Thank you for showing me how it works here on Wikipedia, enjoy hiding controversial facts about corporations. I had changed my sources, yet you still think rather then making any comments like the good users you just to remove my section. Hope I can put a smile on your face by letting you know I see how it works and I want nothing to do with it.{{unsigned|Navstev0}}
Thank you for showing me how it works here on Wikipedia, enjoy hiding controversial facts about corporations. I had changed my sources, yet you still think rather then making any comments like the good users you just to remove my section. Hope I can put a smile on your face by letting you know I see how it works and I want nothing to do with it.{{unsigned|Navstev0}}
:I'm awfully sorry you feel that way. I believe three editors have removed the material you were trying to add, on grounds of [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] and [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]]. I think there is a good explanation on the article talk about why this material, sourced as it is, is not suitable for this encyclopedia article. Nevertheless I would not automatically be against some kind of well-sourced and appropriately written mention of this incident. I will comment at article talk about this and I urge you not to be completely discouraged or exasperated (some of your edit summaries have been a bit over the top as others have mentioned). Hang in there, try some other articles besides this one. There is a lot of work to be done if you do want to help out. Best wishes, --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John#top|talk]]) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:I'm awfully sorry you feel that way. I believe three editors have removed the material you were trying to add, on grounds of [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] and [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]]. I think there is a good explanation on the article talk about why this material, sourced as it is, is not suitable for this encyclopedia article. Nevertheless I would not automatically be against some kind of well-sourced and appropriately written mention of this incident. I will comment at article talk about this and I urge you not to be completely discouraged or exasperated (some of your edit summaries have been a bit over the top as others have mentioned). Hang in there, try some other articles besides this one. There is a lot of work to be done if you do want to help out. Best wishes, --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John#top|talk]]) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very muchly! =^.^=
[[User:Kelidimari|Kelidimari]] ([[User talk:Kelidimari|talk]]) 18:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:35, 24 February 2012
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
Hi John, thanks very much for fixing issues on Sinking of the RMS Titanic. The article is currently going through GA review, which looks like it will be completed quite soon. When it is, the intention is to nominate it for FA with the aim of getting it onto the Main Page for the anniversary of the sinking on 14/15 April. Would you be up for helping with the FA review process when the article has been nominated? Your help was invaluable on my last FA, Battle of Vukovar, and I'd love to have the opportunity to work with you again. Prioryman (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I will happily do what I can to help with this. --John (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. John (talk)
Hi John, thank you for your interest in the tool. I've approved your account, please feel free to login and test the system.
As part of this beta test, we'd like everyone to test every aspect of the tool. This includes acting as blocked users - we'd like each of you to file at least two appeals and respond to them as though you are blocked. Please try to act like a blocked user new to Wikipedia, unfamiliar with common terms and probably a bit frustrated at the situation.
When reviewing appeals, please act as though you are reviewing real blocks. You should be able to comment on any appeal, regardless of who has reserved it; reservations only ensure that reviewers don't send conflicting emails.
If you encounter any bugs (things not appearing to work right, and especially error messages), please file a bug report on JIRA. You will need to register an account there. New features can be suggested there as well, but please add the "after-beta" label to these so we can easily prioritize between bugs that must be fixed and features that can be added later.
Thank you again for volunteering to beta-test. TheHelpfulOne 00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --John (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Romeinsekeizer
Thanks for your revert to Stonehenge of the edit by Romeinsekeizer (talk·contribs). There is some clear COI here - the user is Lex Ritman in real life (admitted on his talk page) and is writing about himself and these non-notable works in this and other articles. I have left a COI warning but you might want to keep an eye on his activities and offer guidance as appropriate. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I will keep an eye on this. --John (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't read ...
this, then you clearly should do! I haz W-t-P PJ's ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read The Tao of Pooh a few years ago and it is excellent. I believe all good children's books should contain this sort of higher wisdom, both for the children and for their parents who have to read to them--John (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
There is far more to Pooh than we were ever aware of, as kids. I've given the basic set of Winnie the Pooh, The House at Pooh Corner, When we Were Very Young, and Now We are Six to various grandchildren this past Christmas. Nobody should have to grow up without them :o) Have you read the fun Now We Are Sixty? Good for several giggles. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't seen that one, I will look next time I go to the library. Thank you. Besides Pooh, other great children's books I have never fallen out of love with and look forward to rediscovering with my own kids include Treasure Island, Alice in Wonderland, Huckleberry Finn, and several works by Ivan Southall and Nicholas Fisk. --John (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not read either of them I'm afraid, though I have heard of them of course. There's always Enid Blyton and Richmal Crompton as well, though I fear those may not have aged so well as the first lot I mentioned. --John (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and my own immediate offspring (the eldest of whom has just turned 30! Eeek!) were taught to read on Beatrix Potter, of course :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never liked BP when I was young, but my kids like it. I'm reading (almost finished) Red Rabbit by Tom Clancy, which uses Potter's terminology to describe defectors from the old Soviet Union during the Cold War. --John (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like ... an interesting mixture! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy Clarkson
Hi John,
you made changed to the Jeremy Clarkson article wit the comment "please only restore with valid refs ie not youtube or the series itself". I'm a very new Wikipedia user (started yesterday and these were my first changes; adding a few references and a few new cars to the ownership list). I saw that you are a Wikipedia administrator, so could you help me in telling me how can I reference the series, since there are a lot of information on the Top Gear TV series about the guys, for example what cars they drive in real life. I tried googling on how to make such references (references to TV series), but didn't find anything useful.
One example is the Ford GT, which was featured in the episode (season 7, episode 3) for about 20 minutes (each episode is 60mins long). Jeremy talked a lot about the car, how he had owned the same car twice, so at least I see it as irrefutable.
You might understand that deleting all changes that a new user has made (it took me hours to find those missing references) is very discouraging. :-(
Help me out if you can. Thanks for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyEmminence (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I had not noticed you were a new user. I suggest in the first instance reading WP:5P and especially WP:V as this is the policy these additions were in violation of. --John (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so if I understand the WP:V correctly, I used the source (Jeremy Clarkson) as the source itself when citing the Top Gear episode and therefore it wasn't in accordance with the rules? One reference (Ford Fiesta 2012) uses http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/jeremy-clarkson-ford-fiesta-2012-01-06 as a reference where the source (Jeremy) told what car he had selected. How is this different and is there any way I can reference the series itself? GreyEmminence (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is similar to that between what I (a non-notable Wikipedia editor) might say to my friends in the pub, and what a hypothetical newspaper or magazine might say in reporting my words. Can you see the difference? You're right in that topgear.com is not a particularly good source though. Maybe we should take that one down as well. I also have serious doubts about how useful ("encyclopedic") this entire section is. Would Britannica have such a section? I have my doubts... --John (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adriatic Sea
Hi! You did a great job copyediting the Battle of Vukovar, and I thought to ask you to take a look at the Adriatic Sea article which was recently expanded. I'd like to nominate the article as a FAC at some point, although it may be better to head for GAN first to fix any outstanding issues beforehand. My concerns regarding the article are primarily its structure and the fact that it must be riddled with grammatical errors (I'm not a native speaker of English). Could you please have a look at the article and provide some feedback? Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking. I will be happy to have a look. --John (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John, Virginia here from America Abroad Media. Sorry if I am not following proper protocol, but our organization information is a bit out of date. Would it be improper to ask you to review and update? Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaclairmont (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be delighted to help Virginia. What is it you would like to add? --John (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MSU Interview
Dear John,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tags
Hello there. Sorry to bother you. I'm not faulting this edit of yours but didn't you forget to remove something else once you were finished? Don't worry, though, it was fixed with this edit. ClaretAsh 10:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thank you for clearing up after me. --John (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
I saw the Apologia section on your userpage. I must say that in a community riddled with pessimism, criticism, conflict and other silliness, it is fabulous to find a user so passionate about the Project. I wish more users were as willing to show their pride and faith in Wikipedia. ClaretAsh 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you, that was very generous of you. --John (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Martyn
Hi. Its an amazing gap between the purity of his voice and the bad press he got from the mid 80s on. One thing that always strikes me; its his saving grace in my openion, is that he was the only real friend Nick Drake had and he did a of of good there, fair play. I mention this only because you said before that you admire him, and that shows a lot of taste. I saw you page moved Punk's not dead, Exploited were such a great band early on, but it didnt last, they never recaptured that initial burst of brilliance. They are still going though, actually most of the early Oi bands are still at at, plugging away. Yikes. 02:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Martyn was a genius and like many geniuses was a tortured soul. Yeah, I had that album and I think the point of the title was the double meaning. I wasn't much of a fan of the band; too rough for me. The Damned and the Clash were more my style from that era. --John (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
how can i find out if i can use an image or not? I cant find the original photographer. I have asked. I have read some of the policies but I am not quite understood if its free public or fair use. Kind of confusing.
thanks for any help. Chekitoutbro (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this may be difficult. Your only recourse may be to take the photo yourself. Occasionally browsing the commons or looking for free photos on Flickr can be productive. What was the photo of? --John (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks John for your speedy response. So any photos off of Flickr are okay? Chekitoutbro (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, only the free ones are suitable for Wikipedia. --John (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy note
In discussing the Arbcom Civility case at MF talk, I shared some thoughts on your involvement - in what I hope is a positive way, as I admire the way you have handled the fallout. You may have seen it anyway, but I wanted to let you know as a courtesy. Geometry guy 22:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note and for the time and care you have put into this whole shenanigan. --John (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jeancey (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, you recently removed a deletion tag from Gavin Webster. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, John. You have new messages at Jeancey's talk page. Message added 23:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I've commented at the arbitration case talk page about your proposed admonishment.[1] It seems likely that I'll be admonished as well, so maybe we can have an admonishment party? MalleusFatuorum 03:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, nice one. Not sure what I will do with an admonishment. Looks like the arbs have missed the point as per usual. --John (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I'll do with mine. Can you guess what that might be? MalleusFatuorum 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine. I suppose it's like points on your license. A bit of a fart in a thunderstorm in the big scale of the challenges facing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but more potentially serious for you than for me, as you're an administrator. MalleusFatuorum 04:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well. I don't use the "tools" that often anyway and I don't really derive any pleasure from the "status" it may confer for some, especially after this shambles. --John (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I ruled the world I'd have desysoped Thumperward immediately, but he seems to be escaping any sanctions. For now. MalleusFatuorum 04:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ramones
Hi John, is it possible you could take a look at the conversation on the Ramones page please? There's another editor there who it seems to me thinks that he owns the page among other criticisms I could offer. I'm trying to work with the person and I'm more than happy to compromise but that seems to be a waste of time.
Any input you can bring is much appreciated. Alterntiavely, if stuff on the Ramones page doesn't interest you, if you know of someone else who would be interested it would be great if you could involve them?
I'll have a look. --John (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see I was too slow on this one, for which I apologise. It was silly of you to get blocked for making multiple reverts but I have nevertheless asked the blocking admin if leniency can be applied here. I will give you more advice when I can and again I am sorry for being too busy to deal with this earlier. Never edit-war; it is one of the few really clear and easy ways to get blocked I'm afraid. --John (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John,
Thanks for your reply. I see that you intervened re the block placed upon and I thank you for that also and the good intent behind this.
Could you give me some more clarification re this edit war stuff please? Throughout that particular dispute I on numerous occasions did what seemed to be fair and reasonable re consensus and collaborative working such as:-
request input from others via the punk project talk page twice and once from the rock music project talk page
request input from other people in wikipedia such as the ping to you earlier today, requests to gwen gale, other people who I have pinged individually
Also I don't understand how when the other person repeatedly stonewalls my edits with blanket reverts and very abrupt comments that indicate no attempt at working together (have you read some of the comments, this person thinks he is god), this is deemed acceptable. When I undo edits when there was support from another person for what I said, it is deemed edit warring even though there was no other support for the person making my comments the majority view. Then when today other people have made comments against the edits I made, I accepted that as consensus and pushed the matter no further. Why is it I get blocked and the other person doesn't? This seems very unfair. I don't for a second expect to have my point accepted all the time and I have consistently been happy to go with majority view. That isn't the case for the other person but the other person seems to be regarded as the good guy in this and I have condemned as the villain.
Thanks again for sparing some time and effort on this earlier.
It was a pleasure to be able to help you. One thing to keep in mind is that these things aren't done quickly; a more patient approach will bear dividends. Another is that folk who have written a good quality article like that one tend to be defensive about their work. I quite agree you were treated badly there, hence my intervention. I said at article talk that there is much for all involved to learn from what happened and this includes you. A majority isn't always equivalent to a consensus either. Thanks for all the good work you do; hope that this was not too bruising for you and that you can learn from it and move on. --John (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resignation request
Hi, I know we've been talking elsewhere at the ArbCom case talkpage, but I'd like to make it official here.
John, I understand that you have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, both under your current name and when you were known as Guinnog. You have over 100,000 edits, and have been an administrator since 2006. However, I feel that recent events have shown that you are not using your administrator access with the necessary good judgment.
On December 21, 2011, Malleus Fatuorum (talk·contribs) engaged in uncivil behavior,[2][3] prompting numerous complaints and an eventual redaction of his comment.[4] Soon after, administrator Thumperward (talk·contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum indefinitely, initially with a minimal block rationale,[5] and then a more extensive one at ANI two hours later.[6] One hour after Thumperward blocked, you unblocked,[7] without any attempt to contact the blocking admin, even though he had said at ANI that he was writing up a rationale.[8] The ANI thread had only been open for 20 minutes, but you claimed a "strong consensus" to unblock, which again, was a mis-reading of the situation. Further, you were self-admittedly involved in situations related to Malleus,[9] which was yet another reason that you should not have used tools. Your actions were a violation of Blocking policy, were extremely disruptive, and contributed to what became a major arbitration case. The arbitrators are currently voting on a proposed decision, and are leaning towards a formal admonishment of your actions, but even so, you do not seem to understand the seriousness of what you did, and are not acknowledging that an admonishment is appropriate.[10]
In my opinion, an admonishment is the minimum that should happen, and in actuality, your administrator access should be removed. Whether or not the arbitrators choose to do this, remains to be seen. In the meantime, I am formally requesting that you resign as an administrator. Sincerely, --Elonka 19:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Official" and "formally" in what sense, Elonka? Geometry guy 19:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How nice of you to take all this trouble on a poison pen letter for me, Elonka, I truly didn't know you cared. You may not know that I used to belong to the administrators open to recall scheme, and if I was still a member I would advise you to use that mechanism. When I left it in 2009 however, it was in large part due to witnessing your shameless dishonesty and duplicity in promising in your RfA to resign if enough people asked you to, and then immediately defaulting on this seemingly solemn undertaking as soon as someone tried to use it against you. As well as impressing me with the uselessness of a voluntary recall process, it also left me with the distinct impression of you as an untrustworthy person. Since your involvement in the Malleus-civility case I have not only renewed this impression of you as being slippery and careless of ethical behaviour, but have developed it further, as I have now seen the vindictive and nasty side of you as well. You are, to me, the epitome of everything an admin should not be. You do little to no content improvement work but instead spend your time and energy sniffing around criticising others' conduct, seemingly mindless of the impression of hypocrisy and lack of self awareness that this gives to those witnessing your behaviour. I was thinking about handing in my bit if criticised to the same degree as the other admins involved in the case, and if somebody whose opinion I respected had made this request I would certainly have given it serious consideration. Reading those words from you has helped me to decide that if I am to be desysoped it will have to be by Arbcom, so in a way I suppose I owe you thanks for helping me. Nevertheless, I would respectfully ask you to please, never, ever post here again for any reason. Any further baiting, badgering or vindictive machinations you feel the need to undertake can be conducted elsewhere. Thanks, --John (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Sorry, but I find this to be getting ridiculous. A block of John was not even worthy of consideration in the recent action, and anything that happened in or around the heat of those proceedings must be balanced against John's record (which demonstrates him to be one of the best editors and administrators at Wikipedia). The Arbitrators were fully cognisant of John's history and worth as a Wikipedian, and we should all do likewise—and move on. GFHandel♬ 19:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this civility case will be closed very soon, as it seems to have served whatever purpose it could and the atmosphere surrounding seems to be becoming increasingly less helpful. MalleusFatuorum 01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last minute flurry of activity can be one of the most unseemly aspects of an Arbcom case. However, it is also an opportunity to spot editors manipulating the situation, and arbitrators who are easily manipulated. Geometry guy 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is!
O brave new world!
Personal opinion, I myself tend to agree that, until and unless ArbCom specifically requests removal of adminship, resignation is possibly/probably uncalled for. ArbCom can, and has, requested or required in the past that individuals lose their admin status, or take part in a confirmation RfA. They do not seem to have done so in this case, and I believe that they are probably better judges of what rises to that level than we are, having been specifically elected for that purpose, among others. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not too discouraged...
Talk:Sprota Looks to be getting pretty heated. Agricolae is generally a good calm editor - with a firm grasp of policy. I had a bit of a run in with the other two editors at Gundred, Countess of Surrey ... but I just walked away rather than continue to argue. Any chance you can use your "oil on stormy waters" approach? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note, I will have a look when I can. --John (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Barnstar
Saints Star Award
Things don't always work out the way they should in here in the short-term, but they tend to work out better over the longer haul. Whether you're admonished, named and shamed, belittled, targeted or anything else that comes along in this place, there are still folks with reason in here, and they/we know you to be a man of character, trustworthiness, introspection, and moral integrity. What matters more: the truth, or the labels? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sandy, that's appreciated. You're definitely one of the people I value in this place. --John (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I think you probably know that the barnstar in question is generally for people who contribute to saints-related content, and probably isn't directly appropriate in this instance. Naughty, naughty girl. ;) However, I myself agree that it is probably generally appropriate in this instance, given that this editor has had to put up with, well, rather a lot over time, including (as he and I know) some really ridiculous accusations, and still tries to see the best of other contributors. At least in the standard Catholic tradition, the one I myself know best, I agree John might be among those who come closest to possessing the behavioral attributes, including forgiveness, of those who are most generally referred to as saints. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Modernist and John for your kind comments. The only thing that worries me here; don't you have to be dead to qualify for sainthood? --John (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't know that-- I went through my barnstar page and copied the one I thought most appropriate, and I didn't get it for work on saints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really appreciated receiving it from you and I am sorry to be flippant about it. I would certainly never claim to be a saint, just an honest joe trying his best. Thanks again Sandy. --John (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as one of the editors who deals with that content, I personally have no objections to seeing it given out to individuals who have displayed "saintly" qualities, like, well, almost infinite forbearance, like John here. And, I guess I could see how Sandy, having to deal with the sometimes, um, heated conversations regarding FA, probably has displayed similar characteristics. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's extremely kind of you both. --John (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your sainthood may be about to be challenged by this; certainly mine will be. It makes me wonder whether there's any point doing anything here, as it all ends up being grey goo. MalleusFatuorum 00:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me. Let me have a look when I get a moment.--John (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regarding Civility enforcement has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Hawkeye7 (talk·contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time.
Thumperward (talk·contribs) is admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee.
John (talk·contribs) is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.
Malleus Fatuorum (talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. Further, Malleus Fatuorm is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.
Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective.
All users are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole.
The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions. As a related but distinct issue, the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.
Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.
For the Arbitration Committee: Mlpearc (powwow) 02:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy days. You stand admonished, but you did the right thing. No one was going to come out of this unscathed anyway. Trouts make really good eats. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a terrible waste of everybody's time. I think this Arbcom is even more pusillanimous and disorganised than the last one. Volunteers don't have to be amateurs. Thank you for your kind message of support; I wish I could say I have learned a lot from the case or that I have developed as a Wikipedian, but sadly most of what I have learned has been about the pompous and inept failings of our court of highest appeal. Never mind. --John (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The finding against you is disheartening... you admit to one thing minor thing and get admonished for something completely unrelated? I am incredulous. I have mixed feelings about the findings towards Hawkeye/MF findings, but they blew it with you.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon 16:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was disappointed but not surprised. It was a waste of time taking the case if they weren't going to issue decisive guidance on what to do when someone is inappropriately blocked. As it stands, if someone else I know (you for example) were indefinitely blocked by a rogue admin, the case suggests that I wouldn't be allowed to unblock you without a long discussion at AN/I. It's also very unfortunate that the hard-of-thinking crowd focused on Malleus's use of the word cunt when taunted by Spitfire, something even he wasn't disputing was uncivil, and not the actual incident he was first blocked for which started the whole sorry circus rolling. Ironically the initial allegation he made, that some (unnamed) admins are "dishonest cunts", is not only unquestionably true, ("an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary), but has been strongly confirmed by the conduct of several in this very case. Far from clarifying either of the main issues that people felt needed clarifying, it's been a strange exercise in justifying the predetermined "punishments" which were arrived at first. I could have predicted on Christmas Day that Thumperward and I would get some kind of slap on the wrist, Hawkeye would be desysoped and Malleus would be topic-banned. Some of the contortions some people have performed to arrive at these verdicts have been highly dishonest. Arbcom has been the weakest link in this community for years now, and there is no prospect of it ever getting better. I still like this place but the appetite for drama that some editors have is outrageous, and we don't seem very good as a community at solving it. This was another missed opportunity to do so, in my opinion. --John (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The case had a very Alice in Wonderland feel about it. It did indeed seem obvious what the outcome would be long before any of the so-called evidence was collected. Which begs the question of why bother collecting it in the first place? Some editors such as Balloonman, and especially Karanacs, went to a great deal of trouble to present the facts, but they went largely ignored in the face of preconceptions and the wisdom of the mob. I could even have predicted which arbitrators would vote for my being banned, no matter what the evidence. MalleusFatuorum 19:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John.
I came across your user page while browsing this and that and I really like the layout. I do not know how to make templates and am not any use with HTML things, but I would like to make my userpage neater. I'm learning a little bit as I go about what exactly different lines of code or bunches of code seem to do, when I try copy-pasting different things into sandbox. But, I am nowhere near good enough to build it from scratch.
May I use your layout?
Sincerely,
Kelidimari
Kelidimari (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are welcome. --John (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to PepsiCo
Thank you for showing me how it works here on Wikipedia, enjoy hiding controversial facts about corporations. I had changed my sources, yet you still think rather then making any comments like the good users you just to remove my section. Hope I can put a smile on your face by letting you know I see how it works and I want nothing to do with it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Navstev0 (talk • contribs)
I'm awfully sorry you feel that way. I believe three editors have removed the material you were trying to add, on grounds of neutrality and reliable sourcing. I think there is a good explanation on the article talk about why this material, sourced as it is, is not suitable for this encyclopedia article. Nevertheless I would not automatically be against some kind of well-sourced and appropriately written mention of this incident. I will comment at article talk about this and I urge you not to be completely discouraged or exasperated (some of your edit summaries have been a bit over the top as others have mentioned). Hang in there, try some other articles besides this one. There is a lot of work to be done if you do want to help out. Best wishes, --John (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
