User talk:John: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 85: Line 85:
:::::Perhaps people outside the U.S. have been influenced by too many biased anti-American treatises on the subject matter. Repeatedly, the vast majority of those that keep saying the article is POV are not Americans...they are also the same people who, percentage wise, believe in the conspiracy theories regarding the events. Might I suggest that this perception is partly due to an anti-American bias...as well as a media that is even less reliable for its facts than those found in the U.S. News oftentimes exists to reinforce preconceived notions...it sells. If sensationalizing the trivia that is associated with 9/11 and thereby departing from the focus and scope of the article is the manner in which non Americans think the article needs to go to be an FA, then that is a pity.[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 14:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps people outside the U.S. have been influenced by too many biased anti-American treatises on the subject matter. Repeatedly, the vast majority of those that keep saying the article is POV are not Americans...they are also the same people who, percentage wise, believe in the conspiracy theories regarding the events. Might I suggest that this perception is partly due to an anti-American bias...as well as a media that is even less reliable for its facts than those found in the U.S. News oftentimes exists to reinforce preconceived notions...it sells. If sensationalizing the trivia that is associated with 9/11 and thereby departing from the focus and scope of the article is the manner in which non Americans think the article needs to go to be an FA, then that is a pity.[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 14:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee MONGO. As it stands this article doesn't even meet the GA criteria on prose quality alone. If you continue on this trajectory the likely result is that far from becoming an FA this article will lose its GA status in the not too distant future. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 14:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee MONGO. As it stands this article doesn't even meet the GA criteria on prose quality alone. If you continue on this trajectory the likely result is that far from becoming an FA this article will lose its GA status in the not too distant future. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 14:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The article needs streamlining, has to have the MOS issues fully addressed and some touchups before the prose itself can be hammered out. But the complexity of the subject issues and the major improvements made by others (not myself) leading up to the GA were such that it was worthy of GA status. You apear to be prepared to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point...likewise, if you and your ilk are going to persist in your egotistical dogmatism regarding what is and what isn't an article of merit, then there will be serious problems between us...ones I bet others will join in to finally put an end to your shenanigans.[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:23, 5 September 2011

A Note on threading:

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

  • If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
  • If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

(From User:John/Pooh policy)


A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - again

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.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lotfi Zadeh

Hi. I think the only reason that I put the quoted sentence in the lede was to forestall editors from quick scanning the lede and, seeing nothing about nationality or ethnicity, putting in their favorite, whichever one that might be. Logically and formally, your grouping is correct, but I think having that in the lede provides a kind of protection from that behavior. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Would a hidden note do the job? --John (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would, indeed. I already have one in there about his birthplce being the Azerbaijan SSR and not the Russian Empire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the work you've done on it. --John (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind continuing to keep an eye on the article, as the other editor has continued to attempt to add in poorly sources or unsourced information. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, that's understood. --John (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John - I understand that you communicated extensively with Beyond My Ken before about the page Lotfi Zadeh. I appreciate the efforts of BMK, as well as yours, to keep it from being vandalized, or somehow worsened. Truly, I do appreciate that, and that's why I've been very much editing in good faith, as well as dealing in good faith, with BMK when he started to revert my good edits - removing verifiable and reliable information, engaging in a revert war, and calling on his friend William M. Connolley to help him out. However, this went on too far - he brushed all my pleas and appeals aside, and now in an attempt to overlook all his mistakes and violations that I pointed out on the admin noticeboard, he tries to use William Connolley as well as your name to show some consensus and deny my edits, as well as to threaten me indirectly, in the context of requesting a warning to me, by hinting that you are an admin.[1] My request - can you please see my edits on the article about Lotfi Zadeh, and then verify my sources, by reading where appropriate, and watch/listen where necessary? I think any neutral and fair person would see that BMK is plain unreasonable and in violation of multiple Wikipedia rules in his revert warring and making this into a big scandal for no reason whatsoever. Then perhaps you could help make sure that no one removes those verifiable sources, or if sources are removed, the information is not (I only cited those sources to comply with rules of verifiability and prevent any wrongful accusations and abuse). --Saygi1 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe John and I have ever communicated before about Lotfi Zadeh, although I could certainy be wrong about that.

@John: I would like you to know that I mentioned your name in connection to this issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that BMK and I have never communicated on this topic prior to the post at the top of this section. Actually, I don't think we have ever spoken on any subject but I could be wrong; I've been here a long time. The content dispute is best discussed at the central noticeboard and the article talk page. --John (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring report

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactController_reported_by_User:Cerejota_.28Result:_.29 I take no great pleasure, but it had to come to this. We tried, its all I can say. --Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree both that this is very unfortunate and that it is necessary at this point. --John (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mile High City

You're right that I have over-reacted in some of my comments, but I have to say that I think this is someone we've seen before. The Denver page is on my watchlist (along with many articles about specific neighborhoods and suburbs) because of a long-ago pleas for help received from an editor who was at a loss on how to address persistent efforts (mostly by an ever-changing parade of IPs who had a pattern of making a lot of edits to the same article in quick succession, but also occasionally by registered users with that same editing pattern) to represent the city and specific neighborhoods/suburbs in a negative light, including insertion of crime statistics and demographic data that appeared to be sourced but that proved (through a sometimes complicated research effort) not to be valid. I haven't seen that particular behavior recently. However, there had been a lot of activity in the Denver article in the last 2 days -- when I looked into it I was saw the huge section on "radioactive contamination" and the large number of IP edits as another manifestation of the familiar pattern of presenting Denver in a bad light, and I saw that Plazak had been sparring with the IPs over it. I chose to remove the section and immediately semi-protect the article -- I saw (and still see) what I did as a single action to remove something that clearly didn't belong in that form and to prevent further warring, not as two separate actions.

I don't believe this is the same user as the Denver crime-promoter, but the behavior of taking a complaint to dispute resolution before discussing it and remarks like "your unilateral actions to delete the article outright were heavy-handed, and not what I'm used to seeing from a Wikipedia administrator" and knowedgable references to "admin status" and "sockpuppetry," as well as the statement "I created this ID to help fix the Denver content" lead me to think that this is someone who has had other user names and is mostly interested in disruption. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder at that myself. Still, I thought these additions were interesting, and, if they are well-sourced and conform to due weight, I think we can add something of them to the article. Unless we are into Voldemort territory, which I haven't seen any indication of? Thanks for the considered reply. --John (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do know a fair amount of the history of Rocky Flats. There truly is some ugly history there. However, that doesn't change the fact that it didn't happen in Denver. If a chemical factory in Elizabeth, New Jersey, were to blow up, the explosion would not be discussed in an article about New York City. Same thing goes for Rocky Flats and Denver... The ugly history belongs in the article about Rocky Flats, not in the article about the nearest big city.
As for the content that was put in the Denver article, I've starting looking into the information and the cited sources. Much of what was presented in the article as factual information turns out to be based on assertions made in materials from various activist groups (titles like "The Industry's Underside -- Bomb Production at Rocky Flats: Death Downwind") -- not reliable NPOV sources. Other neutral sources exist that document the history, although they might not be nearly as easy to locate as the activist material that is mirrored all over the internet. The state of Colorado reports from which the cancer risk graph was extracted are one set of sources that I would consider reliable and neutral. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried just asking them on their talk. It's interesting and quite compelling what you say about the sources; of course we do not automatically exclude sources that are not NPOV, it is more nuanced than that. I don't feel as strongly as you do about the necessity of excluding this material from the article, but I'm sure we can figure something out in talk. --John (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Kant

Thanks for the recent reversion, I am an interested contributor. I like the way you assumed good faith, minimising conflict. Your home page is very helpful re the values of Wikipedia. Isn't it interesting to see how Wikipedia entries seem to top more and more of Google search results. TonyClarke (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice comment Tony. Most of what we do here revolves around assuming good faith, although it is the hardest thing to do sometimes. Good to meet you, and let me know if I can ever be a help to you. --John (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ka-50 "Black Shark" edit

Good job on the recent edit of the page! :)

However, you made an error... Replacement of: "A second batch of 36 helicopters will start rolling off the production line in early 2012." with: "A second batch of 36 helicopters will start production in early 2012." significantly altered not only the content of the sentence, but also the implied result. While the difference may seem only skin deep, analysis of the sentences leads to a different conclusion. "Rolling of the production line" implies a finished product, while "Start of production" implies the beginning of the product manufacturing. Considering the long lead-in times for complex products, such as Ka-50, the difference is only further amplified. Furthermore, such a change is in direct violation of the quoted source and its content.

I hope you see my point. Do not hesitate to contact me in order to discuss it.

Regards, Ltr,ftw (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, nice point. I didn't like "rolling off" as it didn't sound encyclopedic. I'll take this to article talk, I think. Cheers. --John (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Stupid" and "silly"

Hi John, thanks for your note, and I see that Rjanag really doesn't get it, on his talk page. Here are two diffs: "stupid" and after I complained to him, "silly". Granted, he's done it indirectly by applying these words to my statements or ideas, or in the conditional, but offensive they still are, and I believe the WP:CIVIL policy covers these usages. Rjanag does a lot of work at DYK, and his investment in the status quo, which many editors want to reform, is getting mixed up with WP:OWNERSHIP a little, I think.

While we're at it, there's a troublesome editor who writes well and is clearly gifted, but who is a bit over the top in pushing the idea of certain formatting practices (I see Art Lapella is copping it mildly at WT:MOSLINK right now)—but that's not the point here. I felt threatened by his posts on my page (I felt stalked, and note that two other editors complained to me of the same), and unwisely edit-summaried "removing vomit". OK, I later apologised to him at his talk page, but it's what he did to that thread that I suspect is way way in breach of policy. First, I was ridiculed for apologising, and then he returned to change the title of the thread so that I appear to self-announce as "an utter arse". I note that he states "there's no end to this man's cunty idiocy", and refers to my "more genuinely crappy edits". I wonder whether this user could be warned to tone down his angry statements, and that it's almost certainly a breach of the talk-page guidelines to change someone else's title to falsify or ridicule them? Tony (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's shocking. I have a lot of respect for this editor but I will have a word, all right. Once again, I am deeply sorry that you have been subjected to this abuse. --John (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, I see Tony has already dug up the diff for you, but as you can see I never called him stupid, I said "it would be stupid of him to say X in the future". That is clearly not the same thing. I also don't see why I'm being accused of being "invested in the status quo" when I'm the only editor there actually working to implement all the changes that Tony and others are asking for. I have nothing further to say on the topic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get involved in the content disagreement you have had, but I strongly recommend you don't use the word "stupid" about editors or their actions. --John (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to get involved, then don't get involved. Finding one message that you can jump on and say "ooh, a mean word!", taking it out of context, and coming to slap my wrist about it is maybe a way of staying uninvolved, but it's also not constructive. Especially when you deliberately overlook equally rude behavior from your Wikipedia friends who are involved in the dispute, like the one above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly potential

John...this line of questioning appears to be headed in an ugly direction....I think it is extremely unbecoming of an administrator of this website and hope you take the proper course which is to retract the question.--MONGO 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be doing that. I am increasingly uneasy with the way you and your "side" (we shouldn't even have to think in "sides"!) have that article cordoned off. Rereading that talk archive from 2009 where good faith attempts to improve the article were met with stonewalling and threats made me feel physically sick. I made some suggestions at talk, with sources, towards improving the article and you made a comment about CTers. Fine, I am done there. Meantime the article does not in my opinion meet GA requirements and I am inquiring in a civil manner to the person who promoted it to give a rationale. I saw he mentioned IAR in the discussion, and it is my view that this is not an appropriate use of IAR, though I will wait and see what he says before deciding what to do next. I see you have mischaracterized my points at User talk:Joe Gazz84, which is no great surprise but confirms for me that we have nothing to say to each other. As you have requested of me in the past, I now ask you to stay off my talk page. Thanks. --John (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're an administrator on this website and your questioning of the GA promoter and by insinuation the fine work by Tom Harrison and A Quest for Knowledge who brought the article to GA level constitute personal attacks. You repeatedly question mine and others integrities and refer to me condescendingly as a "cohort" and "buddy"...your actions and words are unbecoming for an administrator of this website and you should immediately retract your comments or formally apologize for them.MONGO 11:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake MONGO, it's not a "personal attack" to question such a highly dubious promotion of an article to GA. Just about anyone outside the US looking at that article would be aghast at the resolute POV and suppression of core issues, some of which John has already outlined in a measured and moderate way. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps people outside the U.S. have been influenced by too many biased anti-American treatises on the subject matter. Repeatedly, the vast majority of those that keep saying the article is POV are not Americans...they are also the same people who, percentage wise, believe in the conspiracy theories regarding the events. Might I suggest that this perception is partly due to an anti-American bias...as well as a media that is even less reliable for its facts than those found in the U.S. News oftentimes exists to reinforce preconceived notions...it sells. If sensationalizing the trivia that is associated with 9/11 and thereby departing from the focus and scope of the article is the manner in which non Americans think the article needs to go to be an FA, then that is a pity.MONGO 14:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee MONGO. As it stands this article doesn't even meet the GA criteria on prose quality alone. If you continue on this trajectory the likely result is that far from becoming an FA this article will lose its GA status in the not too distant future. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs streamlining, has to have the MOS issues fully addressed and some touchups before the prose itself can be hammered out. But the complexity of the subject issues and the major improvements made by others (not myself) leading up to the GA were such that it was worthy of GA status. You apear to be prepared to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point...likewise, if you and your ilk are going to persist in your egotistical dogmatism regarding what is and what isn't an article of merit, then there will be serious problems between us...ones I bet others will join in to finally put an end to your shenanigans.MONGO 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John&oldid=448601743"