Jump to content

User talk:John

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LiamD1 (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 16 August 2007 (→‎Notable players). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  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

Thanks

You said better what tried to express at WP:ANI#Organised POV-pushing campaign on the way?. Thanks for being reasonable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your thank you, and for your initial reasonable comment that prompted mine. Take care, --John 04:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, I disagree with your wholesale reversion of the RS links added by 71.207.96.16. I don't think these links should be categorically described as spam. These links often do contain useful information, reviews, and photos that cannot be contained within the articles themselves. In this sense the RS links seem akin to those of IMDB, for which Wikipedia has an established template. I suggest that these links be viewed on a case-by-case basis. The ones with good content should certainly be retained. TheMindsEye 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. However, I see no discussion of the links or of value added by individual ones. If you feel that individual ones should be restored and can justify their retention, feel free to restore them. --John 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

John, User:Astrotrain is back from his wikibreak after being blocked, and is now edit warring again, this user continues to refuse to discuss changes in talkpages, I think its time something is done about him, his constant disruptive edits are not helpful in trying to calm things.--padraig 19:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I left you both messages. There is always a better way forwards than edit-warring. --John 20:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but your removal of all the flags on Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations has been done before but they keep replacing them again, Astrotrain refuses to take part in discussions, he only edit occasionly now and when he does he repeats the same process of POV edits again then vanishes for another while, he was blocked the last time he did it.--padraig 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John- as I am sure you remember, it is very difficult to discuss with Paidraig as he doesn't listen to what people say and just reverts, either without edit summary or by pointing to a talk page discussion between him and the now banned Vintagekits. Astrotrain 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pair of you need to settle down and discuss in talk. Vintagekits is not banned, just indefinitely blocked. There is a difference. However, I would have hoped that his recent career here would have provided some sobering thoughts for the edit-warriors on both sides of this divide. Please, try to compromise. Continued edit-warring is likely to lead to blocks. --John 20:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if he stopped reverting every single edit made to any flag pages and deleting sourced material. Astrotrain 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sourced material would that be?, I have never deleted sourced material, as for the flag issue if you cared to eNgage in the many discussions or even read WP:Flagcruft you would see that use of the Ulster Banner to present Northern Ireland or its government today is incorrect and POV, it should only be used in the context of articles dealing with the former government 1921-72, or in artcles dealing with sport if the flag is used to represent the team.--padraig 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flagcruft is an essay and is not policy or guidlines- this is your opinion. Astrotrain 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the sourced material, care to provide a link to where that was removed. Flagcruft is the basis of a guideline or policy that is how they come about, when the editors involved decide it is up to standard it will be put forward for adoption, at present it is handy to help prevent edit wars and POV pushing. Also in the issue of the Ulster Banner the facts of the issue support its not being used to represent NORTHERN IRELAND today, as neither the British Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Executive recognise it in any form.--padraig 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and again

John have a look at List of British flags this editor User:Astrotrain is repeatly inserting false information into this article, the Ulster Banner is not a current National flag, he claims he has consensus for these changes from Talk:Northern Ireland the discussion there is ongoing and is in relation to the infobox on that article only. This user repeatly ignores the discussions on the talk pages of articles and has been involved in and blocked 6 times since January for disruptive editing and making personal attacks both against me other editors.--padraig 12:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John this is getting beyond a joke User:Biofoundationsoflanguage and User:Astrotrain are edit warring on this article and nothing is being done to stop them, this article was stable for a long time before these two started. I have been working with User:Gaimhreadhan by e-mail to see if we can revive the CEM idea, but I can't see the point if POV pushers are going to be allowed to continue to disrupt things. Also Astrotrain has twice accused me of removing sources or sourced material yet when I ask him to show where is supposed to have happened he refused to answer.--padraig 18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar flag icons

Well I don't think it's too bad now; at least it represents Ballymena and not a defunct government etc. I didn't doubt your intentions whatsoever, I could just see that it was turning into another inane edit war and remembered someone suggesting the use of the council badge so I thought it would a good idea to follow up on it. Chris Buttigieg 20:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my suggestion, but apparently others weren't interested, as they insisted that the Ulster Banner represents Ballymena.--padraig 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly sorry for having started that edit war. It was definitely not my intention. Having flags in sister city lists is AFAICT a de-facto standard here on the 'pedia, so the Gibraltar article not having any stood out in my eyes. Anyway, not giving the status of the flag a second thought, I simply used what was default for the Northern Ireland flag template. If this design is not official, it should IMO not be default either because otherwise unsuspecting editors like me will keep on adding it all over the place in good faith. If there's no good neutral replacement, I'd say we put up the flag of the sovereign state that governs the region as a placeholder, i.e. the Union Jack. --Himasaram 23:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The output of {{flag|Northern Ireland}} is correct for the majority (>50%) of transclusions, namely lots of sports pages (which tend to use flag icons a lot). To get the Union Flag, I added a flag "variant" so that {{flag|Northern Ireland|union}} can be used. Andrwsc 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a spam link against policy. It is considered an attack site. I removing it. Please except my apologies for adding it to Wikipedia.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked. I am Mr. Guru. I posted this.[1] I was giving you background info on a dispute. I should of not linked to that website. My mistake. Sorry.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. There is no need to remove it from archived talk pages though. --John 04:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you remove it from the talk page archive. I would greatly appreciate it. I personally feel there is a need on part. I do not want this blemish to Wikipedia to stand. Thanks for your consideration. I will be more careful next time using links to websites. Adding spam to your talk page was very bad. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE Welcome

Thanks for the welcome but i'm already a member named Bencey, just using a friends computer

Thanks!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I, Chrislk02, award Guinnog John this random acts of kindness barnstar for thoughtfully fixing my poor photography by fixing up the image on my userpage! Thanks. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Islands Page

Whilst I don't object to the edit you made (I failed to find suitable references myself). I have asked those who strongly opposed that edit the last time to find a suitable reference and in discussion the consensus suggested we give them time to do so. I would prefer to avoid sparking off another edit war as I caught the fallout last time. Justin A Kuntz 21:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 800 "fringe theory"

John,

I saw the following comment from you left on my talk page.

Thanks for your contributions. However, as they breached our policy on neutral point of view, I have removed them. While I too am interested in conspiracy theories, the "official" explanation is inherently more encyclopedic and this is not the place to try to gain acceptance of any of the many fringe theories about the disaster. I hope you will understand. Best wishes, --John 17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The missile theory is not a fringe theory. It was one of three main theories considered by official investigators. And it is supported by both the radar evidence and a majority of relevant eyewitness accounts. Two notable eyewitnesses were Air National Guard pilots in a helicopter at the time of the crash. Both said they saw a missile heading toward where Flight 800 exploded. They immediately flew to the crash site, first to arrive for the search and rescue effort.

Regardless of how encyclopedic anything *sounds*--official or not--when verifiable bodies of evidence exist that contradict the official explanation, that evidence should be cited, together with the officials and conclusions contradicted. Thankfully, officials have been exposed before: Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Sadamm-Al Qaeda link stories come to mind.

And if you look closely into this crash as I have, you will find how incredibly irresponsible the official investigation was. As an example, please review my latest entry in the TWA Flight 800 discussion page entitled "The climb problem".

Tom Stalcup, PhD, Chairman, Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization Stalcup 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I was just reading it. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:COI. I assure you I have read shed-loads on this case and am not just naively accepting the "official" account of things. However, I stand by my previous comments; as you'll see if you read the first of those links, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I hope you will understand. --John 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to read my last discussion entry on Flight 800. I don't know what edit of mine you are referring to though, as I never made any extraordinary claims. I simply pointed out problems with the official theory, which are well documented, and backed up by verifiable, hard evidence.
And I don't blame you or anyone else for accepting the government's theory (if you do in fact accept it. My apologies if you don't). The record that our "credible" news sources left certainly sounds convincing. But just like during the lead-up to the Iraq war, the major news outlets simply went along with the official story, in spite of the facts and the evidence (some exceptions exist of course). But if you look seriously at the evidence like the radar data, for example, a different picture emerges.
Now that you've read up on the problems with the official crash sequence, I would be interested in hearing any feedback you have. Specifically, I'm interested if you understand how the radar evidence is inconsistent with the government animations.
Stalcup 04:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PIRA killings

This category should be deleted for the same reasons given when you deleted Category:IRA killings: over-categorisation and redundancy. I would also argue that there is POV-pushing involved in the creation of this category in the first place, but that is a different matter. Thanks. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one reads our guidance page on categorisation thoroughly it will be seen that Theoldanarchists argumentation is both specious and erroneous. Categorisation exists to help our readers navigate not to push his PoV or mine. Death is a fact. Whether it's a military-style "action" or a crime is often PoV and contentious....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 14:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, but I never deleted that category. On reviewing this new one, I don't think I have any problems with it. --John 15:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this: [[2]] ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, yes, I had forgotten. So what is your argument for deleting this category? --John 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see [[3]]. I have two objections, namely over-categorization and the fact that this category is not consistent with other terrorist categories and sub-categories. The fact that this category is being created for IRA/PIRA activities suggests POV-pushing. For example, why is there no Category:Al Qaeda killings? Why is there no such category for any other terrorist organization? ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I had forgotten that entire discussion. Three months is a long time in wiki-time. Let me think about it. If you have any further thoughts please feel free to raise them at the category's talk page in the meantime. --John 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories#Categories_do_not_form_a_tree An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there ...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any damage either.--Fluence 22:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late answer but answer anyways

You see, most times, I consider England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as separate countries even though they both belong to the UK, so I simply refer them with their flags and not just the UK. Also, it's common to fill the infobox about the band with their origin flag. See also The Fray from the US, The Vines from Australia or Fools Garden from Germany. I'm just keeping the line.
And in my own personal opinion, it adds color to the infobox and of course their country main symbol. I don't know in your country but here in Mexico, we and our Constitution have great respect for our national symbols. It's just a symbol for their country.--Fluence 02:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request move

Please could you move Template:Northern Ireland cities to Template:Northern Irish cities. I did so earlier because the NI template at the bottom of City status in the United Kingdom didn't exist, and I wanted it to be consistent with the adjective form ( Template:English Cities , Template:Scottish cities and Template:Welsh Cities ) but it was reverted with no reason and won't let me move it back. Thank you. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it matters but I've moved it back there. --John 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be consistant then Northern Ireland cities is the correct term, English, Scottish and Welsh are National identities in the UK, in Northern Ireland there national identity is Irish even if many refer to call themselves British, northern Irish is a meaningless term, parts of Donegal is further north then Northern Ireland.--padraig 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but that seems completely wrong to me. Northern Ireland exists, whether you like it or not, and the adjective deriving from it is Northern Irish. I am very well aware of Donegal's location thanks, having spent considerable time there. --John 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I known Northern Ireland exists I was born there and I am not disputing that. I was refering to the fact their is no nationality known as Northern Irish, they are Irish, British or Both, but they are not northern Irish, this is a stupid dispute as the title of the article is immaterial as the title in the template is Cities in Northern Ireland.--padraig 17:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John- could you please ask Paidraig to stop reverting against conensus on the List of British flags page. He is deleting sourced material again. Astrotrain 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not deleted and sourced material, care to point out where that was, I removed the flag in the current National flags section and removed one external link you added to a commercial site which is against WP POLICY.--padraig 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John- your move has been undone by user:Barryob who is also being particularly disruptive on List of British flags by reverting without an edit summary. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is deeply silly. Bastun is right to compare it with Monty Python. I suggest tacking these ridiculous disputes onto the ongoing Arbcom and let them see how silly you are all being. There are far better things and more important things to get on with in Wikipedia. Really. --John 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least protect the article to stop constant reverts which never solve anything. Then we can talk forward the discussion at Talk:Northern Ireland? Astrotrain 17:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Astrotrain the discussion on Talk:Northern Ireland has nothing to do with this, your edit warring claim some consensus from that discussion, that is only about the infobox on that page. It dosen't alter the fact that the Ulster Banner is not a Current National Flag, this article was stable for a long time before you starting making changes to it. And I am still waitingfor you to point out the sources you claimed I removed, that is twice you have accused me of doing that, do you think the admin can't or won't check.--padraig 18:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Irish cities template is at least a fairly straight forward matter of english and consistency. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All links point to Northern Ireland cities and this is the correct title. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly did not all point to it. And no it is not the correct title. The argument of there being no such nationality as Northern Irish is flawed, because there is no such nationality as English, Scottish or Welsh either. And all them have the template title in their adjective form. John, could you please move it again? This is getting quite absurd. Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus

Mr. Bellinghaus was removed as the expert witness by his own attorney George G. Braunstein. The "Notice and Motion to Augment Expert Witness" can be viewed at the site below. This is a blog site created by Mark Belinghaus himself. This information is an important part of the information about the lawsuit itself.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_8_DWvCqqaHs/RqvFNvZafYI/AAAAAAAAAyg/SriJJE3H6zk/s1600/Braunsteinselloutpage10.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoll42 (talk • contribs)

The link you sent will not open for me. Neither would it conform to WP:RS if it is a blog. --John 19:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this link will also help clarify the facts. Again it is a blog written by Mr. Bellinghaus.

http://ernestwcunningham.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-people-trusted-lady-justice-but-lady.html

You have chosen to ignore the link? Mr. Bellinghaus continues to use this site to promote only his point of view through Jen Dickenson.

Clarification

Might I trouble you to clarify by e-mail what you meant by this comment left on my talk page? "Best wishes to you, and thanks for the main content of the posy I flagged up, which was positive."

Sorry to ask this and also sorry that I couldn't be more conciliatory. I learned more than five decades ago that sometimes you just have to stand up to bullies....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo which I later corrected. It should be read as thanking you for the positive spirit of your proposal. As it happens I had emailed you just before reading this. I don't see Tyrenius or Alison (or myself even) as being bullies, but of course opinions can vary on questions like this. What is unquestionable is that we have a dispute resolution procedure which you need to follow, if you want to take this further. I don't think you should but it is up to you. But just continuing to make snide comments like that will not be acceptable to the community and will get you into trouble. Please don't do it. Best wishes, --John 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid response, John. I've only ever encountered 4 real bullies on WP. Two of them have now left in a huff and you're definitely not one of them.
Unfortunately, I've never been a tout and I'm not going to start this late in life. What you call snide you would categorise differently if you really knew the personalities and inter-relationships involved here. That's partially why I requested to talk voice. God bless!...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 20:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse ME????

Just writing to let you know that I did not vandalise any article and take great offense that you think I did.BrightonOfBurgundy 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page. --John 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter

That source is outdated; the figure was from before Deathly Hallows was published. You are correct that the Times is a better source than Mugglenet; I will try to find the direct link to the Scholastic page. Akwdb 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thanks very much for the kind words, and yes, I'll be trying again soon. :) I actually find the outcome of my RfA somewhat amusing, considering that a few hours after it closed, I was moving on with real-life, at the North American Sci-Fi Convention this weekend, giving talks and signing autographs.[4] My lecture on the Knights Templar went really well! Internet access is a bit spotty here, and it makes Wikipedia seem very far away, but don't worry, I'll be back home again soon, and back to my normal schedule. Thanks again for the support, --Elonka 03:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

202.95.200.12

G'day John. I see you've already had a word or two on this chap's talk page. I've reverted him a number of times on the Tenerife disaster page for introducing and reintroducing redirects for Air Crash Investigations to Mayday (TV series) after I've carefully taken them out. Aside from making my reasoning clear in my early edit summaries I've also mentioned it on his talk page - to no avail. Any thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose 04:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I've given them a final warning; they obviously know what a talk page is and I've advised them to use it. --John 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

John, thank you. It's much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome and I know you would do the same for me. --John 06:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The" PIRA

It is correct, PIRA on its own is not. You can't refer to "the IRA" and just "PIRA" I don't think. See here for example. Brixton Busters 07:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I never see IRA without a "the", but PIRA sometimes. It isn't that important. --John 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, am I ok to change it back please? It just looks grammatically incorrect removing "the" because "P" had been added to the acronym. Brixton Busters 07:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. This doesn't mean I totally accept your logic about the abbreviations; Google isn't everything. But by all means stick the 'the' back in. --John 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change it back then, many thanks. I do not think Google is everything, but I think it is a useful demonstration of how rarely the PIRA acronym is used. The current discussion shouldn't only affect the Provisional IRA article though, as the argument about needing to distinguish between different variants of the IRA affects all of them. How do we distinguish between the "old" IRA and the Anti-Treaty IRA with acronym use? Obviously when they are both referred to in the same article the "Anti-Treaty" prefix is needed, but what about articles like Border Campaign (IRA)? It would seem strange referring to them as the Anti-Treaty IRA over 30 years after the treaty surely? Brixton Busters 07:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

appropriate accusation?

user:padraig has left this comment on user:Astrotrain's talk page and and identical one on mine, which I deleted. Is it appropritate to accuse two users of being sockpuppets like that? Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would've been nice to have received a reply. Even if it had ended in "off". Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

John can you please look at this Template:NorthernIrishTowns and Template:Counties and cities of Northern Ireland, Astrotrain is now starting to add the UB to these, these templates don't need flagicons.--padraig 11:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Fitch

Why did you, by your own words "delete perfectly good pic"? Please explain. Chris 19:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was flagged up by a bot as being replaceable fair use. As the uploader of the image I chose to delete it; my edit summary expresses my frustration with the policy whereby basically all fair use images of living subjects are deemed to be replaceable. I shall try to get a free photo of Mr Fitch from his agent. --John 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stefanomencarelli

So you have answered to me and i am ready to talk you about. So, i want only post the ultimate difference made by Bzuk on my contr. in Macchi C.202. He cutted some stuff, and it' really useful to look what. I have stated an OR or someone else, saying simply this: becasue axis fighters were faster than the older allied machines as Hurricane and P-40 they were overall superiors as combat machines (really showed, absolutely not my opinion), but they must been careful with their adversaries, 'cause they were very well armed, so every mistake can be fatal (in other words: when axis nimble fighters attacked P-40 or Hurricanes, if they made a mistake, they suddently face to 12 machine-guns or 4 cannons, a very lethal firepower for every fighter). I cannot understand what's wrong with it. I am not inventing that allied aircraft were very well armed, and that such armament was much respectable. Many axis pilots were killed because finished in the gunsight of these beasts. So where is the problem, talking about the necessity to be careful in fighting such adversaries? 6 M2 are a micidial combination, also: enough to shot down a bomber, let's figure a fighter. It's so plain and simple: insthead, it was deleted because this violate OR.

I rate this simply absurd, and even if it could be OR, where is the necessity to delete a perfectly reasonable, well documented and accepted fact? So i hope to have given you the reason of my protest, invain made with such guys that simply roll-backed everything i write. It's a incredible and amusing situation, for me. And as wiki.it, i was banned not before to have made 1700 articles, so go figure: many of them are even in evidence, and it was a time that i made almost 1% of the total. And in the 'wikitrial' many have defended me pointing, among others reasons, to the total strumenctal nature of the accusations made to me. Not a clean process at all.--Stefanomencarelli 15:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment on your past history. It doesn't interest me. I repeat, use the article talk, that's what it's for. --John 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, there's a new personal attack by this user against User:Bzuk on my talk page. In light of your final warning, I was going to give him a short block, but because he seems to think that I'm somehow persecuting him and because it was you who gave him the warning, I thought I'd refer it to you instead to do as you see fit. Cheers --Rlandmann 12:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me. I have issued a 24 hour block; although I'm sure his intentions are good, the effects are not. --John 16:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Zimbabwe

Mangwanani 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, John, and welcome to WikiProject
Zimbabwe!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to Zimbabwe. Here are some points that may be helpful:

  • Our main aim is to help improve Zimbabwe-related articles, so if people ask for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
  • Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
  • The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as the current collaboration, which you are welcome to participate.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign Zimbabwe topics.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project.

The current Zimbabwe WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight is Not applicable!
Please read the nomination text and help improve the article to featured article standard if you can.

Mangwanani 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

As you may know Lonewolf BC continues to stalk my talk page and other work so can revert every possible instance of any date changes I make in the course of my work (and revert all my other work as well). Of course, he continues with his misrepresentation of fact and personal abuse. Is there any place for you and me to discuss this. I will read your page here. Thanks Hmains 02:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I'll be away for a few days but I'll have a look when I get back. --John 03:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007

The August 2007 issue of the Novels 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Naming of the Dead

Hi John,

You were Guinnog last time I looked!! I didn't forget - I've just finished The Naming of the Dead and you said (12 months ago) to take a look at your article. Its very good, I've added a bit of my own thoughts, gave it some small tweaks, but its in good shape.

Best wishes to you,

–MDCollins (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:202.95.200.12 Revisited

Hello John,

Like Ian Rose, I'm getting somewhat frustrated with the unregistered user 202.95.200.12. He keeps reverting airplane descriptions in various articles. For Boeing planes, he changes all of them to Boeing B-7X7, which is not how Boeing refers to their planes at any time. It may be unofficial, but shouldn't be used in formal descriptions, particularly not in conjunction with the word Boeing, since that is redundant (I asked about this at Talk:Boeing 747. With Airbus planes, it's even more inexplicable; he switches them from A340 to A-340 (Airbus never refers to their planes in the latter fashion), and keeps reverting to those designations after changes, despite notes on talk pages. He may have a point on the BAC One-Eleven, but I'd submit he's dead wrong on the others. Notably: List of Mayday episodes, Tenerife disaster, and Seconds from Disaster. I've posted a message on his talk page, but he (or she) reverts relentlessly. If he has a valid point, he can discuss it on the talk page, but if he won't engage in a discussion, but simply reverts or replaces anything he doesn't like, it seems most un-Wikipedian. Sacxpert 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still going on, wasting everyone's time. The pity is that there are some genuinely useful edits in amongst the silliness; personally however I find the scales tipping more on the dark side. We've all talked to him/her, so I can only think that a block is warranted. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Article - Official Language revisited again

Hi

We've corresponded previously and on the basis of that I figure you to be a fair minded and respected contributor to these halls of wisdom.

Any chance you could check out the discussion regarding the inclusion of Scots on the Official Language section of he info box on the Scotland Article.

Seems like it could run and run as concensus seems to switch from one side to the other on a periodic basis. Your input may well concentrate minds.

Good Luck!

Rab Rab-k 20:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain

Astrotrain is edit warring on about ten pages today, he's been blocked twice this month for edit warring and obviously hasnt learned anything for these blocks. Can you have a word.--Vintagekits 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring on any pages. I am discussing all edits in the talk page, my talk page and edit summaries. Astrotrain 23:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Union Flag - 2 reverts today. First edit summary stated "remove ramble in poor English" - removal of referenced material because you thought it was poor English!!! I fixed the English up a bit and reinsterted it with the messege " dont think that reference material should be removed on the basis of "poor English" - he reverted it again citing "remove poorly written text". No edits on the talk page.

Now to his credit he is talking on some subjects but he is ignoring everything that is being said. Most of the edit warring (apart from the Mountbatten revert, which falls under WP:POINT) is based on the use of the Ulster banner, as you know there is no current concensus to use it except in some sporting contexts but he doesnt acknowledge that. All very frustrating.--Vintagekits 00:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a preventative measure in light with the unblocking and for your protection, I am asking you not to edit those articles or their talk pages or discuss them any further, until one of the admins involved with the mentoring has a chance to attend to this. Tyrenius 01:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to. thanks. --Vintagekits 08:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this will also interest you.--Vintagekits 21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he logged on again today for less than ten minutes - four or five reverts and then off again. When is something going to be done about this?--Vintagekits 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You dont consider it disruptive editing or edit warring?--Vintagekits 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe you should look at this Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Astrotrain.--padraig 20:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw that already. I'll continue to monitor this user; let me know if they do anything else problematic. --John 20:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do you not consider it edit warring? He is editing without concensus and without discussion. May I also remind you that you blocked Barryob on the 5th of August for editing warring against Astrotrain on the Scotland article, despite the fact this editor had never been blocked before in a long career on wiki and was engaged with a daily edit warrior - but now you consider that the same editor who was also blocked on that occasion is now not edit warring despite having multiple revert edit wars on the same day. Where is the consistancy there? I believe that it is Astrotrains edit warring that is the root of much of the trouble here and ignoring it is only encouraging more hostility.--Vintagekits 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vk, stop pestering. John has given his answer: "I'll continue to monitor this user." It's this kind of relentlessness that wears out admins. There are proper forums to go to for such things. Tyrenius 20:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but if you think this wears him down, try editing articles against a campaign of logging on for ten minutes a day, just blindly reverting a number of articles, then dissapearing and the following day repeat - its been going on for months.--Vintagekits 21:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's wearing you down, then it would be best to back off, as it tends to lead to frayed temper and attendant consequences. There are other editors; there is plenty of time to build an encyclopedia; there are proper means to address such things, though they may be slow. Things tend to come right in due course. Tyrenius 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John can you do something about this [5] this is the fifth IP in the past few days being used as a sockpuppet to revert my edits and edit war.--padraig 22:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award from me, holmes.sherlock

I, holmes.sherlock, award john with this.....


The VG Barnstar
I, holmes.sherlock award you, john with this award because I think you deserve it.


Holmes.sherlock 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag cruft

Although I agree that all these flag icons that seem to be everywhere nowadays aren't really needed, I would question whether or not you should be removing them. WP:FLAGCRUFT is not (yet) official Wikipedia policy, or even an official guideline. One argument I have seen used in favor of the flags is when the "nationality" of an article (with respect to British or US spellings) is in dispute. You recently removed the flag from Coldplay, which has had several spelling disagreements. Anyway, you might want to wait until WP:FLAGCRUFT becomes official before going further. -- Scjessey 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this in the appropriate article talk. --John 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not discussing an article specifically (although I mentioned one as an example). I am discussing your actions with respect to flag icons. As such, the discussion was more appropriately brought up here. -- Scjessey 20:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it is a general issue I suggest bringing it to the WP:FLAGCRUFT talk page. My "actions with respect to flag icons" are transparent; in accordance with this well-discussed essay, I often remove flagcruft (along with many other poor and unencyclopedic things) from articles I edit. I suggest that if you are concerned by this you either discuss the matter on a case-by-case basis on individual articles (as I have done in the example you highlight) or at the centralised venue I have suggested. --John 20:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken your advice and commented on the WP:FLAGCRUFT talk page. -- Scjessey 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw and have replied to you there. --John 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factory farming - Fresh Start

Hi

Will you take a look at the sequence of events starting [6] or possibly before. I will say no more, I would think that my comments on the talk page speak for themselves. Spenny 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, will you consider moderating a discussion on the scope of articles? See [7] for rationale. It appears that after a break, most of the various parties are active again and I think a slow start would help to send things in the right direction. Spenny 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I'll be glad to take a look. I did say I'd be back with some ideas. It'll be tomorrow before I can do so; hope that is all right. --John 00:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Milner Career section

Not really asking for full feedback on this article (although I wouldn’t mind it). I’d just like to know what you feel the best way the divide up the Career section is, by Club, by season, not at all or some other way. Please leave your reply under the section in my talk page named “Milner Career section”. Buc 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig and VK

Why do you never warn these editors about edit warring? I have discussed on all related pages and talk pages and have given explanations, tried different versions for consensus etc. But it seems like Padraig is allowed to revert any edits he likes, often without even leaving edit summaries and nothing is done about it. Astrotrain 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to know what articles you think I am edit warring. Try providing proof (like I have above) rather than just spouting out bland accusations.--Vintagekits 22:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you worry about your own behaviour first and foremost. If you have any specific complaints about other editors, please tell me, with diffs. --John 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Padraig has already been accussed of harrassing various other editors, and refuses to discuss or agree on any compromises that he doesn't like. It's also strange to be accussed of edit warring by someone who does nothing but. Looking at his contributions and edit history- he edit wars constantly on articles, then tries to get an admin to protect the article on his preferred version. Astrotrain 20:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Astrotrain what different versions were those, John removed the flags from some of these templates which you ignored and reverted them back again.--padraig
I agree with Astrotrain, Padraig is refusing to come to a compromise on Gerry Adams & Template:1981 Hunger Strike. On both articles I have tried to meet him half way however he (and others within WP:IRA) refuse to change. I have started various discussions however they keep going round in circles. Conypiece 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that template your are trying to remove a link, after failing to entirely remove the template from the Harry West article, on the Gerry Adams article you are presenting Strawman arguements in try and impose POV, and have continued to edit war, whilst a discussion is ongoing in the talk page.--padraig 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't spoil this page as well. I was making a point to John. Conypiece 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Odd edits from 172.207.24.103. Please assess. ## 86.134.131.249 15:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --John 00:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig again

John- Padraig is edit warring on two different templates now (Template:Cities in Ireland and Template:IrishAirports). I had removed the Northern Ireland elements to take away the whole flag issue from these templates but he keeps reverting. Other editors in the talk page agree on this. Astrotrain 12:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain, tourism in Ireland is promoted as one Island where the north and south tourist boards work together, through an all-Ireland tourist body. these templates are intended to assist people looking for information on Ireland theyare not political in nature, you decided to make these changes without even discussion them in the talk pages, changes on this nature should have consensus, not just you trying to WP:Point.--padraig 13:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template NIR

John- User:Fennessy is edit warring on this article and has broken 3RR by reverting 4 times. He is removing the flag and disrupting this template which is used throughout Wikipedia, even on articles where Padraig agrees it should be used. Can you have a word? Thanks Astrotrain 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Notable players

Every decent page has a notbale player section on the main page.If I'm on a teams page an they don't have a notable players section I dont think Its as good a page as one with a section.It looks horrible and dull ith just a single sentence saying click here but thats just my opinion.The format you have the new list in I find difficult to add to and with the new criteria I'm sure other novice editors who will want to add to it and find it difficult as 1.Its hard to know what bits to change when copying and pasting the template to add a new player and 2.You have to add them in chronological order. So since we seem to be going down the path of not having the section on the main page despite my best efforts could we change the template to the one formerly used on the main page ,Birmingham City F.C have done this and it actaully looks quite good.If people are wanting to see a players number of appearences or goals all they have to do is simply click on the players link to find out so it dosen't really matter about showing there stats when listing them.So would you have any problems adopting that method?(LiamD1 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I suggest you take it to article talk, where there is an ongoing discussion. My own feeling is that having a long list on the main article is unencyclopedic, and attracts what I may call "Roy Keane-cruft"; editors (and you have been a main offender here) who wish to add their favourite player(s) to the list regardless of the notability guidelines which were discussed and agreed after a lot of work. Why not apply your energies to improving the list article? --John 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This new format was copied from a featured list, If it is good enough to be described as "our best work", I can't see any good reason we should change it. If you don't understand how to add players in the new format, I am happy to explain it to you. Or if you would rather, add the list as it current stands in the main article to the list talk page. Someone who does know how to format it can ensure everything that is represented on the talkpage will be transcribed into the new list. Rockpocket 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we stick to the current criteria(international cap or contribution) we should be fine.I'm not a big fan of lists either and think they look messy and unprofessional.I think the format previously used on the main page looked and worked much better.I don't really think a list is of any use because as I said you can see a players stats simply by clicking on their link.Are any of you wanting to change it?(LiamD1 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No. Rockpocket, I already moved the list from the main article to the talk page of the list article. --John 20:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For fucksake!!This is like pulling teeth,I give up do what you want.(LiamD1 21:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This project works on consensus. --John 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all I've done here and I've been knocked back every single time.(LiamD1 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Crockspot RFA

you just beat me to it - irks me to see good faith contributors called "troll" for asking a question. --Fredrick day 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly by an editor whose contributions to the RfA were so problematic. Someone should let them know that others are really irritated by this sort of (I am sure well-intentioned) behaviour. It may very well have cost Crockspot the RfA, which is a bloody shame. --John 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of different issues around that RFA - the offsite link to CU most certianly sank him - did people on blogs linking to it and telling people to !vote make a difference? It might have but I think his supporters running around accusing everyone voting "oppose" sockpuppets, meatpuppets etc just sucked more and more people in as they went for a look to see what was going on. I think the bottom line, like real politics, is make sure the people doing your PR do a good job. --Fredrick day 20:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John&oldid=151695278"