User talk:John/Archive 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hi, could you upload your image to wikimedia commons please? I would like to use it on another language wikipedia Zz99 12:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the comment you just left on my talk page. I feel a little shouted down at the moment but will keep going! --Jim (Talk) 18:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading Image:13brewb.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECUtalk 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A Song of Stone

Ah, now I know where the editing conflict came from -- lost my connection, thought article got scrambled somehow. Sorry! Pete Tillman 05:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Usenet link-- Did you have a look at the discussion? An unusually informative one, I thought, worthy of an exception to the "Links normally to be avoided" at WP:EL. Cheers, Pete Tillman 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete. Yes, it looked a good discussion, but I remain unconvinced it adds verifiably to the article. --Guinnog 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading Image:80zazou.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECUtalk 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:TikalGuatemala.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:TikalGuatemala.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. —Pilotguy (ptt) 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

...for the barnstar! I didn't set out solely to edit Scottish football articles, it just seems to be one of the few areas where I have anything to add. The scale and scope of Wikipedia never ceases to impress me. Caledonian Place 09:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

recent edits to John Steinbeck by

Have you checked the edits made to the Steinbeck article by on January 1? The following material was removed:

He fathered two sons with his second wife Gwyndolyn Steinbeck (nee Conger). Thomas Myles Steinbeck was born in 1944 and their second son, John Steinbeck IV was born in 1946. The marriage ended soon after their second son's birth.
In 1950, he married Elaine Scott, the ex-wife of actor Zachary Scott. He remained with her until his death.

I don't have enough knowledge of Steinbeck to revert any but obvious vandalism and now a further vandal edit has been reverted leaving the removal of the above material in danger of becooming a fait accompli. JFPerry 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

After your "warnings" I tried to get in touch with you and asked you for {help} but you never replied. I have worked for 13 months with some people to who supported my investigation, and I thought that the facts that I brought to light are important for this wonderful site. Through Wikipedia anybody can see what is happening in terms of Marilyn Monroe, and the fraud that is happening every day. You seem to pursue me for whatever reason. Dunno really why, but I told you that I have no clue how to do things correctly, as I am not as perfect in terms of this computer language (editing etc) but I would appreciate if you would help, instead of requesting to have me kicked out. It seems like very political and everybody is important. But can't you just see what I have found out? Remember David against Goliath? That is what happened in this case, Guinnog. At least I signed in and have a working signature. I just need some help here. Is that so hard for you to understand? Please think about this, too. I really would appreciate it. I don't know any Wikipedia specialist in my circle of friends! Mmmovie 06:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a better way to communicate, so well done. I wish I could help you, but as I tried to explain before, this is an encyclopedia we are writing. It is not a place for a campaign of the sort you appear to be waging. Can I suggest you read up on some of our policies (WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV would be a good start), and then you need not feel so clueless. I am sorry if you feel I am pursuing you; I assure you I am only acting to protect the integrity of the article against your repeated addition of unverified information. When you are ready, and really feel you understand our policies, you may try again in the article talk page. Meanwhile you can start on gathering verifiable references for the changes you want to make. Best of luck, --Guinnog 06:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how you came up with the claim that I violated the copyrights in the "Marilyn Monroe--the exhbit" site, when the info and article was written by me. You also deleted ALL the information that I added to the Marilyn Monroe site. I corrected many false info on that site and you just erased the entire site and put your verion back in. Please remember that I have studied the subject and topic Marilyn Monroe for many years and that I am a guest lecturer at USC in LA. Mmmovie 19:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Glasgow Subway

Re: Great edits. Keep up the good work please.

I don't know if that was sarcastic or not; I was attempting to update the page to reflect the fact that the Subway is now policed by the British Transport Police, but for some reason inserting the reference resulted in the rest of the page below the paragraph in question disappearing. The subsequent edits were rv's to undo the damage. The page has a method of referencing I've not encountered before. The reference in question is 'Police for Glasgow Subway', The Times, 3 January 2006. I'd be grateful if you could insert that, if you know how. Best, 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry, it's just a bit difficult to read the tone here sometimes, and since I'd just buggered up the page in question... Thanks, and best regards 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


these live journal emos are calling you a douche! rofl [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thanks for sharing this month-old trash with me. Last time I looked the article was still deleted. I'm not sure who that leaves looking more like a "douche", the people trying to put rubbish on our encyclopedia or you who think it was funny. --Guinnog 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading Image:AlHaynes.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECUtalk 01:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Even so, I'm sorry if my nudge to ponder seemed too harsh. Gwen Gale 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

edit conflicts

Heh heh. I'm done now, thanks :) Gwen Gale 06:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The January 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 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


BTW - you just answered a question I had about vandal warnings on user pages... If a user/IP is blatant, is it okay to skip to bv rather than the test# progression and now I know (from your warning on User_talk: Katalaveno 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark Bellinghaus

See above. I've edited first part of article, but we've had an edit conflict!!! Please advise. Shall I overwrite article (first part) with my revision? Tyrenius 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, don't worry. I've integrated my edit with yours. I'll have a look at the second part now. Tyrenius 21:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Done the second part. Please check through... Tyrenius 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You did all the spade work - I just tidied up (the easy part). I think it now makes a coherent viable article. Tyrenius 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki working as it should do, I believe, but, alas, all to often doesn't... Tyrenius 22:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Just want to say I think you did an excellent job improving this article! I'm not 100% sure he meets WP:BIO, but if the article is kept it will be because of you and your efforts. Ever considered joining WikiProject Wikify? We could certainly use your help. 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRollerskate (talkcontribs)

Peculiar happening

I was looking at a vandalism warning at User talk: and just out of dumb curiosity I clicked on its link for sandbox and somehow ended up HERE. I can't reproduce this but it makes me wonder what's going on. I can't make the code display properly here so you'll need to edit this post, but the text at that page is:

<html> <head> <title>Sandbot Manual Run</title> </head> <body>

Getting a page to check if we're logged in on wikipedia:en
Getting page [[Wikipedia:Sandbox]]
Changing page [[Wikipedia:Sandbox]]

Redirecting back to page in 5 seconds...

[[<a href="">Wikipedia:Sandbox</a>]]

<script language="javascript"> </script> </body> </html>

Looks innocent enough, but I still wonder how I got there and if it's possible to somehow hijack a wikilink. --CliffC 01:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

second opinion

I'd take your advice if I considered you to be neutral but your behaviour of ignoring Wobble's previous comments and focusing on the last in PAIN report suggests that you are not. Perhaps you might consider taking a similar course of action to what you have suggested. Please behave yourself. Lukas19 04:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"The sort of out of date racialist thinking that normal people (that's 99% of us) think only nutters believe any more."
"There was a cite to "racial reality", a racist nazi site as far as I can see, with the reliability and accuracy one would expect from a bunch of neonazi thickos (who ever met an intelligent racist? Not me)." - (While commenting on neo nazis may be acceptable, he correlates it with racists after commenting on my "racist ideas" and after calling me "Ah well my little nordicist friend".)
1)Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
2)Profanity directed against another contributor.
3)Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
4)political epithets
"you just want to make claims that science supports your racist ideas" + Similar comments:
Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. Lukas19 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the block

Thanks for the block on HZsanto. I would have gone with the classic "at user request" block reason myself. I always like that one :-) Sorry you got dragged into the whole Lukas19 thing, but I thought your latest response was excellent. If you want a really interesting one check out User:Sportsguru9999 but I'd strongly advise staying out of an active involvement as its a real time sink/house of mirrors. Great spectator sport though. Best as always, Gwernol 05:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy one year!

1 year of contribution

Hey, that's great. One year of contributions to Wikipedia - congratulations. In that time, you've made 24,265 edits to Wikipedia, including 16,334 to main space and 4,559 to user talk. It may be time to buy a new keyboard. Keep up the great work, Gwernol 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading Image:AndrewGreig.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECUtalk 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading Image:AndyRitchie.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECUtalk 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles article

It isn't a UK/US spelling thing. See User:Spellmaster for details. Thanks for caring about spelling. --Guinnog 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, spelling is a big issue for this article. See [2]. Because the article is about British subject matter, spellings should be British spellings. Steelbeard1 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed. However, as I said above, it isn't a US/Uk thing as "humourous" is incorrect worldwide. --Guinnog 03:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The BBC spells it "humourous" as mentioned in [3] so my statement stands. Steelbeard1 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well done for finding a typo in the BBC site! However, Wikipedia, with all modern paper dictionaries spells it "humorous", so my point still stands. See [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Guinnog 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Guinnog. Thank you so much for your kind gesture. As my first barnstar (other than a random act of kindness award), I'll genuinely treasure it!! Thanks again, Rockpocket 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Violations

In my opinion, the FIU hasn't been violated. Those album covers have been plastered on the Chili Pepper's page for well over a year and numerous admins have, undoubtedly, seen them. NSR77 03:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As you wish. NSR77 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a novel

Yep I just noticed that, sorry! Tim! 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Queen (band) Edit

Hi! Thanks for leading me to that discussion. I'll look into it. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 13:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Yes I shall expand Very Funny Ads now. Amlder20 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

May I declare that Expansion is complete and more shall be added soon. Amlder20 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I like quick results so let me have your reply soon, of course I won't argue if you decide to delete it still. Amlder20 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed and there will be more to add, I'll do some research into it though, I do believe it's suitable for an encyclopedia and I believe that the website has good merits. Amlder20 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates and numbers

If you behave in a manner more deserving of respect, you'll get it. We discussed this utterly thoroughly last year and resolved it to most people's satisfaction, and you've just ignored all of this, written up your own opinions, and then proceeded assuming some sort of mass consensus to implement your own preferences. I'm fed up with having to deal with this sort of arrogance. As for "not commenting at all", I would dearly like to never have to comment on this issue again, but since you've insisted on reopening it again, I have little choice. Rebecca 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to dance around the point with you. You are not trying to build consensus; you've ignored the *months* of the discussion, and the consensus outcome fo that discussion, asserted your own personal opinion, and insisted that that be the basis for an amendment that you assert must occur. We already have something that respects all preferences but those of the absolutists; yours would force your particular absolute into the guideline. This is the umpteeth time I've had someone noisily assert "I want my way regardless of everyone else! Now!"; why on earth would you expect me to be sympathetic when you're trying to run roughshod over my preferences? Rebecca 13:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use semantics. You're taking a guideline which quite specifically neither advises delinking or linking, for the precise reason that there is no consensus to do either, and changing it to delinking in nearly all cases, which happens to be your personal preference. Your every post on that page belies an attitude of "my preference is better, and we must use this as a basis for an amendment which must occur". As to your final words, I have commented on the proposal, but I have also commented on the proposer insofar as his attitude affects this, and I do not apologise for that. Rebecca 13:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, you're still missing the fundamental problem here. You are never going to get everyone involved in this dispute to agree on a strict proposal; people's preferences are simply too divergent. You simply cannot get people who believe that date links should be always delinked, that date links should be mostly linked, that date links should be linked about half the time, that date links should be mostly delinked, or that date links should be always delinked to settle on a mutually agreed guideline here. This is the precise reason that, after discussing the issue through, we settled on the current version, which allows plenty of discretion. The alternative, as with your version, is to take the preference of yourself and a couple of others and push that on everyone else under the guise of "improving the policy". This is why I'm so frustrated with this, and will be continue to be so long as you insist on pushing this line. I also resent your consistent patronising attitude on this issue, and your apparent assumption that I'd fall into line with you if I "just calmed down". Rebecca 13:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Scotch whisky reversion

Please stop reverting my contribution. It is absolutely not inappropriate for me to fix a broken link in the article ( You broke the link again in your haste and it now points to a wonderfully informative 404. Nor is it inappropriate for me to add a link to a site entirely devoted to tasting notes on malt whisky. Next time please better serve the wikipedia community by checking your changes before you commit them instead of hastily and bullishly reverting new contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannoy (talkcontribs)

Flag on Queen article

Hi, I noticed you reverted my removal of the England flag on the Queen (band) article. What purpose would you say it serves there? Why an England flag rather than a UK one? Thanks in advance --Guinnog 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have already commented on that matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I would also have to say that your comments at Talk:Queen (band) are not really productive, but I will go into detail why over there. - Cyrus XIII 21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal User:

These have now been reverted by me or by someone else, I have not issued him a warning because the Kearny, New Jersey one is particularly nasty and unfortunately sat there for a month. I am hoping you will warn with the proper admin words, not my experience dealing with such types so far. I think User: is also User:Famivir, who earlier today made a similar change to New York Law School. Thank you. --CliffC 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My error, the Kearny NJ one (12 Decmber accusation of past plagiarism by a local publisher) was reverted almost instantly, sorry. Now I have reverted an innocent person (no one mentioned here), and so on, but all is now well in Kearny NJ. --CliffC 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Me 262=

I did, nay? user:Moby_D Moby D 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland

Hi, I agree with your moves on the Northern Ireland and Celtic FC pages with regards to the Northern Ireland Flag issue. I don't know if you've seen the edit war at Template:Precedence also about the use of the NI flag. Do you think that the flag should always be used to represent NI (where other nation flags are also included) as I do? Astrotrain 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn’t represent the people of Northern Ireland, it isn’t the legal flag of Northern Ireland and therefore shouldn’t be purported as such--Vintagekits 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know that is what you think Vintagekits. However, Wikipedia is not a legal document and there is a strong feeling that geographical articles like the NI one need to have a flag on them. As I've said, the subject has been discussed thoroughly in talk (most recently in November 2006 I think) and the consensus was to keep the flag, but with a disclaimer. You may both be interested in the policy discussion I am involved in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry? I believe there are far too many flags in Wikipedia, and this pointless argument is a good example of the sort of trouble they can cause. However, articles like Northern Ireland seem to need a flag and I accept that. It then follows that we need to choose a flag. For all the imperfections of the Ulster Banner, there isn't really a viable alternative. I hope that makes sense. --Guinnog 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
A more appropriate flag for Northern Ireland would be the standard Irish flag with a little slice in the upper right that looks like the Union Jack. Wahkeenah 02:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Great idea. Next time you're over, you can suggest it. Erm, just don't start reading any long books before you do it! (Thanks for the comment, it made me smile. This comment does not constitute legal advice) --Guinnog 02:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I might just do that. Nothing breaks the ice like getting both sides mad at you. :) Wahkeenah 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Disregard of your warning to cease wp:point

Hi Guinnog,

I'm 172, an active editor of Wikipedia's articles on modern history and political economy since 2002. I believe this is the first our accounts have crossed paths on the site.

It has been brought to my attention that a user you blocked on 01:46, 28 December 2006 for "violation of wp:point" [8] has been continuing to disrupt Wikipedia, despite your warning a couple of weeks ago.

In a heavily trafficked article with the disclaimer "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject," this user has been disrupting the work of "'right wing' editors," whom he/she calls a 'problem at hand.' [9] To make that point on the talk page, he/she has declared (1) "I will revert" the established version of the introduction [10]; and (2) plans for "large scale" reversions of the article. [11] To make that point in the article, the user has been flagging scores of sentences with unnecessary 'citation needed' tags. WGee, a brilliant young student who prolificially edits many articles that fall in my range of expertise, promptly explained to him/her why elementary facts do not require citations. [12] In response, this user accused WGee of vandalism, promoting WGee to direct him/her to 'WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF before accusing me of vandalism.' [13] His/her continued reversions forced WGee to explain yet again why elementary facts do not require citations: "The article's content is so broad and uncontroversial that everything can be contained in the general references at the bottom of the page or from the internally linked articles." [14] Still, the reversions continued, with the user declaring, "even the most basic facts require varifiability" [apparently a misspelling of verifiability]. [15]

If you have time to again enforce WP:POINT and offer this user further instructions on proper editing, I expect normal functioning on the article to resume, which other editors will greatly appreciate.

Happy New Year,

172 | Talk 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the extremely prompt reply! Best regards, 172 | Talk 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. --Guinnog 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius deletion proposals

User:Ohconfucius has nominated a large number of Scottish Railway stations for deletion. Many of these are being developed as part of WP:TIS. I have removed the {{prod}}. However reading the user page he may contest this. Thoughts? I suggest replies are consolidated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland. Stewart 20:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy speedy

Thank you very much, Guinnog, for that very fast speedy. I really appreciate it. :) Hope all is well. Cheers, Sarah 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How Dare You

How dare you revert me contribution to the United Kingdom article in the See Also part. I added NATO to See Also and you have got rid of it. Why? Because you disagree with things I contribute? So you thought you would have a go trying to get back at me? Oh yeah it's not the first time apparently you've stalked other people undoing all their work trying to get back at them for disagreeing with you. Lay off my work and get a life. P.S. I'm notifying other Admins Lucy Locket 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert your change, I added it to the relevant part (defence) rather than the see also section. Why did you blank the message I sent you? --Guinnog 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you say I'm a 'sock' which I think means being someone else. Last time I looked I was me so I don't think so some how. Lucy Locket 00:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Me 262

This - - was just a mistake, if you mean't redirect.Moby D 13:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Image:Underagedrinking.jpg

Hello. Yeah, the person in the picture is my mate Josh. You could try to contact him on his user page (which is User:Joshy89) about verifying his age in the photo, but he rarely edits Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if he'd get the message though. KingIvan 04:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: IP

Thanks for the heads up. Will just observe now. :) -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin Help Request

Can I remove a 'blatant vandal' warning from a users talk page? User talk: has has one posted that does meet not the criteria for such as warning and the post was correct if 'untidy' Weggie 15:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - Thanks for the quick response Weggie 15:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 232

Thanks mate - keep up the good work yourself... Cheers, Ian Rose 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop taking away the biographical information I added

I am Will Overstreet and the information on my page was corrected by me before you did your own editing of facts out of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woverstr (talkcontribs) 16:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

RfA for FT2

Thank you for your helpful comments. I shall reply to FT2 and hopefully that will be an end of it.--Taxwoman 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi thanks for the feedback - I've replied to you on my talk page. All the best, Valenciano 01:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


since you have an interest in this template as a contributor to it you may wish to comment on the nomination for its deletion Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Billy Warnock

You left a note for me that you had marked an article I was creating for deletion as it was not 'notable'. Leaving aside it was my grandfather (I consider him notable for that fact alone), he was brother to Jimmy Warnock and a fellow boxer of the period. Billy has an interesting boxing history, which I am currently researching at the moment. Your action, whilst understandable no doubt from your perspective, is very disheartening and damaging to what I am trying to achieve. Please withdraw it and give me a chance to finish it. Yours darryl 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Actually, it was inadvertent. I was still in "nail vandal" mode and meant to type 'rv' instead of 'rvv.' —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks :)

Not quite sure where to start. Just plain thanks for many things, spoken and unspoken, in which you suggested a re-nom after my first RfA, and then helped me through the uncertainties of RfA when I was nominated a second time by Jossi. You were a tremendous and untiring help in moral support :)

I'd like to feel I will live up to everyone's better opinion, on the basis this'd be the best and most relevant "thank you" I can think of for your support.

If you feel like watchlisting User:FT2/Advice sought, I'd appreciate it :) it's my initial step to ensuring this new access is taken as responsibly as possible, during the next while, and to get advice as needed for specific situations while I'm new to this side of things. I don't have much fear of unbalanced usage, but I would like to regularly double check things which I'm thinking, over the next month or so, so that I learn from good views, and this is a good way to do it.

Otherwise, do keep in touch, happy editing in 2007, and once again - many thanks! :)


Hi Guinnog. I notice you nominated this category for deletion, and while I voted Keep, I recognise there is a significant amount of unsubstantiated nonsense that has been added to it and needs weeded out. I see you have already removed a large number and would be willing to help. However, I also commented on the cfd that clear criterion is required as to who should or should not be considered Irish-Scots. My own opinion is that, as other dual-nationality categories such as Italian-Scots, German-Americans etc all categorise on the basis of parents birth, people who can be proven with refs to have Irish parentage, or maybe grand-parentage, should be included, rather than only people who consider themselves Irish-Scots. A full discussion may be needed but in the interim I thought I might ask your opinion, or if you know of a wikipedia precedent to follow. Caledonian Place 15:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Willie Maley seems to fit the definition of an Irish-Scot according to the category. He was born in Ireland and moved to Scotland at an early age. Captkrob 16:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


I edited the artice and then reverted back with an explanatory note on the edit summary. This is pretty normal in my experience. Someone else then took up the baton. I think I'm being dealt with a bit heavy handed here. Jooler 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


PS, thanks for that :) /wangi 00:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks! I'm hoping others think they're "simply fantastic" as well.

It's just funny that they overuse flags on an essay about not overusing flags. Just H 00:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's intentionally ironic. --Guinnog 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vegi

You do realise that Guinness uses a fish based fining agent called isinglass to brew the black stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Oh yes. --Guinnog 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark Gallagher

The recent vandalism to his article has been "interesting" to say the least, no? - Dudesleeper 12:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I wondered at that myself. Worth keeping an eye on some of these. See also Talk:Charles Kennedy. --Guinnog 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Ruh-roh. Regarding Gallagher, I just found this. - Dudesleeper 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. I've amended the article accordingly. --Guinnog 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"Ruh-roh" is my impersonation of Scooby-Doo. A bad impersonation, apparently. - Dudesleeper 12:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Glasgow Subway: Subway Challenge

I have difficulty understanding why you removed the paragraph about the Subway Challenge. In your notes you refer to it as being "considered unencyclopedic", however this passage seems as relevant to the Glasgow Subway page as, for example, the Subcrawl or the Underground Song, which survived your edit.

In the mean time I have included the text in the discussion page and feel that it should be included in the main article.

I'd appreciate it if you could better explain your point of view.


Now Ottb19 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart article

This is the current introductory paragraph: "Amelia Mary Earhart (July 24, 1897 – missing as of July 2, 1937) was a noted American aviator who disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean during a circumnavigational flight attempt in 1937. She was an influential early female pilot and the first woman to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross."

I had submitted the following: "Amelia Mary Earhart' (July 24, 1897 – missing as of July 2, 1937) was a noted American aviator whose aviation career included many milestones. She became the first woman and second pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic, on the fifth anniversary of Charles Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing. She was an influential early female pilot who was instrumental in the formation of The Ninety-Nines, a women's pilots' organization. Among her many awards and achievements, Earhart was the first woman to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross. After setting numerous records, she disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean during a circumnavigational flight attempt in 1937, sparking a near-mythical public fascination with her life, career and ultimate disappearance." Word count: 116 words.

It was removed by another editor who indicated: 1. Introductory passage is too long 2. Citing wordy headers in other flawed articles doesn't solve the PoV and clarity issue here at all 3. It's far too long and sounds like a promotional blurb. When you've finished expanding the article body I plan on discussing the cheerleading PoV there too. If we need to start citing WP policy that's ok. Gwen Gale

Guinnog, I value your opinion, what do you think about my edit? FYI the Wikipedia articles on Thomas Jefferson was 250 words, Abraham Lincoln: 147 and the Wright Brothers: 199 words. Bzuk 12:40 22 January 2007 (UTC).


I think one conflict that has become pretty glaring as of late is that many of the pro-CF editors don't want to see WP:FRINGE as a justification for edits. This to me is pretty distasteful. If you look at the stuff I'm trying to remove from the article, it's basically an unvetted laundry list published by a CF-proponent that is as neutrally considered as any propaganda which attempts to make weird sorts of appeals to authority. This is my beef, but I'd love to see a compromise. -_ScienceApologist 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Guinnog's user page

Tyrenius 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Who do you work for?

Are you as unethical as you seem?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedblack (talkcontribs) 08:04, January 23, 2007

cold fusion

Thank you for your proposed help on cold fusion. I'm not sure how you can help. Maybe you can stress that SA must come with solid arguments, with quotes to back them up (and not with his own POV). Pcarbonn 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know this IP? A user at this IP has managed to revert several of your category removal edits. Captkrob 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (PS: Sorry to hear about your wikibreak)

Help with vandal?

This guy [16] seems to exist for the purpose of disruption and adding POV stuff. And I don't mean just the Big Mac. Wahkeenah 04:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Skip it, I found an on-line admin and he took care of it. Thank you! Wahkeenah 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

When you come back...

I started the Defend each Other essay. [[17]] Comments welcome. Georgewilliamherbert 00:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In re Roman Catholic categories

Retrieved from John McAllion dispute:

You wrote: I want you to realise that the RC category is not for people who grew up in a Catholic family, but for practising Catholics. Does that make sense? --Guinnog 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My response: Actually, Guinnog you are entirely inaccurate. Look at what the category called 'Northern Irish Roman Catholics' states right at the beginning:

The following persons from Northern Ireland are or were members of the Roman Catholic Church. Membership does not necessarily indicate personal Christian faith.

Cheers on your respite/vacation.

El chulito 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Skellingtonchronicles.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Skellingtonchronicles.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Prepended colon in internal links

When you get back, regarding your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#The_sporting_world - "Stops this page from showing up in the 'what links here' of the article being linked to." i response to the question "What does the colon inside the wikilink do?" - would you be able to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist issues? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 22:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Animals Page

-Thanks for the welcome. I understand your concern with my editing of the animal disambiguation page if you are not familiar with Scottish football, but it is a fact that Rangers fans are referred to as The Animals and it is term used widely amongst Scottish football fans. I would ask for permission to reinstate the reference. See The Celtic Song —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thesean43 (talkcontribs) 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC).


Hey. It always worries me when people go without explanation. I hope everything's OK, and that you have a great wikibreak. --Galaxiaad 01:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand from him that it is. He just needs time off for himself in RL! Tyrenius 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Novels newsletter : Issue IX - February 2007

The February 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


According to your box you're taking a wikibreak and probably won't be able to weigh in on the current conversation regarding the NPOV violations over on the FieldTurf article. But just in case. I noticed you went a couple rounds with the user "Coz" who claims to not have a COI but is has "direct contact" with the company. I am currently running into the same issues with Coz, except that I myself have a COI and have made it known to be as transparent as possible (I work for the AOR for AstroTurf, though I'm not editing on behalf of the agency or Astroturf). The obvious problem is that if I make any edits to neutralize the POV of the FieldTurf article 1.) Coz reverts then immediately and 2.) My COI is called into question. I've repeatedly requested for neutral editors to neutralise the FieldTurf article where they feel appropriate and I am more than willing to offer my knowledge of the industry to clarify any questionable claims. Thanks for helping out if you're able. Ben 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Just thought i would inform you anyway. I am trying to recover from a lull with introducing asessment but i am not sure the way to go about it and would welcome discussion on the WP:TIS project talk page. Simply south 14:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Take a look if you havent heard, SqueakBox 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland debate

You have been involved in the flag debate on the Northern Ireland talk page. If you remember there were four option listed about the way forward. If you wish you can go here and make your position clear. regards--Vintagekits 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interested in one of your photographs

I am finishing up a book, and looking around for illustrations and pictures to include in it. One picture I want is that of an oil refinery with a flaming smokestack. I found that you had uploaded this picture:

I really like the picture. Would you be willing to give me permission to use it in my book?

--Sean grim 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome!

As a result of previous experience with Wikipedia, I have, however, no interest in establishing an account. Enjoy your day. 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AJ Feeley

I am sorry about earlier. I was simply trying to revert to an earlier good posting on the AJ Feeley page after somebody made a long revision full of poor grammer and obvious bias. I think I inadvertantly reverted back to a page that had vandalism in it. If you look at my other contributions, I think you will see that I am a sensible and serious Wikipedia contributor.


Thanks for the welcome, I hope that i'm doing the right stuff to have been noticed. Anibius 00:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:F16am-5z.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:F16am-5z.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket Talk 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted.--Guinnog 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Very glad to see you are back. Gwernol 17:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It's very nice to be welcomed. What have I missed? --Guinnog 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh man. Well WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS have been replaced by WP:A; Essjay was a whole big thing; several other good admins have gone and we've got some new ones too; the vandals haven't stopped; the encyclopedia has grown. And many other things I've forgotten already. Best, Gwernol 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Gosh. Yes I heard about Essjay. Otherwise par for the course. Thanks for the update, and thanks again for the welcome, that was appreciated. --Guinnog 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The other thing you should check out are our shiny new user warning notices. Very shiny. Gwernol 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that all looks quite different from what I remember. Are there warnings for leaving warnings which fail to comply with the guideline? :) --Guinnog 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 :-) Actually they're pretty easy to get used to. You might want to check out WP:TWINKLE - horrid name but very useful tools to leave user warnings. I'm using a variant of them I built myself. And thanks for the revert on my user page this evening. Gwernol 02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Africa satellite orthographic.jpg

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Africa. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Belovedfreak 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


No problem. Tyrenius 02:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But I can find one if you want! Tyrenius 04:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937

Hi! When u say "aircraft with transponders" it feels for me (non native speaker) like it should be "aircrafts with transponder", because: There might be multiple aircrafts around and each one has -AFAIK- just one relevant/active transponder... Btw.: What was bad about the link to the transponder article (should it be transponder (aviation))? Bye. --Homer Landskirty 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft is still written the same in the plural as in the singular in English.--Guinnog 19:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
cool... :-) --Homer Landskirty 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Vandal Report

Thank you very much for the information. Is it all the same user, do you think? Regards --Domer48 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Dieselrainbowvar01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dieselrainbowvar01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

bad image

dude, your image of the wtc sucks. centered caption "view from the east" implies the towers were much farther apart than they were. also, wtf is "H"?? it's not labeled nor a common abbreviation. Height? you gotta make that clear if you want a grown-up image. spell out, its only five extra letters that wont kill you. also, without the edit, it's simply a misleading graphic. no room for selfish napoleons

Squad templates

Hi Guinnog, welcome back. I just noticed you removed the WC/Euro Champ squad templates from Jim Leighton - you may be interested in this recent tfd. I'm not sure about anthonycfc's closing of it as a keep - seemed to be no concensus on balance of opinions, with several of the keep votes being on the proviso that a hiding option was implemented. See also the Football Project's talk on the subject. Caledonian Place 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, and for that bit of heads-up. These templates are a bloody eyesore. I wish people would spend the same amount of time and energy improving the (often very poor) articles, instead of templating them. --Guinnog 19:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just a bit surprised that User:Anthony cfc closed it as a keep - is there not an established % level for what can be deemed a result and what is no concensus, or is a majority all that is required? It seemed a very weak mandate to keep. Caledonian Place 20:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I reviewed the TfD and was rather surprised too. The thing is, where there is no consensus, that is effectively a "keep" anyway. What we need is someone who can implement the suggestion that these templates should at least be collapsible, or else a concerted effort to remove them from articles where they add nothing, which I would say is most of the time. If I ever see an article like the Leighton one where a very short and fairly poor article is dwarfed by 5 or 6 templates, I always remove them. This is an encyclopedia we are building, not Panini trading cards. --Guinnog 20:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

Hi Guinnog -- No, its not better, the lead in sentence is unreadable (try doing it out loud, only after several pints of guinness does it sound good) and it's not a full list of alternative names anyway -- if you have just one alternative name, you have to have them all. There's a perfectly good article listing all of them and all it needs is a link there. And, it's not the 'British' Commonwealth of Nations. Time for a drink. Rexparry sydney 23:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, sorry. Take it to talk, maybe. --Guinnog 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back my friend

Hey Mr Guinnog, I am very pleased to see you active again. :) I hope you had a good break and that everything is going well in your neck of the woods. Take good care of yourself and best wishes to you and your family. Cheers, Sarah 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, and thanks for the welcome. It's good to be back! --Guinnog 07:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I've moved the articles back to "Botswanan" as this is the correct term. If you don't believe me, see what Wiktionary or have to say about Botswana (a noun only) or Botswanan (adjective). Number 57 10:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the Oxford English Dictionary a good enough source? It includes dialects other than British, yet does not have Botswana as an adjective. Number 57 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the OED the locally used adjective form is Tswana! Number 57 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I came across this as an option too, on the Bots government site. I would say this is used more often to describe cultural identity; political entities always use Botswana as the adjective, for example the army ("Botswana Defence Force"), and every single political party. It certainly isn't "Botswanan". That's just wrong. --Guinnog 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay - I was abroad yesterday. By the way, is there a Botswanan English dictionary? Perhaps you could quote this next time someone brings up this dispute (it seems like you have had it before!). Number 57 09:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have no shame admitting I was wrong, and I'm glad the issue was sorted. Anyway, once I have eventually completed the Israeli politics section, I plan to fill in those redlinks on the Botswana election template using Albert C. Nunley's wonderful African Elections website, so I'm sure we shall bump into each other again. Keep up the good work! Number 57 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

David Tennant

Hi, Guinnog. I noticed that you removed David Tennant from Category:Irish-Scots, saying that there was "no evidence for cat". The evidence is in the "Personal life" section, which discusses his Ulster ancestry. You probably just missed it; I've restored the category to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Josiah. To be honest I had missed it, but the assertion is still unsourced and needs to be verifiable for the category to be valid. There should really be a consensus to include this category as well, but I would settle for a source for the TV show statement. Best wishes --Guinnog 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cissie Loftus

Well, she was born in Scotland to a family of Irish Catholic descent (per surname and the fact that she was educated at a convent school), the latter of which is noted in the reference source book.O'Donoghue 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Johan Cruijff and bad editors

For one see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy

For two, have a look at the edit that he made. It was a massive revert, removing all of my previous edits with no real explanation.

I have left the user a personal talk message explaining my position more clearly, but strong words, in my opinion, were needed. aLii 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So I should have said "Dr.Sauerkraut appreciate your concern, but no blanket edits and rewrites please"? Note that he has only ever contributed half a sentence to the article, but for some weird reason likes to revert to a "random" badly-written, POV-ridden, poorly-referenced earlier version that he "apparently" had little to do with. aLii 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hope that's good enough for you, it took a lot of effort. aLii 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... (Sockpuppet?) help has turned up to allow him to beat a potential 3RR ban, and revert the page again. No comment on the talk page has been forthcoming from either "user". Any ideas on how best to work with this editor? aLii 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Hmm! Tyrenius 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was funny too! --Guinnog 07:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
To entertain the troops. Tyrenius 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I Need Help

Hi, I want to make my own user page but dont know how to get them little boxes you have going down the right hand side. How do you get those? Also, are you a Celtic fan by any chance? I have also noticed that you do not record your ancestry on your user page, is there any reason for this? That last question is just out of interest really because when i was at uni i did my dissertation on identity in the UK thats all. Tammi Magee (nee O'Connor)TammiMagee 14:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tammi. You are welcome to copy any of the code from my user page and incorporate it into yours. Just play around, using the preview button until you have it how you want it. I regard allegiances and ethnicities as more damaging than helpful on a project like this, which is why I display that particular box. My football allegiances are too complex and desultory to be worth discussing. Best wishes, --Guinnog 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Can you visit my page and comment on it? I want some advice on making it more catchy, and I like the set up of yours. I am not a new user. Read my little sandboxes like LongRiver Ledger and NEOPETSetc. and comment MAINLY on those please! THIS GOES FOR EVERYONE!! PLEASE VISIT AND COMMENT!! thanx!! BEATLES RULE!!! go fonz! 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's coming on. Using capitals is frowned upon here as being over emphatic. Best wishes, --Guinnog 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about the airbus thing. Just trying to help. Guess I did it in the wrong way. Thanks for telling me ;-)! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Your comment

Thanks for pointing that out Guinnog, but you should direct your comment to Allii who started to make wholesale content and style changes to the "original article"; original as in broadly unchanged over a long period of time. Changes are fine when it concerns a better structure (quotes to Wikiquote etc) more in line with Wiki-guidelines but not fine for wholesale content & style changes without proper debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brasileiro1969 (talkcontribs) 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

See User talk:Alii h for my message to that user. Please contribute at Talk:Johan Cruijff. Thanks. --Guinnog 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One question. Who are you to qualify Alli contributions as good faith ones and discount my edits? Only proper debate can establish this, which has been lacking since the start of Alli numerous wholesale edits. So you threatening me with further action is offensive to me and I ask you to stop that and start encouraging Allii to debate things before changing. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brasileiro1969 (talkcontribs)

I am an administrator on this project. I already showed you what I wrote to Alii h. I am encouraging you both to discuss the matter in article talk; if you are silly enough to turn it into a revert war I would not block you as I have edited the article extensively myself. I would however be sure to turn the matter over to another, neutral, admin to take whatever action they deemed necessary. Please, please, take it to talk. --Guinnog 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clawson

I added a comment on your vote. —KNcyu38 (talkcontribs) 03:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, "concerted degree of campaigning"? There is one user, JohnHistory, who canvassed against Clawson and was accordingly blocked. That hardly amounts to "concerted degree", which sounds deragatory towards the opposing users, if I may say so. —KNcyu38 (talkcontribs) 04:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course you may say so. Use of templates is a valid admin task; I use them all the time and I'm not sure what your point was about them. --Guinnog 08:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the one diff that shows Clawson's most "diligent and correct application of policy" (and which you seemed to include as a rebuttal of the numerous diffs I brought up) is of him using a template message instead of his own words. Regarding being civil and humble, he certainly was, but still, I had to explain my point three times over until we got there, and I dare say I showed some patience he sometimes didn't show while arguing with various users up until very recently. Anyhow, whatever the result of the RfA, I sure hope and am also confident that he learned from the experience. The question remains, did he learn more from your voting input or from mine? —KNcyu38 (talkcontribs) 09:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I take your point. I would hope he has learned from both. --Guinnog 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well spoken. :) —KNcyu38 (talkcontribs) 17:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you do?

Thank you for the kind welcome at my user page, Guinnog. I'll take a look at the links you included. Did you have a particular suggestion in mind? I'd known already about the four-tilde sign-off, thank you, but I may have overlooked it in one of the discussion comments I've made. (I've only done a few so far.) There's plenty to learn here about Wiki editorial controls and mechanisms, but it seems a worthy enterprise. There was an interesting article about Wikipedia contributers, written by Aaron Swartz, in which he separates them into two broad groups: of administrators (who make a large number of small organizational changes) versus specialists (who make a few large contributions, dealing more with content than with form). Being new, I'm in a third group, of course—making a small number of small changes. I see you're from Scotland. Have you read James Kelman? I'm from California, hence the "organize" with a "z." See you round. Fagiolonero 08:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mt SAC Image

Good day, I am curious of your reasoning for deleting the image of the Mt SAC flying team aircraft from the Mt SAC website. Any clarification would be appreciated --Trashbag 14:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction, you deleted the entire image from the data base. Now I'm really curious of your reasoning. --Trashbag 14:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
So what can I use for a photo that was shot by one of the college professors (now department chair) and used with permission? I have reuploaded the shot but any assistance on this would be appreciated before it gets zapped again... --Trashbag 14:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now you're borderlining on being a bad name I can't say here. Next time give the person the opportunity to fix the image problem. According to Wikipedia:Image use policy under Deleting Images you are to "contact (through their talk page) the user who uploaded the image, telling them of your concerns." That would really help out us novices. --Trashbag 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
So let me express again, I have permission from the photoprapher to use this image. What tag should I be using here, I'm not trying to argue. I am seriously looking for assistance. --Trashbag 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yowzers... a barn thingy!

Mind? Wow, no, of course I don't mind! Thank you very much! --Dweller 12:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


This article has been the subject of many many battles and edit wars. Huge amount of time put into this by people with differing views. An administrator finally helped resolve the whole matter. See talk page for the article. This addition will open up the entire war again. Not desirable nor necessary. Davidpatrick 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: David Tennant

Hi, Tennant discusses his Irish ancestry in the BBC's Who Do You Think You Are? programme.[18] [19] This is already briefly covered in the article. How does one go about adding references to categories? Martin 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use in user space

You removed a public domain image from my user space saying it was licensed fairuse. The list from HighInBC states "Important note: some templates such as {{Money}} put an image in the fair use category even if it may be appropriately licensed or in the public domain. I will be attempting to screen out these categories as best I can but please check to be sure an image is only fair use before removing them from a page." Please pay attention before altering user pages, that image had text on it that stated copyright was expired. SchmuckyTheCat 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had already noticed your reversion of my change. --Guinnog 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi John/Archive 2007, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, KissL 09:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Sunset over Melbourne.jpg

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.

- Michael Billington (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ian McEwan

You made an edit to the Ian McEwan article, saying in the edit summary "flag is unnecessary here, see wp:flag". Unfortunately none of wp:flag, WP:Flag or WP:flag work. Could you please provide a link to where I should be looking? Thank you. (Note: I'm not at all disputing your edit.) H. Carver 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA, and thank you also for your message of congratulation.--Anthony.bradbury 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


There's a discussion about you at ANI. I'm trying to support you but User:MONGO reverts my comments calling me a vandal. See this DIFF 1, DIFF 2 and User talk:I'm so special

I'm sure you'll agree we have a trolling problem here? --I'm so special 10:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Guinnog's smart enough to figure out who the troll is.Chacor 10:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have belatedly posted a comment to the ANI thread, which you might wish to take a look at. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog, thanks very much. I'm not 100% sure what actually went on. I signed in and found myself blocked for trolling. Is there anything we can do now or should I just let it go? --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! I was actually trying to follow WP:NOT and allow a new user to have an opinion in his or her username. Never mind eh! --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 12:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one last thing - at User talk:MONGO, MONGO says: One of the biggest mistakes on Wikipedia (and I was cautioned about this when I made it) was when I supported his adminship. If he continues to make the kind of violations he has done this time, he'll end up being desyopped.--MONGO 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it not correct that MONGO was himself de-sysopped? I now have the mother of all headaches. LOL --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 12:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok! I hope to deal with you again soon. Thanks --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Check your email, please. :) – Chacor 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, one more thing...

I put BBRBR on my user page and, until we get a write up in a magazine or something, I guess that's the best I can do. I would like to add our image, but must be doing something wrong because, although it is uploaded to Wikipedia, it won't show on the page. If you're the wrong person to ask, please forgive and I'll just research it more when I get a chance. Thanks again.--MissKriss13:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

BBRBR Article was for information purposes...

...and you deleted it. Whenever I want to know who someone is or what something is, I come to Wikipedia. So I added an article about a radio program that people are asking "what is BBRBR". I checked back and the warnings were gone, so I thought it was ok. Please help. Thanks.--MissKriss10:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:MONGO again!

Hi guinnog,

I've been having more problems with MONGO. Is he an experienced editor here because he seems to be immune to discipline somehow. Would you consider seconding a request for comment on MONGO's conduct if I was to make one? --I'm so special 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello. I need your help in deleting the page Snake Derek. It's obviously a nonsense page with the material copied from Steven Davis. I've tagged speedy deletion twice but got removed by the creator or some other user both times. Thanks. Chanheigeorge 00:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed. Have a happy Easter! Chanheigeorge 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're very welcome. Glad I could help and remove the vandalism. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 10:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User page

Glad you liked it. Valentinian T / C 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 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.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistant IP vandalism

Yep, I'm afraid it is. That UEFA5Star template has been subjected to months attacks by IP's (have a look at the History). I requested semi-protection last week, but was denied cos too "low level". --Mais oui! 12:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


You're very welcome. Looks like you've got a live one there... 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


I smell another troll. Perhaps a request should be made at WP:OP? – Chacor 13:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, looks like he's just earned himself an indef anyway. :) – Chacor 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy confirmed. Heh. :) – Chacor 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of Talk:Play/to do

Hi. You recently deleted the article Play/to do and its associated talk page, Talk:Play/to do. The talk page was transcluded into the to-do box located at Talk:Play, which is the convention for all articles in Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists. Would you please undelete just the talk page of the deleted article? Thanks, Black Falcon 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Guinnog 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

BMC page


I was wondering if you might direct me to the source of some of your info on the BMC, particularly the comment about moving to a market structure for pricing beef exports. Thanks.... ianspeir at gmail dott comm

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny

Lol. I usually get beaten to it. Or maybe I just don't realise the times I get there first, like this time. I don't think there's any doubt it's just a minor format error. Easily done in the hustle and bustle. What an extraordinary RfA. I wonder if any previous RfA has drawn so many users in before. And it's in that horrible grey area at the moment re. consensus. Tyrenius 02:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like bureaucratic lose-lose, and the portents are ominous for another massive wiki row, that is even more of one than there is already. A good time for a wikibreak! Imagine if Jimbo stood for RfA!!! Tyrenius 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Italy national football team

You do realize that you revert to a wrong version? Italy never wore a blue jersey as an away shirt. Refer to this page for my references on the white away shirt. 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I decided to revert your edits, but I have put my reasons on the talk page. Feel free to add your thoughts and revert my edits if you think I'm wrong. 08:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I was actually just trying to restore the link to the official site which another editor had deleted. Apologies. --Guinnog 11:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't notice that. Thanks anyway. 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, you did right to tell me about my mistake. --Guinnog 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi there; just passing through, thought I'd drop in.

I appreciate that you live in Scotland; I lived and worked in Falkirk for two years some thirty+ years ago. Just a question which I would love to see the answer to; there are many, many beautiful/picturesque/historic sites in Scotland. I have seen them. Grangemouth, which I have also seen, is none of these things. Why do you choose it for your userpage?--Anthony.bradbury 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hah. Long story. I thought it was one of my better photos I suppose; I try to refresh them once a week or so. Thanks for commenting. --Guinnog 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Long overdue. Well done. I expect it'll get reverted. If so, I'll redo the deletion later. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thanks! I was sure the message would be one accusing me of vandalism or admin abuse. That was heartening. --Guinnog 09:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Magazine (band)

Hi, thanks for your template. But I don't think I did anything wrong on that article, just a couple of minor corrections [20]. And we don't have to login unless we want to edit a protected article, right? 14:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The template I sent you was meant as a welcome and invitation to create an account. You did nothing wrong at all, and you are quite correct in your understanding. Best wishes. --Guinnog 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, reading back at the template, I can see it is very welcoming. But when I first saw it, I kind of thought it was someone having a go at me. I think it was the fact that the words 'your contributions' were linked to a list of my edits; it felt like Wikipedia was saying "We're onto you! We're watching every change you make!". Don't worry, I know you didn't write the template. I think maybe those words should be unlinked though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC).


chetnie bym zostal tylko nie umiem angielskiego i nie zamierzam sie uczyc —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I'm dreadfully sorry but I don't understand you. Do you know English? --Guinnog 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's Polish and the best I can get with a machine translation is "I do not know (do not be able) english only chetnie zostal and I do not intend sie uczyc " [21] I'll take it as being an apology and assure you that no great harm was done by your edits. However, if your English is that poor, you might want to try editing other wikis written in languages you understand better. Best wishes, --Guinnog 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


If I recall right, admin Piotrus is polish. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will ask him/her. I was just wanting someone to check as I know how awful machine translations can be. --Guinnog 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure: "chetnie bym zostal tylko nie umiem angielskiego i nie zamierzam sie uczyc" -> I'd like to stay but I don't know English and don't plan to learn it. Tell him about if he ever comes back, I guess...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested translation

Please see the Incidents noticeboard I have translated Polish messages. If you need my assistance further - call me on my talk page.Vlad fedorov 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

"Artefact" is the more common variant in British English, see for example --Guinnog 08:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So I see. My apologies. Br Eng is correct in this article. Thanks. Pedro |  Chat  09:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all. It actually isn't worth fighting over, but seeing as the article seems to have been using that spelling by consensus we may as well leave it like that. --Guinnog 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree. You can see how edit wars end up on things like this! It's a British Ship so we use Br Eng, but an American rediscovered Her so we use American Eng. Ughhhh! Of such things are Wikipedia made! I genuinely thought that artifcat was Br Eng but I see the derivation is Latin (Arte Factum) so your spelling is dead right. Hope to see you around the 'pedia again and Happy Editing.Pedro |  Chat  09:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, likewise. --Guinnog 09:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Edinburgh map

I have left the following at Talk:Edinburgh, regarding the map of Edinburgh: "A copyright question. Do we have permission to copy maps at Multimap or does this derived work break copyright?" Regards, Mr Stephen 17:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Any clues? Tyrenius 00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversies in the Leads

Just wondering when you're going to fix the leads for Woody Allen, William Burroughs, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Jerry Lee Lewis, Hugh Grant, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Jimmy Page, Winona Ryder, Sean Penn, George Michael, etcetera. They're all lacking mention of their very notable "controversies" in the leads.Clashwho 04:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The answer is "never" as I have no interest in these articles. Feel free to have a go yourself though! --Guinnog 12:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Why would I? I disagree with your opinion that all controversies deserve lead coverage. If you truly believe they do, there are a lot of articles you should be fixing. So what is your special interest in Pete Townshend?Clashwho 22:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, he was a hero of mine when I was growing up. In fact I got my first kiss listening to a Who record. Woody Allen is the only one out of those I might be interested in. What about you, what's your special interest in Pete? --Guinnog 00:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a fan who wants to see him get a fair shake. You appear to be holding him to a different standard than all the other celebrities with controversial pasts that I have mentioned.Clashwho 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If the controversy is a noted part of an individual's life, then it should be mentioned in the lead, as the lead is meant to stand alone to sum up the important aspects. See Michael Richards for example. Tyrenius 06:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See Woody Allen, William Burroughs, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Jerry Lee Lewis, Hugh Grant, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Jimmy Page, Winona Ryder, Sean Penn and George Michael, among scores of others, for counter examples.Clashwho 05:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If they haven't included significant aspects of the person's life in the lead section, then they're not doing it properly. See WP:LEAD:
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.[bold added]
I pointed you to Michael Richards because extensive debate ended up doing it properly.
Tyrenius 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If you sincerely believe that, then perhaps you should go to the articles I listed and fix their leads.Clashwho 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
As I explained, I haven't much interest in doing so. If you wanted to, WP:LEAD is the guideline to quote. --Guinnog 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no desire to, because I'm not holding Pete Townshend to a different standard.Clashwho 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That's my understanding of wp:lead too.--Guinnog 14:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, an article to which you have previously contributed, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your help. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. Your opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 12:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

i removing

because Marie Curie was not French

Request For Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

Info-icon.svg A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Nuclear power plant question for ya

I appreciate your help over at Nuclear power plant. My question is this, and it is more of a procedural one, I know that Homer Simpson works at a Nuclear power plant and so does anyone who has watched it. Thus, the show itself is the primary source. So if almost everyone who watches the simpsons knows it, does it even need to be in the article? If it is in the article for those who don't watch the simpsons, then doesn't it need a citation? I ask because I tend to try to clean up many many 'pop culture' section, almost none of which have citations and are usually very loosely related to the subject. I can't find much guidance or precedence on how to deal with these sections based on WP:CITE and/or WP:NOT. Thanks for any suggestions you may have. --Chuck Sirloin 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for helping, but I think on reflection his name really is Bally Smart! Oddly, the NCFC website is wrong, but the Soccerbase one is correct - I'd assumed it was the other way round, but when the anon came along and corrected it, adding a nationality, I assume good faith that s/he knows what's what. I can always move it all back again :-) --Dweller 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. --Guinnog 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Very intesting comment i must say. Well i guess Wikipedia is a place for everyone even Wikipedia editor wannabes.--Tweetsabird 17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, we welcome everyone here, regardless of their skill or experience. However, when making widespread changes as you appear to be doing, it is better to seek a consensus first. --Guinnog 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh thanks sooo much for the sense of humor. I mean i just think it's so funny how you say "we" as if you were associated with wikipedia lol lol lol lol hahahaha Good one...--Tweetsabird 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. I am an administrator with over 30 000 edits here, so I certainly feel associated with Wikipedia. I appreciate your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but I don't agree with your adding flag icons across multiple articles without seeking consensus. Thanks too for deleting your personal attack here; a strike through would be the normal way to retract mistaken comments but never mind. Happy editing. --Guinnog 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


i am very confused because i dont see how it is rong to add flags many other pages have them so what is the big deal?. However if i need to be asking someone than just tell me and i will. I am hear at wikipedia to help out not start fights and i dont get why you need "support" as if i was attacking you i asure you no harm intended. --Tweetsabird 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no way in which this is not making a personal attack. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, Tweetsabird. You did attack me, twice, in calling me an idiot and a weirdo. Never mind, we all make mistakes. If you feel like adding flags to pages I suggest you start by suggesting it on the article's talk page. There are also centralised discussions (for example project pages) where you can suggest changes like these. Let me know if I can be any further help. --Guinnog 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In case you are still confused, here was your other personal attack. We work together to improve this thing and rudeness doesn't help. Anyway, I am sure you needn't repeat the problematic behaviour in the future. Best wishes. --Guinnog 18:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Im Sorry

I am very sorry for calling you those names and i will not add anymore flags i asure you. and i will be more careful about writing anything without asking first. once again im very sorry for being hateful. And thank you for offering your help.--Tweetsabird 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that, I appreciate it.--Guinnog 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Your Welcome ♥ --Tweetsabird 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mongo RFC

I have now posted an RfC on Mongo's behaviour.9.--Thomas Basboll 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Copyedits: Mir

Thank you very much for the copyedits on the Mir article, they are very appreciated. If you have any comments on the article I would love hear them. Thanks Aalox 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome; thank you for all your excellent work on expanding the article! --Guinnog 19:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :D you should also check out Colds7ream's work on the Shuttle-Mir Program Aalox 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
May I also say thanks for the barnstar? :-) Cheers! Colds7ream 07:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Aw, you earned it! --Guinnog 07:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Basically it's to do with the unilateral recreation of Category:IRA killings. Before it was deleted, Tyrenius said that should the category survive CfD, a centralised discussion should take place about where and if the category should be used, and I am happy to respect this. I've said on the category talk page I'll be happy to discuss the category after the unilateral recreation has been addressed, and have even made initial comments despite that not being addressed yet. An editor who was involved in the CfD debate towards the end (and who !voted keep despite not addressing any of the problems with the category) has started re-populating the category without any consensus to do so, and I have pointed him in the direction of the various discussions to try and get him up to speed so to speak. One Night In Hackney303 19:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'd ask you to look at the talk page of Category:IRA killings, and all the contributions of the above editor. I repopulated the category as I was aghast that people should delete or depopulate a category that had just been approved in a CfD debate. Drmaik 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see the deletion log for the category, it was unilaterally recreated. One Night In Hackney303 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"Unilateral recreation" is one way of looking at it. Another is that it shouldn't have been depopulated while there was a CFD ongoing (which resulted in a 'keep') and shouldn't have been "unilaterally deleted" in the absence of a CFD decision. The deleting admin has been notified and pointed at the talk page. Tyrenius has suggested using WP:BRD and I've opened a section on the talk page for that. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Please direct all further correspondence on this to Category talk:IRA killings, which I will watch. Thanks. --Guinnog 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've posted there (before I saw this page). There might be some difficult positions to resolve on this. It would be much better to keep it all on Category talk:IRA killings (or some other mutually agreed page) till it's sorted out, rather than spilling all over article pages, which is inevitably going to get at least some editors into hot water sooner or later for some form of transgression... Tyrenius 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Careless edit summary / reputations

Hiya, just a quickie to ask you to please take care with edit summaries. Your recent edit to Edinburgh is explained as "rv kieran" and as I was the previous non-anonymous editor, it looks like a revert of me; however, it looks to me like the actual content you've reverted is a change by one of the anons, and nothing to do with my edit. It's no biggie at all, but I can imagine situations where it would matter more, and it's a shame to have one's name come up in page histories as someone who gets reverted — because it may make some other editors trigger happy against one! Cheers, :-) – Kieran T (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't panic, it should be obvious to anyone that I was reverting to your version. I take your point though. --Guinnog 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :-) – Kieran T (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

You're being impersonated created es:User:Guinnog and used it to vandalise our Main page Talk: I can't speek spanish this is the name of an english admin that banned me. [22]

I have infinite blocked him now, but it's likely he'll repeat it on other projects. Feel free to contact me if you want me to rename him so you can register this account.

Platonides 17:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Guinnog 22:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Flag Essay

Thanks for the barnstar! I'm impressed someone rewrote it as a serious essay :) Kaldari 16:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks It wont happen again

alright thanx for reverting that WWII page for me, I am trying to prove how quickly things are reverted in wikis for a school assignment to help me prove a claim. agian sorry for the inconvenience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guitarplayer001 (talkcontribs) 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


I have just reverted a piece of vandalism by this IP which has been missed for a couple of days. You have already warned of an imminent block since April 11. Considering that there have been further unhelpful edits, I wonder whether it is time to carry out that warning?--Natsubee 18:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. --Guinnog 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what I corrected was Ghana - diff. I left it out.--Natsubee 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I decided to just warn them for now. Blocks are meant to be preventive and there is no ongoing vandalism from that IP at the moment. Keep me posted if they do it again though, and thanks for the heads-up. --Guinnog 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for lift

Guinnog, I just wanted to say, thank you for helping me out just now. Hope your Wikibreak was good.EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm glad I was able to help. --Guinnog 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, also, have you taken any of my self-made quizzes? I'm trying to determine if Wikipedia users score better on them than people who hear about them on other sites.EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Heliicopters template

hi, how do i get templates on a page without cutting and pasting the whole thing. What is the shortcut i type on the page? Willy turner 06:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

First you think the template was "good work", now you think it should be deleted?Willy turner 17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't realise it was done outside the project. As with the other template you made, it would be better to seek project consensus before creating them in the future. Sorry. --Guinnog 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

You're welcome. Brain40 [talk] [contributions]

Goebbels image

If we're going to make a Wikipedia:Non-free content claim on a picture of Goebbels to put in the infobox (without any discussion of that particular photograph but merely to illustrate our article), let's do it with one from NARA or the United States Holocaust Museum, rather than one whose copyright is owned by Ullstein Bild, a German stock photo company that aggresively protects their property... Jkelly 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


To answer your question addressed to this user, Lord only knows. I have scanned all of his edits, reverted all of his edits, and warned him on his talk page.--Anthony.bradbury 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Weirdest editing pattern I have ever seen. Thanks for your intervention. --Guinnog 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem

When a vandal removes the whole page it's so noticeable in recent changes... Natalie 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Anon. user just vandalized H.M.S. Pinafore. I reverted the vandalism. Thanks -- Ssilvers 17:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is a school IP so I have warned them again. You did the right thing to revert them; if you want more info about how to deal with vandalism, look at WP:VAND. Best wishes, --Guinnog 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the joke page

Sorry about this. I was just, erm...testing the Probably won't happen again, unless of course some person has the internal drive to hack a random Wikipedia account...:P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnnyFlew (talkcontribs) 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

Re: humourous change on this article--please be more careful with your Spellmaster account. This is not a typo but a British spelling. This article is on a Brit and uses British spelling throughout.Rlevse 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your message. In fact "humourous" is not a British spelling but is considered a spelling mistake worldwide. It's a bit like "honourary" which I have also been criticised for correcting. You will find links to the various places consensus on this has been reached at User:Spellmaster. Thanks for caring about spelling, as I do myself, and best wishes. --Guinnog 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


"... but I really wish the two of you would stop back-and-forthing"

I hope that you do not mean Doops and I, because we appear to be in total agreement! It is the IP numpties who are acting the fool, not the known and respected editors. --Mais oui! 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am dreadfully sorry if I misread the situation. I admit I did not research it in detail. Let me know if I can be any help. --Guinnog 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've protected it meantime. I really don't have any strong opinion about the actual issue being argued; but I hate to see the page being fought over like that. Makes the history really difficult to read apart from anything else. --Guinnog 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wildife of Africa

A new series is starting on African wildlife which have enormous potential and soon enough I want 53 beautiful main articles. I have begun by Wildlife of Algeria please please help out on these missing articles of Africa. Even if it is just stubbing this work is much needed. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Knock yourself out so far as unprotecting the Scotland page goes. Nothing to add... Rab-k 11:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ping on coaching

Hi Guinnog, at one point you and Lar were going to start some pre-admin coaching with me...after an extended delay, I'm interested in getting back into it. I've already started discussing this with Lar at User talk:Akradecki/Admin coaching. Are you interested in continuing this? Thanks muchly! Akradecki 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy and honoured to help you in any way I can. --Guinnog 04:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem!

Glad I could help out. Ironically your the only user I didn't post a 'your userpage/talk page has been vandalized' warning on and you still messaged me on my talk page, most appreciated. MrMacMan Talk 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Thank you, Guinnog, for reverting my talk page to the correct version after it had been vandalized. Groogokk 21:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland

Jonto isn't interested in discussing this, him and Astrotrain are just posting POV tags on the articles because they want to protray the Ulster banner as a offical flag, which it isn't, they seem to just want to engage in edit warring rather then discuss the issue.--padraig3uk 15:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, there will be a way forward. What do you think of my compromise version? --Guinnog 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking again at your wording: The Union Flag is the only offical flag used for Northern Ireland, as for England, Scotland and Wales, its not technically true as England, Scotland and Wales have recognised national flags, therefore the Union banner is not the only offical flag for them. I will revert your wording for now.--padraig3uk 10:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? Can you describe in what way you believe the English, Scottish and Welsh flags have official status? --Guinnog 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

From someones user page

Someone I once respected had something like this on their user page:

Defend each other!

This is amazing! It sums up how we can use conflicts to build our community instead of letting them tear us apart. I recommend that everyone read it.

When I think about being asked to attack the contributions of a valued editor that he made under duress in error over half a year ago, I wonder if it's best for me to even comment on that, or to focus on, oh, retaining the valuable users of the encyclopedia who have done everything possible to prevent disruptive POV-trolls from inserting garabge into the encyclopeda. Actually, I don't have to think that long. Have you considered asking the user who put that on their user page if they would stand up for User:MONGO when he was being relentlessly pursued by a single purpose POV pusher? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice, that's a fair point. I don't think that my actions are incompatible with supporting MONGO though; it might be interesting for you to read what I wrote on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO#Outside view by Guinnog and on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan#Statement by User:Guinnog. I like MONGO, as I have said already in this RfC. I do think though that some of the actions he and his supporters have taken are incompatible with a harmonious and collegiate editing environment. This example from last August shows (at least to me) that there has been some pretty poor behaviour in the past from anti-CT folks, all done I grant absolutely from good motives. As soon as we can establish that normal Wikipedia rules apply even on 9/11-related articles, we will have made progress here. Incidentally, do you support the vandalism that was done to the article template, without for the moment commenting on the presumed motives behind it? --Guinnog 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Nothing you can do will get me to comment on anything that happened before the last time MONGO was dragged by a POV-pusher or Encyclopedia Dramatica troll in front of either the community or the ArbCom. September of 2006 is long, long gone. Normal wikipedia rules certainly do apply - which is why I am shocked that you have not blocked the Rootology sock, or the disruptive single-purpose POV-pushing revert warriors yet. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have any specific concerns about sockpuppets or a particular problematic editor, please feel free to share them with me and I will see what I can do. Thanks for the messages, you made a good point. However, I think there are more POV-pushers and single-purpose accounts out there than you perhaps realise. Best wishes. --Guinnog 16:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Much appreciated! MrMacMan Talk 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome.--Guinnog 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, dude?

'am jus tryin' to help out, y'all. I am givin the articles the best word: Tellin people not to vandalize. 'am not experimentin like yall were thinkin' it's more of a good measure if ya wanna take it that way, yours truly ClaimJumperPete 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Y'all show some respectin' now

Chy'all show yer best respectin' to this user y'all hear? He's a good man, givin' 'em the good word, now it's your turn! Makin' wikipediar a better place is whata do. y'all do the same now kids, yours ClaimJumperPete 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

EN-5 and so on..

Hi! Guinnog. I really share your entusiasm for the wiki policies.. I just have a question: Where do I find the templates for the fancy EN-1-2-3 boxes -so I can embed one on my page? Geir 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you! I even managed to put it a nice place with the the wiki-tables. Geir 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
And, how do I insert the standard nav-box for my page? (I couldn't find it..) Geir 06:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amistimesarrow.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amistimesarrow.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy says that the boilerplate text is not sufficient on its own to justify a fair-use rationale. Fair use rationales need to include an explanation of why that specific image needs to be in that specific article, and the image needs to be used for some sort of critical commentary - that is, the image needs to be discussed in the context of the article somewhere. I understand that this isn't the prevailing usage on Wikipedia right now, but that is pretty clearly what our policy states. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm also trying to find a way to better reword those image templates so that they don't give anyone the impression that they are enough by themselves to justify the use of the image. I started the conversation at Template_talk:Non-free_logo. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 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 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Hey mate, I just noticed that you reverted some vandalism to my user page at the end of March. I'm a bit late, but I just thought I'd post a thank you here to let you know I appreciate it. Cheers! Martin 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, you are very welcome. --Guinnog 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have "bolixed up" the Cuba page

G: you might be more precise as to what was removed. El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

G: You have sure bolixed up the Cuba page and deleted whole sections, I have tried to correct your deletions without success; since there is some kind of software problem now it is up to you to fix it. El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. In this edit I restored a deletion you made. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the software that I can see. --Guinnog 17:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

G: Perhaps you did not notice but your "corrections" deleted afigure showning "La Raspadura" the obelisque in the former Plaza Civica (now known as La Plaza de la Revolucion) which I liked and had corrected long ago and a whole section on the so called structure of the Cuban government (which is a farce, and I do not like), El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

G: thank you will try to advise reasons for changes in the future, and must be sure to spell farce correctly El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BuzzcocksBrokenLogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BuzzcocksBrokenLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Why would I be warned for adding fact tags to articles? Zombie69 22:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Supplementary - There was some issue with the wiki in regards to the United Kingdom. I kept getting error messages that the server was down, so I pressed back and retried the edit. I didn't mean to "keep" adding it. I only meant to add fact tags once where needed. Zombie69 23:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for your reply. I just wanted to make sure you read my above note, and understand that I didn't purposefully 'revert'. It honestly was some error message making me think me edits hadn't gone through, so I'll thank you to take that into consideration. Zombie69 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:IRA killings

Can you delete this category please? Despite being aware of the discussion on the category talk page (I directed him there in the last couple of days, to see if he had anything to add) W. Frank has unilaterally recreated the category. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 17:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Recieving IP address directed messages

I went unto a wikipedia article and recieved a "new message" stating that I provided an unhelpful change or edit to some article. I am guessing it was directed to me because of my IP address. I have never edited a wikipedia article before so I don't know why I got the message - i'm guessing someone with that IP address made the change. Just to clarify: the ISP gives me a random IP address when I logon to the internet (dynamic IP address - I'm sure you know about this). I can appreciate why such messages are created but it should come with a disclaimer - someone who is not informed about non-static ip addresses may not know why they are getting this message and it can be very obtrusive for the user - it reduces the quality of the wikipedia experience and wikipedia loses its credibility (to accuse something falsely, especially after addressing them with personal computer details ie the IP address). I hope this is taken into account and suitable modifications are made in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

ok this is really annoying - how do i get rid of that "new message" thing - its on every bloody article that i click on! 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Apologies, i got a little carried away with the edit tool i just discovered today. Although, the majority of what i wrote was in fact true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Scotland team page

I will be guided by your greater experience.
Conval 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Guinnog, long time no speak but I'm kind of back from a long wikibreak (hopefully). Please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false positives for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Electric Dog House contribution

Hello. I see that you removed my contribution about Electric Dog House as a suspected hoax. Why didn't you do some research and listen to the song before making that (incorrect) determination? It's available on eMusic, rhapsody and probably a million other places and it's one of his greatest post-Clash works. It's a glaring ommission from this entry, so please put it back.

The compilation album at Rhapsody:

Photos from the recording session:

A mention of EDH by Rat Scabies:

Jeff Forbes —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I have reviewed the links you sent and I do not find them compelling evidence for the introduction of the information you wanted to add to the Joe Strummer article. I suggest you post at Talk:Joe Strummer if you wish to generate wider debate as I could of course be wrong. Best wishes, --Guinnog 22:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't find links to audio files of an actual recorded album compelling evidence of the existence of that very recorded album? That's ridiculous.

Avro Vulcan

Dear Guinnog, I have reverted a previous edit that you have made in the Avro Vulcan article's "Popular culture" section. You may not have read the earlier discussion revolving around this particular submission (BTW originally made by another editor). The following commentary appeared in the "discussion" page: "I (Bzuk) have researched the use of the Avro Vulcan XH558 for the BBC2 television series, Hyperdrive where the spaceship HMS Camden Lock bears the serial number XH558. The set and prop designer, model maker Andrew Glazebrook is quoted that,"Its registration number XH558 is actually that of the Royal Air Force's 'Avro Vulcan' bomber and was suggested by the show's writers Andy Riley and Kevin Cecil." This direct involvement with the Avro Vulcan and its role as a military aircraft is clearly connected to its science-fiction counterpart." The consensus of the discussion as well as the agreement of the editor who had first removed the entire section was that if there was a significant relationship established to the Avro Vulcan, then the entry should stay in the popular culture section. I also noted that you removed the reference to the videogame that featured a Vulcan. In this case, I agree with you as it smacks of "fancruft" and allowing one entry in this vein opens up every anime, videogame and comic book reference, which makes for an "unencyclopedic" section. IMHO Bzuk 13:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:JordiCruyff.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:JordiCruyff.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Ilse@ 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationale should contain the reason why it cannot be replaced by a free image. – Ilse@ 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Peter Lamborn Wilson

Thank you for the retort to the anonymous user. This edit war over pederasty/pedophilia has been bubbling for some time now, and I suspect some of the IPs making edits are other editors just pushing their particular POV. People can think what they will of Wilson's writings, but accusing someone of being a pedophile is disgusting, and, in the absence of evidence, it is libellous. Again, thank you for your comment. I hope it has some impact. Cheers! ---Cathal 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I saw your request at User talk:Gwernol and agreed with you enough to weigh in. Gwernol may also do so of course, but you are quite right and deserve all the support you need on this one. I have watchlisted the page, but please let me know if there is anything else you need. --Guinnog 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I certainly will. If one follows the discussion, one can see how it begins with controversial material, i.e. Peter has written some historical essays about allegedly pederastic Persian Sufis of the medieval era; moves on to controversial and poorly-sourced material, i.e. Peter (using the pseudonym "Hakim Bey," which has also been used by other authors) has allegedly written a few short works in obscure publications advocating pederasty; and then finally concludes with the assertion that Peter practices pederasty or pedophilia (and these two terms are used interchangably as though they are one and the same).
I hate the "slippery slope" argument in general, but it is on the mark here. One particular user (BobHelms) is notorious in the anarchist movement for his vendetta against PLW/Hakim Bey, posting his screed on numerous sites; and then attempting to list it here as a source for his attacks within the article. And, what's more, he has not been honest about that double role that he has played. ---Cathal 21:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi, You might recall that Dep. Garcia ran a spellcheck on the John Prescott page and changed "renumeration" to "remuneration", which you promptly reverted. However, "remuneration" really is the correct word. [23] Regards, Gervius

Hah, really? If that's true then it is my mistake, although is not a good resource for spelling, this is clearly the right spelling. --Guinnog 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi. You may remember this guy from way back when. I've kept watching him for months now. He's now taken to creating TONS of inappropriate redirects (e.g. land of the Switzers). As you yourself have experienced his combative responses before, I urge you to block him for a week or two, he's had far enough warnings already and paid no heed whatsoever in the past. Thanks. Zunaid©® 14:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. I haven't seen you around South African pages in a while, where've you been hiding?

Hi Zunaid. I've left the user a message; it does seem a bit unnecessary as a redirect. I was on break for a while and now I'm still a bit busy, certainly not looking for extra things to do. Nevertheless, don't hesitate to give me a shout if you ever need any help. Good to hear from you, --Guinnog 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding John Prescotts Spellcheck

Its ok don't worry about it, I didn't even know you reverted it.

Thanks and happy editing!!!

Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


To note my efforts to peacably defend my content and, as you put it, my right to edit wikipedia, leaves me wondering how you treat "anyone." As the clarity of my writing leaves me without true tone of attack, ought you instead to review the content for lack of debate. Resolutions come about only through discussion. And to not be offered discussion upon several points, editing or otherwise, is violation of wikipedia policy. "oldanarchist" is quality example of violation, as is Joie de Vivre. As you have not proven your objectivity, please consider yourself under review. Good Day. Sfd101 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

First, it is not "your" content, you donate it to Wikipedia when you write it. That's what "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*" means. Secondly, when you started editing here, you implicitly accepted our policies. One of those is the policy WP:NPA. I suggest you read it as it's very important. Good luck. --Guinnog 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Not a Soapbox"

Since when were facts classified as a soapbox. There are news and facts relating to this person's case that should be linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwmag (talkcontribs)

Please see our policies on reliable sources and verifiability. It seems obvious to me that you are adding this information in pursuance of some sectarian agenda, and I will not allow this to happen. You might try posting on the article's talk page to see if you can form a consensus to add the information; but you mustn't keep re-adding it to the article. --Guinnog 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


What gives you the right to decide what gets added or not. Let's up the ante to arbitration shall we. And as for your claims of sectarianism against me, don't try and pull that card, because you will come unstuck and be humiliated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwmag (talkcontribs)

I am an experienced editor and an administrator on the project. Please play nicely or you will be blocked. --Guinnog 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Don't patronize me and also do some research about who you are talking to before you throw out the "I am an experienced editor" card. Playing at editor on the Internet, does not qualify you as an editor. Also do not threaten me, when so far I have only engaged you in polite debate.

The basis of Wikipedia is to provide information. Whether I support the Big Jock Knew campaign or not, should not preclude it from inclusion on this site. It may not belong on Torbett's page, but it would have the right to have it's own page on here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwmag (talkcontribs)

I am sorry if I come across as patronising. Nevertheless, I have tens of thousands of edits here and know how the project works. Part of my work here has consisted of regularly removing this very hate speech from the Celtic F.C. article and others. As an encyclopedia, we only publish information that can be verified. I have sent you (twice) a link to our policy on verifiability; here it is again: WP:V. Please read it carefully before you continue. As for your contention that the BJK "campaign" should have an article of its own, I suggest again discussing at Talk:Jim Torbett or Talk:Jock Stein before doing any more work which may ultimately not be judged as suitable for our project. Finally, please sign on talk pages by typing ~~~~ after your posts. Thanks. --Guinnog 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion Requested

I have a user pissed off at me. They have filed a faulty request for arbitration and was wondering if you could look trhough my actions and give me a second opinion. It started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors. There was some discussion and at the bottom, user User:Piotr Mikołajski proposed a new version which i was willing to compromise on and a few other editors agreed on. I withdrew my afd nom and moved the page to the mainspace. Then, the orignial creator created a copy of the oringial article with his content and renamed it Editing Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors List (which i deleted as a copy of the article and encouraged him to engage in discussions at WT:AIRCRAFT. Any input on this would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, sure. Give me a few. --Guinnog 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have posted on the other editor's talk page. --Guinnog 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I am still looking into yours! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Review of communication with User talk:Wcwmag

If anything, I can say you have been excessivly patient here with multiple non tempalted warnings. I did not see anything patronizing there personally. I think you did a good job of explaining it, then explaining that you do know what you are talking about. I personally see nothing wrong with that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--Guinnog 17:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Funny thing, he has an RfA (self nom, go figure).--Whsitchy 18:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if RfAs can be closed with by WP:SNOW. Guess that answers that. --Whsitchy 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Look below. I vote finish him. --Whsitchy 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Serious violations of Wikipedia rules

Hello, I'm writing to let you know that you have seriously violated several Wikipedia regulations in the last 20 minutes. Such regulations include civility, rules against threats, and removal of sourced content without specific reason. I am very concern about these actions and I feel administrators should be held to a higher standard of accountability. I am asking you to stop at this point, and re-read your administrator guidelines, and then I will be happy to not report you to the administrator noticeboard, which, if these actions continue, could get you blocked, a punishment admins are not exempt from.EastGermanAllStar 18:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's best actually. You have exhausted my patience and you can now deal with someone else. I'm sad it's come to this but you were warned. --Guinnog 18:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this the sourced content you are complaning about? Second of all, warnings are not threats. From what I have seenm, Guinnog has done nothing wrong at all. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Instead of laying down a threat of that nature, why don't you get off to the GDR talk page and start a dialogue? The stuff you posted is clearly POV and begs a citation. If you want to make a contribution, make one that works and satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for being encyclopedic. That holds for your edits of other pages as well. I'm with Guinnog and Chrislk02 - you need to improve your work and lose the POV. Wiggy! 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


(moved to User:Guinnog/awards)

Thank you very much for the award, and for the kind things you wrote. I really appreciate what you said and will try to live up to it. Many thanks, --Guinnog 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Roy Keane

He did play for Celtic!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazess (talkcontribs)

Yes, but 10 appearances and one goal don't make him a notable player for Celtic. This was all discussed in talk ages ago. --Guinnog 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are taking it too far

What is a notable former player then?

I'd say Roy Keane, probably the biggest and most well known player to have joined Celtic, whilst here Captained us twice, won the League and League Cup and scored 1 goal in 13 appearances would be enough.

You have Mark Viduka and Paolo Di Canio there and they were only here for 1 season each.

I just checked the Rangers one and they have Gattuso, Henning Berg, Antti Niemi and Frank De Boer!!

Who all had short spells. Berg, De Boer and Niemi only played 15 matches, none won any medals.

Keane played 13 matches, was a more well known player and won the League and League Cup!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazess (talkcontribs)

See Talk:Celtic F.C. As I said it was discussed there. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~. --Guinnog 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Actually, if you look at the [24] History edits at User:Natalie Erin, and the type of vandalism edits I'm pretty much sure that User:Benny RadioR is one of multiple sockpuppets targeting the same user, and this has been ongoing throughout several weeks perhaps months. I've once reverted one user who've copy and paste the Slut article to her userpage and noticed the rash of vandals and some similar trends, which justified me to mark that page in my watchlist.

The question is what user name started this. It could be that user from University of Cincinnati who've been vandalizing the same user page at least once on average per day for several weeks.

I don't know if someone did a checkuser on this case, but this could be very well some long-term abuse by the same person and judging by some similarities on the type of vandalism (i.e disgusting pictures or copy/paste of portions of articles he or she posted to User:Natalie Erin. So this user definitely deserves the block, thanks!--JForget 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Guinnog 23:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Keane

I don't blame you because I know it's wrong... somehow. Is not a rule for Wikipedia to name like that bands, look at Snow Patrol but just the bands with an ambiguious name. But I won't give up either with time by my side.--Fluence 23:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Keane and Snow Patrol are that there are not really any other meanings, whereas Keane has other meanings. Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be with Bush, which is the name of a band, and even the surname of the current President of the United States, but still it is a disambiguation page, rather than just having the band there. The band is at Bush (band). --Dreaded Walrus t c 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That was my understanding too.--Guinnog 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I am glad i have got some allies on this subject, i thought i was on my own. I did manage to get the Keane page moved back to the disam page but cannot believe that Fluence dared to move it back!!! Fluence when i made the move request you had plenty of opportunity to vote no and give your reasons on the Keane (band) talk page but you never bothered, so please give up now, accept defeat and get on with it. Murphy Inc 07:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The main problem with Fluence is that he has, on more than one occasion, stated that he doesn't care about consensus. If an article is deleted, he often recreates it within weeks. If a media file is deleted, he'll often upload it at the Nahuatl Wikipedia (Huiquipedia), where he is one of only seven administrators, so his actions there are not questioned, or even reupload it again here (see [25], and here for where he says "If they're deleted, I'll upload them again, or much simpler, upload them to the Nahuatl Wikipedia and make a link."). And that is the main problem with Fluence. He doesn't care even a single bit about consensus. If he feels something should happen, then that is what happens. --Dreaded Walrus t c 12:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club

Thank you for your description. I appreciate it and will do so. It is just very scary to me that no-one has seen this over these many years?


(hope this is right, still new to wiki's and what not :-) ): Netsurferj 15:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)netsurferj


I thank you very much for the addition.

By the way, shouldn't your user box be native speaker of English rather than professional level 5?

Tyrenius 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Isn't level 5 higher? --Guinnog 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The levels are for non-native speakers to show how proficient they are in another language! Tyrenius 20:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I could argue that my mother tongue was Scots, but I suppose you're right. --Guinnog 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How about en-Sc ? Tyrenius 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ach, I just went for native Eng. It's all one language... --Guinnog 00:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:334cover.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:334cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 05:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:334cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:334cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 05:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

John B Keane

Hi, Just want to explain why i removed this link from the Kean (disam) page, if we include names of people called Keane where does the line get drawm? we would need to include everyone called Keane and this in turn would lead to a messy disam page. I think Roy should be an exception but not any others, anyway just my view but i think it is fair enough. Murphy Inc 07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:2pulab.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2pulab.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 04:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:2pula.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2pula.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 04:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Robert Frederick Zenon Geldof, KBE[1], known as Bob Geldof (born 5 October 1951) [2] This was equally successful, as well as controversial; Geldof wrote it in the aftermath of Brenda Ann Spencer's attempted massacre at an elementary school across the street from her house in San Diego, California, at the beginning of 1979.

Geldof quickly became known as a colourful spokesman for rock music. The Boomtown Rats' first appearance on Ireland's The Late Late Show led to complaints from viewers. He had limited success as an actor, his most notable role being the lead in the 1982 film Pink Floyd The Wall, based on Pink Floyd's album The Wall.

This is how the intro reads, I tried to correct it and you reverted me, would you mind telling me why? Billtheking 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

You might want to check the last few edits out...someone is trying to POV push the Ireland issue again. I've used up my 3 reverts, have given the editor the last warning. I have no problem blocking him if he does it again, but as it's not clear vandalism, I won't be able to revert again. AKRadecki 21:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right, it is far from being vandalism, more a PoV we (and most people) disagree with. I've sent the new user a message and we can take it from there. Thanks for the heads-up; I hope you scrutinised my recent copyedit by the way, I expected more resistance to my introduction of the modern "sulfur" replacing the olden-days "sulphur". I still believe the former is more encyclopedic (i.e. modern scientific usage of the name of an element) but there might be other opinions? --Guinnog 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:JamesKelman.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JamesKelman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 12:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Titanic FAR

RMS Titanic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

He's blocked for 24 hours, and I've reverted to your version at Irish-Scots. Let me know if there's any more trouble. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SNP MPs and current Scottish MPs cats

Could you have a look at this CFD nomination. It has been up for a week, and only 2 people have commented on it (amazingly). Could you please consider the discussion and contribute, because it would be a bit pathetic if this CFD were closed with almost zero comment. --Mais oui! 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A question from someone who wants to be an admin

Notice you'd indef'd a user whom I'd given a 4im warning as an obvious vandal, even though he hadn't made any edits afterward ... can that be done normally? Clearly, the guy was a vandal-only account--just wanted to make sure for future reference in case I get to be an admin. Blueboy96 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good comment. Not sure every admin would agree, but looking at the user's contributions made it obvious (to me at least) that this was not somebody marginal who could be "saved" and start doing good edits, but someone who was here to damage the project. I was influenced in this assessment by the particularly unpleasant nature of some of the edits the user had made. At that point it is easier to issue an indef block. The template includes an unblock request, should the user wish to improve, but I don't think I have ever seen this happen. Nor have any of my blocks been overturned (as far as I know), so I can't be all that wrong. No disrespect was meant to you in blocking the user. Hope that makes sense. --Guinnog 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, none taken ... I personally think blatant vandal accounts should be blocked without warning if they edit the way this guy did.Blueboy96 22:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

You gonna do something about this or are you just gonna let this slide cos you agree with him.--Vintagekits 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest I do? I cannot use my admin privileges in a content dispute, and I agree with the majority of editors who oppose your changes. Beyond urging you both to discuss in talk (which I see you are already doing, well done), my options are the same as yours here; basically, try to follow our policies in trying to reach a consensus that all can live with. Failing that, it would be time to use some kind of dispute resolution, which you are able to use as well as me. Finally, let me say I do not like your tone here; I assure you that I have always endeavoured to treat you fairly here, and I am not in the least influenced in giving you this answer by the unhelpful and combative reply you made to my recent request to you to tone down some inflammatory and unhelpful content on your user page. --Guinnog 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually the majorty agree with me if you look through the various discussions.--Vintagekits 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Further comment; don't take this the wrong way, but are you familiar with WP:LEAD which suggests how a lead paragraph should be written? It seems clear that for stylistic reasons the lead cannot contain every single detail of the article. I wondered if this could explain your stance on the Falklands issue? --Guinnog 00:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, and hopefully I'm not outstepping a newbie's bounds, but I jumped in as a neutral party, and put comments both on the article's talk page and on Vintagekits' talk page. I've also changed the lead back to the stable version until dicussion results in new agreed-upon text. AKRadecki 02:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Variants of the abolished NI Flag in Template:Country data Northern Ireland

Hi, you might want to voice your opinion in a proposal I made in Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland#Request for edit. As the discussion has been going on and the page is quite cluttered, here my proposal in short:

Inclusion of variants in the Template:Country data Northern Ireland as follows:
| flag alias-cgf = Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg Flag of Northern Ireland.svg still used by the CGF (Commonwealth Games Federation)
| flag alias-patrick = Image:Saint Patrick's flag for Northern Ireland.svg Saint Patrick's flag for Northern Ireland.svg
| flag alias-map = Image:Alliance Northern Ireland flag.svg Alliance Northern Ireland flag.svg, which I find aesthetically more satisfying than NIShape.gif
| flag alias-union = Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Flag of the United Kingdom.svg as the only official flag of NI

The defenders of the abolished flag argue that this flag is still used in context with the Commonwealth Games. I think that the inclusions of variants is the first practical step in discontinuing the use of the abolished flag in articles about biographies and international organisations (like the european parties). AFAIK, a map tag is already in use in articles about NI geography; this map symbol was never intended to be used as an icon, and I think the usage of Image:Alliance ni flag.png looks better.

I would welcome your input to this debate greatly.

Kind regards, Dingo 05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (currently anonymous)


Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Steinbeck Link

I appreciate your concern that the link I left was spam. But I do not think it is, and I respectfully ask you to consider the following. After looking through the wikipedia guideline, I think the link I added was in compliance. The link in question ( lists the first edition points for nine Steinbeck books. The link shows thumbnails of the first editions, and provides identification points for the books (things like who the publisher was, what the original price on the dust jacket was, and amount of pages) it also provides photos of the copyright pages and dust jackets. This site exists for first edition identification only. The site does not sell books. That said, I believe that this link provides "accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article". I believe that this link contains "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" because it deals exclusively with how to identify first editions. I think the information that this link provides is complementary to the article because, while the article addresses the content of Steinbeck’s books, the link addresses questions about what the first editions of his books look like. Thank you for your consideration.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tklein27 (talkcontribs)

East Germany national football team

A suspected sock of many accounts has been editing many national teams. These edits ma be technically good edits. But in theory these edits are vandalism. If you think these are technically good edits then don't just revert them or undo them. Actually make them ligit by redoing the whole thing yourself. Kingjeff 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For further reference, you can check User:Dppowell/PPP. Kingjeff 03:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you get back regarding this asap. Kingjeff 04:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think in the immediate future it might just be best to redo those edits yourself. The history of this sock is that once one of his accounts is blocked, then he creates a new account. Remember, any edit by a sock is automatic vandalism. Kingjeff 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tracey Emin

I was looking at that! Did you manage to confirm the date change was correct?[26] Tyrenius 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, and I still can't. I've just left in the public opening date meantime. --Guinnog 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Tyrenius 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800 copyedit

MUCH appreciated, thanks! Lipsticked Pig 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Well done yourself for all your great improvements to the article. --Guinnog 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adkot.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Adkot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Adkot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Adkot.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't know if you have any comments on this. Regards, Samsara (talk  contribs) 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. --Guinnog 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Could you tell me how to report a punk vandal like Homelessman123123 to the Wikipedia staff? Not that it'd do much good really BUT it'd make me feel better! Tommyt 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. See WP:VAND for a complete explanation. The user you refer to is indefinitely blocked. --Guinnog 16:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool, many thanks! Tommyt 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:ASongofStone.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ASongofStone.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Allset.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Allset.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Answerbaglogo.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Answerbaglogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Botswanameatcologo.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Botswanameatcologo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi John,

I am Andrewlim1, but using Louielim2007 to leave you a message, please, I am not a sock puppet, but I opened this account because some users are harassing my andrewlim1 account, please help me.



Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

If you fancy a break with some "culture", see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles! Tyrenius 03:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look. --Guinnog 06:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

East Germany national football team

The change to this new format was not discussed. I asked to the user who started changing the format, but I got no answer.--Tozzi Fan 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the copyedits...yes, the article should be in either American ior British English, not both. Part of this issue is I use both, so it was a bit of a jumble. I think the lead may need a rewrite as Marskell pointed out and I am looking first at other similar articles to determine if I have the sections laid out well. I'll try to do more work on the article over the weekend. Thanks again.--MONGO 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It's an interesting article and it still seems funny to me to change UK spelling to U.S.! Obviously on an article like this it doesn't matter which but should be consistent within the article. --John 19:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I do suggest that if Red Deer is brought to peer review (and a guy is pushing me to work on it via email), it should definitely use British English since that species is native to Europe. As a side-note...I saw "John" and I was wondering, who the heck is that...then saw you had changed your name. Anyway, thanks for the help and support.--MONGO 05:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, if it's agreed to change it from US to UK I could easily do that. The other way would definitely be harder for me. As for my name, I got tired of being confused with User:Gwernol and another couple of users with similar names. This is my real name and maybe will be easier for people to recognise. Best wishes, --John 23:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Burrowing Owl

I know you already supported, but User:Wsiegmund has used his software to edit the Burrowing Owl shot I took...if you care to take another peek.[27]--MONGO 05:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Technical problem

Hello Guinnog,
When I created an account not long ago, it fell to you to welcome me to Wikipedia.
The thing is, I have encountered a mystifying problem. I made a minor addition (about a dozen words of text and a source reference) to the Ronald Reagan article, near the end of the Reaganomics and the Economy section. When the change was saved, I saw that this addition had caused the following (last) sentence of that section and the entire first half of the next section (The War on Drugs) to vanish. The text was all still there when you went to 'edit this page' but it did not appear in normal view. I undid the revision and everything appeared as it should again. I then made a second attempt to implement the change, with the same results. I do not understand what is happening there.
I would really appreciate any help that you could give on this matter.
Cheers, Conval 12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorted. The end ref tag wasn't closed properly. Tyrenius 14:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


I've moved your talkpage to the right place - the rename software can't do it automatically because it can't delete pages and this one was previously a redirect to User talk: John (usurped). Enjoy the new name... WjBscribe 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --John 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:U2

What is the policy about editing the talk page for an article? I ask because I was just reading a recent "contribution" ([[28]]) that is just so much useless babbling in response to someone else's useless babbling. The fact is, as one of the policys says "the talk page is not a forum" for general discussion of the topic. It seems to me that anything that is not related to improving the article should be deleted. I consider tidying up. I would like to know your thoughts on the matter, especially considering that you are a regular contributor to U2. Cheers! ---Cathal 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. It looks like a lot of nonsense to me as well. If we engage with the anon and he provides us with one useful and verifiable thing we can use to improve the article, then it will have been a useful contribution. Frankly, my money isn't on that being the case, but neither is this such an egregiously disruptive bit of nonsense to delete it or warn the IP. Others might have a different opinion, but that's mine. --John 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Fascist with the Bot!

Thanks for your message. Virtually all the images that have been questioned by this "expert" are book covers. The fair use would be the same in each case. Surely there is a simple fix? PaddyBriggs 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've queried this as well and apparently it is regarded as important that we write individualised fair use rationales even for book covers and album covers. Although this does not necessarily seem like a good use of our time I have accepted it and added fair use rationales to all the fair use book and album covers I have uploaded. If you need help in crafting one I can maybe help you. --John 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


I've already posted a message on the "new user's" column to you. As you could see, I didn't even know where to post a reply to you. All I'm trying to say is I'm new here and because of the enormity of information on wikipedia, it becomes difficult to know everything about compliance from the start. So give me some time to get used to what's happening here and I'm also looking to make my contributions in future. Jafrinet 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Nice name! I just saw User:John on my watchlist and had to check out who it was. I'm glad to see that you've pulled a Madonna and joined me on the darkside with a first name only. :) Hope all is well, John (it's kind a weird calling you that on-Wiki!) Sarah 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah! Yes, it's nice being able to use my real name openly here. I feel a bit like Prince really (as in "the artist formerly known as..."). Very nice to hear from you. Look after yourself. --John 16:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonia & RUReady2Testify

You might be interested in [29] and [30] on Talk:Estonia. User RUReady2Testify accuses you of vandalism and violating NPOV. DLX 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank, funnily enough I was just reading those. I don't think I have too much to worry about; the new user may need some mentoring help if you're interested. --John 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
We'll see - I hope so. I have seen some such users to grow into good, contributing editors, but as a rule, they haven't started out by accusing an administrator of vandalism... DLX 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it could still go either way at this stage... --John 18:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User John has:

vandalized the article on Estonia by deleting links to highly relevant historical and current topics that form the core of the identity of Estonia and Estonians;

violated the NPOV rule by doing same;

violated civility rules;

violated rules on being particularly civil and friendly and avoid discouraging new editors;

and quite possibly other rules as well. Some of what follows was posted elsewher and is posted her as demonstration:

I demand that he cease his vandalism. John: Your deletion of these links is vandalism and violates the NPOV principle. Please do not do that again.

If you persist in violating NPOV and and vandalizing this or any other article, I will be forced to seek a consensus on how to proceed in dealing with you. I will now be monitoring your work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RUReady2Testify (talkcontribs)

Well, indeed. As I already said to you, you ought to be obtaining consensus for these changes before making them. Incidentally, you should sign talk page posts by typing ~~~~ after them. --John 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your hostility is absolutely stunning. You are not making friends, I can tell you that. RUReady2Testify 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you seek consensus on talk pages before adding controversial links please? Thank you and happy editing. --John 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If the articles linked to are controversial, delete them. Once you have deleted the article, I will delete the link.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RUReady2Testify (talkcontribs)

No, that isn't how we work. --John 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, shape up and start following WP rules. You have no right or power to delete the work of another editor. Your own talk page mentions this principle.
User John has vandalized this article by deleting links to highly relevant historical and current topics that form the core of the identity of Estonia and Estonians. I demand that he cease his vandalism. John: Your deletion of these links is vandalism and violates the NPOV principle. Please do not do that again.
If you persist in violating NPOV and and vandalizing this or any other article, I will be forced to seek a consensus on how to proceed in dealing with you. I will now be monitoring your work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RUReady2Testify (talkcontribs)

Well, indeed. As I already said to you, you ought to be obtaining consensus for these changes before making them. Incidentally, you should sign talk page posts by typing ~~~~ after them. --John 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your hostility is absolutely stunning. You are not making friends, I can tell you that. RUReady2Testify 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC) RUReady2Testify 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I will try to live with that. Please try to follow our rules when you edit here. Well done for getting the signature thing sorted out. Most users (myself included) prefer you to post at the bottom of a talk page. Happy editing. --John 19:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice condescending discussion of new users, namely me RUReady2Testify 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC). If you are an administrator, you should really go back and read the rules. Many people think they know the rules, when in fact they have never actually read them. They figure out the acronym NPOV, and they have satisfied themselves that they know. This is a failing of WP, because knowing the acronym does not imply knowing all that the principle entails. Re-read also the rules and guidelins on treating new users. And learn, for example what REALLY is vandalism and trolling. I was accused of trolling by DLX--that is a very serious accusation--he even included a round-about threat to have me barred (or as WPs say in their bad English "banned"). Trolling necessarily involves an intention to disrupt the use of WP. Anyone who argues for inclusion of a point or exclusion of a point on the DISCUSSION PAGES is manifestly abiding by the principles of WP in that he has done nothing to affect the use of the entry in question or the encyclopedia itself. Such accusations of trolling are not only unwarranted, they are abusive, and in violation of the WP rules on various topics including how to treat newbies. By they way, what are those rules? I would bet that you do not know. Making a new person write so many words defending himself against baseless accusations is without a doubt a violation. Making your first comment to a new person a personal attack is most certainly a violation. The mere fact that you have become an administrator does not give you license to behave in such a condescending and boorish maner. I would certainly appreciate an apology. RUReady2Testify 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, there are so many misunderstandings there that I don't quite know where to begin. Let's see.
  1. I never threatened to block you ("ban" has a specific meaning which need not concern us here), although I agree with DLX that you may head in that direction if you do not learn to work better with others here.
  2. My first contact with you was actually to send you a welcome message and to ask you (quite nicely I thought) to seek consensus before adding controversial links or info to articles.
  3. If you have any issue with DLX I suggest taking it up with him/her directly, though
  4. I do not recommend that you do this. As an established editor he/she (like me) will likely have better things to do than bicker with a new user about our policies. I actually thought DLX's message to you was very kind and helpful.
  5. I think I am adequately familiar with our core policies already.
  6. While I am certainly sorry if you think I am acting in a "condescending and boorish maner (sic)", I do not agree with your characterisation of my interaction with you as such. That is as close to an apology as you will get from me.
I hope that helps you to understand the situation better. I strongly advise you to put the advice you have received from me and DLX to good use, and I hope you continue to enjoy editing here. --John 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You did not ask "quite nicely." Such directness as yours on first communication, with no explanation, no preliminaries, etc., is extraordinarily rde in English. It was DLX who threatened to have me barred. See his thinly veiled threat on my talk page.

Yes, you think you are already familiar with the policies--that's my point. It is evident that you need a refresher. Just look at them and cite the sections that I am claiming you violated and make your rebuttal.

Using "(sic)" in this manner--to belittle someone--is rude and boorish itself. That "do not agree with your characterisation [sic] of my interaction with you as such," is not even a defense. Also, you make yourself vulnerable to charges of ridiculousness by using British spellings,

Now you are "strongly advising" me--that is another threat. Making such threats is a multiple violation. Can you guess which rules? I bet not.

See more on this discussion at DLX's talk page. RUReady2Testify 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you are still upset. Nevertheless, I stand by everything I said and have nothing to add, except that British English is perfectly acceptable here, see WP:ENGVAR. --John 20:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with British usage, except that you are obviously American and your inconsistent use--indeed your use at all--of one British spelling or two draws attention to itself and invites ridicule. RUReady2Testify 21:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it? I am Scottish, as a look at my user page would have revealed. Not that it matters anyway; I am not here to seek your approval. --John 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. This is hopeless - see his latest comments. Perhaps ask another admin to review his and our comments - so you won't be accused of using admin powers in a content dispute? DLX 05:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

John: I looked at your user page--it does not reveal that you are Scottish, it merely reveals that you have an interest in Scotland. Lots of Americans are interested in Scotland.

It is clear also that you and DLX are not historians, are not social scientists, are not public policy experts and essentialy have no qualifications for doing what you are doing. That's OK, that is perfectly within the vision of WP. However, I suggest to you both that you be less agressive in defending your ill-informed positions when a person more expert than yourself comes along. Since I have not yet put up any info on my user page, you will have to evaluate me by the strength of my views, not by some unverifiable claim that I am expert such as those made by you and DLX. Note to DLX: BTW, you direct me to the Occupation museum, thank you very much. But before you make such a presumptuous reccomendation, you should endeavor to find out a little bit about the person you are addressing. I would never dream of reccomending to someone who is contributing to an article on estonia that they should visit a website that they are no doubt already familiar with. Your tip could be either your attempt to hurl an extreme insult or it could be a revelation of extreme ignorance and insensitivity on your part. For now, will take it as the latter. RUReady2Testify 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

John, I am putting this discussion here for you and others to find more easily:

Updated a bit--dedication has been scheduled for morning of June 12, 2007. RUReady2Testify 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think strongly that:

(1) the dedication graf should be near the top (above the explanation of the bill in Congress) because: (a) it shows that the memorial is not just a plan but it exists and (b) that info will be edited in a few days to say that the memorial HAS been dedicated and DOES exist etc. and what dignitaries attended the dedication (c) it is important to tell anyone researching this topic that the memorial is in existence and you can go see it;

(2) the info on who was invited is important because it shows that the monument itself is important and to what degree (the degree that X will attend buy y will not: many members of congress will be there but the President will not, although the mention that the President was invited is also important because it shows that: (a) the organizers thought it was appropriate to invite the President and also possible that he might attend.

Inviting the president of the United States to attend any ceremony is an extremely big deal. One does not lightly or humourously invite the President to attend a function or lightly or humourously announce that he has been invited. It is only done when there is a realistic expectation that he might attend.

When an organization invites the President to something, such invitation is ALWAYS announced as part of the general announcement in order to give hearers and readers the information they NEED to asses the importance of the event. In short, the announcement or inclusion here of a statement that the President was invited is shorthand for stating the importance of the event.

It is therefore indeed quite important and quite relevant and will be in the history books 50 or 100 years from now and should be in this one today. RUReady2Testify 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. The President must have many many invitations he cannot fulfil and this on its own is not noteworthy. I also eliminated the double listing of the opening date. --John 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but your reason is insufficient to delete someone's work. It is apparent that you have followed me here, as you have never edited this article before. It is claear that you have made your changes for the purpose of bullying me. This behavior of yours, if it does not ceasde, will cross over into vandalism--please re-read the rules on vandalism. Therefore I ask you to cease. Cease editing and or recverting my work. If you wish make any further changes to anything I have done, I ask you to get the agreement of at least two people whom you have never been in contact with before. My edits are: (1) reasonable, (2) in good faith--i.e. not for the purpose of misinforming, vandalizing, altering POV, and so on, (3) well constructed, without errors, and (4) helpful and informative to the reader, and (5) most importantly factually true and verifiable.

If you persist in bulying me--by following me to articles that you have shown no prior interest in and edit or revert my work when my work is reasonable and accurate, when your only reason given is your persional opinion that you do not think it is important, and that your view "must" be the case, using the word "must" to indicate pure conjecture whenI have given a reasoned explanation for my inclusion of a certain TINY TINY point that is expressed in a SINGLE SENTENCE--I will have no choice but seek to have you blocked. There is no doubt you are violating the easiest rules to abide by--do not bite the newbies and remain civil. RUReady2Testify 16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "" RUReady2Testify 17:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and for reverting your mistaken addition of it to my user page. For future reference there is no need to copy material here from article talk; I have the talk page watchlisted and will be happy to see it there. You might usefully review WP:OWN and the text "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." which appears on the edit interface. As it seems you are unhappy with the way I have interacted with you I have asked an uninvolved admin to review my actions. --John 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External Linking

Hey John, you left me a message concerning the external linking I have been doing as I edit nuclear issue pages. I don't understand why, if the external links I am adding deal with all nuclear issues, it is a problem if I link to other nuclear issue pages. Please explain. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megansmith18 (talkcontribs)

Hi John, I read through the guideline and each of my external links fits the requirements of the guideline. The links are to official websites of the organizations, which offer in-depth information on each of the pages as well as current research regarding each page. I guess I am still confused as to why these links should be removed when they are completely relevant to the pages at hand. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megansmith18 (talkcontribs)

John-Thank you! I am going back to make my links specific to the pages they adhere to. Please let me know if there are further concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megansmith18 (talkcontribs)

Yes, I might need help with that. Any suggestions? Also, I seem to be having trouble with Wikipedia in general. It seems that they keep trying to delete my pages or have already for miniscule reasons. Any ideas? Megansmith18 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello, you had asked me why the image removed was deleted when a fair use rationale was provided. The fair use rationale has to be not only provided, but also valid. Here are the factors that determine fair use (from the relevant wiki page:)

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Use of the entire logo definitely fails the third prong of the test. Fair use is usually reserved for use of a small portion of a copyrighted work. It evolved in order to allow book reviewers to quote small passages of books. It would almost never be fair use to reproduce, without the copyright holder's consent, the entire copyrighted work. Thanks. Larry Dunn 20:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, fair use tags on wikipedia would be fine with one of the many examples of valid use, but in this case the "work" is in its entirety the logo, and the entirety of the logo is being reproduced, making it not a valid fair use rationale. The rationale that it's all over wikipedia would not stand up in a court of law, which is what Wikipedia's stated policy for inclusion is -- that the fair use rationale stand up in a US court of law. I can refer you to the case law on fair use if you'd like. Thanks. Larry Dunn 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A better course of action might be to take this to a centralised discussion. --John 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need, as you have provided the logo policy, which, although it conflicts with Wikipedia's own fair use policy, and has internal inconsistancies in it, is the policy so I won't dispute it. It's not me who would be sued! I'll just comply with the policy. Larry Dunn 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, too late! In general I find these things are best discussed centrally. Let's see what others think. --John 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

talk page

Yup, but that is what I've been asking everyone else to do with no improvement. So, can't beat them....although I only made one comment about their off topic discussion. I do hope your are telling the others to keep it on topic because I really want to get issues settled with that article and this mis-use of the talk page is causes us all to go no where fast. I even reverted some off topic trolling but they insisted to keep it back, which was a big waste of time, a distraction, and ultimately distruptive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni33 (talkcontribs)

External Linking

John, It seems that you or someone else has deleted all of my external links. I went back through and they all complied with the guidelines. Please explain. This is very frustrating when Wikipedia keeps deleting all of my work and by the looks of the NY Times article yesterday, everyone's work without ample reason 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I haven't touched your links. This is what happens on a Wiki though! I suggest you raise the question at one of the articles' talk pages. You must have forgotten to sign in as well. --John 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mis-use of talk page

I dont know how to approach this, but I discovered someone using their talk page to past news articles. The news agency which he is getting the articles from seems to be fake. If you want to take a look yourself here is the page User talk:Cchwnn. Thanks.Inter16 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That does look kind of weird. Why don't you try asking User:Cchwnn directly? --John 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

St. Johnstone F.C. External links

Hello John, thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I was just wondering why you removed all the fan site links on this page? With a couple of exceptions, I think they added real value to the article. At first, I thought it was me who had deleted them by accident! Grievous Angel 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


the referenced info said that mengele may have been supported by odessa, an organization that according to wikipedia may or may not have existed. what is helpful about that? there is probably a wiki policy about including things that may have been the case, but unfortunately i don't know where to find ittrueblood 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

is that so? trueblood 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for reverting that rather strange comment\vandalism to my userpage a few days ago. Simply south 14:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. --John 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Can you restore the bit about dimers? It's one of the things that Santilli claims in the journal article, even if it's factually wrong (especially if it's factually wrong). Feel free to reword it to point out his error; I don't have an extensive chemistry background. You definitely shouldn't be modifying a direct quote:

DEFINITION: Santilli’s magnecules are stable clusters consisting of individual atoms (H, C, O, etc.), dimers (OH, CH, etc.) and ordinary molecules (CO, H2O, etc.) bonded together by opposing magnetic polarities originating from toroidal polarizations of the orbitals of atomic electrons. Numerous new substances with magnecular structures have been identified experimentally to date, among which we indicate MagneGas, MagneHydrogen, HHO, and others under industrial development.

And what's wrong with the Wave 3 News link? — Omegatron 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And why did you add "Despite suggestions to the contrary there exists no peer reviewed article in reputable scientific literature substantiating the claims put forward by proponents of this gas"? Do you have information that we don't about the IJHE article? — Omegatron 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Do you just mean the "substantiating the claims" part? What "suggestions to the contrary", though? This just seems like weasel words to me. — Omegatron 00:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is a direct quote it should be flagged as such. --John 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you restore the text you deleted and explain in the article why the "dimer" quote is incorrect? — Omegatron 23:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
No. It is incorrect because "In chemistry, a dimer refers to a molecule composed of two identical subunits or monomers linked together. The molecules are connected with a covalent bond or more weak interactions such as hydrogen bond." (from dimer).--John 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that it's incorrect. I'm saying that the incorrectness should be pointed out in the article. The whole point of having a neutral article about a subject like this is to point out such inconsistencies and problems.
But the articles have been deleted, despite a majority of editors voting to keep. As an admin who voted in the AfD, would you like to comment on the deletion review? — Omegatron 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg
Hello, John/Archive 2007/Guinnog, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 00:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton.

Choco chip cookie.jpg

My RfA

Dear John, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.

I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.

If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 00:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

English Roman Catholics

If you had even bothered to look you would have seen that Roman Catholics references are are already placed in the biographies for Morrissey and Rupert Everett. Billy Connolly has mentioned his Catholic upbringing numerous times in his stand-up shows ( here's a link to an interview with Billy just in case you dont believe me. Des O'Connor mentioned he was Catholic in Countdown dated June 8, 2007. A reference for Dusty Springfield was given in a previous caegory called "List of Roman Catholic musicians" which has since been deleted by wikipedia vote. So there - in your face!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This editor has a history or trying to delete information which might lead people to believe that the subjects of biographies might have an Irish or Catholic backgreund - you'll get used to his antics.--Vintagekits 04:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

train bombing

Why would you doubt this isn't NPOV, and, that's the first article someone asks me that... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice Name

I must have been out of the loop for a while because I did not know you had a name change. Thanks for the 2nd opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Faye Turney

A consensus is not nessesary, I based my decision on WP:BLP#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event.Rodrigue 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Biased attack against user Tedblack

You removed a mathematical article I wrote on exchange options. In your reasoning you mentioned that this is a mathematical paper and has no place in wikipedia. Your reasoning is patently false and your actions show a clear degree of bias. Through a brief search I have been able to find [31], [32], [33] and numerous examples of mathematical papers in wikipedia. I am reinstating my article.--Tedblack 09:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from any further deletions. The article I have submitted fulfills all Wikipedia criteria: it is not a personal view; it covers an established financial product; it describes established mathematical methods for valuing and hedging this product; there is considerable interest in articles covering similar subjects. --Tedblack 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Sorry I didn't merge the content yet, but you know you or someone else is also welcome to do so. Rodrigue 17:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007

The June 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 -- 14:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Dear John,

I noticed that you removed all of the links to what I feel are appropriate interviews that compliment the content to which I placed these links. I have read the external link guidelines, and I believe what I have posted constitute useful links. I am not promoting a website. This is not advertising. All the links are free and provide additional information which is useful to a reader. For example, I placed a link to an interview with Miles Davis’s producer, Teo Macero, on what it was like to produce Bitches Brew to the Wikipedia page on the same topic: I'm really not sure what is wrong with this link.

Can you please help me to understand this? I’d like to be respectful and help to forward this project, and I think these resources I am adding to Wikipedia are adding helpful content to this site.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammosh11 (talkcontribs)

Hi John. Thank you for your fast response. Since I do believe that these links improve the articles, may I ask what project support is? I apologize for not knowing appropriate wikiquette. Please let me know what I need to do to post some of these links. Also, I still feel that the interview with Teo Macero is relevant. May at least that link be put back up for now? Thanks for all your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammosh11 (talkcontribs)

Thanks for your help! Just still wondering if I can put up the Teo Macero link. Ammosh11 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi John. I wrote on numerous talk pages and on the WikiProject Music discussion page to follow etiquette. However, I'm not getting any responses. Do you have any more advice? Thank you. Ammosh11 18:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List of states with nuclear weapons

List of states with nuclear weapons has been nominated for a featured list review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. KnightLago 14:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Isle of Man national football team
Random access memory
Yoo Sang-Chul
Keith Levene
The Flowers of Romance (band)
Derek Riordan
Fédération Algérienne de Football
Cool (aesthetic)
Football Association of Wales
The Story of the Clash, Volume 1
Great white shark
Seoul World Cup Stadium
Ingólfur Arnarson
Alex Rodriguez
Estonian Football Association
FIFA Futsal World Championship
Adam Virgo
Jeff Mitchell
Noel Edmonds
Scottish Premier League
Derry City F.C.
Rock music
Add Sources
Behind Blue Eyes
Tom DeLonge
Chris Heaton-Harris
Mathias Kiwanuka
Tarak Dhiab
Jeff Agoos
Zinedine Zidane
Jürgen Klinsmann

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


I am suspecting louielim2007 as a sock puppet of jorbyma2007. He has been vandalising the Yuri Gagarin page.Andrewlim1 05:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I have currently been notified to report sock puppets in another page. Anyway, I'm sure about that you know about jorbyma2007.Andrewlim1 06:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Well, sorry to bother you. Please, forgive me for my wrong doings. But please do not believe Andrewlim1. He is a sock puppet of Louielim1. Please do warn him. I am very sorry about that to bother you.


Hi, sorry to bother you, but I am suspecting Andrewlim1 as a sock puppet of Louielim2007, it is used to be his dad's name but he used it for fun. Please do WARN him if you can, thanks very much.

Hey, what the? I'm just notifying you that he MIGHT be a sock puppeteer. Plus, he didn't sign his talk. Please trust me, if you aren't sure, you can check Jorbyma2007's discussion page. He has really been blocked because of vandalism.Andrewlim1 10:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


...for this, I was in revert mode and nothing was going to stop me! I've reverted myself now, hope there's no hard feelings. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I've done worse myself! Thanks for the message and take care. --John 20:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Do you have any idea on what happened there? It seems to be a case of sockpuppetry, but the post above is confusing, as well as who the sockpuppeteers are... --Dark Falls talk 08:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I do. Please ask me on my user page, Dark Falls. I feel a bit uncomfortable discussing about this on John's page.Andrewlim1 11:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Test edits in Wikipedia Articles

Thank you for the message, but I'm not sure that I understand. If you could update me as to when I did edit which article, I would be very appreciative. Since your message is dated 30th May 2007, and I did not receive it until today, I am even more confused. I don't ever remember making a test edit on any article, but perhaps I have. If you could update me on this, I would be most thankful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thanks for that, btu I've never gone there, so unfortunately, it wasn't me. Thanks for clearing it up though!!

Neighborhood watch

Hi John, I'm heading off to the redwoods for a week of camping...I would appreciate it if you would keep an eye out for things, like folks leaving message looking for help on my talk page. I'm also dropping notes over at Chris' and Sharon's pages, as well. Many thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. --John 04:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hockey in Munich article

Can I please see the Hockey in Munich article which you deleted back in December? Kingjeff 03:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's at /HiM. --John 05:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Why exactly was it deleted? Kingjeff 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, it isn't in English. {{db-foreign}} would be the reason.--John 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's the only reason, then I could easily get someone on it. Kingjeff 05:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I considered translating it myself but it didn't interest me enough. I'd be happy to proofread it if someone else translated though. --John 05:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


My first thought was indef, but I sometimes get flack for being to harsh - however, if you think so too I'll go back and indef. Jimfbleak 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable players

Yes I use the talk page,but no one seems to engage me in discussion even though I have left lengthy paragraphs.(LiamD1 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

People come on wondering why players aren't there and agree that other players should be added.And it is namely you who always stops it.You aren't even willing to discuss changes,you seem to think you run the page,someone else even said that.(LiamD1 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Theres a user called Bazess who left the last comment on the alternative proposal section of the talk page and in the history people have came on and added players,but their edits are almost always reverted.(LiamD1 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Oooo all fire and brimstone.I actually made an article about a past great Johannes Edvaldsson but what do you know some clever,omniscient editor reverted it after I added it.To be honest I dont really see why both the players you are reverting and the more established,old ones can't both be added.They all played at a minimum 30 games with the exceptions of Keane,Wright and Juninho.It wouldn't do any harm if they were added.You would really block me?Do you think that I come on here with the intentions of Vandalism?Why would I vandalise the team I support,Celtic's page,I'm simply trying to make it better.I only really come on this site for Celtic and being threatened to be blocked by an editor for something as simple as editing the team I supports page isn't really encouraging for future edits on Celtics and others(LiamD1 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC))


Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page and blocking the vandal! It is greatly appreciated. --TeaDrinker 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. --John 20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


I'll close that investigation this later today, unless someone elese gets there first. Glad you enjoyed learning abuot watermelon snow. That's a fun thing about Wikipedia- knowledge on every page! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --John 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Celtic F.C.

How many reverts have you made over the past 48 hours? You are the last person that needs to be reminded of WP:3RR.--Vintagekits 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I make it two. Thanks for the reminder though. --John 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the star.I will stick around now and make more articles.(LiamD1 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

You're very welcome. Take care. --John 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937

Could u have a look at this, please: User_talk:Fighting_for_Justice#Bashkirian_Airlines_Flight_2937_.2F.2F_WP:ENGVAR.23National_varieties_of_English? Thx. --Homer Landskirty 21:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

John, why are you only putting a warning on me? It appears to me like Homer Landskirty deserves one too. Fighting for Justice 01:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Homer Landskirty. --John 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville

Thank you for your contribution on the above AfD. Your time and effort is much appriciated. regards--Vintagekits 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Currency Image:2pula.png

Hi, To assist global anti-counterfeiting efforts you may wish to consider marking images of banknotes you upload as "Specimen" in some way, if those banknotes represent legal tender.ShakespeareFan00 14:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Currency Image:2pulab.png

Hi, To assist global anti-counterfeiting efforts you may wish to consider marking images of banknotes you upload as "Specimen" in some way, if those banknotes represent legal tender.ShakespeareFan00 14:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Currency Images

Well if it's no longer active currency, issue resolved. I hope you don't mind me politely raising it though. ShakespeareFan00 15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to say what you said to me initially in your rationale for the image concerned.

ShakespeareFan00 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Here's a chance for you to prove your neutrality to VK. As you're no doubt aware, after lengthy discussion the consensus is not to have an unofficial POV flag in the infobox. However a Unionist editor made this edit, ably supported by a revert by Astrotrain. The refusal of these editors to abide by consensus is disruptive in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And also.... One Night In Hackney303 10:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I have no wish to prove my neutrality to anyone. I agree with you on the Gibraltar issue though and have left messages with the editor concerned and in article talk. See you there. --John 14:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Slightly incivil wouldn't you agree? One Night In Hackney303 15:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was slightly uncivil. --John 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
John, can you protect the infobox on the Northern Ireland article as Astrotrain is edit warring by trying to re-insert the flag dispite there being concensus against this, also I think User: may also be him trying to avoid 3RR.--padraig3uk 18:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the article as you requested. --John 18:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As you may know John, there never was a consensus to remove flags from the infobox in this article- indeed any discussions that did take place were swamped by now blocked sock and meatpuppets of Vintagekits. Astrotrain 08:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I am working on settling a dispute about which sources are more reliable at the article on Race and Genetics Could you just glance at these sources and tell me which ones you feel are more reliable! While I am uninvolved in this articles creation another outside opinion might help reach a consensus. The sources are.

If this is too much, just let me know. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. It will take me a few minutes though. --John 14:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time and evaluation. It is not an argument I am necessarily in, however a dispute I am attempting to settle. An editor was claiming that the content in Source 1 was grounds to exclude information from source 2. I am currently working with both parties and your input was very helpful. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


You have done a lot of good work there on minor errors, personally I think it looked better with the flags of twinned towns, and its sad that 'cyber Irish republicans' seek to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting their agenda of wiping the British off the map.

I've asked the Ballymena council to provide an image to represent themselves, lets see what they say, and note that flag icons are used on other pages in exactly this manner.

As regards Gibraltar bands, in the case of Melon Diesel, lists thir CD's and they have an entry on wikipedia. They achieved considerable popularity in Spain and although you may not be familiar with them they are noteable. Similarly there is a page on 'No Direction'

'Super Wookie' are newer and nobody has written about them, yet - however they have played a prominent concert and been on Gibraltar television a number of times and are developing and no doubt someone will in the next week.

The music scene in Gibraltar is alive and well and did not end with Albert Hammond.

Apologies on the revert, I just saw the flag issue. However if you like removing flags, you can help by getting rid of that blood and sand monstrosity at the top of the Gibraltar talk page.

--Gibnews 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What's going to happen next?

ONiH has asked me via email to delete all his subpages, so, the vandals and attackers have won, I guess. The amount of abuse I have seen folks take on this issue is staggering (now, admittedly, I'm on the outside looking in at this conflict, and only have seen the bad side.) And I'm a little disappointed that folks can be pushed into an outburst like what happened with no ill effects to those who caused the situation. SirFozzie 18:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortuantely, I think that when you get into constant edit conflicts, you start to view it that way. I think the whole British/Northern Ireland history over on ANI (with the two groups constantly warring) got to folks.. there were times where if I had the mop then, I would have been very tempted to slap warnings/blocks on some of the most irritating folks (unfortunately, one of the side effects of being given the mop is the knowledge you can't use it in cases like that).. I tried to get ONiH to take a break before the explosion.. but I think he believes the well is irretrevably poisoned at this point. SirFozzie 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whatever the exact problem is, it cannot be blamed on a victory by "vandals and attackers". Padraig3uk is an editor whose sympathies are obviously in accord with User:One Night In Hackney, and there was a content dispute between them on Talk:IRA_Northern_Command#Charles_McGlade. ONIH did not react well to this and wanted to delete the article as a result. He then deleted posts on his talk page from Padraig3uk and Vintagekits with the edit summary "you're very boring".[34] Three hours after this he said he wouldn't be "editing much any more, due to time wasters."[35] ONIH has been prolific in editing and up to that point mostly exemplary. Afterwards it went increasingly downhill. It seems a likely case of "burnout", and the latest events inevitable as a result. Tyrenius 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

While I will agree burnout was probably an inevtibale result, I think it is important to support those editors and not turn our back on them. The good done by ONIH greatly exceeds the bad. I think it is important to drop him a line and express this to him. We all need to feel aprpeciated and at times like these it is pretty easy to feel unappreciated. WHile I do not condone his behavior, i do support him and the hard work he has done as an editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. I've emailed him, as I'd be sad if he left permanently too. Maybe after a wee break things will be easier and we can all get on with working together. I hope so. --John 21:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually... you're right

Hello John!

You're right of course; about pretty much everything you raised! I got you mixed up with a very simillar user with a short name who just won't compromise on anything about the UK as a frame of reference, and had been inserting Saltires pretty much everywhere.

Also, I do apologise if you weren't aware of that policy - I assumed bad faith which I shouldn't, and I'm sorry about that.

The debate is a heated one to say the least, and I'm just very frustrated here, and wholly believe I'm making a massive point which is not being addressed. I'm an absolute advocate of ethnic equality, but I've been called a racist. I've been called a POV editor, despite outlining why I want as neutral a frame of reference as possible. I've been told I've broken rules, when really, they just don't exist.

I'm not a raging unionist by any means, but I what I'm outlining is that the removal of British nationality for means of "hiding it" are not helpful. I've fought hard to keep the constituent countries as a frame of reference when we write about settlements, and I've fought for the c.c. flags to be used for twin towns. But... describing somebody as English who say had both Welsh and Manx parents, moved to Northern Ireland, was schooled in Scotland, worked in Orkney, died on the Falklands but was born in England - it's just a point of view.

I agree Daniel Craig is English, because he satisfies Englishness at every level... but what about when it is more complicated? Salman Rushdie, DJ Nihal, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Jack Straw...

What's at the root of this is, at what point is somebody English/Scottish/Welsh and why? There are conflicting definitions, which is why British as a descriptor, for better or worse, is a neutral and encyclopedic frame of reference. It seems we're just going off accent here, and not considering broader possibilites. Jhamez84 01:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. On the subject of the Edinburgh flags situation, you were quite right I probably should not have marked it as a minor edit. My thinking at the time was that a few coloured pixels wrongly placed would be about as significant as correcting a spelling mistake. It appears, contrary to my initial belief, to have captured the imaginations of quite a few Wikipedians. --Breadandcheese 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


I thought the small flag icons on the Gibraltar added something and were only only removed because of a particular users POV. That style is used on other pages about twin towns.

There is a larger Spanish flag on the top of the Gibraltar talk page, which is considered highly offensive in Gibraltar, perhaps you could remove that too.

--Gibnews 07:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Long time to speak

Awesome username! Love it. Long live usurpation. How have you been? Drop a line. -- Y not? 03:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Yup - I did so because Gibnews used the edit tag "rvv" to revert mine. He knows full well what this means. It's not the first time he's done it either. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
message Louielim2007 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason: I would like to give you this barnstar because you care about me and always help me when others like johnsmith6, jorbyma2007, jorbyma2006 were attacking my userpage or my account--louielim2007 13:15 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Mike18xx continues to make personal attacks even after his block was extended by another admin for personal attacks. [36], [37], [38]. You may want to lock his talk page. 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misuse of linked years and Easter Eggs

Hi. I noticed you undid my edit here, with the edit summary "Don't remove linking to "year in aviation" articles". In fact links of the form [[1 January]] [[1901 in aviation|1901]] are specifically discouraged as they break the date formatting feature of the media software. The better use of these links is as a "See also [[xxxx in aviation]]". Hope this explains my edit. --John 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

John, links like [[1 January]] [[1901 in aviation|1901]] don't break anything. Such links have two advantages:

  1. Are more readable for non-native English users. Various countries have different ways to write date and for some people 05-06-1980 date means May 6th, for others June 5th. Date written like 5 June 1980 doesn't leave place for misunderstanding.
  2. Date written like [[1 January]] [[1980 in aviation|1980]] is linking simultaneously to two separate articles - 1 January and 1980 in aviation. In both cases you can click on "what links here" feature and you'll see two pages (Special:Whatlinkshere/1 January and Special:Whatlinkshere/1980 in aviation) with all articles linking to them. It's very easy way to check linking articles and update / add new entries to both 1 January and 1980 in aviation articles.

I hope you now understand why [[1 January]] [[1901 in aviation|1901]] links format is used in Aircraft Infobox. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 16:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry you didn't understand me. Maybe if I demonstrate: look at these two dates.
January 1 1970
January 1 1970
They look the same, don't they? This is called an easter egg link. It helps no-one. Dates are linked mainly to ensure readers' date preferences work. If there is a useful link it makes more sense to flag it up, for example See also 1970 in aviation. This lets people see the link and click on it if they are interested. Best wishes --John 16:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Data in Aircraft infobox is formatted 1 January 1980, not January 1 1980. 1 January 1980 is easier to read for any user, even unregistered one who can't change date settings in preferences. There is no possibility to flag all dates in See also 1970 in aviation manner because average Aircraft infobox has 4-5 dates, quite often its 7-8 dates. There is no room for flagging it via "see also". Use of 1980 in aviation is current standard in WikiProject Aircraft. If you would like to introduce change of few thousand articles, feel free to propose it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft page. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your further reply. You said "Use of 1980 in aviation is current standard in WikiProject Aircraft" and suggested I bring it up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. I will be happy to do so, but I cannot see the consensus to confirm your statement. Can you please point me to the consensus supporting what you say is the status quo? Thanks in advance. --John 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no written consensus, we didn't wrote down any single thing which can be edited. Look at several articles about aircraft and you'll see that this date style is commonly used by authors. From my point of view common use of such format style is clear sign of consensus. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 19:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, thanks. That makes sense as it seems that if this use is prevalent that it contradicts the manual of style as well as common sense and usability. I will raise it at the project talk. Best wishes, --John 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Well I fail to see what's wrong with them, as in I disagree with the policy. But anyway, I would prefer to see some continuity in the matter, I mean pretty much every page uses flags, FAs like Katie Holmes for example. Gran2 19:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really expecting my argument to carry much weight, this is really only a trivially minor arguement. The fact is I disagree with the policy, but that is that, its policy, and as such I must concede, so remove the flag if you wish. Gran2 06:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Can you look at this Northern Ireland flags issue User:Astrotrain is removing relevent info from this and other articles, and edit warring, he refuses to discuss changes in the talk pages, he has been blocked before for this. He has also breached WP:3RR on this Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations.--padraig3uk 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you haven't responded to this.--padraig3uk 04:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed I have. Please be patient while I work through my backlog; I am a volunteer just like you are. See User talk:Astrotrain. --John 04:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You give him a warning for edit warring on the NI flag issue, but ignored Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations where he has done the same, and breached 3RR.--padraig3uk 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That's right, and I warned you too. Please use talk rather than reverting in future. WP:AN3RR would be the place to report the 3RR case; I don't have time to investigate it at the moment, especially if you are in a hurry. Best wishes, --John 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

John, I am sure you are aware of what that user has been up to over the past few months- constantly reverting anyone who edits any page relating to the flag of NI. I am also sure you have seen how futile it is to participate in talk pages with this editor who refuses to compromise or even attempt to reach a consensus. It is strange to be accussed of edit warring when making simple edits with a proper edit summary when he simply reverts any user (me and at least 5 others). If I thought a compromise could be reached then I would happily participate in a talk page discussion- I am sure your own experiences testify that it is pointless. Astrotrain 10:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain, I believe your Scottish, would you like it if I went around putting a non-Scottish flag on all templates relating to Scotland, because that is what your doing to the Northern Ireland templates. I come from Northern Ireland and I find it offensive that people mis-represent my birth place to try and score political points, the Official flag is the Union Flag use that or none.--padraig3uk 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Northern Ireland article

Hi John, your protection of Northern Ireland is about to expire, but I'd like to ask you to consider extending it. As you can see from the talk page, there appears to be no hope of reaching consensus soon, and I fear the edit-warring will ramp up again. I'd re-protect it myself, but I'm very involved in the discussion, and I don't want to violate the conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks, Andrwsc 03:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I will post to article talk in the first instance. --John 04:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


How come there are edits i haven't done. Is this common? 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Saatchi

I'd be grateful if you could keep your eye on things per bottom discussion on the above page. Ta! Tyrenius 01:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I will do. I'll keep an eye on your page as well while you are on your break. Take care. --John 02:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to archive, delete or deal with, if the mood takes you! I'll check the edit history to see if there's anything important. Tyrenius 03:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Military history of Gibraltar during World War II

Hi John, thanks for the copyedit. What do you think of the article, I have spent the last few days writing it! Chris Buttigiegtalk 20:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading it Chris, thanks a lot for your good work! --John 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, I guess it paid off then. Chris Buttigiegtalk 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Water drop animation enhanced small.gif

Hi John. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance.

Jreferee (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Admin mop.PNG


Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
I give this barnstar to John because of his good humor and replying or responing my questions everytime, keep up the great work, John.

Sherlock Holmes 23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


I cc'd an email to you and it bounced back - your email box is full. I'll watch this page. Tyrenius 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


You shall be surprised to learn that sources are equally valid regardless of the language they are written in. Also that some people consider removal of sourced information vandalism. Nikola 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are so worried about this reference, why don't you ask me to explain you what it is and translate it so that you could see what it says? If you don't trust me, you could ask someone else who speaks Serbian to verify my translation. Nikola 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Greenland pic

I'm curious what part of Greenland Image:Greenlandmountains.jpg shows, and when this photo was taken? -- Beland 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It was taken in November 2006 from the window of a Boeing 747 on a transatlantic flight. The moving map display showed we were over Greenland at the time. I'm afraid I could not be more precise than that about the location. --John 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Very nice picture. Sunset, I presume? -- ChrisO 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. I suspect that at that latitude in November sunrise and sunset must be virtually one event. I'd love to see it from the ground some day, the furthest north I've ever been so far was Orkney. --John 17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. Well I'm glad you snapped the photo, even if we don't know exactly where you were. 8) -- Beland 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Hi. As you can see from the talk page of State Terrorism of the US, we have a problem with the title move that needs an admin to fix. I was trying to restore it but did it wrongly, and now it needs an admin to correct. Thanks.Giovanni33 05:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's sorted now though. Let me know if you need any other help. --John 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi John, actually the title is stuck at State-sponsored terrorism by the United States which was a stop gap measure (since it could not simply be moved back to State terrorism by the United States) which most people really do not like. It might be moved away from there again, but I think we should go back to that title while the discussion continues. I think this requires an admin to make the move because of a bunch of messy redirects though I could be wrong. Any chance you can move it back to State terrorism by the United States with a note that this is just correcting the bad move to "State-sponsored" and obviously future moves can be considered? I know you've already weighed in as wanting to keep the current title (someone removed your vote for some odd reason, but I put it back) so if you feel it would be inappropriate for you to make a move given that you have expressed a viewpoint I would understand (though personally I don't see it as a problem). Anyhow I think it would be good if someone could do this. Thanks!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I have raised it at AN/I as I don't think it would be proper for me to use my admin tools in a conflict I've been involved in. Thanks for letting me know. --John 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, I agree that's probably the best way to proceed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi John, I just read over WP:DATE; I think it is about time I get the linking correct! Chris Buttigieg 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris, no problem. Very well done for all your good work; it was a pleasure to copyedit two such interesting articles. --John 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweep my links


I'm French . I don't understand why you recently swept the links I put on the page of Auxerre .

I think it brings precise and new informations about the club of Auxerre .

It looks like this page was entirely yours and that you don't support others coming

in your little privacy . I thing it's not conform to the spirit of Wikipedia .

It's strange but I think every page in Wikipedia is the property of a little dictator .

You have now the power of censure ! Congratulations —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Salut et bienvenue!
Je suis desolé que vous êtes derangé.
Il faut lire WP:EL pour voir la raison.
Au revoir!
--John 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar Currency

The Act which establishes the right to issue notes is ongoing, and it is legally wrong to refer to it in the past tense, or so my lawyer says.

As regards what the currency is, the GoG London website says its pounds sterling, which is the notes say, how banks keeps accounts, and good enough for both me and Wikipedia. That is what the reference cited says, nothing more. The GIP as a seperate currency may exist in theory, but in practice you cannot buy one or hold a bank account denominated in it.

Wording that refers to 'Gibraltar Pounds' was taken from a time when there were notes in circulation saying that, Barclays Bank charged .25% to convert money in local accounts to pay UK bills. They were forced to stop the practice and the notes had to be withdrawn.

--Gibnews 00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and I don't disbelieve any of it. However, on Wikipedia we have to be guided by what is verifiable, not what is true. Please bear this in mind. --John 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I just tried to improve the wording on the GIP so that it did not take either side of the contradictory references on the same GoG website, but Gibnews is now reverting my edits within seconds of me making them. I don't think this is fair, my edit should at least be allowed to stand for a while to see what others think, no? Am I being unreasonable? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are being as unreasonable as anyone. However the current version does not assert that the currency in circulation is 'Gibraltar Pounds' which your previous revisions did. Its now simply a matter of the GoG updating the contradictory material on their websites. I believe John has got the point about the provisions of the Act being ongoing, so there is no need to carry on the discussion here --Gibnews 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles

I have just reverted some unnoticed vandalism by another IP. I didn't mean to say that your edits were vandalism. 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --John 16:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Good. So long as we're all fair and square. It was just something I couldn't help. However, I will try to make more constructive edits, or rather use the talk page before editing. 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit?

John, since you watch over RMS Titanic, I thought you might be interested in another interesting White Star ship...I just did a piece on the SS Suevic, and if you have time, it could use a copyedit. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Piped links in dates

Hello John, can you tell me if the piped links in dates issue is settled? I've tried removing some, but User:Piotr Mikołajski has been reverting them and telling me to look at some discussion page which is all over the place. Thanks in advance. M Van Houten 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

See my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Readability. I don't think there is either a consensus or a policy-based case for keeping these links at present, but I would like some more input to that discussion before we make any changes to articles. --John 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


Can you have a look at Padraig3uk's edits to Northern Ireland flags issue, List of Northern Irish flags and Northern Ireland? He is reverting edits without leaving an edit summary, as well as reinserting images not allowed under fair use. Is it just going to be the case that no one can edit these articles other than him? If so, then compromise will never be reached on this flags issue. Thanks Astrotrain 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain you have been trying to remove the Assembley logo for months, its use in that article is to represent the Northern `Ireland Assembly and its government, as for me not leaving an edit summary, I sometimes don't when dealing with you as you refuse to discuss changes in the talk pages and ignore the ongoing discussions there.--padraig3uk 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


I was adding inline citationss, in case your unaware its being considered for de-listing, so i was stocking up on references, and the unsurpassed luxury section reeks of POV, so it needs editing.

Article writing

Seeing as you're currently opposing me because of my lack of article writing, I would appreciate if you looked at this. I hope you don't mind me posting this on your talk page, but I know some people probably don't watchlist everything they ever edit. Thanks, R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with POV articles

Hello John.

I'm quite new to wikipedia and so far have not done anything much more complicated than making minor changes to articles. I came across Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) I thought it was fairly obviously rather one-sided in its content. I added some sort of POV template to the article and make a post in the talk page, as per wiki's guidelines. Most of the references in the article are POV in nature, and some of the barely related to what they are used to support.

How do I go about improving the article please?

Thank you Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that an unencyclopaedic article is allowed to remain, unidentified as being such, just because I'm too daft to be able to change it myself? Thanks. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews 2

Gunniog, can you have a look at this. User:Gibnews referred to myself and other editors of the Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) article as "rabid and others their running dogs". I consider that a direct personal attack, however, as its the "new me" and I am trying to avoid getting drawn into this type of conflict I asked him first withdraw it and apologise and I would forget about it. He deleted my messege, so now I am coming to have a word with you about it as you, Rock and Ty formally warned Gibnews here last week about it which he immediately then archieved.--Vintagekits 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As VK's mentor, I am aware of this, and other then the fact I'm his mentor and thus somewhat biased, Gibnews was told that if he made another attack like the one he did previously, then he would be blocked. That is beyond the pale, and deserving of at least a short term block, correct? SirFozzie 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, as Gibnews has been helping me, my opinion is probably biased too. But I don't think that his comment was actually aimed specifically at Vintagekits.
I have, however, noticed that Vintagekits has suddenly taken to editing a lot of my contributions to articles. Nothing wrong with that per se, of course, but I must question his motive. He's probably taken offense at me attempting neutralise his article. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I am not going to comment on who the attack was directed at as I will let others work that out. 2. I am not sure what your point is, I havent edited anything across you at all and I have only edited pages which are already on my watchlist.--Vintagekits 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
See here for the edit you were looking for.--Vintagekits 01:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

Hi John, I could use a second opinion on something, if you have time. In the article Fetus in fetu, Una Smith has been repeatedly removing sourced material and/or the sources themselves. He seems to believe that for medical and scientific subjects, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines of preferring non-trivial secondary sources doesn't apply, and that we should rely on primary sources. I have repeately explained to him our policies and guidelines, provided him with links to the appropriate places, but he either just doesn't get it or simply doesn't want to accept it. This is more than a content dispute, in my view, because instead of disputing the content, he's trying to discredit it by questioning and/or removing the sources, without providing sources of his own. This has come to the point that it is, in my opinion, blatant degradation of the article, tantamount to vandalism.

After yet another round of removing sources and sourced information, I left a stern warning on his talk page that removal of sourced information is not acceptable, and that if he continued, a block could be forthcoming. In response, he then dropped a complaint over at AN/I, where I've responded as well.

I guess what I need is two-fold...first, a quick review of my AN/I response to make sure I'm not overstepping any bounds. Secondly, if he continues to persist in the removal of sources, my opinion is that a block is warranted, but it would be inappropriate for me to issue it, as it would appear to be COI, so as my hands are a bit tied, I could use some help in defending the article's integrity here.

The irony is that this isn't even an article that I'm really passionate about. I resurrected it from a redirect as a place to merge some material from an AfD, and to bring a couple other stubs to. It just really bothers me that this editor is so willing to blatantly ignore sourcing policy and remove perfectly legitimate secondary sources, so I really see this as a case of trying to stick up for Wikipedia's sourcing policies rather than trying to defend and article, or content that I'm attached to.

I haven't dropped a bunch of diffs into this request, because I didn't know if you'd want to take an unprompted look at things. Diffs are great, but I don't want it to appear that I'm trying to sway the picture by how I present the diffs. On the other hand, if they'd be helpful to you, let me know and I'll provide some examples of what I'm talking about. Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to you on User talk:Una Smith. Regards, Una Smith 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


As you seem to know alot about citing sources here on Wikipedia, I wonder what you think about a source on Siege of Dubrovnik article. The information came from a documentary which seems to be unavailable for viewing. If care to take a look at it im referring to the second reference. It doesnt seem to be a "non-free format" as you put it. Paulcicero 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --John 01:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Murder of the Rock

I gotta say I am very unhappy with this edit. The term Volunteer should be the only term used as it is the most encyclopedic, however the current agreement is to refer member first and then Volunteer, in the manner I have just done - please revert this. Additional each Volunteer was unarmed and as the SAS claimed they were planning a remote controlled bomb the it is important to also state that they were also not carrying this technology either.--Vintagekits 22:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I know they were unarmed at the time. Member/Volunteer looks poor; where was this consensus reached? One or the other is fine. We don't need to report a negative, that they were not found with a trigger for the bomb they were engaged in planting. We just report the facts, neutrally, and let the reader make their own opinion of them. --John 22:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the reasons (not the only reason) that the Member/Volunteer form looks unencyclopedic to me is that in reality on Wikipedia neither term would be capitalised here; both of them being, and that slash.... looks naff. Sorry. --John 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion that "it looks naff" simply doesnt cut it - his rank in the IRA was Volunteer - hence it is capitalised as per norm.--Vintagekits 23:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Not on Wikipedia, I think. --John 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

They were unarmed and there was no remote control for the bomb that had not been planted at the time they were shot, however nobody knew that until afterwards and the ECHR report makes it clear that a radio device was anticipated. The verdict of the Gibraltar court was lawful killing and that remains, so to say they were 'murdered' is pushing a POV which is not factually correct. Claiming ranks for terrorists in plain clothes is a debate I'd rather not get into. --Gibnews 23:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that clearly shows your POV, John may agree with you also, however that is immaterial - we deal in facts not POV. They were unarmed and had no bomb when they were murdered without warning and without opportunity to surrender (as backed up by indepenent witnesses) so remind me who you consider the terrorists are! Anyway it matter not that you consider them unworthy of rank, the fact is they did hold it.--Vintagekits 23:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider them unworthy of rank, I would be happy for us to call them volunteers. Murder is a legal term whose use is not justified here. --John 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can ytou please explain why you are uncapitalising the term Volunteer.--Vintagekits 15:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) dictates this. Just as George Bush is the U.S. president (although we can call him President Bush), volunteer does not get a capital in an instance like this. --John 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Other issues with your last edit include the following mistakes. 1. It was a fundraising mission - why remove that? 2. The "poiginant" section is taken directly from the TPC book, he uses that exact phrase so I dont see why removed removed referenced material. 3. the last obsequies and a funeral are two different things - again why the change when the references doesnt stated that he precided over the funeral? 4. The references did not state that his death "caused controversy in medical circles" its stated that it "caused controversy in English medical circles" - why remove referenced material. If you are going to start editing these articles please take more time and effort in doing so and I dont want to have to do this with every edit you make.--Vintagekits 15:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1) A bank robbery was a fundraising mission? Seems too obvious to need saying. 2) If it is a quote it needs to be in quotation marks, with a proper attribution. It also needs to be spelled properly. 3) my mistake, I didn't know that, I thought it was just a fancy way of saying funeral 4) Again, a quote should be in quotation marks and be referenced so the reader can check it themselves. Your advice is likely well-intentioned so I do not take offence at it and I'll resist the temptation to give you any in return, for now. --John 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I find your suggestion a little nonsensical - the terms coming from a book - they are not quotes as if the guy is talking himself, its not a novel, its text from a book - are suggesting that every piece information taken from from every source it attibuted mid line and put in qoutes? The information is referenced from a reliable source and that is enough. As fer spelin mistooks - I'm not bodered about them as me spelin is sit. --Vintagekits 16:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Nonsensical or not, that is how we work here. If it's a quote, it should be shown as such.--John 16:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just said its not a quote - its text in the book.--Vintagekits 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if it is a quote from a book it should be accurately quoted, it should be made clear where it is quoted from, and the source should allow the reader to confirm for himself the accuracy of the quote. --John 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well its not word for word so its not a direct quote - the information is referenced so if you have issue with that then I suggest you either get a copy of the book to confirm it or get another source to contradict it!--Vintagekits 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the onus is on you to reference correctly and accurately any information you want to remain in the article. Otherwise it will be removed. --John 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to wind me up for some reason?? The bloody article is referenced - I've told you its referenced and I've even provided the pages. The book is freely available - if you dont believe the information I have taken from the book then get a copy. This is my last comment here on this as I am becoming annoyed.--Vintagekits 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Not trying to wind you up, no. It certainly isn't worth getting annoyed over. --John 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Gibnews Diff

[39] (oops, signing) SirFozzie 01:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have given him a last warning for that; it is quite unacceptable. --John 01:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked: User_talk:Gibnews#Block. He's already had the final warning. It will help all editors concerned here to know that personal attacks on others are unacceptable. Tyrenius 02:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise I was superceding your post to him (and apologise for this), but I'd already said another abusive post would result in a block, after he'd been heavily warned. I also noted your statement of involvement (quite properly made), and wasn't in that position. Tyrenius 03:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine, I think we both did the right thing. --John 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

vandal block

Be my guest :).. I hadn't had a chance to see if he had any good edits SirFozzie 05:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi John! I think I might just be a bit daft, but I'm wondering about this edit, where it seems as if some comments got removed. I'm just wondering if it may have been a formatting thing, as I know I've made similar mistakes when trying to comment on an RfA. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I I wonder how that happened? Thanks for letting me know. --John 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Template:Northern Ireland cities

Another usual edit war regarding the Ulster banner atthe above template. Thankfully it has been pretty quiet on the template from over a month as can be seen here from the edit history. However user:Setanta747 just added the UB. Its a relatively antagonistic thing to do and was always going to instigate a reaction especially as he was requested not to do that here and given a warning for edit warring here only three days ago. I removed the UB - he reinsterted it, Barry removed it, I then tried a compromise of adding the NI map and contacting him to discuss. However it continued and now I've been asked by him to stay off his talk page here. Can you please havea word as its not only imo distracting and disruptive. --Vintagekits 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


I replied to your oppose vote. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. --Caltas (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. --John 17:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Gripen crashes

Hi, John. My reason for having the date tags as headings is that with only linebreaks to increase readability, the text will appear as a massive "chunk". Don't you agree? After all this a listing with a given structure: the course of events leading to the crash, and the explanation (if any). Now it seems that all crashes are one single event. And what is your point in naming the pilot? I know who it was, too (although it's spelt Rådeström). LarRan 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want to know about a specific crash, having the dates as headings will directly lead you right. LarRan 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone's Moving your page

Hey John, someone called user:jorby ma has just moved your page to a page called user:ohbaby, I had helped you undo it and warn him never do it again. ✬holmes.sherlock✬ (talk) (contribs) Holmes.sherlock 03:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

Astrotrain and myself had reverted that comment by a earlier vandal but User:Holmes.sherlock reverted my edit and then proceeded to mess about with your page, I then noticed he restored the page but left that comment in, I think you should querie him as to why he reverted my edit and what he was trying to do.--padraig3uk 07:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did. --John 14:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image query

I'm not sure of the right place to mention this, but you were on the Michael Gaughan page and I see you're an administrator.

This image is claimed to be released into the public domain by an editor. However I don't think he took it. The actual site ( seems to be down at the moment, but you can see the picture here (second one along) which is the exact same size as also. A cached version of the site makes it clear it's a US Navy site. With my limited knowledge of copyrights that may mean the actual image is public domain, but until the site is working it's impossible to verify the status and I very much doubt it belongs to the editor who uploaded it. Please advise, thanks. Scalpfarmer 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've dropped them a note. I know the editor already. --John 14:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I deleted it as it wasn't being used anyway. --John 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at the remaining ones he uploaded. This is a re-scaled version of this. Where's the best place to report any future problems with images please? Scalpfarmer 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've deleted it. Wikipedia:Copyright problems would be the place in future. --John 03:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I'll go there in future. But to avoid red tape on this occasion, his last two "public domain" images can be seen here, so will need deleting as well I assume? Scalpfarmer 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) No, thank you for yours. I'll just delete them. Shame, I was holding out for the hope that he/she would have contributed even one genuine picture... --John 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Who are you to say what is and what isnt a war?--Vintagekits 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vintagekits, nice to see you. War is a legal term. If you can find a reliable source that calls the NI troubles a war and calls IRA prisoners POWs I'll gladly revert that one. Until then... --John 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Glady - maybe you should discuss these thing instead of your usual tactic. regards.--Vintagekits 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] - more if you want!! Slainte!--Vintagekits 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see in the BBC link (the only one I looked at) any mention of POWs. "Your usual tactic" seems rather uncivil. --John 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well if you are trying to bait me into being uncivil you are doing a good job - I suggest you read more than one link in future.--Vintagekits 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm just doing my job of trying to keep Wikipedia NPOV. There was no mention of POWs in the RTE or the BBC stories; I'm not now clear why you sent them. --John 00:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The links prove that there was a war, they were imprisioned by the enemy during that war, therefore POW's.--Vintagekits 01:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I see. That just isn't how we work here though. See WP:NOR. --John 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No OR used, I've provided the links.--Vintagekits 01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The links show that some considered the Troubles to be a war. There is nothing there that says IRA prisoners were POWs. That's OR at that point. --John 01:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You might want a we read of the Third Geneva Convention if you think what I have said is OR.--Vintagekits 01:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish Nationalism

My user page has been rewritten as you requested.YourPTR! 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Well, I wanted to go to your talk page and leave you a message, then I saw your name changed to Ohbaby instead of John! I then saw the history, and knew it was user:jorby ma. So, I helped you undo it and warned Jorby Ma not to do it again or I will ask and admin to block him. Thanks for your really kind attention.Holmes.sherlock 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Well, sorry, John, I thought I put it in Ohbaby's page. Sorry.Holmes.sherlock 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007

The July 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 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


I noticed you changing the capital V’s in Volunteer and would like to know why? I would suggest you read The Volunteer uniforms, weapons and history of the Irish Republican Army 1913-1997, by James Durney. Volunteer is always spelt with a capital V. It is also abbreviated to Vol. Regards --Domer48 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Lower case "v" should be used for the time being." (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage) and "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)). See also User talk:Vintagekits. --John 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mairéad Farrell POW category

user:Domer48 keeps re-adding the POW category and I believe has also broken the 3RR on the article Mairéad Farrell.

Thank you. Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've warned the editor about edit-warring. --John 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you take a look this then [ this edit] he made please? Firstly, dead reference links shouldn't be removed. Secondly, that is not neutral editing. After removing the dead reference, a "fact" tag has been placed on the part about them being unarmed and trying to surrender. However the parts about, for example, the Semtex being found in a car Farrell has keys for hasn't had an "fact" tag added. Surely if he's going to remove references everything that was references needs a "fact" tag adding, not just picking and choosing parts? That is not neutral and fair editing in my opinion.

And John since you are involved on the article, is there a more neutral opinion we could call upon? --Domer48 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. --John 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith. Nothing I do on wikipedia is designed to mislead people or push a POV. I removed a dead reference and replaced it with a citation thingy. I could've just removed the whole lot, but chose not to. Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bicker with you, I actually try and avoid new editors like you because so many turn out to be socks of RMS and its a total waste of time and energy. Anyway why did you only ask for a citation for them being murdered while unarmed, but no other piece of information which is not sourced by a reference?--Vintagekits 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither of you should bicker about it, especially not on my talk page. Please take well-considered arguments framed civilly in terms of our core policies to article talk and try to improve these articles. Thanks. --John 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Please try to work productively with each other rather than bickering about fact tags. --John 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again --John, is this [47] just a wind up or are they serious. If it is the former, it’s in bad taste, if the latter its pure provocation. Rather than respond I felt it only right to get your opinion first. --Domer48 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Leave it with me Domer. --John 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha. Domer's just added a warning about my "vandalism" of the article on my talk page. Obviously I have deleted it. Unlike him I've broken no wikipedia rules in remove the POW category from the article, have I? Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Not in removing the category, and not in itself in removing the messages. However your edit summary "silly comment, removed. I don't take comments from hypocrites seriously" is a serious breach of WP:CIVIL. Please don't. --John 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello John, I left this message [48] on Biofoundationsoflanguage’s talk page and then this one[49]. Both of which were removed, with the following edit summary [50] . Now is this to be tolerated, or should I just react to this provocation.? --Domer48 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with removing the category, and your use of a boilerplate vandalism warning with an established user was unwise. More to the point that was definitely not vandalism. Neither of you has behaved well. It would be better to try to listen to one another's points of view and try to compromise. --John 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
John it is you who dose not seem to understand. Your tone and manner for one, as administrator. “I will ensure that you receive a break from editing.” That’s sound just about reasonable! Now I suggest you report me to an admin, if you have a problem with my attitude. I consider this particular disscussion closed, as no reasonable conclusion will be reached. --Domer48 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

POW category

John, I have been looking at this dispute and remain somewhat unclear about the POW category. Certainly from looking at the contents, it seems a bit of a dolly mixture of cases. Is there any Wiki policy you can refer me to on this? The more I look into this the more unclear I am as to why MF is not allowed be included.(Regards (Sarah777 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Not a policy, no. But see Talk:Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)#POW status where User:Rockpocket makes the seemingly reasonable suggestion that we use Category:People convicted on terrorism charges instead.--John 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather a dramatic difference between being described as a POW or as being "convicted of terrorism" I would have thought! Anyway; surely being "convicted of terrorism" has no bearing on becoming subsequently a POW? So BOTH categories fit the MF case. There is no need for an either/or here. (Sarah777 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
However, being convicted on terrorism charges is verifiable and neutral, unlike the contentious criminals and POW categories, which is why I prefer it. --John 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how buying into a Government construct (they abolished a pre-existing political prisoner category) in a time of rebellion can be characterised as neutral. There is enough evidence that the British establishment regarded it as a "war" (especially when seeking to justify extra-legal killings); so clearly, enemy operatives captured and imprisoned by them were "POW" by their own logic? (Sarah777 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
That's an arguable point of view, but it is not a neutral point of view. If we could find reliable sources indicating that anyone outside the republican movement regrded them as POWs, I think this argument would have more of a leg to stand on. --John 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you are taking this "no synthesis" notion beyond common sense or it's original intention. If the Govt regards itself as "at war"; takes prisoners from the enemy and incarcerates them - they are POWs; no synthesis or references required (and I'm not saying there aren't any). To exclusively us British Government terminology, even when it contradicts the logic of their own position, is simply pushing British State POV, and is not neutral. Also, is there anyone outside the British Establishment on record as saying they were not POWs? Their release after the GFA en-mass coperfastens the case that they were POWs. (Sarah777 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

(deindent)But the British state never did acknowledge it was at war with the IRA, instead treating them as terrorists. To make an analogy, Andreas Baader would doubtless have regarded himself and the other RAF personnel as prisoners of war. The group had after all declared war on the German state. Nevertheless in the absence of reliable sources recognising the existence of such a state of war, and in the interests of the NPOV policy, we do not call him a POW. --John 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The British state has frequently acknowledged that there was a war on! They can't have it both ways like Bush and Guantanamo; the fighting in Afghanistan was a "War on Terror" but the enemy captives are not prisoners of war!! This isn't WP:NPOV, it is an absurdity!
Would we deny that Vietnam, Gulf One, Yugoslavia, Iraq were wars, just because the Western Governments involved never declared? (Sarah777 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
Believe me, I thoroughly sympathise with this point of view and I agree with you about Guantanamo. Unfortunately perhaps, governments do have a tendency to "have it both ways". I repeat, in the real world, the IRA prisoners were not given POW status, and so we cannot call them POWs. Whether they ought to have been granted it is another and quite interesting discussion, but not one which I feel will advance the discussion about the use of the category. Best wishes, --John 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
To reply to the second comment, the Falklands War is an interesting case in point. War was never declared by either side. I would say that as both sides treated the captured enemy as POWs we would be correct in calling them POWs. Pragmatic, real-world considerations have to drive our usage here, not our wishes for a better and fairer world, however commendable these wishes may be. --John 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry John. Black is not white until some Western Government decides to concede the point. They are to be categorised as POW's based on the facts of their imprisonment; not on the grounds of what the British Government "granted". It is irrelevant what one of the warring parties called their prisoners if the facts all clearly support the definition "prisoner of war". So, to use your terminology; in the real world, the IRA prisoners were POWs, and so we must call them POWs. Whether the British Government ought to have granted such status officially is another and quite interesting discussion. Slán agus beannacht. (Sarah777 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
Then should the category also be placed on Baader's page (my example above) because some regarded him as a POW? Best wishes to you too. --John 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In June 1971 Reginald Maudling, the Conservative British Home Secretary, announced that the British government was now "at war with the IRA". Any similar announcements by the German Govt. re Baader Meinhof? (Sarah777 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Not that I know of. I wonder if people (Tommy Chong for example) imprisoned in the War on Drugs would be entitled to call themselves POWs too then? --John 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John - you gonna keep firing these balls at me till you find one I can't hit out of the park!! If Bush says he is "at war" with Mr Chung then I certainly think the situation needs further exploration. For example; against FARC in Columbia it definitely is a war (or the Narco-Warlords in Afghanistan). But would Mr Chung reckon he was engaged in a "war"; or just in the drug business? (Sarah777 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
It's a knotty issue, you're right. All the more reason that the language we use remains scrupulously NPOV and conforms with neutral reliable sources. Chong, incidentally wasn't in the drugs business; he was convicted of selling drugs paraphernalia, not drugs. --John 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
John, I guess we both believe in the same rules of the game - "you can't enter a camel in a horse race". It's just that so many camels look like horses to you -:)(Sarah777 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
Well, indeed. I don't think the talk discussion is going anywhere; it's just about time we called in outside help. Let's see what some others think. --John 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism by the United States

Hi John, you just reverted my recent move even though there is no opposition to it. Please reply on my talk page. east.718 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:State terrorism by the United States#Title—There's ten editors for and none against. east.718 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, thanks! east.718 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the titanic article

I'm not sure if you're aware but the titanic article was recently stripped of its featured article status. I edited out some sections of the article because they're, well, worthless. The lead is far too long, so i condensed it, the titanics turning ability and lifeboat sections are far too detailed; what does the change of name of the third sister ship have to do with anything; also i wasn't aware that the legend of the titanic's band was a "long term" effect of the sinking. Im sorry but i thnk that the article could be condensed, also the sinking is practically a stub, it should be more detailed instead of having a main article tab; after all thats what made the ship infamous. Don't you agree? --Hadseys 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. However I think the changes need to be discussed in talk first. --John 21:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I would second John on that (the need to talk about it, first). For instance, the renaming of Gigantic was a direct result of the negative publicity of the Titanic sinking, so it is relevant. Also, you need to consider that some of this was talked about in length, for instance, the reason the sinking section is a stub is that it used to be extremely long, making the article too long, so after much discussion it was split off. Yes, things need to be fixed, but as I've stated on the article's talk page, discuss changes before making them, and if the change is drastic, draw up a draft in a sandbox first and solicit input. You'll find that things will go much better that way. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So, we getting it featured again? As for the renaming of britannic the article doesnt explain why the negative publicity affected the name of theother ship. And the disaster section has turned from super lengthy to almost a stub; given that that is what made the titanic notorious, i'd say that was unacceptable --Hadseys 11:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi there; thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. This is one of the penalties of being an admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Mine is locked at the moment for just that reason. Best wishes, --John 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
protection is an obvious option. I tend to feel that leaving the page up attracts the vandals, whom we can than indefblock. Certainly I feel that I attract more vandals than most admins do. But that,s ok; It's a bit like flypaper. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Just looked at your userpage. I knew you by your previous username. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I got fed up with people making jokes about the beer, and when I saw this one was available I grabbed it via the usurpation process. --John 01:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi John, regarding the reason for my block, I have started a conversation at WT:IWNB#Misleading category changes. Stu ’Bout ye! 18:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


I noticed your activity here [51]. I think this guy is back at Michael Ignatieff. See the recent edit history before the protection. Is a range block in order again?--Strothra 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Williams (Irish Republican)

You just can not help yourself pushing your POV can you [52]. There is an ongoing discussion and this is how you behave. --Domer48 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Williams was a member of PIRA? What planet are you on by the way? --Domer48 14:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Planet Earth. That was a rubbish edit you made. Please do not post on my user talk page again. The problems which you and other POV-pushers have created and perpetuated will be solved by people who care about Wikipedia more than pushing a sectarian POV. Thank you. --John 16:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
John, Tom Williams died in 1942, he was a member of the IRA the provisionals didn't exist then.--padraig3uk 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Very good, thank you for the correction. I would be even happier if you would take issue with Domer and his like for edits such as this one. As you can see he has reintroduced spelling and formatting errors into the article in the name of pushing his POV. Do you think this is ok? --John 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The only issue I have with his edit is the inclusion of the category:Irish Roman Catholics, Volunteer is a rank and should be capitalised. What do you see wrong with it.--padraig3uk
It contravenes both the Manual of Style and the result of a MedCab case. --John 17:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not similar with this MedCab case do you have a link.--padraig3uk 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Lower case "v" should be used for the time being." (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage) and "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)). See also User talk:Vintagekits. --John 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral POV - an Oxymoron

John, (without your permission) I have lifted this from the Irish Wikipedians talkpage:

I can't believe we've wasted so much time on this. IRA prisoners were not POWs. However much a bunch of Irish nationalist editors think they ought to have been. We work with facts here; in the absence of any neutral reliable source we cannot call any of them POWs. Opinion, indeed, is worthless. Facts. --John 00:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is breaching WP:CIVIL and (to me) implies a very limited understanding of the "real world". I am concerned that British Administrators are unable to leave their conditioning/"legalistic" bias behind (as the Irish Admins do).

In a spirit of friendship, and in the light of these remarks, I must ask whether you should continue to involve yourself in issues pertaining to Ireland. Sadly yours (Sarah777 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your message. I don't believe it is an oxymoron; more a journey. --John 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Insightful observation. But what a very tough and hazardous journey. (Sarah777 11:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
I don't see any problem with John being involved in these discussions, as his opinion is as valid as anyone elses, therefore there is no problem as long as he is not abusing his admin powers to uphold a particular POV.--padraig3uk 11:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree in the case of John; my remarks were a somewhat intemperate reaction to the "bunch of Irish nationalist editors" comment, for which I apologise. Rocket is of more concern as he appears to be threatening to block Vk and appears to want to dictate how, and where this debate will be conducted. (Sarah777 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
And y'know, if its left to an admin, that mightn't be such a bad thing. That way it might actually have been happening in the right place, (i.e., CfD) rather than a single wikiproject discussing something of interest and relvance to several. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Large Oaks out of little acorns grow. (Sarah777 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Just little old me

I've redacted everything I said here. I apologise for letting down my guard; I let a passionate and problematic editor whose POV I disagree with me needle me such that I was unnecessarily nasty. The style issue and the issue of editors' behaviour in Northern Ireland-related articles are both being taken care of through other conversations, as they both should have been ages ago. I've left what was said as an invisible comment if anyone wants to read it. I meant it when I said it but in retrospect it does not advance the cause of working together to build an encyclopedia. Sorry. --John 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland

Can you have a look at this, editors are removing referenced material and the reference as well, this is vandalism. They are using the excuse of removing the Tricolour as an excuse for these edits, yet the referenced material and reference has nothing to do with that issue.--padraig3uk 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I weighed in on the article's discussion page. I confess I am becoming thoroughly sick of the POV-wars on NI-related articles (see item above, for example). I think we all need to step back and reassess the true importance of some of these things being argued about. It so happens I disagree with some of the things you say on the content issue but I give kudos for at least discussing it and trying to form a consensus. Best wishes, --John 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
John, I have no problem on wether the Tricolour is included on the Flag of Northern Ireland article or not, my problem is with them removing the reference and text refering to that, which I would regard as vandalism, I left a message on Jonto talk page to ask his to restore the reference and he didn't do so.--padraig3uk 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dominik Diamond

Are we not using flag icons in articles anymore? --SteelersFan UK06 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in this way, no. See WP:FLAGCRUFT. --John 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream newspapers not valid?

I put these comments on the previous talk page we were using last week, I am assuming you did not see it, which is a shame, since you once again removed my changes I would have hoped that you would have had a look. Maybe I did not put them in the right place, for which I apologise. I have now included them in the main discussio page, and also here, below. Please do me the courtesy of replying:

I was busy previously but I feel that I should have responded to this point last year, and now have time to do so.

The critiscisms here of my tone are quite valid, my original submissions were highly emotive and I appologise for that. However you repeatedly claim that the references are unverifiable. However I feel that articles in two national newspapers constitute "Verifiability". You say:

"My issue with the reference (once I had tracked it down; you could have made it easier by giving me a url) is that it is present on a paid-for site."

Wikipedia says:

""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.""

It does not say that only online sources are valid. There are other sources for these articles, you know. In fact, "...Published by a reliable source...." Tends to imply print-press rather than electronic, according to the common definition of the verb, To Publish. Are you seriously suggesting that mainstream national newspapers are not a valid source in any circumstances unless a FREE on-line source is also available? THis is NOT mentioned in The definition of Verifiability provided by Wikipedia (which you yourself claim is the basis for your decision) so I find this decision strange, to say the least. The internet has been around for 15-20 years or so in it's popular form, newspapers for around 200 years. I am sure that there are many references in other articles which do not also existing on-line. I think that the general public consider a citation of a national newspaper to be 'Verifiable', this being all that existed until the present generation.

In fact, in the Wikipedia policy about living people you have mentioned above, it states: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."

Once again, I apologise for the tone of my previous article. But it is a fact that the school was being investigated by the police for allegations of abuse, this is actually more than a critiscism so surely warrants inclusion? If "The Sunday Mail" and "The Mail on Sunday" feel that it deserves two full articles then surely I have a right to ask that this information be included.

So please, someone tell me how I can get these allegations included, as I feel not to do so is falling way short of Wikipedia's goal of fair and balanced information.

Am I allowed to quote these articles?

There must be a way to include this. These are not obscure references.

Tom Prescott 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for responding to my concerns of September 2006. However there are better reasons than verifiability why you cannot put things like this in an encyclopedia article. One is WP:BLP; if these living people choose to sue over your allegations, Wikipedia would be in an unenviable position. The second is that the article as it is has remained stable in an NPOV version for quite a while; including your lurid claims unbalances the article. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper and does not operate like one. Tell me, what exactly is your motivation for arguing for the inclusion of his material? --John 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As a conscientious editor ...

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here...GaimhreadhanIreland-Capitals.PNG(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Copyedit from my "talk" page: "You replaced the following text which I had removed from the article: "A commonplace joke in Germany was that the cheapest way of obtaining a Starfighter was to buy a small patch of land and simply wait." Do you honestly think this is a worthwhile thing to have in the article? Even if it can be referenced? --John 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)" Hi John, thanks for writing. The issue was not necessarily the context of the passage but the means in which large amounts of text were deleted without consulting either a discussion page or looking for a consensus which I contend is the usual pattern for major changes to an article. As to the actual statement, I think a case can be made for it to be considered in the "popular culture" vein. I did a cursory Internet search and found countless references to the phrasiology of "buy an acre of land and wait" that was traced to the uncomfortable "black" humour of the German Air Force pilots who were characterizing the so-called "accident-prone" F-104G. I suggested an interim device in that if the issue was a lack of referencing, then you place a "citation" tag or "fact" tag and give a sufficient time for other editors to respond. FWIW Bzuk 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Hi John, see my comments on the discussion page of the F-104 article. FWIW Bzuk 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC).
Thanks, I saw and replied. --John 22:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

Sorry about all of the capitalizations. I'm somewhat new to editing Wikipedia, and I learned that you should only capitalize the first word, so I won't do it anymore. Thank you!

RPlunk2853 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


I did not vandalize i was proving a point everytime i deleted a paragraph was for a vlid reason which i left but it kept getting restored. so if that information can be put there without no sources,verification or facts then i decided i can do the same. so why do you warn me and not the others who restored?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Well it worked did it not.

It got the attention it deserved.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

U 2

Thank you too for the revert on my userpage :) --Oxymoron83 18:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Patience of Job barnstar

William Blake's imagining of Satan inflicting boils on Job.

I, Major Bonkers, hereby award you the 'Patience of Job' barnstar.

(I have - dare I say it? - noticed a slight tone of peevishness creeping in to some of your recent edits, so this is also to remind you to keep on the straight and narrow!)

The 'Patience of Job' barnstar is a new invention of mine, to reward those who display extraordinary equanimity on Wikipedia. This is the first award of the barnstar. Unfortunately, I'm no graphic artist, so you'll have to put up with this picture until something better comes along.--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Peevish? What the fuck do you mean by that? Joke :) --John 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you know damn well what he means!!! :) ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I do, and as I said in my (real) reply, any advice is always welcome. Is it just me, or are there a lot more trolls around than usual? --John 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Lar is a well-respected admin! (NB: JOKE!). Tyrenius 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've had it up to here with the likes of you, Tyrenius. You making a joke to me in the context of Hibs having another shit season is like someone saying "Have a nice day". RfC here we come? (NB: JOKE!) --John 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)How dare you mention the unmentionable insult "have a nice day". (WP:NBJ!) Tyrenius 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've redacted the peevish remarks and made a comment. There is far too much incivility here and I was wrong to contribute further to it, whatever the provocation. Thanks, friends, for gently pointing out that I had erred. Bah, you'll probably all want barnstars or something now... --John 04:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have got one. Many thanks, but I think it's me that's getting old... Tyrenius 05:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Who said you could give me a barnstar! I suppose now I should thank you... As if! BTW have you seen Akradecki's talk page lately, a veritable beehive of adminish activity. We did well with that one (basically standing back and taking the credit for a candidate that was way ready already, but I digress) ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Yes, I told him how proud I was of him. --John 13:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go:

Image Name Description
100px The Patience of Job Barnstar I, Major Bonkers, hereby award you the Patience of Job Barnstar for your display of extraordinary equanimity on Wikipedia.

Bollocks - I can't copy it to the requisite section of your User pages. Tyrenius is very good at this sort of thing! (It's not much better, but it is better.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thank you very much. --John 20:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PS again

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

English, chap, do you speak it?

What's enwiki's policy on american vs. british english usage in articles? --NEMT 22:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. --John 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


It was already amrked as unreferenced but for too long

Flag icons

Thanks for the heads up. I looked at WP:FLAG but it's still allowing for more use of the damn icons than I like.  :) Corvus cornix 18:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


But these are facts. I can't prove it becoz there found from Magazines, programs etc.

Pictures Help

Hi John, you said I could come to you for Image Help.

Well, I have a question. I work a lot on the World Trade Center article. It was lacking pictures so I added a few of mine and some nice ones from the Commons. They where all removed, so I undid that edit by DLand. But of course, he did it again. Apparantly, there where too many pictures. So, I accepted that and added 3. These werent for decorations but for the actual sub-articles. Again, they where removed, by MONGO.

My basic question is, If one guy wants the pictures, and the other dosnt. Who gets their way? We just cant keep undoing the other's edits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pag293 (talkcontribs)

User talk:

Give this elroy a page block, wouldja? All the shouting is bugging the neighbors. HalfShadow 20:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll just ignore him for now. If it continues to be a nuisance I'll semi-protect. --John 20:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Just to say thanks for the welcome, and to Wiki. I am very new to all this, and still learning. But, I hope this is just the start.

All the best (Johnoasis321 23:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

Spot the difference

Ok; I'm not Sherlock Holmes, but I have been reading through the Irish Famine Talk page this evening and I noticed a startling similarity in User pages from two editors who have posted on that article's Talk page; here are their diffs: (posted on July 20) [53] and (posted on July 21) [54]

The two User pages in question are: Pappin76 and BigDunc. As Private Eye has it: Could they by any chance be related? (I think we should be told.)

I presume that you are aware that SirFozzie has locked the article, and I wasn't sure whether to post on his Talk page or yours, or how one should proceed.--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be WP:RFCU. --John 20:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've added it here. Please could you check it out (and edit as necessary)? I'm off to bed. Many thanks.--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I can delete a post of my own if no one has responded to it.

I have the right to delete my own posting if nobody has responded to it yet. Why has User:Gaimhreadhan twice reinserted my own comment, which I deleted, on Tyrenius' Talk page? Bus stop 22:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

factory farming

Hi there. If you're going to revert my change to the factory farming article, which I made per extensive talk page discussion, would you at least explain your reasoning in some fashion? Jav43 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought it necessary to explain, and your edit summary didn't mention the talk page discussion. I'll have a look there before responding further.--John 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do. We've been discussing -- for over six months now -- whether the image of sows in gestation crates should lead the article. As you'll shortly see, all users except SlimVirgin, Crum, and Localzuk have agreed that the image in question is improper, as it is uncharacteristic, improperly sourced, is being proposed merely to further an opinionated agenda, and was copied from an anti-farming propaganda website. Jav43 00:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that I do not understand your reasoning for reinstating this image, however. Would you please provide it? Jav43 00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly. If you were edit-warring over which of two images to include, I could understand it. Edit-warring to remove an image and not replacing it, on grounds which sound (to me) very spurious and opinionated, is bad. Your assumption of bad faith is noted. Thanks for at least explaining why you did it; it still isn't ok though. With five removals of the image in the last couple of days, you are in imminent risk of a block. I'll pop over to your own user talk to warn you properly. --John 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you failed to notice that I have provided a total of more than five alternate images. Each one, when placed in the lead, has been reverted. I have given up on attempting to place a good image in the lead and simply have limited my efforts to removing the present misleading image.
I note that you have failed to provide your reason for reverting me - why you believe this image is so proper. Please do so. Jav43 01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not notice. So you are now removing what seems an appropriate image that illustrates the article just to make a point? --John 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please actually read the talk page, as you said you would. Then you will notice.
To answer your question, "No". Now I have to repeat myself. The image is not appropriate and does not illustrate the article. It is improper and misleading. I am removing it in order to make the article reflect fact rather than reflecting propaganda from various anti-farming activist organizations.
You again failed to explain why you reverted me in the first place - why you believe this image is so proper. Jav43 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had explained. I find it to be appropriate, certainly more so than having no picture at all. I note that several other editors are also of this opinion. Interesting though the content discussion is, it is a separate matter from continaully removing a picture because you do not like it. Edit warring is disruptive. Please don't do it. --John 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of not liking an image. This is a matter of attempting to remove an image that is misleading and inflammatory. Such an image should not lead the article.
Why do you find this image to be appropriate? You still haven't explained why you reverted me - why you believe this image is so proper. If you explain why you find this image to be appropriate -- preferably with citations explaining how it relates a condition typical for factory farming, exclusively -- then I will be much better able to understand where you're coming from. Jav43 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have already explained, there are two issues here. The content issue can best be discussed at Talk:Factory farming, and I am encouraged that you have made some interesting arguments there. The issue I warned you over was the edit-warring, which is never appropriate and will lead to a block if it ever recurs. You may consider yourself fortunate that I did not (through an oversight) examine your block log and see that you have quite recently been blocked for a 3RR violation. If I had seen that, I might have blocked you directly rather than warning you. I hope that clarifies things for you. --John 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you've got the wrong target here John. This isn't just jav43 being disruptive or trying to remove images without reason. See: here, here for other sets of users that agree. Consistently there are 3 editors (with animal lib beliefs) who resist any attempt to change the image (uploaded from an activist-anti-factory farming site) via reverting and the flimsy argument along the lines of "we need to show the most shocking/controversial aspects" (which reeks of POV). Anyhow, I posted up a few more concrete reasons, so check my response and perhaps you can give your views on that. The trouble is that tag team reverting of anything that hasn't made the article more animal lib view of farming-like is tag team reverted and minimal discussion attempts made. Jav hasn't done this just out of the blue. An earlier struggle was simply to avoid a bunch of agricultural terms being squashed into "factory farming" because of an overly simplistic view of agriculture (e.g. anything to do with farming animals is evil). We really don't know whether those images are anything but temporary holding pens.. For instance: how do those animals get food, water etc from those pens? I really think the source of the image is not to be trusted. That SV/crum/localzuk are happy to keep tag team reverting, with stated animal lib bias and with no real attempt to justify is more of an issue I think.. NathanLee 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll be happy to discuss the question of the image with you in article talk. I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is that there is never any excuse for edit warring. That's why 3RR is virtually our only absolute rule. Now, I do understand that there are always reasons why it happens, and I understand your frustration if you feel the image is inappropriate. However, edit-warring is unacceptable; it actually increases the annoyance and frustration among editors. Don't do it. There is always a better way. --John 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining.
What course of action would you suggest I pursue in order to achieve this "better way"? Jav43 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If I was in your position I would try to (calmly) pursue a compromise in talk, or else walk away and accept I had lost the argument. I promise I will try to come up with some more specific advice for you. I've been following the disputes on that page for quite a while without intervening. Best wishes, --John 18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
John, I have attempted to pursue a compromise for about six months now. The three editors in question (SlimVirgin, Crum, and Localzuk) refuse to even consider compromise. For the last month, they have refused to even engage in discussion on the topic. Walking away is not an option as it would leave this article corrupt, spreading misinformation to the countless users of Wikipedia. I look forward to your specific advice -- it is sorely needed. Jav43 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I agree entirely: reverting is a nasty way of "contributing". If I had my way reverting would be 1RR allowed.. Because (and I've tried to point this out to editors who use revert as the primary tool) that it is against the policy on dispute avoidance. Fair enough for vandalism, but as a substitute for discussion it's terrible. To be honest I don't think walking away is a good option John because it means that people who are reverting rather than contributing or discussing are "winning" when it shouldn't be a competition to see who can bully or tag team revert the most.. NathanLee 18:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Bit it needs in-line citation. Statements look like challengeable. Please provide the references (in-line citation). Otherwise I'll re-tagged it again.Thanks--NAHID 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • If you think it looks somehow odd in introduction section (with too many citattion tag), there's nothing to do with it. But editors *must* provide references. Without varifiable sources it hard to recognaze as a good and neutral article.Thanks--NAHID 19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not (Since the contents are challengable)? our articles are meant to be neutral. We don't want to just be a billboard for showcasing the very best / bad things about an article. References are helpful in this case.And that's why those policy pages were created.Thanks--NAHID 19:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


John, anything you can do to broker a compromise would be much appreciated. I am myself currently looking around for a suitable replacement for the image. The problem lies in finding something that is clearly a factory farm. The best way to find these images with free licences are on what NathanLee and Jav43 call "activist sites," which they reject the validity of. Therefore, I'm trying to find one on a non-activist site. I've come across a farmers' website that displays similar images: also "activist" in the sense of opposed to factory farming, but they're from within the industry and aren't animal welfare/rights sites, so I'm hoping they will be more acceptable. I'm currently corresponding with them to request a free licence.

However, the image is only one of a number of issues that we need to sort out. The big one is the number of articles. WAS 4.250 has created several POV forks in order to lose most of the factory farming criticism e.g. Industrial agriculture (animals) and Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture. NathanLee and WAS 4.250 have turned down two RfMs, so it's hard to know how to proceed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to let you know: Jav43 has been removing the image for about 18 months. He has made 110 edits to the article, and almost all of them have been to remove that image. He has either provided no alternative, or on a few occasions added a picture of contented looking cows on a family farm in New York. We had the name of the farm, and it describes itself as a family farm. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been watching the edit-warring for quite a while without feeling I had much that was helpful to contribute. Jav43's last edit summaries finally alerted me to what was happening. As I said to him/her, it was lucky I didn't see their block log first or it would have been an enforced wikibreak rather than a friendly warning they got. --John 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It has been a bad situation all round. Incessant reverting by Jav43; filibustering on talk by NathanLee to the point where it became hard to contribute (he posted 55,000 words to talk in just a few days at one point); content forking by WAS 4.250 and refusal to respond to queries; a refusal to engage in mediation (except for Jav43 who did agree); and personal attacks and sarcasm throughout the discussion from all three.
For background, here are links to the rejected RfMs. The first was agreed to by seven editors, [55] and the second by nine. [56] But if a few editors hold out, then it can't go ahead. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, this demonstrates your bias. "Family farm" and "factory farm" are not mutually exclusive. A "factory farm" does not by nature have discontented cows. (In fact, I dare you to visit *any* dairy farm with more than 200 cows and find that cows aren't generally "contented". Content, happy cows give more milk, and more than anyone else, so-called "factory farms" want to maximize milk production.) You also misconstrue my actions - after you rejected the first three different proposed images I used, I proposed a total of at least five others -- all of which you also rejected. Basically, SlimVirgin... I have attemped to compromise by proposing a variety of images. You have not. You have proposed *1* image, have failed to demonstrate that it is in any way typical or meaningful, and you proceed to hinder any attempt to reach an equitable solution.
As for edit warring? Considering that I wind up "edit warring" with either you or Crum every time, I don't see how you're so clean in that regard.
I'm sorry this wound up on John's talk page, but I cannot let SlimVirgin's absurd statements stand unchallenged. Jav43 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, there's no need at all to apologise about discussing your dispute here. Secondly, I think it would be a good idea (or actually an essential step in solving the dispute) to back off from this for a few days, maybe even a week. As you've been back-and-forthing for months already, another week can't possibly hurt. You'll find that walking away and editing some articles unconnected with farming or with animal welfare will help put this whole hill of beans into its true perspective. It will give us time to find other, better (or at least more widely acceptable) images to use. After I am ready I will start a new section in article talk where we can take this matter forward and arrive at a solution we can all live with. How does that sound? --John 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have taken time off during the last six months - one week thrice and two weeks once. I am certainly tempted to do so again. Jav43 23:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to the unjustified outrageous personal attacks here. WAS 4.250 02:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Where? Do you mean SV's characterisation of the multiple articles as content-forking? I have some qualms about that myself. It certainly isn't a personal attack, in my opinion. --John 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If you say so. WAS 4.250 02:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, WAS 4.250, I am determined to sort this mess out. I understand that tempers are frayed on all sides. I let several people vent about each other on my user talk page as you can see. I don't see anything anyone wrote as violating the policy I linked you to. If you disagree, please say so. --John 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with you letting people vent. I vented too. Thanks for helping to sort this mess out. We all appreciate it. Really. WAS 4.250 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
John, an observation. To be seen as neutral, it would be helpful to cast comments on poor behaviour, even here, as recognising there are always two sides to the edit wars. Suggesting to a single person to walk away could be misconstrued (well, clearly they have been) that they are the only person acting inappropriately, there are others, including myself, to which that comment equally applies. Saying here that one person deserved a block when there has been a long running edit war involving consistent reverting by lots of people again can readily be misconstrued. I am more than happy with your bold approach to good behaviour under a fresh start, and think a draconian approach will be interesting and constructive but to be consistent with the fresh start, either forget history entirely or ensure you are seen to maintain a balanced position. Everyone has Wikiache and will be hyper-sensitive. Cheers Spenny 11:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I am keen to take this forwards on a content- and policy-driven basis, and to put all the squabbles behind us. I will therefore be trying both to move on entirely from history, and to maintain a balanced position. Your help will be greatly appreciated by me. Best wishes, --John 15:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why#d you undo my edit?

Hello there.

I was wondering why you undid my edit in the RMS Titanic article?

The result of a debate came to the conclusion that the contents of the Provisioning of the RMS Titanic article should bee fused into the Titanic article.

I was just doing the merging.

It wasn't an attempted vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looneyman (talkcontribs)

As I said in my edit summary, the long list you added was way over-detailed for the main article, and was completely unreferenced. I never said it was vandalism but it certainly wasn't a good addition to the article, in my opinion. --John 21:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. If I provide you the information, would you be able to adjusted it suitably? I can copy the resources from the Provisioning article.
Looneyman 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Only if it is properly referenced. --John 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's the info...


And here's the sources given on the page...

I'm awfully sorry, but those sources aren't very good. See for an interesting discussion on why these data are essentially unsourced, although I know they are widely quoted. --John 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


The line The runway was continually used by Argentine C-130's until the end of the war. didnt give you a doubt how long could take to repair the damage ? --Jor70 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Show me a source which states what you want the article to say; that is how we work here. --John 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Its very funny to see how Argentine vision is always requested to be sourced, but here you have: And what was achieved? A crater in the runway that was filled in within twenty-four hours, and possibly a 30-mm gun radar knocked out (Sharkey Ward: Sea Harrier over the Falklands, 1992, Cassell Military Paperbacks, ISBN 0-304-35542-9) --Jor70 16:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad (?) you find it funny. Well done for finding a source. This is how we improve the encyclopedia. --John 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New York City

I put a reason why I put in my images, so your saying, my pictures can be replaced without reason, but I cant put them in. That dosnt seem fair at all. Why you undo my edit, its like every time I put in an image, someone undo's it because they dont like it. Well what if other people like it? Huh? No point in undoing their edit, because it seems I dont get any power. "Anyone can Edit" yeah right, more like, "Anyone can edit, but really its no use since someone else will just replace your edit you probably spent an hour on then an adminstrator tells you to discuss it when no one will read it and you'll never get your way but the others do." Pag293 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, believe me. However this is the downside of working collaboratively on a project like this. The existing pictures were there as a result of consensus and it is actually kind of rude just to go in and replace them all with your own photos. All you need to do is learn how to use article talk and a lot of the frustration you are currently suffering from will disappear. Best wishes, --John 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Making you aware

That I have blocked MarkThomas for 24 hours for his comments, sprinkled all over the past few days, such as [57] [58], [59], [60]. I have also signaled my desire to quit this whole series of articles, because I'm, quite frankly, tired of dealing with the constant wars. I have made comments on my talk page that could be considered uncivil by those who think I have a bias in this issue, so I invite a neutral admin to look over my block, and my comments, and to determine if I have violated WP rules. SirFozzie 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I endorse your block of MarkThomas. I sympathise very much with your fatigue in this whole area of Wikipedia. I don't see anywhere you have breached policy at all. Were it me I might have asked another admin to make the block, to avoid (as far as that is ever possible in this fraught area) allegations of bias. Nevertheless, Mark's taunting of Domer is beyond the pale and (in my opinion) merits an immediate block, especially given the user's record. Best wishes, --John 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

3 revert rule

Here are some more reverts for you to overview. It is clear Levine2112 broke the 3RR. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It is two instances of 2rr, and technically that does break the rule. The block can stand. --John 02:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

background of dispute A quality sentence that is carefully written from a neurtal point of view. > The magazine Spiked-online named Barrett in a survey of 134[1] "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."[2][3]

According to Tim: The "quackbusters," we know, were originally organized, and funded, by the pharmaceutical industry. Insinuating there is a collaboration with Pfizer and Barrett has been used to advance an agenda and thus a BLP violation and weasel wording. For example, when referring to The New Yorker magazine we do not mention the sponsors because it would be weasel wording. This is also synthesizing a controversy. I believe in accordance with policy this edit should be reverted. Pfizer has no relevance to SB. There is problems with the wording of the sentence currently in the article. We have policies we should comply with. Right? This is another endless ongoing debate to include against policy material. This is a very serious matter. When in doubt leave it out. BLP says do no harm! The current POV sentence in the article violates policy after policy. Articles must be written from a neutral view point. We have policies for all us to adhere to. See: WP:WEASEL WP:BLP WP:SYN Please remove the BLP violation from the article or unprotect the article. The problem goes much deeper. There is a small group of editors who do not fully understand policy yet. I am trying my best to inform them. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy of policy: Any of these actions may still be controversial; thus, it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance. I am asking for administrative assistance regarding the BLP violation. I want to be granted permission to revert in accordance with the exception to the 3RR. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA formatting

Thanks for sorting it out. I reckon I know how it'll turn out, now, but I felt your comment invited a response. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Upcoming Iain M. Banks Culture Novel, "Matter"

John, thanks for the welcome. I am brand new to editing here at Wikipedia, and didn't think to leave references to the information that I provided, which came from the page about the new publication.

Since my add to the Banks Wiki page, they have added a blurb: "Synopsis There was nobody of her own kind within several thousand light years of where Djan Seriy Anaplian sat. However, news from her home world of Sursamen would still reach her. Djan Seriy Anaplian is, after all, a member of Special Circumstances - a troubleshooter for the Culture, intervening when necessary to ensure that order and balance is maintained throughout the galaxy; and Special Circumstances get to hear about most things. The news itself, unfortunately, is not good. Her father has died. Her brother too, it seems. Both in the latest war against a neighbouring kingdom. Anaplian must journey home, but while she does so, another will seek her out. For someone on Sursamen believes her to be their last hope. What neither of them know is that she might also be the last hope for the entire world."

I hope that this helps.

--Christofono 22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you... by the way:

As I have just recently noticed, thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage here. As I am currently on holiday, and currently without internet at my current place of stay, I did not notice until now. Either way, thanks again! --HAL2008talk 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --John 23:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Sorry i overdid an undo in the fight against davey pascoe

Barry Carlyon 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Laffey created for the fourth time

The following article has been re-created for the fourth time: Aaron Laffey (please see: [61]). I am notifying you because you are one of the three Wikipedians that have once deleted the article. Just letting you know that it's back and that Laffey is still nn. Thanks. 03:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gone now, and salted to boot. If/when this guy gets called up and becomes notable, he can be pulled from WP:PT. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Alan, for taking care of that. --John 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: greeland mountains comment

Well I've never seen Greenland myself, so I'll take your word for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgonz82 (talkcontribs)


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)

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

Rolling Stone Links

John, I disagree with your wholesale reversion of the RS links added by 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)

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)

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)

Thanks, I left you both messages. There is always a better way forwards than edit-warring. --John 20:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Flagcruft is an essay and is not policy or guidlines- this is your opinion. Astrotrain 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

spam link

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)

Since you asked. I am Mr. Guru. I posted this.[62] 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)
Thanks for your explanation. There is no need to remove it from archived talk pages though. --John 04:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

RE Welcome

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


Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png 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)

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)

Flight 800 "fringe theory"


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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
Please see this: [[63]] ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, yes, I had forgotten. So what is your argument for deleting this category? --John 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Please also see [[64]]. 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)
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) 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)

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

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)

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)

I don't see that it matters but I've moved it back there. --John 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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

All links point to Northern Ireland cities and this is the correct title. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoll42 (talkcontribs)

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)

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

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


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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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.[65] 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)

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)

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)

Your note

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

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

"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)

Fair point. I never see IRA without a "the", but PIRA sometimes. It isn't that important. --John 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)


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)

Dennis Fitch

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

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)


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, 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)

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)
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)
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)

WikiProject Zimbabwe

WPZim logo.png

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Mangwanani 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


WPZim logo.png

Hi, John, and welcome to WikiProject

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.

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

Mangwanani 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


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)

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)

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)

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)

User: Revisited

Hello John,

Like Ian Rose, I'm getting somewhat frustrated with the unregistered user 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)

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)
I know you gave him another warning, but I'm afraid it hasn't worked. Still going about rewriting descriptions, on the following pages since your warning of 15 August: List of Mayday episodes, fuel starvation, Microsoft Flight Simulator X, Seconds From Disaster, and Tenerife disaster. It's getting rather tiresome, along with the fact that he seems to revert other edits, valid under WP:MOSLINKS. It seems more like vandalism than anything else, at this point, since it's been discussed with him on his talk page, my talk page, and on the 747 talk page. Sacxpert 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Scotland Article - Official Language revisited again


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)


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)

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)
  • 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)

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)
I'd be happy to. thanks. --Vintagekits 08:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
this will also interest you.--Vintagekits 21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
You dont consider it disruptive editing or edit warring?--Vintagekits 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well maybe you should look at this Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Astrotrain.--padraig 20:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
John can you do something about this [66] 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)

Award from me, holmes.sherlock

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

BarnstarCVG.png 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)

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)

Please discuss this in the appropriate article talk. --John 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have taken your advice and commented on the WP:FLAGCRUFT talk page. -- Scjessey 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw and have replied to you there. --John 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming - Fresh Start


Will you take a look at the sequence of events starting [67] 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)

John, will you consider moderating a discussion on the scope of articles? See [68] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please don't spoil this page as well. I was making a point to John. Conypiece 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Odd edits from Please assess. ## 15:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Padraig again

John- Padraig is edit warring on two different templates now ( Template:Cities in Ireland and Template:Airports of Ireland). 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)

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)

John Astrotrain is back again edit warring removing Template:Airports of Ireland from the Northern Ireland airport articles, this is just being disruptive to WP:Point, can you please have a word with him.--padraig 17:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I just realised after I posted my last message that he had altered the template Template:Airports of Ireland and moved it, as he had done before, I have revert his changes to the template and moved it back. He hasn't discuss making this move or alteringthe template in the talk page or had any consensus to do so.--padraig 17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Padraig, it would not matter what changes or edits I make, becuase you and your disruptive cabal of editors would revert any changes. You have been edit warring constantly on Irish related topics, almost as bad as Vintagekits has been. You don't discuss any of your reverts on the talk page and are obviously stalking my contributions, just like you did to David Lauder and other editors. Astrotrain 17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
He also made these edits [69] to prevent anyone moving the template again. Astrotrain 17:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Astrotrain, for you to make such a change to a template would require consensus, to get that you need to discuss the issue on the talk page which you didn't do, also as has been pointed out to you before tourism in Ireland is promoted though an All-Ireland tourist board, through which both the northern and southern tourist boards work together to promote Ireland as one destination, this body was set up under the GFA. These templates are non-political so don't try to WP:Point you are just being disruptive.--padraig 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

John its ok, Alison has blocked Astrotran for 72hrs.--padraig 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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))

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)
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)

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))

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)

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

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

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

Consensus means people agreeing on things. When one is repeatedly "knocked back" on things, it is a good sign that one is not adhering to consensus. --John 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

Nice User Page!

Userpage barnstar.svg The Excellent Userpage Award
Your user page is incredible. You must have put lots of time and effort into it... and it shows! In my opinion, fancy, but professional-looking user pages make Wikipedia look more, well, professional. You should definitely be proud. Again, terrific job :) WesternRider 23:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Most of the creative work was actually done by someone else. I really appreciate your comment. --John 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Where is your warning to SlimVirgin for her attacks? Do you just like doing stuff to me? Jav43 13:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously realised you had done wrong as you removed the offending edit yourself. Well done. As far as I could see, Slim had done nothing to be warned for. Your post, had it stood, would have been a serious WP:POINT violation. You did right to revert yourself. --John 15:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
How is SlimVirgin accusing myself and others of "wilful (sic) misinterpretation of sources", as she did in the diff you provided on my talk page, [70], not a personal attack, and not a violation of assumption of good faith? Jav43 23:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello John, since you have had some experience with the removal of superfluous flags before, I thought you would be interested in this. Debates and edit-wars have been going on regarding the use of the Nazi flag to illustrate the creator of Fanta. Now this is simply preposterous - some people have been arguing on the basis that it is offensive, others have been 'polling' for consensus and others like myself have been arguing that it is simply redundant and there is no need for a decorative flag next to a name. On the other hand, others have been arguing that its use is relevant, on-topic and 'highly interesting'. Just thought I would bring it to your attention, regards -- Chris.B 10:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I chipped in. --John 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User : vandalized again

I noted in User talk:, for vandalism on Titan (rocket family). Do u want to block? LanceBarber 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Those actually seem like good edits to me; are you sure it is vandalism? --John 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the details of DynaSoar and MOL, and info is incorrect... I suppose they could have been typos. He did a third addition on Titan 4, and was uncited. When I find new editors or IPers, I try to Welcome them and assist in their Talk area. Finding that he was been warned by u, he hasn't taken the time to learn techniques nor created an username. I learned from others who challenged or reverted my edits. LanceBarber 19:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

war infobox

Is it appropriate to use the war infobox on articles concerning fictional wars? --NEMT 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Do you have a specific example? --John 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A favour, please

I'm off to Polska tomorrow and, although I'll probably check in every now and then, please could I ask you to keep a weather-eye on my User and Talk pages. I don't suppose that anything will happen to them, but I'd be happier knowing that if it did, someone would sort it out. Many presumptive thanks!--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Have a beer for me there please. --John 21:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Double standards?

and can you give a good encyclopedic reason why these flag icons on pages you frequent are necessary? Seems odd since you are so anti-flags?

I will add comments to the flag talk page later, I may be an insomniac but even I have limits. ♥♪♫♥♪♫ 04:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. These are all sports articles. Alex Ferguson, for example, represented Scotland internationally, (ie he verifiably self-identified as having that allegiance, at least for football purposes) therefore the flag icons are justified. The Rolling Stones, on the other hand, as far as I know, never represented England (at Eurovision for example). Therefore the use of the flag there is original research. Sleep well. --John 05:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
John, I apologise if I have over-personalised this, in the great scheme of things this is a trivial subject, I know. I just feel that flags shouldn't be selectively removed until there is an agreed concensus that's all. Flag removal does come across to me as bullying, as some people (not saying you) could remove certain flags for various improper/personal reasons. I have seen this happen before, someone removed a flag from an article that I regularly contributed to (they didn't), when I looked at articles they worked on regularly, none of the flags were removed, now how is that fair? I honestly have no problem with Scotland flags, heck I'm half Scottish myself, I used to support Jockey Wilson in darts! LOL or Welsh flags or any other flags, I think the quality and accuracy of an article is far more important than whether it has a flag or not. How would you feel if the concensus was to ban ALL flags? I ask because I noticed on the debate that someone said he found flags distracting and didn't want them added at all. Anyway, I don't think we are going to agree on this, and as you are an admin. and I am not, you will, I am sure, do as you see fit, all I ask is that you are fair. Kind Regards, Sue Wallace ♥♪♫♥♪♫ 15:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem Sue. I know we both want to improve this project. I believe I am justified in my edits by consensus and policy; however in a matter like this I am not acting as an admin but just an ordinary volunteer user like yourself. Best wishes, --John 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Help: disambiguation pages

Hi John, me again.. I wonder if you could help. I created a page My Mind's Eye (song) by Small Faces but the page now auto redirects to Nine Destinies and a Downfall They have also created a song page My Mind's Eye, how come My Mind's Eye (song) redirects? Can they do this? ♥♪♫♥♪♫ 18:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have sorted it all out now. See what you think. --John 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also added See here for "My Mind's Eye" for the song by Small Faces so people can find the link, they might be confused when they get to a page for Nine Destinies and a Downfall instead. Have a good one. Sue ♥♪♫♥♪♫ 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

John I made this edit [71] and Traditional unionist made this [72] read his edit summary against me, I reverted that edit as the info was incorrect and badly written.--padraig 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

John I did ask Traditional Unionist about his revert here [73] about five minutes before I reverted, but as you can see he didn't take the chance to fix it.--padraig
Speaking of badly written, you might also wish to address the WP:WEASEL words, and provide some sources for those statements. Rockpocket 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If that's addressed to me I can try to deweasel it in a while. I need to go out for a couple of hours first. --John 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it wasn't. I guess I was trying to say to padraig, that deweaseling and providing some sources would be the best way to solve this problem. As it is all we have is opposing opinions of editiors about what is "correct". Rockpocket 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I quite agree and said so to P in his talk. --John 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
John I like your edit, but I think it should be mentioned that neither the British Government or the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Executive Government recognise the Ulster Banner.--padraig 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comment there, Padraig. Feel free to suggest something NPOV and referenced on the article talk page and I'll support. --John 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rakonas

Hi, you blocked this user, and he is now requesting an unblock. COnsidering that he probably didn't realize he was doing something wrong (I'm only talking about the last edits :)) and that he was not warned prior to the block, I would consider unblocking him and leaving hin a message. But I leave it to your call :). -- lucasbfr talk 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have unblocked, although edits like this one will result in the block being reinstated if they are repeated. --John 00:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
haha I missed that one :D -- lucasbfr talk 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The History of The Luftwaffe article

John, Its not an opinion. There is a shed load of citations that I could put in. The Luftwaffe did not have a strategic bomber force - it really is fact. It was a tactical weapon. The Battle of Britain article talks about this and there are others, it really doesnt need a citation. Dapi89 16:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No John, this was not an attack. I reject any such behaviour, it was an observation which under the circumstances is obvious. I am appalled that you would try and turn this into something it isn't. If you continue to read the Preparing for war section you will see that there is information relating to the tactical design of the Luftwaffe, and hence its failure to be able to Strategically strike at the Soviet production lines followed by the paragraph which asserts it as a major error. This is accompanied by a citation that covers this. Dapi89 16:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC).

Its mentioned in the opening paragraph as a summary, as pointed out by other editors such a large article needs most major points included. It wasn't mentioned twice in the preparing for war section. The first bit of info merley informs the reader it lacked a meaningful strategic bomber force throughout the war. It then goes on to explain why it didn't have one and that it was a fatal ommission, it doesn't actually discuss the issue of being fatal twiceDapi89 17:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC).

Your edits were not "work" they revolved around removing another editors work . I'm not an an idoit I am aware of the 3 revert rule. As I have ready said, a citation that covers this is already there. But as I fear this is just going to go around in circles with my repeating the same things over and over again I'll just add a couple of sources, perhaps you might then leave it alone. Dapi89 17:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talkcontribs)

I didn't say you needed my permission. I have explained why it shouldn't be removed. The only reason I have added citations is to avoid an inevitable edit war. I will add more, as your comments on the Talk page seem to suggest you have a problem regardless of the citations. I hope this is the last time we have to cross swords on this issueDapi89 21:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC).

England's Rose

e: England's Rose 18:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC) why did you revert me on Great Britain? Everyone reverts me here


Just to let you know, I have completely revamped the WikiProject Zimbabwe page so that it is more uniform to the layout and design of other WikiProjects. Please have a look and try to fill in any of the new sections created. Your help is much appreciated. Many thanks, Mangwanani 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hi. I have noticed that you have previously worked with User:Lar for admin coaching. The user is currently considering coaching me and is looking for partners to form a coaching team. If you are interested please drop a comment at User:Lar#Admin Coaching. Thanks Tbo 157talk 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See User:Tbo 157/Admin coaching, which has been set up. Tbo has some homework already. Probably a good idea to watchlist it :)... Looking forward to working with you again! ++Lar: t/c 01:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, and I hope I can be more help this time. --John 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hey there. I saw your name on the Admin coaching page, and thought I might ask you if you were willing to coach me. I've been pretty active in the last few months, and need a bit of a second opinion on when I should RfA. If you could help, that would be great, if not, that's fine too. Thanks, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I noticed that you and Lar have coached together before, so I left a message on his talk page to ask him as well. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently we must have big "soft touch" signs on our foreheads as I've agreed to this one as well... shall you set up the page this time? You can crib from the first revision of the other new one I think. My bio is fine as is from that one, I updated it already. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. About time we started charging for this service, grumble grumble... Only joking. --John 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
People would PAY us to torture them? I did not know that. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Started the page here: User:GrooveDog/Admin coaching. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I'll be away until this Sunday on vacation, and I won't have access to the internet. Please leave more questions and exercises and I'll try to answer them ASAP when I get back. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: not accusing of impropriety

Hi there John, just as I saw your remark: I didn't mean to give you the impression that I was accusing you of any misdeed or bias etc.. It was entirely a comment directed at the behaviour/tactics/editing of editors on the article, not in any way related to your protecting the page.. So just to clear that up. NathanLee 12:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nathan, that's very helpful. I really would like to see a way out for the article without banning or blocking anybody. As I have said in article talk, I think the solution when it is arrived at will involve a different, clearer tree of articles on these subjects. --John 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think WAS proposed a pretty well thought out tree of articles, but look what's been happening there.. He, jav, haber all seem ready to give up on the whole wikipedia thing thanks to the actions of this lot. Agriculture isn't about animal liberation, it's about agriculture. Anyhow, we've had one "side" persistently ignore discussion/talk or opt out altogether (yet still keep editing and using the revert functionality). I can find with very little search effort a bunch of articles that have received the same treatment, same gaming the system, attacks, revert wars by the same small group coming up against completely different people.. The common element: small group of biased editors infecting articles to promote animal lib ideology. In short they really can't be trusted to edit animal related topics in a neutral fashion. They're not exactly contentious articles UNTIL they get attention of these editors.. Then there's a string of disillusioned editors who have their energy wasted or spent entirely.. Not good and editors who have this result so consistently are bad for wikipedia in general.. NathanLee 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think WAS proposed essentially the status quo there. Personally I think the tree needs to be simpler and better to reflect the real world (ie verifiable sources outwith Wikipedia). I also think it is essential for all editors here to maintain an assumption of good faith about the motivations of others with whom they disagree. --John 17:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


We have a IP User: [74] reverting all the templates, this is obviously a editor evading 3RR.--padraig 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Connexion, etc.

Dear User:John, I never said that connexion was the (or even a) standard spelling for this word - only that it is listed as acceptable - by the Oxford English Dictionary, no less, and also by its Shorter cousin. (See the article connexion if you wish.) Personally, I use the -exion form in preference to -ection wherever possible (although I except correxion because it looks wrong to me, unlike all other such forms), if only because it's one less letter to write/type. What more am I to say? (Except, possibly that the likes of Fowler (in The King's English) and Eric Partridge (in Usage and Abusage) agree with me?) Hair Commodore 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My block

Yesterday you blocked me for making three reverts to Zimbabwe. Perspicacite also made three reverts but you failed to block him. Why? Ark La 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. You were edit-warring for a long time; what is it, 8 or 9 attempts to edit the article in a particular way? 3 reverts is not an entitlement but an absolute limit. Edit-warring is a no-no, and just because others seem to have got away with it, this does not justify your behaviour. The two of you need to thrash out your differences in talk in future. Hope that makes sense. --John 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not justifying my behavior, I'm questioning yours. Why have you applied double standards? For edit warring you need two persons, not one. Ark La 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Without meaning to be offensive, I am not interested in discussing my "behaviour" with you. Try not to edit war in the future and you will avoid being blocked again. Have a look at the changes I have made in the article and see what you think. Maybe we could discuss in the article talk page? --John 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have warned Perspicacite. That makes sense, thanks. Ark La 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is reverting till death only way to implement changes? Perspicacite reverted your changes [75] and I really don't know on what he thinks when he says "keeping most of the last six edits" because he deleted everything. Ark La 21:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


No i was going to try to get eid of one little thing not all of it! Sparrowman980 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Three different users have reverted his edits. We raised concerns, he chose not to address them. I reverted him twice in 24 hours, contacted another user who had been involved in the past, and left him alone. I would not call it edit warring. Perspicacite 01:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


I really appreciate your work with Wikipedia. I know that I don't own anything on this document, and I welcome improvements from other people, like yourself. However, I also have the capacity to make judgements of my own, and in this case I want to use Canadian spelling and I think articles of this length -- about 5000 words each -- can use the template twice without it being overkill.

Best regards04:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbcomm (talkcontribs)


It looks strange to me, and I don't know whether I will ever be able to spell it that way, but I checked it out on the net. You are right. Thanks for all the work you've done. 14:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbcomm (talkcontribs)

Thanks for being so gracious about it. Again, thank you for your good work on these articles. --John 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW: I went through that series this evening and changed the "sulphur"s you missed. 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbcomm (talkcontribs)

User:Mais oui!

This user appears regularly as reverting locations descriptions on many articles because it does not meet his expectations. There also appears to be an issue between him an User:Mallimak, as many of his responses are that the other party is a sockpuppet of User:Mallimak. It is getting very tedious seeing pages I have on my watch list coming up as a result of his actions, or his reversion of edits by others that he does not approve of - for example British Energy ([76]), Standard Life ([77]), and HBOS ([78]). --Stewart (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodness me! I've a good mind to block the lot of them. What a silly and lame edit war. Thanks. --John 15:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


I can never remember whether films need italics or not. Figured while I'm briefly here for the ArbCom from hell I'd write an article or two anyway, feel free to improve that too. One Night In Hackney303 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

stones article

I thought it would be okay to use the BtB album cover seeing as its next to the text concerning the album. Stan weller 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So are you going to take the ones off the Spice Girls article? Stan weller 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You're going to have a lot of angry editors with you if you decide to interprete the fair use policy like that. The images on the Spice Girls article does represent the album recording in which is included. What part of "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question" don't you understand? In an article section that has is titled "Spice", the album cover of Spice (album) is definetly warrented. I don't know how Stan was using it in the Rolling Stones article, but what I told him wasn't inaccurate. — Moe ε 04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_images:
Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).'
i.e. Cover art of Spice Girl CD, for identification only in the context of critical commentary about that Spice Girl CD. Every section under that rule qualifies it under the non-free content criteria. — Moe ε 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I still disagree with you. Take it to WP:NFCC's discussion and get a consensus before you actually go around forcing some disillusioned version of policy around. — Moe ε 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't remove images just to spite me. Get consensus at WP:NFCC's talk page and remove them if consensus is for that, otherwise you have no merit doing so. Articles are promoted to Featured Status with these violations, and removing images under your current definition isn't what the community currently agrees on. If you actually think you have merit behind you're agrument, you should have no problem presenting it to others. Thank you! — Moe ε 14:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear oh dear, that only applies to XFD discussions. And BTW I could simply say WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to you then. Just bring it up where consensus can occur, it's not as painful as your making it out to be. Leave your snide remarks for someone who isn't going to give it to you back. — Moe ε 15:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of Annan Academy Photograph

Hello John: I've found your photograph of Annan Academy, and I see you've granted permission for its use. I would like to use the photograph in a biographical dictionary about Thomas Carlyle, but I'd like to give you credit for this and I don't have your full name. If you're interested, could you please send an e-mail to Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Anger/Christopher Dietler Edits...

Dear John,

May I ask why you reverted the Kenneth Anger Wikipedia page so as not to include my additions...?

I am trying to offer an accurate accounting of Christopher Dietler's release of the Jimmy Page Soundtrack...

Please advise,

Marvin Cee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Cee (talkcontribs) 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin review/advice

Dear John,

Saw that you are still active on the coaches page; I put my name up there, but would like to ask for an informal "review" and/or advice before making the move.

I'm probably one of the few Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits in the top 50 that isn't an admin! :) The more I get involved in various technical issues, the more it would be helpful/utile to have some of the "mop" capabilities. I realize that there's a couple areas that I'm weak in (Xfd being the big one), but would like someone that's assisted others to give me, if you would, an evaluation.

Thanks for any advice that you might have to offer. SkierRMH 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SkierRMH. I'll try to take a look in the next few days. So long as you aren't in a hurry. --John 05:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pointless redircts, etc

Hi John, similar situation to and aviation articles occurring with Noway419 and The Used articles, including their cover of "Under Pressure", which is where I came in. That is, someone who insists on introducing and reintroducing redirects and non-standard style edits to make a point. As with I've requested on his/her talk page to cease but no response - in fact they've removed that request (left by at 09:47 on 23 August 2007). I'd notified another admin of this who has dealt with related stuff before but I don't think she's in a position to attend right now, so if you could review when you get the chance that'd be great. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose 04:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye. Users are allowed to blank their talk, although it isn't ideal, all messages are preserved in the history. --John 06:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, John. Noway419 continues to pointedly reintroduce his/her usual style errors and redirections to Under Pressure, for one. I've fixed it as of now and left what I'd hope is a final message/warning but don't hold out too much hope. FYI... Cheers, Ian Rose 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Kat Walsh's clarification

Can you point me to where the original clarification by Kat Walsh, recently mentioned by Wikidemo on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, concerning individual images each having specific "fair-use rationales" is located? Thank you John. ... Kenosis 03:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I see someone else beat me to it there. --John 04:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WPZW September


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

As the number of people taking part in WikiProject Zimbabwe grows, I have more and more people to notify of changes. If you havn't already done so, please could you add the notice board to your watch list so that I can add any changes there and only once not as many times as there are members. Many thanks, Mangwanani 13:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Hey John,

Thanx for that mate, wasn't actually sure what the guidelines were but I am glad that you sorted it.


KA77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KiltedArab77 (talkcontribs) 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Long time no see, hello, your opinion please

Hello, it's been a while, I hope you are well.

I've run into a sticky wicket, and you were the first person I thought of.It all started when I reverted the removal of a 3RR notice. I decided to see what all the fuss was about and found it had to do with. Of all the things to fight over. Alfred had added a link to GoDaddy's Official Mobile Website.

Alfred politely asked me to butt out. and I replied here. Request for comment by Greeen/ To which I said, "no, there's too many links already." (On and on on that page ad naseum)

My problem is this, Alfred is a new user that has made scads of edits like the one in question to many pages. I'm inclined to just leave them, but I value our opinion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I left them a message. --John 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome, and thanks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for your message. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over a year now which is why I'm generally familiar with how things work around here. Up until now I have always contributed anonymously as I did not need the notoriety or "credit" for my edits (this is after all the "people's encyclopedia"). Recently, one of the things I noticed was missing (and could be improved) in several articles was external links to official mobile pages of the subject matter, which I think is relevant in this day and age where the mobile web is growing exponentially. So I took it upon myself to add the ones I could find to the relevant articles (note that these were all official links from the subject matter). As I'm sure you can appreciate, this was quite a bit of work on my part as I had to manually add one by one. Also, please note that I was aware that this could be seen as spamming, so I made a conscious point of actually creating a username so that all my edits could be found within my Contrib page rather than spread out through different IP's (I have a dynamic IP). I did this on purpose so as to not hide the fact that I was adding these external links to the subject matter. (If I was doing it in bad faith, I could have easily done it anonymously with different IP's. Plus, what would be the motive for me to add so many links in bad faith?). I hope this clarifies my intentions and please let me know if you would like for me to clarify anything else. As for my dispute with Dlohcierekim and GreenJoe, I felt singled-out unfairly by both of them.--AlfredWalsh 01:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Actually, I would just tend to continue discussion at this point, I don't think it's gotten to the point of fruitless. If you want to report to the 3RR board, I can't stop you, but in cases like this it can inflame the situation and make it more difficult. Do remember, we were pretty slack on nonfree content for quite a long time, and it took a boot in the ass from the Foundation to get to enforcing it. For some people that's a tough transition, so I try to cut a lot of slack. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Necessary Evil

I see from his talk page that you have problems with Necessary Evil in the past. I reverted one of his edits a while back as it was pushing a POV, since then despite eventually agreeing on a text he is persisting in being uncivil to me. I don't wish to come across as a cry-baby or a tell-tale but his latest attack accusing me of being prejudiced among other things has really upset me. At the moment I don't plan to respond because it just seems to inflame him further.

I'm still slightly concerned that the edit to the Falklands War page falls foul of WP:SOAP, since it relies heavily on an opinion piece in the Guardian.

I'm not asking you to take any action but I would welcome your advice. Thanks Justin A Kuntz 19:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

english language

Is it enwiki policy to use english language characters only when spelling names from other languages, like German? (ie: Dollfuß becomes Dollfuss)? --NEMT 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007

The September 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 09:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

BAE slogan

Hi John. The change you made is totally understandable - that's what the website says today. However the core slogan is "Real performance. Real Advantage" which BAE then adapts to be specific to products, services etc. In this case the website is showing the Astute submarine and the slogan is adapted to "Real delivery real advantage" which is BAE's assertion that they are steaming ahead with the project. Never mind its years late!!

e.g. Customer Solutions & Support business: "Real Breadth Real Advantage"[79]

If you take a look at all their most recent reports e.g. the most recent [80] (cover page) you will see the slogan is always "Real performance. Real Advantage".

Hope this explains the reversion. Mark83 17:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan 'fix'

To begin with, I apologize for not making my edit summary more informative - i usually do better than that. I think your edit might have been undone by me catching other edit errors, such as the 'assumption' which read as condescending (therefore not neutral). As well the use of 'ticket' to describe the nom inees for political office aren't used outside the US; even though we are allowed to use American English for an American topic, it is always better to avoid colloquialisms that can be better explained by more recognizable terms.
Hope that explains matters. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do, and again, my apologies. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Language tags

I find it interesting to see that you are an FR-2 and a DE-2, as I have similar tags, and because I believe that the tags for German are poor and would like to know your opinion.

I am an FR-2 as well, and I agree that the French description of an "intermediate level" is okay. But compare the DE-2 with DE-3: "fortgeschrittene" und "sehr gute" Kenntnisse. These are not clear enough within the context of German to really indicate which of us speaks "okay" German, and which of us speaks really well. For my tastes, the DE-2 tag should be disambiguated, since "fortgeschritten" does not clearly indicate "intermediate". (It's more implicit than explicit, and can only clearly be understood within the context of seeing a DE-3 tag.)

As you are an administrator, I thought I'd bounce this thought off of you. Perhaps you can discuss it with some German colleagues.

Jtnet 10:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm back, many thanks!

I also drank a glass of piwo (pronounced: 'pee-vo'; translation: beer) on your behalf, so I hope that you got some vicarious enjoyment! Not much has changed, I see.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Desi Arnaz

John, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding regarding my supposed vandalism. I was attempting to undo vandalism to the page. The vandal had made two edits, and when I undid the second one I think I may have redone the vandalism. I am not a vandal. Knowledgesmith 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

John, ignore the comment. It's based on an IP forging your signature here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. --John 02:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

James Milner Off the pitch section

Over the past few weeks I’ve been researching desperately to try and expand this section. But for the most part I can only find very trivial facts. Another user has told me that off the pitch sections are not mandatory and in this case it would be best to remove it completely. I’m not so sure, however minor his off the pitch activities might be it would be useful to give an idea of what he’s like as a person.

Please give me your views. Should it be expanded, removed completely or charged in some other way. Please give your views in the Milner Off the pitch section on my talk page. Buc 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi John

John, Can you please get the exact source for the Harry Truman eBaum's World thing you deleted? eBaum's World is blocked on my coputer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ava321 (talkcontribs) 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve Marriott

Hello John, hows you? I was wondering if you could help me please. It's a sad fact that Marriott is often mispelt as Marriot (with only the one t), I wondered if it is possible the mis-spelt version ie. Steve Marriot could be redirected to the correct page? I've noticed a lot of other pages have this, but I have no idea how they do it. Many thanks in advance. Sue Wallace 03:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sue. I just created a redirect page at Steve Marriot, you can have a look there and see how I did it. I had a hack at the actual article too, which was extremely interesting. Thanks a lot. --John 05:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for that and for the edits too. Sue Wallace 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Me again, sorry but I still can't figure out how you did it, is there a page where I can link to that explains it? Sue Wallace 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirect would be it. --John 17:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
ah, I think I got it now anyway, do you just create a page and then put that redirect code in? Sorry I couldn't find it before cos when I put Steve Marriot it just took me to the correct page, tut, I do get there in the end. (doh). Sue Wallace 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's it, exactly. Don't worry, it took a while for me to figure out too. --John 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll get there eventually, slowly but surely. btw glad you read the article, still think I need to work on it a lot though, I haven't done him justice, but at least it's not POV (I hope!) All the best. CYL Sue Wallace 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi John, I was just about to "make a hit" on the area you have been working on, so thanks for the note. (Maybe it was I who didn't get in your way!) It's always a challenge (and occasionally fun) to tackle our friend's prolific contributions. --Red Sunset 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

US / UK spelling

Hi & thanks for your message. I happen to agree with you about consistency, it is annoying to to read odor and odour in the same article (and, by analogy, vapor and vapour). The Threlfall reference was mine, I have the book on my shelf. However, as a Brit it is annoying to read that we had yellow phosphorus in WWII for defense (US spelling) - we had them for defence (UK spelling). Sorry, this does not solve the problem. Regardless of whether we use US or UK spelling one side is going to be unhappy.Pyrotec 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam

Rubbish in Lea.jpg

I was not adding inappropriate links. You need to take a look at what I added, match it up to the subject content before you decide (unilaterally) that it was an inappropriate link. I seriously doubt you knew the first thing about what you were doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

John, The external link I added is relevant to the subject matter of the article. It isn't a commercial message or spam. Thanks for your consideration. Christy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

John, I added nothing further after I read your message. Thanks, Christy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I thought this was supposed to be the largest Encyclopedia on the web. But yet when i post a article on a band that wasn't on here. That have preformed with many headliners and are on a major record label. You guys delete it. I want contact information for higher ups. I mean I could understand if it was a no name punk band or something. But we're talking about a major power metal band. That plays big stadiums and with big names.

GET BACK TO ME. I want that contact info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampyreinblack777 (talkcontribs) 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"It should be noted that"

I see that you hate this useless phrase. It is also my current "two minutes hate" in the war on bad grammar. Good luck on eliminating this unsightly scourge. Coemgenus 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Cademuir International School

Dear John, first of all I want to participate with you and TomPrescott to find a solution on how to fix this article. You've shown confidence in certain sections of the article that you thought were inverifiable, and by copy editing and undoing things done by TomPrescott some parts have been accidentally removed that were written far earlier by former contributors. I did not yet find out whether it was done accidentally or on purpose, as there have been many changes in each of these edits. To prevent further damage being done to the article, I would like to know what has made these changes to happen.

  • Why has the image been removed? Wikipedia states that a fair use includes showing the object in question or a company logo.
  • Why has some trivial information been removed on a stub article? Wikipedia states that information that helps advancing articles or that can be included more beautifully later is better than not including it at all. This relates to some "facts" (or whatever definition is more suitable to your mind^^)
    • The Lakes and Country estate agent managing the property sale
    • Liquidation of the school (something quoted like "His misfortune might be your luck" Why is some trivia related to the Lakes and Country estate agent managing the property sale been removed?
  • TomPrescott may have included doubtful facts. Still, those facts have been cited well from magazines, newspapers, (witness) reports, investigations, statistics, etc. Why was such content subject to deletion?

OT: Why are articles such as Copenhagen International School not marked as a stub?

Thank you very much for taking the time answering my questions. Best regards --Lazer erazer 08:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lazer erazer, I've done a lot of work for this project and I think I have a good feeling for what our articles should look like. The image was used in breach of copyright, it was neither fair use nor a logo. I know there are those who wish this article about a defunct school to include all sorts of wild accusations like a tabloid news article. Reading WP:BLP should help you to understand why (apart from common sense) this is not viable. If you have specific suggestions for the article I wouldn't rule them out ahead of time, and you could raise these on the article's talk page. --John 14:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

3 reverts on goalkeeper

That's more than 3 in a 24 hour period. 1 person doesn't like the section. The section has been on the page for a long time. 1 person doesn't count as a consensus. Have a lovely day.--Ghostexorcist 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. --Ghostexorcist 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Which edit are we talking about here? Which page are you going to wiki-stalk me to next? --Ghostexorcist 18:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. The media section on goalkeeper had been "stable" on the page for a long time before it was deleted. No good reason was given for it's deletion.
  2. No evidence was given on the change on Milarepa.
There is no edit warring here. And, yes, you are wiki-stalking me. --Ghostexorcist 18:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning, but I've been on wikipedia for a while. --Ghostexorcist 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Then tell your friend Glassfet to stop following me then. He is going to some of the articles I initiated and making changes. I'm sure he accessed these via my user page or my contributions page. --Ghostexorcist 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi John, I have read wp:flags - I will remove the flagicon templates I have used. I was following what looked like good practice on other band/album/artist pages. Personally, I quite like the flag appearing in origin, but I appreciate we must all pull in the same direction. Witchwooder 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

History of the petroleum industry in Canada (frontier exploration and development)

I have just been marvelling at the work you did on this article, especially in your conversions from metric to US units. Is there a list somewhere of the conversion formulas that I can use as a reference?

Thanks. 02:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbcomm (talkcontribs)

You must be mistaken, all I have done on that article are minor format fixes. --John 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, John, looked before I leaped on that one. I only saw the changes in "History" section. I'll put it back to your edit. If you give the OK, can I put back in the uncited stuff in "History"? It's is true, even if uncited. Like I said (or at least meant), give me a week and I'll pull stuff up. --sony-youthpléigh 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A non-admin closure

Hello there. Recently I closed a deletion debate as a non-admin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart. I asked on the talk page if this looked like a clear snowball; someone replied and it was agreed. I closed the debate as a snowball keep, although now the nominator has left a message on my talk page, requesting that it should be re-opened. I believe that I was bold and made the right decision although it is entirely possible that I made the wrong decision; I just wanted to ask your advice, should the debate be re-opened?

Seraphim Whipp 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you. I always like to learn from the decisions I make :-).
Seraphim Whipp 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Concorde is 'she'

[81] WolfKeeper 19:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[82]WolfKeeper 19:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

BA's usage doesn't have to determine ours, however. --John 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Fleet air arm: [83]WolfKeeper 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. Please change it back.WolfKeeper 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Neither BA nor the FAA determines our use in Wikipedia though. Unfortunately I am damned if I can find the MoS where (I believe) it points out that ships (but not planes) are called 'she' on Wikipedia. What we cannot have is what we had before I made my edits, with about 75% 'it' and 25% 'she'. That looks poor. My preference is for 'it', but having a mixture of both is unacceptable.
Do you mind if I copy this to Talk:Concorde? Somebody there is likely to know. --John 05:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The thing is the MOS bows to usage in the country for iconic things like Concorde (note: it's not THE Concorde for much the same reason); and pretty much I guess we look to the media and Concorde's owners and the government for guidance on this. I think most of the owners of Concorde and people that work on Concorde reference as her, and BA and the museums seem to also call Concorde her.WolfKeeper 06:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know about the 'the' preference and I support that. Do you think it should be 'she' throughout? Or do you think the version you reverted to with a mixture of both pronouns was preferable? Let's continue this on Talk:Concorde and give others the chance to opine. --John 06:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)



I'm not sure why you blocked the above user. I believe that he was making a good faith effort to improve the page in question. To quote a well respected editor:

"FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against WIkipedia POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from WIkipedia anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you! - BillCJ 03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"

Hopefully you can appreciate the improvements that the IP is trying to make to the project. 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I cannot appreciate how this or this could be considered to be good faith efforts. If you want to contribute, I suggest adding references to some articles. Vandalising another user's space is not helpful. --John 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the 2 items that IP.97 edited. The first edit does not clearly identify the purpose. I would suggest that .97 needs to provide comment as to why the edit was made. As for the 2nd edit, the changes made appear consistant with the users own comments.
I would suggest reverting the 2nd edit back to the way .97 arranged the page. I would also suggest that .97 be unblocked so that he can continue to move the project forward. 17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I have no intention of following them. --John 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Flag ban debate

John, please accept my apologises if my remarks offended you. I should not have believed for 1 second that there was any possibility that your edits were meant as intimidation in any way. I should have assumed good faith, and will do so in future. All the best, Sue Sue Wallace 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Glad all is now ok. I would get confused having other id's; like, I've been correcting some rationales today when I noticed an anon editor had also been up-dating the rationales, I was just about to thank them on their talk page when I realised the anon was ME when I wasn't logged in! Sue Wallace 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Ah right. That's definately how I, and other people alike, have been taught to spell it. But now I know, and thanks for not getting mad at me for it; you easily could have warned me back! Continue your great work, as I looked through Spellmasters contributions and they all improve Wikipedia greatly. Thanks, — jacĸrм (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

humourous/ humorous

Hi while I appreciate your help, you do know that in Canada and england there is always a "u" between the "o" and"r" in words such as "humour" , "favour" and "colour". Here are two online dictionary links that have this spelling: 22:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC) samusek2

Odd - here in Australia we have "humour", "honour", "favour" and "favourite" but "humorous" and "honorary". I would be amazed if British English, from which Australian and Canadian English both derive (although there are differences across the three), deviated significantly. Orderinchaos 08:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome John Nimbus227 22:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey John

Just wanted to say I was very impressed with your user page. See you around. A-Whack —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--John 14:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Per this edit - I've now removed the flag icon (next edit), I didn't realise it was there. As for the MySpace link, it's somewhat of an alternate "official website" for the band - certainly they do a lot more news and updates there than on As for the images, I'd like to see which part of the criteria they don't meet - please get back to me on that. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's easier if I reply at Talk:Powderfinger - hope you don't mind this :)  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded image question

Hi John,

I have uploaded an image to insert in an article and I thought I had completed the copyright questions ok (it is my own image) but it is showing as 'untagged'.

I've read the instructions but I can't quite get started, easy when you know how I would think.

Can you point me in the right direction please?!


Gary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimbus227 (talkcontribs) 10:30, October 2, 2007

Hi Gary. If you are happy to donate your rights in a photo which you took yourself, you should add {{GFDL-self}} to the image page. It's a great picture! --John 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've tagged the image succesfully but am struggling to insert it in to the article. I am clicking the embedded image icon and typing the file name after ((Image: but it does not seem to work, will get the hang of this soon I promise!!!

Also forgot to sign last time! Cheers. Nimbus227 15:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the licence tag for you. Which article are you trying to insert it into? I can show you how if you like. --John 16:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, I've got it now, have a look at 'Mini Nimbus'. I reloaded the file with a slightly different name and double checked the copyright options, after all that I think my problem was that .jpg was in upper case .JPG! Also read the syntax rules to creat a thumbnail, this is fun! I'm going to try inserting another external link in that article. Cheers Nimbus227 17:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're really getting the hang of the markup. You might want to read WP:EL before adding any external links; why not integrate information from the external link into the article instead? You could use the link as a reference. I can give you any help you need. --John 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


You absolutely don't need to threat me, John. I am already cooked off. GO figure, if after several hours of work i deserve to see both my works deleted and then been treatened by you or someone else. Obviousely i pretend too much if i suggest to ask to BillBC and some others why they even not answer to me but just limited themselves to rollback.

Where is wikilove, nette, collabotation and something else? Where is the principle that everyone contribues as he can? When wiki.en states that only 'native english' are abilitated to write? All this worths only for 'the others'? ah, i forget, to me it's only needed to be treaten with blocks. Greetings. I am so happy to hear it. Regards.--Stefanomencarelli 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. No one is threatening you. --John 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting the hang of it!

I see you are on to me with the T.65 Vega article!!! I think the Mini Nimbus article is much better now. I 'borrowed' the info box from another glider article and put the correct details in, is it ok to do that? Cheers Gary Nimbus227 19:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ian McAllister

Hi. You've twice reverted me there. Can we come to a compromise, or do we need to involve other people? My stance is that we need a better source to say that McAllister is a practising Catholic. --John 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets try talking it through. I could understand your first edit - it needed a ref, so I replicated a higher ref down to where you had placed a citation tag. So the question - is he a catholic? He attended Thornleigh Salesian College, an (at the time - the rules changed post 1998 under the discrimination laws on sex, race and religion) exclusive Catholic only college. To attend he and his family would have had to have to been practising catholics at the time. There are other clear references that he's a practising Christian, and if he'd changed religion to (say) Baptist or other wise there would be good references normally. Hence for me, its pretty clear he is catholic. What are your thoughts? Rgds, - Trident13 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that level of verifiability does not entitle the claim that he belongs to that category, especially for a living person, in my opinion. There is also the question of whether his (putative) Catholicism is noteworthy enough to be included. Let's take it to article talk and see what others think as it is clear we disagree. --John 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I here where you are coming from, but before we take it there what in your opinion are we in dispute about: that he's religeous; that he's catholic; that his being catholic is significant enough that it should be noted in his bio? As I personally have a Scots/Irish but born in England background, I realise that some take these items far more seriously, and have seen far too many daft edits wars over such issues. Personally wishing to avoid such an opportunity now, and focus future potential debate when other editors review and note the attendence of Thornleigh Salesian College, and in the spirit of WP:CON, I would prefere to agree between you and I a suitable position or what we disagree about before we take it to the talk page. Thoughts? Rgds - Trident13 18:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think you'd be able to get your point across, and be immune to any objections, were you to simply embellish the second sentence of the article by changing "he was schooled at Thornleigh Salesian College" to "he was schooled at (the then all-Catholic) Thornleigh Salesian College". 05:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion from an Anon - what do you think? Rgds, - Trident13 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


I question why you would insert what I consider (to be your) opinion regarding the theory that Hitler was personally responsible for a delay in the production of the Messerschmidt 262.

I believe it is fairly accepted that Hitler did have a direct hand in causing the bomber variant, the Sturmvogel, to be produced. This fact alone, that an additional variant was created, would affect the production rate of the standard fighter version.

You felt it necessary to modify the already very soft wording of "This likely added only slightly" by appending "if at all" based upon the two references you cite? The first, on the "Great Avaition Myths" website is an unsourced survey of contributions submitted by users of the website. The related entry there greatly oversimplifies the entire debate and boils the delays in the appearance of the 262 down to one blanket excuse of "technical difficulties". A source like this hardly deserves reference on Wikipedia. The second source, from a published book, states Hitler's wish was "not... a major reason". It takes a lot of spin to turn that into "had no effect" as you purport.

Here are a few links that seem to hold more creedence (at least) than the user submitted stuff off of the GAM site.

Dec. 1943 - Hitler, surrounded by Air Force seniors and Willi Messerschmitt, the aircraft designer, sees the Me-262 prototype for the 1st time. Always frustrated by the German disadvantage in bombers, Hitler asks if the Me-262 can be used as a bomber, and the answer is "theoretically yes". It is clear to everyone else there that the Me-262 is an exceptional interceptor, but not to Hitler. Hitler then lectures to them about the potential he sees in the Me-262 as a bomber, and leaves, wrongly thinking that his lecture was understood as a command to develop and produce the Me-262 as a bomber. Development continues, but only of the original fighter version. April 1944 - during a discussion about the Me-262, Hitler suddenly realizes that it is produced only in the original fighter version, not in "his" bomber version. Hitler is furious. He commands to shift all production to a bomber version. He forbids to even refer to the aircraft as an interceptor or even as a fighter-bomber, and the military responsibilities related to the Me-262 are transferred from the fighter command to the bomber command. This means that jet fighter pilot training is stopped. Instead, bomber pilots will train to fly the Me-262, as a bomber. The decision also further delays production. Oct. 1944 - Germany now has a real jet bomber, the Arado 234, and Hitler, still obsessed with bombers, agrees to a "deal" in which for every Arado 234 bomber delivered, a Me-262 of the fighter version will also be delivered. The first few Me-262s (fighter version) become operational. The small new unit shoots down an increasing number of allied aircraft, and The Allies respond by fighter and bomber raids on its air base. Hitler agrees to expand the small unit from a few aircraft to the world's first jet fighter wing (JG7).

Bomber pilots did fly the 262, didn't they?

Until fall 1943, the Messerschmitt Me 262 was only considered to be a fighter. Then, the threatened Allied land invasion of northwest Europe created a major new concern for Hitler, If the landings succeeded, his army would be squeezed between the Eastern and Western fronts. But he thought that the invasion could be defeated and that Allied losses would probably be so heavy that his western flank would be secure for one or possibly two years.

Hitler and his High Command theorized that for the first few hours after the landings, there would be massive confusion, If the Luftwaffe could field a hundred or so high-speed fighter-bombers to bomb and strafe the troops as they came ashore, the delay in securing the beachheads might be decisive. In November 1943, the Fuhrer watched an impressive demonstration of high-speed flight by an Me 262. Afterward, he asked Willi Messerschmitt if the aircraft could be modified to carry bombs. The fighter's designer assured him that it could-either one 1,100-pound bomb or two 550-pounders. That was the answer Hitler wanted; this was the high-speed fighter-bomber he needed with the speed to punch through the Allied fighter screens and slaughter the invaders as they struggled onto the beaches."

Under the wings of the Me 262A-1 s, wooden racks held 12, R4M 55mm, folding-fin rockets. These unguided weapons were rapidly ripple-fired at one target.

From that moment on, the Me 262 held an important place as a fighter bomber in Hitler's counter-invasion strategy. Yet he failed to communicate that view forcefully enough to those who were responsible for preparing it for action. Generalfeldmarschal Erhard Milch; in charge of aircraft production, accepted that the aircraft would be useful as a fighter-bomber, but he initially wanted to deploy it in the pure fighter role against Allied bombers.

That divergence of views lasted until May 23, 1944, when the Fuhrer summoned Luftwaffe leaders to a routine conference to discuss the latest aircraft production programs. Among those present were Reichsmarschali Hermann Goring, Erhard Milch, Luftwaffe Chief of Staff Gen. Guenther Korten and Inspector of Fighters Genera/major Adolf Galland and officials from the armament ministry. When the Me 262 came up on the agenda, Hitler asked how production of the high-speed bomber was progressing. How many had been built? Mitch replied that so far, no Me 262s had been built to carry bombs; the type was being manufactured only as a fighter. There was an awkward silence as Hitler pondered on the significance of this reply. The Allies might invade northwest Europe any day, and an important weapon he had relied on to help defeat the landings did not exist-despite its designer's explicit assurance that the Me 262 could carry bombs if required to do so.

Suddenly, Hitler lost his composure, and the meeting degenerated into a blazing, one-sided row. He then dismissed everyone except Goring, who had to suffer a blistering attack for his incompetence. The outcome was an edict from the Fuhrer that until further notice, the Me 262 was to be delivered only as a fighter-bomber and not as a fighter. Hitler said he held Göring personally responsible for ensuring that an Me 262 fighter-bomber unit was formed as rapidly as possible. On June 6, 1944, '10 days after the Luftwaffe conference, Allied troops stormed ashore in Normandy. At Omaha Beach, the landings ran into severe difficulties. Had those troops also faced repeated attacks by high-speed fighter bombers, as Hitler had envisioned, the landing there might well have failed and resulted in an enormous number of casualties. But that did not happen. By mid-morning, the Allies had secured four large beachheads in Normandy, and the Me 262's opportunity to defeat the invasion, if it ever had one, had been lost.

At the time of the invasion, the Luftwaffe had taken delivery of about 30 Me 262s, all fitted with the temperamental early model gas-turbine engines. Clearly, these aircraft weren't ready for action in any role. Regardless of anything Hitler, Göring, Mitch, or Messerschmitt could have done, the critical factor that delayed the plane's entry to combat was the unreliability of its engines. In September 1944, an improved version of the Jumo 004 was introduced, and modified engines emerged from the factories in large numbers. Also in that month, Hitler rescinded his order that new Me 262s be delivered only to fighter-bomber units. At the end of September, the first Me 262 fighter unit was ready for operations.

Several published accounts overplay the effect of Hitler's edict that the Me 262 initially be used only as a fighter bomber. In truth, the decree imposed a delay of about only three weeks on the aircraft's deployment as a fighter. The main cause of the delay was not his ruling but the unreliability of the first-generation gas-turbine engines that powered the airplane.

This is from the guys who are currently flying reproductions of the 262.

There are many more entries online all espousing that Hitler did have an impact, in varying degrees, upon the entry of the the first jet fighter into WWII.

I submit that Hitler's desire for an offensive weapon had * some* effect on 262 production and that we correctly allow the Wikipedia entry to reflect that.

Paul Williams Lincoln, Nebraska —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


That last link from implies Hitler had a huge impact, and it is from the guys who are currently fabricating from scratch, and flying, reproductions of the 262. They are sanctioned by, and work closely with the Messerschmidt Foundation. Are they not more expert on the subject, more credible, than an anonymous user submission off of the GAM website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aeritalia F-104S

There seems to be a bit of an editing war going on in Aeritalia F-104S, I am in a position to help but am reluctant to step in, what's the best way forward?

The article has become very untidy and is factually incorrect in many places.

I note one contributor has been banned from

CheersNimbus227 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As you suggested...

I posted to the discussion area. A couple times. Have you read that?

I never removed the Price quote, I simply moved some generalized statements about the overall program (along with the Price quote) up to an already existing sentence on the same topic in the first paragraph. It's seems a more logical place than in ...

Well, so as not to repeat myself... I made my case in the discussion area about why the move makes sense.

I'm fine with the modified verbage of yours in the first paragraph, "no significant impact". I feel that is accurate, without implying Adolph had absolutely no impact whatsoever.

The sentences that were reinserted into the fifth paragraph, in the midst of all the techy details, are now redundant and ought to go (starting from "The overall development of" through "to bring the Swallow to production.[7]"). The "Great Aviation Myths" reference should also be kaput. That is the reference I removed as "junk". Price's quote was left intact. The items in the bullet-list on the GAM webpage are unsigned, unsourced, and right at the top of the page it states "If you want to add to the list, send me an email". That is not a reference I feel is adequate in advancing Wikipedia standards.

Paul 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tubthumping Music Video Link

Next time, try and bother to clicking links. You'd have found the following info on the page (bold to emphasize my point):

From: universalmusicgroup (Useless text edited out) (C) 1997 Chumbawamba Licensed exclusively to Universal Records, a Division of UMG Recordings, Inc.

Ergo, it is not a violation of 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is not a copyvio doesn't mean it enhances the article. Please read WP:EL. --John 18:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at RfA

I just had to tell you how much I liked your question in AA's RfA. It totally cracked me up... "That sounds worryingly invertebrate to me." is one of the funniest sentences I've ever seen on the Wikipedia. :) Pinball22 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for saying so. --John 18:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

For reverting vandalism to my user talk page. --John 05:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) -HamatoKameko 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor

John, can you look at the very unusual comments/edit summaries left by an anon (or a series of anon addresses all presumably from the same person) on the article's talk page. BillCJ has identified the person as a banned editor who resorts to sockpuppet attacks. He has already vandalized my home page and Adam Radecki's talk page as well as making a series of snide and demeaning comments to other editors. FWIW Bzuk 15:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC).

I had a look and I will continue to monitor. Please let me know if it continues. --John 19:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Using the sockpuppet of, this editor has again vandalized Adam and my pages (he blanked my user page for the second time). I think BillCJ has identified the user as a banned editor- see the edit history of User: Wikzilla‎, see also User talk:Akradecki's talk page. FWIW Bzuk 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC).

Re: Adding external links

As an avid user and contributor of Wikipedia, with over 8000 edits, I am well aware to not add spam to external links. External links to HowStuffWorks are informational and education articles relevant to the topic. I have no affiliation with HowStuffWorks, and added the external links solely with the intention to improve the article. Rest assure, I am not spamming, or have any personal, commercial or ulterior motive. I see no reason (besides possibly that the site contains advertisement) why the edits should be reverted. -- Frap 00:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not always easy or possible to summaries it, because often it would take much time, and also because HowStuffWorks often contains copyrighted illustrations, and Wikipedia and HowStuffWorks, are different, because Wikipedia is an factual encyclopedia with articles with facts about stuff, while HowStuffWorks is more focused on explaining how stuff works. Though, I can see where you are coming from, usually I am against linking to commercial sites that contain advertisement, it has happened that I removed sites due to that, but I deemed that due to the quality and informative nature of the site, it would be a valuable site to link to, and the action of linking to it, would overall be an positive thing todo that would be helpful to the people who read Wikipedia. -- Frap 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007

The October 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 -- 09:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

flags, again.

This time on United Kingdom#Symbols. The article was stable for nearly 2 months with the flag and the footnote, explaining the bone of contention with the flag among some people. Then at the start of this month someone went to effort of removing the flag. Since then the flag has not been 'allowed' back.

Your assistance, as offered earlier, is sought and greatly appreciated. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We should discuss it in article talk in the first instance to see if we can find a way forwards. --John 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

red caps on the mountains

Hi ive been interested in the Greenlands contribution to a possible east coast suname. I noticed your picture and am wondering why the mountain tops are red in your picture?


John, I have now reverted a section heading twice on the above article. It was arrived at following a discussion in mid September. The editor in question is using an anonymous IP and looking at the his/her talk page a response to the reversion by a previous editor was less that diplomatic. Thoughts? --Stewart (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, thank you for letting me know. --John 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User: DCGeist

John, you are not the only person who has had difficulty with DCGeist. See the discussion page at Gone with the Wind (film). I think you'll be shocked. Is it possible to lodge a complaint against this individual? 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary. Much appreciated. However, I hope you were not suggesting that I was "trolling" (a very odd term, the definition of which I only recently learned). I am in all seriousness debating the existence of a second Tara set based on what I believe to be photographic proof from a Los Angeles Times article in 1979 (and my own several visits to the set... which I know can't be used as a legitimate source) 13:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Album covers again

I'm glad you (slightly) reconsidered, in any case :) Whilst I'm cool with the PF compromise, I still think that, lacking free images, album covers should be used in cases of extra notability, such as the ARIA awards in this case. But that's just my opinion, and I'm interested to see what consensus is reached. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


If you kindly tell me (=treatening?) that i must do not make personalisms, well i agree, but after this, just explain me:

1-How GFDL can justifie that BillBC can revert my edits? Where is written that only 'fair written' edits are couvered? I tough that this is applied only to vandalisms and this is not the case, do you agree?

2-You 'advertise' me about not to make personal attacks. Well, i do not search BillBC, while he rollback my edits. Perhaps i mistake something, but who is the guy that makes personal questions here? I, or him?

3-In which measure Wikipedia is improved with these removals? Some herrors are not only mine and there is not shortage of manpower, with 2,5 wikipedians for every article.

4-BillBC has no right to write: He's banned on It.Wiki for a reason, and he (supposedly) speaks the language there! This is a personal attack to me. In there was and is some problems among wikipedians. But this is NOT a BillBC businness. And i do not allow that some guys use it for denigrate me here.

5-Seen that i write so bad, to have fun show me how many unacceptable herrors i did in this post.

In short: i am not too pleased to see that, every time i discuss with someone, you arrive and advertize or block me. If you want to make PR with myself you can do it better. I do apreciate the discussions peer-to peer, rather than shoot the dog. Disclaimer: in the making of this post no personal attacks were made and no animals were injured.--Stefanomencarelli 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

13, roughly. That is far better than I could do in Italian, but not up to scratch for professional writing purposes. I have made very few edits to the German or French projects for similar reasons. --John 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)



Some foundamental objections:

1-You forget that this is not, or still not, a 'professional purpuse'. If i have mistaken nothing, Wikipedia runs with *non professionists*, differently it should be called Wiki.Encyclopedia Britannica and contributors will been *payed*. Sorry, it's not the purpose of Wikipedia make 'professional works', it's not a professional project at all. If recently someone with over-inflated opinion about this project thinks this, well, let me say that this assumption blatalantly violates the spirit of wikipedia, starting with: everybody contributes as he can. Differently it's intolerance.

2-Seen that english is quite unfurtunatly, the standard world language (spoken correnctly by 10% people, more or less), you or everybody else, should no be surprised at all if people not of mother language are making edits

That, as neat result, and despite what sometimes is said about (from interested 'advocates'), *improves* wikipedia, not worsened it. Example, just look to italian aircrafts, how many and how complete were three months ago and now, after i posted almost 1 MB of contributes to reinforce them. Herrors, sure- there are-, but nothing that will been uncourreggible and the final result will be much better than it was once.

Point is cleary here: you cannot pretend in any sense a professional work with no professional workers (and not paid for). Differently wikipedia is Wikibritannica or Citizendium. Being none of the two, it's clear that you simply could not pretend 'all, now and well' from anyone. If i will send the bill of over 1000++ workhrs to Jimmy Whales he would just laugh. So this display that wiki is not professional and consequently, wiki cannot pretend professionism from non-professists (and surely not paid).

As herrors, 1 every 100 bytes is not that bad. The revisional process is made just to remove herrors and mistakes, and not only syntax and grammar. And surely takes much less time to be made than write the whole stuff.

Apart this, i find 'funny' that while i have improved spelling and reduced the articles made, now i am simply roll-backed every time i try to write something. It's awful and unexplained.

5-Removing my 'personal attacks' to BillBC is fine, but excuse me, i don't talk of gratuitus attacks, i talk of precise facts, and you not ansewered to the first three points of previous post.

As example, BillBC has called me 'troll'. It's not true regardless of what i am doing here. So it's a sostantial p. attack. I was punished for such things, i fail to see why nobody can say nothing to Bill. He even rollback my 'critic posts' in his page, and there is no way to be heard by anyone. B-50, G.91, CF-104 are all ready to be 'analyzed' (already smelling of censur) and not from today, and nobody do it. This is a bit painful, what's the point to use sandbox while there is no interest to work togheter?

None animals ,as usual, was injured in the making of this post. I know that for sure, because after there were no survivors in laboratory gages.--Stefanomencarelli 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Hi, I am trying to move a page from "Lories and Lorikeets" to "Lories and lorikeets", which is standard heading format with non-capitalised words for words that are not proper nouns. "Lories and lorikeets" was a redirect page that I made and then blanked. It is usually possible to move a page over a redirect, but in this case there has now been 4 edits on this blanked redirect page and the software has preventing me for doing to the move, and says I should ask an administrator. There is some discussion about the name of the page on the talk page. Snowman 19:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did that. Perhaps you could clean up the double redirects created? --John 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I can use AWB to fix the redirects. Snowman 19:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Edit-warring" accusation

John, As you are aware due to the tendency of some loyalist pov-pushers to complain to the management I keep a certain distance from certain sensitive articles - but I do watch, everything, like a hawk! I spotted your warning to User:Padraig and must protest in the strongest terms: the insertion of the sectarian symbol without agreement and while the Arbcom is still live is clearly the behaviour that should be stopped. If you don't like seeing Padraig reverting POV then if you took that task on board yourself it wouldn't be necessary. Also I feel that your view that 3 reversions of POV-pushing in 4 days is edit warring is unreasonable and I worry whether WP:NPV is being defended here. (Sarah777 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, to some people here, everyone who they disagree with is "POV-pushing". However if you look at WP:3RR, you will see there is quite deliberately no free pass granted for this, as there is in the case of simple vandalism. As you mature as an editor, you will find that everyone has a POV, and everyone is liable to occasionally make edits that reflect their own biases and preconception. Edit-warring is bad, full stop. If you fail to appreciate this, perhaps you are in the wrong project. There are always better ways to reach a solution; those who edit-war are definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution. --John 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As someone who does NOT edit-war I resent your suggestion that "perhaps you are in the wrong project". Perhaps you shouldn't be an Administrator if you can't keep a civil tongue? (Sarah777 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
Well indeed, if I couldn't keep a civil tongue I wouldn't be a good administrator. However, you are fundamentally wrong about my warning to Padraig. Criticising me for my warning to Padraig shows a major misunderstanding of our core values. I am glad you do not edit-war yourself; supporting others who do isn't all that much better though. Think about it, anyway. --John 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Criticising me for my warning to Padraig shows a major misunderstanding of our core values. No John, it shows a major concern for our core values. Reacting to my criticism by suggesting I might be "in the wrong project" shows a major misunderstanding of the role of an administrator. (Sarah777 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
Either you do or you don't understand that edit-warring is bad. If you do, you were wrong to leave the message. If you don't, you are indeed on the wrong project. --John 22:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I do understand that edit-warring is bad. Padraig was not edit-warring. and it should have been clear to you that that is my contention; not that edit-warring is OK. I was right to leave the message. You were wrong to suggest that I am on the wrong project. If you don't understand that, you, sir, are on the wrong project. (Sarah777 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

(deindent) Sarah, I do understand that your intentions are good here. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by suggesting that you may be out of step with our core values here. However, Padraig was edit-warring, along with another user. I warned them both and started a discussion on the relevant article's talk page. I would do exactly the same thing again were the situation repeated. By "sticking up" for an editor who was edit-warring, you are actually helping nobody. --John 00:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you's don't mine me jumping in here, Sarah thanks for you concern, but I have no real problem with Johns message, although he and myself don't always see eye to eye I have found him very fair an helpful in his dealings with these disputes. Anyway hopefully this will put a end to most of the edit wars on the flag issue, a policy which John has been very supportive off.--Padraig 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I had found John fine (bar the odd spat) in the past but I thought suggesting I was unfit for my beloved project was a sore blow. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) is excellent on my reading. (Sarah777 01:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
Well, I hope there are no lasting hurt feelings. Thanks to both of you for the nice things you said. I am glad you like WP:FLAG; I helped write it in a small way. --John 01:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PROD tagging of Oasis songs

I noticed that you recently tagged several articles on individual songs from the album (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, and I wanted to raise a few points in response to that. First, you neglected to notify the page creator, as the {{prod}} template suggests, and as is only common courtesy. I'm going to go ahead and do so for you now, but please try to keep it in mind in the future. Second, you suggest in your PROD rationale that the articles be merged into (What's the Story) Morning Glory?. A PROD nomination may not be the best means of achieving that aim, since the articles in question will be deleted outright without any sort of merge if they are not un-tagged at the conclusion of the interval. As such, in the future you might want to try tagging articles with {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates instead. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In practice there may be very little verifiable material there to merge; I think my rationale said something like "any material may be merged..". I don't really mind whether these are deleted or converted to redirects. I did raise what I was doing at Talk:Oasis (band).--John 21:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made them redirects. Thanks for your advice. --John 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


John, is vandalising pages. Can you help? Sue Wallace 05:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he seemed to stop after I emailed you, before that he/she was going like the clappers. Cheers. Sue Wallace 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The tunnel editing

This is broxliam and i didnt remove the video by accident i removed it because i dont think anyone would want to see this. All i seen was something like a crusafix with jesus on it. I think you should not put the video back on the artical, there is no point.

broxliam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broxliam (talkcontribs) 07:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


John, you might be interested in this essay I am working on just for fun. Feel free to contribute, if you have any ideas. Thanks. - BillCJ 20:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, it looks good. I don't have anything to add at present. I hope your health is improving. --John 20:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lennon Image

Please don't remove without discussion. I adhere to 3RR religiously, so don't revert without discussion. Sixstring1965 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A free image is always preferable to a nonfree one, sorry. --John 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This one is free for use on Wikipedia. Sixstring1965 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is under Creative Commons. Sixstring1965 01:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It was marked as non-commercial use only when I saw it. I still think it is a less good photo. I see you've reverted in spite of what you said above, so let's continue this at Talk:John Lennon. --John 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Yes. This picture is completely relevant to the article and is described by accompanying text in said article.

It's a seminal album.

That last part was a joke. I chuckled when I read your message on the WP:PUNK talk page because it's all true. No one will respond to the message though, WP:Punk is (for the most part) adandoned. --Endless Dan 12:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi John, since you've been recently involved with Stefanomencarelli, you might be interested in his filing of an ArbCom case, here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Stefanomencarelli-Bzuk-BillCJ. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --John 16:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to take a look on F-86 talk page as well, because there are some things sadly debated. In short, i added 700bites to complete performance of F-86 ( i thinked: lets' contribute with minimal non debatable work..), they were questioned, i gave written source, no they were not enough because written in italian, so i gave two links in english taht machted my datas. I displayed how they mathces and despite this, they were deleted. This stuff, that born just to contribute minimally without making troubles to 'other wikipedians' has began as usual, an edit-war. Bzuk is the main protagonist. I invite to check how happened, since with this latter issues i have lost at least 95% will to contibute. If even raw datas can be deleted with sources, links and whatever else given, well in this case i cannot really make nothing here. I don't want to spent $$$$ to buy english-books that could been debated as well. It's almost outrageus to me(=I write shxt, Sgarlato too, Baugher too).--Stefanomencarelli 14:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi John, thanks for you note re: Punk. Tbh, I never liked that word anyway, it always struck me as a euphemism for unsuccessful and obscure, but I bet that for each of the six or so instances of the word in the page, tens of cites could be found. Ceoil 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Death of Diana, Princess of Wales

Hi John, wonder if I could ask your advice. I want to create a new article about the new Princess Diana trial but I don't want to "step on anybody's toes" so to speak. I'm trying to add-on up-to-date info. to the above article (which is almost completely about the Operation Paget report), but it's really messy. Do you think it would be out of order for me to create an article for the new inquest? Thanks in advance. Sue Wallace 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for asking. I'll have a think about that and get back to you. --John 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look and up-dating. I've also just noticed that there is already a separate article for Operation Paget! What do you think? I would normally have just created a new article but I know this is probably a sensitive subject and I don't want to get it wrong, also I don't know what I would call it! Maybe I should just add-on to the Operation Paget article. Sue Wallace 00:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about it. I hate to say it but it's a bit of a mess just now, isn't it? Let's take it to Talk:Death of Diana, Princess of Wales.--John 06:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Thanks for help. Sue Wallace 07:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jonestown, Sfacets, vandalism accusations, etc.

Well you were up late. If you've any thoughts on the situation, that you'd care to share, they're more than welcome. -- Lonewolf BC 02:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh no, I'm working on UTC -8 these days, so that was daytime for me. I hadn't noticed there had been a conflict about it; just thought the quote looked funny and checked it from the source. --John 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, my mistake, on two counts -- guessing that you were up late and guessing that your appearance on the article was not mere coincidence. All the same, can you tell me whether I have any recourse against the accusations of vandalism, the vexatious "warnings" etc. I'm inclined to just ignore it, but also wish for a better idea of what I might do about it if it carries on. I'm not asking you to intervene (though you'd be welcome to, as one of the more reasonable people I've dealt with on WP), but just for a bit of procedural information. If you'd rather stay altogether clear of business, though, that's okay.

Just out of curiousity (and begging your pardon if it crosses into nosiness) by "working on UTC -8" do you mean that actually in that time zone, at present?

-- Lonewolf BC 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try to take a look. I am currently living in Northern California. Thank you for the kind comment.--John 15:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of Platforms at Haymarket and Waverley

If memory serves me correctly, you are based in the Edinburgh area. Can you confirm (or otherwise) the current number of platforms at Waverley and Haymarket. Several editors have been insisting that Haymarket only has four platforms, however when I was there in June - Platform 0 was in service.

There is also the ongoing issue regarding the number of operational platforms at Waverley - I would bow to the greater knowledge of User:Signalhead as he has been working on the resignalling project, however there are others who believe they know better.

I think a Mark 1 eyeball is required in this instance. --Stewart (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for remembering; however I am no longer based in Edinburgh but in California. I may be able to ask someone to go down and take photos etc. --John 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How am I doing?

Hi. Apologies for disturbing you as I know you are busy but I haven't really got much feedback from you on how I am doing in my admin coaching. Is it ok if you could leave some comments of how you think Im doing at User talk:Tbo 157/Admin coaching#How am I doing?, when you have a bit of time. This would be greatly appreciated as it would help me to identify any weak areas I may have. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 11:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to look today. I have an idea in mind. --John 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me good and upright gentleman!

Can you answer me why you deleted rationalwiki, man to man, without the ridiculous legal mumbo jumbo?Concernedcitizen102 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


If you feel so strongly about flags being posted will you be removing all the Scottish & Welsh flags or is this just another anti-English agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag Debate

You claim that flags add nothing to an article but it seems strange that nearly all Scots & Welsh artists have their national flags displayed and as for US related pages they have both national & state flags showing. My question is why are these not removed? It would seem that there is an underlying form of racism in the editing of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a wiki. You can edit it rather than moaning about how others have edited it. --John 15:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Assistance on article about TP425

Any assistance would be helpful, thanks. I'm a rookie in wikipedia so I'm still learning stuff, but I'd like to contribute with some knowledge.
It doesn't help that Crum375 keeps deleting my articles. Any idea on how/if i can get it back, so i can change the contents? Thanks Nelievsky 13:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Already rewrote the article. I hope it now complies with the requirements. Later ill improve the article. Thanks Nelievsky 15:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing Pages

Hi you told me to stop moaning and edit the pages but when I do you seem hell bent on changing them back even if I believe them to be useful to other users from across the globe reason being that over the last few years the UK has been broken up into four nations with their own Parliaments & Assemblies and many feel the Union flag is obsolete so many people outside the UK will not recognise these new flags that's where the educational part comes in. Also there was no ambiguity in any of the editing as you cant get anymore English than Wembley stadium, Stonehenge or Bobby Moore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:FLAG, as I already said. --John 02:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Civility

I am so sick and tired of this user E tac. He vandalized an article talk page twice, which I warned him about. He calls the edits harmless and erased my warnings. I don't know what else to do. RyguyMN 06:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have a problem with: The edits include this and this on the Adrian L. Peterson talk page, as well as this edit to my talk page which he asks me if I'm "high", another incoherent edit to my talk page here, and a personal attack calling me a "prude" (see here). RyguyMN 06:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the user had been drinking and was intoxicated when he made the edits. I think I've heard it all now. That explains the erratic behavior. RyguyMN 06:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey John, I am trying to but he keeps accusing me of things that I didn't do. He went to war with me based on a couple of somewhat incoherient edits that were in no way malicious or anything like that on a talk page and refuses to let it go. --E tac 06:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Depeche Mode vandalism

Hi John,

I noticed that you sought to bring a more balanced slant to the Depeche Mode article, particularly the recent albums section. However, if you look into the edit history, you will see that there are repeated RVs by what I call wiki-trolls to re-instate unsubstantiated and negative commentary. I have taken pains to revert it back to your edit, but they keep vandalizing the page. It may be the same person under different names, but I can't tell. Is it possible for you to do something to halt their assaults on the page? Thanks, BGC 13:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your prompt action. The DM page was reverted again, by one of them, but I just had it switched back. I think User: may be worth looking into as well. Same exact behavior on the same page. Cheers, BGC 17:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again. I have added the IP to the SP report. --John 18:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, I've removed the preceding message which was meant primarily for BGC. Apologies. Garik 11 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
John, User: appears to have joined in - our sockpuppet seems to have found another IP. BGC 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Better add User:MrTwentyThree to that list. He just vandalized the Depeche Mode page. BGC 13:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked both. Thanks yet again. --John 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jade Goody

Hi John, me again. On the Jade Goody article I decided to take out what I thought was a controvertial poorly cited paragraph which they The Sun allege that Goody had liposuction and had deceived the public. After reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight". I deleted it because I felt the info source (The Sun) as a tabloid, wasn't reliable, and I couldn't find any other reliable independent sources that backed it up, the only other sites that mention it are blogs and chatrooms. But someone restored it, should I just let it go? Sue Wallace 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your take on this; others may disagree. Let's see what happens; I've removed the offending passage for now. --John 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, at least it's a bit more balanced now. In regards to Jade, The Sun was well-known for their "Burn the Pig" headlines, so they're certainly not neutral where she's concerned. Sue Wallace 21:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry just wanted you to know I didn't mean to cause you any trouble re this article. Sue Wallace 03:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Aw no Sue, no trouble at all. I know I caused you annoyance with the way I handled the whole flags thing. I still think I was right, but I hate being in conflict with good people and you are clearly a good person with good intentions for the project. Anything else I can ever do to help you, just say. --John 03:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I got silly with the whole flag thing, I hope it's all but forgotten, I'm quite embarrased about it really. Thanks, I will continue to accept your offers of help, (poor you)! Have a v. good weekend. Sue Wallace 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat block

Users who make legal threats are blocked only while the legal threat is outstanding. Since the user retracted the threat, I have unblocked her. -- Merope 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That I did not see. I've issued a warning; further instances of personal attacks and gross incivility will result in a block. -- Merope 14:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


I am reverting an anon IP who is removing info with no discussion, and I only reverted twice.--Padraig 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
He has made 4 reverts are you going to block him.--Padraig 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as he has made 5 reverts on Flag of Northern Ireland two since you warned him, and has now started edit warring on Flag of Ireland are you going to block him.--Padraig 22:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
He made it to 6 before I blocked him. I was away from the computer for a while (yes, it does happen!). If it happens again you can always try WP:AN3. Best wishes, --John 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, can you please revert his edit warring, the Union Flag already exists in the Flag of Ireland article in the Historic flags template, and the Tricolour is discussed in the Flag of Northern Ireland article and has been there for months.--Padraig 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have thought about it and I decline to do that. Firstly, it would be unethical to effectively join the edit war in an instance where I have taken administrative action. Secondly, I am not that unhappy if the articles remain in their current states. Obviously this would be a different answer if it was simple vandalism (inserting rude words or the like). As it is not that but a content dispute I prefer to remain aloof from it. I will unhesitatingly block anyone who I see edit-warring on Wikipedia; next to incivility, it presents (I believe) the greatest danger to the future of this project. All participants in an edit war always believe they are right; that makes it worse somehow. Sorry about the lecture but I wanted to explain that I am not simply being unhelpful here but that there is a rationale at work here. I hope you understand. --John 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats ok, I removed the one from the Flag of Ireland article as it just duplicated the one in the template, I also believe our anon IP is a established editor using an IP on account of the ongoing mediation I am involved in on the flag issue. I have no intention of getting involved in edit wars on this issue I have all the proof I need here to remove the Ulster banner where it is not use in the correct context The Union Flags and flags of the United Kingdom.--Padraig 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hes back again 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm onto him. Thanks; hey, though, there is nothing to stop you placing the warning yourself. Might (slightly) speed the process up. --John 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hes still at it and will continue until he's blocked, this is how most of the edit wars start, I am trying to avoid them.--Padraig 23:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have just blocked him. You deserve praise for resisting the temptation to edit-war. Have faith in your fellow editors; if it is a good edit, somebody else will come along and fix it. If nobody does, maybe it isn't that good or important a thing in the first place. --John 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats not good editing, thats being disruptive, give him five minutes and he'll back again.--Padraig 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is becoming disruptive so I have also protected the article. --John 23:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I now revert the Northern Ireland article seeing as he been block twice now for what amounts to vandalism, or do you want to do it so you can also protect it as well, because he only only target that next.--Padraig 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, neither of us should do it. I should not because I have taken administrative action over it, and I believe you should not either because you are under some sort of revert parole. Forgive me if I am wrong on that point. --John 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not been informed of any decision on arbcom to that effect, they seem to be undecided on how to proceed on that, so far.--Padraig 00:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I wasn't sure what if anything had been decided. Obviously it is up to you then what to do; but please bear what I said above in mind, if you can. --John 00:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone else reverted it, and theres no sign of the IP back yet, so it may be ok, on the arbcom they haven't agreed to a blanket probation on everyone listed, on account of differences in the behaviour of those involved, so until they sort that out we will have to wait and see, anyway no evidence really was presented against me by anyone, I admitted myself being involved in edit wars on the flag issue.--Padraig 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

John can you sort this out seems he back agin and starting to be disruptive again.--Padraig 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Its ok I put a message on his talk page and he seems to have stopped.--Padraig 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Crime Expo Site

Yo Buddy,

Didn't the website change from to ? You sound like an expert on this so maybe you can explain. The current wiki looks only like part of a smear campaign giving false information.

I dont understand why you would revert my update and quote from the newer site. I did in fact leave information in the comment line about the change was the change from .org to .net. Still seems to be a false article but I'll leave this all on your boat.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I'm awfully sorry. I must have missed that one factual change in among all the very non-WP:NPOV changes you made to the article. You are welcome to restore that change or else I shall, as it is verifiable. Other than that, please discuss any controversial changes in article talk, and make sure to have reliable sources for everything you wish to add. Thanks, --John 06:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Castlemilk Wiki page

Hi John my name is James and i own the website i know wiki has nofollow tag and you should know there is very little benefit from adding your web address to the page but i feel my website holds upto date information and news for the Castlemilk area and my site will show visitors how Castlemilk is changing. My site has a great following from people abroad they hold my website highly and so do i. I added my website address after i looked at your discussion page sorry but please have a good look at my website it hold all the current information anyone could ever need. I don't make any money from my website and it is a private project of mine so i could't care less if i benefit from the link or not. This in mind can you please have a look at my website, i have so much more to add to it and it's getting better and better. Also i am adding a great history section that will give Castlemilk the recognition it deserves, it isn't a slum although i do believe Castlemilk is on the verge of anarchy and something needs to be done again watch my website. Regards ~~~~James~~~~

Warning Vandals

I noticed with this comment that you proceeded straight to a {{uw-vandalism3}} tag without progressing through the 1-2-3-4 escalation ladder. Shouldn't you have started with a level 1 warning? Ryan (talk/contribs) 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the user in question had made three unequivocally bad-faith edits at the point where I intervened, so they got a L-3 straight off. I notice you followed my warning with a L-2 and an L-3 warning of your own. I have now blocked them for vandalism; it seemed to me that five bad edits in quick succession after several warnings, was plenty. I hope that helps you understand my take on this. --John 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet trouble

John, Alan seems to be offline this evenig, so could you help me out? Alan's wiki-stalker sock puppet, User:Wikzilla, is back at the F-22 Raptor page, per this diff, his 5 edit/revert on the page so far today. Full info on Wikzilla is on Alan's talk page, if your not familar witht he problem. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BillCJ 04:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've warned them against 3RR; next time you could do that yourself. I am not privy to the case you're talking about, so I can't do anything more. If they revert again I'll block them for 3RR. Sorry I can't be more help to you at the moment. --John 04:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

hey pal

your warning would hold more weight if you warned User:Deb for her persistent reversions of my work. til then i'll have to ignore ya.

Yabbadabbawho 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can have 24 hours of ignoring me during your block. If you ever do anything like that again, your next block will be indefinite. Civility is important here. --John 17:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Neil Innes edit

Hi, John,

The information I added about Neil Innes comes from the Internet Movie Database and also an official MySpace page constructed for Neil Innes by Sean Connors Productions called "The 7th Python". Sean Connors also has an official MySpace page about another of his productions of one of his movies, a horror film I believe. I think it is called "Psyche House." He is also a model. Neil Innes also has an official MySpace page called "The Ego Warriors." Neil has many fans on MySspace who met him and got his autograph. We are a network to pass around information about Neil. He is also on the Enygma Graphics website. They are the company who distributes his music. I believe a friend of his named Danny Barbour owns the Enygma site. There is also information about him at I will try later to learn how to do the citation properly. I've never added anything to Wikipedia before.

Thank you for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamp1959 (talkcontribs) 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Formatting on disambiguation pages

Regarding this, note that using piped links and italicization is appropriate per WP:MOSDAB#Piping. --PEJL 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh, thank you, I didn't know that. --John 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin transparency

John, I just wanted to drop you a note so as to be transparent in my actions, and have someone else looking over my shoulder on it. I'm sure you're familiar with the ongoing Wikzilla/IP sockpupptet and troll issues. The IP added another troll attack here, inserting himself into the middle of an unrelated harrassment dispute involving other users. I removed the personal attack material. The owner of the talk page then objected to my removing material from his talk. I replied both on my talk and on his regarding the nature of the material, and that it was a personal attack from a troll, and was appropriately remove. Instead of respecting this, User:ThreeE added the material back in. Since he's had other civility/harrassment warnings, including a final warning from me, I considered a deliberate re-adding of the troll material, after the explanation of its nature, to be harrassment on his part, and blocked him for 24 hours. Because the block didn't apply to his talk page, he re-added it yet again, and I re-removed it. This is to the point that I need outside review of the situation, to ensure I'm acting appropriately. If, after review, you disagree with me, I am happy to be overruled. Thanks for the time! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me have a look at it Alan. Give me a few minutes please. --John 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've continued discussions, and in order to make sure I'm assuming good faith, I've lifted the block. Your review is still much appreciated, though. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I had thought it was worked out, but evidently ThreeE is insisting on adding the material back in. I'm tempted to reimpose the block, but I'm now too involved for it to be appropriate. Whatever you decide is fine with me. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have removed the material again and warned the user against restoring it. --John 21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the outside look. I think I'm gonna go destressify myself and upload some pics to commons. Thanks again! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You are most welcome. Take care, --John 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Radiohead External Links

Hey, I was just wanting to know why you delete external links that are entirely relevant. It doesn't make sense to delete outside links to legitimate resources. Thanks,—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgeofthecity (talkcontribs)

See WP:EL. --John 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Gulf War

This can go on for a long time John. Don't make the same mistake others did. Get the article fixed. Do your job. —Preceding comment was added at 07:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am doing. --John 07:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit War at Home signal

Hi John - Can you cast your eye over recent edits at Home signal (Talk). User:I B Wright (contribs) (who on his talk page claims to be an aerospace engineer) has been make postings that an professional in the signalling field (User:Signalheadcontribs) is disagreeing with and the talk page is getting heated. This morning anon editor User: (contribs) has joined in, to the point where I would suggest that this could be the same user making a point without logging in. I hope I am wrong, however your thoughts on the matters would be useful. --Stewart (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please also see the discussion on my talk page. For various reasons, I am convinced that it was User:I B Wright who made the edits to Home signal as User: and User: This editor has been quite uncivil towards me and has wrongly accused me of vandalism and of breaching the 3RR rule. Signalhead 12:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I will take a look. Thanks for telling me. --John 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
For your info, note that User:I B Wright (contribs) has also been posting anonymously as User: See the latter's contributions for the trademark references to Cornwall, BAE Systems, and railway signalling related topics - which I had to make numerous corrections to as well. Signalhead 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

re. Linca's RfA

Hey again John, and thanks for the note. I don't intend on running for a while - I used to be heavily immersed in admin type stuff, and just got sick of it. Anyway, I understand your point about arguing against policy, and I'm not going to start an IAR debate about it. Thanks for the clarification, and happy editing! Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

chortle links

Hi John,

I wasn't intening to spam, I am actually leaving links to an independent comedy website which lists dates of various comics tours and such like, and more info on that person. I shall look into the things you have told me about to see if there is a better way of doing this.


Lisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisachortle (talkcontribs) 11:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


I feel that is exactly what has been happening to my changes. I'm trying to make the article more fair and neutral, yet these users constantly undo my work and then accuse me of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M5891 (talkcontribs) 17:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"When several people are reverting out your changes to an article, it is usually a good sign that your changes do not enjoy consensus support."

It has always been the same one or two users constantly undoing my changes. In fact, they now seem to be following me around purposely undoing my edits regardless of the content.

"As we work by consensus here, continually reinserting changes removed by others is deeply frowned upon."

That is exactly what these same users have been doing. It is not so easy to see how many agree with my changes since they won't really edit anything. It is easy to see who disagrees since they will insistantly revert whatever I have added or rearranged.

I suppose that the only way to resolve this is to block further editing of the article by all users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M5891 (talkcontribs) 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A request.

Please read the following articles and then decide if I'm right or wrong.


Separated by a common language: The case of the white Hispanic

I would appreciate it. M5891 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Happy editing. --Hdt83 Chat 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --John 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


I try to debate others peacefully yet that was not the case this day. I've had time to read the guidlines and have realized that I did break several of them. I appreciate your patience.

I still refuse to give in or be subjected but I am willing to apologize for my discourteous behavior and disagree peacefully. Thank you. M5891 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your apology. We're all still learning. --John 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism at DM

At the point of sounding like a thorn in your side, User: has now begun vandalizing the Depeche Mode page. Please have a look. This particular person has been repeated warned for similar behavior. BGC 02:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Far from being a thorn in my side, I am delighted that you came to me. It is more likely to be sockpuppetry than vandalism, strictly speaking. I've warned them for 3rr, something you could do yourself the next time. If they continue I will happily block them; meantime I'll have a think about whether this would be a good use of checkuser, which is a limited resource. Thank you for reporting this. --John 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
My issue wasn't so much with the whole "fashion news/dispatch" part, it was the fact that these users are sneakily reverting large sections of the article to earlier, and more heavily POV, edits. I'll keep an eye, as per your recommendations. Thanks. BGC 13:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Guitarlegs's block just expired and he has already struck. I think a more permanent block is in order here.... BGC 13:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
User: as well. BGC 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
YET, another one: User: BGC 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal Jesus

On a Depeche Mode note, could you please look into this edit by an anonymous editor and assess its credibility. I for one do not understand how the older edit violated the Wikipedia policy. Garik 11 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Snapter on image scanning

You are very wrong about my post about Snapter to the image scanning page. I, probably unlike you, have experience in this field. Snapter is a new, and very useful tool. This is an appropriate place for it to be made known because people come here to learn about new things. Wikipedia is unique in that it can be updated fast enough to keep up with technology. Do not remove it again please, as I do not have the time to come back, as I am to busy doing real world image scanning. Other people ought to know about this software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Why not write an article on it, if it is truly significant and reliable sources can be found? Adding external links is seldom helpful. Please don't keep adding it. --John 19:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

John, it should not be its own article because people will not be looking for it. People will be looking for image scanning, which is the article in which it was placed. It is also is one solution of many in image scanning, so it belongs in image scanning. These are not complex arguments, and I do not have the time to do more. I have placed it where it ought be. I will place it there again. You should not edit articles in which your experience is limited. You ought to specialize into what you know, and edit those articles. Let wikipedia be more free then snap deleting things. This solution, snapter, will save people time and money. Most people do not know about it. Please re-read my previous message.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

No, you are wrong. Furthermore, adding an external link like this looks like spamming. If you repeatedly add an external link, you will eventually be blocked and the link can be blacklisted. Please let's not go there. --John 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

John, will you please go to immage scanner, and make the link to snapter not look like spam, thanks so much. From my ip address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I cannot do that. I am sure it is good software but this is not a place to advertise it. Sorry. --John 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mushroom removed links

Hi - On Oct. 30th you removed a batch of hypertext links from Mushroom. What was the reason? Heliocybe 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about this edit. I removed the extra links which (in my view) did not add anything to the article. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and it is better to bring in actual referenced content to the article (a good use of external links, so long as they are reliable sources) than to add many links to external websites. I hope that makes clear why I did what I did. If there is a specific link you feel I may have removed in error, you may discuss it at Talk:Mushroom and see if a consensus exists to restore the link. Best wishes, --John 16:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and yes that was the edit. Some were useful, but it is not necessarily a battle I wish to do. However I can add the topic on as a discussion item. You may remove this chat topic from your log if you wish. Heliocybe 18:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Just wanted to say that none of my comments are meant as an attack as I'm trying to understand the issue at hand. I read some of my comments again and they seem a bit abrasive but the intention was to raise concern over some issues and not to direct pointed remarks. Keep on putting up the good fight and I'll catch you in another article sometime. --I already forgot 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your message. --John 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the edits putting back the flag on the M16 article. Next time I should thoroughly read the discussion first. I was quickly making the edits without thinking it through. If this is the case for the M16 and AK-47 articles, all the others need the flag removed too. A user has put a flag on almost every firearm article, we will probably need a bot to remove them. Again, I'm very sorry. Hayden120 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no problem at all. The whole thing is really a storm in a teacup. Thank you for your co-operation in self-reverting. I appreciate it. As far as the removal of the rest of these flags goes, I would leave it another day or two, just in case anybody else wants to contribute to the discussion (it has only been going for just over 24 hours). Best wishes to you, --John 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Rarelibra sent me -quite- the e-mail:

If you keep on putting down slanderous lies and defamations about me on Wikipedia, you are going to find yourself rather quickly in a situation that you won't be able to handle, NASA boy. You seem smart - so figure out what the punishment is for libel and defamation of character - and exactly how much it will cost you. I'm not personally attacking you on every page, so you best keep your mouth closed and concentrate on something positive.

Keep on pushing me and see what happens. You think I don't know a few people in government, NASA boy? Keep it up and see how far down the rabbit hole really goes.

You've been warned.

This was sent by Rarelibra <> through Wikipedia e-mail at 11/01/2007 10:43 PM. I've posted it on the ANI as well. Now I have Fut. Perf. making suggestions that I be indefinitely banned from discussions on this region. I worked a lot to get neutral titles that weren't the same old titles that users from German Wikipedia or Italian Wikipedia pushed for. I come back on here after a break and the day I come in I see Rarelibra telling some new visitor that I'm an Italo-extremist. Of course I had a reaction. It is just really tiresome, these three users (Gryffindor, Rarelibra, and PhJ) who routinely come by to lambaste us. Anyway, I consider this e-mail he sent quite serious, and I hope someone can deal with it. I also wish someone could just mediate on the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page when people come in starting edit wars. Icsunonove 08:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can You Unblock?

Can you unblock thats the school IP and thats my school and i can't edit or do anything really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripper man5 (talkcontribs) 13:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Click "show" to see my message.


I'm starting to suspect that User:Williewikka is yet another Wikzilla sock, since its a new account and so far an SPA. He just hit the 3RR limit, with another revert on the Typhoon page. Thoughts? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I spotted and warned him for a POINT violation. Let's wait and see. If he continues to revert a 3RR block would be in order obviously. Checkuser would be our next option, unless you feel it is so obvious a sock as not to require it. Even in that instance I would probably like to get other eyes on it, but that's just me. --John 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The name seems to fit the pattern, (Wikzilla, Rangerwik, Wikanroll, Wikawuka), and he seems to like to make disruptive edits to specifically the F-22 and Typhoon pages. After further checking, Williewikka was created on October 1, one day after Wikawuka, and only made his first edit today. WZ bragged back when this trolling first began about having multiple sleeper accounts. I have absolutely no problem with a check user. It would be very helpful, actually, to run it on a couple other of WZ's socks, named and IP, to establish a consistent pattern. Do you know a checkuser admin? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe our mutual friend User:Lar has this right. Was there a SP report on Wikzilla? We should probably do this by the book. --John 18:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
He made AIV and 3RR, but I don't think it was ever taken to SOCK. A detailed chronology can be seen here. I can cut and paste certain portions of the chronology (to make it more succinct), if you think a formal report should be pursued for the record. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I have taken the liberty of starting it here. I can help you add evidence if need be. --John 19:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Roger that, I'll go add some in and let you know, and you can vet if necessary. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Ok, I've posted an evidence summary...looks like another admin has tagged Williewikka as a sock, so I've added him to the list. I'm going to be away from the keyboard for a couple of hours, feel free to leave me notes if anything needs to be fixed/changed. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

Hi John, sorry I know you're busy, but please can you advise, I'm not going to get into an edit war. re. these edits to the Amy Winehouse biography article. Apparently some people have dressed as Amy Winehouse for Halloween and this is notable enough to go on her biography page according to User:Vagary. [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] Someone else has deleted it too (only to be put back again), so I'm not the only one that thinks it's kak, and now User:Vagary re-instated it (yet again) and this is despite the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. I questioned it's newsworthiness, notability, whether it should be included on a WP:LIVING and I also said I thought it was questionable info and insulting and so I deleted it. Do you think it should be on a living biography article? If you think it's fine then I'll say no more. Sue Wallace 07:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sue. I tend to agree with you and have posted on the article talk page. --John 18:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He still hasn't taken it down though, but thanks for taking a look, I'll see if any of the others delete it again, other than that, I think I'll leave that article alone. Anyway, I thought I should let you know, I think I found an editor who I believe has/is creating half-believable(?) fake articles, I noticed after I deleted some fake info he put on the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales article, take a look at User:JTMEcrazy contributions, I don't know how to tag/deal with them. Am I right? Have a good one. :) Sue Wallace 10:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidance needed?

I see that from an old version of User:Perspicacite's talk page you gave some good advice previously:

I am pretty brand new here but I see that you are a very experienced and respected administrator, so I wonder if it would be more diplomatic if you pointed out that this reversion by User:Perspicacite to an old version of the article he had edited

  1. lost a picture
  2. lost conversion templates
  3. changed (without consensus or discussion) to spellings and date formats to those prevalent in the USA, whereas Tokelau is a non self-governing colonial territory of the Commonwealth country of New Zealand and, therefore, the article has a strong connection to an WP:ENGVAR in addition to non US-English being the current variant.

If you're too busy I will understand, of course, and thanks in advacne for any assistance you can offer. Alice.S 10:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alice. I have replied on your talk page. --John 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response, John.

I will try and formulate a response and post it on my own user page shortly. Alice.S 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S has now followed me onto at least two other pages, stalking me after I went back and reverted the 4 regional spelling changes I made to the article. Perspicacite 05:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I just posted at here, asking you both to calm down a bit. Stalking, sock-puppetry etc are serious charges to be throwing around. There seems no reason for anyone to be blocked over this, but you were wrong on the spelling issue and you shouldn't read too much into someone else correcting you. I know it can hurt sometimes to be corrected, but that humility and ability to accept correction is part of what is needed to edit a major wiki such as this. Please don't take things so personally; I am sure you are both just trying to improve the encyclopedia. Go and edit some unrelated articles for a while or have a cup of tea or something. That's what I would do. Good luck. --John 05:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? She said she would stop following me onto other pages if I agreed to not edit Tokelau. Sorry, no, calling her out on that is not uncivil. This[92] is practically an admission of wrongdoing. Considering the amount of incivility I have gotten from her I'm pretty surprised we're even having this conversation. Perspicacite 07:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The last comment to Petri was ill-advised. I concede that. Perspicacite 07:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007

The November 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 -- 15:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi John

Hi. I was just looking through your contributions, as I happened to see a comment you made at WP:AN/I, and I couldn't help notice the amount of work you do around here in various different areas, including article building, alot of vandal fighting, wikignoming and in various admin areas which are all beneficial to the encyclopedia. I am quite impressed for this reason I would like to present to you:

Im quite surprised that you haven't received this already. Happy editing. Tbo 157(talk) 16:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --John 17:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No worries :). Tbo 157(talk) 17:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


I thought the witch hunt was over but obviously not.

1. I have never sent you an anonymous email let alone undertake a "campaign of anonymous emails". Everytime I have had to say something to say to you I have let you know and dont need to hide behind skirts.

2. I have issues with Rock, he has issues with me. He tried his hardest to get me banned, it didnt succeed - for these reasons I do not want to interact with him I consider his motive when dealing with be malicious and trying to provoke me. I have asked him at least 10 times not to post on my talk page but he continues to do so. If he wants the Arbcom to fail he is going about it the right way.

3. Your examples of "bad faith" are bad faith assupmtions in themselves! 4. Your example of "POV" pushing on Northern Ireland topics shows either niavity or ignorance of boxing - possibly understandable.

4. I didnt know that a set of probation criteria had been agreed - believe that or not - I dont really care but its the truth.

Nice of you to chip in though - especially after the Arbcom is not - you are not stupid are ya! ;) --Vintagekits 19:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. As I said, I now think it is not productive for us to deal directly with each other. I am sorry it has come to this. --John 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesnt bother me at all - infact I prefer it that way also - however, you are smearing and spreading lies about me on Rocks page - I would appriciate if you stopped that. Its nnot helpful or productive. I have been a good wee bhoy since getting unblocked, there wasnt a problem until Rock began posting on my talkpage - he came looking for problems and doesnt like it when he finds one. Anyway I digress - you have a job to get on with.--Vintagekits 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits, I would note that the only reason I would prefer not to interact with you personally is that you have a habit of being abusive and of making unsubstantiated accusations against me. I note that even in this last post you are continuing by accusing me of "smearing and spreading lies". If you were ever genuinely to become capable of civil debate you would be welcome here. Until then, --John 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mick Jones

How do you mean? And what have i exactly done wrong?I can even source it if you want.Zivb2007

It needs sourced at a minimum. We would also need a consensus that the info was important enough to include. --John 20:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your message and your support. I am still interested in serving as an admin but I will be quite busy for the next week so is it ok if I can message you when I am ready. In the mean time, I would like to thank you very much for your coaching. Can I also ask if User:Lar is happy with me going for an RfA soon as I wouldn't want to go for one until both my admin coaches feel that I am ready. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to leave you with this:

A Barnstar!
The mop and bucket manual

Thank you for the admin coaching. The coaching was of great quality and really did make me think about Wikipedia and it has been a very good learning process. Tbo 157(talk) 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have mentioned to User:Lar, I will contact you and User:Lar when I am ready. Thanks again and happy editing. :) Tbo 157(talk) 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Probably about time I read this... --John 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another sock?

I gotta run, but you might want to watch User:Wikalliz. Similar name, one suspicious edit here and, curiously, both on their talk and user page, plus almost all the user summaries, "grammar" is mispelled "grammer"...odd mistake for someone trying to clean things up. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again!

Nice to see you back! (Poor old Rockpocket took most of the flak while you were away.)

John, I'd like to start by saying that I think that you're one of the best Admins that I've come across. That said, however... I have my concerns over your block of LiberalViews. Looking at his contributions, he seems to have produced some 200 edits over his Wiki career, albeit that he's been contributing for a year. The edit history doesn't show any naughtiness. The problems seem to have begun on the Irish Famine talk page, although those are still (largely) civil edits, and escalated/ degenerated to the Sir Fozzie attack. Within 24 hours, in rapid succession, he got a warning, last warning, Arb Com probation, and (finally) block; this on an editor who has no previous history of misbehaviour and who was clearly frustrated at the situation on the Irish articles that he had inadvertently blundered into.

I think it's always a shame to lose editors, and I'd be concerned that (what seems to have been) frustration on his side has blown up into being tagged as a disruptive editor. Please can I ask you to at least reconsider the block, perhaps reduce it to time served, and I'll also leave a message on his Talk page to try and explain and damp down the situation, and, with luck, that'll be it. If it works, so much the better; if it doesn't, I'll be the first to agree that a block is warranted.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but what are you talking about? He was already warned about his conduct by ArbCom member Mackensen for this edit (a "(largely) civil edit" in your opinion), and it got worse from there. Firstly there was the removal of reliably sourced content claiming "propaganda", adding POV/weaselry (source says nothing of the sort). Then related to that there's claiming sources were used falsely, further similar accusations and trolling, trolling including inflammatory edit summary, more trolling, soapboxing, personal attacks and trolling, and repeated trolling on the WikiProject talk page. Just in case you aren't aware, IED refers to improvised explosive device, and apparently WikiProject members would send them to his house?!! There's three diffs after that as well, but I'm sure you've seen them already?
What "situation on the Irish articles"? He didn't like what the sources said so he did the following
  • Remove reliably sourced information claiming it wasn't in the source provided (which it was) saying "I was removing a false claim about a source" and "Show us where in the sources it says he "was beaten by british soldiers and required 47 stitches". It says no such thing and you know it". Check the reference as others have done, it's there in black and white.
  • Amend a sentence to include that an informer "allegedly" confessed, when the source says no such thing. In fact the source goes into detail about the whole situation, there is no "allegedly" about it.
The "situation on the Irish articles" is caused (in part) when editors ignore what sources say and decide to add their own opinion of events, and if you think that's acceptable I invite you to fully study the ArbCom in question as you'll find it isn't. The ArbCom has hopefully drawn a line under such antics and said they are no longer acceptable. If people wish to edit in such a manner, then they are responsible for any results. One Night In Hackney303 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your messages. The 24-hour block was well-earned. That is what happens if you continue to edit abusively after a warning. I will be happy to issue a longer block if the situation is repeated, which I trust it will not be. ONiH, I agree with you and I hope your optimism about the ArbCom decision is well-placed. --John 15:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, John; thank you for at least reading what I wrote and giving it some consideration. I don't hold any particular candle for LiberalViews, but, having come across the situation from Rockpocket's Talk page, it seemed to have escalated very rapidly and been borne largely out of frustration (and, God knows, we all find the situation frustrating). I'm not sure that there's much point going further and answering One Night In Hackney fully: yes, I have gone through LiberalViews' edits and the responses to them, so - thank you for your consideration - I do know what I'm talking about (and I don't think that the sarcastic posting of an Irish Republican Wikiproject template on that editor's Talk page was intended to help very much). Thank you also for your invitation 'to fully study' the ArbCom decision, but I have already done so. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
So if you'd looked through his edits, why are you trying to portray him as some innocent victim who should be unblocked? Just like you always seem to do when anyone involved in this saga who isn't an alleged Irish republican gets blocked. What's the "situation" with the Martin Meehan article? If you've looked, you should be able to tell me right? As for your attempt to score points over grammar, the English language is fluid and has evolved since you were at school tossing anti-semetic and racist slurs round like confetti. One Night In Hackney303 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be extremely grateful if you would try and remain civil with me. I'd encourage you to read carefully what I actually wrote so that you do not accidentally misrepresent me; thus:

  • [...] the Irish Famine talk page, although those are still (largely) civil edits [...] does not equal a specific example being a "(largely) civil edit" in your opinion [...]

I am not trying to portray anyone as anything they are not: LiberalViews' record speaks for itself, and can be just as easily be looked up by John as by you or me. Similarly, there is no hidden agenda on my part to do down some editors and promote others. You will be aware that I previously made (equally unproductive) representations on behalf of Gaimhreadhan when he was blocked, and yet I also awarded a barnstar to SirFozzie. And you've also spelled 'anti-semitic' wrongly.--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

States Reorganization Commission

John/Alan, I'm trying to AFD the States Reorganization Commission article after my PROD was removed. However, following the instrustions on the AFD template is proving to be a mess. Can you help me sort this out? If you think an AFD is not appropriate here, go ahead and do what you think is best. Thanks. (Also posted on User talk:Akradecki - BillCJ 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done that. Full instructions are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but it is a rather complicated process. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/States Reorganisation Commission. Best wishes, --John 22:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.

Especially for your comments about me being cool in a crisis. It was harder than it looked, *not* because of the initial content, but because the block evasion was bugging me so much. A sign of a born admin? ;-)

Guy Fawkes Remember, remember, the fifth of November?
Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007.
It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I hope I can be some help to you. --John 05:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Query about removal of The Smiths album cover images

I was just wondering why they were removed, given that there is nothing to state they didn't meet fair use requirements on the image pages. I didn't upload them, I'm just curious. SteveRamone 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that they don't actually have a fair use justification from the uploader, but they still seem to meet the fair use requirements. SteveRamone 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve and thanks for your question. Album cover images are only normally fair use in the artcle on the album, and not in any other. --John 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Stop vandalising my work please these were legit edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess Pea Face (talkcontribs) 18:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to be in a bad position I just want to show the other side. I dont want to offend. Princess Pea Face 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Accounts set up for vandalism attacks

See: NoPeDa‎ at [93]. FWIW Bzuk 04:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC).


My Freind josh did not listen feel free to block the schools ip sorry :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripper man5 (talkcontribs) 14:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi John, these two anons seem to be in cahoots with each other [94] and [95], I have added warning messages. Sue Wallace 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, let me know if they continue. --John 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL they always seem to stop after I tell you! Sue Wallace 01:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Still counts as a good result. It is very heartening when one gives a warning and it is heeded. Wish it happened more often! --John 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Block review

John, would you care to review my actions? This is the first time I've dealt with legal threats. They were made by User:Femalepilot here. Brief background: "Bambi bucket" is both an industry generic term and a trademark. She was offended that the article on Bambi bucket also discussed other brands. Her comment is a bit amateurish, as she seems to be under the strange notion that copyright law forbids such comparisons. It doesn't. Be that as it may, I warned her about legal threats here, to which she replied here, in a tone and manner that I'm taking to be a continuation of her legal threats. I don't mind a bit of harshness in tone, but when you make legal threats followed by blunt ordering me what I will and will not include, that's over the line. As it is continuation of behavior after a warning, I've blocked for 48 hours. I could use fresh eyes to make sure I'm not over reacting. Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan, I've commented at the user's talk page. This should provide a resolution. --John 06:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


I just wanted to drop a note of thanks for your supportive comments over the last week. I think it became clear that this was not going to get sorted out on-wiki and so over the last few days there has been some discussion by email. I now feel assured that Vk's edits are being monitored by third parties and he will not be permitted to return to being a disruptive influence. I am thus happy to step back completely and watch from a distance. Similar, I expect, to what you have been doing over the last few months. As always, if there is something I can assist you with, do let me know. Rockpocket 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the message. Sometimes these things are just more stress than they are worth. Partly as a result of my recent interaction at User talk:Giano II, I now intend to refer any and every case related to Vk that may arise in the future to one of the "uninvolved admins" and let them deal with it. I have far better things to occupy myself with here. I am very glad that you now feel things are on a better footing, and, as always, I wish you the best. --John 19:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkThomas please John? The attacks from LiberalViews are continuing. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just looking at it. I don't intend to get involved again in this poisonous area as the stress involved enormously outweighs any productive differences I can feasibly make. I suggest taking it up with one of the self-styled "uninvolved admins" who are perceived (at least by themselves) as monitoring the situation currently. See also Rockpocket's post above and my imminently forthcoming reply. Best wishes to you, --John 19:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't suggesting you handle the case. I was just wondering if those latest comments required any further action, coming so soon after you blocked him. Obviously they don't. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am truly sorry I cannot be of more help to you. I suggest raising it with User:Giano II; maybe he will have a view on this as he is apparently monitoring this 'truce'. Good luck, --John 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at that this morning, too. Its pretty damning, ONiH. I was going to act myself, but thought better of it. I think a note at ANI could resolve this pretty quickly. Rockpocket 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi John. Just a note that I have replied to your previous email. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 20:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --John 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and apologies once again for the inconvenience. Ill be less busy during the next week so Ill be able to apply for adminship. If you still don't mind, could you nominate me when you have the time. Im not in any rush so I don't really mind about when its done. Thanks.Tbo 157(talk) 21:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not something that needs to be rushed, so do not worry on that score would be my view. I'll be happy to conominate, or speak in support in an early comment, as you like, just let me know, you guys... ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I agree with Lar's view that there is no rush. I don't really mind how its done or when its done. Ill leave that up to both of you since you both seem to be fairly experienced with these things. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

John and I need to draw straws on who starts writing this up first and who does the conom. Or, if you want, you can self nom, and we could both conom. As you like... no hurry but ALSO I tend to let stuff slide if I don't get reminded periodically :) I'd say start writing up your answers to the standard questions while you wait for us to get off our butts and write something coordinate this massively complex endeavour, so you can just paste them in. ++Lar: t/c 09:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I am likely to be relatively busy in the next while, but have some ideas. There's no harm one of us starting it and working on it over time, is there? Or would it be better in userspace? --John 09:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update and advice. I don't think theres any harm if there is a delay between starting the RfA page and transcluding it into WP:RfA. I have seen this on previous occassions. As I said before, I don't mind how its done. I don't mind self nomming or if you nominate me as I don't think it particularly makes a difference who does the nomming, although too many conoms do tend to annoy some users. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 11:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's just create it the normal way in the normal place and start working on it. Whoever creates it gets to be the first conom I guess :) There's an incentive for all of us. :) ++Lar: t/c —Preceding comment was added at 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Tbo 157(talk) 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And so it has been created; per above since I got to it first, I got to pontificate first too. John will just have to settle for second. I warrant he won't be able to come up with as many clever footnotes as I did though, just you wait and see. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah. I knew if I stalled for long enough you would do the job for me! Now to correct all your typos... --John 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, lovely job! Love the footnotes... --John 22:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that I have added some answers for the questions as suggested by User:Lar. I will sign my acceptance when you have finished your statement and I am happy with my answers. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just reading your answers. It looks good. I should be able to finish my statement before the weekend is out, maybe even later today. I will be relativley busy for the next week and my wiki-time is likely to be quite restricted. ---- John (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 18:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Typos! That's harsh. They are not typos, they are deliberately introduced works of linguistic art. Philistine! ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I regretted saying that even in jest when I saw the time and care you had put into crafting the nom. Great job. --John (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ye, great job. Can you drop me a note when both of your conom statements are done as Im pretty much happy with my answers. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 10:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I am done. Can't improve on perfection, after all ;-) ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I am too. --John (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again, thanks for setting up the page and for your conom. Just dropping a note that I've gone live now. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 11:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are following me arround on Wikipedia

I checked your user page sound like a nice enough person...I just don't get it. On the Jimmy Carter issue -- there is no question he toppled the Shah of Iran, and supported the rise of Khomeini ...only to bite him in the ass. There are so many references its unbelievable ...but check out Ambassador Sullivan's book, General Huyzer's book, Al Haig's book, ...I mean I could go on and on. Can you please get off my case? Or at least get to know me or my point of view. At some point the reality of the situation with Iran needs to be made public ...which is what wikipedia is all about. As for the page with my name on it ...its my children's idea ... I do not mind working with after all have a user page don't slap my wrist please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with what you are adding is it fails WP:BLP. I hope you understand that continually adding this material is liable to get you blocked. If you are able to cite a source and word it in a NPOV way, we could maybe do something. In the first instance we need to discuss at Talk:Jimmy Carter. Best wishes, --John 23:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Galloway Article

You asked what I was trying to do in changes to the Galloway article. Simple, I was trying to adjust the size of one of the graphics that was too tall and was overwriting the article. While I can control the size, I haven't mastered the art of placement totall. Thanks for noticing. Interesting and highly controversial chap that Galloway, expecially from over here in the States! Most Americans have never heard of him. SimonATL 01:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Becoming a wikipedia admin

I've been contributing to wikipedia for several years and have generally quite good English writing skills. What does it take to become and editor and why would anyone be interested in the additional work load it would entail and how did you, yourself, become an editor? You'll note that I've written extensively in Wikipedia and started a number of new articles on previously little-known individuals, William R. Rathvon and Leonard J. Fick come to mind. Thanks! SimonATL 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikzilla

Hi John. All but two of your list SSPs at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikzilla have been blocked indefinitely as indicated under the conclusion heading in that SSP report. Do you have more evidence for those two IP or should I just close that report. -- Jreferee t/c 22:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, no I think that should be fine. It might be worth asking Akradecki; I'll do that myself. --John 01:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's fine to close it, though I'm sure the socks will continue to appear (hmmm...evidence for that strange, legendary phenomenon of spontaneous knitting??). The point was to have something on file for future use. As for the IPs, since it's fairly random IP hopping, indeffing them really doesn't help at all. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

Look at:, NoPeDa [96] and another sock who surfaced today and vandalized my talk page three times in succession: [97] and then vandalized User talk:Gscshoyru who attempted to intercede. FWIW, a caution has been issued on the user's talk page (User talk: FWIW Bzuk 17:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

Re Robert Louis Stevenson

Try to tell a Scot that there's no Scottish nationality! As I said in the edit summary, the lead begins "Robert Louis (Balfour) Stevenson (November 13 1850December 3 1894), was a Scottish novelist, poet, and travel writer …," and it will look inconsistent to the casual reader if the infobox says otherwise. I would be perfectly happy for the nationality field in the infobox to be left blank, though. Deor 02:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a deal! --John 02:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Stranglers

Hi - I made some amendments to the Stranglers main page on Wiki but they have been reversed (?) by you ? Can you tell me why please.

Thanks. Calvin —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits seemed to consist of moving a few paragraphs around, adding a (doubtful) genre, and adding an "In Popular Culture" section. None of these seemed to improve the article, so I reverted the changes out. No hard feelings. What were you trying to do? --John 20:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was doing just that - there is now notable key events in the Stranglers history since Hugh left and these needed to be highlighted aside from all the, less important, "Stranglers song used in" type additions (which are quite frankly not very interesting). The Mk II to Mk IV reference is used by the fan community to determine the line up and is hot discussion point amongst fans (not on Wiki of course). If there's something you'd like me to change then please let me know. Its just the "Post Cornwell" para. had become a dustbin of throwaway comments and I do not agree that the 16 important years since that date (which equal the 16 years Hugh was with the band) coudl be brushed aside. The roundhouse concert is a very notable event in the bands history. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeourbee (talkcontribs) 20:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Need some input

John, I need some outside help. There are three articles Air Methods, ATG Javelin and Adam Aircraft involved, and one other user, User:Watkinsian. The issue is that the references all list these companies addresses as being located in Englewood, Colorado. They are physically outside the city limits, in unincorporated land at Centennial airport. Bill asked me to get involved because this user has decided that since the city limits of Centennial CO are closer, he was going to change the information in the articles. He has no references, other than a map and his opinion. Actual references, such as the companies' web sites and at this Denver Business Journal article, clearly indicate Englewood. Bill felt like this was OR on his part, since what we're supposed to be reporting is what the refs report, not what we garner by research a map ourselves, and I tend to agree. I've notified this user multiple times, reverted each of the articles twice, and don't want to run afoul of 3RR, since this isn't clear vandalism. He's insisting on his way, and has reverted yet again. Would you care to lend a hand? Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure! I was following it on your talk page and had already considered offering you a hand. --John 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia should present information as accurately as possible without misleading and without perpetuating misconceptions. This is why I have been making the edits referred to above. In my mind, it is simply blatantly misleading for an article to say that a company is "IN" a certain city, when it is actually many miles outside of it.

Air Methods' address is 7301 South Peoria Street. Enter this address at the US Postal Service's ZIP code finder at, along with the city "Centennial" and the state "CO", and the following postally-standardized address is returned:


CENTENNIAL CO 80112-4133

The official map of the City of Englewood can be downloaded at the city's website at Nowhere on this map will you find a Peoria Street.

The official map of the City of Centennial can be downloaded at the city's website at The City of Englewood lies northwest of Centennial. Peoria Street is in the central portion of Centennial, some eight miles east of Englewood.

So, according to the Denver Business Journal, Air Methods is "in Englewood". But DBJ is only reflecting the company's choice to use that city in its mailing address. It may be a reference, but how good of a reference is it if it is simply regurgitating information, information that is misleading? Looking at Englewood's official city map, one can see for a fact that Air Methods is not "in Englewood".

Is the Denver Business Journal a more reliable reference than the database of the United States Postal Service? Is the Denver Business Journal a more reliable reference than maps provided on official city websites?

Based on the evidence presented here, it seems to me that a fair course of action would be to indicate the location as accurately as possible, while noting that the location is often stated differently.

- Watkinsian 07:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

John, may I chime in here (and many thanks for the help last night). If you look up the SEC filings for the corporations involved, they are officially listed as "Englewood". Since all 3 are FAA regulated companies, if you check out the official addresses, such as the air carrier certificate for Air Methods, since it's technically an airline, the official address is "Englewood". For Adam Aircraft, their primary product is the A500, and if you look up the Type Certificate Data Sheet, which is the official document that defines the aircraft, you'll see at the very top that the company that builds the plane is listed in Englewood. I could go on and on. It sounds to me that you have some sort of an axe to grind, although for the life of me I can't imagine what it would be. In official documentation, in published sources, it is clear that "officially" these companies are considered to be in Englewood, even though they are in an unincorporated area of the county. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, the filings and documents you mention are all basing the locations on the postal designation of "Englewood" - i.e., because the addresses are in the ZIP code 80112, they are assigned the place name of "Englewood". As I've tried to explain in other postings, postal designations - place names assigned by the US Postal Service - don't always coincide with official city boundaries. When they don't, it is our job as editors to provide clarifying information, lest readers are led to make false assumptions. Watkinsian 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

John, Watkinsian has now exceeded 3RR on the various articles, and has continued his edit war, so I've blocked for 24 hours. And, Watkinsian, it's not our job to do that. It's our job to report what other sources are reporting, and you can't get more official that the refs I've given you. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Craig Charles

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nam3witha3init tells you all you need to know about that account, as does the history of the page. It's pretty much indefinitely semi-protected due to a long term Australian vandal making edits like the one you've seen since July 2006, using 58.84 prefixed IPs or 129.96 prefixed IPs registered to Flinders University. One Night In Hackney303 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thought it smelled fishy. --John 02:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. With that editor there's little point bothering with warnings, it's generally block on sight. One Night In Hackney303 14:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Lawrence

Hello there :) I thought I should let you know a BOT removed offensive racist vandalism on the Stephen Lawrence article by User talk:GivemeZimbabwe, and I noticed that the user had removed the bot's warning from his talk page and added an offensive racist comment in it's place, I added another warning, but should he be given an extra warning? Sue Wallace 13:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Nice one! Sue Wallace 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:PortugalAF2.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PortugalAF2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 19:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gangs in England

Thanks for above, good call! I have something else a bit more complicated, there seems to be a variety of problems with this article Gangs in England. I've tried tidying it up ie removing libelous uncited info etc, but first of all, it seems to attract some editors who just want to add and 'big up' their own gangs' info, also some are going into minute details of one particular case (esp. Liverpool) also the article itself, does it need defining? Is it about juvenile 'street gangs' or is it about highly organised underworld gangs? Should it go into detailed analysis of individual cases or just a general 'overview'? Also some guy seems to be getting a little bit irate with me because I keep trying to tidy his edits up. Respect your opinion and experience in this. Sue Wallace 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, it is a mess, isn't it? Let me have a proper look and get back to you. --John 20:45, 15 November 2007