User talk:John/Archive 2008

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


Your opinion please[edit]

I have had some polite discussion with User talk:Daytona2 about where "Jeremy Paxman" was brought up to advance the article page. Reference four on the very line in focus indicates that JP was brought up in Yorkshire, and educated in Worcestershire. The line has had a small number of edits. I understand that JP sometimes regards himself as a Yorkshire man, and I feel that it is important to get the biography of a living person as accurate as possible. I would be grateful if you could help here. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another editor turned up and gave an opinion on the JP talk page, and so I have amended the page accordingly. I see that you are off line and probably in a different time zone to us. It might be prudent for an administrator to watch the page. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Please take a look at these edits by User:Drake2u. I think he's stopped trying to be productive!

Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user, thanks for the heads up. --John (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to get the retooling of the Religion section started there in the next day or two. Hopefully he'll be satisfied enough when his block is over not to vandalize again, but I'm not plannning on it. - BillCJ (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User Fila3466757[edit]

Have a look at User:Fila3466757 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), especially his talk page. Given the type of edits he is making, I suspect (s)he is the same user at User:Farlack913 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:ScotRail421 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Recent language on the talk page makes believe that this user is not what Wikipedia wants. --Stewart (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this account might be this same user again: User:FA53764968566fgtu7757 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Signalhead (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


John can you block this spammer.--Padraig (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned them. If they continue I will block. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
He blanked my userpage because I reverted all his edits :).--Padraig (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw. I've had worse, but even so, let me know if they continue to misbehave. --John (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


i didn't see - from the diff - that the dates were inconsistent with those later in the article. learn something new every day. Anastrophe (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, but there was one definite improvement if you look. The IP seems to be making good (if low-value) edits so I'm inclined to let them stand. --John (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My admin recall policy[edit]

Hi John. Hope youve had a brilliant New Year. I just came to ask you if you would like to be a clerk, should I get a recall request. The clerk simply chooses an uninvolved trusted user, experienced with judging consensus to judge the consensus of the RfC and also starts and maintains the RfC as described here. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to accept. --John (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland[edit]

The articles, which I believe you have contributed to, about the results of the Republic of Ireland national team have been nominated for deletion. I have spoken up for keeping them. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Robbie Williams[edit]

Twice now edits I have made to the above Wiki page have been removed. Each time I have been told that I can't change something unless I have a back up of the facts. Please explain to me how the man himself (Robbie Williams) saying in his DVD "Nobody Someday" the quote I have attempted to add is not acceptable? It isn't a third person quote, it's a direct quote from the actual person who is discussed on the Wiki page. I left the exact quote, word for word from the DVD Subtitles, and the time at which the quote appears in the film.

I completely respect that Wikipedia has a responsibility to keep each article as fair and accurate as possible, and must do it's best to stop vandalism and protect itself from legal action etc, but at what point does truth become false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR[edit]

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

PS that's the standard message everyone's getting in this pass, wouldn't want you to feel left out! ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Easter Rising[edit]

John this article is protected yet User:R. fiend is using his admin privilages to continue editing he has been warned before about doing this when he is involved in a content dispute on the article.--Padraig (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

John, I see that you commented in the ANI on this issue. It was closed before I had a chance to. Can you advise me on how this should proceed? I would be concerned that an RfC on R. fiend would focus on a couple of silly mistakes that he made, rather than on some serious policy issues that have arisen wrt the article. I would rather see an RfC on the article, which would not concern itself with content, but rather on how content is agreed and how compliance with WP policies and guidelines is assured. I am willing to request it myself, but not having done this before I don't want to cross or pre-empt another editor. I'd appreciate any advice you can give me. Scolaire (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mull Historical Society[edit]

Thankyou for your comment, but Mull Historical Society were not just a pseudonym for Colin MacIntyre - that's like saying The Smiths were just a pseudonym for Morrissey. They were a band with four members. In what way wasn't my edit factual or neutral? Atoms4peace (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not the case according to
  • "Colin MacIntyre, aka Mull Historical Society, the songwriter, multi-instrumentalist and producer, has released 3 albums under the ‘Mull Historical Society’ pseudonym..."
  • "Scotland's Mull Historical Society is singer, songwriter and multi-instrumentalist Colin MacIntyre. He arrived onto the British music scene in 2000. Although the name is confusing MHS has always been a pseudo name for the solo artist MacIntyre..."
As you know we operate according to reliable sources; what are yours? --John (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Either way, it's not as clear cut as "Mull Historical Society is Colin MacIntyre". I suspect what happened was an unamiable break-up and probably some sort of royalties dispute rather than Colin MacIntyre one day deciding to change the name of his quite-famous band for no real reason. I do feel quite strongly that they should have separate pages, but you are an admin after all and I guess you know best. Atoms4peace (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That is interesting. I suggest we take this to Talk:Mull Historical Society. --John (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It was wrong of me to make such drastic changes without providing sources or starting a discussion on the talk page.Atoms4peace (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi mate, thanks for the invite but i really have no knowledge on that subject and was just reverting what i though was vandalism as quite a bit of text was removed. I may be able to help you on something else in the future though so feel free to ask. RMFan1 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join


Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 11:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Concern over User:Strandwolf[edit]

Hi John, This new user (first post 25th December 2007) has arrived on Wikipedia fully formed. He seems to have full knowledge of Wikipedia procedures, and his only contributions to Wikipedia are tagging articles for deletion/notability.

He has twice tagged an article I created Motive (album) for deletion, and continues to argue the case in the Afd.

I only bring this user to your attention due to the number of articles he has tagged.

Cheers Memphisto (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I am not sure what I can do other than keep an eye on the user. I will do that, and please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. --John (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

M-1 Carbine Revert War[edit]

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented. Let me know if the problems continue. --John (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Motleycruehitsquad Link[edit]

Alot of history behind this link and it should be added to the motley crue mix...This is not advertising its giving credit where credit is due..Now quit being a Dick and leave the links alone....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[edit]

If You look in the past History it will show that the HitSquad link has always been in the links section...It Obvious you know nothing about the HitSquad site or Motley Crue because if you Did you will see that Belongs in the links section alongside Chronological Crue....Do some History checks before you play Wikipedia GOD and remove something you know nothing about.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I got your message. Feel free to read WP:EL, and if you still believe your links are worth adding to the article then suggest this at the article's discussion page. If there is consensus there to add the links then you can add them. Other than that please do not add any more links or you will be blocked.--John (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3[edit]

Admin mop.PNG

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

delete Siu[edit]

You write: "Welcome to my talk page! I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here".

I also do not visit my user talk regularily. Why not send an e-mail - I have registered and have a full name and e-mail address. here again: As you see, I feel the Siu entry should be "ressourected". I do not understand this rapid burrial. Heiner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benking (talkcontribs) 11:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Albuera
  2. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
  3. Battle of the Gebora
  4. Constantine II of Scotland
  5. Francis Harvey
  6. Vasa (ship)
  7. Wulfhere of Mercia

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing
  2. Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
  • Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
  • For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600
2. TomStar81 — 5,500
3. Parsival74 — 5,200
4. FayssalF — 3,500
5. Roger Davies — 3,000
6. Ouro — 2600
7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
8. Cromdog — 2,200
9. BrokenSphere — 2000
9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
9. Maralia — 2,000
12. MBK004 — 1,340
13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
14. Sniperz11 — 1100
15. Burzmali — 1000
15. Cplakidas — 1000
15. Gimme danger — 1000
15. Raoulduke471000
15. TicketMan — 1000
15. Welsh — 1000
15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

hola —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenpan25 (talkcontribs) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


I thought I was come and say "Hello" to the one and only John. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello yourself. Of course there are many Johns on Wikipedia, so I am far from being the only one, but I appreciate and return your greeting. That is quite a sig you have there. --John (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a inappropriate external link.[edit]

It's not a inappropriate external link. The link is very good for people who want's the latest news about MH. Let it stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puffen (talkcontribs) 16:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't up to me. If you can show me that a consensus of editors support the link's inclusion, it can stay. If you unilateraly add it again you will be blocked. --John (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

Thanks for blocking that anon., John. I appreciate it! Cheers :-) ScarianCall me Pat 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --John (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding linkspam to the shadowbot blacklist[edit]

I noticed you removed some spammy links from the Sweet article earlier. It is an ongoing task. An editor from the 91.1.X range is continually removing the official band site link and adding a link to a fansite forum. ( ) Is it possible to have this link added to the shadowbot blacklist so the rv's can be automated? Come to think of it... I haven't noticed a shadowbot edit in a while... is it still functioning? Perhaps my question is moot?? (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's done now, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. --John (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks John. Sorry for being a pest... but there is another fanspam link that is being edit war'd into a few Iron Maiden related articles. is a fansite whose owner (under many guises and uncountable IPs) has been trying to push for a very long time. It died down for a awhile after I had Wiki alf speak to him. But now his tactic is to try and use the link as a poor ref for what is essentially a WP:NN/WP:TRIVIA blurb. The WP:CON, of course, has been to rm the fluff but since the user has a floating IP he repeatedly adds it back in and ignores the consensus. Is it possible to get that one added to the blacklist too? Thanks for your help. Have a nice day. (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008[edit]

The January 2008 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 KevinalewisBot -- 13:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Shayne Ward‎[edit]

why the revert? trying to induce an edit war, a breach of 3RR or simply to piss me off?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I reverted anonymous vandalism to the article and blocked the vandal. Your addition of the category requires a source to be added, as you have been told in article talk, so I reverted to the version before yours. Only doing my job and following policy to improve the encyclopedia. You should try it some time, it's a lot of fun. --John (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's happening again...[edit]

[1] - Your call. ScarianCall me Pat 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Watching, warned. --John (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi John, an administrator is perhaps waiting a word from you or user:iridescent in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Panetics for closing the discussion. If you have any question, I will be glad to answer. Robert Daoust (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert, I'm sorry but I agreed with the closing admin. If I'd thought it could be kept as a stub I would have done that myself. However I have an idea it might be possible to write a decent article on the person who coined the term. Maybe we could work together on it? --John (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
John, I am going to recreate the page on Siu today. I did not want to because I am busy elsewhere, but there has been such a fuss about the subject that I feel it must be done right now. I have access to notability facts about the man, that's not the problem. I am just afraid about the time it could take to write, and especially the time to fight perhaps some ill-advised deleters. So, in any case, your idea and offer is very welcome. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You can have a look at User:Robert Daoust/Ralph Siu. I asked User_talk:Tijuana_Brass for restoring deleted pages on siu and panetics into my userspace. --Robert Daoust (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the recreated page about Ralph Siu. Did you get my last messages to you? --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I would have recommended getting it into better shape in user space first before it goes live. As it is it is a candidate for speedy deletion again, which helps nobody. --John (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What is so bad with the present shape? Why don't you remove the speedy deletion tag yourself (especially since you started the AfD for panetics)? If this deletion fuss continues about such a notable man,I will begin believing those who say that there is something so rotten in Wikipedia kingdom that it's not worth collaborating there! --Robert Daoust (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Depeche Mode - yet another sock[edit]

Please note. Garik 11 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Reverted and blocked. --John (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Apparently you were blocking this user just as I was trying to warn them. Nice timing - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I blocked them on 2 January for 1 week. I've just warned them and will block the next time they vandalise. --John (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wally Hedrick[edit]

I wonder if you might be able to cast your keen MOS eye over it, particularly the headings with dates... See also article talk page. Tyrenius (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Give me 24 h or so. --John (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ta. No rush. Tyrenius (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I did my best. More remains to be done. --John (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't quite sure where to start, but it looks a lot less clunky now. Tyrenius (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear John, I am so sorry to bother you, however, I have to laugh when User:Tyrenius states "I wasn't quite sure where to start" since he now is looking for somebody else to finish what he is unable to do: try to find holes in the article. Certainly, you will be able to see quite clearly where User:Tyrenius untimely harassment on the excellent and ever-contentious Wally Hedrick began -- even though, many had thought, wrongly, his nuance had ended.

If there is anyway you could assist in curbing his personal vendetta, negligence and misjudgments many would appreciate it. Every word on Wally Hedrick has been contested and, ultimately, verified by published sources and people of high esteem. True, he is a maverick of the highest order -- but User:Tyrenius is now entering terrain far beyond abuse. Please remove that horrid ==WP:MOS== tag since it gives undo credit to Tyrenius's resentment and envy. Thank you and respectively --Art4em (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always found Tyrenius to be on the money when it comes to art articles. Why do you think they have a problem with you personally? It can be difficult, but we must try not to personalise disputes like this. I will take the tag down when the article is further improved, or when a consensus emerges in article talk to do so. You may find WP:PEACOCK to be interesting reading. Best wishes, --John (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If I may make a correction in your comments, I think it is clear that his envy and disdain is with the learned sources and cited literature (which I am none). There is / was already consensus before prejudice and ignorance appeared -- and, if I may point out, this ONE is the opposite of consensus and established sources. Thank you --Art4em (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, kind sir, I am requesting that you remove that horrid ==WP:MOS== tag since it gives undo credit to resentment and envy to a thoroughly researched article (although I have to complete 1970+). Respectively --Art4em (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear John, things are a little, well, waaaaaaay lopsided here in Wally Hedrick land. In fact, I have just been asked to give a citation to Vesuvio's bar in San Francisco during the Beat Era. This is beyond ridiculous. As an acute reader chimmed in, asking for that citation is "like asking for a citation to the address of the White House." This clearly amounts to much more than harassment...

Wally Hedrick 130 citation <-----> Jeff Koons 0 citations

I know this may be extending a courtesy with your busy schedule but I certainly could use a little evenhanded, leveling-out, back-off oversight here please if you could spare a moment...--Art4em (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I have left a message for Art4em at User_talk:Art4em#User_talk:John.23Wally_Hedrick about the blatant violation of WP:NPA on this page. I would be grateful for appropriate action if he persists. Tyrenius (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind this observation: I am enjoying particularly the glaring fact of uneven handedness paid to Wally Hedrick in light of such candy-cane articles like Jeff Koons; which, by the way, has not one footnote, citation post, stylistic objection or contextual challenge. This irony is more profound given Wally's uncanny ability to shed light again and again on injustice -- even to this day. Wally remains a vital threat to the status quo. Respectfully, and thank you again for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art4em (talkcontribs) 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are an editor. Do something about it. Edit the Jeff Koons article. Tyrenius (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oasis (band)[edit]

And it's happening again [2] - ScarianCall me Pat 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Heinrich Hertz[edit]

Please consider re-visiting Talk:Heinrich Hertz#jewish ancestry. I'd be interested in your feedback about the suggested edit strategy I've proposed. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Politics Templates[edit]

John we have a anon IP altering the images on Template:Politics_of_Northern_Ireland, Template:Politics_of_Northern_Ireland_1921-72 and Template:Politics_of_Northern_Ireland_1972-98, I have ask on their page not to do this without discussion on the issue first, but they insist on ignoring that request and continues to change the images. These template have been stable since they where created.--Padraig (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know of this. While I tentatively agree with you on the content issue, I can only take action in a case like this where WP:3RR has been breached. Was the version we prefer agreed by a consensus? If so, where is that consensus? If you can show me where such a consensus was reached I can perhaps help in enforcing the consensus. If this does not exist currently, we may need to generate such. Maybe the Ireland noticeboard and/or the UK politics project would be suitable places to raise this. Sorry if that's not what you wanted but it's all I can think of just now. I'll look again later and meantime think some more about it. Best wishes, --John (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the fact that they have remained stable, dispite minor edits and addition of info to the templates and there has never been a issue with the images since their creation, that in itself should convey consensus. I brought up the issue at Unionism project page to let others know about it.--Padraig (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
John Dispite your warning about edit warring he continues can you sort this out. There is a discussion ongoing on this.--Padraig (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Trenton Ontario Page[edit]

The page is simply incorrect. However Blotto adrift believes he has an monopoly over it. When several different users correct it he complains to an admin and you block IP address'. Please if you are going to block someone in the future please look into BOTH sides. The trenton ontario page is incorrect and it will stay that way until you stop siding with Blotto Adrift. This is not the only page users have complained about Blotto adrift changing. I am here to help wikipedia by correcting mistakes. This will only improve this sites poor view. However if admins do not look into the actions of all users this site will only go down hill. Blocking based on providing correct information is sad. I hope that you will follow what you say. "everyone can edit" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course anyone can edit here. However your edits are not guaranteed to remain; it's a wiki! Mine are not guaranteed to remain either, but edits which conform to our policies are more likely to persist. I am thinking particularly of WP:N here. Furthermore you will be taken more seriously here if you conform to WP:3RR and WP:CANVASS. If you continue to break those rules your editing privilege will be withdrawn again. And the change you want to make will have even less chance. --John (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Might do. You know my feelings on Domer already. --sony-youthpléigh 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Sorry if my note was irritating to you, and thanks for raising the possibility that R fiend was provoked into his misbehaviour. It is a position I agree with, but I don't think it is fair to lay all the blame on one other editor either. There are a good few (well-meaning and decent folk, too) I have encountered there who make editing more difficult than it should be by always adopting a defensive attitude towards Irish-related matters. But I think it would be very sad if this matter led to just one editor being criticised. This area needs more attention from admins who are seen to be neutral, and I don't think unilateral criticism of R fiend would help achieve this goal. Best to you, --John (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"No, I didn't." - in response to your question during my RfA (being a "calling a spade a spade"). Looks like it's over, in any event. A "fait accompli" as one admin involved called it. --sony-youthpléigh 13:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't remembered that this was the same user you called a troll. Sorry. So R fiend stands down, and the other warriors live to fight another day. Unjust, unsatisfactory, depressing, but not that surprising I suppose. --John (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Food channel[edit]

How many citable sources will you want describing apple pie, fried chicken, pizza, hamburgers, and hot dogs each as verbatim quote-unquote iconic American dishes? Will one each do? Two? Or would you like to work at finding a term that (a) doesn't offend you, but (b) is more informative than "popular"?—DCGeist (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The latter, please. I'd prefer a different word, "iconic" as you know is on my list of words to avoid. I almost think there should be an element of myth-busting here; although many Americans believe otherwise none of these dishes originated in the USA, and the article should make that clear, without breaching NPOV. Just my opinion. --John (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Franz Ferdinand[edit]

I noticed you've put in a lot of good work maintaining the state of the Franz Ferdinand (band) page. You may be interested in a dispute about the Franz Ferdinand page. It used to point to the disambiguation page - as, despite there being more searches for the band than the archduke, users will be interested in both topics. Unfortunately, it has recently been changing to point directly to the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria page. Could you read the discussion on the Talk:Franz Ferdinand page? I think your input would be of value. Thanks, Wardroad (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Our little friend[edit]

Yes, a delight that one, eh? No worries about the protect - there was a little flurry of activity there, eh? I thought the username was probably self-descriptive. Hey ho, fun to be back in the saddle :-) Gwernol 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

FIFA 1990 World Cup[edit]

What I wrote was true. look it up. look up the wikipedia page for the referee i commented on and it backs what i wrote —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was not only inaccurate but clearly defamatory of a living person. Please do not repeat it or you will be blocked. --John (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Yes, you are correct on the lynch mob issue; I was wrong. I have clarified and redacted on Rockpockets page.

  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future
  • I must be more careful in future

Sarah777 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sarah. --John (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Red flagging a "flagger"[edit]

Could you explain the woes of flagcrufting to Mr. HentaimanXT (talk · contribs). He is a busy editor and is flagging more articles then I dare count. Is there such a thing as a "flag-be-gone-BOT"? And if there isn;t can someone create one :D . (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, on further count I gues I can count them. I was picking his edits at random and finding "birth" flags. The more I check the more I find that he is inconsistent about them. Not so bad but a reminder would still help. (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a look and couldn't see anything wrong with their edits. Was there a specific one? --John (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


John can we all stop dancing around the issue you have and take up my suggestion. Now I’m more than willing to move on, but it seems you are not. I'm asking you now to name the Son’s of Erin and let’s have it out there, once and for all. No more innuendo, allegation, insinuation or accusation. Let’s clear the air shall we. Now open a request for comment on me, because the alternative is that you stop with the snide comments, or at the very least provide diff’s. Now, there is enough Admins, ArbCom members and editors watching to see what your next move is, and the next move is yours.--Domer48 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Domer. There is nothing to stop you asking for an RfC yourself. I will think about your proposal, and wait for a reply from Newyorkbrad; there is no point doing it unless it will improve the situation. To recap, your conduct on Talk:Easter Rising was the main area of my recent concern; edits like this, this, this, this... in fact your whole tone and general conduct on that talk page was unbecoming of a Wikipedian. I know R fiend gave you (almost) as good as you got there, but the whole spectacle was very unedifying, and raised tensions without leading to improvement of the article. I don't quite go along with sony when he says of you "he is utterly exasperating. The most minor and matter-of-fact of edits can suddenly blow up and disappear down a rabbit hole of surreal arguments and demands", but I see where he is coming from. --John (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

John what is there to think about, your clearly unhappy, and have raised it a number of times and it really seems to be bothering you. Have you asked Newyorkbrad about it? Why? You have a clear run at me. I’m not going to defend uncivil comments by myself. I’m not going to offer frustration, exasperation or provocation as a defence. I must take responsibility for my own conduct, and I do. I have offered a full and frank apology for my behaviour. Now if it’s the sack cloth and ashes verity your looking for, and to be dragged across the coals there is not much I can do. You have said "there is no point doing it unless it will improve the situation," well there is not much point going on about it either. Is going on about it going to improve the situation? John you are the one with the axe to grind, and want my head on a block, so lets get it over with. --Domer48 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In my short experience, I've found John to be one of the most forgiving, conciliatory and least accusatory of admins. In fact, his general saintliness can be most aggravating at times! (grin). Technically you're a good editor, Domer48 - it's just that the general effect of your editing is to emphasise a particular slant and standpoint in our articles above all others - and you do this with a single minded zeal and nitpicking determination that led me to ask (my still unanswered) question about WP:COI. Alice 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My WP:COI if any is outlined on my user page. --Domer48 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're not affiliated to any political party or movement and neither do you have close connections with a book, magazine or newspaper publisher? Alice 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice you forgot patronising in your praise of Saint john. BigDunc (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer, thank you for pointing me to your apology, which I hadn't previously seen. It might have been better to have placed it at the RfC or the Arbcom. No matter; if your apology is a sincere one and is accompanied by a change in behaviour, that will end it for me as far as you are concerned. I have seen encouraging signs of progress away from arguing for the sake of arguing and this will need to continue to improve. We are here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia and partisan and combative behaviour will not help us progress, but will only drive out good editors and bring out the worst in everybody, as seen in the recent events. Domer, I know you were not the only one misbehaving during that stramash and I'm sorry if you got the impression that I thought you were. Alice, thank you very much for the nice compliments, but BigDunc has a point there; I can be sarky too on occasion. It frustrates me when I see good and intelligent people editing in a partisan way to defeat the mission of the project. My recent surreal adventure at Lough Neagh (where a 'compromise' had been reached, after a labyrinthine debate in talk, not to mention that Lough Neagh is the largest freshwater lake in the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, apparently so as not to annoy anybody) may have made me more snippy than usual. I don't think you were involved with that one, so to that extent you may have been an undeserving recipient of my annoyance. Nevertheless, I have left Brad a note as I want to clarify the nature of restriction placed on one particular editor. I think I would also like to clarify more generally how we can go forward on the whole area of Ireland; in my opinion the recent events show that things are not all ok at the moment. --John (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
John the main problem I currently see on troubles and Ireland related article disputes, is anon IPs being used to make major changes to content without and consensus or any attempt to discuss the issue on talk pages, the admins should nip these in the bud before they esculate out of hand, in many cases some of these IP are registered editors trying to game 3RR or avoid the probation of the arbcom ruling.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Padraig (talkcontribs) 23:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

But I did place it on the Rfc, and for my part, that my concerns were listened to was enough as far as I was concerned. Do I think the matter I have raised here is resolved, no, I do not. Is this the end of the innuendo, allegations, insinuations or accusations, I doubt it. Will my edits continue to be stalked? Probably. Now I'll do my utmost to remain civil, but the next one who claims POV against me, should have the diff's to back it up or be asked to withdraw the remarks. Seems fair, don't you think? --Domer48 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed that, because you posted a diff to an edit to another user's talk rather than making an explicit statement, there in the RfC. Stalking is a very serious allegation. If you have grounds to think that anyone has breached WP:STALK, you should explain what they are. If you want to avoid criticism ("innuendo, allegations, insinuations or accusations" as you call it), the best thing would be to avoid the problematic behaviour that inevitably leads others to criticise you. By all means you should indeed "do [your] utmost to remain civil"; you may have noticed that I did point out above several diffs where you were less than civil in the recent past. It would be easy to find more. Continue to work on your civility, show that your apology was sincere, and there will be no need to take this further. --John (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

John I again suggest that you take it further, because if I want to avoid criticism ("innuendo, allegations, insinuations or accusations" as I call it), the best thing would be to avoid the problematic articles that inevitably leads others to criticise me. Now that is not going to happen is it. --Domer48 (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility would be that you make every effort to avoid incivility and arguing for the sake of arguing. That may offer a more fruitful approach for you. If you wish to start an RfC on yourself instead, please feel free. --John (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So not only is it incivility we also have "arguing for the sake of arguing." Look lets be honest, at the root of it all is not incivility or arguing for the sake of arguing, its content. Now I have outlined were I'm coming from on my user page, and my addressing "the misconceptions" that abound, that I support my edits with our policies on WP:V and WP:RS is plain.--Domer48 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I always was being honest. It is not content, it is incivility and argument for the sake of argument. There's another irritating thing you do; do you suppose that through my duties as an admin in the last year and a half, or else during my 40 k + edits, I might have already become familiar with "WP:V and WP:RS"? You bet. By quoting an alphabet soup of policies to people who are already familiar with them, what do you hope to achieve, beyond annoying them? It beats me. It is far from plain to me that you always follow our policies; indeed your apology would imply that you yourself recognise you have not always behaved perfectly in the past. Maybe you need to accept that you cannot win every argument and that sometimes compromise means backing down. Someone who cannot compromise has no place here. Think about it. --John (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As for your conflict of interest, your user page contains "...the misconceptions created ... by unscrupulous writers, who believe they can shape the present by manipulating our understanding of the past is a challenge to all right thinking people who believe that history belongs to us all". Quite apart from the grammatical error, it seems obvious to me that you cannot avoid breaching this policy, specifically "Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world". You may also be interested in "'single purpose account' users very often come to Wikipedia with one set agenda or interest and a specific perspective to promote within that interest. For this reason many 'single purpose accounts' may find themselves having less 'say' in some discussions just as new users may... Users who continue to work only on a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility as editors." (from here). By editing with such a strong and inflexible point of view, and by editing exclusively in an area where your POV will affect your editing, you are opening yourself up to charges of having a conflict of interest, as Alice has already mentioned up the page. If your apology was sincere and you are committed to change (and I hope you are), these are things you will want to consider. --John (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems your opinion on my user page differs with this opinion "However, good faith edits are never vandalism, and I see your edit as in good faith. Nor do I see your statement of intent as one to advocate POV, so that is a negative interpretation of it.Tyrenius 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)." I will continue to quote our policies, to anyone who chooses to ignore them. I'm intrested in a number or WP:IR articles, so I'm far from a SPA. Now I can see this discussion is not going anywere, so we can leave it at that. I will be civil, and editors who just try to provoke a responce with personalising things will have admin's like you to deal with. --Domer48 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent choice. Be careful out there. --John (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

external yazoo link[edit]

Dear John, of course I respect your decision to remove the link I added, but I'm slightly puzzled which rule I violated. There are two other personal fan sites in the current external link list ( by Peter Ryming and by Eugenio Lopez). The discography on my site is by far the most complete (and actually the main source for Eugenio's), so I thought readers seriously interested in Yazoo might want to know about it. Kindest regards, Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotorknife (talkcontribs) 16:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have removed all but the official site. Per WP:EL sites like this add nothing to our articles. --John (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Air Botswana[edit]

My source is AERO International a well-known aviation magazine. Dagadt (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Then pop it into the article as a reference, and we can all be happy. --John (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I´ve done it Dagadt (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove my links?[edit]

Can you explain why you felt the need to remove my Pernell site links and my link from the Tom Selleck page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemarlow (talkcontribs)

See the message I left you, and also WP:EL. --John (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you don't see the Pernell Roberts Around the World link as a promotional link since their site is no different from mine? If you remove my link you should remove theirs as well. Whats fair is fair.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemarlow (talkcontribs)

And two wrongs don't make a right. Although two lefts sometimes may. --John (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sarcasticidealist (sorry!)[edit]

Thanks for telling me, I couldn't remember if I had !voted already. Sorry for any trouble! Midorihana~いいですね? 06:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


AfD nomination of Average surface temperature[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Average surface temperature, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average surface temperature. Thank you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry John. I just redid the Velvet Underground & Nico entry, is that more acceptable? Less spam-like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybridxdawn (talkcontribs) 22:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

John, I am not trying to spam. I have removed the link to the website. Is it okay to just have the information on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybridxdawn (talkcontribs) 22:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a writer for Lost At Sea magazine and the moderator of the Alternative section of Digital Dream Door and I have worked very hard for over a year to create a reputable list of the greatest alternative albums of all time. Including these rankings on their wikipedia page gives a view into their standing and importance in music history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybridxdawn (talkcontribs) 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot (band) edit[edit]

You recently removed the numbers from the band members lsit in the Slipknot (band) article, I undid your edit and left an explanation on the talk page if you would like to know why. Rezter TALK 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

population of glasgow[edit]

in reply to

Hi again Glasgowfinder. I notice you blanked the contents of your talk page here. That is fine, it is your space. I also noticed your continued attempts to change the population of Glasgow. Can I suggest that rather than repeatedly editing the article you instead start a discussion at Talk:Glasgow? We work here by consensus and reliable sources. In addition you should be aware that we have a very strict rule prohibiting repeated edits adding the same information to articles. "Edit-warring" is very strictly prohibited here. Just a word to the wise; if there is anything I can do to help you, please let me know. Best wishes, --John (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alison wheeler, I spoke to you at 2pm this afternoon with regards to the Glasgow article. Anyway sorry to trouble you with this as i can imagine you are busy.

I have written to and also contacted by telephone, Glasgow City Council Population and Statistics department. They kindly provided me with a population fact sheet for The City of Glasgow and Clyde Valley Conurbation.

The .pdf file is below.

It confirms Glasgow's population in 2006 had 580,690.

The document confirms that the City is located at the centre of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Conurbation, which has an urban population of 1,750,000. The surrounding Strathclyde region which includes Aryshire, Argyll and Larkarkshire has a population of 2.3 million.

If it would not be to much hassle could you either pass this email onto one of your administration volunteers in order to rectify the information on the Wiki Glasgow article, which is incorrect, or somehow manage to correct this information yourself. I have repeatedly tried to change this information as it comes from a reliable source but it is continuously changed back to statistics which are false.

I hope this email finds you well.

Yours sincerely

please could you somehow rectify this information in order to avod future disputes. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glasgowfinder (talkcontribs)

thanks for you help.[edit]

but i have provied a reliable source for my information and yet you have proven to be difficult.

i have takenthis issue up with another admin member anyway.

uyours sincerly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glasgowfinder (talkcontribs) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Good luck, --John (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


I hope you know what means "soon". First i have to delete or exchange it on all Wikipedias using it to delete it cause copyright problems. It would be nice from you to wait just 10 minutes before reverting me. Herr Kriss (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mix of GFDL and CC images. It was even made by me, when i didn't know that it can't be mixed. Herr Kriss (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Can I ask have you given JdeJ a 3rr warning as well and if not why not? Signsolid (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to know you got my message safely. Please do not revert war or you will be blocked. Thank you. --John (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope you can see my edits don't mean to be vandalism and I did have problems at the start getting the link to the IMF's report to work. I only wish to make the article present fact. Signsolid (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As do we all. Edit-warring will achieve nothing. Instead, please discuss in talk towards a consensus, if necessary using WP:DR. Thanks. --John (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I object to the WP:3RR-warning and will remove it from my talkpage as I consider it wrong. Reverting vandalism does not fall under 3RR, and the user Signsolid appears to be trolling. He started off by telling my that I wasn't reliable because of my nationality [4]. He then wanted to replace a recent article in Financial Times by the data found on the home page of an unknown Greek guy, in obvious breach of WP:OR. My first reversion of his today was when he didn't provide any working link at all to support his claim. Restoring two well-trusted sources instead of no sources as all does, I believe, not fall under 3RR. The two other reversions I've made to the page came after I had (over and over again) informed the user that the source he was trying to use was not an IMF-report but and IMF-estimate. In accordance with WP:CBALL and WP:OR, I hold that an estimate published one year ago cannot replace an article on the same fact once the facts are known. Especially not if found in such a respected source as the leading business paper in the UK when dealing with the UK economy. I won't remove the warning yet as I'm waiting for your response. Once more, one edit was to restore two excellent sources replaced by nothing and the two others to replace speculation by facts. As the user had been informed of this, I find it difficult to assume that his edits were made in good faith. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration; however please do not revert war or you will be blocked. You are, of course, free to remove my warning after reading it. Thank you. --John (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm, as I said, I don't consider it editing war to restore deleted sources. Especially not when the sources are deleted and no new sources are provided. During my years on Wikipedia, I've seen similar edits over and over again when persistent users delete them because they don't like them. May I ask what you would do in the same situation? JdeJ (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You would appear to be in dispute with the other user over which source to use. In my opinion, neither of you is guilty of vandalism, but both of you are in danger of blocks for edit-warring. Such matters are always better taken to talk to generate a wider consensus. If the article talk page fails to generate a consensus, the next step would be to seek out wider input, either at a project page or at one of the admin noticeboards. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. --John (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
True enough, three edits it is. But only two over whether to use a report on what has happened or an old estimate of what could have happened. The first one was simply to replace sources when no new sources at all we're give - just a "web error" in the reference list. And the talk page has been used extensively in this case. Still, I won't take up more of your time, I know there's nothing you can do in this. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

ice 9[edit]

im obeying wikipedia rules and wont repost more than once a day so since you are like 5 people erasing me every day (-:, i guess ice-9 will get only 15 minutes as warhol would put it, of attention and 23.45 m. of darkness. Ill keep shortening and puting more connections but frankly, you people shold just write your version as you did with strangelet in lhc and finish this once and for all. Wht can i say? destroying is always easier than constructing, and that goes also for the lhc concept that to have energy explosions instead of thinking new theories of information is the way to understand the Universe. Unfortunatelly we leave in a world in which entropy dominates and it is very easy to go down the entropy path... Good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talkcontribs) 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cornelia Funke article[edit]

Hi John. I saw the change you made and rushed to MoS and found you were right. If I may make a suggestion, such an edit should not be made with "undo" or "undo" should not be in the summary. I spent a lot of time verifying and linking the information, and adding new stuff etc. Using "undo" just makes the previous editor look a bit of a burke! Regards TINYMARK 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. --John (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Glasgae population[edit]

The document from the City Council quotes separate statistics for the population of the 'City' and for the 'surrounding conurbation' (ie excluding the City area). The infobox before my edit had two population figures, being the City alone, and for the city-plus-area so I added the two Council figures together to generate and present the updated values for the same two statistics as were in the infobox template. No changes therefore to the previous information, except that it now contains more accurate / recent values, which is unarguably a 'good thing'™ surely. I did slightly reword the text to clarify what the lareg figure represented though. --AlisonW (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had been made aware of your reverting of information added in good faith by others, hence my own investigation and edit to the article. "The figures have been the subject of much debate on the article, and it would be better to achieve consensus in talk I think." is a wrong suggestion. WP is about accuracy as well as NPOV and these figures, taken from a live web page owned by the relevant body, Glasgow Council, and correctly cited, are clearly more up to date and accurate than the previous set. Consensus is fine for grammar, but is hardly relevant to hard facts. --AlisonW (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more and I am astounded to hear a fellow administrator say such a thing. Consensus (and the accuracy that is underwritten by such consensus) is all the more vital on matters of fact like this. It seems to me you have made a very naive error here; thus demonstrating not just the importance of WP:CONSENSUS but also of WP:NOR, which it seems you have also breached here. See my comment at Talk:Glasgow and please consider commenting there. --John (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, now it just looks to me like you are either trolling or believe this article to be your personal possession. There is no OR involved here - the figures are validly cited - and whilst consensus is expected for textual decisions it is not relevant at all for factual ones, indeed to say that you consider consensus should 'trump' facts is extremely worrying in an editor. I shall keep an eye on your activities a while I think to ensure you are actually editing in a suitable manner. --AlisonW (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Trolling, eh? Goodness me. You are of course completely free to "keep an eye on [my] activities" through my contributions. I didn't say that "consensus should 'trump' facts". Please do not falsely attribute statements or views to me, it is dishonest. Your edit inserted inaccurate information to the article, demonstrating why we have policies like WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Happy editing, and please read my post at Talk:Glasgow. Have a nice day. --John (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's exercise common sense; do you honestly think Glasgow's population has increased from 1,171,390 to 2,331,000 in a couple of years? This would truly be an astounding growth rate, don't you think? --John (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not for me to say whether the population of Glasgow has increased in that way or not; the City Council (who are paid to know such things and disseminate such information) have declared it to be so. --AlisonW (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No they haven't. You've synthesised it through an elementary misunderstanding. See you at Talk:Glasgow. --John (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Aye, Glaga is Scotland's maist muckle ceity, but A wad hae hankle neef accepting that Glasga is quite that muckle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages (talkcontribs) 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ice 9 =[edit]

OK I HAVE DONE WHAT YOU SAY IS PROPER, CUTING AS YOU SAY THE THING, now it stands as long as the part of chemistry so it is just. or else why we have to give more impotance to the concept of ice-9 in chemistry, which has also an independent article and it is not invented as a comparison to the novel? So please just leave it or cut a few sentences/arrange grammar, but now is just what it should be same for chemistry and physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talkcontribs) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont get it, it is exactly the same size that the chemical part... its what you ask for,i have also many things to do,if you enjoy erase i enjoy repost, be civiized and cut, basically the same size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't done that. There are so many problems with what you want to add; it is original research for a start. Please, please take it to talk. --John (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your concern. I don not know how to cite sources. But the things I changed are more concerned with the way we want thae article to be rather than something else. The band in its website said that they are a band since 1998. But it is ok to put Formation years since 1996 because that is when they started the idea you know? And the 4 album should say 2006 so as to be the same as X&Y that says 2004-2006. The album was released in 2005. But they started working in 2004 and the tour for it finalized in 2006. Hope you understand what I say. ( (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

Should you block this user? a-ha page.[edit]

Could you please look into this edit. An anonymous user repeatedly adds false info. Garik 11 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure what they added was well-intentioned. I have no idea whether it was accurate, but I have suggested they provide a source for any future edits. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Clash, young punks and yo(a)bbos + Images[edit]

Hi John, I saw your edit a couple of days ago. I was perplexed by that term and, unfortunately, I haven't the books with their lyrics, Best of the Clash and The Complete Chord Songbook. So, I have made a search on the web to make a point. Usually, is reliable. Also, there are 160 pages with yabbos and 5 with yobbos on the web. So, all websites have the same error (if it's an error). I have thought that it was a poetic license coined by Joe for poetic effect or something similar. I wanted to send you a message about that, but I didn't do it in order to don't bore you. I'm not sure, so I entrust myself, the article and the decision to you (if it's not too much for you).

Why your Clash logo has been deleted??? In Wikimedia commons there are few images available. What we can do to solve this problem??? —PJoe F. (talkcontribs) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I used to have the lyrics book and it is definitely "yobbos", though I cannot prove it. I deleted the logo image myself as there is a consensus that such use of nonfree images is unnecessary to the encyclopedia. If a logo is truly important it should be discussed in the article and displayed there; in this case it was really just decoration so it had to go. Finally, please don't ever worry about leaving a message; it is always nice to hear from you. --John (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you John, I want just to tell you that you are making a great job on Wikipedia! Check the page number out and use the {{Cite book}}, but you know that.... Thank you again. —PJoe F. (talkcontribs) 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw! Thank you so very much for that, I really, really appreciate it. --John (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment or Opinion[edit]

Hi John, I thought I’d run this by you and see what your opinion is before I do anything. I suggest earlier that my edits were being stalked and have unfortunately continued. You will be familiar with some of the background which should help. All of the articles were this stalking has occurred, the editor had no previous history. This editor first directed their attention towards me on the Segi article here. Though I believe their interest may have started on the Great Hunger article here. From Segi, the proceeded to Easter Rising, Irish Volunteers, Thomas Clarke (Irish republican) and Patrick Pearse. The common denominator, all their contributions were directed at mine. Since then, they have went to the following articles, Hibernian Rifles and Orange Institution. Now having decided to move on, which we have discussed, and they felt the need to comment on I started to focus on editing. Within 7 minutes of creating this Article, they placed a clean up tag. At no time did they suggest what need to be done. I linked Martin Savage in the Article], and within 17 minutes they were on that Article. The rest of their edits focused soley then on the Peadar Clancy article. I then made a slight edit to a page I had never been on Cumann na nGaedhael, and they followed after me. They then followed me to M62 coach bombing. Then onto the Dick McKee article, and start there. I then create another new article Conor Clune and we start there also. Now what I would like to know is, would this constitute stalking? If it is, I’ll leave it at that, and just view it as an irritation. The only thing I would like is that they refrain from posting on my talk page. I have also refrained from any incivility, but would ask that the same be adopted by this editor. Thanks in advance --Domer48 (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Let me have an hour or so to properly read the links you sent. Take care, --John (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No rush at all John, like I said I'm not to pushed. Just want your thoughts and opinions. Thanks again. --Domer48 (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here. I really hope that helps. --John (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

More than enough John, if you need any Diff's to illustrate my opinion, please let me know? --Domer48 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Hey John. Just wondering if you could speak to User:Cyrus XIII. He's having a struggle with the whole "free-use plain text wins out over fair-use logos" thing. Makes for hard progress towards a free encyclpedia. (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank, I agree with you and have left a note. --John (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. In order for the whole "text only" thing to have some concrete the Template:Infobox Musical artist#Name instructions need to be expanded to clarify as clearly and directly as possible that it is a text only field. The suggestion on the talk page is: "The name of the group or artist ("the act") in plain text.(no logos) This field is mandatory." That was actually my suggestion expanding on a previous one. It would help to get it all set in stone that way I can edit summary the guideline page instead of the talk page. Or adds the option to edit summary link to both. (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
PPS, the reason I suggested my version in place of the one that was proposed first on the talk page.... because mine has balls :D . Some Wikipedia instructions are severely lacking in that nad department. (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with this issue in the My Chemical Romance article. I've been butting heads with Timmeh and Asenine over this for a while, most recently at User:Asenine/Logodebate...kind of a weird place to be having the discussion, but I think the consensus on this issue is fairly clear. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatant and massive edit-warring by IP[edit]

John, could you put an indefinite block on User: for breaching the 3RR - he as done five at latest count, see Revision history of Provisional Irish Republican Army. Thanks Sarah777 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. (cur) (last) 20:01, 19 January 2008 GiollaUidir (Talk | contribs) (80,122 bytes) (undo, it's already in a subcategory. You obviously don't understand cats matey. Go read up on them first!) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 19:54, 19 January 2008 (Talk) (80,146 bytes) (use this one then Category:Terrorism) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 19:25, 19 January 2008 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (80,122 bytes) (You have had it explained on your talk page, please read previous discussions) (undo)
  4. (cur) (last) 18:41, 19 January 2008 (Talk) (80,221 bytes) (add back cats, they are not duplicates) (undo)
  5. (cur) (last) 18:40, 19 January 2008 Padraig (Talk | contribs) (80,122 bytes) (removing duplicate cats, also see discussion in talk page) (undo)
  6. (cur) (last) 18:26, 19 January 2008 (Talk) (80,221 bytes) (add back cats, the provos are designated terrorism in the UK, and are part of the UK terrorist history) (undo)
  7. (cur) (last) 18:13, 19 January 2008 Padraig (Talk | contribs) (80,122 bytes) (rv Category:Proscribed paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland is a sub-category of category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom the other is dealt with in the talk page) (undo)
  8. (cur) (last) 18:05, 19 January 2008 Escorial82 (Talk | contribs) (80,221 bytes) (Those categories are a status, not the personal definition of anyone (their designation and description of their actions)) (undo)
  9. (cur) (last) 17:50, 19 January 2008 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (80,122 bytes) (rv POV) (undo)
  10. (cur) (last) 17:49, 19 January 2008 (Talk) (80,221 bytes) (Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom) (undo)
  11. (cur) (last) 17:48, 19 January 2008 (Talk) (80,177 bytes) (→External links - add appropiate terrorist cats) (undo)

Can't seem to link so here are the diffs - Sarah777 (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching[edit]

Hi John. You were a great coach for me. Would you be willing to take on a new coachee? I'd be willing to provide some help but obviously im not an experienced enough admin yet to do everything. If you're too busy, then no worries. I know that admin coaching can be time consuming. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to help and I am pleased to be asked. One condition; as with you, the person mustn't be in a hurry. Why don't you ask Lar to help as well? You might recall he did most of the actual work in your case! Either way, I will be happy to help in whatever way I can. Best wishes, --John (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Lar will be quite busy for a bit but Im sure we can make a great coaching team. Maybe we can discuss how we should do things by email. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the coachee is leaving WP. Maybe another coachee will come along soon. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear it. I'm not really looking for extra stuff to do at the moment but I would be happy to help you in any way that I can in the future. Take care, --John (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for an admin coach at the moment and it would be great if you would take me on. Ningnangnong (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hoosrs, why did you delete the page[edit]

I spent a lot of time carefully creating a page called The Hoosrs about a real band who are followed by 12,000 people.

They are becoming increasingly popular, and their music is widely listened to.

I hope you will understand why I am upset at your deletion of my page, and you will consider putting it back on wikipedia asap. Ningnangnong (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:N. --John (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Doing a little logo cleaning but User:Óðinn is stalking behind me and reverting. I hate stalkers :D . (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalkers everywhere??? Now User:Managerpants is stalking my flag cleaning and replacing them??? No encyclopedias being built today I guess? (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments over at ANI John. I was disappointed with the turn of events this morning. Not just with the "non-acceptance of consensus" but also learning that wiki-friend/admin User:KnowledgeofSelf had quit Wikipedia. It was disheartening to see User:Odin(sp.) get lectured by Wiki alf as to what consensus is... only to have Carcharoth seemingly contradict Alf's comments which could have been interpreted as an invitation to our "Viking" editor to start a war over the issue. I discussed this with Alf earlier this morning. The discussion on the template talk page took a strange turn when both IP 86.159.X and LemonLemonLemons tried to add a new consensus lean on the discussion when, based on 'Lemon's' edit history, he is the sock editor coming from the 86.X range. (see this edit) Two voices from a single throat doesn't help the discussions at all. I have also been having a chat with another user about the potential that 'Odin' may be a sock account for a different editor who was extremely busy and loud over the whole logo issue but has been, quite surprisingly, mute on the new discussions. He has been caught using sockpuppet accounts before and we feel he may be keeping his main account quiet in case some of the others get "nabbed". Time will tell. Again, thanks for your intercession. Have a nice day! (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now there's another one!?!?! (sigh). (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Titanic Builder[edit]

It was so funny that you were busy removing the incorrect builder name in the opening of the Titanic article while I was arriving and, noticing it, was trying to correct it! I suppose you're right, mentioning the builder in the body is redundant since it's made plain in the sidebar. Tomwhite56 (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just reverted to the last unvandalised version. I make no judgement otherwise. --John (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex[edit]

Attacking the arbitrary decision to delete that clearly violated all consensus established in 15-20 polls and also the most recent one takes place here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 23. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions on your talk page[edit]

I've just reverted this reversion that was unexplained in the reverting editor's edit summary. Coincidentally, and doing a little canvassing of my own, policy on removals from users' talk pages is currently under discussion here and I would welcome your input.

I could guess that the reversion was made because the editor thinks he's correcting a breach of canvassing, but I'm not sure that excising another editor's comments (repugnant or not) from another's talk page before they may have been read are in line with policy if they are not covered by the usual exceptions of vandalism, libel, etc.

Personally I think canvassing is preferable to assuming telepathy and I've formed the opinion that you're big enough to make up your mind about what you want to read and what you don't. This section is purely ephemeral to explain what happened in case you missed it, so zap it or keep it as you choose, of course. Alice 04:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both, Viridae for undoing a bit of blatant canvassing and Alice for standing up for my right to read the message. I had actually read it already and I may comment at the DRV. --John (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

UniComs article[edit]

Hello John, After the deletion of the Article UniComs, I made a draft (please see User:Farfouille/draft). I made some corrections and I hope that now my article is good to go. Please reply if so. Thank you! Farfouille (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Supercooling Editing[edit]

The video I added was not "inappropriate". This video was my creation to show people what supercooled water looks like. Adding it was not intended to be spamming. There are other videos of this topic (which are on another website) on here so I thought I would add my own.

-Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christato (talkcontribs) 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I restored your video and will strike your warning as I accept your edit was well-intentioned. --John (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, is it ok if I add a description for the link you added (my video) -Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christato (talkcontribs) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


dude, nobody gets on wikipedia to get actual info. everyone knows that over 95% of the info at this site is opinions or lies. besides my edit was correct and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big antelope (talkcontribs) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

May I?[edit]

Hey John, mind if I revert your statement on VK's page? I agree with you 100%, but I have another admin looking into it, and we both know what could happen with the two of you posting on VK's page. I know it's a hassle, but, let me know, k? SirFozzie (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it, for now, but only on the basis that some real action is taking place on this. Good luck to you both, and best wishes. --John (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks John. I'll see what I can do. :/ SirFozzie (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
. *Sighs* I caught him breaking his probation on an article and I had to block 24 hours (it was 2 reverts in a row, but under his probation, that's a nono. SirFozzie (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts[edit]

With the name=text only issue finally going away the discussion, as you know, has turned to the "verifiability", "notability", "authenticity" of the graphics that have been uploaded as "official" logos for many artists... mostly falling under heavy metal and its sub-genres. Most of these images have been uploaded with the fair-use rationale that they are, in fact, "official" logos. I want to draw your attention to a situation as it is directly related to the current discussion of "official". Check the recent edits of Navnløs (talk · contribs). He is a busy logo-loader and has been active trying to move as many logos as possible into article mainspace. The situation is.... several days ago I removed a graphic from the Black Sabbath article that was being used as the bands official logo. The image was, in fact, simply the stylised text from the band's third album. Black Sabbath have never had a logo in their entire 38 year career. I tagged the image for speedy delete as it was being used for false pretences and it was speedied rather quickly(justifiably so). In Navnløs' logo haste today he grabbed the image link from my rm edit and re-added it into the article with the following text "The official logo of Black Sabbath that has graced all of their releases." - which is a bold face lie. He has used this same text on quite a number of his edits from earlier today. Many, like the Black Sabbath edit, are blatantly dishonest claims or, at the very least, highly dubious. In keeping with the current discussion about whether many of these logos are official logos (or have historic/repeated use)... Navnløs' edits are jeopardising the WP:V in several articles by presenting information that is not only false.. but was added into the article with previous knowledge that it WAS false. Just for the sake of getting the flashcruft graphics back in there. I know some of the logos that were re-added are likely valid. But I certainly don't have the time to check every single edit. Or look for references to back up the images fair-use claims. Does this require the drastic measure of an admin-rollback of all of the users edits? Should all the logos be tagged for citation/verification and dated deletion? "The logo that has graced all of their releases." is suddenly 'gracing' dozens of Wikipedia articles. And it doesn't do us any grace having them there. (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing. Navnlos, or Blizzard Beast as his signature reads, has stated outright (in the infobox talk discussion) that he believes all articles about bands should have logos and intends to make sure that they do. I know the discussion on the issue was mostly to do with the location of logos in articles, but I thought we also made some good progress towards establishing an idea of what a "logo" is/isn't in terms of musical acts and how it should meet WP:N and WP:V. In any case he doesn't seem to be concerned about those criteria and is simply moving the images into the article bodies, which IMO is just moving the problem to another part of the articles purely for the purpose of decoration. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. If that thread is still live at AN/I you might raise it there. --John (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that he lied about the Black Sabbath "logo" and the concerns that IllaZilla has raised leads me to think he deserves his own ANI thread... What do you think John? He's gone too far? ScarianCall me Pat 09:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the AN/I thread that was used earlier. I've never actually had to use AN/I before (I guess that's a good thing). Kamjeel seems to be supporting Navnlos in his bid to keep dozens of "logos" in articles. Every time I've removed one on the basis of WP:N or WP:V one of them has reverted it (note: I've only done this in cases where there is no referenced discussion accompanying the image, so there's no informational value to having it in the article). See this diff on Slayer. Basically both users claim that "notability is achieved through cover art," and that that should be enough to justify including logos in literally dozens of articles. I don't agree with that opinion. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's here. I agree it needs more neutral admins to keep anm eye on it; I clearly cannot act as I have a view on the matter in dispute. Let me know if you need any help. --John (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm???? The place to register a report about Navlos' purposely adding false information is in the ANI thread his friend Odin started to vent whiney crybaby complaints and false accuations about me???? Are you sure you're handing out the right link? (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


this fact i spoke of earlier is correct, and i make fun of the fact that wikipedia is so dumb by making crazy edits like that. infact i would consider it a sort of hobby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big antelope (talkcontribs) 02:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you find a new one. --John (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


No problem. I'm sure it's more important to improve the article. Tyrenius (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I really am sorry. I gave a rather mild warning and I should have done what you did, per MEATBALL:DefendEachOther. I've been busy but that is no excuse. Let me know if anything else transpires; should we ask a third person for input, do you think? --John (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Re. article, more eyes are always good. Re. NPA, let's assume cordiality will now ensue... Tyrenius (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello! I noticed that you recently changed the logo on the Porcupine Tree article back to its text form. From your summary I assume that your argument is that unless a band's logo is especially 'notable', it's inclusion is unnecessary. I'm afraid that I disagree. I have never anywhere seen that it is Wikipedia policy to limit supplemental images on articles to only those that are 'notable'. You seemed to indicate that images do not belong on a text field. I would ask why it's possible then to include images in the field. All in all, inclusion of the logo provides a more aesthetic look to the article, and removes the pointless iteration of the band's name, which is already included in those large letters that are at the top of every article. If you have concerns, I would be happy to discuss it with you. But, if you decide that your time is too precious for such matters, I ask that you refrain from further edits in this matter. Thank you! Kerrow (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't use nonfree images this way. How would you feel if you were the artist and saw Wikipedia using your work for decoration? Our mission, if you recall, is to provide a FREE encyclopedia; stuff like this does not fit in with that goal and it has to go. Sorry. --John (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Further to that, it is very obvious from browsing their work that they do not actually have a logo, or at least if they do it is not used on any of their album covers. I would accept that a well-known logo like that of the Rolling Stones can be referenced and therefore belongs in the article. The one I removed does not. Sorry again, as I know your edit was well-intentioned, but I stand by what I did. --John (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's their current representation of their name for their tour and their latest album. I stand by my opinion that reiterating the band's name again in an infobox is unnecessarily repetitive and it's acceptable to choose a different representation. As for your point about the artist's objections; most images on Wikipedia are decorative with the purpose of giving visuals that augment articles. The current 'logo' is both aesthetic and its look is derived from the direction the band is currently moving in. If there's some sort of regulation that would try to restrict the depiction of the logo I would like to quote WP:IAR. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Good day. Kerrow (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In a way I applaud your boldness and recourse to IAR; however see also Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means: Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. --John (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the odd praise. I suppose we really differ on whether or not inclusion of the logo is "sabotage" or "improvement". I see it as aesthetically (very) preferable to plain text that can already be found at the top of the article. (On a side note, I noticed that part of the reasoning for this regulation is that it violates WP:ACCESS; frankly that's bull, the band's name is right in the title at the head of the page). Kerrow (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
See also Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. --John (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi John![edit]

Since I've found you in the recent AfD on Adult-child sex not too opposed to the general idea to strengthen our encyclopedia with reliable, comprehensive, substantial, and essential material also on unpopular topics, and since you obviously have a basic grasp of German, I've been meaning to ask about your support.

A thought I've been harboring lately is putting up an essay within my userspace on the main source for my draft (which is Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88) to one day maybe be moved to Wikipedia, WikiBooks, or WikiEssays. I'd once put this up on the German Wikipedia as an article and it held up for half a year, from May 2006 until January 2007, until someone on a personal revenge crusade removed it by means of an AfD (where votes were split 50:50 and of course most wanting to get it deleted did nothing more than point to their severe disgust, although that AfD actually lasted for 2 months before it was closed). This essay of mine was actually so influential that I found literal quotes lifted from it in a nation-wide newspaper endorsing them, that literal quotes were endorsed by a German General Medical Council, and just the same with an official brochure issued by an Austrian government department, I found my very own words in all those cases. Googling for it, I found that a number of people had saved personal backups of the article in various places on the web, and there also were several forums debating its content while linking to my article on Wikipedia.

So, I've been meaning to ask you if you'd be willing to have a look at my German essay after I'll have put it up in my userspace here on the English Wikipedia and tell me whether you think it's a good idea for me to translate it to English and for the time being leaving it as the draft of an English Wikipedia article in my userspace to one day maybe be moved to Wikipedia, WikiBooks, or WikiEssays. The basic idea of this essay of mine is a Wikipedia article on an existing work (Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88), comparable to articles such as Civilization and Its Discontents and Dialectic of Enlightenment. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Let me think about that. I would like to help you if I can. --John (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
John, thanks for your cooperation. The article can now be found here. Please let me know what you think! --TlatoSMD (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Troubles enforcement request page[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Enforcement_requests FYI. Tyrenius (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa[edit]

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I thought you conducted yourself with dignity on your RfA although I regrettably had to oppose. I did like some of the things you said and would definitely consider supporting you after a few months without edit-warring, overzealous pursuit of reds under the bed, or other behaviour which is understandable but not in the interests of building an encyclopedia. I know you are a good guy and have the interests of the project at heart. I hope you will not be downcast; the degree of support you enjoy from the community is remarkable. People like your directness and straightforwardness but you need to temper your temper, so to speak. Remember, WP:BEANS and WP:SHUN can be the most powerful rules of all, if you let them be. 9/11 and latterly the BADSITES campaign are obviously areas you feel passionately about, and I can understand why in both cases. You may need to consider, as I have, that areas one feels passionate about are not the best ones to be editing. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Troubles ArbCom enforcement[edit]

FYI there is now a shortcut WP:TER to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. Tyrenius (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag in band info boxes[edit]

Is that correct as in The Streets? See others in contribs by User:SlayerXT. Tyrenius (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ta. Tyrenius (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Ty. --John (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So about the flag icons[edit]

So that means i should not add any flag icons to band names? I mean, it just makes it better. --SlayerXT —Preceding comment was added at 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, i got it, although you can agree with me, it shapes the article, kinda with a flag icon and all, and i don't see it problematic as if it stands next like say a band that is from "Paris, France" for example with a french flag. But anyway, if you said no, so i won't add those anymore. --SlayerXT —Preceding comment was added at 16:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi[edit]

Are you going around removing album covers from every single band page on this website? Because you can arguably pursue this with The Doors, Rolling Stones, and numerous others that are doing the same thing. The album covers proved on Type O Negative are not picked out of the blue; they are the most important releases and have large amounts of article text dedicated to them. Logical Defense (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I always remove fair use image abuse wherever I see it. The Doors and Rolling Stones articles are not at issue here, though I would note that neither currently displays images in breach of policy (the Doors did but I removed them). If you ever see album covers used in articles this way you may feel free to remove them. The exception would be where there is verifiable discussion of the album cover image itself (as opposed to the album). I hope that clarifies my position (and Wikipedia policy) on the subject. --John (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. Logical Defense (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

west hams page[edit]

i was just writing the truth. i will go to the newspapers if you ban me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyman12 (talkcontribs)

Allow me to be the first to ROFL in your general direction.--Koncorde (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


what i wrote was true, and i am about to cite it. thanks for your concern.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


Hi how long is it before I am allowed to edit actual articles - i.e how long does "protected" status last for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitana (talkcontribs) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Glasgowfinder's unconstructive edits[edit]

Hello, I see you are an admin and had a previous encounter with User:Glasgowfinder. Would you mind having a look at his recent edits to Leeds? He "corrected" population figures downwards in the texts of wikilinks which referred to population tables, and he seems to doubt that Leeds is a "metropolitan district". Looks like a stern warning from an admin might be in place. (Disclosure: I live in Leeds, but I don't care much about these things.) --Hans Adler (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I have reverted the problematic edits and warned the editor. --John (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Continental Airlines Plane Crash[edit]

Hi, I don't know how to edit Wikipedia but a major crash is missing. It was Continental Airlines flight 426 on August 7, 1975 in Denver. Flight 426 crashed after takeoff from the Denver's Stapleton International Airport. The Boeing 727 climbed to about 100 feet above runway 35L and then crashed near the departure end of the runway. The aircraft was damaged substantially.

Source: Adapted from National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report NTSB-AAR-76-14.

At the time of the accident, a thunderstorm with associated rain showers was moving over the northern portion of the airport. The thunderstorm was surrounded by numerous other thunderstorms and associated rain showers but none of these were in the immediate vicinity of the airport.

The National Transportation Safety Board determined the probable cause of this accident was the aircraft's encounter, immediately following takeoff, with severe wind shear at an altitude and airspeed which precluded recovery to level flight; the wind shear caused the aircraft to descend at a rate which could not be overcome even though the aircraft was flown at or near its maximum lift capability throughout the encounter. The wind shear was generated by the outflow from a thunderstorm which was over the aircraft's departure path.

According to first officer Robert W. Shelton, the aircraft left the runway just after it passed over the interstate highway, which was 4760 feet from the threshold of runway 35L. He saw a positive rate of climb and at 4:11:05 he called, "gear up." Captain Robert E. Pries said the aircraft entered heavy rain about the time the first officer executed the rotation maneuver (which raises the nose for takeoff). Captain Pries turned on the windshield wipers and, in response to the first officer's command, the moved the gear hand to the up position.

According to the flightcrew, the aircraft climbed normally to 150 to 200 feet above the runway. The captain the felt the aircraft sink and saw that the airspeed was reduced. He took control of the aircraft, advanced the power levers to maximum thrust, and lower the nose. The aircraft continued to descend, and the captain attempted to increase the pitch attitude.

According to second officer William R. Kocar, when the aircraft came to rest he heard a loud explosive sound and screaming from the passenger cabin. He said he was dazed and shaken and that he attempted to open the cockpit door, "but I don't know what I was holding onto when I was trying to open it; I don't know if I had the door knob." He then yelled "Fire, let's get out of here!" because he thought the aircraft was on fire (miraculously, it was not).

After the captain tried to shut off the aircraft engines, he escaped through the left cockpit sliding window; Kocar and Shelton escaped through the right cockpit window. They then assisted passengers escaping off the wings.

The captain returned to the cockpit through the left cockpit window and again tried unsuccessfully to shut off the engines. He then opened the cockpit door and assisted one of the forward flight attendants from under the coat closet and directed the other out the right cockpit window. He left the aircraft and discussed the engine problems with firemen, who had responded to the crash alarm. The captain once again returned to the cockpit but could not shut off the engines. The firemen then injected fire extinguishing foam and water into the engines and they stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A user having a bit of a struggle[edit]

User:Rockk3r is having a bit of a struggle with logos and flags. I added a clear edit summary to his favourite article. (which may also have some serious WP:COI issues but that's getting off topic) He has been continually reverting any attempt to properly format the article infobox. Could you assist? (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


I have a little problem, my band page has been deleted. I am a solo artist and I am finding it very unfair that just because I am not a big artist or haven't won an award that my page is deleted. I have however came 3rd in an Eisteddfod and have a link with composing music for the UK Eurovision.

I thought that on Wikipedia it's about being fair, so why am I not being given a chance? I have around 400 fans worldwide and am a very young, talented musician.

If you could help me I'd very much appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Settembreluna (talkcontribs) 17:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ugly Truth[edit]

Variety reported the information I have included. What more verification do I need?


Hi John. Sorry to keep bothering you. But I just thought Id let you know that I recently started coaching a user here. I won't force you as I know how hard admin coaching is but if you are interested, and I don't mind if you refuse, you can add your name to the page. Thanks very much. :) Tbo 157(talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I added myself. --John (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks John. Ill try not to make it too much trouble for you. I would also like to award you this:
Wow! Thanks a lot, I'll put it on my awards page. --John (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


A date issue may be of interest, if you hadn't seen it already.[5] Tyrenius (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I agree with you and will keep an eye on it. The user has already been warned by me previously for something else. --John (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi John,

Thanks for coaching me!

Don't worry, i'm not in a hurry. And, I was in a small dispute a couple of weeks ago, so would like that to die down first!

See you on the coaching page!

BG7 13:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you endorse the block?[edit]

And the reason wasn't true. Why would anyone think these edits were point of view, personal workspace, inappropriate or without reliable sources? An elementary school kid telling me they are doesn't prove it to me. I took writing in college and I don't believe they were. Has anyone really read them? 02:19, 22 January 2008 claimed “personal point of view” See: [6] 21:15, 21 January 2008 claimed “for figuring out who to vote for” to be "inappropriate" See: [7] 22:48, 20 January 2008 claimed "inappropriate" See: [8] 21:36, 18 January 2008 claimed original research, no reliable source See: [9] 17 January 2008 claimed Original research, no reliable source See: [10] I think they just glanced at the Diff and didn't read them or read their cited sources. --Chuck Marean 22:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I answered this on your talk. I know you are trying to help, but you need to remember this is a collaborative venture and remarks like the above are not likely to produce a collegial editing environment. Therefore, any repetition of such remarks is likely to lead to a longer block. Move on from your annoyance at being blocked, and do something helpful, would be my advice. Let me know if you need any help or guidance. --John (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)[edit]

The January 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks as always, John: [11]. Gwernol 04:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, G. It is great to see you back and working so hard. I wouldn't want some seedy anon to put you off your stride just when things are getting interesting! Best wishes, --John (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) might be time for semi-protection please? Hopping around on dynamic BT IPs, not many other options I don't think..... One Night In Hackney303 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and I've done that. Thanks. --John (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection bars unregistered and new editors. User:Mohummy appeared just yesterday for the purpose of warring on this article. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And a bit of Islamophobia thrown in for good measure. Check out his page. Sarah777 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fancy trying your hand at keeping this article from turning into an edit war for a while? If you manage 48hrs I'll give you a barnstar! Rockpocket 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I accept. 48 hours eh, that's original... --John (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Banning reverts is cheating though! But not before time really.... One Night In Hackney303 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangepith (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi John. FYI, Orangepith (talk · contribs) was reblocked by Thatcher, based on his checkuser findings of abusive sockpuppetry, so I suppose our earlier discussion is moot. Or we could take it to ArbCom - zOMG WHEEL WAR! MastCell Talk 07:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, I saw that. I am inclined to trust Thatcher in this instance, though I think both of us deserve kudos for trying to give a second chance. Per Richard Holloway I see forgiveness as being a great virtue; see here for a beaut. Best wishes, --John (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Good stuff. MastCell Talk 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not joking, sorry[edit]

Dear John,

I was not joking, I was absolutely serious. It is a fact that the name of Chaco province comes from Checo = Czech. Pronounced in Spanish you can almost feel it. I know it for fact because I grew up in Argentina (I am originally Czech) and I was visiting Chaco together with my father in 1980. I still have a newspaper with my father on the front page (I can scan it for you if you wish) - the purpose of the visit was to "baptize" the new school of Jan Amos Komensky in Roque Sáenz Peña, Chaco, Argentina. As you - for sure - know, Jan Amos Komensky is concerned to be "the teacher of nations", the inventor of modern teaching methods and he is of a Czech origin. In Chaco, there is still a big Czech community, they still have Sokol (used to be before the WWII. and now it is again a Czech tradition in physical education) and other Czechoslovakian unions. See (in Czech and Spanish only, sorry). As of right now the Czech community is counted around 30.000,- - 40.000,-( statistics of Czech Minitstry of Foreign Affairs (if you are interested, I also found a page in English but I have it stored at work, not home). Hovewer in the beginnign of 20th century the total number of immigrants was around 60.000,-

Sorry, I found extremely offending that you did not mention the Czech community in Argentina - so I had to edit he post to make it right and to bring some adequate picture for the readers. I know that you deliberately changed my editing but could you please post my comments back ? - because it was accurate and based on true experience and evidence. Next time, please, do not not cut me short by vague saying "However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing." because I AM NOT MAKING JOKES, I AM ALWAYS SERIOUS. I think Wikipedia wants to be serious - your delibarate attitude of deleting my editing without further investigation was very ackward and unprofesional, sorry.

Also: I do not know about the other nations (Polish etc.) but the Czech nation it is extremely sensitive if we are ranked to the "Eastern Europe" countries. Simply because we belong to Central Europe (as you for sure know, Prague is almost at the geographical centre of Europe). So, please, either rank us to Central Europe (where we belong) or to the Western part of Europe. We have nothing in common with the Eastern Europe countries, trust me. This is an insult to us (if you look up our history, you will understand).

I beg you for one simple thing: to my honest belief, I never edit any post or any comment unless I am 100% convinced I am right. This again comes from my Czech nature, we simply are like that. If I am not sure, I do not argue; if I am convinced I am right, I will fight till my last breath.

I know, I am new here, but I belileve that once in awhile I will be able to contribute Wikipedia a bit. I have no side intentions; all I have is the will to be accurate, to provide the correct information and give some added value for readers. And I hate people who delete my posts without any further knowledge like you did. Please, next time be more careful.

My Best Regards,

Dana Warkentin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannaew (talkcontribs) 13:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you are serious, then please provide a serious source for what you say, otherwise it will be deleted again. --John (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits?[edit]

Just to say, my edits were nIot intentionally disruptive, the students I placed on the page do go to Warwick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksurrah (talkcontribs) 16:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more of your edits to Cattle and to Category:Fictional hares and rabbits. My warning still stands. --John (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


In the context that I used it muppets was not a comment about anyone editor or group of editiors. It is a comment about hypothetical actions by hypothetical editors and as such is not uncivil to anyone. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is best to avoid using such language and to focus on the real here and now, rather than to use epithets to describe the hypothetical actions of hypothetical editors. My warning still stands. Best wishes, --John (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your threats (re)[edit]

What the **** are you on about? I stated clearly why I made the edit. Sarah777 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I answered in your talk. Be under no illusion; this is not a threat but a promise. If you do anything like that again I shall block you. --John (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry? What agreement on the talk page? And cut out the threats - they have zero affect. Sarah777 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The agreement at Talk:List of massacres#Protection (2) which you were editing about 24 hours ago. Please don't pretend to be stupid Sarah, as I know you are not. Once again, I am not making a threat, I am reiterating that if you cannot abide by the condition I set to help solve the problems in the article then I will block you. --John (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read Talk:List of massacres#Protection (2) - knew nothing at all about - check my edit record since I logged on; I was working through my watch-list. OK? - I'm far from stupid - just didn't see it. I click on "diff" on my watchlist; view the edit; ignore or revert or go into the article as seems appropriate. A check of my edits tonight will confirm that pattern. But I can see what you thought you saw so maybe I over-reacted a wee bit. Hope your cold is better. Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
O that semi-protection. S**t. Forgot all about it. Gawd I really did over-react. What can I say? Grovel grovel grovel??? Sarah777 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I note though that you edited the section (which at the time was called Protection; I had not noticed there was an identically titled section there already) here, here and here, which is why I thought you were being disingenuous when you claimed not to have heard of it. Never mind, onwards and upwards. My cold is much better thank you and I am not English but Scottish, for what it's worth. --John (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, can someone actually answer my still unanswered question about how information is currently to be added? The edit Sarah777 reverted did look like a "major change" to me. If you're going to ban reverting, ideally you've got to ban people adding stuff without discussion first surely? Also I assume that any future edits from sockpuppets of banned editors can be reverted? Thanls. One Night In Hackney303 21:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) ONIH, I saw you ask the question and have no easy answer for you or else I would have given it already. I'll lay my cards out here; the article clearly has serious and long-term problems. My personal priority is to prevent the edit warring from established editors (and get the Barnstar Rockpocket promised me), and I think I have achieved it. I have no authority to prevent others editing it, other than going to full protection which I would rather avoid. I left a note for the editor who made the last change, but I also assumed good faith on their part and had decided to let the edit stand while we discuss. If we can continue to discuss without another edit war breaking out I will regard that as a victory and a way forward for the article. If we solve the problem of the criteria for inclusion (and we are making progress towards that), a lot of the problems will solve themselves. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm more than aware of the problems, and if we're going to include every incident where someone (regardless of how biased they may be) has used the word massacre it's a bit pointless as it's totally indiscriminate. I was just concerned that by banning reverts you're in effect giving the upper hand to anyone who comes along and wants to add something that's disputed or not suitably sourced. But other than full protection there isn't one I suppose. I've just made an uncontroversial addition anyway. One Night In Hackney303 22:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just left you a message about that. If we can nail down some criteria that all will abide by, not only will the article be more stable but it will probably look very different too. Please let's solve the underlying problems before tinkering with the article. I appreciate your understanding. --John (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If at any point you'd said "It'd be best to discuss all additions" (as I didn't consider that to be anywhere near the edit we're talking about above) I'd not have done it :( One Night In Hackney303 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Point taken; as I say there is no problem with what you added, I am just keen to avoid opening up new fronts in the conflict. --John (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Now John, I think I may have finally overcome my earlier embarrassment and so can comment again. Are you saying that IPs, unknown newbies and Sockpuppets can add items here - but established editors who perversely use their own identity can not?? Shurly shome mishtake?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I made an agreement with the main editors who have been in dispute not to revert or to make major additions to the article while the discussion is under way. I cannot, as I say, enforce that on people who were not party to the initial agreement other than by protecting the article, which I am ready to do if it is necessary. So far I don't think it is; do you disagree? --John (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
My embarrassment levels haven't yet receded sufficiently for me to energetically disagree with you! Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ach, don't worry about it, we all make mistakes. Sorry I was so snappy with you. --John (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This and this may be relevant. I assume you'll be keeping an eye out for any "new" editors who suddenly start making those additions please? One Night In Hackney303 18:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much ONIH. I am always keeping an eye out for things like that, but would not have seen that one had you not drawn it to my attention. I currently have 17,019 pages on my watchlist, so I hope you understand if I don't pick up every single thing that happens to one of them! --John (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I wasn't talking about that talk page edit. Just that it makes it pretty obvious that it is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, and I'm sure he'll be back to add his own additions to the article and I'd hate to be hamstrung. One Night In Hackney303 18:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
He's definitely persistent..... One Night In Hackney303 07:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks; I've not gone back through my edit history and removed all the ones I'd added, but thanks for catching the one on Munich air disaster  :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Built To Spill[edit]

What gives with deleting three links to good sources of information about the band? You deleted the link to their Myspace page? has been a unique and authoritative repository of historical information for nearly ten years, is backed up by recordings, and has the blessing of both the band and their label. The etree page likewise. Kill the flag if it makes you happy, but you're a bit hair-trigger with the link deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EL. --John (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In the case of, I see at least two items (3 and 4) under 'What Should Be Linked', and nothing relevant under 'Links Normally To Be Avoided.' is a historical archive, contains nothing but factual information and firsthand accounts, cites sources, and has always been scrupulously non-commercial. Can you point out to me what guidelines from WP:EL prompted you to delete the link? Would you delete links to similar resources on the Wikipedia pages for Sonic Youth or Nirvana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed the links I removed and I stand by the removal. describes itself as " incomplete list of concerts played by Built to Spill, compiled by fans worldwide." If it is compiled by fans, it fails points 1, 2, 11, 12 and 13 of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. It also fails WP:RS. In general, Wikipedia does not use links to external sites which anyone can edit as the information on them may not be true. It also does not link to itself for similar reasons. If you see similar links in other band articles, by all means remove them, and (as I did) leave an informative edit summary to say what you are doing. The most important principle is that, apart from one link to the "official" website of a group, we should avoid linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". I hope that makes the reasoning behind my actions clearer to you. Don't hesitate to get back if you need any other help. --John (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I'm the sole editor of the site. I've reviewed and verified every entry. Its content comes from audio recordings and notes taken at concerts. The contents are factual, and there's no precedent for information at that level of detail being contained within a Wikipedia article. Summarizations I've seen, but you can't seriously suggest that a detailed historical record of over 700 concerts should be in an article rather than a link to a comprehensive external site. There are many such sites, and many such links within Wikipedia, but there are no such detailed musical performance history articles, nor should there be. I disagree with you on every one of the five points you cite for deleting the link: it *is* a unique resource, the information it presents can be verified in recordings that are publicly available, and it is neither a forum, a blog or a wiki. It's a matter of public record that the site is trusted and widely used; traders of live recordings (sanctioned by Built To Spill) routinely cite it... see and for examples. I'm not arguing with you to stroke my ego... I have worked hard to keep the site objective and factual for many years, and feel it would be a shame for Wikipedia users to have a harder time finding it because of one stubborn editor. If you really feel you're in the right, you'd better head over to the Nirvana page and delete that link, now that you're aware of it; I predict you'll meet more resistance there than I care to offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to get a second opinion, but I think my statements above are in line with policy. Whaich of the external links on Nirvana (band) are you complaining about? You might also want to review our policy on conflicts of interest. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
By mentioning links to similar sites in other articles, I was hoping to make the point that chronicling musical performance is historical scholarship, if done properly, and a link from a Wikipedia article to such a resource is valid. I don't believe you will delete links to similar sites in articles on Sonic Youth, Nirvana, the Pixies, the Butthole Surfers, etc. I don't believe that obscuring access to such information is in the spirit of the guidelines you're referencing. Since you bring up conflict of interest, I won't bug you about this issue anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest raising this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians and see if you can get a project consensus for it there. Good luck. --John (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


I understand what you are saying John, but I don't think that the links I am adding are inappropriate. Each link I added was relavant to the page in which I added it and I think as a download/news site, it is a good resource for fans of the band/artists in question.

I understand that wikipedia uses noindex/nofollow links, and this is not an effort to raise my pagerank - only to provide useful additional information that might interest the readers of the articles in question. I will stop adding links to JamRadio if you would prefer, and if you like I will remove any that I have already added, however I would like to discuss with you. Addionne (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest raising this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians and see if you can get a project consensus for it there. Good luck. --John (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Your edits are overzealous and inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I like to think my edits are always appropriate. If you can pin down a particular edit, I might be able to talk further with you about your concerns, whatever they are. --John (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As Promised[edit]

(moved to awards page)


John, the fact of the matter is I asked gwernol several times to pass me on to someone else above. The other facts are that everything he butting up against me for, I said fine. Gwernol said that I couldn't link the republicans to satanists-I said I wasn't but there was no way to explain fact without any negativity.-6million jews were murdered by the germans in world war II but does that make all germans compliscent? Of course not, any intelligent person would see that. I acquiesced anyway. I said okay, I'll just put the fact up there that the new logo was as I described and won't say anything about satatism-I'll just link the pentagram word to the section in wiki about inverted pentagrams and leave it at that. That seemed fair. But then gwernol said that you can't say pentagram because it's negative and that I had to say star. Well that's problematical because there is a big dif between stars and pentagrams. That would be like going to a flying squirrel section and seeing a picture of a regular squirrel. Then gwernol said that the logo had stars like the american flag which is untrue because the stars in the flag are not inverted. I'm even willing to link it to just the pentagram section and let others decide. I've given in on everything but gwernol obviously has a republican mind and isn't interested in the facts. I think that gwernol has leanings that should not be brought in to such an important project. What's wrong with stating fact and linking the parts to other facts?

Is this project not about getting all the facts and letting the people decide for themselves what to think about them? Am I wrong about that? Please tell me if I'm wrong. Cyberclops (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Cyberclops. You have to accept that when you post here you assent to follow our policies. As a relative newcomer to the site, while you are welcome to edit, you should also be strongly guided by the opinions and interpretations of policy of those of us who have been here a while. I assure you that Gwernol is quite correct in the explanations he has given you of why your edits were unacceptable. As I said, we are looking more for people who can tidy articles up and make them better-referenced and more neutral. Political warriors are, on the other hand, ten a penny around here, and your own theories about the connections between the Republican Party and Satanism, while amusing, are impossible to include in the absence of third party reliable sources discussing the theory. I hope you will understand. --John (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomi image deleted[edit]

The Klaus Nomi image Image:Knomi.jpg was, sadly, deleted yet again. I thought you should know, since your name shows up in the delete log, but apparently no one notified you. Just letting you know after the fact. Anyway, the article clearly needs an image, and a fairuse image should be easy to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silly rabbit (talkcontribs) 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


You warned me for disruptive edits, but I was only linking articles about musicians to the corresponding artist pages on MusicBrainz, trying to help the [MusicBrainz WikiProject]. That's for sure not spaming. I stopped adding those links for now, but I would like to see this clarified. As I'm not sure if you're reading this I'll post this to your page as well. --User:OutsideContext Sun 10 Feb 2008 18:55:21 +0100 —Preceding comment was added at 17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If links to MusicBrainz are an issue, you might also want to have a look at Template:Cite album-notes. I use that template quite often for album and musician articles, and it actually has a field for linking to the MusicBrainz article on an album (I've been using the field, but if it's decided it's inappropriate I can remove it from the references I've made without much hassle). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

When is a consensus a consensus?[edit]

This is the discussion of a page that has been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous last words (expression). Was there a consensus to delete it? I would have thought that the conclusion would have been "No overall consensus, so keep". Snowman (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008[edit]

The February 2008 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 KevinalewisBot --11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony Geraghty[edit]

I've found a couple of things I could add in due course. I think a lead section + heading "Life and work" or some such, followed by the birth/upbringing/education/early career details would be good, if you have them to hand. Tyrenius (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish I did have access to that info. He seems quite a reclusive character, perhaps understandably. Did I ever tell you I once met Duncan Campbell? And it should go without saying that Geraghty's Irish War is the last word on the Northern Ireland war. Read it, if you haven't and can spare the time. Thanks for looking. --John (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm filling in a blank or two. One Night In Hackney303 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work ONIH, thank you. FA here we come? --John (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it'll get that good. There's a few things to add yet, like his Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature membership. I just wish I had some information about how he became a journalist. One Night In Hackney303 17:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read three or four of his books and I think he keeps very quiet on the subject. Where does he work now? That, and his date of birth, would make me very happy. Any help you can give is appreciated. --John (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure, I know he was writing another book that was due out in 2007. He's been doing university lectures, details here. He's probably about 74 now, judging by this, this. One Night In Hackney303 17:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Getting there now. According to this he was covering the famous Patrick Gordon Walker election, so as soon as that's added he doesn't go straight from the London Oratory to being arrested at gunpoint. One Night In Hackney303 17:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) How fascinating! And there is even a Botswana connection. You're a star, thank you. --John (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check through mentions in The Guardian. Tyrenius (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course if I was writing the article I'd have found all this stuff first ;) As you'll see in the next day or so... That is quite handy too, government condemned by the UN for prosecuting apparently. One Night In Hackney303 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And since I don't like to be outdone - J. Bowyer Bell. One Night In Hackney303 08:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


E-mail sent last week, have you received it by chance? Avruch T 16:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't, but now I have and have replied and given you a better email address which I check much more frequently. Sorry about that, and thanks for the heads-up. --John (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Solway Junction Railway[edit]


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Solway Junction Railway, and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

False positive[edit]

Re this, I was reusing text from the Bowness-on-Solway article and it seems your bot flagged it due to a similarity with an article which advertises itself as being a Wikipedia mirror. Best wishes, --John (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Solway Junction Railway (again)[edit]

Hi Pencefn. If you have the chance, can you look at Solway Junction Railway which I have created and see if you can improve it. Best wishes, --John (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Created the route map template and added a few sections. what do you think? --Stewart (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Lovely job, thank you! --John (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


apologies, an ignorant colleague edited this whilst i left my desk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewalt08 (talkcontribs) 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Massacres[edit]

John, request you reblock List of Massacres. In the last two days we've had a dozen edits to the article and about two trying to fix the problems. An Afd, RfD, or whatever is probably called for. The whole article/situation is IMNSHO a complete turkey. (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Tyrenius' edit removed what was indeed unreferenced commentary if not actual OR, and I have messaged the last editor asking them to join the discussion. The main thing about it is to sort the criteria for inclusion in the article. When that happens, the article will change radically anyway, so why worry what it looks like now? The most important is to avoid the regular recent editors of the article from getting into a sterile edit war. That wastes energy and hardens people against accepting the (inevitable) compromises which come with any resolution. Hope this makes sense, and keep me posted if anything else happens. --John (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

John FYI --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice edit. I agree. Often, less is more. --John (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with a fanzine?[edit]

Thanks for your clear reply about the fanzine about Banks. In my opinion, that link could stay, for two reasons. Firstly, I find it to be an informed and levelheaded fanzine (as opposed to, say, hysterical rants) with information which in turn is quite verifiable: for instance about translations of Banks's books in several languages. Secondly, it is in itself significant that there is a fanzine about the article's subject. So, as WP:EL does not forbid such a link (and even admits it among "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources"), I'd rather keep it. On the other hand, if you still think it is to be removed, I shall not revert. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello, John. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ➪HiDrNick! 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're causing a heck of a lot more disruption than Equazcion in this mess. Do come to your senses and unblock, and don't violate WP:POINT on joke categories. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think so. Which part of my explanation on AN/I do you disagree with? What assurance do we have that the user will not continue to disrupt? If Equazcion could say he was sorry and that he wouldn't do it again, I would have unblocked hours ago. As it is I don't think I am inclined to accede to your request. --John (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't done anything wrong, you have. He has every right to use a joke category. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And it's in a HUGE PURPLE BOX, JOHN. A FREAKING HUGE PURPLE BOX: "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." -- Ned Scott 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree, as the category falsely implies he is an admin, and could thus deceive someone. There are valid questions to be raised about whether a category like this should even exist, but while it does it is not advancing the project for someone to claim, even as a "joke", that they are an admin when they are not an admin. I've explained in great detail at AN/I my thinking in issuing the block, which I maintain was in line with policy. Unless you are able to point to where in my interpretation of policy you believe I have erred, I will not rescind the block. I really do appreciate your feedback, though shouting seldom adds anything to these debates. --John (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
.... -- Ned Scott 07:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify, while I respect your view on this, your concern that it might be deceptive is just one voice in all this, in a situation without consensus. I'm not even going do disagree with you on that point, but it's not something that is clear, and is not something that you block someone over. -- Ned Scott 07:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, once again, that it seems we differ over this. However, I noticed your edit here in which you characterise (presumably) me as a "paranoid admin" and falsely state that "A non-admin has now been blocked for using this category". I also noticed this and this. It would be great if you could modify your comments, which I find to be unhelpful and inaccurate. Thanks. --John (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if, instead of blocking established editors, we talked about things more. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Is your sense of "talk" restricted to "cause disruption to get attention", or do you employ other modes as well? Because I think you'll find that most change, and most real communication that may occur from time to time here, is effected through other modes, hence (among other things) the necessity of WP:POINT. Good luck anyway, --John (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If the disruption is nothing more than "annoyed some admins who are taking this too seriously", I'm not sure WP:POINT applies. The worst I've done might be rude, but that's about it.
You took something that was not widely agreed upon, something that didn't have a consensus view, and you blocked another editor because they had a different view. There was nothing urgent about the matter, no one had been mislead at that point, and blocking is a last resort. -- Ned Scott 08:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Whereas I would still maintain that this was the absolute textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It's always best to maintain politeness especially in disagreement here. It seems we must agree to differ. Best wishes, --John (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you really have helped?[edit]

This is the fruit of my labours, and there's another couple of slightly related socks about to come a cropper as well possibly. One Night In Hackney303 07:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! The Witchfinder General strikes again!. Good work, ONIH. --John (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. There's plenty more evidence, but I thought I'd not try and overburden the poor checkuser with detail, plus there's no point giving too many identification techniques away unless it's essential. Hopefully I might be able to finish the other article I was writing now that invesitigation is finished, as the second sockpuppet case is quacking obvious.... One Night In Hackney303 07:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As to the question in your section heading, no, now that I see the complexity of the evidence you have assembled, I feel much better knowing there was no way I could have helped. My apology to you for my rather dismissive treatment of your request for help still stands though. --John (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah no problem don't worry about it. The result is in, what do you reckon next? One Night In Hackney303 08:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Let nature take its course, I reckon. Someone will block them, I imagine. I haven't much expertise in this area, sorry (which is what I should have said the last time you asked). --John (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
True. But I'm assuming one editor won't be getting an indef out of this, but he might need some reminding of WP:COI? One Night In Hackney303 09:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If this was me John and the Rocket would be in there with an indef block. If something isnt done about this and I mean properly then be prepared for Ezekiel 25:17.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
My tolerance for this sort of this is an an all time low, and thus would have no problem seeing them indef blocked. I would note, however, that you were involved in a not dissimilar charade, Vk (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits) and yet you seem to be still editing away. Funny how different standards exist for different people, isn't it? Rockpocket 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Zero comparison between the two. My sockpuppeting in innocent and honest in comparsion to this. --Vintagekits (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) ONIH, I'll look into it. Vk, do you want some vinegar for those chips? --John (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be on TER shortly apparently. One Night In Hackney303 16:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There you go. One Night In Hackney303 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi John, Following two previous case of Sockpuppetry this user has re-appeared as Fila943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This edit (latest outburst) shows that any attempt at coaching is not getting anywhere. You may recall in the past you offered help which was turned down. Where do we go now? --Stewart (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look and get back to you. --John (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been moved by others on - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fila943‎. --Stewart (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Good result, good work Stewart. --John (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
John, this user has returned as SignalheadSucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the name alone being a clear attack on me. Please also see his user page. Signalhead (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The MP5 and the Red Army Faction[edit]

I know you may disagree about the relevancy of the MP5 being in the insignia of the Red Army Faction, but it had been discussed on the talk page and the general consensus was to remove it, or put a "see also" link to the Red Army Faction, the mention certainly should not go in the introduction. Could you please explain your reasons in the talk? It would help build a consensus.--LWF (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. --John (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Massacres[edit]

Hi, I did discuss it on the talk page at first Talk:List_of_massacres#Request_to_add_Tlatelolco_Massacre, since I saw it was a controversial article. I think that was the right way to go before adding it. The other part I edited was just fixing the other massacre since location was under name and viceversa. Solid Reign (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry, my mistake. It would still be great if you could have a look at what we are drafting on the talk page. --John (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I did! It looks horrible, I'm staying out of it. Have fun though! Solid Reign (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your messages. In the next days, I will take time to read the commentaries to be sure to make an useful contribution. --Flying tiger (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


HALP! Sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is going on and I can't keep up! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted and salted it. Hope that works. --John (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as it was vegan salt, I'm sure it will. ;-) Thanks so much! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


There are some new comments here. I think you made a good point about the RAF logo possibly being the most prominent depiction of the MP5. User:Dorftrottel 06:26, February 16, 2008

Thanks, I might have missed that. --John (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
TBH and as you can see from my comments there, I'm rather reluctant to try any further. It's probably not worth wasting the time. User:Dorftrottel 07:19, February 16, 2008
It isn't of earth-shaking importance but it is not the first time I have seen worrying signs of article ownership on gun-related articles. This was a particularly breath-taking assertion I thought. The wider issue may demand a wider discussion. --John (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking the same, but addressing this appears near-impossible with large groups of editors indulging in similar and mutually reinforced problematic behaviour. See e.g. the ongoing TV episodes RfAr. On a related note, just in case you're still interested, I'd be curious to hear your response to this reasoning. I was presented with the same and was a bit stumped by the logic. User:Dorftrottel 02:46, February 18, 2008
It is not a criterion I was previously familiar with either. --John (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion you may be interested in[edit]

Right here. According to an email I've had forwarded on to me about this, I'm the "User who was known as Guinnog then John and now One night in Hackney" and I'm "Not content with denying Scottish peoples Irish/Catholic ancestry he is now doing it with English people". One Night In Hackney303 08:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. It looks as if the game is up; which account should we keep, the admin one or the one that makes all the article-writing contributions? --John (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. In addition to what you said over there, the "people of Irish descent" categories tend to get abused as well, especially by a banned editor. I've found an easy way to keep an eye on the problem anyway - Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:English Roman Catholics. One Night In Hackney303 18:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started[edit]

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No consensus[edit]

John, I ask you to remove yourself and PBS from any further involvement in List of massacres. Having observed your performance over the past few weeks I find you have no more understanding of the problems of the inherent bias of this "article" than PBS. Your proposed imposed solution (which you risibly refer to as "consensus") will actually make the bias worse!

You asked (or threatened) me to stay away from editing for a period; I agreed and now realise that was a mistake; in the meantime a range of solutions were proposed which clearly achieved no consensus even amongst the tiny number of editors involved - yet you proclaimed "consensus" - to make the bias even worse.

I have announced on the talk-page that I am taking no further part in your "voluntary" ORR (applied only to editors) and will edit the article in the manner and as frequently as anyone else and I ask you to refrain from "synthesising" 3RR breaches in regard to myself.

As I said, and meant, I will not start any edit warring. But I would like to have an Admin in charge who can be relied on to see edit warring (and deal with it) by others; so that there is no need to get involved in warring. Based on my experience on this article you cannot be depended upon in this regard at all. Sarah777 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

John FYI please see User talk:Daniel#User:Sarah777 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Philip. Did you ever read Private Eye? Remember Dave Spart? --John (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Whaddya mean - "voluntary"? It was revert and be blocked! One Night In Hackney303 22:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
True. But it was voluntary to sign up and was regarded as binding only on those involved in the talk page discussion, which is what I meant. Having signed up it is true I did offer to block for edit warring and/or incivility. I gave two participants specific warnings early on, but blocked nobody. I believe the process was a good one as it concentrated attention on the discussion, where we were able to make significant progress. The danger is, you can go on discussing these things forever if you are not careful. I really think it is time to 'suck it and see', and I am keen that one dissenting voice not be allowed to derail things. --John (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
What sign up? Mind you that's academic due to the broad agreement, and the RMS sockpuppet (check the history for the very obvious username who tried to add the Birmingham massacre) didn't turn up in time to effect events too much. One Night In Hackney303 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
One dissenting voice out of, what, two? And you "offered to block" your Russian volunteers! What Big Ears you have Grandma. Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Massacre in the name

  • 1st choice. Derives from article, where detailed debate can take place. Objective and simple parameter for inclusion. Tyrenius (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1st choice (=) So long as all the articles referred to are accurate or can be made so, this will work and avoid conflict from restarting. See also below. --John (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1st choice. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 3rd choice. With an associated WP article or at least mention within a larger article by name. Now, actually ANY event with "massacre" in its name (other than shooting sprees) can be included, but it is the least important criteria for inclusion in the list. Sort of a catch-all for events like Kent State. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1st choice. The "alternate name" part may need some minor tweaking to make it workable though. One Night In Hackney303 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolute no. Can't use the title of Wiki articles as sources! Daft idea; would make the POV situation even worse. Sarah777 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing 4:2 just on that headcount. I would be prepared to take advice on whether that, together with the discussion, counts as a consensus from another admin. Your silly insults may be left aside in future; they add nothing to the debate we are having but merely make you look silly. Please don't, you are better than that. --John (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters your vote doesn't count - as a "Johnnie-come-lately" to the article. And of course neutral Admin (I laugh). Now 4-2 is a majority; 60% is not "consensus", no way. Also; looking back through the years I see that most of the current 'voters' were not here a short while ago; probably don't even realise this "consensus manufacturing" is going on. Heck, I nearly missed it and I was not gone 5 days! So this is a con-job. Something that has been debated for two years and you were going to decide with a simple majority in a pool of 4 editors which included yourself without any general notification - even to the major recent participants in the debate!! In your dreams maybe. Sarah777 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, this post exhibits so many basic misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all we are not voting, we are discussing. Secondly the discussion is not restricted to those who have been enmeshed in debate over this article for two years without reaching an agreement. Anybody can contribute. If anything I would be inclined to disregard your opinion, not because of your rudeness or immaturity, but because you chose not to participate in the discussion in any real sense, instead sniping from outside. We have tried running the article without fixed criteria and it is a mess. This was why I was asked by Rockpocket to look in. At this stage, there is no appetite for beginning the discussion again, and this is why at this stage I am less interested in your dissent from the consensus and more interested in the fact that you are (still) not bringing anything substantive in the way of suggestions. You will find that in these discussions those who sit on the margins slinging insults are often not taken seriously. This, not voting, is how we work. --John (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with John, Sarah. When I tried to administer some sort of solution to this ongoing problem, I took a very passive POV, asking the editors involved to essentially police themselves and come up with a solution. That clearly didn't work with you, primarily, bemoaning the lack of a "policeman" overseeing the actions of the editors. In response to this, I asked John to try in the anticipation he would take on that role and actively direct the editors in forward movement. This appears to be what John has done, and just because things are not moving in the direction you would prefer does not suddenly make him biased, or unsuitable for this role. Its not a perfect solution, by all means, and if you have a better alternative, then I'm sure it would be considered. But I'm not seeing anything from you that would break the status quo.
If you think back to the debate about the category naming for republican prisoners, you may recall a similar thing happened. There was dissenting views to any compromise from people at both extremes. In the end, those views were marginalised and those in the middle moved forward, with some success. Please don't marginalise yourself here. Rockpocket 01:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Didn't I say I'm in the middle on this one? John didn't "police" anyone except myself. That is more RUC than police. I am and will be in a minority on this, which is why I believe in discussion rather than a simple numerical vote - just like John and yourself. But as numbers don't count, only the debate, I am clearly making the most sense here and clearly represent the consensus. Anyway, however wrong you are I'm very glad you recognise that truth cannot be decided by a vote. It's a pity you can't actually understand what I'm saying - but, what the heck? As for "exhibits so many basic misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works it is difficult to know where to begin" - I guess as George Bush might say, perhaps you misunderestimate me. I think the problem is that I understand how Wiki works much better than you guys. The problem is the wrong drones are at the wheel! Sarah777 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, WP:NPOV is way too important, too mission-critical, to be left to the mercy of less than rigorous defence. Sarah777 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I am clearly making the most sense here and clearly represent the consensus is quite a bold statement to make when you have just preceded it with I am and will be in a minority on this. So is your opinion the minority or the consensus? Because there are not too many interpretations of either that allow you to be both. Rockpocket 01:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Good Lord! 'Tis but a small step from claiming that 60% is consensus to claiming that 49% is surely? What number would you put on consensus (that doesn't make consensus = majority)? In any case your interpretation is mistaken - I represent a minority in purely numerical terms and consensus in terms of the rational viewpoint and the debate. Isn't that obviously what John claims can be the case? Y'know - "my daft decisions are not based on a vote but on the debate". How often do we read that in Wiki-cases like this? Pah. Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't put any number on consensus, but unilateral declarations that I am clearly right and you are clearly wrong doesn't hold much sway with me either. There are plenty of lists on Wikipedia that have arbitrary but reasonable criteria for inclusion. That does not make them biased or POV, as long as there is text making clear what the inclusion criteria is. What exactly are the alternatives when editors are unable to improve the article without edit-warring? I feel there is little option left but to set up such a framework or delete the article. If you don't agree with the former, the latter option is still open to you. However, I have to say that with every comment you make that is peppered with hubristic observations ("the wrong drones are at the wheel", "That is more RUC than police") you increase the probability that your opinion will be marginalised. Rockpocket 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually one of the two arguments against the clear consensus is meaningless. "Can't use the title of Wiki articles as sources! Daft idea; would make the POV situation even worse." - we're not using the title of Wiki articles as sources. For an article to be at that name in the first place would mean it has to be reliably sourced, and if it isn't the name needs looking at. One Night In Hackney303 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Precisely. --John (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And in case there's any dispute on the original article - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) comes in very handy. One Night In Hackney303 17:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello John - this is probably more your thing than mine. I found this article, Divine Mafa, after following the link from Matabele#Notable Ndebele. The (first) article has been largely written by Googlememphis (talk · contribs · logs), who seems to be a new editor - and, NB, no welcome mat on his Talk page. Perhaps one claim for notability is that Mr. Mafa attended the University of Cambridge in East London [12]. Trust you are well - good luck! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edits[edit]

My edit, I thought, was to replace the text that was deleted. My apologies. Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi John, you might recall contacting me at the behest of User:Domer48 a month ago, with whom you've also had some discussions with, in which you tried to encourage him to improve his behaviour on Wikipdia.

As a result of two very frustrating encounters with Domer48, I've had to issue two separate RfCs (one today, one yesterday) in an effort to see whether it is me or Domer who has the problem. I've had problems with some of his contributions and methods in the past and have tried to explain these to him, but now realise that this is completely wasted on him.

If you have a chance, I'd appreciate it greatly if you could take a look at RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia? and RfC: Verifiability and reliability of sources used to produce Irish-language versions of subjects' names. Thanks.--Damac (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And on a related note, you might consider whether tagging something for a source without even bothering to perform a basic Google search (which returns official government sites confirming it to be correct) is appropriate. One Night In Hackney303 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi John (again), look a chara, read my post on this discussion, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. --Domer48 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just watch this for now. Beyond stating the obvious, that foreign language names of things, places and people should be as verifiable as anything else on here, I have no comment to make at present. I may contribute more later. Thanks for informing me. --John (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick bit of IAR needed possibly?[edit]

I couldn't immediately work out why Image:Album cover john taylor Japan Album.jpg was only being used as a probably fair use violation in John Taylor (bass guitarist), until I saw that Image:John Taylor Japan Album.jpg was being used in the album article. It seems pretty dubious if I have to go to all the trouble of removing it from the article, tagging it as orphaned, notifying the uploader, waiting for an admin to delete it etc etc. Is there a quick way round it (hint!) or is all that rigmarole necesssary? One Night In Hackney303 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you want me to invoke IAR do you? That's been many an admin's downfall, that has. Instead I just used my judgement. Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew there'd be some way of cutting through the red tape. One Night In Hackney303 07:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Don't Surf (song)[edit]

Please, check the revision history of Charlie Don't Surf (song) out (and the article too). Today, I found this article with no info (it is on my watchlist), so I collected some additional information, but R. fiend (talk - contribs), removed a line because it was a journalist's POV??? When I reverted his edit (he also deleted a source), he added an {{AfDM}} template!!! I was working on that page and I've also placed an {{Underconstruction}} template??? I'm going offline now. Thanks in advance. —PJoe F. (talkcontribs) 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I agree with Rfiend on this one. Individual songs are not deemed as worthy of having articles here unless they are especially notable (big hit singles etc). See WP:MUSIC for more details. --John (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw! Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article (AND NOT DELETD), such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song....permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. That article was created today! See my vote! —PJoe F. (talkcontribs) 23:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Further abuse of Admin powers[edit]

John, I must ask you to remove immediately the 'hidden message' you have added to the List of massacres; it is arbitrary, dictatorial and lacks any consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? It is what we agreed to on the article's talk page. I am sorry you do not like the agreement we came to, but that is life. Even at this late stage I am prepared to listen to any alternative suggestions you may have for how the article should be organised, but failing that, it may be time to accept that the consensus has gone against you, never a happy thing I realise, but part of wiki-life. Please focus on how to improve the article now. --John (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello John, I wanted to let you know that I unlinked this on Jason Smith Casey's talk page. I didn't mean to imply anything by linking to bite; at the time, I was concerned for the new user. I'm sorry if that Wikilink gave any bad impressions. Acalamari 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I did notice it at the time but any bad impression I might have got is more than cancelled out by your generosity in apologising for such a minor thing. I really appreciate it. Thank you for that. --John (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you for being understanding. Best wishes. Acalamari 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It was my error caused by the new user's error which made me come across as bitey, and I am certainly big enough to take criticism, luckily (just look above). The criticism was welcome, as was your apology. Thanks again. --John (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I should have assumed good faith on your behalf though, and in retrospect it would have been much better to have contacted you here first. However, I thank you for your patience and handling of this. Acalamari 23:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

how to add reference?[edit]

My addition was removed just now by yourself. I do have reference, but don't know how to add it. Could you tell me how to include reference? (Do I just add it as part of the text)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcopolo112233 (talkcontribs) 03:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Assemble, testify, certify, preserve[edit]

Hm. I "fixed" a translation on your userpage but I see that a couple of people have left out the "beglaubigen" in their translation...not sure why, it means something different from either testify or preserve. Maybe it sounded better that way :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your trouble. The omission is present in the English language subtitle of the DVD version of the film. Must be a free translation. But I like your version better and will let it stay. Thanks again, --John (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Please, see Sandinista!! HE IS OUT OF CONTROL! —PJoe F. (talkcontribs) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

URGENT! John, can you please, see that article, the References section (footnotes from 3 to 10) and his summary/comment in the revision history of Sandinista!. —PJoe F. (talkcontribs) 12:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Now let's see. Working footnotes. Not so working footnotes. Did someone mention "horsewhipping"? One Night In Hackney303 16:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the edit summary was inappropriate and have left a polite note to that effect. Let's move on with improving the article. --John (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, although I prefer Discharge myself :) One Night In Hackney303 16:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You are full of surprises! I don't know their stuff, would you recommend it? --John (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hear Nothing See Nothing Say Nothing frequently features on lists of the most influential punk albums of all time. One Night In Hackney303 17:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I will take a look. Don't know if it would be your cup of tea but I cannot see past Colin McIntyre's The Water (album); I can't stop listening to it, and not just because he is Scottish. --John (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If there's a seeded torrent, I'll give it a listen. The current version of the article is taking the piss now.... One Night In Hackney303 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to this being changed to this, nothing to do with Geraghty. One Night In Hackney303 08:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The article was not changed but reverted from this to this! And, Charlie was just a personal question as evidenced in the [page history]. —PJoe F. (talkcontribs) 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I was qute impressed with Hear Nothing See Nothing Say Nothing; it reminds me of some early Damned stuff, which I really like. Thanks for pointing me to it. --John (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that's the classic album they did. As you can see by their infobox, their style changed somewhat on other albums. The "Singles Collection" is worth getting hold of. One Night In Hackney303 09:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What is fine? R. fiend removed 82 references and reverted the article to an old version (difference between revisions with 16 intermediate revisions not shown)! The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus.PJoe F. (talkcontribs) 10:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion you are having over footnote style may be best solved with a discussion at Talk:Sandinista! I have asked R fiend to tone down his edit summaries which were unacceptable. If you need any more help resolving the content dispute, let me know. --John (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say thank you!!! —PJoe F. (talkcontribs) 09:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Depeche Mode[edit]

I was undecided about the name origin thing, whether to go for Talk first or article edit - you made up my mind very quickly, so thanks, I have posted on the Talk page about this.  :-) Leevclarke (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --John (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks John for reverting the vandalism to my user / talk pages today :-) Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you are welcome. --John (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Sometimes it's spelt funny. WilyD 00:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Short of a consensus to adopt this on wikipedia though, I intend to keep correcting it. Like "humourous" it seems to be a case of hypercorrection; people maybe imagine it's like "honor" and "honour". It isn't. --John (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The MoS is regional dialect - in the case of de Puisaye, upon reflection I figured it's probably English-English, so I left it alone. WilyD 04:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with WP:ENGVAR. However there is a clear difference between an example like honor/honour and this one. Wikipedia does not need to follow every minority usage; as an encyclopedia, professional standards of consistency and verifiability need to apply. It is easy to find minority examples of this spelling, especially in Canadian sources. This is not the same as it being acceptable here however. Imagine what our articles on reggae music or Jamaica would look like if we allowed (minority) Jamaican English spellings like "riddum" (rhythm). It might be entertaining but I doubt if it would enhance our reputation or readability. It may merit further centralised discussion, in the absence of such I am still where I was. --John (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course it should still be the "formal" writing style - how would you spell it in a letter to the Queen and so forth. I can see if I can dig up a copy of the OCED on the question - beyond that, the usual rule is "don't change correct spellings" and so I've stuck with that - to be honest, I didn't expect this kind of brew-ha-ha from a semi-automated edit. WilyD 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If you'd stuck to that I would not have communicated with you. Instead you changed a spelling which is correct worldwide to one which is in marginal use among a minority of English speakers. --John (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for helping on the James Miller page, and for posting the link to the BLP discussion page. I have made what I hope is a constructive suggestion there, which I hope you and ONIH may find useful.

I would normally post a similar message on ONIH's page, but there seems little point when he keeps deleting everything I post there. I strongly disagree with ONIH, both on the substance of the (ridiculously trivial) dispute, and with ONIH's atrocious behaviour, and will post a reply on the James Miller talk page when I have time. In the meantime, any contributions you'd like to make there will be very welcome.

Regards, NSH001 (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just think, in the time you spent typing that you could have added a sourced sentence to the article about his religion. Speaks volumes.... One Night In Hackney303 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You're doing the right thing to discuss it in talk. Let me know if you need further help. --John (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


FYI. This issue concerns posts made about you. Tyrenius (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it and agree with the point you are making. --John (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching[edit]

Hi John, I know we haven't even begun yet... But I've just received this nom. What are your thoughts on what I should do? Avruch T 02:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That puts the cat among the pigeons. Of course there is no deadline for accepting and transcluding it. I suggest thinking when you have a 5 day period when you have time and energy to take part in it. Do you, otherwise, feel ok about going for it fairly soon? --John (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the 5 day period at the moment, but my main concern is that my article contributions aren't where they could be and, of course, I don't have the benefit of the guidance of two old fogeys (Wikipedia-style) ;-). You've probably glanced over my contribs... Would you recommend I wait? Avruch T 02:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, as things stand I would definitely support. I think delaying going for it could be seen as a very mature thing. There is no deadline and if you feel your article contributions are on the thin side you might want to get into one of the projects or else just copyedit a few articles. Much of my work these days is in trimming cruft from band articles. It's up to you, but if you yourself don't feel ready for it, don't feel pressured to accept by return. Sit on it until you are ready. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It does make sense. I don't feel unready for adminship so much as I'm not sure that my article contribs will allow me to pass. Its a bit hit or miss with that stuff... I've worked on two GAs and started a third that is listed for nomination, and done some other work, but you never know what the voters will say ;-) I appreciate that you'd support, though, that helps a lot. Avruch T 02:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll definitely take this as a "hurry-up" though; I'm sorry I've neglected you. --John (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation[edit]

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz talk 09:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Farrell[edit]

Hi, just wanted to point your attention to [13]. Probably best if you coordinate with fellow admin Jj137 on a clear policy regarding this page and the "gay for pay" nonsense this anon keeps adding. Thanks a lot, Jvhertum (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


I presume your post[14] was to BHG, but it reads as if it could be in reponse to mine just above. Tyrenius (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will clarify. --John (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


John, would you consider issuing a warning, and if necessary, a block as an uninvolved admin? It's a new account, Blueberrypie12 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) (though I think he's been here before with other accounts), who keeps adding the logos of animal rights groups to articles that aren't about those groups. He's adding them to people associated with the groups, or to articles expressing ideas that the groups espouse. Some of the logos are of very extreme groups, such as the Animal Rights Militia, and their addition looks as though we're actively promoting them. Other logos, such as PETA's, are being used under a claim of fair use and can't be used in articles not about PETA.

He is editing so fast that we're finding it hard to keep up with him, but requests on his talk page (of this and previous accounts) are simply ignored. He reverts when we remove the logos. He's also adding images and categories inappropriately. See here and here, where Rockpocket and I discuss whether we should block him ourselves, though we're reluctant to because we edit those pages quite a bit. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Nosy bugger that I am I was just reading your conversation with Rock. I had a look at the user's recent contributions and it doesn't look like they are adding any more logos currently, in fact the last few edits were to remove logos from articles. So I propose to keep a watching brief for now. If you need any help if it becomes a problem again, just let me know, or if I have misunderstood in any way. --John (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, John. Actually I see he just responded to a couple of editor's warnings, so perhaps he's turned a corner. If you'd be willing to keep an eye on it, that would be much appreciated, and I'll alert you if I see it continuing. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Move page[edit]

Why I can't move 'T On The Fringe' to 'T on the Fringe'? --Bornfury (Talk) 00:52, 1 March 2008 (GMT)

Wikizilla socks[edit]

it seems that two new wikizilla socks have cropped up Spentcosts (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) and TornadoADV (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) Ptgreen (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) a previous sock used by WZ was recently used for votestacking in the straw poll and was identified by CU as a sock. The suspicion surrounding these two is further reinforced by the fact that shortly after identifying the post as one by a Sp account WZ Ip addresses were used for attacks against the topic page and my talk Freepsbane (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A new second WZ Ip address apeared shortly after this talk and has gone on the attack [15] Freepsbane (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:RSN#Tiananmen_Square_Massacre. Tyrenius (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sikorak95 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. Do you need some help or were you just saying hello? --John (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your congratulations[edit]

Thank you kindly. I am honored (but not honoured, of course) and highly amused also, as you anticipated, in a definitely surreal kind of way. I shall try to summon up the energy to have a look at the current state of the debate. Ty 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

IP Address[edit]

This user is continuing to vandalize my talk page. As you issued this IP his final warning, I thought I should bring this directly to your attention. Please let me know if I should report this through some other official process though. Thank you.Thrindel (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lush band article[edit]


On the page for the band Lush I have repeatedly added a link to my website (, but it keeps getting removed. Please note that my website is a fan/tribute site, is completely non-commercial and non-profit, and contains no advertising. I created the site on my own without any help from any commercial entity and I am not affiliated with any commercial entity. Please let me know how I can go about adding a link to my website without it getting removed again. Thank you,

Bill Spandagos —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSpan (talkcontribs) 05:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do have time to comment/mediate a debate[edit]

Do you have time to comment or mediate on this article conversation. User:Navnløs AKA "Blizzard Beast", an uber-troll who has been blocked for 3RR a few times already, is opening up another edit war... this time based on those pesky little flagicons. His adversary this time is a user named Neon White. There is a lot of "I know you are but what am I" going on over the little crufty decorations. Perhaps your past overview of its usage good and bad will help these two avoid the chop (although a Wiki vacation from 'the snow beast' is always a positive thing for Wikipedia :D ) (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)[edit]

The February 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

YSL US Official Site on YSL Wiki Page.[edit]

Hello John,

The website is the US official site for beauty & fragrances for YSL. There is no link to Beauty & Fragrances content on the YSL Wikipedia Page.

Moreover, in 2008, this is the 30 years anniversary of Yves Saint Laurent work on beauty and fragrances. The website is celebrating his work (link on homepage).

Is there any way we could insert it in the page (with a different anchor text perhaps) ?

Please let me know.

Best regards,


The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008[edit]

The March 2008 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 KevinalewisBot --16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Just a note, I, too, have had an extremely difficult time dealing with User:HDS. He tends not to respond to queries and to revert without explanation repeatedly. Chubbles (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have been going through some of his work and bringing it into line with our style guidelines. No big deal; but it becomes a big deal when he reverts me. Let's hope he won't do it again! --John (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, there is a backlog at the SSP page and i was just hoping you can take a look at this case i made, [16]. Seems no one has yet looked into it, no one i have contacted has been of help, and the user has used yet another I.P. as a vandalism-only account. One of the users IPs has just vandalized multiple page again and i am seriously getting tired of having to revert all of his mess everyday. Please look into it. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Banner again[edit]

John can you have a word, Astrotrain is back edit warring on this issue, see and ti:British flags, this issue has been solved and proven and I think everyone has had enough of this by now.--Padraig (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried that[edit]

Didn't work though.... One Night In Hackney303 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're not too busy[edit]

Semi-protect the Milk Snatcher's article please. There's been three different IPs claim she's dead, but it's not confirmed yet. One Night In Hackney303 00:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess One Night In Hackney meant Margaret Thatcher. If that's the case, I've handled the protection request. Acalamari 01:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. --John (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome: glad to help. Acalamari 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


John, I am being harrassed by Traditional unionist on my talkpage. It resulted from my removal of his addition of Unionist pov from the Dunmanway article. Could you please revert his pov change and warn him about 3RR and pov insertion. I do not want to engage myself - but this is a good test of whether the civility that some Admins have been preaching actually applies in practice. If TU isn't dealt with the choices become limited somewhat. Sarah777 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think TU has breached 3RR -
  1. cur) (last) 23:35, 8 March 2008 Traditional unionist (Talk | contribs) m (9,744 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Sarah777; Independence granted in 1949, recognised from 1937 or 1922, not 1918. (TW)) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 23:33, 8 March 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (9,753 bytes) (Independance declared 1918 thus Brit was occupying army; pl DO NOT reinsert pov) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 23:29, 8 March 2008 Traditional unionist (Talk | contribs) m (9,744 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Sarah777; 1918 is not independance - pov. (TW)) (undo)
  4. (cur) (last) 23:27, 8 March 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (9,753 bytes) (post 1918 election; thus fact, not pov) (undo)
  5. (cur) (last) 17:51, 8 March 2008 Traditional unionist (Talk | contribs) m (9,744 bytes) (→History: pov) (undo)
  6. (cur) (last) 14:57, 3 March 2008 Dppowell (Talk | contribs) (9,753 bytes) (rm unsourced statement (13 months)) (undo)Sarah777 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't seen this until now. Do you still need help? --John (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion on the talk page fixed things quite quickly, or so it seems. One Night In Hackney303 04:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for that. Have you ever considered becoming an admin? You do a lot of admin-type tasks, and you seem to do them well. Just a thought. --John (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not admin material. I'll stick to doing what I do best... One Night In Hackney303 04:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Plus I think that was made much easier due to the current Kosovo situation, as by pointing to that it was easier to show how the British view isn't really a "fact" as thought, just the oppositve of the Irish view. One Night In Hackney303 04:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a very clever and telling analogy. Nice work. It takes wisdom to be able to see the many sides of a situation like that. My favourite was the Irish government sending condolences to the German embassy in Dublin on Hitler's death in 1945, I think. If you study enough history, I think you can't avoid having a somewhat jaded, the-hell-with-both-lots attitude. I think it is why I enjoy Geraghty so much (I just finished The Bullet Catchers btw, it is an excellent read). As someone said, "History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme sometimes." Let me know if you ever change your mind about adminship, and best wishes to you. --John (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Nah cheers anyway, I'd rather spend my time doing more constructive things. One Night In Hackney303 09:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)No problem. See you there. --John (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Hey John. Since you appear to be online, could you check my WP:DUCK block of Michael Gomez Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) sans c/u. I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt, but a second opinion would be appreciated. Rockpocket 08:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at it, I see what you mean. Why not get a RFCU just to be on the safe side? --John (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've asked User:Lar. You can never get too many eyes on these things. --John (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
True, see also Vinny Feeney Fan (talk · contribs), which pretty much confirms it. Rockpocket 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Lar concurs. --John (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (and thanks, Lar). I guess he has decided that its not really worth attempting to hide his socks anymore after his dignified exit. Rockpocket 07:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Ping! Any updates, coach? Avruch T 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for an answer at "Exercise 1; The toughest RfA question" on your page. It can be a surprisingly difficult question to answer well, so take your time and everything, but that is where many candidates will stand or fall. You can admit to anything, almost, however heinous, as long as you can show evidence of resolution and learning having taken place. Omit to mention something significant which somebody later brings up and the community's collective hackles will be raised. Have a go; in fact you could usefully start to think about all three of the RfA questions at this point. Let me know if it was more specific advice you wanted; remember you can ask us questions too. Best, --John (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Flagicon removal help[edit]

If you had some time, could you help me out with a problem I am having with another editor in regards to flagicon removals from biographical infoboxes?

I recently removed flagicons from Drake Hogestyn and James Scott (actor) that were reverted by User:KellyAna. I have tried to discuss the edits on User talk:KellyAna but the first active discussion was archived, the second and third discussions were deleted without a response.

I am trying to not engage in an edit war so I have yet to remove the flagicons again. I am confused as to what is the next step I should take because since Wikipedia: Request for comment, Wikipedia: Third opinion, and Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts all seem to not exactly apply.

Thank you in advance for your help, Aspects (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems someone else has reverted the articles. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. Weird that ten minutes after I left the message on your talk page, both of the articles were reverted back to back. I think I will leave a note on that editors page to be prepared for those edits to be reverted. Aspects (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No point in tempting fate! I think something like this isn't worth edit-warring over, but I will have a word with the original editor myself I think. --John (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your help. Aspects (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. --John (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Farm murders[edit]

How can I correct the obvious misconceptions on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devorah 1961 (talkcontribs) 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Edward William Wynne Pendarves[edit]

I'm not sure if it's the Great Western or the London South Western that's intended - I would incline to it being the latter, but it may be best to leave it as a redlink for the time being. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

One or the other, you would think. I've undone my edit for now. --John (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find - tho' a quick Google hasn't turned up anything indicative. . DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Even the formal Wikipedia definition says it's a computer term. Your use is faulty. KellyAna (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it means "features that are superseded and should be avoided" as the article says. Wikipedia is a computer-based project; I imagine you used a computer of some sort to type your message to me. Best wishes, --John (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election[edit]

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, id created[edit]

Hi John,

Account created as per your suggestion. I must confess I'm not really sure what benefits creating an account will give me but I've gone with your steer anyway.

Any other advice much appreciated.

Keep well, Stevie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socheid (talkcontribs) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I'd like your advice on how to deal with KellyAna. I am hoping there is an official way to get through to her. Please advise. — TAnthonyTalk 03:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you attempt to warn her politely on her talk page? Also, can you provide diffs of her behaviours which are problematic? I certainly found her a little brusque. It may be that another admin will want to have a word with her; she has already accused me of harassing her for my prior interactions with her, so I think that will be the way to go if the situation requires it. Hope that is some help. --John (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've been watching her Talk page and I've reached out to another Admin who's a member of WP:SOAPS and whom I believe is a little more familiar with KellyAna in general, so perhaps that's the way to go. — TAnthonyTalk 03:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I love being challenged but I sure as HELL don't like others putting words into my mouth. T ~ I know we are working on things and this isn't about you. John, DO NOT put words into my mouth as you did. That's just immature and wrong. Everyone deserves a right to talk for themselves you speaking for me just started more than any disagreement between TAnthony and I could ever encounter. I may get mad at TAnthony, but I have never lost respect for him. I can't say that for you. KellyAna (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by putting words into your mouth, Kelly. Are you able to explain, ideally with diffs where you saw me doing that? If you can do that then I may be able to help you. --John (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Hiya again John,

I am indeed a Doonhamer as you are no doubt unsurprised to hear. What's your connection with the area?

Keep well, Stevie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socheid (talkcontribs) 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of flags in articles about AFVs[edit]


I believe that the flags in the infoboxes are useful as the reader can just look at the flag and doesn't even have to read the name of the country. In my opinion this improves the reading experience and allows faster and more efficient reading of the articles.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree; to me the flags merely clutter up the infobox. I believe the infobox should be kept as clean and simple as possible. The project manual of style agrees with me too. If you feel strongly about it, it might be best to discuss there. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello. I nominated an image (Image:DurbanSign1989.jpg) which you uploaded to remove its featured status. Please make comments here. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


This guy HDS has been reverting my edits again, again and again (i have noticed that you have the same problem) looks like he can't read Template:Infobox_musical_artist. I'm sick of this, is there anything that we can do, report him to a admin maybe?--Jpkmaster (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, you are an administrator. :-P--Jpkmaster (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I passed this one to User:Lar. I'd imagine he will be getting a little break fairly soon if he carries on like this. Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks. By the way, he already gave me a reason of why he's continuing reverting my edits here, "page is better this way"--Jpkmaster (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That's hard to argue with! I hope the user will have learned from the block when they come back. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That editor[edit]

As you can guess from this history and in particular this comparison it's yet another sockpuppet of if you feel like reblocking for longer, like indefinitely? One Night In Hackney303 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I've done that. John (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. And cheers for fixing the woefully inaccurate vandalism too. One Night In Hackney303 16:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You're very welcome, that was what attracted my attention in the first place. There is very seldom any good reason for an editor to edit another editor's user page. John (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Can you take a look at Smoysey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) please? He seems to be the author that's recently relased a book on the Balcombe Street Gang, and seems intent on not only citing his book as much as possible but also including superfluous links to his website as well. I've left a COI warning, but the link adding has continued since.... One Night In Hackney303 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm on it. Thanks again. John (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a book I was planning to get myself but can't obtain for various reasons. I know another editor who's purchased a copy though, so hopefully he'll get round to expanding the Balcombe Street article to cover the whole story. One Night In Hackney303 17:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And I don't think your diplomatic approach has worked.... :( One Night In Hackney303 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean? --John (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean this, this and this. One Night In Hackney303 03:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I am sorry but very tired having been driving all day and visiting Monterey Bay Aquarium (fascinating place if you ever get the chance). I have warned them again. --John (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Stands for "multi-user dungeon" - I think there is an article at MUD or maybe Multi-user dungeon (I'll check for blue links after I hit save). The most popular ones still going are run by two companies, Iron Realms and Simutronics, and the most popular single one I think is Basically, its a role-playing style game run in text online. At its height Achaea had maybe 1000-1500 people logged in at peak times. The whole thing went downhill pretty fast with the advent of EverQuest and World of Warcraft. I was briefly addicted to both, but after a bit they get pretty boring. Avruch T 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Provocative statements[edit]

I replied to your rather childish provocation on Rockpocket's page. As for "losing"; (1) The Fat Lady ain't done singin' yet and (2) You have provided a magnificent hostage to fortune. Don't be countin' yer chickens yet. Sarah777 (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I grow tired of your childishness, Sarah. Tell someone who cares. I don't. I would repeat though that misrepresenting what someone has said (aka "lying") will even further diminish your reputation here, and is likely eventually to lead to sanctions against you, as you know already if you think about it for 10s. This conversation is over. Best wishes, John (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • John, did you by any chance see what I was saying to TAnthony about how to deal with this kind of behavior? Responding with name-calling isn't the way...
  • Sarah, please don't edit-war on someone else's talkpage.
I am now watching this page, and both your contribs. Please lighten up. --Elonka 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Elonka. Sometimes though a spade really is a spade. Sarah is upset about a discussion we had a month ago, which is her prerogative. It is not her prerogative to falsely claim I said something. There is no other way of characterising her misrepresentation than by calling it what it is. If she can point to where I said that 60% was a consensus then I will be happy to revisit this. In fact, I have repeated again and again that consensus is not determined by numbers (except of course in certain special cases, which are not germane to this matter). --John (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand, and don't have any opinion on the consensus issue. But when I see someone who should know better, referring to another editor as "childish" and "trolling", my reaction is to turn on the sprinklers.  ;) I'm not saying who's right or who's wrong, but just make sure that you set a good example of civility, eh? Otherwise I'll move up from the sprinkler to the gardenhose...  :) Or in other words: Breathe, man, breathe! --Elonka 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, are you threatening me? You're right of course, this isn't worth my getting upset about. However, by persisting in posting here with her false accusation, yet without the evidence that I said something I would never have said in a million years, she was in my opinion doing the very definition of trolling. More fool me for rising to it I suppose. I have already suggested that Sarah move on from her disappointment about something that happened a good while ago. It is worth repeating the quote I used on that occasion:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

(From the Christian Scriptures)

Repair the evil done to you with something that is better. And lo! The enemy who did evil to you may turn into a close and true friend.

(From the Muslim Scriptures)

Perhaps if there continue to be problems, or if further education in the ways of the wiki is required, you could assist Sarah; she is a fine editor, but still has a few rough edges when it comes to dealing effectively with others. Thanks again for your input. --John (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I do admit I am having some difficulty in finding the remarks I so clearly recall. The mind can play tricks etc. Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) John, yes,, looking into her stuff too, I just figured I'd start with you because you were the easier one.  :) Plus, I've been having trouble pulling up Wikipedia pages at the moment which is slowing me down.

As for quotes, my favorite along that line is:

Always forgive your enemies. Nothing annoys them more.

PLUR, :) --Elonka 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it's a safe bet that if Jesus, Muhammed and Oscar Wilde agreed on something, we can confidently say it is right. I now regard this as closed. If Sarah wants to post here on any other matter she is as welcome as she has always been, as are you. Amen. --John (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear John,
I must confess I was sure I read you somewhere saying that, y'know = 60%. However, as I simply cannot find it I must conclude that, once again, I am mistaken. I assure you that I'd not ever have suggested you said anything unless I really thought you did. I was, in fact a 'good faith' cock-up. It wasn't a very serious allegation per se, but of course it read rather badly when it was untrue. I will now offer up a decade of the Rosary for you. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's very decent of you Sarah. As I said the last time, I have no quarrel with you (or indeed anybody). I will always defend myself robustly against that sort of thing though. Here's a tip for you, as it is very easy to make the kind of mistake you have made (I've done it myself). If you want to complain about a specific action of another editor, always find the diff and quote it. That makes things easier to investigate if you are telling someone else about it, and it acts as a safety check against misattributions etc. If you can't find the diff in the contributions it's a safe bet that it never happened. Finally let me apologise for the waspish tone I took with you; when I saw you making a false statement about me for the second time in a couple of months, and on another admin's page (again) I did wonder if you were acting in good faith. Anyway, I'm glad we have ironed things out again. Rather than saying the rosary for me (I am not a believer in the conventional sense), why not improve ten stub articles? Best wishes, --John (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


from WP:SULF:

international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia

...but nothing about non-chemistry related articles. It's hard to define a "scientific article" as such, but I doubt Blackbeard is coming under the remit of WikiProject Chemistry any time soon ;) There's an obvious guideline clash here: I doubt many people know about the WP:SULF guideline and in its current wording has limited remit, whereas WP:ENGVAR is an old part of WP:MOS which has been applied fairly rigorously for the good reason of avoiding unnecessary spelling edit wars. In chemistry articles I think there's a good case for bending the rule - just as you are allowed to change English variety if the article has a US spelling in an article on a UK theme, it makes sense to do the same in a suite of articles on chemistry. But on generalist articles, where "sulfur" appears amidst an otherwise UK-spelling article or "aluminium" on a US-spelling article, I don't think it's a useful change to make - it might be worth posting to WT:MOS to get an idea of wider opinion before it becomes an automatic change that you make, as it might be a sensitive issue. All the best, Knepflerle (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. When I read Physical Review Letters I expect to see sulfur, in The Times I expect sulphur and I'd expect Wikipedia to make a similar call on context. I'd also find a sentence like "the colour of the butterfly's wings was a sulfurous yellow" to be a bit odd somehow. It wouldn't surprise me if other people feel the same way and query such edits, but I could well be wrong and editors might prefer the scientific consistency - it would be interesting to see! Let me know if there's any discussion in the future. Best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sarah[edit]

John, you may not be aware, but Sarah was the one who resumed the discussion[17] after asking me to stop discussing it with an edit summary, "Please go away Mark", in which she also continued the discussion. If she doesn't want to discuss it further, then she should stop discussing it. I responded to her most recent post on my own talk page, and simply notified her on hers. She doesn't normally remove comments, and doing so in this case was just antagonistic. -- Mark Chovain 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, as I said I have no idea of the history leading up to this. In my experience once you start personalising things this way you are too close to the dispute and need to back off. The content issue or whatever you were arguing about will still be there tomorrow. --John (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing of celtic Football Club[edit]

John - you deleted my recent edit which was accurate and I was about to look fo - how to add source when you deleted it. This was the first time I added anything and it was factuial and I dont think controvesial. I am tehrefore at a loss to why it was deleted.

I think Wiki is great and absolutely against abuse of it in any way.


Danny —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rapier missile kills?[edit]

Dear John, I am a Falklands War veteran and was a Rapier Missile operator in the War. I have been trying to edit to totally incorrect and insulting information about our Rapier Kills. It is in Official Regimental history that we shot down 14 enemy aircraft and possibly six further. I personally shot down Two aircraft at San Carlos and wrote about this in my book `Watching Men Burn` I also have published on the internet the Official War diaries of the Bty and all of our kills on my web Blog I am extremely angry at this misinformation and I intend writing to Anderson, Duncan, The Falklands War 1982, about his outrageous claims, he may have even got his information from a source such as this as one time it was claimed on these pages that we only managed ONE kill. I will not lay idle and watch this Bastardisation of our proud history as long as I have a breath in my body.

A McNally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Bring on your reliable sources and let's have a look at them. Be careful not to get blocked for WP:3RR. --John (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There does seem to be some very confusing evidence. For example the image hosted on the blog claims the first two hits were on 23 May, which doesn't match this which claims three planes were shot down on 21 May, which is the date of the San Carlos affair. One Night In Hackney303 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have several books on the conflict which I can dig out if need be, but obviously a blog is not a reliable source. --John (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily saying it is John. Just that if the IP editor above is Tony McNally as claimed (see here for example) then it's reasonable enough to assume he does have knowledge, and the document hosted thereon may be authentic. Ignore that. After actually looking at the article what seems to be being objected to is the counter-claim to the alleged 14 kills which are already detailed in the article. I also find it very strange that someone who has spent so much time publicly criticising the (documented) poor performance of the Rapier is intent on painting it in such a good light. One Night In Hackney303 22:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's more like it. Every written account I have seen agrees with the article that the Rapier didn't do the business in action. As we know all too well, almost everyone who ever posts here claiming to have special knowledge turns out to be unreliable in practice. Books are better. --John (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If he is Tony McNally as he claims he's written a book, he's linked to it above. But he himself has claimed the Rapier was unreliable and largely useless, so I'm very confused. One Night In Hackney303 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User page help[edit]

Hej John! After lurking for a couple of years, I finally decided the time had come to start contributing. I think a good place to start would be to create a nice user page, so that people will know a bit about me. Could you please direct me to a guide or tutorial on how user pages are constructed? Thanks in advance. --OldManLink (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I am sure that such a resource may well exist but I do not know it, sorry. --John (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, if I had only spent another hour looking, I would have found it: User Page Help. Thanks for trying anyway! --OldManLink (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you found the answer. Best wishes and let me know if you need any other help. --John (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ONiH's autoblock[edit]

Know how to remove it? I'm clueless.. I've asked at ANI, but just thought you might know. SirFozzie (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He'll need to post the error message he gets so that someone can resolve it. As far as I know there is no other way. Sorry. --John (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just mark it as resolved, it's going nowhere fast How's about that for an inappropriate edit summary? One Night In Hackney303 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's another bad mistake. Hopefully he has learned from that as it was a good while ago. I will mark it as resolved when it has been resolved. In my view it would be desirable if Tim! were to acknowledge his mistake. Of course nobody can force him to if he doesn't want to. It's worth remembering that we all make mistakes (even me!), and perhaps your edit summaries were not the best. Nowhere near deserving a block though, quite apart from the involvement issue. --John (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. And those edit summaries were positively tame for me! One Night In Hackney303 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, something like this is like a car crash; even when the other driver was more to blame than you, there was usually something you could have done to avoid the crash. A good driver learns by honest self-examination and becomes an even better driver. I'm sure you will do so, and I hope the other editor does so too. Best wishes. --John (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I won't compromise my principles by distorting content to suit my own views. This is what caused it. It's quite amusing that when the source (and the article) says "After a state pathologist said the wound would not have killed a healthy man, the judge concluded that he could not be satisfied that the heart attack was the result of being stabbed", it's just fine and dandy to change the wholly factual "one guard dies of a heart attack" to the blatantly misleading "one guard is stabbed and dies". I only noticed that today and amended back accordingly, yet for some reason that wasn't acceptable and this ensued. One Night In Hackney303 19:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I did investigate fully before getting involved as I always do so I had seen this. You were right on the content issue. Next time (though I hope there won't be one) consider letting an uninvolved admin know. --John (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I didn't have much time! One Night In Hackney303 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


That was a mistaken RV. I thought I was deleting that.

Please use User talk:21655/Mistakes for future error reports. Thank'ee, Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 20:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why?--John (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the last thing I need is a talk page cluttered with WP:TROUT slaps. Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 15:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Qwenton redux[edit]

He's still at it..... One Night In Hackney303 22:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems he stopped after SF's warning. If he so much as sneezes in your direction in future I will give him a long block, and possibly refer to AN/I towards an indef block, depending on a more detailed appraisal of his overall contributions. --John (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm thinking now might be a good time for a detailed appraisal of his overall contributions. We'll start with this diff from 14 January where he signs a comment made by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Now that IP's contributions (and block log!) are very interesting. The IP may be dynamic and re-assigned, however if you look at the contributions there's a re-occurring tendentious theme with racial overtones which suggest it's been static for a while at least.
  • Adding a link to Jenkem to the Nation of Islam see also section for no clear reason. "Jenkem is a hallucinogenic recreational drug composed of noxious gas formed from fermented human sewage" - and I can find no reason why that's a valid see also for that article (note, redirect created to that article by Qwenton just six minutes earlier)
  • Nick Griffin related edit around the same time (non-tendentious, but useful to show it's almost certainly Qwenton still)
  • This and this need no explanation.
  • Wow, just wow
There's plenty more if you check too. There definitely seems to be a problem here..... One Night In Hackney303 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. While the evidence that he is the user of that IP seems compelling, he has only edited once in the last month with it, and that edit was not problematic. I will have no compunction as I said about blocking the account, and I am leaning towards an indef now, if there are any more problems with it. Likewise I can block the IP if it starts again to edit problematically. I can't sanction an IP for edits made months ago. Hope that is some help. --John (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, I just think it's useful to put his editing into perspective more. One Night In Hackney303 21:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, it was a useful exercise and will form the basis of an AN/I report if it becomes necessary. Of course there is always the possibility of reform, even in a case like this. --John (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Make that twice (and the reason for the lack of edits is in the block log....), and that looks pretty tendentious to me? One Night In Hackney303 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That was a bit naughty, wasn't it? I'll keep an eye having now warned the IP. --John (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. And as I say based on the articles edited and the type of edits, I'm not seeing a reassigned dynamic IP. One Night In Hackney303 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Music Articles and Protection[edit]

After viewing the long articles that the rock bands Tool, Black Sabbath, AC/DC and Guns N' Roses I feel that all of them need to be semi-protected, so that only established users can edit them.



I also think N.W.A needs to be protected as well.


Having looked briefly at the histories, I'd say I disagree with you. In all the cases you mention, occasional vandalism is being reverted and the articles are being improved over time. Do you have a specific reason why you think they should be semi-protected? --John (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at DragonForce (they're an f-ing awesome band, I know, but i'm not here to talk about favorite bvands...), well DragonForce is protected and it's barely an article! Look at N.W.A, Black Sabbath, Guns N' Roses! These music profesionals have legacies behind them, DragonForce is pretty new! The least you could do is protect the N.W.A or the Black Sabbath article. It shouldn't even be an issue. YaBoiKrakerz

As I said, I don't agree that these articles need protection. See WP:PROTECT for details of when articles are and aren't considered for protection. Best wishes, --John (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

...Uh.... Whatever you say... YaBoiKrakerz


I'm confused as to why you deleted the Crammet page that I created.

You put the reason as A7, which means the significance was not clear (if I'm not not mistaken). However, you marked it for a speedy deletion before I could even finish the article. How could the significance become known if the article wasn't complete yet?

Crammet Productions is a video production team on YouTube, similar to Smosh Productions. I'm not quite sure why their page is allowed to be up, but Crammet's isn't, even though they function in the same way, to spread information to other users about prominent video makers from YouTube.

Please get back to me on this, as maybe you could help me understand why it was deleted.

Thanks, Seth (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:V. You may find it better to write a new article in a local version or in a sandbox in your user space. One small correction; I did not mark it for deletion, I merely deleted it. So at least two people thought it failed to assert significance to the degree we require. Let me know if you need any more help with this. --John (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well that's where I'm having trouble understanding, John. How could they have known whether it was significant or not when the article wasn't even complete? As Smosh's page functions in the same way, why isn't that page deleted? (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it might be better to write the article in such a way as to verifiably establish the subject's notability before going live. Your concerns about another page can be best expressed on its discussion page. --John (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for everything, John. --Seth (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Let me know if you need any help in setting up a sandbox (you can start it by clicking this link in fact), or on any other matter. --John (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Logo vote[edit]

Thank you, John, for your comments here. I continue to be grateful for your levelheadedness and attention to the logo issue. I had thought the issue pretty much concluded, and I'm happy to say my respect for you as an admin has grown ever since the debate started. I'm very grateful for your efforts and appreciate any constructive criticism you might have to offer me, as I know I came off rather brusque (sometimes even rude) in that discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. We all make mistakes from time to time, it is to be human. --John (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility - where is the protection?[edit]

John, I have tried, and succeeded, to remain civil for some time now. The quid pro quo I expected was that there would be some sanction of those who are uncivil towards me. Since I stopped using language that could remotely be characterized as uncivil I have noticed a complete lack of any of the Admins who hounded me when I was being allegedly "uncivil". Could I draw you attentions to User:Bastun and the sequence of exchanges that resulted in him slapping a threatening "warning" on my page? Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Hey. Sorry to bother you with this, but can you take a look here? Sarah777 has engaged in a personal attack there - [diff]. I placed a warning on her page [diff] - which she subsequently removed and placed on my own page - [diff]. Meantime, despite the fact that there's an ongoing AfD, she's threatening to "speedy move" the page. (The personal attack she's claiming I made apparently refers to [this edit], where I said to an anon IP editor "Repeating yourself ad infinitum isn't going to win you any arguments.") BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination) THIS link; where the conversation is peppered with accusations, breaches of WP:NPA and WP:AGF in relation to both myself and that Anon. Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again - supply the diffs, or retract. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
All I can offer just now is the advice that an article should not be moved during an AfD, and that all accusations of misconduct should always be accompanied with diffs or they may be ignored. why don't you both try to disengage and let other people look at this? --John (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
John, as Bastun started the incivility I feel he should have been warned long before matters escalated. Sarah777 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bellinghaus[edit]

Saw your comment on Talk:Mark Bellinghaus and wondered if you'd seen this sockpuppetry case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I did see it. --John (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rangers Edit[edit]

Hi Just wondering why you undid my edit on the Rangers page? I added the heading "UEFA" since the text (which i didn't change) refers only to the Rangers incidents and UEFA's actions. It is not related to the "Old Firm and Sectarianism" section above. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darich (talkcontribs) 18:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your addition because UEFA's sanctions were indeed intimately related to the matter of sectarianism and thus your change was unhelpful. --John (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

John I agree that it does indeed relate to sectarianism but it has no bearing or connection to any other club. The same applies to the riots in Manchester - the club in question is Rangers and not the "Old Firm" section under which it is headed.

Mark Bellinghaus[edit]

I cannot believe that you continue to participate in adding to the Mark Bellinghaus self promotion activities. First Bellinghaus was not responsible for closing the Queen Mary show. The fact is that show was scheduled to run from Nov. thru Feb and was held over to June because of the popularity of the show. The lawsuit that Bellinghaus paid for ended as a joke, Bellinghaus was fired as the expert witness and the case was dropped. Bellinghaus claimed that June DiMaggio did not become a DiMaggio until 1957 yet an article in the Hollywood Reporter dated 1949 makes reference to June DiMaggio, The Travilla collection was never shut down and in fact the show is continuing. Wikipedia is seriously damaged when you provide a stage to Mark Bellinghaus who claims that "Marilyn will someday be bigger then Jesus". Also when self created press releases by Jennifer Dickinson partner of Mark Bellinghaus are used as reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoll42 (talkcontribs) 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Knoll42. I suggest you take your concern to Talk:Mark Bellinghaus. If you have reliably sourced information it can be added, if there is a consensus there to add it. Likewise if there are concerns with the existing sources that can be addressed too. See you there. --John (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


hello , sorry if i was writing A posts in its wrong places but what i writed Was right posts of right events but maype it was'nt in ther right place like al mansoura air battle ( one of The yom kippor war battles ) is not in wikipedia i tried To write it but i writed it in the page of Other battle , and about Mubarak elections post i copyd it From An famous Egyptian News paper but i dont know why you Deleted it , but its right mubarak won the elections by 96% of votes ( you must write it as a real event ) even was cheat or no but that is real event , pls send a comment for know if you read this message or no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud-Megahid (talkcontribs) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there an echo in here?[edit]

You've just popped up in two places saying virtually the same thing. And as I'm in a generous mood (plus I've just remembered how good they are after seeing that they are playing locally in a couple of weeks), hunt down a copy of Millions of Dead Cops (album) by MDC. Let me know if you can't find it, I can easily rectify that. One Night In Hackney303 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it was true both times I said it. I'll take a look at this end and see if I can find it. --John (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
And of course there was no need for me to revert that was there, even though the source says nothing of the sort? It's only a short album anyway, about 20 minutes long so it shouldn't take long to download, erm I mean arrive in the mail.... One Night In Hackney303 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the recommendation. Let me know if you want any help on that other matter. --John (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I wouldn't mind please, I can't find a torrent site, erm shop with it. One Night In Hackney303 23:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your actions[edit]

Modernista is okay. But Fly is not. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dswarren (talkcontribs) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:N. --John (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

list of progressive metal artists[edit]

I wasn't sure why you removed the drop down list. If it's because theres only one I could add more in if that's the problem. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is of their releases and individual progressive metal releases by the bands. You may want to look at the thrash metal list, Weltanschaunng is also using them more extensively and preparing for a new format with them, see his sandbox if you will and you may want to comment with him instead. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

scottish nutritionist[edit]

Hi, can we change "Scottish nutritionist" to something else? Scottish and nutritionist are both wiki-linked, but not separated with whitespace which is a bad thing. Also, "A Scottish Nutritionist" makes it sound like the nationality of the nutritionist is important. I tried to break the link between Scottish and nutritionist without removing any information, or changing the importance. (I'll watch your talk or the article talk.) Kind regards, Dan Beale-Cocks 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"...a nutritionist from Scotland"?--John (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware they existed..... One Night In Hackney303 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
They arguably may do, you cheeky so-and-so. Ah, for a Scotsman the English oppressor is never very far away... Thanks for the laugh. --John (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, I fixed the clunky wording in the lead before leaving that message. One Night In Hackney303 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed, thank you for that. --John (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While you're online[edit]

Can you block the latest RMS sockpuppet please - Irishmenandirishwomen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). See the history of Edward Butler, Eddie Butler and Murray Bartlett‎ for proof. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up. --John (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. He's worse than VK for poor attempts at hiding really.... One Night In Hackney303 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! Another recommendation for you; Funplex, the new album from the B-52's is excellent. --John (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
300 seeds - now that's the sort of album you should be recommending! Oh and since you denied the unblock request to Jimnogood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), what do you think of the edits of Irish.patriot1916 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? One Night In Hackney303 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. That one might be worth keeping an eye on. --John (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC) links[edit]

Hi John, thanks for your advice, didn't mean to spam anything but just add some useful links. Just need some clarification, i think it would be worth to discuss about how links, containing media files legally supported by artists labels, come to be considered spam or not relevant. Just wondering since i didn't see or know of any wikipedia restriction on this matter, and i see link to similiar resources (i.e. My Space) widely accepted as external links. I'm pretty sure you know wikipedia much better than me, so if there is some policy about it, i would be grateful if you could let me know. Mystical-bunny (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in, but a read of Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer (particularly point 5) might explain why warnings were left. Rockpocket 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Rock. I think adding links on this scale demands some sort of wide consensus that they are of value to the articles and have directed the user to Wikipedia talk:External links (see User talk:Mystical-bunny). --John (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks alot guys. I'll follow John's suggestion and start a discussion in Wikipedia talk:External links. --Mystical-bunny (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing all external links[edit]


I understand the guidelines and the essence of wikipedia. The links I added were informative and added visual information on the subject. If one of the links did not happen to match the criteria, IT IS NOT a good reason to remove them all.

Regarding the SEO idea that sites would benefit from links from wikipedia, it's not always true as a travel site would welcome travel traffic and would not care about other types of traffic (like wikipedia).

Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpezet (talkcontribs) 03:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello John. Would you revert that anon's edits on the disputed articles, as I've reached my 2-revert personal limit? Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland[edit]

I wasn't in an edit war! I actually only reverted once and then I uploaded a new image that I just created to see if that was better, since that was what the other user asked for. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User spamming problem[edit]

I noted that you have previously blocked Howard2112 for persistent spamming of Coldplay. It appears he is adding the same spam to the same article once again, and I was hoping you would kindly monitor this situation as it seems that his account is now used for this purpose exclusively. He also added the same links to sub-article Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Alien and Predator Timeline[edit]

Hi John. If you have a few minutes, could you comment on the following AfD? I and several others are of the opinion that the article is entirely fan synthesis/fan fiction (cruft basically) and should be gotten rid of, but a couple of others (particularly the creator) are pretty hell-bent on keeping it. I was wondering what your opinion on it would be as an admin and also if you knew of any other similar AfDs that might set a precedent for keeping/not keeping this type of article. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a look. I have no strong feeling either way so do not intend to comment unless I change my mind. I will have a think about your request for precedents. --John (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks[edit]

RE: Thandie Newton[edit]

Footnote 3 in the article is to the NY Times, which provides the same info that's in the article. Is that not sufficient? Does the actual category need a citation? I've never heard of that. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, and yes. You may also find WP:BLP to be of interest. I'd want to see a reliably sourced quote that she had identified as being of "Afro-Caucasian" ethnicity, and some sourced commentary to show that it was significant, before I'd be comfortable restoring it to the article. Per WP:V, everything on here needs to be verifiable if challenged, and I have just challenged it. --John (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not worth arguing about for me, so I'm leaving the article as you edited it, for now anyway. However, I disagree with your reasoning, unless I am missing something that says a person must unequivocally "self-identify" with an ethnicity that is obvious by ancestry and sourced with the NY Times. With that line of reasoning, most ethnicity categories must be deleted from articles. It's rare that you will find documented evidence that a person has said, "I identify with [ethnicity]." So I assume I could go through unchallenged and delete all ethinicity categories from bios unless there is a citation in which the person specifically makes a statement as such. (I would not do that, but if I followed your reasoning I assume I could.) As I said, right now it's not worth the conflict for me to challenge this (it may be some day), but I think your reasoning is a more than a little too stringent. If I'm wrong that guidelines for ethnicity categories requires such rigid standards, then I apologize and stand corrected, and I would appreciate a link to that information. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your considered response. I do not need to cite any other consensuses than the core ones I have already referred you to above. I agree that many if not most ethnically-based categories are often unhelpful. Please feel free to challenge and/or remove any others that you see. Best wishes, --John (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just for my own edification, which aspect(s) of WP:BLP are you referring to? I've read it in the past, and just did a search for "ethnic" and found nothing. If you could identify a specific statement or two, that might help me. I still don't plan to revert Thandie Newton. This is just for future reference. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." HTH. --John (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

I can has mop?
Hi John/Archive 2008! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3).
I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again!
CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


FaithChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Sigh...... One Night In Hackney303 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United States[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated United States, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi from India. I firmly stand by your decision as regards the block of Whitehouse90310. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. No question this user needed a block. --John (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Fgh 2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is obviously the same editor. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem![edit]

Hi, I noticed this. The user needs to be given time to prepare a fair use rationale so I have removed the speedy tag. --John (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem but the image seems to me to be copyrighted, if you look at this then you'll see the same image

Thanks for telling me, I'm not perfect! --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems it is from the Hubble Space Telescope. See here. I'll adjust the copyright. --John (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, you find it, thank you!. I should have taken a copyright notice instead of fair use! Silly me :/ --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done that, it is all fixed now. Take care, --John (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Off Topic[edit]

Off topic [If you don't mind!] You seem to be very nice, I hope we can stay in touch! --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I am always willing to work with or help anybody. Let me know if there is ever anything I can do for you. --John (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


(moved to User talk:Wedineinheck#Racial category) --John (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)[edit]

The March 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Depeche Mode, the real sense of those words.[edit]


Dear John,

First at all, i'm glad of discussing with you.

But i cannot be agree with you when you say that i'm trying to insert commentaries of my personal analysis into this article. Why, because this is not my personal analysis but the truth, John !

Indeed, the words "Depeche Mode" (Dépêche Mode) are, as you know it, two French words which have a precise meaning, and only one ! The word "Dépêche" gave, in its original form in old or ancient French language ("Despesche"), the English word "Dispatch", and has only this sense, and nothing else. And you know the word "Mode" that is translated in English by "Fashion" which is, in fact, another French word (from the old French and Anglo-norman languages "Façun or Faichon").

Then, Depeche Mode (taken from the French fashion magazine "Dépêche Mode") means Fashion Dispatch (a dispatch about the fashion) and nothing else, it's not my personal analysis, but the real and only sense of those words, John !

The confusion with "fast" or "hurried" comes from the French verb "se dépêcher" that means "to hurry up", "to hasten" (from the old French "se haster", modern French "se hâter"). But in "Depeche Mode", "depeche" comes from "dispatch" and not from "se dépêcher" !

And i think it's important to specify that in the article. Why. Because when the people read the quotation of Martin Gore in the article ("It means hurried fashion or fashion dispatch. I like the sound of that."), they think, oh ok it's true, because that's written in Wikipedia, then it's true. But they are wrong John, because Martin Gore did a mistake saying that ("hurried fashion"), confusing the word "Depeche" ("Dispatch") with the verb "se dépêcher".

And if you let this quotation without specifying this, you deceive the people. And i think that Wikipedia has to say the truth, Wikipedia has not to mislead people. Do you understand.

I don't want to insert my "personal" commentaries, but i want simply to say and restore the truth about informations that are given in Wikipedia, to help people to understand them.

Give me your opinion about this, i would be happy to discuss with you.

See you soon.

Arkadiah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkadiah (talkcontribs) 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

- John, a precision that proves i'm right !

In the italian article concerning Depeche Mode in Wikipedia, they note deservedly what i'm saying !

Read that John, i think you'll be able to understand :

"Su suggerimento del nuovo arrivato, la band cambia ancora una volta nome, stavolta però assume quello definitivo di Depeche Mode, tratto da un'omonima rivista di moda francese dell'epoca, che può essere tradotto come "dispaccio/comunicato/gazzettino di moda", ma che viene spesso erroneamente tradotto come "moda veloce", "moda pronta" oppure "nuova moda", a causa della confusione della parola francese depeche col verbo se dépêcher ("spicciarsi" o "sbrigarsi")".

As you can see, they say the same thing than me, so i think that what i want to add in the English article for Depeche Mode is correct !

Arkadiah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkadiah (talkcontribs) 20:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your further message. Unless the Italian article carries a good reference for that, I am afraid it will not help us. Again, I suggest taking it to Talk:Depeche Mode. --John (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

About that riot good laugh[edit]

There you go! One Night In Hackney303 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Astounding. A great piece of work. Well done. --John (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, you should know my new articles don't tend to do things by halves. Although I do need to add some more stuff about reform to the aftermath section, but it was taking too long and it's certainly complete enough to be on display. One Night In Hackney303 21:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates Format[edit]

No problem. I'll keep that in mind.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Plane nerd (talkcontribs)

No worries. --John (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


In response to your recent soi-disant friendly reminder to comment on content, not the contributor, Is this how you define not commenting on the contributor?

We can almost guarantee that our best editors are able to understand and follow community norms. As you have previously expressed your contempt for these norms by your conduct at punk rock, I don't know why you would think your opinion is of any particular consequence to this discussion. If articles which don't follow our norms are being awarded FA status, maybe it is the FA process which is broken. I don't know either as all this is based on your flawed survey above which relies on articles selected by you and contains at least one error. Please bring something other than your opinion (eg a consensus, a proper survey) if you decide to continue here. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC) [see [18] if you've forgotten so soon]

I will happily oblige you by "not commenting" on you in precisely the same spirit that you have "not commented" on me, unless and until you (a) apologize and (b) improve your conduct on a consistent basis. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the criticism. I stand 100% behind my statement though, which focussed on the weakness of your argument. Should you come up with a better one, I may have nicer things to say about it. See "However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack." at Wikipedia:No personal attacks for a full explanation. I have no apologies to make at this time as I do not think I have done or said anything I regret. However I think you have done the right thing in raising a question about my conduct here rather than taking discussions on article improvement or style guidelines off-topic with your rambling and uncivil (if always elegantly written) diatribes against me. Even though on this occasion I think your complaint was baseless, I encourage you to post any future complaints like this here rather than in article talk or Wikipedia talk. Best wishes, --John (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
John, you fail to recognize that there is a difference between statements that focus on the weakness of an argument and statements such as this: "I don't know why you would think your opinion is of any particular consequence to this discussion." That is not only personal and grossly uncivil, (a) it was raised in response to a substantive statement that made no reference to you, (b) it is based on your personal and uncivil assertion that I have "expressed...contempt" for "community norms" (i.e., disagreed with your interpretation of what constitutes those norms), and (c) you had to reach out to a discussion more than two months in the past on an entirely different topic in order to set it up. continue to stand 100% behind it. I'm glad, John. I trust you'll enjoy the tone of our latest colloquy 1,000%.—DCGeist (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, on reflection that was uncalled for. If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. I am sure you can do better though if you put more energy into trying to ensure that this project stays true to its goals (of being a free encyclopedia, for one), than into constructing these elegantly constructed insults and ad hominems. You should probably also accept that if you take extreme positions and make weak arguments, it is likely to result in your arguments being pooh-poohed. You have a gift of rhetoric, but it frustrates me how seldom I seem to see you use it for what I see as good. Maybe I have been unlucky and seen you at your worst on Talk:Punk rock. I hope so, as you seem like a clever guy. So, sorry if that hurt your feelings, but your behaviour there has held the article back, with all respect to the good work you have done on it. If you have gained more respect for things like image use policy and MoS compliance over the last few months, I am delighted. You should definitely continue to try hard to comment on the arguments rather than on the personalities though, especially if you are going to get hurt whenever somebody pulls you up over something yourself. You should also, please, cut out the Yiddish endearments. Just John is fine. --John (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


My pleasure. I'm a bit more of a Clash man—"Complete Control" is just about my favorite song ever. But "Anarchy in the U.K." is surely the greatest single ever. DocKino (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


John, the block that you placed on this IP address a few hours ago really was out of line. Not that it makes a blind bit of difference because I simply logged in with a new IP address which takes me all of 5 seconds to do, but its the principle that matters here. You said that the block was in place for violation of the 3RR policy and for edit warring, even though there is not sufficient evidence of either from my actions (I made two genuine reverts). The user:Andi064 on the other hand has certainly broken the 3RR and has shown a clear propensity for edit warring (and not just with me either). And have you blocked him for it as well? No. Did you even warn him about it? No. You let him/her get away with the whole thing, despite his/her behaviour (not just reverting, but reverting arbitrarily without stating reasons). I'm sorry John, but this is a terrible abuse of your position as an administrator and you really should be ashamed of yourself. The Wiki community has to be able to trust its administrators to handle matters fairly and professionally and I don't believe that you have done either. Badly done. (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I make no apologies. To avoid future blocks for edit-warring, avoid edit-warring. After you have been warned for something, it is wise to desist. When you continue after a warning, you invite a block. In general terms, adding a template to an article is one of the least useful things you can do to help improve it. After all, you are expecting or demanding that others improve it. Next time, consider trying to address some of the perceived faults yourself. Good luck. --John (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history, you will see I did exactly that. I made three consecutive edits based on material that needed fixing - and provided reasons for doing so. I also open a discussion on the talk page to address one of the main issues, which was ignored. What happens next? All three edits are reverted - without reason - by user:Andi064. Rather than just revert his reverts, I then just placed a tag on the page so that other users would look at the problems with the page (whether Andi064 agrees or not, much of it reads like a fanpage). Andi064 then reverts the page tag -again without discussion or consensus. I therefore put the page tag back and another user (EscapeOrbit) then starts to edit away the peacock terms in the article. It's a start and shows that the tag was justified. You then come along and do a bit more editing yourself, then remove the tag. I read your edits and they seem well made, but so much more needs doing to make this a good article. I therefore (without altering your copyedits) place the tag back with a clear reason so that other editors will then join in getting the article cleaned up. Then Andi064 comes along again and reverts the tag off the page - again without discussion or consensus (and this was the fifth edit of mine he had reverted in little more than 24 hours). I put the tag back then you revert it (also without discussion, which I find a little hypocritical) then decide to block my IP address. You take absolutely no action against user:Andi064, which shows an outrageous bias on your part. My edits were in good faith, and were reasoned and I opened a discussion. Whether you're apologetic or not, John, if you cannot see what a mistake you made here then you shouldn't even be an administrator. (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. You might also say that as several editors had reverted your addition of your tag, maybe the tag was not justified; I am not sure it was. Your opinion on whether I ought to be an admin is noted. Next time I run I'll make sure to tell me so you can register an account and !vote against me. Registering an account may help you to be taken more seriously; many IP edits are vandalism, and, although I know yours weren't, that is the first thing a lot of editors are going to think when they see an anon adding something. Please read carefully my previous suggestions as well; adding a tag is not always the best way to improve an article, and edit-warring after a warning, however justified you may feel it was, is not wise. --John (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The tag wasn't reverted by "several" editors...only by Andi064 and yourself (both twice). The two of you alone hardly constitute any kind of consensus and, again, it seems hypocritical that you are preaching about so-called edit warring. Adding the tag in this instance was the best way to improve the article and prompted editors to...well...edit. The fact that mine were done from an IP address isn't relevant as only the value of the edits themselves should be scrutinised, not the editor. The outcome would have been the same regardless because of the territoriality shown by Andi064 (a growing problem with many Wiki users that needs to be addressed by our administrators, not condoned).
There is another issue here. As you are an administrator, I am concerned that you still do not seem to be aware you have contravened policy yourself. You have blocked a user when you yourself have been involved in editing the article. As per [19], this is inappropriate. By now, you might also realise I have engaged you in this discussion for a reason and I certainly hope you have learned something about bias, judgement and good practice from this experience. The fact is, you never know who is watching. Anonymously yours, (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That depends on your interpretation of "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". I saw you repeatedly adding a tag for which there seemed no justification. I warned you for it. You continued. I admit I had not noticed your post to the talk page; you appear to have made it from yet another IP address. However I do not regard this as a content dispute. Others opinions may well vary; if you have a WP:POINT to make here, you may consider it made. Now I suggest you get on with improving the encyclopedia. Oh, and don't edit war in future. Next time, I hope you will see there are better ways forward. Posting on talk pages, especially making constructive suggestions, is usually more likely to result in the improvements you say you want. --John (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Having reviewed User talk: and Talk:The Human League, I think the idea of a peer review which andi064 has initiated is an excellent one. Moral for you, anonymous user, is: don't hop IPs, but register an account or log into your existing one. It makes your contributions easier to check, and hides your physical location. Use edit summaries. Don't edit war. If, at any point, I had seen your talk page comment, or even if you had referred to it in an edit summary, we could have got to a better outcome quicker, with less waste of energy for all concerned, and without the block that you say didn't inconvenience you but which you were nevertheless inconvenienced enough about to request unblock and complain here about. Best wishes, and please think about what I have said. --John (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Thought you'd like to know that an anon is trying (sadly) to WP:SNOW an AfD by adding multiple keeps. One of the linked usernames he tried to use as a sig was yours, as seen here. Cheers, --- Taroaldo (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --John (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pubic hair[edit]

John I WANT TO delete the photo because it very rude and might kid who under age of 12 will might read this and look at very rude photo.

so can you please undo your thing because the photo is very rude.

so pleasse dont undo the photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but this encyclopedia is not censored. Please don't continue to deleted the photos, which are there to illustrate the subject of the article. --John (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank for you reply to. I want to make this webpage safe for under 12 kid. So please dont undo please John —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

John, please block again: adding unsourced info again, and repeatedly removing warnings not to do so from talk page [20]. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-26t20:12z
I've final-warned them. Thanks for letting me know, --John (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Noted. Maybe I'm missing something, but there seems to be endless patience for repeat vandals, & I just don't have that much patience for it. I can restrain myself (usually), I just haven't been so good at it lately. Maybe just leave off the vandal patrol awhile, try & stick to doing something constructive. If I can avoid falling for infomercials... Trekphiler (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

I left an edit request on Talk:Mark Bellinghaus. I think it's a pretty straightforward cleanup request, but this article seems to attract unwarranted controversy. Would you mind taking a look at it to see if it has any merit? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. --John (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Some help if you can please[edit]

I'm having grave difficulty here - User talk:SamuelM555#Soprano (rapper) and other pages. After repeated unsourced attempts to add unsourced categories, we now have the ludicrous situation where Jewish categories were being added to David Beckham here based on him saying in an inteview he is "half-Jewish" (funnily enough I don't see a Category:English half-Jews do you?). In addition cats are being amended in edits such as this when the source actually says (scroll down) "Actually, Helen seems very Jewish since she is smart and funny, and in real life she is partly Jewish". I'm at my wit's end with his refusal to comply with policy and keep adding or amending categories based on what his own opinion (or his repeated citing of Who is a Jew?) a Jew actually is, so perhaps some input from someone else might be a good idea at this point before I say something blockworthy? One Night In Hackney303 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've commented at the user talk page. Thanks for bringing this up. --John (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Considering Julia Louis-Dreyfus was added based on "Louis-Dreyfus's paternal grandfather, Pierre Louis-Dreyfus, was a French Jew who was a member of the French Resistance during World War II;", I'd say you're bang on the money with your response. One Night In Hackney303 15:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have unfortunately had to block the user. As normal in these cases I will ask a neutral admin to review the block. Thanks again for raising the matter with me. --John (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, I was referring to the block. One Night In Hackney303 15:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User: SamuelM555[edit]

Strong endorsement. I'm surprised you only gave him 2 weeks. I'm flattered you asked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely endorse the block. SamuelM555‎ just doesn't seem to be catching on, regardless of how often we try to explain it to him, and his next block will likely be indefinite. Thanks for the notice, John. - auburnpilot talk 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome, and thanks to you both for commenting. Here's another similar problem. Maybe this one will take the warning. I hope so... --John (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart[edit]

Hi John, you beat me to the recent edit. :) Anyway, would you mind having a look at the history of this article, and consider protecting the page for a couple of weeks or so please? There's been a lot of vandalism to that page recently, and I'd protect it myself, but since my last protection of the page, I've been quite active on the article, and a protection from me now on the Amelia Earhart page would be inappropriate. Thank you. Acalamari 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have semiprotected it for now. I hope that is ok. Good to hear from you. --John (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much: the semi-protection is exactly what was needed. Acalamari 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
John, I changed the term "declared dead" back to "declared deceased" because it is the civil litigation term and was used in the source material. If I am wrong, please change it back. Bzuk (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
That's fine. Maybe it should be in inverted commas if it is a quote? --John (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


sorry pal —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell[edit]

John, I noticed that you semiprotected the Amelia Earhart article recently. Can you also look at the Alexander Graham Bell article where vandalism is ongoing. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

Glad I was passing by: done by me for two weeks. Acalamari 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry I got distracted there and didn't notice this. --John (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thread concerning you on AN/I, doesn't look like you were notified[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pointless_conflict_with_John. Doesn't look like you were notified of this thread. Avruch T 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. --John (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Biggles" and the F-111[edit]

Glad you liked my small addition the the F-111 article (which already was a very good page in my opinion). I should have added some citations myself, but for some reason, probably because the story is so well known here in Tasmania, it just didn't occur to me. BTW, the RAAF flew an F111 right over my house just recently during a display, which I really enjoyed. One of my favourite aircraft. Cheers. --Phil Wardle (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Civility rules apply to everyone here John, don't they? I'd like your views as it appears that some Admins seem to think the police are above the law I have noticed. And fellow Admins can have a hard time spotting incivility from fellow members of the club. So I'd like your views on Awiseman's actions in slapping a "warning" template on my page for the suspected crime of WP:OR in one of the 1,000 or so edits I've made in the past couple of weeks. Sarah777 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility is paramount on a project like this Sarah. Of course, being human we are allowed the occasional lapse. I wouldn't have sent you a template, I would have had you down as worthy of a hand-crafted, custom-written message. Still, I see you've made your views known to the admin in question. You might find WP:DTR of interest as it covers this in detail. Admins are not policemen though; it seems to me that as long as you hold onto this mindset you will restrict your enjoyment of this site. I, for example, am just an ordinary editor like you who the community entrusts with a few extra tools. Do you need any help resolving the actual situation over which you were warned? I haven't dug into that. Let me know if you do. --John (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks John - you can be happy in the knowledge that you will be one of my first ports of call if I get into trouble! As Rock is off on a mission I thought I'd better alert you to the situation in case this Admin was "trigger happy", so to speak. But I've survived so far so maybe he ain't as bad as I feared. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Could you take a look at Mairéad Farrell as I would like to avoid an edit war. I have had a long discussion about the role of the ECHR. Their terms of reference clearly state The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws. as I have cited. Some editors seem keen to insert the words 'Unlawful killing' which do not form part of the judgement of the ECHR. Although they consider that there was an abuse of human rights, the original verdict of the Gibraltar inquest remains.

HOWEVER I anticipate there will be different views. --Gibnews (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There will be no edit war unless you create one by removing WP:V and WP:RS sources.BigDunc (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me have a look at it. --John (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is resolved for the time being, thank you for your help. For the record there is no such thing as Gibraltarian law its Gibraltar Law, or the Laws of Gibraltar. Gibraltar law is based on English law, but we have the advantage of a written constitution. This was recently updated from the 1967 version to the 2006 one. The section on the right to life section was not changed. These days most of the laws are derived from EU directives. The UK can extend the treaties it enters into to Gibraltar, although the local parliament would need to implement anything in the law.

I think we shall see some interesting things on how European arrest warrants, are applied and the arrangements for speedy extradition between the US and UK do not apply here. It also presents a problem for Spain which does not recognise our jurisdiction, and insists on writing to the UK which has no authority.

However, apart from reporting it and discussing it the legal process is very expensive and takes forever and is best avoided. --Gibnews (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


(refactored to User talk:Handicapper)


Hi John,

Thanks for that. Nice for all the hours to be appreciated. I'll make it better yet. Can you advise me please how I attach a picture/photo?

Unbelievable events on Saturday afternoon.

Keep well, Stevie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socheid (talkcontribs) 16:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Is {{SSFreeWiki}} a speedy candidate? It's being spammed at a rapid rate of knots. One Night In Hackney303 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Are you going to reply to the question I asked on my talk page?BigDunc (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I took you at your word when you said "Correct me if I'm wrong". You weren't wrong, so I didn't correct you. Do you have a problem with being civil there? Or with not revert-warring? Otherwise it seems like you don't have anything to complain of in being warned. As I explained, I made it clear on the article talk page what my expectation was regarding the article. If, having read that you continued to misbehave, as you did, you can hardly be surprised to receive a final warning. Rest assured I will treat everybody equally. --John (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
But I am not assured how did I misbehave? You state that you made it clear on the talk page, you obviously didn't as BHG, a good admin IMO, reverted what she claimed was WP:OR, I did the exact same when Gibnews claimed to speak for the paper in the ref by changing it. So please explain to me how calling someone who uses 'Paddy' to discribe the Irish and 'Muhammed' to describe muslims does not get a warning and I do for telling him it was a racist comment. Beginning to see what hack was talking about. BigDunc (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I already told you how you misbehaved. You both got warned for some really silly breaches of WP:NPA. Don't make personal attacks and you need never worry about getting such warnings again. I suggest you move on from this and try to edit positively in future. If you feel another editor is attacking you, talk to somebody else rather than respond in kind. That is my advice to you. --John (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No John you are wrong this is not a warning for racist comments that was for reverting which I got too fair enough, I agree with you on that even though mine was slightly spurious. None for his comments about the Irish or Muslims. Now I would like you to either warn him about the use of inflamatory and abusive words or stike through the final warning I recieved for saying his comments are racist. Which in NO way contravenes WP:NPA as it states "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y" this is not a personal attack against Gibnews. I look forward to your reply and decision on this matter. BigDunc (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry you are still not getting it. "Twisted racist logic" most certainly is a personal attack, and it was done after I had warned editors in a conversation you took part in on the talk page. I decline to do as you ask, though I encourage you to let me know if Gibnews utters anything of the sort again. Warnings are preventive, not punitive, so a warning at this stage would be pointless, unless the misbehaviour is continuing. --John (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc, I wonder if I could just jump in here? I realise that I'm probably not your favourite person, what with crossing paths/ swords at ANI and on your Talk page, but I can assure you that I've got nothing against you.

My first point is that you came slightly late to the great Anglo-Irish edit war, but the tactics of taking extravagant offense for quite minor or unintended insults, and then calling for bans, was one of the features of the war. This all took place before you started editing, and one of the effects was the slightly bumpy welcome that you received when you began editing. As you will probably appreciate, the only result of this sort of behaviour was to poison the atmosphere for everyone else and lead to a huge diversion of effort which cumulated in the ArbCom. No-one, surely, wants to go back there?

So far, you have involved BrownHairedGirl, John, and the wider community through AN/I in this complaint. No-one has accepted your wider point that a ban is warranted. You're flogging a dead horse here; move on.

Secondly, there is, at the moment, a user Talk page, on which you have contributed, which includes the following terms used to describe other editors: 'scum', 'shit', 'piss', 'cunt', 'lackey', 'ignorant assumption', 'fuck', and 'stalkers'. Two Admins have posted on that page, so they are aware of its contents. Yet no-one has called for a ban - fat lot of good it would do - or blanked the page. Comparisons are odious, I know, but frankly this is an order of magnitude worse; yet no-one's complained or moved to do anything about this abuse. There is an element here of 'what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'; if you want others to take your complaint seriously, you should use your good offices to protect other editors from gratuitous abuse like this otherwise it just looks like you're gaming the system.

My final point is that you and me, and John, are all volunteers. We all have other, probably better, things to do. Banging this drum is not achieving anything; if you think John has got it wrong, that's your perogative; I can't see him changing his mind, no matter how often you post here. Can I suggest, in the gentlest way possible: give way gracefully; agree to disagree; and move on. God knows, Admins get a whole load of abuse, precious little thanks, and absolutely no respect. So my final point: respect John's position, even though you disagree with it and move on; when you next need his help, you'll find him more willing to give it.

You're welcome to post on my Talk page if you like. Sorry for intervening in this discussion and taking up so much of your Talk page, John. Best wishes to you both. --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, John; trust I find you well.

Please could I ask a favour; I was trying to get my archives sorted out yesterday and I created the following sub-pages:

I reckon now that I don't actually need them - please could you nuke 'em? Many thanks in advance and apologies for being gormless enough to create them in the first place! (PS - no information will be lost by deleting these pages: I originally moved some of my old posts from my Talk page but then moved them back again.) PPS - God almighty - who'd ever want to be an Admin! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted them as you requested. --John (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, you're very welcome. --John (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi John,

Have you seen that muppet comment added to the page? Is there some way to protect the page against nonsense like that?

Keep well, Stevie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socheid (talkcontribs) 14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately vandalism is an ever-present distraction on a project like this. I have removed it and thank you for drawing it to my attention. If the vandalism became more serious we could protect the page, but it doesn't merit this yet in my judgement. --John (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi John - No, I wasn't trying to plug the book, but as a researcher who has spent years on the subject of Balcombe Street and the London IRA 1974 - 75 period, I wanted to correct some of the misperceptions that had been in the listings. Sorry if that is what you and ONiH thought...But there has been so many either inaccurate or just blatently wrong entries on the subject area, I felt compeled to jump in...


Dr. Steve Moysey Smoysey (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi there,

The photo was taken by nephew. He is more than happy for it to be used. He hasn't copyrighted it though, it's a snap he's taken on a day out. He isn't a profressional cameraman.

Keep well, Stevie

Self created graphics to describe articles[edit]

Hi John,

I've stumbled upon a three articles (Birgenair, Birgenair Flight 301 and Alas Nacionales) where an image obviously taken from a flight simulator poses itself as "TC-GEN at night, prior to crashing". I'm having serious doubts about the use of these types of pictures in wikipedia articles. What do you feel about this?

Cheers, Nelievsky (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I add a link to this page?[edit]

Hi John,

How do I link from the English to the Ukrainian version of wikipedia, specifically ?

Keep well, Stevie

Why do you want to do that? --John (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano edit[edit]

Hey, can you explain this edit? (I added the tag) The citation given,, does neither state that di Stefano runs the law firm, nor that he "has been involved in a number of major cases in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland". I'm not really disputing either statements, but the citation simply does not support them. I added another reference for the first statement, but the second still needs a better one, IMHO. --Conti| 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I certainly agree that it doesn't support that di Stefano runs the law firm, but I don't agree on the second point; the page referred to is a list of the UK and Ireland cases he has been involved in. Am I missing something obvious here? --John (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't dispute the citation if the word "major" would've been removed from the article. The citation lists a bunch of cases, but it's not clear whether those are in any way "major" or not. Some of them are, of course (at least I think so), but the citation doesn't state that. --Conti| 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. I concur. --John (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I reinserted the template until a better source can be found. --Conti| 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Can you have a look at Gibraltarian sovereignty referendum, 2002 this has been renamed by an administrator who has similarly renamed other Gibraltar elections and referenda and by virtue of him opposing my application for them to be renamed has blocked this despite a large amount of evidence that the correct name is Gibraltar and not Gibraltarian.

In the case of the sovereignty referendum the official title can be seen in the picture of the poster on that page. Its rather like referring to the English general election rather than the British General election.

--Gibnews (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a message. --John (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
My move was to bring it into line with all the other articles in Category:Elections in Gibraltar. The editor above had done a WP:RM to have all the other articles in the category moved from "Gibraltarian..." to "Gibraltar..." (see this example). However, as they all failed I thought it would be a little silly to have one article with a different style of title to all the others so I moved it. Hope that explains it. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Celtic F.C. players[edit]

Scheidt does not meet the outlined requirements to be on the list. I have reverted the edits to remove him. Here is the summary of the requirements, incase you have not read them.

This is a list of notable footballers who have played for Celtic. Generally, this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club. However, some players who just fall short of the 100 total but have made significant contribution to the club's history (e.g. Jorge Cadete) and are included.

I would also like to point out that the list is for players who have a positve influence. Can you tell please me what positve contribution Scheidt has made to Celtic Football Club?

Yatesy1988 (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam[edit]

Mohkam Mopping.jpg Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.
Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.
Thank you again, VanTucky

Guidance please[edit]

Hi John,

Can you give me some guidance please? As you know I've been trying to do a bit to improve the QOS page. There seems to be some issues around the bibical references. When first updating that section I noticed that the wording already there was the QOS are incorrectly referred to as the ony team in the bible. I didn't change that and added a couple of others team who could also make the claim. One of the editors (possibly yourself?) came back and said I could make that claim just because there were words that were mentioned in passing in the bible that also happen to have the same spelling as a football team. Fair enough. I amended the wording accordingly to reflect that the issue is up for debate.

Someone seems to have a bee in their bonnet about this and keeps changing this back to "incorrectly". Can you give some guidance on this please?

Also is there a way to message you rather than having my comments, questions etc plastered in here?

All help much appreciated.

Best regards—Preceding unsigned comment added by Socheid (talkcontribs)


Hi John,

Can you tell me please what do I have to do to be able to add my own photos? I don't have any copyright on them.

Regards, S—Preceding unsigned comment added by Socheid (talkcontribs)

Hi John,

Description info is:-

Where was the picture taken? Hampden Park

When was the picture taken? April 12th 2008 at full time (2pm)

What are the names of all the people and notable objects visible in the picture? No people in the picture

What is happening in the picture? Scottish Cup sem-final score

Any more questions, let me know.

Regards, Steve

Andy Partridge entry[edit]

Hi, John:

Thanks for the message ... I'm still a newbie when it comes to editing Wikipedia entries, but just to let you know about the Andy Partridge entry, he had reviewed it and wanted to correct some inaccuracies and add a bit of detail, rather than toot his own horn or created potential conflicts of interest. As a long-time editor and writer, that was my intent as well. I hope that comes through in the edits I made. Please let me know if you have questions or need to explain some of the finer points that I might have missed here.

(Oh, and I'm happy to pass along your greetings! Andy always appreciates hearing from a fan.)

Cheers, Todd, aka Bernhtod (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

List Deletion dispute[edit]

Ref: 'Lists of Indos' linked to ao 'Indo People'.

Dear John,

Noticed youve deleted am article. Strongly disagree with this rigorous approach. The unique value of Wikipedia is the opportunity granted to all users to enhance all articles. I understand you are trying to maintain quality levels, but simplistic deletion of complete articles without offering the possibility to our Wikipedia community to reflect on objections and correct content appropriately is not stimulating or facilitating the group effort of making wikipedia the great single global database of encyclopedic information it intends to be. I therefore believe the page shld be restored, so it can be revisited by editors. If you clarify yr comments on the respective talk page, Im confident the editors active in this knowledge area will bring the article to its desired quality levels.

Best rgds, JAGO It's just HIS story... (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and I am sorry that you were unhappy with my deletion. However, as the article was almost entirely a list of redlinks to articles not yet written and contained no references, I felt that there was no point in keeping it. If you feel strongly about it I could bring it to an AfD discussion, but I doubt that the end result would be any different. Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats BS administration. Just a show of power tripping without any consideration to the people working on this article. Ever heard of the Talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Ng[edit]

Not sure I see the problem here. His ethnicity is a fact covered in the cited cources. I've added inline citations to the statement you find controversial, but it wouldn't have killed you to actually look at the references yourself. PC78 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I'm sure it didn't kill you to add references. Next time, consider doing that first instead of reverting. Also, please check out WP:BLP and WP:V. --John (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the policies, thanks; there was nothing in the article that wasn't covered by the sources. And I didn't just revert, I moved the references inline. If you had made it clear in the first place exactly what you wanted citing, you might have saved us both time and effort. PC78 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I made that very clear indeed in my edit summary ("cleanup category; insufficient referenced evidence that the subject belongs in this cat. please replace it only with proper references"), thanks. If you had read that and provided the references first time round instead of reverting, you might have saved us both time and effort. If you are as familiar with BLP and V as you say, you will be aware that the onus is on the editor wishing to retain the information to provide references. As you have now done this I don't know what else there is to say. --John (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Navi Rawat[edit]

I appreciate that you're cleaning up categories that don't have proper references in the articles, but are you taking the time to check? Navi Rawat is described in the article as having a German mother and an Indian father. The main source for the article says the same thing.[21] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Will. I agree that one should retain the category on the basis of the reference. I am trying to check but it's difficult to remain alert for the occasional one which is accurate when the vast majority are complete crap. I appreciate your letting me know. --John (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Another photo[edit]

Hi John,

I have tried to upload another photo from the weekend of the cup semi. I've had a roboreply telling me the copyright info I have listed is inappropriate. Please pardon me as I have yet to get me head round what I am supposed to enter/select when answering the questions asked in uploading a pic. I have added info in the free text field that I hope provide the required info.

Regards, S

I fixed it for you. Have a look at the code I used and you will see what I did. All the best. --John (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

QOS - Hibs photo[edit]

Hi John,

Are you sure that the photo is from Feb 07? That game was the cup quarter final - always played in March. Rather than saying 'Feb 07' it may be easier to say something like 'Q.O.S. v Hibs, 2007/08 Scottish Cup'.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Saturday, 24 February 2007. See here. I was there, at the QoS end even though I wanted Hibs to win, which was weird. --John (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Zobel/Spanish heritage[edit]

Hi, John , how are you? I am ussually called John myself in the real world and Jondel by my family. Thanks for your edits on the Zobels. I don't have much time anymore to attend to this matter, but please understand that it is common knowledge among Filipinos that the Zobels are of Spanish heritage. They are also that notable that you can look them up and see for yourself that they indeed look Spanish. Cheers.--Jondel (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jondel. We don't work on common knowledge here. If you are able to provide proper references for these then the categories can be restored. If not, not. Best wishes. --John (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sunita Williams already properly referenced[edit]

John, The information on Sunita Williams' heritage is already properly referenced in reference number 20 under the heading 'Personal'. Perhaps you missed it. Mhjohns (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I did miss it. Thanks for pointing me to it. Best wishes, --John (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Great! Since you agree, I'll leave it for you to fix. All the best, Mhjohns (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello John[edit]

Im messaging in reference to the site that I link on the halitosis wiki. Its a forum for those who suffer. Now this is for people who have chronic bad breaath. Recently, one person wrote on the ofrum that their battle with halitosis is so bad and they were considering suicide. that is until, until they found a forum where people like themselves are there for support. While the site operator does have advertisements, they are few. I understadnw hy this would be a conflict but the value of the forum for support should be considered.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


You may get one or two false positives but you're doing great work. I've had subjects of biographies complain to me about their categorisation, and we need to be very careful about it. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very nice of you. It is hard work and generates a lot of hassle, so I really appreciate your kind comment. --John (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted thrice[edit]

Thanks for your note. I had not before come across a triple threat in my quest to eradicate "it should be noted that" from these pages. This morning, though, I found this monstrosity. [22]

Happy hunting. Coemgenus 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be a way to stuff or otherwise preserve such examples so that future generations can see them. Well done and thanks for the note. --John (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Diana Yukawa as Eurasian[edit]

I noticed that you removed the category Eurasian from the article on Diana Yukawa with the comment that "insufficient referenced evidence that the subject belongs in this cat". I don't see what additional references could be required since in the article itself it states that she is "Anglo-Japanese" and that she was "born ... to English ballet dancer Susanne Bayly and Japanese banker Akihisa Yukawa". That fits the definition of Eurasian. Tweisbach (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case you may wish to read WP:V and WP:RS. --John (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Refer all article questions to article talk page.[edit]

Hi John,

Actually bhattacharya is a Bengali name, only found among Bengali and the Bengali language, much like Gonzalez or Fernandez is a hispanic name, found only in the spanish language.

Next time John, if you're disputing something as simple as a ethnic category, leave a message on the Sameer Bhattacharya article talk page, or ask for a citation or reference to be made, do not leave a message on my talk page "telling" me not to add a ethnic category. You do not own wikipedia, it is open to all, and the manner which you did this, can be seen as rude.

If you still have a problem with the ethnic category, continue this on the article talk page, not yours or mine, and next time mind WP:Civility.

Hi John,

As a administrator you might feel you are able to do things others can't, we can still be civil and follow etiquette, i.e. start with the article talk page first, then if you must, move on to leaving messages on people's pages. You jumped way ahead of the game there by going straight to my page, and not leaving room for WP:Good Faith. On top of that instead of just asking to cite the info, you just tell me not to do it? If we had a edit war or had a problem with your edits or message on the article talk page, then we possibly move on to personal talk pages. We must not let power go to our heads. Remember WP:Good Faith 1st, then remember [[WP:Civility}] before you leave a message that can potentially sound patronizing and chastising. You already made the edits to the article, it should of been left at that, with a message of why you edited. Any of the information not specifically cited, is actualy common sense and common knowledge info, he is of South Asian descent, specifically bengali, and any body familiar with the name and region could not mistake otherwise. I will though look for a cite and not put a category until I find the info. Please have a good day, and we'll leave it at that--Kathanar (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi John,

I didn't wish to continue this conversation, but if you must know as far as WP:Civility, I feel by going straight to my talk page and "telling" me not to do something, first of all is patronizing, can be 'taunting' and crosses over into 'rudeness', and this way of doing this does not evince 'cooperation'. I hope I am wrong and just misread you, but that what the action touches upon. Please do not take any of it personal, it just took me by surprise. Please have a good day--Kathanar (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I will not continue the conversation with you. Obviously I do not agree that my message to you violated WP:CIVIL. Have a good day yourself. --John (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aerial landscape art[edit]

Thank you for reverting to my version on this article, MdArtLover does not seem to be an experienced editor. Please have a look at my Talk Page for a point-by-point reply to him. Thanks again. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there![edit]

Hey, John, good to see you again, I'd like to point out about vadelizers that were once on our wiki. May be coming to Wikipedia as well.... They are called the Mile Team, one of the members recently spamed my userpage on here because he reconized me on another wiki his usernmame was under 700mile they usually never put anything in their pages to confuse people into thinking there is not link on a wiki to their page. Also 700mile is a good example, all members of the Mile Team usually have a certain number or phrase with the word "Mile" in it. Keep a look out for users with those kind of names. In the mean time be sure to ban 700mile. YaBoiKrakerz

Page hits and photo[edit]

Hi John,

Out of curiosity is there anyway to see how many hits a page gets in a given time frame?

Also the score board photo on the QoS page, can it be lowered slightly so that it is beside the para on the semi? It is currently beside the para on the quarter final.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is and I will try to find it for you. Image formatting is difficult as it depends what monitor size and screen resolution you are using. I'd probably leave it where it is. --John (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Clash article has been rated as GA-Class[edit]

That's great news about the article! Thanks for the star, although I'm not sure I deserve it. --John (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)[edit]

The April 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project[edit]

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've added myself. --John (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And I see you removed me, along with several others. Oh well. --John (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed a bunch of incomplete entries. We're trying to make a list based on active editing times (UDT) and those who didn't fill in a time that they're editing were removed. If you'd like to remain on the list, please include the times you edit (UDT, please). Right now the table is completely based on timezones, but I'm going to be doing some more work on it tomorrow. So, long story short, editor's without listed editing times aren't really helping the project meet its purpose. Useight (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What a waste of everybody's time then. You should have said this in your initial mailing. Never mind. --John (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Helena Schrader's works[edit]

I am really confused why you chose to remove the texts by Helena Schrader who received her PHD in Germany by writing the works on Olbricht, Stauffenberg, and the German Resistance

Here is some of her bio: In 1993, Helena P. Schrader (then writing under her maiden name, Helena P. Page) wrote the first, full-length biography of General Friedrich Olbricht. This work was published by a leading academic publisher in Germany and at once harvested recognition and academic honors. The small edition rapidly sold out and a second edition followed the following year. Although now out of print, this biography is still the definitive biography of Olbricht. It incorporated much original research, based on access to archives in what was then East Germany, unpublished personal documents and interviews with family members, colleagues and opponents of Friedrich Olbricht.

During more than 20 years in residence in Berlin, Germany, Helena Schrader became friends with several members of the German Resistance to Hitler. Ludwig Freiherr von Hammerstein, son of the former Commander-in-Chief of the German Army in the Weimar Republic, was her mentor establishing contact with various other resistance figures. Through him, Helena become friends with both Axel Freiherr von dem Bussche and Philipp Freiherr von Boeselager. The family of General Olbricht, most especially his widow, Eva Olbricht, and his son-in-law, Dr. Friedrich Georgi, were supportive in every way, providing countless details and documentation. Marion Gräfin Yorck von Wartenburg and Clarita von Trott zu Solz were equally encouraging, providing much insight above all into the motivation and life-style of those courageous opponents of the Nazi regime involved in a conspiracy against a brutal and inhumane police state. Nina Gräfin Stauffenberg, the widow of Claus Graf Stauffenberg, granted Helena an extremely rare interview, and Helena was also able to spend many hours talking with Freya Gräfin Moltke. Last but not least, Helena was also able to interview several of the officers who helped put down the coup on 20 July 1944 as well as the widow of Generaloberst Jodl.

Combined with over 20 years of secondary and archival research these contacts along with interviews with over a hundred other survivors of Nazi Germany enabled Helena to write a novel, An Obsolete Honor, which helps modern readers to understand what it was really like to live in Nazi Germany.

So I honestly believe her books: General Olbricht: Ein Mann des 20. Juli and An Obsolete Honor SHOULD be listed as resources on the pages I had them as should her website which is all about the same subject.

I didn't think this was advertising, just good additional info, am I missing something here?

Kythera 07:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Kythera Ann

I suggest that rather than adding the external link to many articles, you use the resource (or others) as a source to add some text to the body of the article. Do one article at a time. This way you will actually be helping. Adding the same external link to many articles looks like spamming to me. Sorry. --John (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, I will try to figure out how to do that nicely...hmmm...let me give that some thought, I do see your point though. My own writing comes easily, but reformatting another's info to be seamless into another text, that could take me some time, ha!

Kind Regards, Kythera 13:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Kythera

List of Filipino Americans[edit]

See my work in splitting notable from not notable yet by use of talk page. You can check how I split up the list and help maintain the split in the future. Thanks Hmains (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. --John (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Lee[edit]

I don't understand why you removed my references to Brandon Lee's ethnic background when you are wanting references for articles. And if it is justified I don't understand why you removed the Eurasian people category, but why not all the other ethnic categories.

According to Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality

"A race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic." It doesn't say notability. What exactly constitutes proof of notability?

In the article on Ronald Regan it categorizes him as Irish American, but I don't see any proof of notability for the category, perhaps it should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweisbach (talkcontribs) 03:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied here. --John (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Usercheck please[edit]

John, could you check IP User: against the list of editors involved in the British Isles naming dispute? The IP is used solely to edit-war on these articles and I strongly suspect a "regular". Include the relevant Admins in the check please. This is urgent as the IP persists in vandalism. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have CU access. Maybe you'll have more luck with Alison? --John (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC) again.[edit]

Please semi protect User talk: I'd also perma block the IP since he doesn't seem to have ever made any good edits. Previous note. -- Jeandré, 2008-05-05t12:15z

User talk:Grahamzilch[edit]

Grahamzilch has exercised the right to vanish, so I doubt he will reply. J Milburn (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. In the absence of any reliable sourcing that graphic he uploaded under a previous name may have to be deleted which seems a shame. --John (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Hey John. Regarding the breathtaking example of poor judgment we have seen today, I get the feeling you are pretty angry. I am too.

I have been trying to take the pragmatic view on this campaign, there is an air of inevitability over the whole thing, so I was trying to work towards ensuring when it happened (rather than if), it would be as constructive as possible for both Vk and the community. The Deacon, not to put too fine a point on it, royally fucked that up, and his comments since haven't helped. As I write, those in protest (i.e. pretty much everyone that has commented) have remained remarkably disciplined and resisted his apparent invitation to wheel-war, while forming a consensus on what a poor decision it was.

While I'm sure you, like me, have a new more things you would like to say about the unblocking admin, I suggest we focus on the Vk issue for the moment. Once this has settled down a little, I'd like to consult with you privately about we could stop this sort of terrible administration happening again. Rockpocket 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I appreciate it. An incredibly poor judgment as you say. Ironically it does Vk no favours either. --John (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider removing full protection from Fritzl incest case[edit]

One of the two editors involved in the edit war has promised not to continue to revert. It's your call of course, but at this point I think the protection can probably be scaled back to semi. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will revert to sprot. Thanks for the note. --John (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The last word[edit]

Image:PopDeclineIrishFamine.PNG = OR ... delete at will. --Grahamzilch (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm not an admin on Commons but I will let someone else who is know. Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you. --John (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That was it - it was a moment of madness, the one deliberate OR I committed. Take care. Been good knowing ya. --Grahamzilch (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It was good knowing you too. Please do let me know if there is ever anything I can do to help you. --John (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Just a reminder that Gibraltarian referenda are the same as Botswanan ones.

Whats next ? --Gibnews (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've left them another message. Thanks, --John (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I started a complaint on
If necessary I will ask the Government to take it up with Wikipedia as they also feel strongly about it and have issued a guideline - however it would be nice to avoid that. --Gibnews (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw. That doesn't seem to have helped, and I don't think the Gibraltar Government has any real control over how Wikipedia's naming rules are enforced so I wouldn't recommend that either. There is bound to be a neutral venue where we can attract neutral people who are interested in stuff like this. AN/I is really best kept for situations where admin action is required and this does not fall into that category. Let me think about it some more. --John (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Thomas Bates not a catholic! I think if we were looking for catholics, he, Guy Fawkes, saint peter and the pope would be in the same suspect list. Not worth having an edit war over as most people would realise he was Victuallers (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's that obvious it should be really easy to reference. WP:V applies here; categories are not exempt from them. --John (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Remember that a reference at the end of a para may cover the whole paragraph. Denis Browne was descended from the Family of the Marquesses of Sligo on one side and a Dean of Emly on the other according to the ODNB, or is that not sufficient? Similarly the reference at the end of the sentence is Charles Harington harington covers his Irish background. David Underdown (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ODNB? Wikipedia:Categorization of people states: The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. If I ever remove any that fall into this description, let me know. --John (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography I did let you know when I initially reverted your edit, pointing out it was already cited, and you then removed it again. David Underdown (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did, but the reference is not satisfactory, being subscription only. There's no need for snarky edit summaries like "see th l;ittle 1 at the end of the para? It is referenced" by the way, I'm an admin with over 50 000 edits so I understand how referencing works and this one doesn't cut it. Rather than edit-warring to restore unreferenced material, I'd prefer it if you could find a valid reliable source and insert it, or else remove it as unreferenced as I was trying to do. --John (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that you misundertand WP:V though. Subscription sources are valid. See current discussions on the policy talk page. I'm sorry for my slight display of temper in the edit summary, but when someone asks for a reference for something that's already sourced to a standard reference work, patience sometimes wears a little thin, and it was already being stretched by a long-running discussion on another article at the time. David Underdown (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I understand. My only aim here is to remove unreferenced contentious material from articles. As you will see from my contributions, this category has been seriously abused; I am finding about 90% of the members of this category are completely unreferenced, necessitating hundreds of edits to clean up the category. I intend to complete this today, after which I will try to revisit the points you make. --John (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of category people of Irish descent[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This appears to be done by AWB but you are removing a number of people with citations within the article, or people born in the United Kingdom that go on the represent the nation of their parents or grandparents. May want to look into this.Londo06 09:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Example please? --John (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No matter, I have found what you were talking about. You are wrong, and it is essential that you refrain from restoring unverified negative information to articles on living people. More at your talk. --John (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Have sourced one. How might one attribute a source to a category.Londo06 18:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've answered at your talk; I didn't see a reference to his ethnicity in the reference you mentioned in your edit summary. --John (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for the direction. It is another of those 'it is not what is true, but what is verifiable' things as many of those people who were removed from the category are sportsmen who have played for the Republic of Ireland through parentage or grand parentage.Londo06 18:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In the article Christian O'Connell, it states that his father was Irish. What criteria are you using to remove the category? --Bardcom (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Just WP:V ("The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.") and (where applicable, as in the case you are inquiring about), WP:BLP ("Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.") Self references are no good. --John (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Can I use that logic and quote you when I'm examining articles that use the term "British Isles"??  :-) Seriously though, a random trawl through your edits shows them to be spot on. What a daft category anyhow. But I've been cautioned many times when changing the term "British Isles" that the editor changing a term must also exercise a reasonable degree of care and is expected to do a basic amount of checking. I was just wondering if you were using some criteria, or if you were googling each person, etc, or are you just seeing if the source is referenced, and if it's not, then to remove the category. --Bardcom (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much what I am doing. I am removing the category from articles where the only mention of Irish heritage is in the category or in an unreferenced assertion. Thanks for your endorsement. --John (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

John, that's nonsense. You have vociferously objected on my talk page to my reinstatement of Clare Short to the category, even after I had added a reference, and even though her campaigning on Irish issues is one the main factors in her notability. Please start repopulating the category, or I will take this to ANI as abuse of AWB — AWB should only be used if there is consensus for the change, yet you have been using it to depopulate a category even where the facts are verified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Untrue. If the facts were verifiable I have not removed the category. You need to find proper references I'm afraid; WP:V and WP:BLP are the consensuses I am enforcing with these edits. --John (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and Wikipedia:Categorization of people, as I already mentioned. You might want to ponder that "campaigning on Irish issues" is not synonymous with a particular ethnicity; you may be conflating the two. --John (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
John, you are confusing two related but distinct concepts: "verified" and "verifiable". Clare Short's Irishness is readily verifiable, and per WP:BLP only controversial unreferenced points need to removed.
Clare Short is member of the British House of Commons, and if you can't see that Short's Irish ethnicity is relevant to her campaigning on Irish issues, I;m not going to try explaining it to you. Time to take this to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, no. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space" (from WP:BLP, my emphasis). --John (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
John, do you see that word contentious in the chunk of WP:BLP you quoted???
In what way is it contentious that Clare Short and Kevin McNamara are of Irish ancestry? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help.

"Contentious Adjective 1. causing disagreement 2. tending to quarrel"

I tell you what it generally means on Wikipedia. It means "disputable". Is Clare Short "of Irish descent" or not? Well, you obviously think she is, and you have added a reference that says her father is from Crossmaglen. Well and good. I notice nobody else has chipped in on the talk discussion yet on whether they agree this is a good reference to justify the inclusion of the category. As always, I will go along with what a consensus of reasonable editors think on the matter. What we cannot have is the situation before I went to work, where about 90% of the entries were completely unreferenced. Presumably they had been added by someone who thought that having an Irish surname is the same as belonging to this category. It is not. Unreferenced ethnic and religious categories are a violation of BLP. I removed hundreds of violations, but you have chosen to bluster and threaten me over two chosen examples which you are unhappy about. If you are keen to restore the enormous use of this category which used to pertain, your energies would be better directed to finding reliable sources which describe the subjects of the articles, and which show that their notability is related to their ethnicity. I hope that helps you understand why I did what I did. --John (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

John, could you please be more careful when removing categories. I went over a random selection of your edits concerning people I was familiar with, I was easily able to find several instances where the article already had sufficient reliable sources to justify the presence of the categories you removed. It's all well and fine exorcising a bugbear as long as you're careful not to removed justifiable material too. --Kgaughan (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific examples please? --John (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
John, I don't know whether you are being silly or being disingenuous, but you are stretching the limits of my ability to AGF.
In the a case of Clare Short, you have a high-quality ref that her father is from Cossmaglen. Have you checked where Crossmaglen is? Do you agree that it is in the island of Ireland, and that Short is therefore of Irish descent? If so, why do you dismiss that by saying "you obviously think she is" [Irish]? Do you really want to argue that point?
If you agree with that point, do you agree that Short's resignation from the front bench over the an Irish issue, viz. the PTA, was relevant to her career[23]? Or that she called for British Troops to leave Ireland at a time when that was a bitterly controversial position? And if you agree with those, do you accept that being Irish is a relevant factor?
You say that have set out to "bluster and threaten me over two chosen examples". I don't have time right now to research hundreds of articles, so I chose two people whose career I am familiar with, and that's why I am annoyed. If you dispute even these two high-profile cases, I don't see any reason to trust your judgement on all the rest of the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough BHG. If you still aren't getting this then perhaps you aren't going to. Your annoyance is entirely your own responsibility. I cleaned up a category which was 90% a heap of steaming, BLP-breaching horse-shit, after I had raised the topic at AN/I and in the category talk. You picked up a couple of false positives from the hours of work I had done, added a couple of references, and accused me of vandalism, and you're annoyed. Maybe it is you who are having a POV problem here. Think about it. --John (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC) (amended --John (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Morrissey: a number of sources indicate his views on animal rights[edit]

Hi, you put a "citation needed" point in the lede of the Morrissey article. The article's section on animal rights lists a number of sources. Here is the section:OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I have restored the vegetarian category. --John (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the snarky word "silly" in my edit summary. I had previously thought that citations were never used in ledes (another editor removed my attempts to add citations to a film article lede, and told me that you shouldn't use citations in the lede). However, a quick look to the "Writing a Lede" section of the Manual of Style indicates that "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality." So you were right. Apologies! :) OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. you pointed out on your talk page that you have 50,000 + do you find out this figure? Is there an "editing statistics" button somewhere on a person's user page?
No problem; there are various edit counters. I use this one, which currently gives 53 000 and something for me. Just change the code and add in the user name you want to check. Best wishes, --John (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks complicated. This is much easier![24] I've only just noticed that the user profile in "preferences" gives the number of edits... Ty 04:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That tool only measures edits up to 50k though. Us old-timers have had to adapt... Now to try your other suggestion. --John (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! That must be new, or else I've never noticed it before. Thanks, Ty. --John (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, it must be new then! I thought I had been oblivious for the last two years or so! Ty 04:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Another hater of cheap writing shortcuts[edit]

Hi, I was happy to see on your user page that you dislike the use of the terms "Seminal. Legendary. Iconic. Epochal, used as intensifiers rather than their literal meanings. Unless it's sourced, no. See peacock words." I have removed the terms "seminal" and "legendary" from hundreds of music articles. I find they are often just a cheap, lazy writing shortcut. For example, typically we will hear that "Artist X did a recording in 1987 with the legendary session guitarist Jane Doe." I will cut the word "legendary", but if I am feeling in the mood, I'll do some research. And often I find that the person has been deemed notable, but in a much more restricted sense. And then, I'll reword it as ""Artist X did a recording in 1987 with session guitarist Jane Doe, who was praised in 1998 by New York Times critic John Smith for her "fleet-fingered virtuosity" and "angular improvisations" [1].............................................................But that took 30 minutes of research, so some editors take the lazier path, and just slap on some "peacock words"! OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I often refer people to WP:PEACOCK on these occasions. --John (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008[edit]

The May 2008 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. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward Henry[edit]

Would you please stop claiming that the fact that Henry was of Irish parentage is "unverifiable". It says so in his entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a highly reliable and respected academic source. In what way could this possibly be construed as "unverifiable"? If you mean that you don't have access to the DNB, this is irrelevant. Many people do. If you start claiming that entries in the ODNB are unverifiable then you may as well start claiming that most of Wikipedia is unverifiable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done for referencing the ethnicity of Henry. In this way you have made Wikipedia a little bit better. I intend to go on trimming unverifiable ethnic categories from articles as they breach our policies. The rest of your rant is out of place here, though there may be another place where it would be interesting or relevant. Best, --John (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? That was uncalled for. I was not ranting. You decided to revert something without giving any reason for your revert other than the one you had previously given and which I had refuted. Not good editorial practice, especially from an admin. The ONDB was already referenced in the article and I fail to see why this fact in particular needed to be referenced. Is his parentage particularly controversial? I've seen no evidence of this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my revert was mistaken, but I think yours was too. What you have done the second time round was better; as I say, this makes the assertion of the subject's ethnicity more verifiable. Here's a more typical example of the work I have done. If you look at the archived section above you will see that this has been extensively discussed here, as well as centrally; there are more appropriate places to discuss this, which is what I meant by "out of place". If you came here to point out my mistake I thank you. --John (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


I am trying to find a wikipedia administrator who would readily do an interview for a research project I am conducting from the perspective of a wikipedia insider. If you'd like to do this, please email me at goat77 (AT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat77 (talkcontribs) 17:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Inlet ramp[edit]

Tks for wikifying Inlet ramp on the F-15 page for the uninitiated like me. But gosh, the article needs some work to make it meaningful. For a start, the intro needs to at least explain that an intake is on an aircraft, and to briefly orient the reader by saying where it is and what it does. The current intro -- "An intake ramp is flat rectangular plate-like device, within a 2-Dimensional air intake, designed to generate a, rearward leaning, oblique shock wave, to aid the inlet compression process. The ramp sits at an acute angle to deflect the intake airstream from the longitudinal direction." -- is all about a ramp on something that the reader isn't told about, and probably doesn't know about because it's a fair bet that Wiki visitors are uninitiated. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I did spot that too. I will work on the article as and when I have time. No harm in either starting the work yourself or making some suggestions in the talk page for others to work on. --John (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Sabona! I understood the quidelines to be different. My apologies. Mangwanani (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi John,

Comments from IP address You're opinion please? I suspect they don't constitute the wikipedia standards on only presenting substantiable facts.

Regards, S

Repentant anons[edit]

sorry for vandalism, moments of madness, i really value wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All right i stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi John,

Mind if I ask why you chopped out:-

  • the section on famous fans?
  • the fact that no Welsh team has played against them so far?

By the way are you going next weekend?

Regards, S Socheid (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Soc. There were a lot of "famous fans" sections chopped out as (I think) there was a project consensus that they were unencyclopedic. I won't be able to go on Saturday as I live 8000 miles from Glasgow. Are you going? If so, have a great time. --John (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

The guy was persistant. Corvus cornixtalk 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


This one appears to be a spammer / vandal-only account. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Let's see if they continue after the warning I gave them. If so, I'll block. --John (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh, thought I'd warned them. Sorry, thanks and they are now indefinitely blocked. --John (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Saw that you deleted this page, apparently after blanking by the original author. No quarrel with that. However, the page had an active AfD; it is helpful, if only for cleanup purposes, if you could close the AfD as moot after you delete the page. Verbum sapienti satis. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I missed the AfD note in the history when I looked; obviously I would have closed the AfD if I'd noticed. I really appreciate this feedback and I will definitely look even harder at the histories of articles I'm deleting. Best wishes, --John (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


I accidently deleted nearly all of it my keyboard is messed up and I didn't know how to restore it.[edit]

Thanks (just to be polite) for reblocking this IP 1 day after the previous block expired. As I've previously discussed with Ioeth (the last blocking admin), since I'm physically behind this IP (and has physical access to other computers and users behind this IP, is it useful that I leave a message on the IP talk page suggesting that anyone who wish to create an account behind this IP forward the request directly to me?

Also, the suggestion on the template that potential contributors "create an account at home" is totally unfeasible - this is a boarding school, most people don't go home for months on end!

I therefore propose customising the entire block comment page for the IP to cater for the case. --Deryck C. 12:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. People who belong to an institution where they are allowed unsupervised access to the internet, and whose maturity levels are such that they commit silly vandalism, should not be editing. If anyone from your school wants to edit seriously, there is a mechanism for creating an account for them, which is already linked from my block message. I see no need to take any special measures in this case.--John (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There are 1000+ people behind this IP. Reblocking the IP because of 4 disruptive edits, apprently committed by not more than 2 people, deprives the remaining 1000 of the "privilege" to edit. "People who belong to an institution where they are allowed unsupervised access to the internet" - false, there are stringest block policies imposed on the internet access available through this IP. In addition, I think we should refrain from making indistinctive statements like "People who belong to an institution... whose maturity levels are such that they commit silly vandalism, should not be editing". This is personal attack on everyone in the school. --Deryck C. 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I was digressing above. I wouldn't oppose settling the situation of the block as is, if you insist that the current mechanism is adequate. However, forgive me for my sensitivity, but I find your comments strongly irritating. --Deryck C. 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm genuinely sorry to have irritated you, as it wasn't my intention. But a year's softblock seems well within the usual parameters for a schoolblock. There is nothing stopping good contributors like yourself from editing under an existing username account, and neither are people prevented from opening an account, as I said above and in the block message I sent. If you know of anyone who is genuinely being disadvantaged by this, if you see any obstacle in policy or in common sense with what I've done, or, most of all, if you can show evidence that the encyclopedia will be harmed by removing the ability to edit anonymously from the school IP, then I will be happy to reconsider. Best wishes, --John (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What Was the Problem wit--John (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)h the External Link re: David Blaine?[edit]

Yesterday I posted the following as an External Link

David Blaine Style Street Magic. A How To Do the Tricks

which you subsequently removed. Since most of the links are his "official" links, it would seem appropriate that there be some links-- whether this one or others-- that help explain what is done. If you want to add a Spoiler Alert, please do so.

At the same time, if this link does not adhere to more general Wikipedia Link Rules, be nice to know what the real problem is.


Coco Pazzo

19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read this section above as the arguments are very similar. Basically, we aren't really looking for a lot of extra external links, as they add little that couldn't be easily found on a Google search. Substantive content which is well-referenced, on the other hand, is always very welcome. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just an information[edit]

Hi, I'm here just to ask for a bureaucratic information (I'm asking to you because you are one of few admins who reviewed the topic ban without asking to punish me for having asked a review): since the bot has archieved my request for a review (because there were no replies in 24 hours) before any consensus could emerge, what is the conclusion? Is the appeal to be considered finally fully legitimated? Or is there any room to contest the ban?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me look into that, Pokipsy76. It'll take me a few hours though. --John (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I know what it means but I am very grateful for your interest on this.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I will do what I can to ensure that Thomas receives treatment that is not only fair but demonstrably fair, as I would for any good faith editor. --John (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was just asking an information but I see you have been involving yourself in the issue and I thank you again for your care. I want to let you know that your understanding of the process is right: despite Raul's claim that "All of the arbitrators rejected his appeal" actually only one replied to the request (and btw this arbitrator was asked two times to explain his position here and here but he didn't reply). Later, when the request was archieved, another arbitrator said that this kind of requests have to be asked to AN/I so it seems strange to suggest that arbitrators who did not reply "rejected the appeal". Raul is also misleading when he says that he was not "involved in the dispute" because the arbcom explicitly said that «For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict» (although I think there would have been room for an appeal even if Raul would have been really "uninvolved").--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comments. I still have some qualms about this, especially about Raul's involvement in the matter as I agree with you that the definition of "uninvolved" does not seem congruent with the definition used elsewhere. However, I am at a loss to know where to go with it next. Let me think about it some more; in the meantime, there is plenty of other stuff to get on with. --John (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivility undiscovered[edit]

John I have replied on my page but given that I am under constant threat of being blocked by some Admins for alleged incivility (for which no objective standard exists that I can see) I must ask you to point out the exact words I used that you regard as uncivil. I simply can't see any incivility in the diff you provided. Perhaps you could explain it to me, if only that I may in future avoid such apparent incivility? Regards, Sarah777 (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

SamuelM555 block evasion[edit]

What do you think of (talk · contribs) as a block evading sock of SamuelM555 (talk · contribs)? Contribs are almost all related to Jew categories. - auburnpilot talk 13:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have warned them in the first instance and reverted some of their edits. --John (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Uploading image that is free license[edit]

--Visualmaxnyc (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Hi John, You left me a message about uploading an image for Carmindy. The image I am trying to upload is a freely licensed image, however how to add the image with that setting. Wiki edits are new to me, so there is a lot to learn. Can you advise? thanks, Mimi

Massacres saga?[edit]

Hmmm. I recently tried fighting a little rear guard action against how every school shooting is nowadays labeled as a massacre, but I finally gave up. Although, this trend has only been going on for a decade or two, or since roughly the start of the 24 news cycle. It used to be, as far as I can tell, that a massacre was committed by police or military again civilians or even at worst deputized civilians (i.e. St. Bart's day massacre). The St. Valentine's Day massacre was originally believed to have been a police act, which may have started the trend as it was never popularly renamed; but I generally hate it when words are dumbed down newspeak style. Anyway, blah blah, about to sign off on the East coast but if you know of any discussions on this in hidden corners of the wiki, I'd be interested to read up. -- Kendrick7talk 05:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll let you know. I like some of your ideas about terrorism and how we deal with it here. --John (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment[edit]

Hey thanks for tidying that item up for me on the UDR page. Very kind of you.GDD1000 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No trouble, my pleasure. --John (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's gone.[edit]

I took your advice. But what I said is still nonetheless true if I don't get some help with this - soon. Googie man (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John for your help. I don't want to make any trouble, but this guy really needs more than just a warning. I've been blocked for much less. Thanks, Googie man (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. If you'd like to tell me what the problem was about then maybe I can help you. --John (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


John, What would the charge be? They don't like me?? At all times I remain civil and my explanation for the warring on Irish/British articles if self-evidently true. Is truth now not only to be banned from Wiki-articles but also from the talk pages? And note the diffs Deacon cites at AN/I - not 'one of them is out of order - he is trying to build a picture for his sympathetic audience by context-less snippets. Sarah777 (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As Rock said on your talk, it is not allowed to remove the AfD template from articles while discussion is ongoing. As it says on the template itself. By repeatedly doing that, edit warring over it even, then demanding someone apologize for saying you were being disruptive (which you pretty much were), then continuing to argue it at AN/I... I do hope you took Rock's advice and mine. I'm away to look now. --John (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, John, I'm in and out a bit as I'm working tonight (for the love of money) but it seems the ANI chaps are going for a Community Ban. Now, while you will appreciate that I have a personal pov on this I do think that objectively that is so OTT as to boggle the mind given what other users have been doing! I can't but conclude that despite the stated reasons given the sheer OTTness of the proposal is related to my the actual opinions expressed rather than any incivility or 'disruption'. Also pl note the way some of this is being played: Deacon and I had a long debate on my page on the whole British/Irish/Western POV and so on. In the end it was leading nowhere and becoming pointless so I typed "Zzzzzzzz" as a humorous way to indicate that I was finished and tired with the argument. Next Deacon (no surprise) pops up at ANI; quotes diffs from what was a perfectly amiable conversation on my page to use against me. I added "Zzzzzzzz" was beset by admins who read it as giving two fingers to ANI. I tried to explain and Deacon, rather than supporting my explanation, adds that "the fact you did it before is not an ameliorating fact".
This is bordering on a malicious distortion to add to the banning frenzy. I have said I now realise removing the tag was forbidden (in the context at the time it didn't even occur to me) and have not gone near it since. Also at ANI the admins addressing me seem to breach WP:CIVIL with glee and use any attempt at retort as more evidence for a block. Sarah777 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You said on my talk page the other day "But "You may need to watch out" sounds/looks very like a threat to my hyper-sensitive ears/eyes." (John, this was in the context of me making two edits to an article a week apart, and Sarah giving me a 3rr warning for it! My retort was because Sarah had pretty much breached or come close to breaching 3rr on a few articles.) Hyper-sensitivity may indeed be your problem, Sarah. Ever notice how its always the other editor, in your opinion, who is being uncivil, edit warring, being disruptive, making personal attacks, inserting PoV, whatever - never you? Even where the other editor is a staunch republican, like ONiH? Really, its getting tiresome, and you're doing yourself more harm than good. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be busy myself for the next while so I can't add much, except to say if you haven't been blocked yet and you stop editing in ways people find disruptive, you should probably be ok. Sorry I can't be more help. --John (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


I was playng with my talk page archives because something wrong happened with the ArchivingBot, so I moved the page of my Talk Page Archive # 2 to Talk Page Archive #1, and now talk page archive #2 is now on redirect to #1, could you delete the page of #2? Because I'll need that space. YaBoiKrakerz

Done. --John (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, :D YaBoiKrakerz

Hey. I noticed there's nothing about John Bostock's proposed move to Tottenham. I added a couple of links on his discussion page for you to mull over.. I'm not very good at the reference thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwm100 (talkcontribs) 14:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Great Hunger"[edit]

John, can you explain what happened? It's beyond me.... Wotapalaver (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez[edit]

Both sources say "elope" - so in the spirit of NOR shouldnt we be using that!?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought long and hard about this. In my opinion, we should echo the content of the sources, but without necessarily using the same language they do, if the language they use is mistaken, as in this case. Another example of this from yesterday was when I edited an article about an explosion which used to talk about a "massive" explosion. Massive is not a synonym for large (though many lazy people use it that way); it means "having mass" or "heavy" and can never be applied to explosions, which consist of gas and have almost no mass at all. It's perfectly possible that the source contained this mistake too (I didn't check the source, although I did in the case of Gomez), but that is no reason that we should. Feel free to take it to talk if you feel strongly about this. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
While one meaning of "massive" is "having mass" other uses of the term are synonyms of large. See : "large in scale, amount, or degree", "Large or imposing, as in quantity, scope, degree, intensity, or scale", "Large in comparison with the usual amount"... Tweisbach (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
While you may have a point, is hardly a reliable source for meanings. It is riddled with error. Show me a reputable (preferably paper) dictionary that gives the meaning you describe and I am more likely to take you seriously. --John (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My computer dictionary, which is based on the New Oxford American Dictionary gives the following as the second definition of massive: "exceptionally large : massive crowds are expected. • very intense or severe : a massive heart attack. • informal particularly successful or influential : the title song became a massive hit." Tweisbach (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting, but with all respect hardly a verifiable source in my opinion. --John (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not? It is based on a work by a well-known publisher. There is no reason to believe the text is different from the published version. The book the readily available from various sources. Tweisbach (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Saw this while adding comment below. My Concise OED gives Massive: 1 large and heavy and solid 2. relatively large; of solid build 3. exceptionally large 4. substantial, impressive 5. not visibly crystalline 6. without structural divisions. I'm leaving out the additional notes but - while I agree that massive should formally mean "has lots of mass" - it's clear that "substantial", and "large" etc, are documented meanings. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. 'Documented in a dictionary' is not the same as 'ideal for encyclopedic usage' though, and this distinction needs to be borne in mind. Having said that, I am grateful for the feedback. --John (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiberno English[edit]

Hi John. I was just checking a usage of "would" in Hiberno English (about how Irish people use it in places that confuse many people because they don't mean anything conditional at all). I went looking for other phrases that I had heard too and didn't find them. Rather than just editing them in, I found that they had been in the article before and a quick search showed me that you'd edited out a bunch of phrases (including the ones I was looking for) in August 2007 on the basis that they were OR and/or not exclusive to Ireland. Apart from the fact that half of that page isn't referenced at all anyway, which makes me wonder why some phrases attracted y our attention and not others, even a quick look suggests that many of the phrases you deleted could easily be referenced and/or are predominantly used in Ireland. Rather than spend time researching all the phrases you deleted, can you explain the edits to me? thanks. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can show me the diff you are talking about that would be a help. As you no doubt know, unreferenced material can be deleted at any time. If you can find proper references then feel free to re-add the material. --John (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that unreferenced material can be deleted at any time but since hardly anything in the lexicon section is referenced the extensive, yet selective, nature of the removals piqued my interest and removals from lexicons like that are hard to repair since the original contributor may be long gone. The diff is [25] You did an additional removal a little later. Many of the terms removed are listed in the hiberno-english archive and are easy to verify [26]. For example, two of your deletions are "cute" and "hoor". They're in the HE archive, which is apparently maintained by a Professor of English. You deleted a LOT of words. "Couple" is another one that had recently caused me some confusion and which you deleted. It's in the archive too. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I stand 100% behind what I did. "Bird"? "Hoor"? Come on. If you are able to provide proper references that these are uniquely Hiberno-Irish, I will be enormously surprised. Any further correspondence regarding this can best be addressed to Talk:Hiberno-English I think. --John (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that a term needs to be uniquely Hiberno-Irish to qualify for inclusion on the page. There are quite a few terms that are in Hiberno-English that - AFAIK - will only exist in Britain in restricted areas but which are not in general use in Britain whereas they are in general use in Ireland. Taking two specific examples and demanding "unique" references is not a reasonable response to my question, which was whether you were bulk deleting things in a reasonable way. As for "Cute", it should be there with it's particular idiomatic usage, as should "hoor". On the topic of "uniquely", hoor in particular specifies, on the HE archive page in any case, that it's originally Old English - as are many of the Hiberno-English terms. I'll bring this to the article talk page, but really! "Hot Press" is another example. Even OED lists the usage of "press" as "cupboard" as specifically Irish or Scottish, it's in the article again, yet you deleted "hot press". Your deletions seem careless/opinion driven rather than reasoned. Only a little incremental work could have found the references instead of simply selectively picking deletions. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems we differ on what the scope of the article should be then. As I said, this would best be addressed to the article talk page. Let me again state though that I stand 100% behind what I did; articles like these unfortunately attract a lot of 'cute' cruft which needs to be ruthlessly trimmed out lest the articles become useless cruftbuckets. Glasgow patter is another article which I have occasionally decrufted in a similar fashion; per WP:V any editor may remove material which is unreferenced and the onus is on the editor wishing to retain it to provide proper references. See you in article talk, where I look forward to you showing me how 'bird' is a uniquely Irish locution. --John (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
John, I never said "bird" was uniquely Irish, nor that any of the words were. I have no objection to removing cruft, but I do feel that your deletions were above and beyond reasonable cruft removal. See you on talk. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)[edit]

The May 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories for Depeche Mode[edit]

John, could you please look into this dispute and rv war regarding categories. It seems to me that the more categories the article is linked to the easier it is for the reader to find it. Also, am I wrong thinking that since many other bands are in those categories, DM should be there by all means? Garik 11 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look today or tomorrow. --John (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you John. Still, what is your opinion as an administrator and Depeche Mode-interested person concerning categorization in this case, (talk)? I am sure the reader would be much comfortable browsing through main categories "English musical groups" and "British electronic music groups", not their fairly vague subcategories. Depeche Mode belong there by rights. Am I wrong? Garik 11 (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you =)[edit]

John, thanks for dropping by my talk page to congratulate me on my successful RFA. I think one of the most important things that came out of my RFA was my realization that my username is not just hypothetically inappropriate, but that there is a real probability for it to offend people or cause them apprehension. I've posted an in depth RFA analysis and this is the main issue that I am exploring (I also touch on the remark to kmweber that you noted was your main reason for opposing), and your further input is welcome. if the technical issue can be worked out, I'll most likely be changing my username to simply "Xeno". I'd much rather be a stranger than a stranger-killer. templated RFA thanks is also available below. thanks again, xenocidic (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. My congratulations were sincere. I hope you will bring the same thoroughness and thoughtfulness to your work as an admin that you have to resolving this matter. If you do I am sure you will be a great admin. Best wishes, --John (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(Re vandal fighting) No problem. xenocidic (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis[edit]

Hello John, I have come to you because you are an admin, Matt Lewis has been harassing me for the last few days and more telling me my comments are pro-nationalist POV on the British Isles talk page, which led to a discussion on his talk page. I have generaly kept my cool and asked him to keep his. Unfortunately it came to a head on his talk page when he told me to f***k off. I have really had it with him and would appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Thank you. Jack forbes (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Without having looked in great depth I can see incivility from both of you there. Can I suggest you both try to avoid each other for say a week and see if things die down? --John (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I do think if you look closer at his talk page you will find a running theme. He is quite frankly rude to anyone who disagrees with him. Jack forbes (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Moffat[edit]

Can you explain why you deleted my new article on Mary Moffat ? There was a hold on tag as well as a newly created talk page regarding her work? This was my first article on here on a very important woman. Franco12 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I read both the article as it stood and the talk page and I was not convinced that the article asserted her significance in a way that satisfied our policy on notability. There is no bar on you writing a better one; if you want to do that I can move the deleted content into your user space so you can work on it before going live with it the next time. This is what I do when I write articles. --John (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo rights[edit]

We have a photo we want to upload to wiki that is a photo taken by a photographer. We have permission from the photographer to use the image. How can I upload this image without it getting taken down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visualmaxnyc (talkcontribs) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Image, SteveG.jpg[edit]

Hiya --

Steve's out of the office today, but tomorrow i'm going to have him send me a message authorizing this image to be re-released to Wikipedia under a new license. Which license structure would you prefer? I say 'you' because you're clearly more into Wikiworld than I am and you'd probably know.

--james —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijimmy (talkcontribs) 22:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This link should work for you, then choose one of the free licenses from the dropdown list, fill in the description and date fields, and you should be good to go. --John (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Laughing man image[edit]


I've filed an IFD on the laughing man image discussion This isn't personal at all. I'm familiar with the anime this image comes from and know this to be a copyright issue, additionally, he's placed this image in his webpage before as I stated earlier. I am giving you blanket authorization to alter any comment I made regarding your involvement in the IFD discussion if you believe it's inaccurate or in any way mis-leading . Thanks F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

deletion of the Lars Ro page[edit]

hi John. i spent MANY hours putting together Lars_Ro, and now i find that not only have you deleted it, but that even if i google it and click on the cached version, that more than 90% of the content i had amassed there is irretrievable.

the reason given is "Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance." i thought mentioning the responsibility for starting Fredsvagten - - the longest running peace demonstration in Danish history (a history which goes back, you know, a couple of years...) was sufficient grounds for significance. i had also added references and documentation to satisfy your standards of striving for so-called objectivity, but apparently all of this was overlooked?

PLEASE tell me that all of the information i had saved on Lars_Ro is retrievable somewhere. please!!!

thanks in advance for yr response. (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to User:Larsro/sandbox; I assume you are the same user? Please make sure the article asserts the notability of the subject and is adequately referenced if you would like it to go back on the mainspace. --John (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on topic ban[edit]

Hi John, I've tried to reach you by email without luck. I am curious to hear what conclusions, if any, you reached about my topic ban.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. I did read your email, and I am sorry not to have replied. I am genuinely at a loss here; you will recall I discussed the matter with Raul here, and also with Pokipsy76 here. I still think the topic ban was an unethical act on Raul's part, as I believe he was far too "involved" to properly take this action; however it is not what I think that matters here, it is whether there would be a consensus to undo the action. I would suggest that it may be more profitable to show that the situation has changed, than to appeal the topic ban on procedural grounds. I am happy to discuss this further with you if you like, either by email or (preferably) here. --John (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind discussing it here. It is unfortunate that Raul was less than uninvolved (or, perhaps, not clearly uninvolved) because it makes the most obvious objection "procedural". At this point, I'm really most interested what I would have to change in order to keep editing here. I don't think a substantial case against my work here has been made. Since I have simply respected the ban, it would be hard to show that I've changed. But, like I say, I don't know what I could possibly do differently.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I could rephrase this: I am less interested in what Raul did or did not do wrong than in what I did or did not do wrong. I'd like to think I'm entirely innocent, but as it stands I don't really even understand the accusation. The edit I made, even if I'd had a history of POV pushing, seems exemplary (I discussed it before hand, conducted a poll, waited a week, and clearly marked the edit as "bold" and experimental).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, it beats me as well. All I know is that a user initiated the ban against you, and the discussion at the arbComm page ended without a consensus to overturn the ban (without, frankly, almost any comment at all). Then we had the AN/I discussion where there was significant dissent (three admins including me if I recall correctly) about the matter, but still without a clear consensus to unban. Perhaps it is time to go back to AN/I again; I'm wary of doing that too soon though in case people will see it as premature. What do you think yourself? --John (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm definitely going to wait a bit longer before asking to have the ban lifted. (I'll be on vacation in July and won't do anything until I get back.) Even then, I don't want to have the ban lifted on the assumption that I've "learned my lesson", or that time has been "served", if I have not been given a plausible reason for the ban in the first place. If nothing more is said, I think the ban should be overturned, not lifted. As I understand the DR process, however, such principled reasoning is not deemed constructive. As things are normally done, Raul can easily avoid explaining himself, he can even avoid lifting the ban himself, simply by announcing that he "won't object" to someone else lifting the ban. In an important sense, I think a group of editors has managed to muddy my name and I would like to clear it before returning to editing. I'm by no means optimistic about that; but I'm also wary about editing here if something like that can't be arranged.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I would not have tried to support you if I did not believe that you were a highly principled person, and here again you show that you are honorable. I'd say the greater the time that elapses, the better a chance you will have of seeing the ban revoked. Asking for your name to be cleared is trickier; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy nor is it a legal system. Indeed it often does really poorly when it tries to behave like a legal system, as you have perhaps seen. Hang in there and see what happens. Sorry I can't be more helpful. --John (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You've been very helpful already. Thank you. For now, I'm going to enjoy my exile/retirement, work a bit on my memoirs, etc. Perhaps we'll run into each other in the future. Best, --Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


I was just wondering why you removed the flag icon from The Future Sound of London page. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 04:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because FSOL are not a military unit or a governmental organisation, and because flags used like this add nothing at all beyond what the country name gives already. You might want to look at WP:FLAGS for more info on where we do and don't use flags on Wikipedia. Best wishes, --John (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow...OK...thanks I guess... ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 05:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll[edit]

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi John, I'm seeking the help of administrator and I hope you can help me with a problem I'm having. A few days ago, I restored a paragraph representing a certain point of view in Fatimah that an editor, User:Itaqallah, is working tirelessly to keep off the encyclopedia. He reverted my edits many times, here, here, here, here, here claiming each time that is a polemical and unreliable source, even though of the 14 sources provided, only two are linked to I replied by showing him that is cited by the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, by Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress here, and I just found it on the website of Columbia University here as a main reference on Islam. Other websites he also considered unreliable have published on their websites the historical books I cited. The paragraph is to represent the Shi'a Muslim point of view and the paragraph starts with "There are two distinct views on the manner of her death between the Shias and Sunnis. Shias maintain [...]" and I pointed out that the website affiliated with Ayatollah Sistani,, tells the same story here, so even if and are polemical and unreliable, which they are not, they illustrate the point of view of Shi'a Muslims which should be properly represented. I pointed all of this out to User:Itaqallah but he is determined to this out because it goes against what he believes in and it is one of the arguments that rock the foundations of Sunni Islam. I would like to ask you to consider protecting the article or take some sort of action against User:Itaqallah because I think this is a case of incivility and bad faith. The discussion was copied on the talkpage of the article. Thanks. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll try to chime in on the talk page when I can. --John (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Another editor, User:MezzoMezzo, has done the same as Itaqallah and reverted my edit with no valid reason. Please help as soon as possible. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed Talk:Fatimah and find I can't add anything to what the other editors there have already told you. I'll keep an eye but basically on these highly-charged religious issues, remain true to the source and choose neutral sources, however hard that may be. I hope this is some help. --John (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium Talk 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"England did not declare war"[edit]

Out of curiosity, what was the issue over the declaration of war in this comment? Was it just that the UK declared war, and not England? -- SCZenz (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. England has not been an independent political entity since at least 1707. We Scots get annoyed when foreigners confuse England with Britain, as it omits our involvement, although I do recognize that it can be confusing. See Berwick-upon-Tweed#State of war with Russia for an amusing urban myth around this constitutional confusion. --John (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXV - June 2008[edit]

The June 2008 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. SteveBot (owner) 02:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Kazoo Funk Orchestra's Notability[edit]

Hi John,

How are you? You recently posted a Notability notice on The Kazoo Funk Orchestra wiki suggesting that the page did not satisfy the criteria. I had a look at the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (music) and can confirm that the page satisfies more than one point, and only one is deemed necessary:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable - this can be reflected with an album review and feature in national newspapers, the Daily Record and the Evening Times linked in external links.

6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that commonsense exceptions always apply - Krash Slaughta who was part of II Tone Committee and Monkey Mafia

9. Has won or placed in a major music competition - they were nominated for an Indy Award earlier this year.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc - this can be reflected with the band's music being used on the Your Sound - Best of Term One compilation, they were also featured on the soundtrack of Creme Skateboards film Trailer Trash and on Greek television show Art Uber Ales.

I hope this helps (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Henry

Copyright of photos[edit]

Hi John,

I have tried asking for assistance elsewhere but without success.

I have a whole load of alerts sent to me by wikipedia saying that a bunch of photos that I have added are going to be deleted for concerns related to copyright. At least 1 of them has been deleted already. Can you tell me what the issue is please? When I took the photos I don't see what the concern is.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Socheid. You need to licence your photos correctly. Have a look at the ones I did for you before such as the scoreboard and you'll see what I mean. Let me know if you need more help. If you add, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} that will work. --John (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi John,

Looks like I have blundered as I didn't see the advice that you pasted above. I will tackle when I get back down South as I am currently in Dumfries.

On the point I was given a meeting Ian Black, the very helpful historian and museum curator of QoS FC. I am equiped with all sorts of additional info that I will be adding on various players. I have also been given some photos from the club archives that they have OKed me adding to wikipedia with them as the copyright holders. They have also OKed me using match tickets that they printed.

Regards, S

Hi Socheid. Unfortunately Wikipedia can only usually use pictures which are free, ie the copyright holder has to give up their copyright to them. This is what you or I do when we upload our own photos. Other than this, it would be "fair use", which is heavily restricted. We always prefer to use free pictures rather than nonfree, even where the copyright holder has granted permission. A ticket stub would not seem to be a good way to illustrate an article on a football team, in my opinion, anyway. --John (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi John,

What about the images the club have given me the OK to use? Is there any point in me loading those up or are they just going to get deleted?

Regards, S

What are they pictures of? If they are historical images, that is definitely ok, but strict rules apply. If it is modern stuff like tickets, there's little point as they don't really add anything. --John (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi John,

The images all related to Queen of the South, namely images of Hughie Gallacher, a photo of the 1997 Challenge Cup Final squad and also a photo of ex chairman Norman Blount. It was the Blount family who put me in touch with Ian Black as the best source to get photos of Norman's time at the club in the late 90s.

Re the match ticket, can I make a counter suggestion that the match ticket is relevant it is for the Scottish Cup Quarter Final that is referred to in the text. As well as being important for the club it is also important for Ryan McCann; as McCann said himself in the press after scoring "that goal", it is a goal that he has next to chance of ever bettering, plus it has given him a place in the history books.

Regards, S

If you read the page I linked to above you will get more of a feel for what would and wouldn't be allowed. I think I disagree with you on the match ticket question, but there may be a discussion to be had at Talk:QoS about it. --John (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)[edit]

The June 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you would consent to being my admin coach, I have already created a page at User:Mifter/Admin Coaching, I did see that you already had a student but after seeing that the Admin Coaching page had not been edited for the last few months I was wondering if you would consider taking me on as a second student? Thanks in Advance and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mifter. I'm sorry but I can't help you at the moment as I have too much going on in real life just now. If you are still looking in a few weeks or a month I may be able to help you then. Best wishes, --John (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much!![edit]


Homemade is always better. That's an awesome photo and a lovely award. Thank you :) - Alison 05:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome Alison, and I'm glad you liked it. I uploaded a better edit, as the first was a little choppy. It was slightly surreal to walk around and see actual barnstars and star anchors on houses. A sign I have spent too much time at the wiki-coalface. I feel another break, or protracted spell of semi-involvement coming on. Real life is a bit busy just now, mostly in a good way. Thanks again for all the great work you do. --John (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks from me too, John. That is a great 'star, did you spot it on your holidays? I hope it gets put into common usage. Thanks again. Rockpocket 21:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You are totally welcome. Yes, I took it in New Hope, Pennsylvania, as pleasant a little town as you could hope to see. As for common usage, there is nothing to stop anyone awarding it to anyone else in the future. Maybe I'll see if I can get it adopted as an official barnstar (which I should probably have done prior to making the template) as well. --John (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank you personally for reverting edits by Mitsomega and restoring my page. Thank you very much. Montgomery' 39 12:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thanks for the award. --John (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Protect this article[edit]

If you take a look on the history of Dildo there is constant vandalism, alot of articles that are in the particular sex category get vandelized alot. I thought it would be of the common editor's best interest to semi-protect this article YBK

Thanks, I've added it to my watchlist for now and will semi-protect if that seems necessary. --John (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome, I really like the way you look at things, John. YBK

Edgar Froese[edit]

Tangerine Dream's website has been overhauled and all personal information is gone, so I guess I can't provide a reference. FYI, at one time the TD website contained a ridiculous 300 or so item "FAQ" split into several pages because of its size, which stated that Froese & son are almost radical vegetarians (which is no doubt why the category was included, but it wasn't me who put it in origianlly), and also had a long list of grievances about past members (a lot of really insulting and doubtful stuff about Peter Baumann in particular, but on the whole Froese doesn't think much of any of his past associates). He/They also had a lot of negative things to say about reviewers and fans, complaining about their being tagged as electronic musicians, saying "Tangerine Dream were never about electronic music" and suggesting anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant. I really like Froese's music, but I get the impression he is not an easy person to get along with. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's really interesting, thank you. I love your user name too! --John (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ditto to all of the above, actually. I'm also a big fan of theirs and had heard the radical veggie allegations before. If I remember, Froese and wife and son had to have their own chef accompany them on tours. There's a bunch more information in the "dancing grizzlies" interview that Froese gave some years back. I have the audio here and can check stuff up if you like ... - Alison 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I found this, which is a pretty crappy-looking reference but will do for the purpose of establishing Froese's vegetarianism. I have a thing about categories added to living people articles without any references or even mention in the text... --John (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a really hefty and well-sourced set of references from the International Vegetarian Union. This has the lot! - Alison 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a better-looking references. I always mistrust these type of lists (ie the first ref I found by googling). --John (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your GA is under review[edit]

Hi there, I see that you are a primary contributor to the article Tsar Bomba. This article has come under review for Good article reassessment as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified which are listed on the talk page. Please begin to address these points in the next seven days or the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Patchogue, NY page edit[edit]

On June 7th, I added a link to the Patchogue, NY page to a map of restaurants and bars which you removed. Can you let me know why it was removed?

Thanks Nking79 (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I already did. See User talk: and WP:EL. --John (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Please see Aircraft of the Battle of Britain. Heated editwar taking place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

7th of July 2005[edit]

Please can you explain why you have chosen to change the date formats for the article 7th of July 2005 London bombings? Failed search (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's explained at Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Dates. --John (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. But isn't it an article about an incident in the UK, where we normally use dates with the 'st/nd/rd/th' and 'of', especially when used in a sentence.
"Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable guidelines above should use that format." Failed search (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you've misunderstood the guideline. The 'st/nd/rd/th' and 'of' are still deprecated, worldwide. By format it means 7 July or July 7. --John (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks. Failed search (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan[edit]

Hello, John. The G&S article is part of WP:G&S and has been through the GA process. Please do not reduce image sizes in the article, as several editors have previously reviewed the images in the article and are satisfied with the image sizes. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page of the article. --John (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shannon (Irish River)[edit]

About time John; though why you ignored all the warring till I stepped in to stop it remains a mystery. Sarah777 (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You stepped in to stop it? By reverting? What an unusual way to look at things Sarah. I was protecting you and others from a possible block there, think of that. Your assumption of bad faith is noted. --John (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Lordy John, I didn't WP:ABF - sometimes a revert is a good thing; especially when restoring the status quo - I'm conflicted as to whether you are WP:NPOV on this Irish/Brutish thingy. Rest assured however, that should I get myself into trouble (a permanent possibility) I've got you on Wiki speed-dial. Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello John, just a note to say I've sent an E-mail. Regards. Acalamari 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Acalamari. I'll give your suggestion serious thought. Appreciate it. --John (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! Acalamari 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Racial categories[edit]

John, I see you're deleting lots of categorizations with the summary "no evidence". However it appears you are not looking for evidence. Please be more careful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
No. Please review WP:V and WP:BLP The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.[2]. --John (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I posted about this at Category talk:People of mixed Asian-European ethnicity, and I'd welcome your input there. --John (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello John! I have found your page when I searched for smartaupairs. May I ask you how you have found out about smartaupairs and then, why you deleted the entry? If you would like to respond in German (as I have seen your language abilities), you are welcome to do so, as German is my mother tongue. Of course I would also like to have an English respond! Kind regards, Evelyn

Evianevelyn (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Evelyn. The entry has been deleted twice, both times because it did not assert the notability of the subject. If you read WP:N, this may make it clearer to you. If you need any more help, let me know. --John (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: User:Ward3001/Personal attacks by Dev920[edit]

Hi, I noticed this. Anything I can do to help? --John (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'm not sure at this point if you can help. I've just set up the page and plan to add more later. If you want to familarize yourself with the problem, read comments by Dev920 and me on the RfC on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. After I add more to the page I'll keep your offer in mind. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me. Many thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll read up on the situation and try to offer advice in the next few hours. Meantime I suggest you avoid the user you are having problems with, and that you message me if you need any help. --John (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Good advice. Thanks again. Ward3001 (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cover scan of The Ghost[edit]

Hi, John. Would be grateful if you could identify the reasons you consider the image of The Ghost jacket fails to meet fair-use requirements. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Book covers are normally only considered fair use on the article on the book. See WP:NFC for details. The rationale at Image:Ghost cover scan .jpg is only for the book. Hope that makes clearer why I removed it from the other two articles where it was being used. --John (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, inevitably disappointed though I am :D Wingspeed (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hearts/Flag icons[edit]

Can you think of a better reason to keep the flag icons than precedent? From the point of view of the ordinary user, what do these flags actually add in functional terms? --John (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My perspective regarding flag icons is as follows.
In general, I agree with you that in many articles, they are gratuitous and add clutter. However, I think that football, in particular, is different - nationality is important for numerous reasons. Flag icons show the diversity (or lack thereof) of European clubs - a "hot topic" in the sport currently (for example, Sepp Blatter's "six plus five" proposal). Additionally, nationality is particularly relevant in the Scottish league, as Hearts is notable for being the only club in the league with absolutely no Scots in chairmanship or ownership positions, and Hibs are the only other team with a non-Scottish manager. Whether or not these things SHOULD be relevant is not at issue; the fact is, given the political (within the world of football, I mean) situation of the times, these facts are important for understanding the nature of certain conflicts (i.e. the tensions involving Hearts' player-loaning relationship with FBK Kaunas), and they (the nationalities) are not immediately obvious to casual observers without the flags in the infobox.
I certainly appreciate your crusade to remove the flags to clean up articles - but I strongly believe in the case of football clubs, they serve an important, and at least currently, relevant purpose. Thanks for the dialogue! Tjtenor4 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I should probably clarify, in the interests of full disclosure, that I do not fully agree with the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding flags on this matter. It is my opinion that adding flags of nationality to a footballer's infobox greatly aids the reader's understanding of the footballer, as his country of origin, as well as the country of his current and former clubs, are often relevant information that can help the reader understand the footballer's career progression. My opinion is further driven by the fact that I am a native American with great interest in Scottish and European football, and for someone who did not grow up in Europe and thus does not speak the "language" of European football fluently (i.e. I sometimes have to remind myself that Cardiff City is in Wales, not England, despite playing in the English FA cup), nationality flags certainly help in comprehension and understanding of football articles. I think that, when limited to the infobox, the clutter added by these flags is minimal, whereas the benefits, in terms of both the amount of information imparted and the ease with which this information is imparted, are significant. I realize that this opinion is solely my own and contrary to both Wikipedian consensus and the MoS, but I hope that maybe through dialogue we can come to recognize that in some instances, these flags are not gratuitous and can genuinely enhance articles. Shrug... just my two cents! Tjtenor4 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You make some interesting points, and I am fairly charmed by them, especially the point you make about Hearts specifically. I lived 400 yards from Hibernian F.C. for many years and I went to see them quite often. I took this photo a few steps outside my house last year. I would therefore not wish to seem even slightly anti-Hearts in saying that maybe if this imbalance is noteworthy it should be highlighted in text in the article, rather than merely alluded to using flag icons. As a written resource we depend primarily on text to carry our information across, and written information is easier to verify than flag icons are. Where these geographical quirks are truly noteworthy they should be pointed out to the reader; I agree the setup in the UK is uniquely confusing to the outside reader. I love flags, and for a long time would have agreed on your aesthetic take on the matter. But I have gone with the flow as the consensus at WP:FLAGS has developed (and it's been a long and much debated consensus). I now go with using flags as sparingly as possible, as they cause edit wars, overemphasize nationality, and are often misused, especially in the UK context. I may seek your permission to copy this to the FLAGS talk page, and see if anyone else wishes to chip in. --John (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
By all means, feel free to copy this discourse wherever you like! I may navigate my way on over myself. As for living near Easter Road, I must apologize ;-) (As a Hearts fan, I suppose I'm biased!) To be fair, on my recent trip to Edinburgh I did stay in Leith, and thus passed by Easter Road on the way into town each day... and I rather liked the area. I hope one of these days to make it to a game at Tynie, but when one lives in Colorado, it's a bit of a trek! Cheers, Tjtenor4 (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no more[edit]

Since you asked nicely. :-) FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:Sennen goroshi's stalking and disruption[edit]

I raise an issue on Sennen goroshi's behaviors, so I really appreciate if you leave your thought at WP:ANI. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive user in need of block[edit]

Re:your message on my talk page - you might want to take a look at user:Jaimaster. He's continually disrupted Wikipedia since the moment he got here in July. (He has declared he intends to continue disrupting Wikipedia ad infinitum.) I'm just about to block him, but if you want, you can take the lead in dealing with him. Raul654 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, with pleasure. --John (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
And, having reviewed the contribs, I see what you mean. Isn't there an ARBCOM remedy applicable here? In any case I will happily block if the behavior fails to improve. Thank you for pointing out the matter. --John (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi John. Im not sure if you were planning to return to my talk page for further discussion or not. I have posted here a summary of my assertions that Raul654 was at least equally guilty of edit warring, disruptive editting, and additionally used his status as an administrator in an attempt to intimidate. Your comment is of course welcomed. I have further invited completely unrelated, found at random from the administrator list administrator Misza13 to comment on this matter. Jaimaster (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Look, to be honest I still do not understand what course of action I am supposed to take regarding the content in dispute. The talk page Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle has a running topic on this and the majority of comment is removal of the catagory. Raul654, through reverting, keeps restoring the catagory. He has not commented on the talk page as to why he feels it is appropriate or listed his sources that label the film as Denialism. What do you suggest I should do? The burden of proof surely is not on us to find WP:RS that the film is not Denialism when the catagorisation is unsourced? Jaimaster (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that is a good and a valid question. There will be centralized areas where you could usefully raise this. I hear what you're saying about unsourced categories. I'll have a think about it. In the meantime you can of course contribute to the article talk page; just keep it focused on content, remember others have opinions too and that consensus is what counts, not thinking you're right. Everybody thinks they're right in these situations. But if the category is there by consensus (and I haven't checked whether that is true at this point), the onus is on you to show that consensus has changed, or else to work productively to effect a wider consensus somewhere central. Let me hear your encyclopedic and policy-based reasons, not your opinion of others and maybe I can help you. --John (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The edit war is continuing without my input presently, Raul654 and Badger Drink vs Oren0, Pstudier, Rossnixon and GoRight. For now im going to just watch and see how the straw poll develops. Jaimaster (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)[edit]

The July 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

River Shannon[edit]

Hi John, You recently protected River Shannon. There's some editing I would like to do on this article. Could you please add the following text by replacing the entire River Shannon#Geography section text with By tradition the Shannon is said to rise in the Shannon Pot, a small pool on the slopes of Cuilcagh Mountain in Co Cavan, from where the young river appears as a small trout stream. However, there is no visible replenishment of the pool. In recent years, potholers have discovered what is now thought to be the actual source of the river further uphill, where a small stream disappears into a sink-hole. This point is in Co Fermanagh, Northern Ireland. The upper part of Cuilcagh Mountain consists of porous limestone rock containing sink-holes and risers. From the Shannon Pot, the river subsumes a number of tributaries, some of which are longer than itself, before replenishing Lough Allen at its head. Reference -The Shannon Guide

The Shannon runs through or between 13 of Ireland's counties. Lakes on the Shannon include Lough Allen, Lough Ree and Lough Derg. Tributaries include the rivers Inny, Suck and Brosna.

This edit is outside the scope of the reason for protection. Thanks. CarterBar (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


mboverload is back. From outerspace[edit]

I am sending this message to people who wished me well after I said I was leaving for awhile. It's been about 2 years now but I am back. I have come back to my role as a developer of RETF and I have founded a new WikiProject, WP:TSN. I am looking for people to work on that too! Thank you and please let me know how you are doing, --mboverload@ 05:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel icons[edit]

We're working on developing a consensus on the future of the Nobel icon template. Your opinion is welcome at Template talk:Nobel icon. Thanks, « Diligent Terrier (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Nobel icon[edit]

Template:Nobel icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Eustress (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Apollo hoax page[edit]

I was going to re-install your change, and you beat me to it. :) Just be mindful of vandalisms in just-prior entries, such as from that IP address (who is now blocked for the next couple of days). This article gets vandalized a lot. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought you would've restored my change. It's been on my watchlist for over two years so I know how much vandalism it picks up. All's well that ends well. --John (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Aha, so you probably recall the Carfiend/Gravitor situation. Ugh. I took it off my watch list for over a year, after that happened. It was very irritating. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That bozo came back under a slightly different IP, and an admin has now protected the page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't realized (or had forgotten) that you yourself are an admin. Wknight94, who semi-protected that page (as well as mine), has become kind of a "guardian angel", to try to keep me out of trouble, one way or another. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was promoted (if that's the right word) in August 2006. I followed your career on and off most of that time, though at a distance. I think you (like me) changed your name. I used to be User:Guinnog. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Yes, I recall you very well - one of the defenders of the page, along with User:Bubba73, who is also still hanging in there. Yes, I changed my ID. It used to be Wahkeenah. I changed it around May of 2007 after I got mad (over a totally different subject) and quit. I came back after a suitable interval, with a somewhat better attitude, and also have not gotten into serious trouble since about December of 2007, so my approach is improving incrementally over time. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And I understand about your skepticism about adminship being a "promotion". From what I've seen, it's way more drudgery than it's worth. It's interesting to watch from a distance, though. Did you see the food fight that broke out amongst a series of admins on WP:ANI a few weeks ago? I was amused and appalled at the same time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I usually try to avoid such "food fights" (apposite description btw) and just get on with improving articles and blocking vandals, and that works well for me, most of the time. --John (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironic or wha???[edit]

John, I see you don't subscribe to the concept of intrinsic irony! Anyway, I noticed my new bestest friend GreenMantle/Carlow/IPsGalore replaced a reference to a rebel 1916 leader as a rebel 1916 "terrorist". I guess if I edited various World War 2 articles to describe Winston Churchill as a terrorist leader, yerself and the rest of the Admin community would give me the benefit of the doubt that I was merely trying to improve the project? Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And btw, I'm not implying any equivalence between the gallant heroic leaders of the 1916 fight for freedom with the Imperialist War Leader. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Because not resisting Adolf Hitler would have been so good for Ireland and the world? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Lest this descend into WW2-cruft, let me say that I greatly admire Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela and Michael Collins, all of whom were called, with some justification, terrorists by those in opposition to them. This is why I tend to agree with Sarah's views about using the term "terrorism'. Like all pejoratives, it needs a source or it is worthless. Sarah, now that I live in the United States, I find that I no longer understand irony, sorry about that. Rockpocket will likely say the same thing. They don't even know how to pronounce Monty Python here, so what would you expect? --John (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Forth Railway Bridge[edit]

As a major contributor to this article, I just wanted to make certain that you were aware of its current GA Sweeps review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --John (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenated words[edit]

I thought you might find this of interest, and maybe have something to add on the subject one way or the other: Talk:Frank_Rutter#Hyphenated words. Ty 04:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. --John (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ta. Point two in WP:HYPHEN seems pertinent. Ty 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching?[edit]

Hi. What is your method for admin coaching? I noticed the Status page said you had an opening; I might be interested in participating. Cheers. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am too busy in real life just now. I may be able to help you in a few weeks. If you're in a hurry I suggest you ask someone else. --John (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. Just leave a message on my talk page if you become available. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

River Shannon[edit]

Protection on River Shannon seems to have expired - almost immediately, an anon IP from the same range and using similar inflammatory edit summaries to a couple of weeks ago is deleting content. *sigh* BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that both Bastun and Sarah777 have now clearly broken the 3RR (since reverts include deleting material). Maybe they have already been banned? Chris55 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that Sarah777 has done no such thing. Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right - I confused 3 and "more than 3" in the case of Sarah - sorry. Chris55 (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem Chris - it's just I must keep a look-out for trigger-happy Admins! (Not including John in that I must point out). Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Images of album covers in main articles[edit]

Recently you removed two albums covers from the main article for Van Morrison that I had included giving FUR for the importance of the albums in his career and they were also placed in close proximity to the album text in the article. —Astral Weeks unquestionably, the most acclaimed & the one his music is always compared to and Into the Music citing his first references to the healing power of music and less accessibility to the popular music market). — I accepted your reason for deletion as violation of FUR although I thought a good enough rationale was used. Upon browsing articles, (I find this timesaving and useful, as compared to hours spent reading Wiki rules), I came upon The Waterboys article and noting the FA rating, took note of pertinent usage of links, etc. for more proper usage in the VM article. But I also was surprised to see the one single cover The Big Music Waterboys and one album cover The Whole Of The Moon that were used in the article. Now, I am truly confused!-(So unless you clear this up, you get the honor of being blamed for this condition forevermore.) - But joking aside, is there some reason that makes the usage of album covers in the two articles somehow different? Respectfully, Agadant (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I'm really interested in a reply about when and if album or single covers can be used in the main article. Shall I ask another administrator, perhaps not so busy? I hope I don't come across as impertinent as my "only interest" on WIKI is learning how to improve articles without studying the guidelines in depth because there are so many exceptions it sometimes seems pointless. And I don't often ask for help. Agadant (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content. Album covers are generally regarded as only being fair use in the article on the album. --John (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, John. I do believe in abiding by rules..but how does the use of the album and single cover in the FA rated article, The Waterboys qualify for exception? (You removed the VM ones but not the WB ones) So guess my question was more on the meaning of "generally" - which does make it a difficult one, no doubt - but also without explanation makes it confusing for editors to understand how to apply these rules with "sometime exceptions". Agadant (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi John,

I am having an issue with a user on some Genesis pages (mainly revolving around Wind & Wuthering) who I suspect is a sockpuppet. User:MarkRae persists in reintroducing information that is unsupported, and I find very familiar behavior showing up under the guise of User: BGC (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg, 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. Damiens.rf 16:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello John; he/she's back (at talk:British Isles). -- GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob, he/she's been blocked (again). GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

David Knopfler[edit]

Hi. User:Wiki libs is repeatedly removing referenced text from this article. He was born in Scotland to non-Scottish parents and grew up in England - there is a reference that has been in place for months where he clearly describes himself as English. As per this users talk page, they are using the logic that he was born in Scotland and is therefore Scottish (which is a slightly flakey logic to use) so is therefore changing the English description to British and has removed the reference. They have also made no attempt to discuss the issue. I don't see how you can argue with a referenced description. What would you suggest? They are also removing the origin field from the Mark Knopfler article (which I believe is quite important to give the whole picture and some balance). (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Years in aviation[edit]

Hi John, as to the deprecating of dates, it was acceptable to go this way, as long as all dates are treated consistently throughout an article. The one "twist" that the WP:AVIATION PROJECT group incorporated was to allow the use of the year in aviation (even a special icon was created) in the infobox, but to restrict it to use there only. FWiW, it wasn't considered a major change, but discussion revolved around the overlinking of the year in aviation as it was used throughout the text previously and was seen to be of limited value except for an infobox entry. Consensus was reached but it was and wasn't used fitfully by members of the project group. Bzuk (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Survivors vs survivors series[edit]

Have no problems calling the series "survivors" - are you going to move/change them all (P-47, P-40, Me-109, B-52, F4U etc) or do you want me to do it?? Davegnz (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw there were others. It would be great if you could help. Moving the article is ony the start of it; there are all the links to be fixed as well. Wikipedia only capitalizes proper nouns in article titles and section headings, unlike some other resources. --John (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re User:Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

Hello there John. I see the aforementioned user (admin too) has been causing further trouble since I've had a vacation break. You might find helpful the first comments of my talk-page and my editing history between 20-4-2008 and 9-5-2008. FPaS had a similarly hostile (i.e. bitting newcomers to WP) towards user User:Elampon (here is his talk page) as well, who joined WP around the same time I did. Regards. ktr (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Would wrongly used instead of the past tense[edit]

I've found in the section My stylistic hates (aka "Wikipedia shoot-on-sight") of your page the following statement: Would wrongly used instead of the past tense, as in "1995 would be a difficult year for Yeltsin". Was is fine.
I'm a native Spanish speaker not very fluent in English, still I think I can give some logic explanation of the use of Would when referring to past actions. This use also exists in Spanish, Catalan and I guess also in other Romance languages. I wouldn't be surprised if the English language had borrowed this use from some of them. One of the uses of Would can be considered equivalent to the most common use of the Conditional Tense in Spanish, French an so on. If we directly apply to the English Would some of the other uses that the Romance Conditional Tense also it has, then one the uses of Would for past actions would be similar but not identical to the use of Would in indirect speech when it replaces the use of future tenses in direct speech. This would be the case in which the Conditional Tense is used to refer to past actions or consequences which have taken place in the future in relation to the action described in the previous sentence. They are also expanding the information or explaining the cumulative effects of the previous sentences. I've found one of these examples in the article of the Wikipedia about Yeltsin:

On December 5, 1991, Senator Jesse Helms, ranking member of the Minority Staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, wrote to Boris Yeltsin concerning U.S. servicemen who were POWs or MIAs. "The status of thousands and thousands of American servicemen who are held by Soviet and other Communist forces, and who were never repatriated after every major war this century, is of grave concern to the American people."
Yeltsin would ultimately respond with a statement made on June 15, 1992, while being interviewed aboard his presidential jet on his way to the United States, "Our archives have shown that it is true — some of them were transferred to the territory of the U.S.S.R. and were kept in labor camps... We can only surmise that some of them may still be alive."

As it shows, the response of Yeltsin was something that occurred in the past, in 1992, but in the future respect to the action described by previous sentence, which took place in 1991. The response of Yeltsin is related to the writing of Senator Jesse Helms.
In this case the use of the Past Simple would hardly be misleading. I'll give another example in which the use of Would can add information respect to the use of the Past Simple:

In April 1983 John Paul II was acclaimed by an enthusiastic multitude in Madrid. That same year John Paul II would also travel to Austria and Germany being wormy welcomed.
In April 1983 John Paul II was acclaimed by an enthusiastic multitude in Madrid. That same year John Paul II also traveled to Austria and Germany being wormy welcomed (or but as in these countries he wasn't yet very popular, his visit passed almost unnoticed by their general population).

The latter line just gives us some information about the places that John Paul visited in 1983 and the different or similar way he was received in the visit described. In contrast, the former line give us additional information. His visits to Austria and Germany occurred after his visit to Madrid. Besides, the content of the second sentence expands the previous information, in this case emphasizes with more facts the idea that the popularity of John Paul II was increasingly high at that time. If now I say:

John Paul II would be eventually considered as the best traveller Pope in history.

the idea is the same. To be considered as a good traveller you need first to visit a number of places. This last statement implicitly tells us that after those trips he would continue to travel frequently. --Heathmoor (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathmoor (talkcontribs) 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapon Design[edit]


I unintentionally reverted your recent change because it was in the middle of a block of well-meaning, but not good changes by an unregistered user. (I'm not very skilled with reversions.) I notice that you changed "sitting" to "supported" and "aluminum" to "aluminium." Those changes are fine with me, although I question the need for the second change. The one-i version of aluminum is almost universal in North America. Anyway, I put your changes back in.

By the way, your Aug 6 removal of the sentence for which a footnote was requested resulted in a confusing transition to the next paragraph, a problem a couple of editors tried to fix. I have now fixed it by restoring the sentence and adding the requested footnote. (It turns out the sentence did have a factual error: 98% should have been 84%. I now use the word "most" instead of a percentage.) HowardMorland (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Howard. I live and teach Chemistry in North America so I am familiar with the spelling variations that exist. However here on Wikipedia we use the IUPAC spelling "aluminium" on science-related articles, which is why the article is at aluminium, and aluminum is a redirect. Similar logic applies for sulfur and caesium. Thanks for your good work and best wishes. --John (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


What in the world are you talking about?!?! Ctjf83Talk 04:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where? --John (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
here Ctjf83Talk 20:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not with you, I don't think I have ever edited that page. Are you able to explain more fully your concern? --John (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The comment you are querying was not made by me but by User:Nnq2603 who signed in my name. I've asked the user not to do it again. --John (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, thanks for letting me know! Ctjf83Talk 00:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

FPAS RFC[edit]

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPAS's behavior.

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no anymore. About sign violation.[edit]

Yes, of course, I'm wrong, just only I made random name (popular name which I count in mind that moment) in sign, I don't want to redirect to real man.

Other version of this discussion archive at Notice about wrong sign making Nnq2603 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)[edit]

The August 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Why on earth you removed the "In Popular Culture" section from Ball Lightning...there is nothing unwanted there ? Jon Ascton (talk)

I didn't remove it, I trimmed out stuff which I didn't think belonged in an online encyclopedia. --John (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Photograph added to B-17 Flying Fortress article[edit]

Screenshot of B-17 Flying Fortress article on Wikipedia highlight image stacking by User, Guinnog 4 Sept. 2008.JPG

Thank you for your contribution of adding the photograph to the B-17 Flying Fortress article but the image had to be removed due to the Wikipedia policy of image "stacking". Please read the article Avoiding image "stackups" -Signaleer (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Signaleer. The image looked fine on my setup. --John (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a screenshot taken by myself of the article with your edit which clearly shows the image stacking between the photograph and text which has a "squashing" effect on the article. -Signaleer (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It does indeed clearly show that. What setup are you using? --John (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am using Windows Explorer 7, with the screen resolution size of 1024x768 pixels. -Signaleer (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought so, that is a good deal smaller than my setup. --John (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo size[edit]

Noticed that you changed the phot size back to default (on the B-17 survivors article) - when the coding is set to the default mode, often the caption get wrapped I found at 200px is usually enough for the the captions to remain stationay under the picture Davegnz (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your hardcoding of images is not recommend according to WP:Manual of Style#Images. -Signaleer (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dave, I think that depends on what setup you are using. Signaleer, thanks for thanking me for my contributions. I have almost 50 000 60 000 of them. I don't think I have ever hardcoded an image. Were you perhaps thinking of another user? --John (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Miscommunication, I should have addressed who I was communicating to, it was meant towards Davegnz, looking at the edit changes on the B-17 survivors article, he reverted the hardcoding of the images. I probably should not have responded on your user talk page John but I do sincerely appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. -Signaleer (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem, Signaleer. I tend to agree with your stance on image coding but I know there are different opinions on this one. Take care, --John (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
When I first started editing, I made most images 250px as a rule of thumb but after taking into consideration that users have different resolution screen sizes and different preferences, it makes sense to give the option of thumbnails in order to provide them a better viewing experience of images. -Signaleer (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for permission to use Dounreay[edit]

Dear John, I am writing a free book - "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" - and I would like to ask your permission to use your image of Dounreay reactor in my book. I think I have to ask you, because while your image is given under the GFDL, my book is not GFDL (it includes a few photos that are copyrighted and permissioned only for use in my book). thanks very much David (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC) djcmackay

No problem with that but can you please put this in an email? Use the "Email this user option". Thanks, --John (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again John -- thanks very much indeed! I tried to use the "Email this user" option, but I got to a page that says I have to be logged in - even though I *was* logged in to wikipedia. If you'd like an email from me, you can email me at ... and I will reply - Thanks again! Djcmackay (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC) djcmackay

Friendly note regarding talk page messages[edit]

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that wasn't my understanding of the rule; it may have been changed fairly recently. You live and learn. --John (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It was not mine either, but when the issue was extensively discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)‎ at the beginning of the year, consensus was pretty clear and I had to adjust my thinking. C'est la vie. Now to make up for my earlier "mistreatment" of anonymous users, I try to help other editors avoid the same mistakes I made. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates and more dates in aviation articles[edit]

Hi John, just noticed your contributions to the XB-70 Valkyrie article, but although dates can be changed from an autoformat style, one of the earlier decisions made about aviation articles was to use international dates (day-month-year) in order to accommodate a greater number of readers. I don't believe that this has changed as of yet. Changing the date link is fine but the style typically remains in the original format. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC).

That's interesting, I ddin't know that. Thank you. --John (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jet fighter shot down WWII[edit]

Dear John, No it's not one of those letters!!! A WWII vet has given more war details of late due to my inquiries. He tells a story of shooting down jet fighter in WWII. For which he was issued a Sliver Star. "They" telling him he was the first to do so. He was a Bombadier in a B-17. Would you know how I can verify this? What info I need to gather? Steve (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:I B Wright[edit]

John, please could you take a look at something for me please. I've had problems in the past with I B Wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) adding grossly incorrect information to railway signalling related articles (in particular Home signal). While I can accept his information was probably added in good faith, he gets extremely stroppy when I change it and falsely accuses me of violating WP:3RR. He has recently returned after a long absence and added some wrong info to Token (railway signalling) and the problems have started over again. See also his anonymous edits as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

He once denied that some anonymous edits that I believed were his could have been made by him, by leaving me an anonymous message using a different IP address. He has now admitted that he has a dynamic IP address. Thanks. –Signalhead < T > 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

about the 2pac picture[edit]

u r welly good —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Flags and dates[edit]

Hi. I noticed you have added infoboxes to some articles. Per WP:FLAGS we do not use flags to show a person's place of birth; listing it in text is enough. There is no need to link dates any more; WP:MOSDATE has changed and we don't do this any more. Best wishes and happy editing. --John (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, John. Thank you for the note. I was following the instructions on the Serial Killer task force page, which apparently are wrong. I will stop adding the flag icons and get up to date with date style (pun intended :)). Oh, and I'll contact the WP Serial Killer admin. --*momoricks* (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2008


Flight 961[edit]

125 dead plus 50 survivors = 175, not 163... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamin Squirrel (talkcontribs) 20:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Belzec Link[edit]


I just got your message. I apologize for leaving the link. I will not link to any more pages if it violates the policy.


Fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredg61 (talkcontribs) 13:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes on Concorde page[edit]

Hi John,

Apologies for not leaving comment on reason for removing text from Concorde page - I have re-done the edit and have added the following comment as reason for the edit:

Removed inaccurate information re Club Concorde - they are not working with the French volunteers, & have no working relationship or contact with them. Return to Flight campaign has been put on hold

The information that was in the Restoration section was inaccurate as Club Concorde are not working with and have never worked with the French volunteers who are keeping the Concorde in France in working condition. Club Concorde did originally have a Return to Flight campaign, but this has been put on hold indefinitely. I'm not sure who added that information originally, but it was inaccurate.

I will be adding another reference to Club Concorde, but am awaiting text for that - Club Concorde is involved in a few projects at the moment that will be of great public interest regarding Concorde.

Thank you.


Palizdesign (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


john is unliked because he told me to stop "vandalizing" articles and i will be relived of my editing thing too bad i can make a new account —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous101621 (talkcontribs) 02:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Wouldn't it be better to find another hobby or even edit constructively, which is a lot of fun. Good luck anyway. --John (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)[edit]

The September 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying[edit]

Ok, it's just that this user has a complete disregard for relevancy and insist that it should redirect to the book. The band is more notable and is view around x10 more times than the book. – Jerryteps 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. --John (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error[edit]

Hey, I was just checking your user page and I notice that you like to fix spelling mistakes, I also notice that in the same sentence you spelt "errors" wrong by spelling it "erors". If this was intended as a joke, I apologize but this is just a heads up. – Jerryteps 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jerry, you're right it was intended as a joke but since you mention it it isn't really all that funny any more. Feel free to correct it, or else I will. --John (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about a return[edit]

Hi John, I'm thinking about coming back to editing. Reading over the WTC collapse article, I've noticed a lot of small things that could be improved. Also, after my departure, no one seems to be working to bring it up to GA status, though it was almost there at the time I was banned. I have mentioned this to Jehochman, who had already asked me if I wanted the ban lifted. At that time I said no thanks, and I still have my doubts. I'm not likely to edit very differently, which will probably be perceived by the same people who got me banned as POV pushing. They seem to get what they want, and they still have that ArbCom ruling to invoke when they get annoyed. I was encouraged a little by Jehochman's suggestion, since his opinion of my editing has been quite poor. But I think I'm still of the mind that in order to come back, ArbCom would have to rule the the original ban was unjustified. Otherwise lifting my ban would implicitly be predicated on time served and a promise not to do it again. Like I say, I am likely to do it again. My editing was improving the article(s), and improvements seem to have stalled. Do you have any advice on this?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally would support your return. I think things are gradually changing in this area and my hope would be that you could be part of the solution in improving these articles. What would you like me to do? --John (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I think Jehochman is right that I could get the ban lifted by applying to AE. But I how can I do that without admitting any wrongdoing?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Jehochman directly. Let's see what he says. --John (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I'm looking forward to hearing the "advice", conditions, etc. BTW, It looks like activity is picking up again. But if I'm not mistaken my contributions will not be welcome. It looks like I'd be in opposition.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sewer Cover Barnstar[edit]

Sewer cover.jpg The Sewer Cover Barnstar
You have been awarded the Sewer Cover Barnstar. You have received this, in part, because you were “the first on your block” to link to the page. More important though, you are helping to spread the message among the Wikipedian community that links within our articles should always be topical and germane, that properly chosen links anticipate what the readership of any given article would likely be interested in further reading, and that judiciously selected links invite exploration and learning. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thank you very much. I have placed a copy on my awards page. --John (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Eighteen awards!  The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. I’ve only got one barnstar. Congratulations. :·P Greg L (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I tried to even it up slightly. --John (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, I wasn’t fishing. It seems there are barstars for everything: For major contributions to articles on Lithuanian Seikh Ph.D. physicians who worked at the Mayo Clinic. Quite unexpected. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delinking dates[edit]

Hi, John. I noticed that you used a script to delink dates within references on Doctor Who. That's fine (I know that linking dates is now deprecated), but it has a side effect: many of the dates in the references are now displayed in ISO 8601 format, which is not widely understood among readers.

I think that in a case like Doctor Who, it's appropriate to format those dates in the standard UK format (11 October 2008), and WP:MOSDATE#Strong national ties to a topic agrees. Is it possible for you to adjust the script you're using to change these ISO 8601 dates to the British standard, or to the American standard (October 11, 2008) for US-related articles? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice comment. I noticed that as I was doing it. Maybe a word to the script creator to include ISO conversion is in order. The real damage was done of course by whoever thought it a good idea to use this format in articles. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The use of ISO format in citations is very widespread, because it was actively encouraged in the examples for a long time. (I think that some citation templates actually worked only with dates in ISO format, although I'm pretty sure that's no longer the case.) I don't think there are many dates in ISO format in article text, but there are probably millions of cases in citation footnotes. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Technicolor Web of Sound Bios You Deleted[edit]

Not sure if your going to get this or not, but Technicolor Web of Sound is a legitimate source for Beatles, Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, etc., bio information endorsed by many of the artists featured there themselves. The bio information would be considered very uselful by WikiPedia users....this is not spam. Please reconsider your deletion of the bio links we posted and get back to me either way at

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmaze (talkcontribs) 03:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at this comment and this thread. Ward3001 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


Do you really believe that those frustrations were caused by my actions?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice question. It reminds me of the advice an old boss of mine once gave me: that we should try to judge others by their intentions and ourselves by our results, rather than vice versa. It is extraordinarily hard to do and yet vital on a project like ours. If you can do that more I think you will have no problems in coming back. --John (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
But hold on a second: I was banned for making an edit (once) that I had discussed on the talk pages. How did my judgment of others (and myself) bring that about? More significantly, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of judging people by their intentions. We have such imperfect access to them (especially in a project like this). We should judge Wikipedians by the work they do, not what we think their game is.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I am like TheGoodLocust?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, to the degree that you wish to improve articles in only one area of the project, yes. As to judging people by their intentions, this is merely a restatement of WP:AGF. Like you, I do have a problem with the way you were treated, but I think it will be more productive if you are able to acknowledge people's concerns. I know you are familiar with the whole SPA business, and obviously not all single purpose accounts are problematic. But, like it or not, there is real concern about someone who only wants to add content in one narrow area. The bit I wanted you to read on that talk page was where I recommended the user get some more experience improving other areas. In my experience this can give a lot more perspective to an editor who normally only edits one area. Sadly that user did not choose to take my advice and got blocked as a result. I would hate for both of us to go to a lot of trouble to have your ban remitted and then to end up back where we started. --John (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia, as an internet community, should be judged by the way it treats its SPAs. I think that is in Wikipedia's own interest. You need to find a way to welcome people, and retain them, without demanding that they identify with (or are passionate, if you will, about) the whole project. That's essential to the success of a Web 2.0 community. (You don't find YouTube or blogger banning people who follow the content rules but pursue a narrow interest.) I agree with your last sentence, and I think as a prediction it is accurate. I think there are two ways to avoid a repeat: either I acknowledge the wisdom of the ban (which is really what you are suggesting--i.e., that my presence was the problem that could be solved), or the WP community acknowledges its error. I think we've explored these options enough for now. I'll think about it some more. Thanks again for your time. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm giving it a shot. [27]--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Non-free use list[edit]

Hi John. I saw your name at Image:Ramones album cover.jpg NFCR. The matter came up again at ANI. I posted a request on Tim Starling's page to develop MediaWiki that would prevent images from displaying on pages where consensus at Wikipedia:Non-free content review determines that such display does not meet NFCC and be used only for images where editors repeatedly ignore that Non-free content review consensus. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. -- Suntag 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain[edit]

Hi John, thanks, again, for your efforts. I won't bother the community much longer. The idea of a pardon suprised me:

Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who, it is claimed, have been wrongfully convicted. However, accepting such a pardon implicitly constitutes an admission of guilt, so in some cases the offer is refused (cases of wrongful conviction are nowadays more often dealt with by appeal than by pardon).

Thus, my appeal. I appreciate your remarks about my dignity. Please understand that whatever dignity I may have is grounded in precisely the sort of stand I am taking now. The "forward looking", pardon-accepting approach assumes that I have something to gain from editing here. I don't. Wikipedia has something to gain from letting people like me do exactly the sort of work I have been doing all along. If there were more like me, needless to say, I'd have a lot of fun here. Regardless of what "side" they are on. But the important thing is that the articles would improve.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(PS I know you weren't suggesting that I accept a pardon. But you were suggesting I was asking for one. Technically, moreover, Jehochman is almost suggesting a pardon.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for the clarification. My point was though that we do not deal in pardons. As an informal, non-legalistic community, we deal in consensus. You need to generate or demonstrate a consensus that having you work on 9/11-related articles will be a net positive to the project. In my opinion, this is more likely to work if you can demonstrate an understanding of where you went wrong last time, even if you still disagree with the sanction that was placed on you. This is what I mean by moving forwards. --John (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I really mean it when I say that this isn't about what I need to do to be allowed to come back. It's about what the community needs to do to keep guys like me around. As people sometimes point out, if I want to edit WP there's plenty of places I'm still allowed to do that. There's a reason I don't. I'm not asking for a second chance. I'm offering one.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What ???[edit]

I didn't delete any content anywhere what are you talking about? Get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


Regarding your comment on ScienceApologist's talkpage, I support the idea of an enforced wikibreak, by block or topic ban, especially because of recent tactics such as filing a GAR with language of "pro cold fusion love-in",[28] and filing an MfD on another editor's userpage.[29] Per the Pseudoscience Arb case, any uninvolved admin can take action here. I'm thinking a minimum of a page ban from the cold fusion article and related pages, but a full topic ban from the pseudoscience topic area for 30 days might also be useful. Or were you thinking of a full block? --Elonka 02:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Meantime I will wait for SA's response, if any. Thanks for bringing these other edits to my attention. --John (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

List of ultra groups[edit]

Cheers, it was getting to be just an excuse for self-promotion by any ultra type group. I'm sure it won't impress some users, but it needed to be done which you noted recently on the talk page. Have fun.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

Admin mop.PNG Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.

Thanks for your support in my RFA!!
If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy
·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I request your input please?[edit]

Hi John,

You seem to know what you are talking about. Can I request your input on something please? I have started a dicussion on the Blackpool FC page that I would be very grateful if you could bring your wisdom to please?

Any help provided is much appreciated.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Help requested again please?[edit]

Hi again John,

Apologies for troubling you again. I have also started a new discussion on the Queen of the South page on which I welcome your constructive input also please?

Regards, Socheid (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. --John (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help[edit]

It's very great. Mayllad is against me. I don't know why. I'll give my best, but he make troubles.

See you. I wish you a nice weekend. --AndreaMimi (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk.--John (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your conribution[edit]

Wow. That was quick; I didn't even have time to include my source. If you wish to restore the edit, the source is Alister McReynolds, 'Scots-Irish' Ulster American Folk Park MacB —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacBiggles (talkcontribs) 01:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi, John. I'm GA-reviewing North Sea and thought to look up Grangemouth, where I saw your Image:Grangemouth.jpg. Wow, it took me back. I assume it's looking over Boness Road towards Falkirk. I use to think of Boness Road as "Chemical Alley" long before I heard of Saddam Hussein and his thugs - ICI Dyestuffs, International Sythetic Rubber, Marbon Chemicals and BP. Thanks for the trip down memory lane. --Philcha (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Glad to have given you pleasure. Yes, that is exactly right. I also took Image:Grangemouth04nov06.jpg. --John (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

This RfC has been closed. I am notifying you as you were someone who certified the basis for the dispute. You are welcome to read the conclusion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Conclusion. Wizardman 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh - history[edit]

I think I made an error in failing to cite reasons for an edit. You reverted it thinking it a mistakenly saved test. It was however an intentional and considered edit. I reverted it back, is that ok or should I go type an explanation somewhere? Cjcxx (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

{{British Leyland}}[edit]

This template has reached far beyond its original scope of simply monitoring British Leyland. There is a propopsal for renaming it on its talk page which, as you are a contributor to the template, I hope you will participate in. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Script edits and summaries[edit]

Yo John, I understand it's useful to use the same edit summary for repetitive edits across articles, but if the bulk of your edit is excluded from the summary, it can cause problems: example. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind adding in a summary of additional tasks completed i.e. "removing fansites/invalid images"? Regards, the skomorokh 12:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. --John (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks John, appreciate it. Keep up the good work! Mahalo, the skomorokh 18:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Seymour[edit]

See Talk:Gerald Seymour predates 1945 --PBS (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, good work. --John (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Research Method[edit]

Thanks for keeping an eye out and your useful input. Any further intervention in related matters would be most welcome... Ty 07:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. --John (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)[edit]

The October 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

external links