User talk:John2510

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Several Obama articles, including Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, are under probation. Any edit warring on that article will get you blocked. Take your suggest edits to the article's Talk page and get consensus there before making major edits like that. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2010 (UsC)

There is a consensus on this. I suggest you read the talk pages before posting edits like that.John2510 (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Considering the consensus is that the article retain that name, where is the consensus on the talk page to remove the discussion of the article's title? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for the article to retain the name (which is a non-existent Phoneomenon) and certainly no consensus regarding the description. John2510 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Consensus_for_an_edit.3F. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Q1 of the FAQ at the top of the article's Talk page? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. Bot! ;) A senior moment on my part... John2510 (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September, 2010

Please do not disrupt the Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories page as you do here.[1] Your participation on that page is tenuous as it is, so it is not a good idea to stir up more trouble. If you have a good faith proposal to improve the article, please go ahead. But in the meanwhile do not oppose other editors' attempts to keep things in order there. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk)

You gratuitously labeled another editor's edit a "rant." While I don't consider the editor's comments helpful, your label was uncivil and disruptive in and of itself, and likely to breed more disruptive behavior. My participation is "tenuous" only in that you disagree with me a lot. I get that. John2510 (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please try to maintain wp:civility and refrain from labeling other editors' comments on talk pages as "rants" as you did here. That kind of incivility tends to breed more disruption than it solves. Also, one man's rant is another man's brilliant point. There are more appropriate and effective ways of dealing with it. Thanks John2510 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from my talk page). This kind of tit-for-tat warning is neither welcome nor helpful. Please don't make nonsense accusations of incivility in response to my cleaning up the talk page. This article is under probation, and needs to stay on topic. One man's rant is NOT another man's brilliant point. There is absolutely nothing useful or helpful in an IP editor's rant complaining about Wikipedia. The most appropriate way to deal with such comments is to simply delete them, as it has no chance at all of leading to an improvement in the article, and as I mentioned in my original edit summary it was messing up the archive. Instead I took the more modest step of sectioning it off under its own heading. As I said, your participation on the page is tenuous. If you want to continue, please work with other editors instead of stirring up trouble. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... and yet you: 1) label the edit a "rant" (rather than deleting it); and then 2) tit-for-tat on my page - while deleting my comments from your own. You clearly have your own view of what POV you want Wikipedia to take - and see benefit in labeling opinions with which you disagree as "conspiracies" or "rants." Threatening my degree of tenuousness is impotent and not appreciated nor supported by Wikipedia policy. If you want to agree in the talk pages, that's fine, but I respectfully submit you should reconsider your warnings - especially when you're living in a big glass house where wp:civility is concerned. If you want to revert the dialog on both pages... that would be fine with me. John2510 (talk)

For the record, he deleted the entire warning thread from his own page, with the summary that it had been "removed to another editor's page," but didn't modify here. John2510 (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Frank Rizzo, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 23:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown (American entertainer)

Hello, John2510. See Talk:Chris Brown (American entertainer)#Personal Issues & Character: we need a section on this. for the reasons I reverted an edit you made to the Chris Brown (American entertainer) article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've come up with a solution that I think you will be okay with, in the Talk:Chris Brown (American singer)#section 1.4 needs to be reWritten : 2008–09: Graffiti album and domestic violence case section. Suggested it right before your latest reply. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbentrop

Dear John Thank you for your concerns about the Ribbentrop article. I'm almost done with that article. There are things that I added to that article that I was afraid might increase its length than I would I might prefer, but I wanted to put Ribbentrop into some sort of context, so that things might make more sense. I don't like to come across as patronizing, but my basic assumption when writing an article is that the reader does not know much about the subject, which is what brought him or her to here in the first place. I don't have much more to add to the Ribbentrop page, and I hope the readiblity of the article compensates for the length. Often, I find that articles that are really well-written don't seem to drag the reader's patience so much. It's really only the article like the current one on Goring, which is long, disorganized and arguably full of triva like Goring was related to Burckhardt that are annoying long. Thank you for your concerns and if you have any suggestions, please make them to me. Have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus already discussed re: Obama's race

Consensus has been reached regarding Mr. Obama's race. Please look through the archives of the talk page to see. The FAQ is there to inform new editors about many of the decisions made by editors regarding several aspects of the article. If you wish to open debate regarding this issue, feel free to do so. Though, I don't think you will get very far... Phearson (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some new information about his race? Is is mother actually black? John2510 (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been warned about the probation. Reversion without discussion on a topic that has been extensively discussed on the talk page is unacceptable. This is an official administrative action: you are banned from editing the article Barack Obama. This specifically does not extend to any other page. NW (Talk) 03:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I support NW's action here and I now extend the ban to the talk page of that article. The reasons are manifold; I can best sum that up as:
- it's been a hot potato in the past, has been discussed to death and decided and is now on probation, yet you insisted on edit-warring on it even knowing that;
- race and ethnicity of living people are generally pretty sensitive topics anyway; and
- making edits like you made, showing contempt for consensus of editors, and complaining of censorship when challenged, are all red flags to me. --John (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was never warned of the probation prior to being banned.

2. If race is such a hot potato, then maybe it should not have been addressed. If it was to be addressed, it should have been addressed with particular concern for accuracy. There remains no good faith debate as to President Obama's biracial status. Among other things, cubby-holing him as a single race marginalizes millions of biracial Americans.

3. I expressed no contempt for consensus - I only questioned its existence; I complained of censorship because it's the first time in years of editing that I've been censored by and aministrator - and for a single edit/revert.

Red flag to your little heart's content. John2510 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, you changed the article WITHOUT consensus. You did question it, but was consensus obtained? No. It was not. Also, for your post after the ban from the talk page was issued:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phearson (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Warning about the probation is in a redbox near the beginning of the talk page. Phearson (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 28bytes (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello John2510. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]