User talk:John254

Archives Note: The links below are permanent links to the correct versions of the archived talk pages. Any "newer" versions of these pages may have been compromised.
1 2 3

Richardson

Hey John254 -- thanks for quickly reverting the recent vandalism on the Richardson, Texas page. Much appreciated... --nathanbeach 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Process is Important

You added: However, some editors give a narrow construction to Ignore all rules, and claim that process should be adhered to unless there is a compelling justification for ignoring all rules. It is said that the repeated deletion and undeletion of this essay which began with a speedy deletion demonstrates the need to follow appropriate processes in most cases.

This doesn't make sense to me. Speedy deletion is performed hundreds of times every day. --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

{{proposed}}

That was two and a half years ago. The wiki evolves, and we strongly recommend against voting on any proposal these days. >Radiant< 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, no. The issue is one of educating new users that they should use consensual discussion as a strong preference over voting. The reason why this is important, is that it comes up exceedingly often, and novice editors tend to jump to the wrong conclusion. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems you're jumping to some wrong conclusions here. WP:DENY is not a good example (note how I am addressing the objections on its talk page, and how this cools down the war; voting would only polarize it further, and you'd get discussions on how long the vote would last, what suffrage is, and which % is required to accept, and more bureaucratic overhead). We have hundreds of proposals all over the wiki. I'd recommend you to read through some of the things in CAT:PRO and CAT:REJ to see how Wikipedia works and does not work with proposals. Some more recommended reading material includes WP:3P, WP:POL and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Polling is a part of wikipedia, please don't let Radient convince you otherwise. It is a tool, and it should be used properly - in a way that doesn't polarize arguments. But as a tool, its very useful and is a prime way to gauge consensus - without it, one would have to be deeply apart of the discussion to even get an inkling of what consensus might be. Fresheneesz 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

VIE has absolutely nothing to do with the CVU. Neither MFD nor DRV are, nor have ever been, a vote, and for the overriding principle of the closing admin to delete CVU you'd have to ask him, but it had nothing to do with VIE. Kindly stop panic mongering, you are making a mountain out of the proverbial mole hill. Radiant! 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a perhaps more serious warning on the same subject. Please stop aggressive campaigning on this. Leave Wikipedia's normal consensus-building mechanisms to work. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is an accepted and common practice to post information about ongoing discussions on project pages in boldface type -- for example, see [1], as well as the many other postings about ongoing AFD discussions accessible from the page history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion. It does not appear that administrators have removed these postings, or that members of WikiProject Inclusion have been warned to refrain from such postings -- despite the fact that WikiProject Inclusion is explicitly partisan as to the preferred outcome of AFD discussions. John254 04:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi. I'd like to thank you for reverting vandalism on my userpage. (It's kinda my thing to thank somone any time they do that =D ) You shouldn't get too interested in it, as the Taracka thing is pretty lame, and User:Deskana already has it under control. Thanks again!--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 19:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

>>>Same here. Thanks for protecting my user page.Plasticbadge 00:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

>>> Same here. Thanks for reverting the nasty POV stuff in the Deism article. StephenFerg 23:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW

Just so you know, the warning you gave to 88.108.41.5 ,that wasn't vandalism, because It was me, I just forgot to login in. Oliver202 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, John254! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and does not have a strictly formalized system for creating guidelines, or indeed most other things. As such, kindly stop opposing progress (or documenting current affairs) for purely formalistic reasons. If you have an opinion, it will be heard; if your only argument is that process isn't followed, you're not really contributing to the conversation (see also WP:CCC, WP:POL and WP:PPP; please do read up, because you appear to be misinformed about how several parts of Wikipedia function).

Please note that several guidelines document the status quo; if some people don't like that status quo, they are free to make a counterproposal, but that doesn't make the guideline any less of a guideline or any less consensual (until and unless the proposal manages to actually change the status quo). Thus, you are free to make a proposal for a more formalized way of doing things (in fact, the French Wikipedia has one, which includes actual voting) but until such a proposal passes, bureaucracy does not prevail. >Radiant< 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm sure that if we discuss a bit more we can make the children's privacy issue a workable guideline. >Radiant< 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

sampson nanton controversy

in the sampson nanton, i saw that you removed the controversy section. this information is accurate, although negative, and is the subject of an immense uproar in my country.Crushtheturtle 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The information may well be accurate, but it cannot be added to a Wikipedia article without a credible source. Actually, all information in Wikipedia articles should be referenced, as described in Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, unreferenced negative biographical information about living people is heavily disfavored by Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Biographies of living people need special care because biographies containing unsourced material might negatively affect someone's life and could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism, and do not move it to the talk page.

John254 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

so if it is reported, and i can provide a link to the source for reference, then can it be posted? i just want to be clear. Crushtheturtle 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. John254 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully earlier this week with a result of (50/3/0). If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to write me. I hope I will live up to your trust. Michael 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. ~~

RfA thanks

Hey John, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Radiant!

You were revert warring over Wikipedia:Vandalism earlier tonight, and you have been gaming the WP:3RR by asking other people to do the fourth revert for you. Both revert warring and gaming the system are disruptive. Do not do that again. >Radiant< 00:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states that "the policy specifically does not apply to groups." The spam guideline only prohibits repeated posting across multiple editors' talk pages or project pages -- it doesn't prohibit posting information on a single project's pages. Indeed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion frequently contains boldface announcements about ongoing AFD discussions, such as those seen in the example here -- and it doesn't appear that the involved editors have ever been warned that they must not engage in this practice. Furthermore, Radiant! has been engaging in genuine internal spamming to solicit support for the protected version of Wikipedia:Vandalism by contacting four different editors who oppose the warning removal language on their talk pages: [2] [3] [4] [5], but not contacting Blue Tie, who restored the warning removal language. John254 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have objected to: the edit starting the war, to the edit war itself and to the block. See my comments [here].--Blue Tie 04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• You know, John, it would be helpful if you would simply talk to me instead of talk about me. Blue Tie's response on my talk page is far more constructive in this matter than your complaint on ANI. >Radiant< 13:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you have removed the statement from Vandalism regarding the issue of warnings. Question: Is this because you believe that the concensus is in the direction of NOT prohibiting the removal or warnings? --Blue Tie 04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. You should express your objections on the talk page so that they are part of the history of the discussion.

2. Yes the current version expressly permits the removal of warnings by a user on a whim. It says: "this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion." And you were the one to put that language in there, even after Radient put in a two sided (weasle word) version. You may not "read" your edit as permitting such removals, but the "reasonable man" would read those words and say "I can do almost anything with my talk page". If that was not your intent, you should re-edit your words.

3. Interesting that you say there were only two editing in favor of one way. I once said on the talk page regarding concensus and voting that wikipedia does EVERYTHING by a vote. I was lectured by someone about how this is not the case, and I used the example of how, when there are disputes, the party with one extra vote will win the edit battle and thus the whole war. This was rejected at the time but it is (again) shown to be the way wikipedia works. Not concensus... but rather raw democracy, of only the interested. Which brings me to my final point:

4 there were many people who wanted to see restrictions. Where have they all gone? Does it mean that they do not care so much? --Blue Tie 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

blinkchillie90

Dude there was no need to revert the edits on User:blinkchillie90 that was actually done by me blinkchillie90. I just wasn't signed in. but thanks anyway User:blinkchillie90

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my userpage back to its' original state due to vandalism. Luke! 04:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops!

I wasn't paying attention enough and I reverted _to_ the vandalised page.

Thanks for the revert. Aazn 14:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks

Thank you for removing vandalism from my editor's review. Best regards.--Húsönd 00:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Hi, John254, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nishkid64's RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which closed successfully earlier today with a result of (60/9/4). Although, I encountered a few problems in my RfA, I have peacefully resolved my conflicts and made amends with the people involved. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free talk to me. I hope I will live up to your expectations. --Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox

No, he's here, just not all the time. He checks it a few times a day. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Db-spam

Regarding your request for undeletion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Blatant_advertising. >Radiant< 14:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration relating to WP:STRAW and Radiant

Hi, I just put together an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline. The case is about some users who have been abusing some guidline and proposal pages (including WP:NNOT and WP:STRAW). Since you've been involved with STRAW, I thought you might be interested in giving your comments. I would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks! Fresheneesz 05:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)