Jump to content

User talk:John Cline

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.141.69.51 (talk) at 04:50, 8 February 2014 (→‎My recent edit to Septuagint article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

John Cline
Originally known as user:My76Strat


Userpage


Subpages


Aboutme


Mypages


Myawards


Mycomments


Openone


Mytools

Happy New Year to all

Be well!—John Cline (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year John Cline!

Happy New Year!
Hello John Cline:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 07:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you Northamerica1000, I happened to see quite a roster of good cheer you set about Wikipedia's community. I certainly appreciate seeing your sentiments here. It becomes more special, to me; seeing myself within such a grouping. While it was clear to me you were posting to Wikipedians of high esteem, I did not anticipate myself included. Even as an anomaly, it feels good. Thank you again.—John Cline (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A personalized New Year greeting

Hope you have a bright 2014! Acalamari 11:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John Cline, Happy New Year! I'd like to say that I see your name around often and appreciate the good work you do. :) Best. Acalamari 11:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your generous kindness. I endeavor giving here; but every effort I strive returns dividends of greater proportion to me. I hope it won't be envied one day; that I've gained so much—being here. Sincerely—John Cline (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Category:Magnates, moguls, and tycoons of the world

Category:Magnates, moguls, and tycoons of the world, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Macrakis (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have posted there.—John Cline (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Perhaps you have some ideas about how this category could be sharpened into something more objective? (I don't think the deletion discussion is the place to talk that over...) I'm still not clear about the intent. Is it about fame? about influence? about personal wealth? about control of a large company? To take the modern computer industry as an example, where would you draw the line? I assume that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Larry Ellison would qualify under all three criteria. But how about, say, Mitch Kapor (founder of Lotus), Charles B. Wang (founder of CA), Nolan Bushnell (founder of Atari), Ken Olsen (founder of Digital/DEC), Gordon Bell (DEC), An Wang (founder of Wang), Azim Premji (WiPro), .... And presumably influential people who don't control a large corporation don't count, regardless of how influential they are: Tim Berners-Lee, Jay Forrester, ... How about, say, Paul Allen, who made his money from Microsoft, but no longer has an important role there... --Macrakis (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Macrakis, I started this category because I felt Category:Robber barons was a POV categorization of industrial power brokers normally considered a magnate of their field. I added some articles so the category would not be empty, and probably shouldn't have added J. Wales, though I believe history will measure him as "an Internet magnate" for his influential role.

Otherwise, we have hundreds of article subjects who are called magnate in the article's lead,[1] often disambiguated in the title by "(magnate)".[2] This manner of disambiguation is predominately supported in verifiable reliable sources.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] The term is loosely defined: "A powerful or influential person, especially in business or industry"[15] and therefor, subject to wp:or and misapplication. Enforcing wp:rs however, though cumbersome, is not impossible and would afford for discriminating who belongs in the category. It is disingenuous to suggest it is not possible to source the designation to reliable secondary sources; as many have suggested.

Anyway, I nominated Category:Robber barons for deletion, and no longer care if a more suitable category exists. If you and I had discussed this away from cfd, I would have emptied the category and nominated it {{db-g7}} myself, avoiding the public humiliation that generally ensues deletion discussions—where people can not seem to resist inflaming emotions, as they destroy whatever might have been done of good faith; injecting their own callousness at the slightest opportunity. Like suggesting I made the term up for example; as one kindly opined.

It's disquieting, to me, that one, (who is regular at xfd), can suggest I invented a term that predates my birth and will undoubtedly, endure beyond the span of my life, yet remain in the bosom of grace. Thank you for demonstrating here your own good intentions, by the empathy present in your question. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Dynasty

If you used your eyes and actually read the CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension You would see where it says: Outrage and support The NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E expressing "outrage and deep concern about the recent racist, homophobic, and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson." READING IS FUNDAMENTAL or do a Control key-F and type racist in your browser--Ron John (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted a null edit of mine, nice! What you placed in the lead said Robertson was suspended over remarks widely-reported in the media as "anti-gay" and "racist". His suspension had nothing to do with racism, and the joint letter was not "widely-reported". The matter is discussed in the article but not in the context of his suspension. This edit of yours is so wrong it has to be a mistake. I'll give you a few minutes to fix it yourself, or I'll have to remove it as a crayon entry.—John Cline (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Management Information Systems page

I was trying to rename the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_information_system

to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_Information_Systems

Is it possible to do it as this is how it is supposed to be. Thanks.

It is possible, yes; but it is not proper. The current title follows Wikipedia's naming conventions for article titles, in particular: Only the first letter is capitalized, (with few exceptions), and subsequent words are not capitalized unless they would be in normal running text in an article. Also titles are given in singular form. You can review WP:TITLEFORMAT for more information. The correct manner to rename an article, if it is appropriate, is to move the page to the new title, never blank one page and copy the text to another. This is called a "cut and paste move" and it causes the loss of the article history; necessary for attribution. WP:MOVE has more information on that. Cheers—John Cline (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article on Max Kaur and corrected all of the mistakes. Steve Pereira from Mediation Committee send me a message. "Steve Pereira <silktork@gmail.com> 29.11.13

Hi

The Committee doesn't decide on content. The Max Kaur article was deleted in 2008 following an AfD it which it was decided that the subject did not meet Wikipedia's content inclusion criteria relating to notability.

Though that article was deleted, a new article may be created if there are reliable sources which reasonably establish the subject's notability, and if the new article uses those sources and expands on the article which had been deleted. "

I think everything is good right now.

Sincerely,

Taevakodu 10.01.14 (19.26) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taevakodu (talkcontribs) 17:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; good luck.—John Cline (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

quick Q

Hi..sorry for complaining at you. Aside, what do you mean by "pinged through the notification process"? It's always disturbed me that we have to keep track of every page we might get a response from. Is there some way to be notified when people post responses to your entries? It should be like email notification as far as I'm concerned... thanks Squish7 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Squish7; although no apology is necessary, I appreciate your kind sentiments. Regarding notifications, Wikipedia:Notifications explains the user mention feature which alerts a user whenever another user mentions their name on any Wikipedia talk page. The {{ping}} template may be used or regular wiki-markup, like: [[User:Squish7|Squish7]], as long as it actively links to the mentioned user. For example, my mentioning you here should have produced a notification for you, and that is what I was referring to. I hope this explanation helps, feel free to inquire further if ever I can be of help to you. Cheers—John Cline (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Sharon article

Ariel Sharon's page doesn't mention his death at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.78.18 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

File:Oseberg ship head post.jpg
An animal-head post found in the Oseberg vikingship, an example of Nordic art
Hello, John Cline.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Nordic art


Previous selections: Gopher (animal) • Meal


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: Evad37 [talk] 01:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, what is this category intended to categorise? It is empty, and nothing links to it. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for inquiring here regarding this matter. The category is a remnant of a failed endeavor from last year. I will have it deleted. Thanks again.—John Cline (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Move like this

I liked your "special in its own way", - one link goes to "awesomely weird". - Did you see that miss Elen also? (my user page, look for "facts") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that a blue duck attacks the German Main page right now? - had to happen on the 28th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Low Countries as seen from space
Hello, John Cline.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Low Countries


Previous selections: Nordic art • Gopher (animal)


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Opt-out instructions[reply]

Consensus on the correct spelling of Dodonpachi

Hello, you're invited to vote and express your views about this on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Mass surveillance

WikiProject Mass Surveillance
Dear, John Cline. We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Mass surveillance, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the privacy and global surveillance. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage.

-- HectorMoffet (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2014)

The life sciences involve the study of living organisms
Hello, John Cline.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Life sciences


Previous selections: Low Countries • Nordic art


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Opt-out instructions[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

FYI

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this courteous notification, and thoughtful invitation. I am interested; and will review the RfC shortly. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmín Chebar

Hey there - what can I help with? I did see the AFD, but thought it seemed pretty safe following the arguments and after I saw it was kept, wasn't too worried. Mabalu (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit to Septuagint article

I disagree with your reversion. My edit was not POV, it just needs a source or two (not my strong suit). If you search the subject on the Web, it will be obvious that there are no shortage of fundamentalist Protestants for whom Biblical Inerrancy is everything, both KJV only and not, who disparage the LXX as errant, even though the evidence that early Christians relied upon it is irrefutable. And there is a strong correlation between Protestant Fundamentalism and KJV preference. Logically, the doctrine can only stand to suffer from the scholarly evidence that the apostles did not primarily rely on the Masoretic manuscripts the KJV was translated from.

Is there one credible scholar, that you can name, whose opinion it is that the apostles only used the Hebrew OT text? Would love to know of even one.

Ultimately, it seems virtually impossible to use the term "Fundamentalist" on WP, not because it doesn't apply or isn't a category without a basis in reality, but because it has such a pejorative flavor. If you know of a better named category for the people whom I am referring to, let me know.

In any event, I would like some sort of reply. 74.141.69.51 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing the matter, and will reply in full, very soon. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted, and rely on you to massage that into something that is fully non-POV (I understand it doesn't look perfectly tactful as-is, even if it is factual). I'm done with this one; the reason I never signed up on Wikipedia is because I never wanted to fall into another edit war. 74.141.69.51 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]