you wish to improve articles in only one area of the project, yes. As to judging people by their intentions, this is merely a restatement of WP:AGF. Like you, I do have a problem with the way you were treated, but I think it will be more productive if you are able to acknowledge people's concerns. I know you are familiar with the whole SPA business, and obviously not all single purpose accounts are problematic. But, like it or not, there is real concern about someone who only wants to add content in one narrow area. The bit I wanted you to read on that talk page was where I recommended the user get some more experience improving other areas. In my experience this can give a lot more perspective to an editor who normally only edits one area. Sadly that user did not choose to take my advice and got blocked as a result. I would hate for both of us to go to a lot of trouble to have your ban remitted and then to end up back where we started. --John (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I think Wikipedia, as an internet community, should be judged by the way it treats its SPAs. I think that is in Wikipedia's own interest. You need to find a way to welcome people, and retain them, without demanding that they identify with (or are passionate, if you will, about) the whole project. That's essential to the success of a Web 2.0 community. (You don't find YouTube or blogger banning people who follow the content rules but pursue a narrow interest.) I agree with your last sentence, and I think as a prediction it is accurate. I think there are two ways to avoid a repeat: either I acknowledge the wisdom of the ban (which is really what you are suggesting--i.e., that my presence was the problem that could be solved), or the WP community acknowledges its error. I think we've explored these options enough for now. I'll think about it some more. Thanks again for your time. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC) I'm giving it a shot. [1]--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC) MediaWiki:Non-free use list Hi John. I saw your name at Image:Ramones album cover.jpg NFCR. The matter came up again at ANI. I posted a request on Tim Starling's page to develop MediaWiki that would prevent images from displaying on pages where consensus at Wikipedia:Non-free content review determines that such display does not meet NFCC and be used only for images where editors repeatedly ignore that Non-free content review consensus. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry to be a pain Hi John, thanks, again, for your efforts. I won't bother the community much longer. The idea of a pardon suprised me: Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who, it is claimed, have been wrongfully convicted. However, accepting such a pardon implicitly constitutes an admission of guilt, so in some cases the offer is refused (cases of wrongful conviction are nowadays more often dealt with by appeal than by pardon). Thus, my appeal. I appreciate your remarks about my dignity. Please understand that whatever dignity I may have is grounded in precisely the sort of stand I am taking now. The "forward looking", pardon-accepting approach assumes that I have something to gain from editing here. I don't. Wikipedia has something to gain from letting people like me do exactly the sort of work I have been doing all along. If there were more like me, needless to say, I'd have a lot of fun here. Regardless of what "side" they are on. But the important thing is that the articles would improve.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (PS I know you weren't suggesting that I accept a pardon. But you were suggesting I was asking for one. Technically, moreover, Jehochman is almost suggesting a pardon.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)) Thanks for the clarification. My point was though that we do not deal in pardons. As an informal, non-legalistic community, we deal in consensus. You need to generate or demonstrate a consensus that having you work on 9/11-related articles will be a net positive to the project. In my opinion, this is more likely to work if you can demonstrate an understanding of where you went wrong last time, even if you still disagree with the sanction that was placed on you. This is what I mean by moving forwards. --John (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC) I really mean it when I say that this isn't about what I need to do to be allowed to come back. It's about what the community needs to do to keep guys like me around. As people sometimes point out, if I want to edit WP there's plenty of places I'm still allowed to do that. There's a reason I don't. I'm not asking for a second chance. I'm offering one.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC) What ??? I didn't delete any content anywhere what are you talking about? Get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.46.112 (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Pseudoscience Regarding your comment on ScienceApologist's talkpage, I support the idea of an enforced wikibreak, by block or topic ban, especially because of recent tactics such as filing a GAR with language of "pro cold fusion love-in",[2] and filing an MfD on another editor's userpage.[3] Per the Pseudoscience Arb case, any uninvolved admin can take action here. I'm thinking a minimum of a page ban from the cold fusion article and related pages, but a full topic ban from the pseudoscience topic area for 30 days might also be useful. Or were you thinking of a full block? --Elonka 02:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure. Meantime I will wait for SA's response, if any. Thanks for bringing these other edits to my attention. --John (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC) M25.mobi Hi John, exaclty which part of the WP:EL has been violated by the inclusion of this external link?