User talk:John Reaves

User:John Reaves/Userpagewarning
User:John Reaves/talk

Recent IP vandalism

I see you've taken on the task of trying to cleanup after 68.80.30.39 (talk · contribs). The user also has a history of removing cited info from anything related to the band Living Colour and has vandalised the Jimi Hendrix article several times. I've reported him to AiV many times. He's been given short blocks but, because his edits aren't "simple vandalism" he is usually allowed to fly free. I see he's targeted his usual haunts this evening. I can't be bothered rv'ing his "Living Colour" edits tonight. After 20000 edits I know that tomorrow is another day. I am going to circumvent AiV and ANI and go straight to an admin friend to request an intervention. If you have time try to keep an eye on the IP and see that his damage is minimal. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many admins work really hard to follow WP:AGF to the point where they are a little too polite. Reporting a vandal can be frustrating if the admin who's "on duty" happens to be feeling cheery. I know a few admins who aren't afraid the swing the ban-hammer. I don't like going behind "procedure" by avoiding AiV and ANI to speak to them directly(but occasionally I still do). This particular IP can sometimes go 2-3 days between attacks. I have been patient enough to just wait a bit...then go behind him and rv his junk. He may lurk for a while. But I can always rv the Living Colour articles in the morning. Eventually they all get bored and move on. Hopefully this one will to. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the IP just got a 1 week vacation for being naughty. Time to have a coffee! Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Then why don't we leave each other alone and go on our merry ways? --TommyOliver 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, a word of advice—stop reverting at User talk:TommyOliver. The warning isn't helping anything since you two were in a disagreement with eachother, it's just making a bad situation worse. I'm sure Tommy has got the message. BigNate37_(T) 06:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AIV report

(edit conflict with the above by BigNate37) This is in reply to your report on WP:AIV. I see no evidence (such as diffs) for anything warranting a block on TommyOliver. Please use the dispute resolution procedure to settle any issues you two might have. Be advised that there is no consensus about whether one is obliged to keep warnings on their user talk page, so edit-warring about this on the talk page of TommyOliver is pointless and probably disruptive. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i got your message. Then, u've got to help me. People are questioning me about that matter. I'm a total Harry Potter fan like a lot of people out there. In Malaysia, there are lots of harry Potter readers and u've got clear their question on this matter. What do u think of this one? Edit it if u want but please explain. -Dudley does not know anything Harry's life and does not care about either either. In the fifth book, before Dudley and Harry are attacked by Dementors, he tells Harry that he knows Harry has been having a lot of nightmares and he keeps saying the name Cedric. The nightmares are, of course, because Harry witnessed Cedric's murder earlier. Dudley purposely asks Harry is Cedric his boyfriend. Although Harry does not answer him, it definitely not true because Harry and Cedric were only friends and Harry has feelings for Cho at that time.- Thank u.

I'm Sorry.

Ooo. Ok. I'm sorry. Thanks for explaining to me. Now i know. I'll be more alert next time. Thank u. Vimalesvaren 08:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Hornbeck

How do I leave the apprpriate licensing information to add a picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommypowell (talk • contribs)

John,

Please be careful regarding the DoB. I agree it should not be in the article, however, it might be better for us to move that debate to the talk page. Regards, Navou ^banter 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to this article. piper108 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americas finest city

~~Redeleted. Please do not create it again. Proto::► 11:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)~~. Wait, scratch that. It's supposedly its nickname. Proto::►[reply]

Harry Potter Portal

Hi John, I'm labrt2004 and I would like to help out with the Harry Potter portal. I'd like to suggest moving the news section to the top of the page, it seems to make more sense to have something entitled "news" to be in a more prominent location. What do you think? Labrt2004 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shugart Picture

The picture of Al u removed was, as i recall, a reasonably current picture, not unlike the one on his book. Just cause he is dead doesn't mean his picture has to go away. So unless u can give me some more justification, I'd like to revert. Tom94022 06:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Swedish articles

Hello,
I noticed you redirected Mårten Trotzigs gränd to Marten Trotzigs grand, and I guess you were correct in doing so. However, I compared WP:NAME to (the now archived) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish), and I'm still slightly confused by the contradictory guidelines. There are quite a number of Swedish-related stubs around, and very few of them containing 'åäö' seem to have been redirected. As my intention is to write much more about Stockholm, I'm wondering if creating redirects from titles without åäö isn't a better alternative.
Hope you can guide me on this one / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I'm looking forward to redirecting a number of articles, then.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY,

whyyyyy? im just a kid haveing fun. its not like its bad. be nice she is dieing from cancer. you made her cry. no joke. shame on you. who are you anyways?

HAHHAAHAH. im bored. teach me how to do this. i dont even know how to read messages im boreddd in english class. are you a guy? because guys names are usually john., if your a girl thats freekin gayy :) bye.

Well little kids bored in school shouldn't be messing around on wikipedia, especially if they can't spell. Kerusso 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew James Halpin

I will say I agree with you 110% in this regards. Seems to be a self promoting bio, and has zero notablity or wiki-worthiness. Kerusso 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion sought

Hi again, I'm hoping you can take a look at [Harry Potter fan fiction] and weigh in on the discussion on what should be done with it. Your opinion would be much appreciated! Thanks, Labrt2004 12:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish people

How can one adopt an Irish identity and suddenly be called Irish? 86.17.247.135 02:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I did not experiment with the page as you stated on my IP talk page, I deliberately deleted a statement which did not make sense. I do not see how one can be called Irish simply by "adopting an Irish identity" rather than actually being ethnically Irish, born in Ireland or becoming a citizen of Eire. It's an absurd statement: kindly explain why it should remain. 86.17.247.135 02:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an arrogant, condescending response you left on my talk page (but selectively deleted from this page when I added this exchange). Learn some manners. "I don't need to explain anything" - so you just revert at will if you don't like something, regardless of validity? Your inability to justify "why" doesn't warrant the revert and you are as obliged to give reasons as I am. 86.17.247.135 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship yes (and that is stated separately so you cannot use that as justification for your revert when it is already there and left unmolested by my edit). But not "identity": it makes no sense and I asked you to explain that point, not repeat the statement in the article. Are you saying that if one effects an Irish personality one all of a sudden becomes Irish? That's simply ridiculous. I can speak/dress/walk however I want, I'll still be British until I move to Ireland and obtain an Irish passport. Nationality does not change by behaviour. 86.17.247.135 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, my edit was based on a reasonable point of contention (please read the page's discussion before reverting and accusing someone of vandalism). Vandalism means "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and not "something with which I personally disagree but refuse to justify to another user". Bad show, editor. Good day to you. 86.17.247.135 03:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather foolish to call me a liar on my talk page when the facts that support my complaint are recorded for all to see on the history page of the article in question ("rvv"). Page changed to reflect your point about residency which is not covered by the vague statement about "identity", despite your attemps to justify the revert. 86.17.247.135 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted a change which reflects your own interpretation of a vague statement. Please explain why. 86.17.247.135 03:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Shawn Hornbeck

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Shawn Hornbeck. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Navou ^banter 05:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, You may remove the warning. For this I have no objection: Removing a warning tells me that it was understood. Additionally, please take a moment to consider moving that debate to the talk page, as another user Tommypowell (talk · contribs) has just been blocked for doing the same thing regarding the DoB. Dispute resolution seems appropiate here. I apoligize if I caused you anger, or if I offended. However, constant reverts, even if I agree with it, might appear disruptive. Regards, Navou ^banter 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is underway at DoB inclusion/exclusion Navou ^banter 05:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no restriction on linking to copyright images on the sites of who owns that copyright image. In this case Foxnews owns the image so linking to it is fine. Wjhonson 08:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To back up my uncited assertion, look here. We can link to copyrighted material without permission. What we should not do, is link to material which appears to be in violation of someone else's copyright.Wjhonson 02:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out at the Help desk.

Just one comment, if I may...factual questions should be referred to WP:RD, and I wouldn't include commercial links in my answer, only the website's page on Wikipedia at best. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'd just like to say something about the changes made to Heart of Midlothian. it was for the benefit of Wikipedia, because Mindaugas Baguzis was only at Hearts on trial, and he has NOT been signed by the club. please check the Hearts website because I know I am right! thakyoy

Reverting IP's edits to my comments

Thanks for that! (I hate to think of what would happen if someone refactored someone's comments to mean something completely different ... =) Yuser31415 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22 Jan revert to "List of Irish people" re "Irish identity"

Hello, please can you show me where the discussion of the disputed entry in the above article resulted in agreement for your recent reversion. You commented in the amendment "rv per discussion" but there is no evidence of a consensus resolution on the article talk page which supports your change as you infer in that statement, neither is there anything in support of your edit on your own talk page or the incident page which I've managed to track down - as far as I can tell at least. Indeed, the investigation into your disagreement with another user led to an independent arbiter stating "In all truth, the anon has a pretty good point...". Therefore the closest thing to support for either view that I can find is in support of the other user's edit, which you reverted. Thanks. 62.25.106.209 12:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Pot Operation

Hi noted your tag for speedy deletion of the article on Tin Pot Operation. Additional material has been added to the article to support the inclusion. More material will be added soon.

Thanks