User talk:John/Archive 2010

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


Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.[edit]

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, BigDunc. Have a glass of the black stuff for me, and I hope 2010 is good for you. --John (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
On the way out now to do just that :) BigDunc 19:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


I'm done. Please help get this to RFC so people outside the bubble can look at this statistical Judas. If you are into having the right information on wikipedia, than I suspect you know this is incorrect data that is superfluous to the title. Neutralis (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

using AWB[edit]

Hi John,

Can you please go back and fix the changes you made to MetaPost on 16 May 2009? According to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use, AWB should not be used to make edits unless you understand what you are editing. You applied a spell checking to what is obviously a block of sample computer language code, so that it is no longer valid code. I believe that you should be taking more care.

I am asking you to do it rather than doing it myself, as I hope that someone who uses AWB would know the correct magic delimiters to put around a piece of code such as this to keep AWB and potentially other automated tools away from it. I had a brief look at what AWB can and can't do, and could find no such functionality.

All the best, Andrew Kepert (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

May 2009? Wow, that was a while ago. Shows that the "damage" I did (changing "upto" to "up to") wasn't all that critical. Thanks though, --John (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted your "fix" of the infobox you just made. Please be more careful in the future.--Oneiros (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't know what happened there. Please be more civil in the future. --John (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the edit you made was plainly wrong, as there are newer versions of MetaPost than you claim.--Oneiros (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Don't worry about it. --John (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, May - sorry. It is a page on my watchlist but I am such an infrequent Wikipedian these days that it escaped me. I only noticed the change because I was referring a colleague to look at it for some sample code. Do you know if there is a way of dissuading automatic edits (bots, AWB-assisted humans, etc) from all or part of an article? I have seen it happen previously on this and other articles that contain programming language code-words and symbols. Anyway, I have just discovered that Oneiros has reverted all your "fix" edits, probably because you managed to revert a bunch of more significant edits that had occurred since May. I'll get around to fixing the original problems myself later. All the best, Andrew Kepert (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know but I will take a look. Sorry for the original mistake. --John (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

I was writing from a neutral point of view. Blue Kryptonite (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No you weren't. --John (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a fact, not an opinion. Blue Kryptonite (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Next time, back up your material with a reliable source, please. As it was, it was an opinion. Which we don't do. --John (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)[edit]

The December 2009 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) 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for restoring my rollback rights. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --John (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


Should we be worried? The userpage suggests the user is under-age, and lists a off-site way to contact him (via an Xbox Live username). I'm not familiar with the relevant policy, but purely in the interest of WP:KID I thought I should ask an admin whether something ought to be done. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is ok for now, but I will keep an eye to see if the person is here to improve the project or not. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Baker IRC[edit]

Hi there. Saw you reverted my edits to the Tom Baker article wrt his fielding of fans' questions on IRC. The original ref was not a reference, it was simply a link to an IRC channel, which is why I converted it into a link rather than a reference. An IRC channel is *not* a source suitable for referencing, you clearly do not understand that if you would revert my edit as you did. Indeed, your removal of my citation-needed tag was completely bogus. The claim that Tom Baker logs on to an IRC channel and cavorts with fans is extraordinary and requires some evidence. None is provided. If you don't like the overlink, remove the whole absurd statement. -- (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Stockholm Syndrome[edit]

Please explain why my edit was removed from the Stockholm Syndrome page. SkoomaManiac (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Let me know if you need any other help. --John (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


I suggest you read it againandycjp (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA news[edit]

In December you requested to be notified if I decided on RfA. WP:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2 goes live today. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 20:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
...and a quick note on mine: thanks. I had not noticed the homonym usage, although in theory they both could apply. I acknowledge the note re: the phrasing used on ANI. I appreciate your support on this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. --John (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello John! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,414 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Dennis E. Fitch - Find sources: "Dennis E. Fitch" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kaaren Ragland[edit]

Just a reminder that you should only use rollback to revert the most obvious vandalism. Other edits should be reverted with a proper edit summary. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

An edit that removes referenced information without explanation is obvious vandalism. Q.E.D.. --John (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute[edit]

Please don't threaten those with concerns about an article with Arbcom restrictions.

Then again, if disputing the neutrality of an article on probation is enough to get Arbcom involved, I would love to hear their opinion. Swarm(Talk)

It wasn't a threat, far from it. Call it a friendly warning. --John (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)[edit]

The January 2010 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) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Per WP:COOL, I'm withdrawing from the waterboarding article. I'll let you decide whether that's good enough to moot the AE request, but I'm not going to respond further there, either. THF (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy your break. I wish you had taken this decision before it became necessary to file the request. Let's see what happens now. Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding AE complaint[edit]

Courtesy notification: I'm mentioned you by name in my closure of the recent AE complaint concerning the edit war at Waterboarding over an NPOV tag. Diff of my statement: Regards, AGK 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominate For Deletion[edit]

Hello John! I came across a page called Collège du Léman that was moderately amusing, but better suited for 'uncyclopedia'. I wasn't sure what to do about it, so I thought I'd alert you. Thanks! Efcmagnew (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I reverted out some silly vandalism. --John (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
sorry to bother you again, but I just had to revert more vandalism on the same page. The vandal,, has recieved three last warnings. Efcmagnew (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I blocked the IP. --John (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Clinton's First Speech to Nation[edit]

Why is the fact of Clinton's first speech being removed from Clinton's presidential history? tuco_bad 00:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talkcontribs)

See WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the info about the Wikipedia discussion tuco_bad 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC) cgersten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talkcontribs)

Charlie Chaplin GA Review[edit]

You are getting this notice as you are a long term contributor to Charlie Chaplin. The WP:Good Article Review of Charlie Chaplin has been put on hold for seven days to allow time for the article to be sourced. Reference sources can be found on the "Find sources" notice on the talkpage. Further comments can be found at Talk:Charlie Chaplin/GA1. Any questions please ping my talkpage. SilkTork *YES! 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user[edit]

Hi John ! I see you blocked the anonymous user who removed a lot of content without explanation in many articles (removal of successions boxes, cover art, track listings with sources, list of cover versions...). I tried to discuss with him (her ?) on his talk page, but he refused to explain his changes and decided to ignore my message. In addition, the style guide he used (capitalization for the second word in the subtitles) or the subtitles he added ("song information", see WP:SONGS#Main body) aren't in compliance with WP rules. Thank you for having stopped these disruptive edits. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. --John (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi again John. After checking history of some contributors, I'm pretty sure that (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) used other IP adresses and accounts : (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), KirkleyHigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Yids2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (and probably others). They contributed on the same articles, used the same methods of edition (removal of content, references deleted, no discussion with other contributors...), participated at different moments, and as you can see on their talk pages, they were/are almost all blocked for disruptive edits (so I think he/she tries to avoid his blocking). For example, and KirkleyHigh contributed on the Take That and Boyzone related articles, on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wipeout UK, and even on files, such as File:Gave It All Away.jpg. Please, can you request a check user intervention in my name, as 1/ I'm not familiar with this issue, and 2/ I speak French, and my English is rather poor. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Mais non, c'est magnifique! Merçi pour les informations. --John (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of United Kingdom national football team[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:United Kingdom national football team/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


You have continually reverted my edits no matter where I go. This is both unjustified and uncalled-for. Please stop doing so, as my edits are good-intentioned and facts-based. If you believe I edited something wrong, post it on Talk page and let consensus decide. I am totally open to criticism, and please state your opinion so I can hear the reason behind your reverts. Wandering Courier (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want, but you have stated no reason behind your indiscriminate reverts, like the one you did one Hegel, completely unjustified. How much do you know about these subjects that you claim to have right to revert on all of them? You can block me, but every other administrator will see I am in the right. Wandering Courier (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
See WP:NPOV and WP:V. --John (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I am familiar with those rules, but you never stated how did I not follow them? Did Hegel influence Judith Butler? The article on Butler certainly says he did. Butler's philosophy thesis was on Hegel. Why do you need a German word for Nazi Germany on an article instead of just Nazi Germany or Third Reich? Wandering Courier (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're familiar with WP:V, you'll know that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source. Instead of edit warring, please add proper sources to material that has been challenged. --John (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Then why do you exclusively focus on my edits and not others? Wandering Courier (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't. --John (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. 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. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandering Courier (talkcontribs)

Wilde Copyediting[edit]


Thanks for copyediting Oscar Wilde. I've been doing alot of work on it recently, but focusing on scope, sources, balance and the prose rather than the smallest details. Going over and over the text makes one blind to some of its errors. Just to let you know about two errors you made though: "astonied" was correct, not astonished. The former is a word (exactly the same meaning), and it was in a direct quotation from the subject - the quotation marks were his too. Secondly, "somdomite" was the famous misspelling the Marquess wrote on the card. In this vein, I'm hoping to bring an unprecedented level of pedantry to the page in preparation for promotion. I know the subject well enough, and still have a couple of substantive edits to make, so I'm trying to solict a couple of the right sort of chaps to lend a hand on formatting, spelling, and MOS issues. Would you be game old boy? Believe me, yours truly, --Ktlynch (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I still think the overall effect of my intervention was a net positive. I will be very happy to take a further look at it. --John (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi John,

As I have seen your appearance on this user's discussion page, I am requesting that something be done about User: and his continuous deliberate introduction of erroneous information, particularly on latter day Depeche Mode album pages (i.e. Songs of Faith and Devotion) where he persists in undoing factually-proven information and introducing his own - and inflated - sales figures. He has been warned numerous times and I think some action needs to be taken. Thanks... BGC (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Templates[edit]

Can you give me a tutoral on how to use these? Thanks! Adult Swim Addict (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


Can you help improve the article on my subuserpage please help make it notable enough? Here is it User:NotableCheckertools/Sarey (singer) thanks!! (NotableCheckertools (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)) page was deleted[edit]

I work with and was trying to post a page about our company for users and it was deleted, was wondering what i did wrong. Are you able to not delete it and repost the information. I thought I was being u biased.

Braidenharvey (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COI and WP:N. --John (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy Grail[edit]

Hi I'd like to know why I can't make the article Holy Grail (band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centie2 (talkcontribs) 20:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:N and WP:MUSIC. --John (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Holy Grail are notable, they've released an EP and are in the recording studio making an album, they've also toured with Amon Amarth and 3 Inches of Blood and are going to play at Wacken Open Air —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centie2 (talkcontribs) 13:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If their album charts then come back. Likewise if you can find significant coverage of their tour in a notable source. --John (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 3 Inches of Blood 3 Inches of Blood tour Amon Amarth Tour —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centie2 (talkcontribs) 19:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

See here for what constitutes a reliable source here. Blogs aren't sufficient. --John (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC) click on Spring Tour —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centie2 (talkcontribs) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that still doesn't look sufficient. I was once in a band that had this level of publicity, but we definitely weren't notable by Wikipedia's standards. A chart hit, or major coverage in multiple reliable sources. Until then, I don't think I can help you. Sorry. --John (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You're band toured with 2 major bands recorded an EP, were half way through recording an album and played Wacken Open Air? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centie2 (talkcontribs) 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. Like I said, come back when the band you are trying to promote has charted or achieved significant coverage in multiple notable sources. --John (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? (Centie2 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

See WP:N and WP:MUSIC.--John (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If I were to find enough sources would I be allowed to make an article for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centie2 (talkcontribs) 21:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Here is proof from their record label that they will release an album this year and this also has proof that they had those two tours and will play at Wacken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centie2 (talkcontribs) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find better (not more) sources to establish notability, of course you can. In the meantime I can make a copy for you to work on in your user space. Would you like me to do that?--John (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't consider that better? If i could make an article on their album too (all the tracks artwork etc.) would you consider letting the Holy Grail article exist? And what do you mean by make a copy for me to work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centie2 (talkcontribs) 22:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
We aren't talking about verifiability but about notability at this point. Read the policies I am directing you to, as it isn't up to just me but is based on a consensus throughout the project for what does and doesn't get an article here. --John (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Here's a news article Here's another thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centie2 (talkcontribs) 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I would like to know why you decided to delete most of the information from the article of the school I went to, Reading Memorial High School. I just went on today to post a section about a protest that happened during my time there. We had a college assignment this week where we had to edit a Wikipedia article about something we knew about and write about it etc. I decided to add the section because it was a legitimate and important event that I was a part of and its part of the school's history.

Now I understand that it's not really cited. I included the Facebook group as an external link because it is the only reliable source on the subject. In fact, it is extremely comprehensive. I figured that a Facebook group that was created by the participants during the event is as much of a primary source as an interview, and I feel it is no different than a diary from a war veteran. How much more of a reliable source do you want then that? Also, underground protesters in general don't go notifying the press every time they have a rally, that defeats the purpose. How can these events be verified if not by the participants themselves? Do you need me to write a book on it first for it to be true?

Also, I noticed that the bulk of the article was deleted today as well. Although I did not add anything besides the Save Czuczwa part, I really have to question the deletion of all that information. As an alumni that was present during the construction, I can verify that information as being true, as well as the extracurricular information. Someone obviously spent a lot of time creating those sections and I think it's unnecessary to delete them. Again, the reason was probably because the info was not cited. I can assure you that most of that information could have been found in our town newspapers during the time it occurred. Although it wasn't originally my responsibility, I would be happy to try to find some of the information.

I just feel like it is a waste if generally authentic information is just deleted like that. I thought the point of Wiki was to provided a comprehensive resource.

I admit, my contribution wasn't high quality, but I would be happy to write it in a more encyclopedia-y way if necessary. There is not reason why true information should be left out.

Please let me know what you think. Rio12989 (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the inquiry. See WP:RS and WP:V; we don't use primary sources, in general. Verifiability, not truth, is the criterion for inclusion here. Most of the information did not belong on our project even if cited. Your addition was an example of that. Some of it could be restored if it was referenced. Most could not. Incidentally, "alumni" is plural, and the singular form is "alumnus". Take care, --John (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File:XmaglenSniper.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:XmaglenSniper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.--Darius (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)[edit]

The February 2010 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) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk in Berserkers[edit]

John, I am confused what references you are looking for? I was merely following the example of what was listed there and provided links to the Wikipedia listings of the objects I was discussing on the Beserker page. I can understand why my reference to the Berserk would be removed due to it not being a major cultural impact. However The Incredible Hulk is not only the world's most popular superhero (as stated in the Marvel's Encyclopedia Hulk Edition) but has had major cultural impacts and has been the inspiration for many other characters in many other works. Other listings on the page include Krogans from Mass Effect 2 and Beserkers from the Gears of War franchise. Either one of those have any additional referencing or sources. The description of that of the Beserker at the top of the page is near identical to the description of the Hulk. Please advise me what needs to be done so I can make necessary additions in the future. I'm new to using Wiki-chat so I posted this on my page (in response to yours) on the Berserker under discussion/pop culture and now on your talk page. Could you also clarify for the future where the best place to respond to people is, where you would get notification?

Thanks, Grimbear13 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Article talk is fine and in fact I already responded to your post there. --John (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, John[edit]

What are the guidelines for removing the {orphan} template? I believe I have successfully de-orphaned the page Closed-cell PVC foamboard, but I didn't want to be bold and remove the tag. Call me a wikiwimp if you wish. Cheers, Efcmagnew (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Also, Is it possible for an IP user to be an admin? I realize no one would take you sereously with an RfA, but speaking purely hypothetically, and out of curiosity to the inner workings of wikipedia, is it possible? Efcmagnew (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look at the page you've been working on when I get time. It might not be tonight. No, it isn't possible to be an admin without a registered account, it isn't even possible to support or oppose at RfA without a registered account. Cheers, --John (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Stereo Mix page[edit]

I would really like to know why you deleted my article about Stereo Mix. You could have deleted the links from commercial products, append more content. But I wonder why you deleted when there was information for every platform from Windows to Linux, about products from absolutely different companies. I would really like you to reconsider this and restore the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StreamRecorder (talkcontribs) 08:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


There appears to be some history between User:Ceoil and you; would you mind backing off and letting others handle the situation, in the unlikely event that followup is needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "history" between us; but I would be happy to have some support if as you say followup is needed. --John (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If followup is needed (unlikely) there are plenty of admins who watch both the pages of Ceoil and Mallues; there are already enough hard feelings, please don't add to them the day after. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I am glad to hear it. My warning to Ceoil was a one-off, as you would have seen if you read it. I don't know anything about anybody's "hard feelings"; I do know that nobody speaks to me that way. As far as I am concerned I suspect Ceoil may have a medical problem, but that is his/her own business. So long as they adhere to WP:CIVIL, WP:LEGAL and WP:NPA there need be no trouble going forward; I am certainly not holding a grudge. Any repetition of the nonsense they were indulging in last night will lead to action against them. If you are offering to support, that is great. --John (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Now you're making me mad; saying things like "Ceoil may have a medical problem" are guaranteed to make this situation worse (and I have to very strongly disagree with you, and hope you strike that BS or remove it). BOTH Malleus and Ceoil have a tendency towards very blunt language when things get hot, and as long as it stays between them, they are both big boys, extremely valuable FA writers, and they can solve it. Let's not make it worse; we don't want to lose either of them. I am not an admin; I do know that plenty of admins watch both of them, and most editors know to use common sense if either of them gets hot and bothered. It didn't extend beyond them; please don't make things worse with frankly horrid things like you just said above about Ceoil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Just calling it how I see it. I am not party to any prior dispute with either user, but I will enforce civility and collegiality where I see it being treated with contempt as I did last night. I stand by everything I said above. Sometimes the truth can be unpleasant to hear, and at this stage I don't much care what whether Ceoil's problem is a medical one or a social one; it must not recur. Good day to you. --John (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And both of them have been badgered by admins and civility police in the past, and neither of them needs any more of that. I'm going to be away from computer for several hours this afternoon; may I ask that you please not exacerbate the situation (particularly if you aren't aware of the history of either of them) in my absence, and let admins who know both of them deal with any (unlikely) recurrence? The bigger problem now is that one of our best FA writers just blanked his page, and I'd not like to see Wiki lose either Malleus or Ceoil over a heated issue that involved a misunderstanding between them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll be away for a while myself so that suits me fine. I do still intend to return at some point over the weekend to the problem we were talking about on the punk rock article. I hope that will be ok with you. --John (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
John, I'm going to have to ask you to retract your statement I am concerned I suspect Ceoil may have a medical problem. Who in the hell do you think you are. How many times do I have to ask you to back off. You are creating a situation. You handeling of the situation, whatever it was has been inflamitory and offensive. Who the hell do you think you are that you feel you can share a though like that with other editors. Its an incredible thing, really, far more offensive that mere swearing. Ceoil sláinte 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I am an administrator and editor in good standing on this site, that's who the hell I think I am. Strike your insulting comments towards me from Talk:1996 Manchester bombing and I'll think about it. This followed by this would have been good grounds for a block. I went easy on you because I assumed you were drunk. Were you? Editing while drunk and/or angry is not a good thing to do. Tell me that you've learned from your little strop last night, strike your nasty comments about me, and I will retract my note of concern above. Sandy seems to think that you and I have history. That's news to me; as far as I am aware we have never interacted before. Is that right or is there something I have forgotten? It wouldn't excuse your behavior last night but it might make it easier for me to understand. --John (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Its intersesting that you are the both the single editor who is still wrapped up in the incident and the one who walked in out of nowhere and elcelated. There is no issue between MF and me anymore; its dust.[1][2]. And yet you continute to be grossly offensive, I have medical or social problems, one or the other, you are not sure?. You were asked, you were begged, to back off by me and other, but you sniffed blood and went for it and continue that line. In small words; back off, leave me alone. Play your social worker card on some other fool who might be impressed by the wiki admin badge you think impresses adults. You are living in a bubble; you think adminship gives you the right to question actual mental sanity? In responce to curse words? Dude. Ceoil sláinte 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Any medical or social problems you may have are primarily your own responsibility. What you must be utterly clear about is that there are behavioral guidelines which we all implicitly sign up for whenever we edit here. If you are unable to follow them, you will find your time here to be miserable. You should be clear also that I am not now threatening, and have never threatened, to use my admin tools against you, but rather promising that if I see you talk to anyone the way you talked to me last night, you will be the subject of a report at a central noticeboard. My own view of this is that I edited two pages on my watchlist, and discussed improvements to them with you and others in article talk. In both cases you responded with hostility and in one case also with accusations and requests to stay away. I have no idea why that would be. I note you have not answered my question above about where such hostility came from. If the questions about your mental state when making these edits offend you then I shall strike them from my comments above in the interests of moving forwards. But you really should think about the impression you give when you act like this. --John (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
not now threatening ... but rather promising'. I think you are an idiot. I think you seek drama and deliberatly seek drama where you are neither needed or wanted. Because you like the sound of you voice. If INR a person questioned my mental or social or whatever the hell you projected onto me, they would be left standing. How about that. Ceoil sláinte 02:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Rolled back a reversion of above post. I think when an admin treahens me and questions my sanity,[3] behind my back,[4],I have right of reply. Ceoil sláinte 02:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but I couldn't care less what you think of me, as you do not know me. I am certainly glad you allow people "INR" to question you and still be left standing; I always find that best myself. I am sorry if you felt threatened by being asked why you were so bloody rude to me. Never mind, I have seen worse. I hope you feel better soon. Maybe things will look better in the morning after a good sleep and a cup of tea. Please don't post here again, unless you ever figure out why you were so upset or wish to apologize. I feel that may be a long time and I am ok with that. My promise, of course, stands. Bye. --John (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A question from Fagbokforlaget (Norway)[edit]

Dear Sir,

I'm writing on behalf of Fagbokforlaget publishing house from Norway. We are soon planning to publish the book Familiens fest og merkedager (Family feasts an celebrations) edited by Marianne Raa. The book is aimed at children and youngsters and will be available on the Norwegian market only. The book's planned print run is 3000 copies, each consisting of approx. 182 pages.

The editor would like to include the picture “Apartheid”, which she found under the link:

The picture would be included as an illustration inside the book, printed in colour.

We would be grateful for any information concerning both permission (copyright)/high resolution file and fee for using this picture in our book. We hope that the permission will be given.

Please contact me if you need more information or if that permission could not be obtained. In advance thank you for your help.

Best regards Fagbokforlaget Karolina.fagbok (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Depeche Mode[edit]

Do you edit Depeche Mode much? I've seen a few comments by you on the talk page. The article seems to have gone really downhill since I last took a close look at it. I've been meaning to do some heavy work on it for years, but I've never gotten to it. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Little beyond formatting fixes. As an admin I have been concerned with the long-running edit war between two users there, neither of whom is much of a writer, but both are extreme fans of DM. However since the great result I got this morning, maybe both participants will settle back and we could get on with improving the article. It needs it. Your copyedits were an excellent start. There are whole layers of fancruft to peel back on the various tour and album articles too if you have the appetite for it. --John (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
My particular strengths are sourcing and copyediting. I did a bit of both during a great spurt a while back, but I'm wondering how much of it has been lost since then. I do really want to improve the article and possibly turn it into a Featured Article, but I have run into some definite fans there in the past who aren't all that clear on the finer points of writing an article, and that can make for some tedious distractions when trying to work on the larger picture. I remember getting into a trivial discussion about category sorting. I was like "Really? That's what you're going to devote your energy to on this article?"WesleyDodds (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just adding information to members on tour.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Yes, but you need reliable sources for anything that you add. --John (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


I have created a new article on an album, but it seems I didn't capitalise the first word and can't find a way to do it. Are you able to help?


Bitterpillsandalcohol (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Or you could ignore my request for help and just edit the artists article instead.

Bitterpillsandalcohol (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to get grumpy with me, I had never seen this glitch before. I have now fixed it. --John (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Our choices at every moment[edit]

Determine the kind of world we live in. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

True enough. That is a very profound statement. Does it relate in any way to what we were discussing chez Lar?--John (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. We choose to live in the world you bemoan. And, we are conditioned to like it. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not with you at all. We do not choose which world we live in, and we do not have to like it. In the real world, scientists are nothing without funding. All of the funding for science is susceptible to politics in one sense or another. If you bemoan the "politicization of science", you seem, forgive me, incredibly naive. --John (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
We choose the world we live in and we are conditioned from birth to think it is right. There's nothing naive about this, but it seems to frighten you that we have so much responsibility but choose to hide from it. I understand where you are coming from. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
And I think I understand you too. Philosophically I think I am in sympathy with what I understand you to be saying. How is your philosophical standpoint to inform our construction of this wonderful free encyclopedia we are all putting together though? My understanding is that the project mirrors reality, rather than shaping it. Have we come to a point where we disagree about the fundamentals of what we are doing here? --John (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What are you doing here, John? If you think this place mirrors reality, is it safe to assume you are here to teach? I'm here to write. Now, tell me John, do writers and teachers mirror reality? Does a lecture reflect reality or the mind of the teacher? What about a writer? Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It isn't just me; an encyclopedia is here to add to the sum of the world's knowledge. If that is teaching, then I guess I am here to teach, by helping to write a free online encyclopedia. That too, like every single aspect of human affairs, has a political dimension. Is this the gnat you are straining at? To answer your question, writers and teachers mirror reality, and a lecture reflects reality via the mind of the lecturer, just as a writer mirrors reality through his or her mind. It is your dichotomy between writers and teachers that I do not accept in this context, just as I do not accept the dichotomy between science and politics. --John (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What happens in the mind of a student who hears words spoken by a teacher, and what occurs in the mind of a reader looking at words on a screen? Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Why? --John (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened![edit]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation[edit]

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that your entry was commented out. I have moved it to the "Reconfirmation" section.

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list and placed on the "retired" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches and moved to the retired list.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Depeche Mode[edit]

Other users, remove real information and references. I have contributed a lot in wikipedia and I see no other agan a great contribution to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy[edit]

Thanks for fixing the title, dates, and refs on July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy! It's all in the details, eh? Hopefully this page will help spread awareness of this tragedy.WhisperingWisdom T C 04:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

origin name House of Pain[edit]

Origin of the House of Pain name is verifiable; see the Talk:House_of_Pain#Name talk page. Danny Boy, who's talking about it in the video, was a House of Pain core member, and he's talking about it while Everlast is sitting next to him (not disagreeing with Danny Boy). -- (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)[edit]

The March 2010 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) 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John. You have new messages at SMasters's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[edit]

John, he's still doing it. He deliberately snuck in the same unverified and blatantly wrong sales info, this time at the bottom of the Songs of Faith and Devotion article in the chart positions section. Hasn't he earned a block at this point? Cheers... BGC (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. Thanks, --John (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I think he may be sockpuppeting. The endless "synthpop" vs. "synthrock" issue has involved the user heavily and I just found this edit done after yours: [5]. Thoughts? BGC (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what to suggest. Let me think about this. Do you have an opinion as to what should be done? --John (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins[edit]

Hi John, yesterday you protected Richard Dawkins to prevent BT-Central-Plus vandalising it. It looks like they're now aiming at the talk page. Can you protect it as well? Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

John, I have struck my request - unwatching your talk page now. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Open question to my talk page watchers[edit]

I've noticed a few people talking recently about the "Civility Police" or "self-appointed civility police" recently. When I see people who I otherwise respect talking like this I wonder how they would like themselves being called a "cunt" or being asked if they knew who their dad was. The calm and civil, even collegial, atmosphere was one of the main things that attracted me here when I started in 2005 and I will fight to my last breath not to let go of this. I may write an essay on this, or maybe somebody else already has. Diffs available on request for the two examples above, both of which were perpetrated by, and then defended with a straight face by, people in otherwise good standing. What is happening to our project? --John (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you've only just noticed this, then you've been going around with your eyes closed. I think an essay is definitely what's called for, that'll sort everything out. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
John, I glad you find Wikipedia calm and civil. I spend quite a bit of time on the internet and am a member of many communities and hold a senior position on some major forums. In my view Wikipedia is by far the most uncivil of all the places I hang out at. I don't mean the vandals you get them everywhere to some degree, I'm thinking of the established editors and admin. It could be that I get a slanted view of Wikipedia and stumble across the mayhem at random, so it's good to know at least some people around here find the place calm and civil. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, sarcasm isn't called for here and definitely won't help us, I am sure of that. SunCreator, thank you for your comment. That was how Wikipedia used to operate and I wonder what has changed. I cut my teeth (so to speak) on UseNet, where it was normal to see people calling each other cunts or questioning each other's paternity. I really don't want to see us get to that stage. What do you both (or indeed anyone else watching) think the answer would be? Sincere answers only please. --John (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I also cut my teeth on UseNet, have been on Wiki for four years, and have always found Wiki just as SunCreator describes-- the problem here is that admins get away with incivility while charging regular editors with same. I believe this is Malleus's point-- and also the point of the content I just deleted. Rose colored glasses come to mind ... perhaps when one is sitting on the side that can dish it out without consequences, one doesn't see the full picture? At least on UseNet, all were equal, and all was fair: Wiki has a double standard, whereby admins get away with behavior they don't tolerate from regular editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting. I, of course, see it differently; I'd say there seem to be developing a group of "vested contributors" who feel they are above the law here. If you ever see me do anything you are uncomfortable with, please do let me know. Best, --John (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I already did, but you just don't want to open your eyes to what's really happening here, so your question is dishonest. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean when I recently offered to block you if you ever again asked another editor if he knew who his dad was, or was there something else I did that you were unhappy with? Would you honestly stand by your right to make that kind of comment? --John (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I meant when you chose to ignore this, but instead went for the higher points that might be gained from a Malleus block. You have behaved dishonestly and dispecably. Now you have to live with it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I didn't ignore that, even though it is much less offensive than what you replied, I did this. Your failure to research the issue properly, to answer my question, and your massive assumption of bad faith on my part, are all noted.

Here's the thing. Are you seriously defending your right to talk to others that way? Would you be happy if someone spoke to you like that? Are you even hinting at invoking the "he did it first" defense, which most of us outgrow by age 10 or so? Or is it, as I suggest above, a "vested contributor" thing with you, that you think because you do good work in other areas that you can be rude to people on talk pages? If that was to fly, wouldn't that be as bad as the problem Sandy perceives above, of admins holding themselves to a lower standard? Or are we in the world of "two wrongs make a right"? Have a think about it please; it can only improve your enjoyment of this place. Unless of course you truly do enjoy the drama you cause when you are rude to people. I really hope it isn't the last.

Cheers. --John (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it on multiple wikis, so I don't think it is WP kind of issue. I, frankly, don't know how to reverse the process. My recent block, IMO, was absurd. I am on the side that thinks a little bit more wiggle room is beneficial. However, most tend to break that before it begins (including myself). I just think the process will always have issues; it is just up to editors to make the wiki better. –Turian (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I looked briefly at the discussion on your talk page and it seems like you were blocked for something you had stopped doing, there were some misunderstandings, and then you were unblocked. I am sorry you had a bad experience; if you want to talk about it some more and help me understand what exactly happened, or if there is anything else I can do for you, please let me know. Of course there will always be issues; we are all human beings and we all make mistakes. The project stumbles onwards and meanwhile a very decent free encyclopedia gets built. But are we "Slouching Towards Bethlehem" [6] or is the project "Not Waving but Drowning"? Only time, and the decisions we make individually and collectively about conduct here and what is and isn't likely to advance our goals, will tell. --John (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the threat of a one-week block there, so I am assuming nothing, your bad faith is self-evident. Why not try treating other editors like adults instead of naughty children? If you'd take the trouble to think before mouthing off you might have noticed that I have invoked no "defense" whatsoever, as I do not believe that one is required.Malleus Fatuorum 13:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Why not start acting like an adult and I promise to give it a try? You can begin by answering the questions above. Do you think it is ok to ask someone if they know who their dad is? Do you think someone else's bad behavior excuses yours? Really simple questions. Try your best. --John (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
John, I am not some kid in one of your classes, so put a sock in it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I upset you by calling you out on your ridiculous behavior. Avoid behaving like a little kid if you wish to avoid being treated like one in the future. Seems easy to me. Your choice of course. Regarding the length of block you would get if you were foolish enough to repeat the behavior in question, a quick look at this and a quick comparison with this might possibly give you a clue as to why you would be eligible for a longer block should you choose to continue the poor behavior I challenged. Hope that helps you to understand. --John (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand perfectly well, but clearly you do not. Further, I have no interest in your continuing threats, so I suggest that you get back to your kids, who hopefully have more respect for your opinion than I do. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I am glad you now understand where you went wrong. It is satisfying to think I have perhaps helped you reach an understanding of why your behavior was unsuitable. I don't need you to respect me, just to stop the silly behavior, and we can then both get on with something more interesting. --John (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
My main problem is that I was blocked once I had stopped everything and began working on content for two hours. Somewhere within the discussion, I believe that I could have been blocked, but from my view it seemed like a punishment, which really set me off (as expected). The second block was ridiculous, since I removed a second denied appeal from a single sysop that was confusing... It turned into a big mess... –Turian (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a huge project, and different places at different times develop their own flavour and culture. A lot of it is personalities - someone who's great to work with in one context becomes impossible when they come into contact with certain other people. Civility is an important aspect of Wikipedia, but it's also a stick to beat people over the head. At times like that, it may seem like certain people are placing civility issues above content issues, though in my experience I think that's an illusion - people use civility (or the ability to bait other editors) as a way of fighting content battles. After all, we'll tolerate an editor who misrepresents sources (MAJOR problem, IMO), but if they have a melt-down, they're out. It's much easier to win a fight by baiting another editor than it is to go through the whole process of an arbcomm case. You may not set out to win an argument that way, but when it drops in your lap in the middle of a content dispute, it's hard not to accept the gift.
I think many editors fall into the trap of believing that they are being singled out for their behaviour when, in fact, they're allowing themselves to be baited or trolled. They then proceed to paint themselves into a corner. And the more they are criticised, the more likely they are to last out. Which, of course, just makes the problem worse. Guettarda (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Civility blocks don't work. Yet, a civil atmosphere is a good thing to have. I think Guettarda makes some good points, but I think a good part of the problem is that we have vested contributors. Malleus, as much as I respect his contributions, and as much as I've worked constructively with him in the past (I'll never forget his able assistance with Chris), seems an example of someone who falls into that classification. He's not alone by any means. It's a problem with non admins but I think admins who fall into that classification are the worst. A trap: It's easy to spot a tendency in others but miss it in yourself. I may be a VC too, who knows. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda and Lar, you both make good points. If Wikipedia is a pleasant and congenial place, we all do better work as a result. Too many people confuse civility with the use or avoidance of particular words. I come from a culture that swears a lot; it is of course possible to be uncivil without swearing, and it is possible to swear without being uncivil. (My best French friend once really charmed me by saying during a conversation that involved a few beers, with admiration: "John, t'es con" ("John, you are [a] cunt"); it's much milder in French of course, more like saying in BrEng "you're a right bugger", perhaps.)
It is the intention that is civil or uncivil, and it can sometimes be difficult to judge someone's intention in a medium like this, which is why we have our "assume good faith" rule. The notion that people like me who hold out for civility are offended by particular words is mistaken; what I most object to is the puerility and obviousness of game-playing by users who insult someone, then complain when the person responds in kind, then attempt to gain traction in a content dispute thereby. Edits like this and this, for example, seem calculated to increase hostility and designed to provoke a reaction from which the original editor presumably hopes to benefit; there's a terrible sort of passive aggressiveness there that offends me far more than the actual words used do. It's like knocking a policeman's hat off (not that admins are policemen; it's an analogy) in the hope that the policeman will assault you, in pursuance of some agenda. It's not just bloody rude, it's also tendentious, inflammatory and (intended to be) manipulative.
Lar, when you say that "civility blocks don't work", I'm assuming that you mean a knee-jerk block on someone who says "fuck", "cunt" or "shit"; if so, I am in agreement with you. But the real incivility isn't mediated by particular words but by a pattern of abusive and combative behavior. This, I am determined to, and will continue to, challenge wherever I see it. --John (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you goin' to reply to mine inquiry? ;) –Turian (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I read your story and have some sympathy. Is there something particular you would like me to do? It does look as if it became, as you say, a big mess. Is everything ok now? --John (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter of administrators closing consecutive unblock requests, and also for closing without a sound reason (WP:AGF applies even for blocked editors sans vandals, IMO). Everything is fine now, minus the ANI going on for User:GaryColemanFan. It's nothing horrible, but I find some arguments there to be missing the point and putting it on me (moving the goalposts, per se). I'm also worried about inconsistencies in administrative discretion. I know each is his own person, but there isn't much subjectivity when someone decides to call me a troll. Anyway, that's semi-irrelevant... –Turian (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Having thought about it, I suggest letting go of this one. The comment was decidedly uncivil, but I think there are enough admin eyes on the situation now. ANI is a dramafest, and well worth staying away from. Admins are all individual human beings with their own individual standards. The content issue you clashed over was resolved, I think. If that user calls you a troll again, let me know. You may have exacerbated the situation yourself by over-personalizing it, though I am not sure I would have done any better. Walk away, older and wiser, would be my advice. --John (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We have examples before us of folk who have been admonished about civility over and over yet no real progress has been made. So they just don't seem to work. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for improving the atmosphere but there doesn't seem to be an easy answer. Banning certain words is at best a bandaid but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. Those words are a symptom but a pattern of behavior is harder to spot and harder to make a case about than certain words. It's like (as I said elsewhere) graffiti. It's a symptom, but governments have had fair success in improving overall conditions by imposing a strong "no graffiti" policy. Whether that works here? Who knows. I know this, I have no easy answers. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It's worth remembering that WP:CIVIL, like all of our policies, is not a prescriptive diktat but a descriptive rubric which reflects the ongoing consensus of the people who inhabit this virtual work area. Like WP:NPOV, WP:V and the rest, it may sometimes just be that folks are unable to adapt to the way we work. We owe it to them (especially to new contributors or potential contributors) to be nice about how we enforce our community's norms, but, at least in my view, there is far too much molly-coddling of people who repeatedly flout our norms. They always end up leaving on a sour note (at least all the examples I can think of; I'd love to get some counter-examples to cheer me up), and always cause a lot of friction and drama as they leave. The two most common excuses given for being unable or unwilling to follow basic civility are "it's a cultural thing; people from Foo always call each other fucktards, it's our way of being friendly" and "but user:X has done good article improvement work; how dare you object that they called you a slimeball". Maybe policy needs to be streamlined to ease such people out in a more streamlined and less dramatic way, and/or to institute civility sanctions that work better than the tools we currently have, to help educate those who are slow to pick up on how we work here. --John (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Some ideas[edit]

Setting a good example here I think is key. Editors follow what others so and especially editors follow what admins do, who also follow what other admins do. I suggest:

  • Set a good example yourself.
  • Have some sort of civil charter/constitution. The intention here is to have a voluntary civil code that editors/sysops sign and part of the signing could be that they commit in a binding way to it. At RFA candidates could be asked if they would sign the charter and if they wouldn't they would have to explain why. If they did there could be some tough parts which mean they stick to it or somehow are put forward to desysop or tender there resignation somehow.
  • Make a distinction in conversation between sysops that agree to be civil and those that don't.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

    • Those seem like reasonable ideas; I'm not too sure about the civility charter though as I still think we already have WP:CIVIL and we can still make it work. We all implicitly agree to be civil when we edit here; occasional lapses are forgivable but nobody, whatever their status or other accomplishments should be able to get away with serial incivility. --John (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain this diff??[edit]

Can you please explain this difference from George H. Moody Middle School?► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As the edit summary said "ce, trim unref and/or nn", which translates to "copyedit, trim unreferenced and non-notable". --John (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand now. I can see how teachers and excessive info are not notable.► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 21:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. Please let me know if you need any help with the article. --John (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

William Greer[edit]

You might want to keep an eye on this when the semi-protection wears off next month. Things had been relatively quiet, until (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) turned up on the talk page a few days ago. This leads me to believe as soon as the semi-protection wears off he'll be back again..... 2 lines of K303 13:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep an eye on that. --John (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Re: your statement "I wish to formally caution you for misrepresenting the source. If it was an error, please say so and we can move on. If, on the other hand, as it seems from the comments here, this is something you are in the habit of doing, please get out of the habit fast; it won't be tolerated. I hope I am making myself clear here. So, which is it?"

There is a considerable difference between making a statement in an article, and making one on a talk page. Nor was the source misrepresented. The NYT clearly stated the largest problem was mental anguish due to unfounded fears. You may not agree with my characterization of that as fearmongering, but that's a personal opinion.

Your attacks are unwarranted, and without merit. Via policy at WP:NPA, if you make another personal attacks without evidence, I can and will file an RfE for relief. In the meantime, I formally ask you self-revert your unfounded charge. Fell Gleaming(talk) 03:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see an attack anywhere... –Turian (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
A "formal caution" alleging intentional misrepresentation of sources is a personal attack, as per WP:NPA. Fell Gleaming(talk) 03:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, John. Guettarda (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He states and approaches both scenarios. Not once did he attack you personally. See tempest in a teapot. –Turian (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Fell Gleaming, I asked you a question whether your misrepresentation of sources was an error or not. I think you have thoroughly answered it, so thank you. Guettarda, thank you, it looks like that will be the way to go. What a pity. Oh, and Turian, of course that was not a personal attack, nor was it even uncivil. Obvious, and ironic in view of the discussion above. Ho hum. --John (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Making allegations about personal behavior without sufficient evidence is a personal attack. I've made a reasonable request for you to desist, as designated per WP:NPA. Fell Gleaming(talk) 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Two polar if's does not make an allegation. Now you are just being disruptive. –Turian (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to pick up the ball from here I wouldn't object, as I'm tired from weightlifting and would like to get to bed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of busy too, I have a cold beer here that keeps asking me to drink it. If not tonight then tomorrow, definitely. --John (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. --John (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Butterfly Edit[edit]

Thanks for the long pending edit of Butterfly. It was a long-overdue item in my to-do list. AshLin (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Very welcome. --John (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Concorde Affair[edit]

I'm not sure what your tag request for citation is requiring of this movie; is it the notability or the verifibility of the move in question? In terms of verifibility, the movie would stand on its own legs as its own references to its verifiable existance and the role the Concorde plays in it. On notability, with the Concorde playing a central role, basically a rival (fictional) airline sabotaging them to aid thier business being the main premise, with the plane taking center stage throughout it seems to forfil notability and verifiability on its own. I also have found the need for external citations/referencing for cultural roles played to be highly unusual, typically the work either clearly speaks for itself (and thus is included) or it doesn't and is drop-kicked out for being un-noteworthy. Does your tag refer to something else I have overlooked, or are one of these two not sufficiently met by your considerations? Kyteto (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see notability for this article established by the demonstration of multiple third party sources in order to justify its inclusion. --John (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

USS Iowa (BB-61)[edit]

From your message, I assume you mean what I did in this edit. It is quite simple, the template being used: {{Sclass}} has several different calls available for use (seen in the documentation) for different situations including the need to link or not link something and use hypens or not. -MBK004 05:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi John. I'm curious why you removed a collapsed section on a banned user's page. Shouldn't a list of the articles they contributed to the encyclopedia be accessible to those interested? Electroshoxcure (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? --John (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me to be abusive, unethical, immoral and uncivil to try to expunge all records of an editor's past contributions. What do you have against leaving those bits hatnoted? Electroshoxcure (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Their contributions are still listed in the history of articles they edited. Having a "contributions" section in your user space is a privilege, and not one we generally extend to banned users. What is your interest in this case? --John (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
How is eliminating listings of a banned editor's article work from their user page constructive, respectful, or dignified? Do you think deleting notation of someone's work from their user page is a proper way to treat someone? Electroshoxcure (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That depends on whether they are banned or not, in my opinion. --John (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for some oversight[edit]

Hi John, as an uninvolved admin, would you mind keeping a careful eye on this situation - User_talk:Fastily#Your_threat_to_block which is a reply to Fastily here? It relates to discussion at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Music_examples. In the past, User:Fastily blocked me indefinitely without a lot of explanation, after some urging from User:Hearfourmewesique. I submitted an unblocking request and was unblocked. Following recent discussion at the article talk page consensus emerged against Hearfourmewesique's view, so he canvassed for some support and Fastily has threatened to ban me indefinitely again, without an explanation. For the life of me I can't see a reason that he would, unless there is some residual resentment to his original ban being overturned by another admin. At the very least, i would hope he would take a step back and leave this to other admins. Thanks in advance for your help. --hippo43 (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look at that. A preliminary glance suggests there's a fair bit of reading to do and I'm just off to bed. I promise to look into it some time tomorrow. --John (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I've read up on it and will continue to watch. I may drop Fastily a line to ask what is going on, although if there is no current threat to block, perhaps there is no need. --John (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. --hippo43 (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. --John (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Scarlett Johannson[edit]

Hi. I was a bit perturbed by your removal of descriptors regarding critical acclaim and flops in this article. Each and every statement you removed is backed with references that support those statements. This article retained its good article status in August 2009 following a very in-depth review and discussion regarding it. The reviewer was quite tough about demanding adequate sourcing. The statements in the lead section are a reflection of sourced content in the main body of the article. At no time are any statements contained in the article that represent editor POV and actually do reflect critical commentary that is sourced.

Main body of article
  • The statement "Johansson marked her transition to adult roles in a pair of 2003 films. In the much heralded Sofia Coppola film Lost in Translation" was sourced to this source which gave it an 89/100 and is termed universal acclaim.
  • The statement "Johansson found equal praise for her role as Griet in Peter Webber's Girl with a Pearl Earring." was sourced to supporting critical statements by four different high profile film critics and was supported by sourced mentions of a number of awards she won or for which she was nominated.
  • The statement "2008 brought an upturn in critical reception for Johansson's performances." followed a section that covered some films that flopped or were less than enthusiastically received, also adequately sourced. It is sourced by critical commentary that some films during that period were not well received, but still brought Johannson praise for her own work in the films.
  • The statement in the lead "Johansson rose to fame with her role in 1998's The Horse Whisperer and subsequently gained critical acclaim for her breakout performance in Ghost World in 2001, for which she won the Chlotrudis Award for Best Supporting Actress." Was supported in the main article from sourced content of "Although the film was not a box office success, she received praise for her breakout role in the critically acclaimed 2001 film, Ghost World." The statement that it was a breakout role was sourced to a The Los Angeles Times review. The statement that the film was critically praised is source to both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. The sentence was not hyperbole or POV, it was sourced to solid references.
  • The statement that Lost in Translation was critically acclaimed film is also sourced in the section regarding that film.
  • Describing The Nanny Diaries as a critical flop was supported in the article body with sourced content regarding critical reactions and also to box office results.
  • The statement in the lead that "She received positive reviews for her appearance in He's Just Not That into You (2009)" is sourced in the main article with quotes from referenced critical reviews that said: "The San Francisco Chronicle review noted that the film "never soars, but it never flags" yet lauds Johansson, saying "she has become a deft comic actress."[91] The Los Angeles Times calls the film an "anti-romantic romantic comedy" and cites the scenario in which Johansson appears with Jennifer Connelly and Bradley Cooper as having "more meat than others", making it "one of the best."[92] The Baltimore Sun criticized the film, saying it "stumbles somewhat when it tries to get serious", but praised Johansson for "proving she doesn't need Woody Allen to be funny."[93]".

Thus I'm puzzled by the removal of GA review vetted and solidly sourced statements that describe critical reactions to Johannson's performances with an edit summary of "ce, npov". Nothing has been added to these statements since the GA review and are decidedly not POV statements added by editors here, but instead are wholly supported to statements that supported each and every statement. This is all sourced content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PEACOCK. It is better to detail (as you have done above) the exact nature of the "critical acclaim" than to say after each work is mentioned that it was "critically acclaimed". I am glad it is sourced; that should make rewriting it a lot easier. --John (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, my point is that there were no instances of WP:PEACOCK violations in the article since every single point you removed was well sourced. The details were already present before the comments were removed. There were no instances of blanket mentions of critical acclaim that were not fully supported by references and explicit examples. And excuse me? Why on earth would you endeavor to "rewrite" an article that recently passed GA after a thorough and in-depth review where everything you removed was acceptable and fully and solidly sourced and included examples that also supported wording? There was a passel of work gone into retaining the GA status by more than one editor. No offense meant, but why would one editor's viewpoint override a GA reviewer and more than one involved editor? T%his article has had few major changes and relatively few minor changes since it passed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
We have a BLP and we have a very willing and able responsive editor. If you are interested in improving the article feel free to enumerate actionable claims. However, if you look at the recent edits you will see they were largely stylistic cosmetics. There was no peacocking overhaul.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You keep mentioning these "actionable claims" that you wish me to make. It seems really simple to me (and indeed resolved now anyway); here is my original edit, which removed material that failed WP:PEACOCK. User:Wildhartlivie restored the offending material so I placed an article improvement tag and raised my concerns in article talk. Another user then re-removed the peacock terms, so, as I say, the matter is now resolved. User:Tyrenius seems to have understood the issue as well. I hope you can too, eventually. --John (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Your edit and the edits by the WP:SOCK took out the following substantive phrases:
From the WP:LEAD (which are properly attributed elsewhere)
gained critical acclaim for her breakout performance
critically acclaimed
the critical flop
received positive reviews
Elsewhere with proper citations
Johansson marked her transition to adult roles in a pair of 2003 films. In the much heralded
found equal praise for her role as
2008 brought an upturn in critical reception for Johansson's performances.

My question to you is do you understand WP:PEACOCK to refer to "Words . . . used without attribution. . . [that is not] plainly summarizing verifiable information" The content that you removed was attributed and was summarizing verifiable information. Why is PEA even relevant? Furthermore, a look at some of the most recently passed featured content such as Brad Pitt, which passed WP:FA five weeks ago uses the same style.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reread "plainly summarizing verifiable information" and ask yourself if the examples you name above truly fulfill this description. It is my contention and the consensus of the community that they do not. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a frequently derided justification for things that are wrong here. Rather than working down to a faulty system of quality control, why not improve articles and make them more closely conform to our policies and our mission, as I am trying to do? --John (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
O.K. so explain to me why a phrase like "received positive reviews" is not "plainly summarizing verifiable information".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Strike your pejorative comments here and I'll think about it. Failing that, there are plenty of basic English classes in most communities. --John (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you consider enrolling one of those classes youself John, as I see nothing "pejorative" in the diff to which you link. Certainly nothing that compares with your own stubborn rudeness anyway, as here. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
We are getting off topic. Could we get on topic and have John explain why a phrase like "received positive reviews" is not "plainly summarizing verifiable information"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you keep the discussion in one place at Talk:Scarlett_Johansson#Peacock_terms. In a nutshell, "positive" is a value judgement, not a summation of fact. How much praise constitutes "positive"? Was there no reservation or toning in the reviews etc? What exactly were the reviews positive about - her looks, her dialogue, her characterisation? And in what way were they positive? Etc. Ty 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah Malleus, I was wondering when you would show up. Still inhabiting the "he did it first" universe, eh? Still, I am glad to see your "retirement" lasted only as long as snow on a dyke in Spring. Welcome back! Tony, here is a hint for you. Which would you say is better; "received positive reviews", or "received 8.5 out of 10 on Rotten Tomatoes" (for example)?--John (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Those are both better than removal of the encyclopedic content that you endorse. Either one properly cited imparts knowledge to the reader. If a reader is not familiar with rotten tomatoes the former is less confusing and if he is, the latter is better. I am not sure we should assume all readers are familiar with RT. Do you have a reason why we should?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You persistently miss the point John. Perhaps you ought to try teaching "Remedial Logic for Beginners" instead of English; you might learn something. You continually demand standards of what you deem civility from others that you are so far from reaching yourself that you'd need a bus to get there. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yawn. That's, er, fascinating Malleus. Thank you for your valued insight as usual. Er, shouldn't you be off writing a featured article or something? There's at least one article desperately in need of improvement. As I see you are able to correctly use the word "continually" you should definitely be able to do something there. Have at it! --John (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Umm, describe it as "film review site RT" and/or wikilink it. That's the usual procedure round these here parts. Ty 15:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry but if you're unable to see why what I took out was bad writing then I can't explain it to you. My suggestion about an English class wasn't intended as an insult btw; teaching one has really helped me and maybe something like this really is what you need. I suggest that per Ty any further discussion on improving the Scarlett Johansson is best continued at Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Peacock terms, where a consensus has developed that the changes I made were good ones and that more needs to be done to rescue the poor writing to make this article truly a GA. Will you join me there towards that end? --John (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but next time you think a BLP has bad english, don't tag it with an inappropriate tag such as {tl|PEACOCK}}. It is bad form to do so when the BLP is on the verge of a publicity push that will bring it 100K+ page views per day.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. What would you suggest I do if I remove breathless schoolgirl writing from an article and someone blind reverts me? I don't buy the argument (in fact I find it truly hilarious) that an article improvement tag somehow reflects badly on the subject of the article. --John (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply from my talk page: Jack has had it out for Wildhartlivie ever since this. Every time I see where Wildhartlive is having a RfC-type discussions, there pops Jack (and often User:Chowbok) with those unhelpful snide remarks. He knows it pisses WHL off but just adds fuel to the fire, per usual. Therefore I reminded him that it shouldn't be used as a battleground, but it will be ignored, just as his behavior is by admins. Mike Allen 05:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I see. Do you think your intervention helped calm or resolve the situation? I thought that it did not. It might be better in future to explain a little of the background when having personal disputes with other users. Eventually, letting go and forgiving might be worth a shot too, if you can do it. --John (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably neither. He's a lost cause. Mike Allen 21:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
On the SJ talk page, me and Ty have been debating over the meaning of your statements. When you last commented you did not clarify.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will take a look. --John (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Best to keep a watch on things! Ty 17:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This town definitely is big enough for both of us, I'd say. --John (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)[edit]

The April 2010 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) 19:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War fix[edit]

Thanks there's been trouble on the article the last day or so glad you came in and fixed the titles in the lead and infobox. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. --John (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:HolyWilliesPrayerTitlePage.jpg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:HolyWilliesPrayerTitlePage.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable Sources[edit]

I voted for him. Thus he won. End of.--Alexanderryland (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That isn't quite how it works though. --John (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my edit[edit]

Any chance you could give guidance as to which edit needed to be reverted? Matthew 12 May 0135 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Any edit where you remove referenced info and replace it with your own opinion, has got to be a good candidate for removal. Let me know if you need help; the obvious next step is to take it to talk and reach a compromise. --John (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ball lightning[edit]

Hi John, no problem - I was a bit confused as to why you'd changed it to that anyway when the rest of the dates in the article were the other way round. I should have checked my original source and I would have seen it was done in the "American style" in the first place :) By the way, the Neil Charman article I used for the section on characteristics is available online and has other theories on what causes ball lightning. Actually, I used to know Neil when he worked in the Optometry Dept. at UMIST, but I didn't know he'd written anything on this subject, although knew he'd written something about earthlights. Richerman (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with another editor[edit]

John, I would appreciate it if you could help with a problem I am having with another editor, User:Trocksuk4415, and probably his IP address Special:Contributions/, involving flagicons on numerous different University of Kentucky/SEC articles. I have started discussions on two of the articles' talk page, two discussions on Trocksuk4415's talk page and one discussion on the IP's talk page, yet have received zero responses to any of the discussions or on my own talk page with only one edit summary of "Flags are in other articles about Kentucky basketball and no need to get rid of them." Trocksuk4415 has reverted me at least fifteen times across a three-month period and the IP has reverted me at least six times over the same period. Trocksuk4415 keeps reverting me simply by hitting the revert button without an edit summary, basically calling my edits vandalism, even though I warned him against this on his talk page.

I would appreciate any help you could give me with this editor who makes no effort to communicate with me on this issue. Aspects (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left them a message. --John (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate you message, I was not sure if I should come to an admin to discuss his general editing practices or to seek a third opinion, but that seemed difficult since he never really expressed what his opinion was. Aspects (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Since you left this message a week ago, Trocksuk4415 has directly reverted me once, Special:Contributions/ has reverted me once and Trocksuk4415 has started a new article, 2010–11 Louisville Cardinals men's basketball team. I left a message on their talk page and am now goign to remove these flagicons. Aspects (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It has been a week since I last left a message on here and I am still dealing with this editor reverting without discussion, [7]. Aspects (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Final warning left. --John (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you again, but with edit summaries of "Undid revision 364868913 by Aspects (talk)Doesn't matter if the flags are there, your not a UK fan, you have nothing to do with it. Leave it." for [8] and "Undid revision 358537705 by Aspects (talk)Flags stay. Doesn't matter at all." for [9] that in Trocksuk4415's opinion only University of Kentucky fans can edit the article, so it would never matter what I argued because he would never listen to me or apparently talk to me. Aspects (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I need to think about this some more, sorry to keep you waiting. The more I think about it, the more I think I should ask another admin to take a look. --John (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm the one who undid your changes on The Final Cut. The correction of the spelling of "twelfth" obviously isn't relevant if it goes back to being listed as the tenth album. As regards Falklands Conflict vs Falklands War, although "war" is the term used in Wikipedia's title thanks to this discussion, in British English at the time in question (that is, when Waters was writing TFC), "Conflict" was the term in common use. The official names for the incident in both Britain and Argentina remain "Falklands Conflict" and "Conflicto del Atlantico Sur" (and "Conflict" continues to be the term used by the BBC). – iridescent 10:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Conflict" looks like a euphemism to me, which seems contrary to Waters' intentions as well as Wikipedia's. See also here; the BBC's usage isn't straightforward. --John (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Final Cut Songs[edit]

I think that you were a bit hasty in redirecting all of those articles at once. IMHO, you should have at least allowed a bit of time for anyone who was interested to prove notability. I hesitate to point this out, as it may open the flood gates for the removal of a lot of articles, but there is an individual article in this encyclopaedia for each song, on every other Pink Floyd album. You may, in fact, be correct, as far as the letter of the notability guidelines. However, I think each article should have been tagged with a proposal to delete/merge/redirect as the case may be, and time should have been allowed for discussions to take place. I realise you're an admin, and I'm sure you know the rules much better than I. This, however, is my opinion.Mk5384 (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd#Pink Floyd songs, WP:NSONGS and WP:BOLD. --John (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
At WP:FLOYD, you said that you did this, "after, of course, raising (the issue) on the talk page, and not getting any dissent". Forgive me if, I'm wrong, but that statement appears to me, to be misleading. It was only on the talk page for two days. One user opined that the specific song that you mentioned ("One Of The Few"), was, in their opinion, notable, whilst agreeing that a discussion (my emphasis) about the other songs may be in order. The other user (me), simply said that the discussion would be more appropriate at the talk page of the song in question. Had I known that you intended to do what you did so soon, I would have raised an objection. As far as WP:NSONGS, and WP:BOLD, I'm not inferring that you violated any policies. I still feel, however that it was done too quickly. Rather than redirecting all of those articles, and then calling for discussion, I feel that you should have opened that discussion first. I think that each of these articles should be returned, and then tagged with the appropriate proposals.Mk5384 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, again, for your opinion. Please bring any arguments for retaining these articles to the project talk page. Arguments should be policy based or based on the utility to our readers and should not be based on process. --John (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review[edit]

I have no doubt whatsoever that you acted in good faith in redirecting all of these articles. I do, however, still feel, that it was highly inappropriate. At WP:DRV, the first step suggested it to politely ask the admin in question to take a second look. Per this, I do respectfully ask you to reconsider.Mk5384 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No deletion took place, so WP:DRV isn't really relevant. --John (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be quite a technicality. The fact is, that a number of articles no longer exist.Mk5384 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact is, John, that I disagree with what you've done. Please keep in mind that I continue to assume good faith. From what little interaction we've had, you seem to be a fine editor, competent admin, and a nice guy. But if you're not willing to reconsider, then I would like to challenge your decision, in a respectful manner. If it doesn't belong at WP:DRV, then please tell me where I should raise this issue.Mk5384 (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I misunderstood the difference between "delete", and "redirect". I still disagree, albeit not as wholeheartedly. My apologies for the misunderstanding.Mk5384 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Archie gemill1978.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Archie gemill1978.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

I deleted the file. An argument could perhaps be made that it was a historical image; if someone objects to my out-of-process deletion I can undo it. It's an iconic image all right. --John (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA[edit]

Admin mop.PNG Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John. You have new messages at OohBunnies!'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hi. I rewrote the narrative on the movie. Take a look. I think its a bit more clear. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. --John (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.[edit]

Hello, John. I noticed you posting on the Rangers talk page. It's all getting a bit silly now and don't know if I can be bothered anymore. The last edit made to remove the text in discussion was removed without the proper edit summary. The edit summary actually referred to something else. I restored it again but, as I said, I'm getting a little tired of it. I wonder if you could take a closer look at it and see what you can do. I'm not here asking you to back up my argument, only to calm down the whole potential edit warring. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. --John (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Perder es cuestión de método[edit]

Hi brother, please correct more the ortography of this article, the man who mas created must be traducted in google.

Orphaned non-free image File:Answerbaglogo.png[edit]


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


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. --John (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Hirschbiegel and parody[edit]

Hi John, I've removed the entire parody section from the Oliver Hirschbiegel article. As you put the material there I thought it courteous to let you know. My reasoning is that a discussion of the parodies does not deserve to constitute half of his article. Exactly the same material can be found on the page dealing with the film, where it better belongs. There is a link to this material in the Hirschbiegel page, where the parodies are briefly described. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that was courteous of you. --John (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments[edit]

I'm not going to post at WQA, because I already went over the top there, and I should walk away from it. I just want to remark that I'm hopeful - you'll note I'm very optimistic - I'm hopeful that Mr. Fatuorum feels so angry and burned by this experience that the pain will cause him to remember it, and possibly check himself the next time he wants to tell someone to... I've repeated it enough times.

He's the kind of contributor that I admit I'm the worst at dealing with. In the past, I've been pushed to the point of anger, and when I yelled at someone, they suddenly became agreeable and easy to work with! Other times, I've been pushed to the point of anger, and it really didn't go well.

In my four-and-a-half years as an admin, I've gotten truly angry on Wikipedia... about 4 or 5 times. I'm always kind of embarrassed when it happens, because it's not what I think is best, but I'm always honest. I express what I'm really thinking and feeling. If it sometimes is effective, to blow up... I guess I can roll with it, and try to learn from experience.

The wiki can be a jungle. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John. You have new messages at Jubileeclipman's talk page.
Message added 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jubileeclipman 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)[edit]

The May 2010 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) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-German Naval Treaty[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John. You have new messages at White Shadows's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--White Shadows stood on the edge 01:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi. It appears to me that a user you recently blocked ( (talkcontribs) is posting under an unregistered (or the same?) IP address (| (talkcontribs) in order to circuvement the block. It seems s/he is still unwilling to have a full dicussion and reach consensus on the appearance of the Depeche Mode tour articles. (Freak.scenery (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)).

Hmm. was only blocked 24 hh as I recall so should be editing under his regular account. --John (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like that now... is still continuing to engage in edit warring and is uninterested in discussing the aforementioned issue with me. (Freak.scenery (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)).

Greetings again and thanks...[edit]

Greetings John – and thanks for being out there.--Technopat (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, any time. --John (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the usernameblock template[edit]

Remember to subst: it. Otherwise, the username won't show up in it. mechamind90 02:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Thank you. --John (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Tu-154 ...[edit]

John, MWoodson here. Thanks for your interest in my small paragraph. Please see my talk page for a paragraph on the reasoning behind the Aviakor - investigator relationships before you delete my work again. And also discuss it with me first. Your boldness is your right, however, so is mine. I'm not going to let you delete my work without a very good explanation. Don't just refer me to a paragraph you think applies without first understanding my rationale for an entry or edit. I'll gladly extend the same courtesy to you.MWoodson (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have proposed a solution on your talk page which would be the best way forward. --John (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Ultan Conlon Page[edit]

Hi John, I have added references to the Ultan Conlon page, so its notability should no longer be in question. Regards, Donnacha (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look. --John (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello. 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. Thank you. (This pertains to your recent activity with Namiba.) ╟─TreasuryTagconsulate─╢ 07:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Image heads up[edit]

Just a heads up message to let you know your Stromness photo File:StromnessJM.jpg has been copied to WikiCommons, by a portuguese editor, and not correctly attributed to yourself, as File:Stromness_2.jpg. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, thank you for your comment at WP:WQA. I've explained the issue at WP:FOOTBALL. Unfortunately, it's fairly simple: currently England and the US are tied for 2nd place in Group C, as it says on the FIFA website. However, there is a green line in between the two teams, making it seem like one team is in 2nd place and the other is in 3rd. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Roald Dahl[edit]

Hello, John/Archive 2010, We are wondering if you would like to join the Roald Dahl task force as you have contributed a lot to the articles in our scope. We hope you can join!

Please feel free to add to this list. If you feel a task has been completed feel free to remove it and start a new one!

  1. Become a member of the task force and encourage others to do so.
  2. Tag articles for the task force.
  3. Improve: George's Marvellous Medicine.
  4. Improve: Going Solo.
  5. Work on all Roald Dahl related articles mainly focusing on stubs.
  6. Assess articles on class and importance.
  7. Get Roald Dahl to FA or GA

I have noticed you have edited this page:Roald Dahl.


Hi. Could you have another go at User talk:Trocksuk4415. The user has ignored your advice to discuss his edits. Rettetast (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread re A Quest For Knowledge[edit]

Hi John, just a heads up that I've opened a thread at ANI about some of this user's conduct toward me, and your comments on his talk page are mentioned in passing. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge_and_Bad_Medicine_.28song.29. Cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Gunther Prien page - Early Career edit regarding San Francisco[edit]

Hello John,

I've been researching Prien's life since 2006 (as I do living history/reenacting as Prien) and I had come across in a book (I cannot remember if it was Phantom of Scapa Flow or not) that this incident regarding the collision with the San Francisco actually didn't happen. The book 'U-Boat Commander/Mein Weg Nach Scapa Flow' cannot be heavily relied upon for the most part because it was ghostwritten by Paul Weymar.

I'm trying to help get the best information that is factual on this page because there is no 'one spot' where there is all the factual information on Prien. I've had to dig through many books (other good ones are The Royal Oak Disaster and Nightmare at Scapa Flow) to really get to the bottom of things.

I was the one that helped with adding about the Cape Horn ships - Hamburg and Oldenburg, the mention of the book Wolfpack - The Story of the U-Boat in WWII as well to make things clear (I had a prior ID of Prien here).

Again - I'm just trying to help out with getting the facts out with regards to Prien's full career.


KaptPrien (my ID here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaptPrien (talkcontribs) 15:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:V this would need to be identifiable to a particular page of a particular source before we could use it. --John (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

--RE John: Ok - I will see if I can find where I had come across it. I had tried to see if it was in the book The Royal Oak Disaster - as that author mentions about certain things that were put in by the ghost writer Paul Weymar. So, I will go back and check the Phantom of Scapa Flow to see if it is in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaptPrien (talkcontribs) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello John,

I had emailed HAPAG-Lloyd in regards to this (as HAPAG was the owner of the ship San Francisco) and this is what they had to say:

"It is with regret to mention, that we are not able to attend to your request.

We found no information regarding the mentioned accident near Hoheweg Lighthouse within our archive."

I don't know if this can be used or not - if so let me know and I can give you any other needed information. I am sure that it would have been in their archive had the accident actually happened.


Kapt. Prien —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaptPrien (talkcontribs) 16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting and perhaps suggestive. Unfortunately it is also original research and does not meet verifiability policy. We'd really need to find it in a reliable source. --John (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RE John - Ok. So, we're probably looking at a book or article then - or a verifiable record/document. I'll try to get my hands on a copy of The Phantom of Scapa Flow to see...although I had also emailed the Deutsches Schiffarhtsmuseum on it as well (but that would also fall into the category of original research). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaptPrien (talkcontribs) 13:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Koman Coulibaly[edit]

Hello, do you believe that your edit makes it sufficiently clear why there is so much controversy about the goal decision? I don't want to libel the referee, and I know that Coulibaly need not explain his reasons per FIFA regulations but I think the paragraph is unclear if it doesn't explain a little more. LovesMacs (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you understand why I removed it. The wording you prefer has since been restored and I suppose it isn't the most egregious. It's just that we don't generally report a negative, especially on a BLP article. --John (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

How is what I wrote defamatory?? The goal actually happened and he did not give any explanation to the press about why he disallowed the goal. Several sources cites that the goal actually happened and that he did not give an explanation. Sweetfornow (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And it seems like you don't. He doesn't need to give an explanation. See WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. --John (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I included sources in the paragraph. The paragraph need some details. If you think what I wrote is defamatory, then you need to see WP:WELLKNOWN (read the paragraph under "public figures") Sweetfornow (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. I am pretty familiar with WP:BLP-related issues though. I would be sad to block you if you edit-warred to add contentious material to a BLP article, but I would do it nonetheless. Please don't make that necessary. --John (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you've over-reacted there. I keep looking at the language Sweetfornow inserted. "He didn't explain why he disallowed the goal." In what conceivable way is that negative or defamatory? If he was required to explain, and didn't, it might be negative; if he were required to explain and he did and we said otherwise, it might be defamatory; but neither of those are true -- so how is it a BLP violation? --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's negative because it states a negative which is not required. Compare "He did not masturbate furiously on the pitch"; "He did not plot to overturn the democratically elected government of the Comoros Islands"; or "He was not seen to pick his nose and eat the resulting boogers with salt". All of these negative statements are arguably true and verifiable, but, as a reputable online encyclopedia we do not use material like this on a BLP even when it is verifiable because it creates a problem of UNDUE emphasis. We should merely report in a proportionate and tasteful way what actually happened, not what did not happen. A football referee is, of course, under no obligation to explain his decisions so the wording (even if verifiable) is a complete red herring. Finally, edit-warring to restore material you have been advised contravenes BLP policy is poor form; better to discuss in talk towards a compromise. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you're the one saying it "states a negative". It's a peculiar thing to masturbate furiously on the pitch; no reasonable person would expect a player to do so. It's a peculiar thing to plot to overturn the government of a country; no reasonable person would think someone might do that. It's a peculiar thing to salt and dine on one's boogers; one would not expect a reference to such except, perhaps, in the article on the dietary habits of booger-eating salt monkeys. It's not at all a peculiar thing for an official to explain a decision, as far as I know; perhaps it's different in World Cup Football? Is there a tradition of football referees not explaining controversial calls? I don't know one way or another -- and a curious reader would indeed want to know why that controversial call was made, and if the referee offered any clarification. That there was edit-warring going on is a different issue (and that article sure became a cesspool quickly.) No huge deal; it just doesn't fall close enough to BLP to use that as a reason to stop an otherwise annoying editor. I keep "so and so didn't happen" out of articles in general unless they can be sourced as otherwise significant on general principle, but I don't see it as BLP. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur with jpgordon. It was not negative and it is factual. He did not explain the call afterwards, and this is something Bob Bradley and Landon Donovan pointed out. He was not required to explain it, but he certainly could have. As it stands, we just have a clearly blown call and a referee not saying anything. Enigmamsg 02:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I value the input of both of you, but I stand by this being a BLP issue. It is very unusual for a ref to publicly justify a decision right after a game. Stating in the article that he has not (yet) explained what the infraction was, is tantamount to implying that he "ought" to have. This is the negative that we need to avoid. Refs (rightly or wrongly) don't owe players or fans an explanation of why they made a particular call. I think a lot of the misplaced anger against the decision hinges on this misunderstanding. We should not perpetuate it, especially at the cost of a living person's reputation or feelings. --John (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with both Jpgordon and Enigmaman here. I do not see a BLP issue and the block of Sweetfornow seems to be a serious overreaction. I encourage you to lift the block, which Sweetfornow has requested. --auburnpilot talk 03:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The block has now expired in any case. It was only for 3 hours. --John (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I failed to notice the duration of the block and suppose there is not much can be done now. Best, --auburnpilot talk 04:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Based on your edit war with Sweetfornow, your poor judgment in blocking users, and other events, I request that you stop using your admin privileges on the Koman Coulibaly article - Gleconte1 —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
I'll think about that, but I doubt it. What "other events" are you talking about, incidentally? --John (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Your edit history for the article. You continue to revert additions based on BLP issues when they should be allowed as they abide by the guidelines from the criticism and praise section. Just because the comments are critical does not mean that they are slanderous. - Gleconte1 —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I will treat it with all the seriousness it deserves. --John (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If your last comment was not sarcastic then thank you for your attention to this matter. If it was sarcastic, that is further evidence that you should stop editing the article as you obviously cannot have cordial discourse on the topic. I believe that it is a "serious" matter as you have used your admin privileges to bias the article toward your own agenda. Thank you - Gleconte1 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, my "own agenda". Your opinion has received my consideration. My "agenda" is merely that this article follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. You will get a lot further with me by being civil than you will by making demands. --John (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that if you look back at the progression of civility in this discussion it is heavily weighted in my favor. I have not made any "demands", only requested that you stop editing the article. My agenda is also to ensure that the article has a neutral point of view and follows BLP guidelines. Unfortunately, your actions have discouraged this from taking place. It seems, based on the opinions expressed by myself and others on this page, that a proper course of action would be for you to remove yourself from this discussion or at least reevaluate what viewpoints you should allow. For clarity, this is a request not a demand. - Gleconte1 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again, thank you for sharing your opinion. In terms of civility, features of your communication style which are counter-productive in achieving harmonious discussion include "your edit war", "your poor judgment" and "you have used your admin privileges to bias the article toward your own agenda". I am glad however that you and I seem to share the same "agenda", and I look forward to discussing in article talk how to make the article better. --John (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
As this is not a discussion on Koman Coulibaly but rather on the interpretation of admin guidelines, Wikipedia:Administrators states that the proper place for this discussion is direct contact with the admin. To clarify your comments, the "harmonious" instance we hope to achieve is in the conclusion not the discussion. I in no way expect or expected this discussion to be "harmonious". With regards to your critique of my communication style, "your edit war" is a literal interpretation from the definition given here:edit war. By that definition you were involved in an edit war with Sweetfornow which is defined under the accountability section of Wikipedia:Administrators as an abuse of admin privileges. My subjective interpretation of your judgment, while negative, was in no way meant to be inflammatory. If you wish to end this discussion without a resolution, please be more overt. - Gleconte1 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you were to actually read the link you sent me, you would see that actions like the one I took are specifically exempted from the definition of edit-warring: "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant." It should have been pretty clear from my edit summaries that I was claiming this exemption. We all done here? --John (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that you have missed the point entirely as your last comment seems to improve my position. You used your admin privileges to enforce what you deemed were "overriding policies" when in fact what you were doing was using those privileges to stop another user from posting facts that expressed a viewpoint that conflicted with your own, thereby violating the admin guidelines I linked in my previous post. The facts presented by Sweetfornow were not "unsourced" and were not even "negative". That being said, you have not edited the page since I made my request and so, yes, we might be "all done here". In the future I suggest that you try to not only read but fully understand the arguments that are being given on this page. - Gleconte1 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you once again for all the thought you have obviously put into this. I think you have made your position clear and so have I. It is not likely we are going to improve anything by continuing the conversation here; we are clearly never going to agree as your interpretation of WP:BLP is very different from mine. Perhaps if you ever become an admin you can try to do a better job than you think I am doing. You seem to have very strong opinions on these policy matters for someone with only 25 edits. Did you previously operate any other accounts perchance? Best wishes, --John (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur with your second sentence and thus this will be my last post unless abuse of the Coulibaly article continues. If you respond I will read it but not respond in-turn. Your digression from the given logic sequence is appalling for an administrator of an encyclopedia. I know nothing about your history as an admin and therefore made no comment on the entire body of work you have contributed on this site. I simply read some very elementary documents and noticed that you were in violation of the given policies contained in those documents for one specific instance. How you deduced that I think you are doing an overall poor job or that I want your position is extraordinary. Perhaps you should try and answer the questions that are being asked. Additionally, I had no idea that the intellectual validity of my contributions was not judged on substance but on the number of edits I have. This concept is foreign to me. Thank you for your time. - Gleconte1 (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Slovenia National Football team[edit]

I think the information about the controversy in the match needs to be included in the article. Perhaps it could be reworded, but you can't just ignore the situation. This event should be included in the article because hardly anyone would know anything about Slovenia football if it wasn't for how they luckily/incorrectly pulled out a draw against the USA in the World Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfourni (talkcontribs) 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree but would be happy to discuss in article talk to find an acceptable compromise. --John (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

check the article talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfourni (talkcontribs) 23:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Rangers again[edit]

Hey John, it's back on at Rangers F.C. - User:SeekerAfterTruth has reappeared. You're an admin, can you not just make him disappear? --hippo43 (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I commented in talk and reverted the changes on the article. --John (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
John I am dismayed that you have chosen once again to back the revision made by hippo43 at the Rangers FC article on sectarianism. I believe you may have a Conflict of Interest, in that you originally created the section you seek to protect from modification and you and Hippo43's posting history may indicate that you lack a NPOV.
I see user Hippo43 has asked "You're an admin, can you not just make him disappear?"
As an Administrator, I believe using your position to silence those who disagree with you, or your friends, views is an abuse of WIKI as well as being quite disturbing from a community dedicated to the freedom of expression. I intend to raise this with WIKI for resolution. In the meantime, I would ask that you please do not delete my edits without the courtesy of discussion.
SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for raising your concern with me. I agree that if I tried to silence you that would indeed be an abuse of my position. As I have not done so but have merely reverted the deletion you made at the article, I don't think your concerns have any validity at present. Our community is not however as you state dedicated to freedom of expression but to producing a free online encyclopedia, which is a bit different. We use principles like WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS to decide what to present in our articles. The principle you are concerned I am breaching would be WP:OWN rather than WP:COI. This I would deny. As you have already admitted that you have a COI in this matter and indeed that you are a WP:SPA here, I don't think your complaint has any merit. I do agree with you that we could use more participation in the discussion and I look forward to engaging there to discuss a compromise. --John (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank your for your reply, in your role as Admin, I would ask you how I would proceed to raise my concerns regarding Hippo43 in this matter, as you seem to feel no action is merited. An editor asking an Admin for the removal of another editor is something I would assume is not taken lightly. My concern is that you as the originator of the section under discussion may be too close to accept any editing of your work, despite being shown Recentism and Undue weight, (much of the content is now covered in more detail on specialised articles,)hence your COI. I am also willing to concede that you may be being manipulated slightly by those who are pursuing an agenda different to your own. The idea of us all involving ourselves at WIKI, is to improve the articles we feel we can, to this end myself and others have sought compromise on numerous occasions. When no compromise is forthcoming and indeed further questionable or sloppy content is added, the article deteriorates, where a quick glance reveals that the section in question has grown so far as to outweighs it's relevance to the article as whole, to the extent that it now has it's own article, contributed in no small part by Hippo43. I apologise if I have raised these points in the wrong place, but the talk page on the article has become enormously bloated and my points are not being addressed as those who seek to maintain the status quo are quite happy to block all edit attempts.
best regrds
SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────John, very sorry if my flippant, exasperated comment caused any misunderstanding. Let me rephrase. Given that SeekerAfterTruth has displayed neither the competence nor intent to contribute to a serious encyclopedia, and given that he has repeatedly engaged in unpleasant personal attacks and edit warring, and is clearly a single-purpose account with a clear POV to push, can you, in your role as a respected and experienced admin here, please take whatever steps are necessary to stop his behaviour? If that means some kind of indefinite block, or topic ban, or enforced mentoring so he learns to comply with policy, so be it. I don't fully understand admins' procedures, so if you feel this would somehow not be appropriate for you to do, as you have edited the article in the past, could you perhaps ask for assistance from an uninvolved admin who might be able to address Seeker's problematic behaviour? Thanks in advance for your help. --hippo43 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem Hippo. Obviously I would like to focus on article content rather than personalities here; SAT is a SPA but may still bring up valid concerns. If his editing becomes seriously disruptive there are channels we can go through. Meantime let's focus on a compromise at article talk. --John (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Roberto Rosetti[edit]

There are references for this referee's performance —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup[edit]

The image you removed is not "fake". It may be staged. The subjects may be models. These are no reasons that it shouldn't be used. The image is an object of discussion. Please see the talk page and its archives. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and have commented at the article talk. --John (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The more I think about it and look at it, the more it seems you are a minority of one in the discussion. If there are no pressing reasons to keep the image I intend to remove it again. Please don't restore it again without consensus. --John (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


For going over some of my edits to U-27 and Rudyard Kipling and fixing them up :)--White Shadows There goes another day 18:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Good work yourself. --John (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010)
Front page
Project news
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank


Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content


June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members


LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

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

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

RFA Thank spam[edit]

Admin mop.PNG Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 10 support, 26 oppose, and 13 neutral. Your comments were much appreciated.

On a personal note, thanks for supporting me John (though you did switch to neutral due to a valid concern)--White Shadows There goes another day 16:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was sorry to see how it turned out. With such a good nomination I was sure you would do it. Never mind, there were some very perceptive comments and ideas for you to improve even further. I am sure you will make a great admin around December and meantime I look forward to working with you on more naval articles. Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment ;)--White Shadows There goes another day 17:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments to my talkpage[edit]

I wish you wouldn't have started this conversation. I was interrupted in editing another article, which I've now left, and I truly have little interest in Paul the Octopus. Now I feel as though I've been hounded away because an administrator came to my page telling me they've decided not to take administrative action although I only made two edits. Could it not have been discussed on the talkpage? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. --John (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


Notability of the Ultan Conlon page[edit]

After I added references to the Ultan Conlon page, you said you would look into removing the question mark over its notablity. Any updates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks better than it did but still is of questionable notability in my opinion. --John (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Is that your photo or is it from someone else and published under the non-free 'NC' license? I noted that you deleted the image yourself on Wikipedia, it still exists on Commons however. --Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is from someone else. Apologies for the mistake; I had been editing WP for only a couple of weeks at that point. When I deleted the WP file I didn't notice it had been transwikied to Commons. It should probably be deleted from there too. --John (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, deleted it. --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Danny Wilson[edit]

Hi, might be an idea to put some form of block on editing Danny Wilson (Scottish footballer) with the recent speculation surrounding his transfer. Thanks if you can help Monkeymanman (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. --John (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

I see editors reverting back and forth on the Richmond Gang Rape article. Perhaps you can speak to them. Richmondian (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Please make sure to visit all those warring, lest it look like you are picking sides in an edit war. It just so happens that the information you cautioned him about was in the citations (at least, it was last time I worked on the article in detail). Manuel Ortega[10] is one of the arrested that's over 18 so I'd guess that's why his name was included Richmondian (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but I think there's a clear consensus in the article that BLP precludes our mentioning people's names and races at the moment. That template was the best I could find. be happier to explain in greater detail if you think that'll help. --John (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing my warning. I'm on the road and can't run WP:Twinkle, so I'm lost trying to type in all the templates. Thanks again!--Gordonrox2448 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --John (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi, can you please review my latest edit made to the Afghanistan page. I left a message here at another user's talk page. Your version seems biased, written poorly. This is a very sensitive section and try to focus on the issue. Thanks.-- (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is English your first language? If not, it might be worth taking your proposals to Talk:Afghanistan. There was nothing terrible about them but they weren't well-written or referenced to reliable sources which was why I undid them. --John (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Enlish is my second language. What part of my edit needs to be sourced? If you want to dispute anything in particular try to add a citation needed tag and then I'll be more than happy to go and get you the information verified with a reliable source. The way your version is written is to try to make us believe that a number of border fightings occurred between Afghanistan and Pakistan but if you click on the Afghan-Pakistan border skirmishes it only talks about one incident which lasted for a few days in May 2007. And the reason for that is not that Pakistan wanted to violate Afghanistan, it's because the border Durand Line is poorly-marked. Click on the link and read it. The 1.7 million Afghan refugees can be verified by clicking on that link or on Afghans in Pakistan. And I told you in the edit summary that foreign relations don't mean cultural ties.-- (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Not the way it works. Anything you add needs to be sourcable. As I said, this needs to be discussed at the article talk page. The article as it stands isn't "my" version, and I agree there are some problems with it. --John (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Your version as in the version you reverted back to it, I know you didn't edit that part. I'll raise my point at the talk page and see what others say. Thanks anway.-- (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

links to educational video podcasts[edit]

Hi John! I was recently warned for posting "disruptive edits" regarding the posting of links to video podcasts. The Hammer Museum has several video podcasts that enhance the viewers knowledge and understanding of the speaker, usually artists or others who drive contemporary culture. We merely include the Hammer name to site the lecture; we are not posting them to promote ourselves. Rather we think they are so interesting that the content will be of use as supplemental information for Wikipedia users who are trying to learn more about a specific person or topic. Is there a way we could do this that would seem less like "personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product"? We see ourselves rather as providing links that "contains further research that is accurate and on-topic" The Wikipedia guidelines encourage the posting of "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons." These video podcasts are a free, educational public service that we provide. Do you still object to our posting them? Is there a better way of making this supplemental information accessible on Wikipedia?

Thank you very much in advance for your time and comments. MelissaYvonne (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Melissa. I suggest you post at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and try to attract a consensus there that the links add value to the articles, rather than vice versa. Thanks, --John (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Great, Thank you! Is there any way you could tell me what exactly about the posts is considered "disruptive"? I'm not quite sure I understand. Thanks again. MelissaYvonne (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
See WP:EL. External links are not really welcome unless they can be shown to add value to the articles. Adding a great many of them, without permission, is definitely disruptive. No matter, good luck getting consensus. --John (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a note: wouldn't MeliisaYvonne be better off asking at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard rather than at the Village Pump? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant suggestion BMK. Thank you. MelissaYvonne, that would be the way to go. --John (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!! MelissaYvonne (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your name mentioned[edit]

Hi, I just thought of letting you know that you are mentioned by Ariana310 at here and here-- (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bull/proposed article[edit]

Hi. I'm putting together on article at Bull/proposed article to supplant the existing disambig page, which is a magnet for links intended to point at an article on the male of cattle. Since you did quite a bit of work on Cattle, I thought you might be able to help quickly punch this up to full-blown article status. Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky / Linguistics[edit]

Why are you undoing an edit --that was approved of by Snowded, who has a barnstar for balancing POV's-- and your only reason given for undoing it was "not how we do things"?

Sure, Noam Chomsky is a father of linguistics, but today, decades later, many linguists are finding fault in one of his primary theories (UnivGrammar). I'm not sure how "we" (who are you speaking for?) do "things" or what you meant by such a vague & pithy statement, but:

  • Verifiable and reliable info from a prominent Stanford U professor, which also is relevant to the content of that paragraph, is what you are deleting (not modifying, but wholesale deleting). Deleting info from a section where it is relevant, when the info also meets WP:Core_content_policies, without moving the content to the Talk page, nor even using the "edit summary" to give _any_ reason(s) which are related to WP content policies as an explanation for _why_ you're deleting it, is that how "things" on Wikipedia should be done? As an admin, shouldn't you especially be expected to know that WP policies say that's not proper (e.g. "generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages"...i.e. I had already given a briefer summary of my reasoning, now you're supposed to explain your reasoning (if you have anything that's supported by the WP staff's core content guidelines, etc.), instead of bitingly snickering at me with a "reason" of only: "not how we do things". I would have expected to see "see talk page" when you undid my edit, after I gave perfectly good [and much briefer LOL] explanations for why I made that edit; if you're editing in good faith, you'll finally maybe someday be kind enough to explain your own, contrary reasons, esp if you have any reasons in WP's content policies as support? ).
  • Striking Prof. Boroditsky's info from the paragraph which summarizes Chomsky's UG theory appears to violate the neutral POV policy by not giving equal prominence to two equally-scholarly camps who disagree with each other; this is not some fringe group criticizing Chomsky's UG theory, many in the scientific community find fault with it. In study after study, scientists are reporting that they've found empirical evidence which disputes Chomsky's UG theory (I can cite even more studies by researchers who weren't noted by Prof. Boroditsky, but her article which I tried to cite in Wikipedia gives a good summary of her colleagues' studies, and describes the issue in plain English -- and plain English is what's most useful to most encyclopedia readers [i.e. non-linguists, laymen] who can click on the footnote if they want to look further into Prof. Boroditsky's synopsis of her colleagues' research).
  • We also have: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." The criticisms section for Chomsky creates a "new article" and doesn't even mention that criticisms (of his theories in liguistics) even exist: "Main article: Criticism of Noam Chomsky. Much Chomsky criticism revolves around his political views. His status as an intellectual figure within the left wing of American politics has resulted in much criticism from the left and the right." Only politics, no linguistics. This is the epitome of a "POV fork"; see also [11].
  • as a scientist, when I see a statement as strong as calling someone a "father" of any major field of research, and I have credible info showing that today's experts are pointing out that their "father's" research is not quite as widely accepted today as it was decades ago when he first published it, I realize that for encyclopedia readers --most of whom probably don't keep up with the latest scientific journals-- such a strong statement (which seems geared to give him god-like or fatherly status amongst linguists) can mislead laymen unless it is tempered and balanced by quoting today's expert linguists...especially because a major theory like UG is a big part of how he became a "father" of linguistics. This gives the reader 3 benefits which make the Noam Chomsky article more informative: (1) the "whole truth" about the status of UG theory amongst the research community rather than a one-sided argument, (2) a more balanced POV, (3) and a sense of how the scientific process works.

Readers of Wikipedia are being done a disservice if they're not told the full picture, i.e. the latest state of this major theory of linguistics which is also a major, major part of Chomsky's career! Many people might not read beyond the first few paragraphs and leave with an impression of, "Chomsky's work makes his UG theories so valid and great, they call him the 'father' of linguistics," so at least a brief snippet about the more recent studies that contradict Chomsky views on UG should be placed where such info is relevant: in the same or adjacent paragraph to where his UG theory & prominence in linguistics was initially discussed (and discussed glowingly in both those paragraphs, in a POV one-sided argument). This is copied to the Chomsky Talk page & John's Talk page; John, please reply to this on the Talk page if you still oppose my edit. (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello, John. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Phoon (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Daven200520. When I went to look at the report you had filed, you had already struck it. I am glad that you now regard the matter you raised as resolved. Let me know if you ever need any more help in the future. --John (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

About tone[edit]

Dear John, Hi, how are you? As you may recall, I met you on the talk page of "Paul the octopus", several weeks ago. I appreciate the fact that you make your very best attempt to honor the WP guidelines scrupulously. And certainly the efforts of an admin were needed in order to try to keep some control over that article and its talk page during the most crazed part of their evolution. I also understand (from what I have read) that admins sometimes get pretty burned out from having to deal with vandals and trolls, and that this can end up making some of them seem less friendly.

In case this could perhaps be helpful to you, I wanted to let you know that some of the messages you left for me, and also for User:Truthkeeper, came across seeming unduly curt, and a bit harsh and disrespectful in tone. You did not apparently cross the boundary for incivility, but it seemed you were not following the guideline: "editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect." Some of the notes you left read as if they were dismissive in tone, and in your exchange with Truthkeeper on his talk page, you appeared to stray over (perhaps accidentally) into an intimidating-seeming tone. I do understand that probably none of this was intentional on your part, but I thought I would mention it to you, hoping that it could be helpful for you to know. Tone is a very tricky thing when writing short notes to people, especially when you are admonishing them about something. I realize you must have to do that a lot as an admin. However, it's really essential not to end up discouraging well-intentioned editors unduly, or to "sour" their experience of Wikipedia, because that can really take the wind out of someone's sails, and then they will contribute a lot less, or perhaps not at all.

One essential thing that keeps the engine of a successful collaboration like Wikipedia running smoothly and working well, is an lubricating oil that is composed of politeness combined with a good deal of warmth, a warmth that is sometimes known as Wikilove. A little bit of warmth and kindness goes a long way.

All my very best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Invertzoo. I appreciate your taking the time to write such a message. First of all let me apologise if my tone was suboptimal in any of our exchanges last month. If I recall correctly this came from my exasperation at the position some editors were taking about the reporting of the octopus's actions. The idea that Wikipedia should (for example) use "scare quotes" to denote our editorial skepticism about the subject of an article, is so far removed from proper scientific and Wikipedian principles that I found it difficult at times to hide my annoyance. Science, as you will be aware from your training, does not recognize truth, being instead always provisional and contingent on the latest properly constructed data. How do you think the articles on Jesus or Muhammad would look if editors were allowed to edit in this way? On more scientific subjects, I have a lot of experience in editing articles like Loch Ness Monster and Moon landing conspiracy theories. It is especially paramount on articles like this, both for scientific rigor and our policy here, that we do not editorialize to reflect our personal beliefs about the veracity of certain claims, but instead allow the reliable sources to tell our story by summarizing them. While I do make every effort to treat all editors with courtesy and patience, there are times when even an intelligent editor like yourself seems infuriatingly slow to get this point. I am sorry if the way I got the message to you was bruising at the time, but I remain convinced that the position I took was the correct one. Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Although you seem unable to hear feedback along these lines, I endorse Invertzoo's advice to you. I also experienced your general tone on and about "Paul the octopus" as an attempt to intimidate, if not outright bullying. Other established editors have also commented on the generally disrespectful and self-important tone you adopt towards content editors, and it would be good if you could allocate a little of your valuable time to reflect on why that should be so. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. As I said, I remain convinced that the position I took was the correct one. You may take my apology to Invertzoo as applying to you too, if I hurt your feelings in explaining our policies to you. If you remain seriously unhappy with those policies, you are free to try to have them changed. WT:NPOV would be the best place to start. If you are seriously unhappy with our core policies and how they are enforced, it may be that this project is not for you. --John (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, that is an arrogant response. If you are seriously unhappy with our core policies concerning administrators, such as the requirement that they behave in an exemplary manner, then it may be that being an administrator is not for you. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I am just fine with our policies as they stand and if I was not I would know where to go about having them changed. I do believe that I have behaved in an exemplary manner; if you have specific instances in which you feel I have not, please feel free to bring them to my attention with diffs so that I may reevaluate them. Sometimes it's hard to tell "arrogant" from "correct" when you are in the wrong, and I feel this may be the problem you are wrestling with on this occasion. I do remain open to discussion on the subject though. Best wishes. --John (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi John, thought I'd join the conversation here since I've been brought into it. Here's a diff from my first interaction with you here. Ever. On the entire project. I have to agree with Invertzoo - it was off-putting. Not a good way to introduce yourself, so to speak. I commend Invertzoo's courage to bring this to your attention. Some of us lowly editors crawl into our holes and write encyclopedia articles after someone comes calling to chastise. But you know what - it festers a bit. So, I see you've defended your actions. But try to understand what Invertzoo is saying, because I don't think you're quite taking it on board, so to speak. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Truthkeeper. Which part of the message did you find "off-putting"? It seems reasonable to me. --John (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me[edit]

It is not appropriate to threaten me. Please leave me alone. I have asked you this before, your conduct has now become harrassment. I have broken no wikipedia policies. If you'd like go to the arbitration committee.

Richmondian (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you feel I have done anything specifically wrong, please feel free to raise it with me. Such allegations are always taken more seriously when accompanied by diffs. Meantime I will continue to enforce policies as I have warned you on your talk page. Take care, --John (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what you had to say, though you apparently knew exactly what I was speaking of. "Sorry about your recent bit of trouble with socks. I just noticed that on the 28th and 29th July you inserted racial information into the article. Just to be completely clear (my impression was I had already warned you about this but I may be mistaken), if I see you doing this again I will block you. If you need to read WP:EDITWAR and WP:BLP, now would be a good time to do so before you find yourself unable to edit. Cheers, --John (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)"

An apology followed by a threat to block over an insertion of "racial information" two weeks ago and a false "BLP" claim, without any sort of diff. Its more than a little rude, its actually harrassment. I had asked you to leave me be some time ago. And I see multiple editors above had only recently spoken to you about this. As I said to you already, open an arbitration case if you must but otherwise leave me alone. Richmondian (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't an apology and nobody has recently spoken to me about this matter but you. The consensus on the various discussions has been that there is no reason to mention the suspects' races. I contend that as these are living people, your continuing to add it constitutes a breach of WP:BLP. It certainly breaches WP:EDITWAR. Having warned you about it, I will certainly block you if I see you do it again. If you wish review or clarification of this, you should say so now rather than repeat the actions you have been warned for. I obviously don't agree that this is harassment; all you have to do to avoid it is to avoid edit-warring over this info. --John (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The threats continue. You should really consider your role here. You came to do good, but are now just being mean to people, abusing the privileges you were given in trust. Take a look in the mirror. Read what people say here. People aren't coming here because you are doing such a great job blocking vandals.
An "edit war"? I've made something like 3 article edits and 50 talk page edits in the last 3 weeks. The talk page discussion was ongoing. Hardly a "war". If you really have some "BLP" violation, please share the diff so I know what part precisely you will block me for adding. I am hear to edit, but, I can't, because you are threatening me, and as you know, its nearly impossible for an editor to be unblocked here. Richmondian (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I mean. Don't make any other edits inserting racial information on the (living) suspects into the rape article, please, and we won't have to worry about unblocking. The consensus in talk and at the noticeboard is against you, and I interpret what you have been doing as a violation of WP:EDITWAR and of WP:BLP, as I already said. If that's the only thing that you are interested in doing on Wikipedia, maybe you should ask yourself why it is so important to you. --John (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tone and apology[edit]

Hi again John,

I do appreciate your replying to me and apologizing, but in reality I was not looking for an apology, neither was I complaining about the points you were trying to make in your notes. I was attempting to explain that it seems to be the case that you need to try to pay more attention in general to the way you express yourself in your notes, your tone. Tone is extremely important in written communication, because the recipient cannot see one's face, and therefore cannot always tell whether one is being kind and friendly, or agressive and haughty. A written note always ends up conveying an emotional attitude, whether or not the author intends to do so or not. Without the deliberate use of friendly words (which need to be based on an inner friendliness), a note can appear to be quite rude.

I understand that you become frustrated (or as you say: exasperated or infuriated) when you are trying to make a point about policy that seems perfectly obvious to you, a point that you feel all experienced Wikipedia editors should already be familiar with.

However, the world-wide collaboration that is Wikipedia demands an enormous (even superhuman) amount of patience from us all. Successful collaboration requires flexibility and a great deal of respect for others, especially those who have already proven themelves as reliable contributors. All of us frequently have to deal with people who don't see things the way that we see them. This does not necessarily mean that one person is "totally right", and the others are "totally wrong"; there can be a genuine difference in interpretation.

When experienced editors with a good track record don't seem to "get" what you are saying, it is not because they are being stupid or obstinate, it's much more likely that they have a somewhat different interpretation of a Wikipedia guideline or Pillar than you do. Wikipedia is not static, it evolves, and our individual understanding of the principles changes over time, both unofficially and officially.

Even when you notice that an established editor has made an out-and-out error, perhaps one that is clearly against policy, the error has almost certainly come about as part of a good faith attempt to improve an article.

As a sysop, of course you have to think about the principles of Wikipedia a lot more than the average editor does, but it is not worthwhile to let the frustrations of Wikipedia communication annoy you or upset you. When that does happen (as it will once in a while) it is even more essential than usual to try to maintain a friendly approach to the people you are writing to. Not just civil, but friendly. As a sysop you have a responsibility to the Project to behave well, better than the rest of us. When you run out of goodwill and kindness and are running on exasperation and infuriation instead, then it is time to take a Wikibreak.

Yes, NPOV is indeed one of the Five Pillars or core principles of Wikipedia, but so is Civility. It's absolutely essential to "assume good faith" and to treat other contributors with respect. Actually, just being "civil" is not nearly enough, being respectful and kind and appreciative is necessary. And so is seeing others as being equal to yourself. That is what is meant by Wikilove. We are all volunteers. We do this work totally out of the kindness of our hearts. We all need encouragement and kind words. Without kindness the Project cannot thrive.

Best wishes to you John, and thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia, now and in the future, Invertzoo (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Invert, I just wanted to let you know that civility is not necessary any more on WP. Users are now able to be uncivil as long as they know they are right. Just see Talk:2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash#Title, and note User:MickMacNee. He gets to behave anyway he wants. John has a long way to go before he's as obnoxious and uncivil as Mick! ;) John is pretty well behaved as far as I can tell. There are far worse users on WP, so why don't you go after the ones who need to reigned in? Oh, it would be too difficult to actually go after the bad users, so you have to pick on the good ones who are tough on the bad ones? Thought so! Sheesh! John, sorry if this is unwanted, but I see you getting alot of grief for trying to do the right thing, while the actual bad users escape notice. Good luck, John, and know there are people who support you. - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your messages. I especially appreciate Invertzoo's message that kindness and inclusiveness are more important than civility in the Wikipedia sense, and BilCat's conviction that in general I am doing the right things. I've thought about this matter a lot in the last days and it may be that my tone in the middle part of this year has been increasingly snippy. I've moved house and started a new job in that time, both of which are relatively stressful life events, and it may be that this has fed into my demeanor on-Wiki. I shall try very hard to embody your kind and thoughtful messages in my future conduct. One thing that's come newly to my attention is the need as an admin to clearly distinguish whether I am speaking with an "admin hat" or not; I think I still reserve the right to argue passionately over minor points of style or policy on articles that I edit as a regular editor (Paul the octopus, for example), and administer articles I haven't substantially edited like 2009 Richmond High School gang rape per our policy on such matters (see #Stop harrassing me just above). I may though have to work harder at informing others which "mode" I am communicating with them in. Thanks, both. --John (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi again John. You have my sympathy: starting a new job and moving house are both of them very tiring and stressful events, and that stress level can certainly influence one's behaviour in every part of one's life, including one's home life and one's Wikipedia work.
I agree that it is good to think carefully about the "admin hat" versus the "regular user hat" issue, although I am sure some contributors would say that once you have been awarded the official sysop hat, the hat is on you all of the time willy nilly, and therefore it will always remind a lot of people of your ability to issue formal warnings and block users.
In any case, very best wishes for the future, good luck with everything, and here are some flowers for you. Invertzoo (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your apology[edit]

Hi John. Really I was not seeking an apology at all, and I have no objections to your positions on content issues. I was merely hoping you might find a way to behave towards content editors in a more friendly, respectful, and less self-important manner. In this way, you would be a real asset, serving the community in a genuinely positive and constructive manner, instead of leaving a trail of bewildered and resentful wreckage behind you. As a community, it is important for content editors to trust and have pride in administrators, and to achieve this you need only adjust your tone. Best wishes, --Epipelagic (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


As far as the comments on MF's page, they occur on his friend's page in an atmosphere of informality. I have no concerns about them. This edit I might have concerns about, but the context is invisible. I don't particularly like to see users colleging together and being nasty to people, but the picture built on the RfA isn't full enough to prove this danger. You and I both have had not-so-nice moments too, even while possessing the mop. All in all I don't think a good case against this user has been made, considering his pros. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I do see the many positive attributes this candidates brings, and if you've reviewed diffs like this and think he'll do ok enforcing policy, I wouldn't dream of trying to sway you. Thanks again. --John (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi[edit]

I'd appreciate some advice here. I'm not trying to make trouble, and i understand this article is controversial. It needs a lot more light shed on the issue to make it less controversial. One of the elephants in the room for the this article is Megrahi's transfer to Libya (via compassionate release, nothing to do with the PTA). According to the article Reserved and excepted matters, in Scottish devolution, security, foreign relations and air trsnsport are reserved matters, so the UK government (but not the Scottish one) had the power to stop his return to Libya. The transfer happened, whiuch could only occur if no effective intervention by the UK goverbment blocked it. That's important; in fact I'd suggest it's notable. Also, clearly the Libyans could have blocked this too, but it's no surprise they didn't. Why do I need a good referece for either government's failure to prevent the flight? Zagubov (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I do understand the constitutional niceties here, but we would need to find a reference to comply with WP:V and because to put it in based on your opinion or mine would be original research. --John (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean. However, I worry about the future of this article; there's very little substantive detail, and what there is seems muddled and selective, while it's not short of opinion and emotion of uncertain relevance. Zagubov (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Kampfgeschwader 200[edit]

Your recent edit to the above article was quite sweeping and given without summary, nor was it discussed here. Obviously it's hard to prove a negative (i.e. to find a source writing "KG200 was not a secret operation") but an extensive change such as your edit deserves some verification. One editor claims that Baumbach's memoir fails to mention KG200 - if this is the case, it could be construed as circumstantial evidence of KG200's clandestine nature. Other sources apparently state explicitly that it was secret. Are you disputing the widely-held view that KG200 was in any way a clandestine operation? If so, it would be good to read your reasons and the sources for your view. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have just finished Price's Last Year of the Luftwaffe, hence my interest. He states unequivocally that KG200 did not fly deception missions but just used captured types for their flying qualities. Most military matters, especially in time of war, are kept as clandestine as possible lest the enemy gain advantage, thus I did no think it worth mentioning. I thought it gave the article a slightly trashy flavor, to talk about it as a "secret" unit, which was why I removed it. --John (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's communication norms[edit]

Hi John, because it seems to relate directly to our recent conversation, I thought you might be interested to read this very brief Wikipedia Signpost news piece [12], which is about a Harvard study of communication norms on Wikipedia.

To quote the abstract of the paper: "These norms speak to the intentional stance and communicative behaviors Wikipedians should adopt when interacting with one another." The study contrasts "supportive communication" with "defensive communication", and explains that "Supportive behavior/climates are characterized by non-judgmental description, problem orientation, spontaneity, empathy, equality, and provisionalism. Their 'defensive' opposites are evaluation, control, strategy, neutrality, superiority, and certainty."

The study concluded that in the majority of the material examined, "Supportive" communication was the Wikipedia norm.

Thanks and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. --John (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

recent edit[edit]

Your recent tag on the Creatures page seemed to me abusive. As the main contributor of that page, could you provide a few instances that urged you to put this observation?Carliertwo (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mainly the quality of the prose; there are many instances of sub-standard language. Perhaps a {{copyedit}} tag would have been fairer. Sorry if I hurt your feelings; nothing personal was intended. I'll show you what I mean later. --John (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Dear John, Thanks for your friendly conversation on my talk page. I appreciate all of the volunteer work you devote to Wikipedia. I know you have all the best intentions as a fellow editor and administrator.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

reviewer right removal[edit]

Hi Jon, as regards the removal of the reviewer right from this user A3RO, you say there is community has lost trust for the user to have it, how do you know that? and has he misused the reviewer right in any way? Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that because the user is currently blocked for a week for disruptive editing, and because there is a ban discussion currently under way about him at AN/I (albeit perhaps slightly prematurely). I'd say these are good indicators that community trust has been lost; if a consensus develops that I am wrong I will be happy to reverse this. --John (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert L. Fornaro[edit]

I created the Robert L. Fornaro page that is why there are so many edits by me. --airtran371 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. --John (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010)
Front page
Project news
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections


Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content


July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy


Opportunities for new military history articles

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

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

a more general rule for the future[edit]

W regard to establishing a more general rule for the future, you may wish to consider what to do when on day X a sock votes, and on day X +1 we find out it was a sock.

I would think we remove the vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that should be clear. --John (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Or made clear?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
That should be made clear, if it isn't clear already. What do you suggest? --John (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Like this? --John (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Religious Friendly[edit]

The Christian-Jewish must be friendly with Islam. --Videogamer13(talk). August 22, 2010 (UTC).


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.
Message added Smallman12q (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Thanks for catching the huge spelling mistake I made repeatedly on the radioactive tracer page. Dac04 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Sorry for the edit summary. --John (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User: contributions[edit]

Aye, as you've blocked Special:Contributions/ once before, I'd kindly ask to check what you think of latest said IP's contributions, as I'm unsure whether those flagicons are really to be deleted.

Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ray. Personally I think these flag icons are stupid ("redundant" in the IP's language) and I therefore agree with these edits. However as I understand it there is a consensus to use the icons this way on the military infobox so I have undone the edits and suggested raising the matter at the relevant MoS discussion page. Thanks a lot for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


i hope everything's good in your life. cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine thanks, pal. Do I know you? --John (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


No problem. Understandable. Dapi89 (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jennywoolf and Lewis Carroll[edit]

Hi John. I am not really familiar with Wikipedia so I hope that I'm doing the right thing putting my questions here. Having seen the comments which you put in January, I now understand what you were saying. So I entirely accept them, will abide by them in future and have no questions about them.

My enquiry relates to the page on Wikipedia. I apologise if it is rather long. (If this is not the appropriate place for it, please could you transfer it to the appropriate place and notify me.)

The situation is that I recently noticed that all mention of me had been removed from Wikipedia. There was subsequently a correspondence on Facebook about it. Rather than repeating that correspondence here, can I ask you please to go to this link and read the correspondence on 26 and 31 August about Wikipedia.!/pages/The-Mystery-of-Lewis-Carroll/279783498065

I am puzzled by a number of things arising from this. First, Jed Orianus quotes "Xxanthippe" who he says is an "Admin." I couldn't find the name Xxanthippe when I searched "Wikipedia admin" - so are you able to explain this, please.

Xanthippe removed a link to my website which I inserted on 15 January. I had not understood this was not allowed, so I do not question this removal.. But a subsequent link which I inserted, was a new medical update on Carroll's neurological condition, referenced my own 2010 biography "The Mystery of Lewis Carroll." This is authoritative new information. Jed Orianus says Xxanthippe removed this - I cannot see where, but Jed says he has reinserted it for me because I am not alllowed to do it myself as it would count as self promotion. I only cited my biography because it needs a citation and I cannot see why this entry constitutes "self promotion"

I have more questions about the page in general, but I feel this is best to deal with one issue at a time. I am sorry if I have misunderstood anything up until now. It is quite complicated! I have now made up my mind to get my head around Wikipedia as much as I can so I hope you can help in answering the above for starters. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennywoolf (talkcontribs) 11:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jenny. You should not add links or references to which you are affiliated like this. --John (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks John. That's clearer now. Is there anything else EXCEPT material relating to myself that needs to be discussed on the article's talk page?
Anything which you think might be controversial should be discussed in talk first. If in doubt, discuss. --John (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Coin Links[edit]

John, why did you remove all of my resource external links for US coins? Are you a coin collector and did you know that these were some of the best non-commercial highly-specific and relevant resources I've ever seen out of a single numismatic site online?

Please reconsider putting these back. You recommended talking about them in the discussion talk page, but many of these pages don't have anyone discussing the topic. I would be happy to discuss these resources as long as there are people to discuss it with. If you are into numismatics, view the links yourself and you will see how awesome this site really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickland (talkcontribs) 08:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked out the Numismatic Portal: and it seems like it is completely empty, most of the posts being from 2006 and 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickland (talkcontribs) 08:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Monkey's Paw[edit]

Wow, you are quite the reference addict: Returning a "more references needed" tag to a small section that has 11 of them and is lacking references for just two TV shows! Seems overkill to me ... Still, your earlier tag did prod me into getting those 11 references, which should have been done ages ago. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

IMDB and the like are evidence that something existed; for inclusion in a list we need better sources. Thanks for the work you have done but if no better sources can be found I'd say this material will have to be removed. --John (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010)
Front page
Project news
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election


A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound


Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants


In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Predictably, your polite notice on his talkpage was met with another rant attacking myself and MLauba again and containing a number of complete untruths. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have blocked indef and taken the block to AN/I for review. --John (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As you just blocked PhanuelB, an legit sockpuppet of another account (please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja/Archive) it might be warranted (IMO) to contact the SPI checkuser/admin Amalthea who handled the case to see if there is any other policy violation since then.TMCk (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't block for sockpuppetry but for continual and long-term disruptive and combative editing and failure to accept my offer at his talk. Amalthea is reading the AN/I section where I raised my block for review but I will notify as a courtesy as you suggest. Thank you. --John (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Coincidently Amalthea just posted at ANI and doesn't see any further abuse so you can disregard my above comment.TMCk (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I dropped them a line anyway just in case they did not notice the post at AN/I. --John (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam[edit]

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Delayed RFC Talkback, Just In Case Since I Was Delayed For A Few Days[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John. You have new messages at Doc Quintana's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doc Quintana (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the rest of the story...[edit]

Primarily due to to the excessive block of me more along with some other offenses, User:Tango was desysopped....did you forget that part here...also I vividly recall your efforts to undermine the encyclopedic integrity of several 9/11 articles with repeated insistances of POV pushing conspiracy theories...under the current discretionary sanctions for 9/11 articles, if this behavior of yours was still ongoing, you would have been probably topic banned from them.--MONGO 00:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hi MONGO, nice to see you. My point at the COI noticeboard was that you did not have a COI in that situation, but I don't think I agree with your edit summary here to the effect that the report was a waste of time; "outing" yourself as a DHS worker on-site might seem to some to be a COI for sure on 9/11 articles. Not a position I agree with, but not a batshit-crazy proposition either. It's hard for me to see what you were hoping to achieve by making that statement back then. Was it an argument to authority? Oh well, water under the bridge.
Your desysop in 2006 was a result of some 9/11-related incivility and personal attacks, I see on checking, as was your 2008 block which in turn, as you say, played a part in Tango's desysop. What worries and even saddens me (because I know you are a good guy trying to do the right thing) is the apparent lack of learning since in many instances he has reacted inappropriately to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner and misusing and threatening to misuse his administrative tools in 2006, to the fiery behavior in 2008 that got you blocked, to your recent tone, for example here. I suppose my question to you would be, in what way do you see such uncivil and non-AGF behavior, sustained over a period of years, after you have been repeatedly sanctioned for it, as an asset to the encyclopedia? Let me note that I broadly support your content stance regarding 9/11, I just don't see how trying to enforce it like this will help anyone.
Please feel free to post diffs of any recent or current "efforts to undermine the encyclopedic integrity of several 9/11 articles with repeated insistances of POV pushing conspiracy theories" that you see me make, so that I can deal with them. If you're talking about the edits I made (I think mainly if not exclusively at the talk page) as a newbie that were such a major topic at my contentious RfA in August 2006, I think I apologized for that four years ago and the community forgave me for my callow mistakes. I didn't properly understand NPOV in my first months here, I guess. I have always invited criticism over the years and tried to learn from my mistakes in this community, however slowly and imperfectly I have implemented that. You, on the other hand, seem depressingly stuck. Hope that my straight talking is of some help to you. Best regards, --John (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I stated that you used to promote conspiracy theories, especially regarding WTC 7...I stated that if you still had this behavior, (which at times was pretty termagent), you'd probably have been topic banned under current arbcom rulings...are you unable to read my comments? You expect me to extend an olive branch and AGF with "editors" that do noting but undermine the integrity of our articles, yet come come after me with repeated attempts to find some way to oust me from 9/11 articles (usually because I'm not sweet enough to them)...articles in which I have helped bring several to FA level and they have done nothing but try to undermine those efforts, just like you used to were an obstacle then, nothing more than that...The NPOV regulations regarding our articles had been explained to you ad nauseum, yet you persisted...and you're right, it almost cost you the silly admin promotion. My recollection is that you were a real pain in the arse on the talkpages but now you've had a chance to read some of the facts that people like myself have written and at least (possibly) in your case, we were able to educate you. I will also remind you that the main reason you got admin your first try is because I went against the tide and voted to support you...I could have presented a massive argument that would have upset it, but unlike the POV warriors promoting CT on 9/11 articles, I'm not a petty asshole...yet you persist in thinking I can't AGF...ridiculous.--MONGO 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am able to read, thanks. As regards "if you still had this behavior... you'd probably have been topic banned under current arbcom rulings", maybe you've heard the saying "If my mom had balls, she'd be my dad". The meaning of this is that we should focus on the real world rather than hypothetical considerations involving alternate universes.
While I do still appreciate the help you gave me in supporting my RfA back in 2006, I was mainly concerned about your edits in 2010 and how little progress you seem to have made over the years. Civility is not an optional thing; it's one of the five pillars of the project, and we should all probably avoid editing in areas where we are unable to exercise it. Good to hear from you. --John (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
My bet is you chimed in at the COI noticeboard because the CTers were there. You made admin because I was civil and on the Rfa again...enough supports popped in and some opposes changed to neutral due to my comment and good're welcome.--MONGO 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well that's actually an example of the sort of thing I am talking about. I did not chime in at the COI noticeboard as part of some conspiracy (do you seriously believe that?) I saw the notice on your talk and actually went there to support you. But I couldn't help noticing that some of the combative stuff you were doing recently was in the same vein as you were desysopped for and then blocked for years ago. Consistency can be a virtue, but if it is failure to learn from experience, we depend on those who care for us to point it out. Hence my post. --John (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do...I think you are biased and I see now you're underminning Tarage's efforts in places to deal with POV pushers regarding the conspiracy theories. While I never believe in silencing dissent, the ongoing and neverending chatter about 9/11 conspiracy theories on the talk pages associated with these articles makes it nearly impossible for editors to be able to finally discuss how to improve the articles. You're in a position as an admin (and you keep bringing up the admin thing for no other reason than to insult...I DO NOT CARE about being an admin!...never did, never will...get it?) to apply discretionary sanctions to those that have nothing to add but conspiracy theory lunacy...yet instead you sidestep that and seem more worried about whether I am being civil enough to these time wasters...and your opinion is noted as to my level of discourse and I hope you understand that any misuse of your tools or your lofty position to shelter or protect these conspiracy theorists will lead me to file an Rfc on your actions.--MONGO 09:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, I hereby agree to abide by the arbcom ruling and will be expecting you to make use of your admin rights to impose discretionary sanctions on all conspiracy theory POV pushers on 9/11 you are allowed to do so as detailed here.--MONGO 10:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

SMS Goeben[edit]

You reverted my edit and went with "Breslau spotted the ships". There's a good argument that this is merely elliptical for "someone on Breslau spotted the ships and informed the captain", but my position is to avoid this kind of ellipsis because of the problem of anthropomorphism. Ascribing human abilities and emotions and actions to ships (and planes and tanks ... in general, any dangerous technology your life depends on) is universal in wartime. I think it's our job writing 100 years later to acknowledge that sentiment in various ways (which is why I'm fine with "she", despite what AP Stylebook says), while carefully avoiding the impression that we share the illusion. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I thought of that as I was doing it, not that I consciously reverted you. Think I have the perfect solution. --John (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much, that works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it's the perfect solution. I hate the passive voice. Thanks to you too. --John (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic edits today, thanks. I'm noticing that lately, really good copyeditors like yourself, Finetooth and WereSpielChequers are getting more hands-on with the SHIPS FACs; even Tony1 is speaking approvingly. If we're doing something right, I'd like to know what it is :) I've always been impressed by the prolific SHIPS editors, especially when they let me paw over their articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and you too. Really enjoyed working with you on it. I had no idea you were improving it when I made my first few edits, but we seem to have worked in harmony to effect a really major improvement in the article. I think I still mildly disagree about the need to explain the short version of the ship's name in the lede, but no matter. I have the Van Der Vat source on this ship and might dig it out, but the sourcing really looks quite ok already. Cheers! --John (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm still trying to find the right balance. OTOH, we at WP:SHIPS usually prepare articles carefully for FAC ... so there's not a lot to do and we don't get a lot of input, and sometimes no reviews, either. OTOH, if we don't get a chance to copyedit them before FAC, the FAC delegates and some voters get annoyed. If we could get all the copyediting done at our A-class review, WP:SHIPA, that would be ideal ... and SHIPS editors are very willing to help out anyone who helps us out with copyediting. About the ship's name: lawyers have found that if they start referring to "Company X Y Z" as "Company X", just assuming that people will make the connection, it always comes back to bite them; they have to spell it out. I don't want to be as picky as lawyers are, but I don't want to allow room for misinterpretation, either. On the "&" you added today: I'm not sure if that works with WP:&, and FAC culture seems to be even more anti-& than MOS is. But I don't really care. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should be ok with the ampersand. WP:& has "Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations, such as The Tom & Jerry Show or AT&T" and the Blohm + Voss article has this as the previous form of the company's name (in English and German). I should probably have left a more descriptive edit summary. I smiled at I don't really care; I am also trying to cultivate more of a WP:DGAF approach to editing here, with mixed success. Good to hear from you. --John (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a good argument I think. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

John, one more thing ... whenever you need it, I'll be happy to copyedit any article for you if you'll copyedit any article at WP:SHIPA that needs it. I explain why I like to make this offer to good copyeditors at WT:SHIPS#Attracting copyeditors. - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dank. I replied there. I am really flattered to be identified by you as a "good copyeditor". I am always happy to help on any article without any quid pro quo being necessary. Not to say I won't ask you for help in the future anyway though! --John (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. Since you just did one of Parsecboy's, he's got another one at WP:SHIPA if you want to have a look at it, SMS Deutschland (1904), that will probably head to FAC afterwards, if you want to give it a whack. I've done 20 or so of his, they're pretty straightforward. And please let me know what you'd like me to look at. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Everything so far on Deutschland looks great, I'll eyeball it again when it's farther along in the review process. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OTOH, if we don't get a chance to copyedit them before FAC, the FAC delegates and some voters get annoyed. Yep :) We urgently need more non-ship people to get involved in ship articles at FAC, and all help is appreciated. (See Reviewers achieving excellence.) The ship articles dominate FAC, but most independent reviewers won't go near them because they are sometimes dry, jargon-filled, or burdened with excess detail, without telling a compelling story about the boat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Largely agreed, and I think there are fixes, or at least we can push for fixes, do you mind if I copy this to WT:FAC? (Or is there a better forum to get input from reviewers and copyeditors?) - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for the encouragement. I will continue working on Deutschland today. Take care, --John (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Dank, there is a thread now at WT:FAC with stats on the categories-- that would be a good place to expand on this. Warfare has the largest increase over the last two years, but too often, those nominators don't help out reviewing other articles, while the lion's share of the work at FAC is carried by a small handful of editors. That could (not sure) be another one of the reasons they don't get reciprocal reviews-- reviewers are overworked, and it's natural for them to help those who help others. (I've posted to both Ships and MilHist about the contribution to the FAC backlog from ship articles, but that doesn't seem to have helped.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix[edit]

Can you please revisit this discussion? I've given reasons why I believe it should be kept. I am open to hearing why or how this is WP:UNDUE, as you say maybe I'm not comprehending it. I've been here a year but I can't claim to know everything. I was not joking when I said I'd really like to understand your rationale. I've listed a few sources including fox news that covered this, maybe you'll help me understand what I'm missing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I did as you asked. I note that there are now four editors including me arguing against the inclusion of this material and one defending it, yourself. Per WP:CONSENSUS I don't think we should retain it. You should also note that the reputation of tabloid newspapers as reliable sources is pretty low. I personally do not rate a tabloid much above a blog for this type of material. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok with the exception of Fox News which I know is not a tabloid which one of the sources are tabloids? I'm not one hundred percent familiar with UK papers and can understand a reasoning if they were all unreliable sources that this was giving things undue weight. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that anything that is published about Hendrix in a reliable source has to be included in the Hendrix article. If the article were Death of Jimi Hendrix then I might concede that this gossipy tittle-tattle should be included. IMO the death section is already too long (with more than enough extraneous detail) without the addition of further hearsay: he was notable for his musical talent, not his death. The article should just stick to established facts about his death, with a brief mention of alternative theories. Occuli (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Occuli, and this is the prevailing feeling at the article talk as well. Of our policies, it is maybe WP:NPOV that is the hardest to grasp. Hence my change to the article which was reverted (twice) by Hell in a Bucket. --John (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Go back and review again [[13]]I reverted once. We had a open discussion and the removal was not appropriate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, you reverted once and the other reversion was by User:Hayalperest. Even reverting once to restore material like this shows a great misunderstanding of what our mission here is, and of the principle which guides our decision-making processes though. --John (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I've been rather clear and even painfully concise in why I've thought it should be included. You have made vague comments to policies. I think as is there is six lines that say there is or was claims and claims only made about the nature of death. I thought by making a subsection it removed fact from allegations. I'm not adverse ot losing the subsection but some detail at the very least should be included. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I am awfully sorry but I don't think I can explain it to you any better than I already have. My "vague comments to policies" such as WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS are the clue you are not getting here. Try asking another admin and maybe they can explain it to you so that you can understand. I don't think I can. The fact that you are the only person arguing to keep this material should also be highly indicative if you are honest with yourself. Good luck. --John (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I was actually referring to your references to wp:undue. If you recall I brought up NPOV in the debate and thought that airing the allegations in a small way was not going to give it undue weight and actually enhanced npov to article. As it is you are correct that consensus does appear to not support what I would choose. Thank you for taking the time to finish the discussion Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────WP:UNDUE is a part of WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy[edit]

John, I'd be obliged if you could give a good look at this list whenever you can. It's currently at MilHist ACR. It's bound for FLC afterwards and I'd like to make sure that it gets a good copyedit before it gets there. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that would be a pleasure. --John (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: please don't remove pending discussion[edit]

John, the topic has been discussed to death. The editor who keeps adding it refuses to address the questions raised on the talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The merge tag? Really? --John (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not about the merge tag, John, it's about the content that you want merged. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Viriditas. I only added the merge tag. You'll have to explain to me which content you think I want merged, because I haven't expressed an opinion on the matter. --John (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I see. I appreciate you helping out, and normally, this kind of edit would be fine. But in a content dispute like this, it might not be helpful. Something to think about in the future, perhaps? Keep up the good work. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the edits I made before you comment any more? I removed what seemed like an uncited sentence, and then I added a merge tag. I then restored the tag when you removed it. --John (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a failure to communicate. I maintain that adding merge tags for disputed content isn't helpful. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It certainly does. Why do you maintain that? --John (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Because, if you had bothered to follow the discussion on Talk:Challenger Deep and on the OR noticeboard you will find that nobody has argued for a merge. So, then, why did you add a merge tag? And if you had followed the associated ANI report on the matter, you would discover that FellGleaming duplicated the content in a disruptive, POINTy manner. Nothing needs merging. The subject is already covered in our article on high-level radioactive waste management, and is completely at odds with FellGleamings POV and our sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
And what makes you think I haven't? --John (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I just explained that above. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(Deep breath) Ok, let's assume that I don't understand why merging the two articles would go against anything that has been said at the various discussions and that I think merging will prevent it from becoming a POV fork. With that in mind, why did you remove the merge tag I added? Was it an accident, or was it because you were opposed to merging the two articles with no prejudice about adding or removing any particular content? If it was the latter, could you please explain your rationale? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

John, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor adding maintenance tags, and I believe I explained this already. I don't understand what you mean by "I think merging will prevent it from becoming a POV fork". It's speculation not adequately reflected in significant sources on the topic, and it also represents an attempt at POV pushing by the editor who added it to two different articles during a content dispute. I'm afraid you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I am truly sorry you don't understand what I am doing here. Please try to assume that I am acting for the best in merging these articles. --John (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, you aren't making any sense. Above, you write "I haven't expressed an opinion on the matter", yet you restore the tags and tell me to let the discussion take its course. What merge discussion? And, where? Hopefully, you can see how strange this looks. Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is at Talk:Mariana_Trench#Merge_Challenger_Deep_here. You yourself have participated in it. Does that help? I'd be grateful if you could leave the merge tags in place for 7 days, unless there is some special reason not to. --John (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. In that case, now that I know specifically what you mean, I support the merge. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you believe it John?[edit]

That yours was the last vote in my RfA? That that particular vote ensured the RfA just about kissed the 80% pass mark? That this is the last message in my personal thanks series? :):):) John, thanks for your lovely support vote. It took me so long to reach your page as I had 89 other supporters whom I was kind of personally thanking. So finally, I reach your page, and would wish to communicate to you that your presence was appreciated considerably by me. Thanks again John and have a great day :) Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome for the !vote and I hope you enjoy the poisoned chalice that is adminship. Let me know if there is anything I can help you with. --John (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely. I'll drop in if I need help any time. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Proposed_FoF:_FellGleaming.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_multiple_violations, if you're interested William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah shucks, ah wuz hopin FG ment featured gurl! :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by BilCat (talkcontribs)
No such luck, it's a disruptive POV-pusher. Being an admin isn't all champagne and roses and riding in chauffeur-driven cars, you know. In fact it isn't any of those things, really. --John (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you at least get the t-shirt? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Not even. In my time (2006) you got nothing. No t-shirt, no tazer, nothing. --John (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Clash articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Hi! As a member of the WikiProject:The Clash, I thought I would draw your attention to a discussion about the articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for the offline release of the encyclopedia. If you get a moment, could you please pop in and give your opinion? Thanks!!! –pjoef (talkcontribs) 13:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Catholic" note in categories[edit]

John, I've copied your modified note on use of "catholic" categories in BLPs into some other. Basically, in Category:Roman Catholics by nationality, I've done the letter A. It's a bit tedious. Anyway, I would like for you to have a look and tell me if that's OK and if I (we, everyone here) should paste that text into every such category. Another question: is there a more automated way to do something like this, a batch edit maybe? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. These articles shouldn't be in the category unless the person's religion was a significant component of their notability. --John (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
So, the changes were OK? What about automation? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know of a way of doing that, I'm sorry. --John (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just Sayin'[edit]

Don't know you from adam but I thought your gesture on Fell Gleeming's page was rather noteworthy and commendable. Noted and commending. Rgds JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --John (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Marshall[edit]

I'm undoing your removal of the various "fair use" images you performed. Similar images are used to illustrate many articles on Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Corsair1944 (talkcontribs)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've replied further at your talk. --John (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Overlink using AWB[edit]

Tell me more please, I just saw that edit summary at List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy. I've been looking for a tool that will help us identify overlinks before FAC, but I don't know what AWB can do. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a little laborious, but one of the features (see bottom left in this screenshot) shows multiple wikilinks which you can then delink by repeatedly clicking and pressing "delink selection". --John (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Block of Anonywiki[edit]

I was about to review your block of Anonywiki, but I ultimately just took ownership of the block. In other words, I independently evaluated and decided that a one week block was appropriate. The reason I did this is because of the appearance of impropriety in an admin that has had a prior editorial conflict with an editor who he then blocks. I think this probably meets the definition of WP:INVOLVED, but that's not the main issue. My primary goal here is to eliminate a bone of contention in what is otherwise a good block. In the future it would be cleaner not to block people with whom you've had a recent editorial dispute, but to drop a note at ANI and let someone that is unambiguously uninvolved use their tools.

Beyond the block, I doubt this editorial conflict is actually finished. I am happy to mediate it in about a week if you want someone external to the dispute.--Chaser (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am not sure I would agree we have an "editorial conflict"; I have never substantively edited the article, merely trying over a longish period to prevent "I-heard-it-in-the-pub"-type cruft from building up in the article. To that end I inserted an invisible note in that section of the article several months ago, as well as raising the matter in talk at that time. Anonywiki got a block from another admin for abusing me though, which might make it look to some that I was too involved to block him when he came back and made his textbook violation of WP:POINT (it's actually one of the examples listed there!), so on balance you probably did do the right thing. Thank you. --John (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
And having read your comments and those of User:Jayron32 at the user's talk, and having thought more about it, I do agree that I breached WP:INVOLVED by hastily making the block, and should have taken it to AN/I instead. I apologize for the extra work I have generated for you, thank you again for the support, and look forward to working with you on helping make the article conform to WP:V in a more frictionless manner. --John (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for you[edit]

Socratic Barnstar.png The Socratic Barnstar
A small token to acknowledge all the good work you do, and in particular your recent efforts at ANI. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that is really appreciated. --John (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

listing the ethnicity of the Davidian dead was not "racial profiling"[edit]

Listing the ethnicity of the Davidian dead was to show the racial diversity of the group, in part because the apologists for the raid and gas&tank-attack often state or imply that the Davidians or the critics of the Waco Siege were part of the white supremacist movement.

Your comment on the edit removing the ethnicity of the Davidian dead cites "Racial profiling" as the reason. Listing the ethnicity of the Davidian dead does not meet the definition of "Racial profiling". Please reconsider that edit. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. Sounds like original research to me. --John (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
A cusory look at the history shows there had been partial lists (such as Australians or British nationals killed in the siege presumably posted by interested Brits or Aussies); a rough version of the current consolidated list was introduced by User:Departmentofwacojustice in June 2010, then deleted due to non-standard formatting. I reformatted the list because it should be important to recognize the dead. After it was removed as a one column list for taking too much space, I reformatted the list from one column to three columns. I did not originate the list and several editors have had a good faith hand in it. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't doubt that these additions were made in good faith. However, the argument you make for including this racial profile info is unencyclopedic, I believe. Sorry. --John (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Waco edits[edit]


Just a little note about some of the changes you made ion the page. On the whole - thanks ! the edits are a great help :¬)

Just two points though - One of the sentences removed was only tagged in September - I do not think that was sufficiently long for you to have simply removed it. It is also true that that particular piece of info is easily sourced. Secondly you have changed several of the dates from the XX Month Year format - can you tell me why please? Also the dits were done in one block making it difficult to revert smaller changes separately.

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chaosdruid. Nothing should be lying on an article unreferenced, per WP:V. Some of the unverified info had been there for three years! Even a month is too long. Dates on articles about American subjects (which this clearly is) normally use mdy dates; see WP:MOSNUM. --John (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan EL[edit]

John, I noted your trimming of Dylan EL, I have restored three websites: Expecting Rain, BobLinks, & Bjorner. As I note in edit summary, recent acclaimed Dylan book by Sean Wilentz [14] calls these three sites "indispensable" for Dylan research. best Mick gold (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. My concern would be that these links are not being used as references per WP:V as they should be. If you contend they conform to WP:EL I will accept that for now. --John (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
In Dylan article, footnote 164 is to Bjorner & #295 to Expecting Rain. I was trying to point out that in recent Dylan books, The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia by Michael Gray & Dylan in America by Sean Wilentz (which I think would be accepted as WP:RS), there are footnotes giving Bjorner's website as ref. For example, Bjorner's website records comments Dylan made in concert to audience about songs, and these are referenced by Gray & Wilentz. I thought that if these books find these sources acceptable, they may be acceptable to Wikipedia article. Mick gold (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion at ANI[edit]

Hello John. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban. I have added a paragraph, suggesting that a formal ban of Radiojon from making undiscussed moves be entered at WP:RESTRICT. Please let me know your opinion. This would be in addition to whatever remedy the thread has agreed to already. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rmarques' spam[edit]

I saw last night that you reverted all of Rmarques' spam links on album articles. Whilst you were doing so, I began a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as to whether the blog at could be considered a reliable source. This morning, I decided to dig a little deeper into the issue, and found Richard Iwanik-Marques, Freelance Production/Editorial Staff at Rhapsody International. I would bet this is our spammer, adding links to editorial content for his employer. As this seems to be a dedicated spam account, should he be blocked, or strongly warned that this behavior is unacceptable? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Certainly. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Earl Hines & Max Kaminski[edit]

Hi John, In the now pretty good [I think] Earl Hines article, I added Max Kaminski to the list of those Hines played with - BUT there are 2 MKs, one an ice-hockey MK & one a muso. How do I refer to the musician without showing the whole clumsy Max Kaminsky (musician)?

Thanks for your help John Tolesi (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content[edit]

I thought you might be interested in this and a few other comments from others in the archives and talk page which basically address the same concern you have expressed. I guess that makes several people who have discussed this same subject with him, evidently without much positive change, for whatever that might mean. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, that's interesting. Thank you. --John (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a particular interest in Southport ...[edit]

... or are you just stalking me?[15]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talkcontribs)

Neither. I just love killing those greengrocer's apostrophes! Is that ok with you? --John (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not if you're chasing me around wikipedia it isn't. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Chasing you? No, I don't know why you would think that. Is everything ok? --John (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Brown[edit]

So as to not waste further there a reason why you feel it is not notable to mention his current position in the lede?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to state it twice, I think. Once is fine. --John (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, no argument there. I did remove the second reference in the lede that I had missed in the initial copy edit. If you just didn't notice that...I can understand ...since I did the same thing. LOL!

Agreed that the article needs clean up.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think we are both devoted to making the article better. Let's have at it! --John (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Gallery: People of the United States[edit]

Why did you remove my gallery at People of the United States without so much as a message on the talk page? And over lack of sources? All it takes is to click each individual person and see that they are all Americans. I will, hopefully with help, find sources for every single one of them. But don't just remove something like that. I put hours of work into it. If you don't think Calvin Coolidge is American, you can start that discussion over at his article.

I notice that you did not remove the picture in the header for not having sources, including George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Edison, Isabel Allende, Charlton Heston, Rosa Parks, Michael Steele, Amelia Earhart, John Jacob Astor IV, and J.P. Morgan. Why do they - some of whom are in my gallery - not need sources, exactly? That might be an idea, actually, because someone recently vandalised the picture and removed two people for Lil Wayne and someone else.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Commented at article talk. --John (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please specify your problem with the gallery, instead of ambiguously linking to NOR. Please address the argument that I have made here. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Commented at article talk. --John (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi John. I notice that Katherine Heigl converted to Islam that I saw on the magazine. --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed Miliband[edit]

Re this, surely you have seen that it is under discussion in a couple of places, and I wonder what you plan to contribute to the discussion. If you don't plan to contribute, then perhaps you'll let those of us working on it decide at what point it can be restored and not object when someone does. In your deliberations on the matter, perhaps you'll also be willing to consult reliable sources, such as this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BLPCAT. --John (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Will you knock it off -- BLPCAT does not govern anything apart from categories and infoboxes. If you keep removing properly sourced information we can discuss it at AN/I. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I will not cease to enforce WP:BLP on this high-profile article. Please refrain from edit-warring to insert potentially negative information into an article on a living person. --John (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
On what basis is it being deleted, given the quality of the sources being used to support it? And why, pray tell, is the idea that he is Jewish "negative"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll discuss this with you in article talk, when you have found some mainstream sources for the ethnic information you wish to add. See you then. --John (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
We can talk about sources at the article talk page, but I'll ask again here: why is the idea that he is Jewish "negative"? I'd prefer this particular question not to be avoided or deferred. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You have now reached 3RR on that article and I will go to 3RRN if you edit there again today. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP is an exemption from 3RR. --John (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Only if you actually edit in accordance with the policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's up to me to interpret policy as this is my role in this discussion. Please feel free to continue this discussion in article talk, and please try not to get blocked for breaking BLP or WP:TE. Thanks, --John (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010)
Front page
Project news
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals


A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles


Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)


In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elen of the Roads.
Message added 09:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for coming back and reading the later answers. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


He comes around often, as you can see from the memorial page history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ha, that's interesting. I just thought that account looked totally fishy; if that block was challenged I might have had problems. Looks like I got it right this time though. --John (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam might not need protection for a bit; it's a recurring theme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, not protecting might bring out more of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Watchlisted, but not protected for now. --John (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! (I miss Jeff, always.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I feel terrible saying this but I wasn't previously aware he had died, although I was slightly aware of him when he contributed. I guess we get used to seeing people come and go on the project. Sorry for your loss. --John (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I encountered Jeff, per my usual, at FAC, and he always sent me delightful, cheery e-mails and was a true gem and a selfless person. I would have liked to know him. Anyway, it would be great if you kept that page on your watchlist-- it's recurring and predictable, but I always have to go bug Alison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Consider it done. I very seldom take pages off my watch list. Feel free to ping me if anything needs done and Ally isn't around. --John (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Been there, Done that; took four months, after waiting a year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I remember that fairly well, though I only followed it at a distance. I had forgotten you were involved, although, rereading it, it's clear your evidence must have had some weight in the remedies handed out. Nice evidence btw, concise and evidence-based. Decisive outcomes all round as I recall, salutary desysoppings at dawn pour encourager les autres. Must have taken a long time and a lot of work, a lot of energy. Things are a little more peaceful nowadays chez the FA community though, surely? --John (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the pint...although some beggar had drunk half of it by the time I got there :) And boy did I need it - of course I was the only one in the shop when some egit started calling another user a paedophile. And there's me, with about 20 new bells and whistles on the toolbar, half of which I don't know what they do, terrified I'm going to block myself, or delete the mainpage or something..... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! You're welcome. First block I made I blocked the person reporting vandalism at AIV instead of the vandal they reported. They were incredibly nice about it as I recall. Fond memories. Let me know if you ever need any help or support. --John (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam![edit]

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

New York[edit]

Per your closing decision at Talk:New York, you wrote:

I read this whole page (all 156 k of it!) and don't see a consensus to move. Although there were more supports than opposes, I was swayed by the arguments of the multiple opposers that no huge advantage is gained by a move.

You acknowledge "more supports than opposes", but say you "don't see a consensus to move". Fair enough, if you're weighing the arguments. But on that point, you say you're swayed by the argument that "no huge advantage is gained by a move." Since when must there be a "huge advantage" gained by a move in order to see consensus support for it? By that measure, almost no move proposal has consensus support, which we know is not true.

I don't follow your reasoning at all. In particular, how do you respond to the argument that since the topic is not the primary topic it should therefore not be at the plain name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ("If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page ")? This is the argument I presented, and it was not addressed, much less refuted. Are you suggesting that the state is the primary topic for New York? Nobody even argued that.

If you won't reconsider your decision, please at least explain it better. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ...[edit]

for this post. --JN466 16:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was spiraling into WP:NOTFORUM territory and I have better things to do than debate how many angels can dance on a pin, or whether someone is or is not a Jew, or what it means or doesn't mean exactly to be Jewish. --John (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John. You have new messages at Matty the Damned's talk page.
Message added 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFC/U notification[edit]

Since you are mentioned: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look. --John (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


John, would you please directly address Factocop's objection that the article was not formally tagged as subject to the Troubles restrictions until after his block? I considered Domer's warning, and my comment that 3RR was a limit, not an entitlement, to be sufficient warning, especially given his earlier blocks for edit warring, but an uninvolved admin might think differently. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I like my i's and t's taken care of properly. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Portal:The Clash (9 November 2010)[edit]

Hi John! As a member of The Clash WikiProject I thought I would let you know that The Clash portal went live today 9 November 2010. At the moment, the portal has 7 selected articles (Joe Strummer, Mick Jones, London Calling, Paul Simonon, Topper Headon, Rock the Casbah, and Should I Stay or Should I Go), some other articles are still in development and more will come in the future, 7 albums (London Calling, Combat Rock, Sandinista!, The Clash, Give 'Em Enough Rope, Super Black Market Clash, and Cut the Crap), 14 pictures (all covered by a free license; for the full list please check out this page), and 50 hooks for the DYK section (full list here). There are also sections on categories, topics, wikiproject, related portals, associated wikimedia, and more. Take a look when you have a second. Cheers. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 23:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Samhain & Halloween edits[edit]

Clicked on Halloween discussion, one German editor Bakulan is trying to rewrite the article how he sees it (German view of having absolutely no celtic origin whatsoever) and has done so to Samhain article, and with no concensus. Having looked at edit history, you have contributed to Samhain page so i thought i'd notify editors of this (if you haven't already got it on watchlist of course). --Xavier 21 (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


Did you mean to do this? [16] You left no edit summary so I'm not sure what your intention was. Gigs (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did. There is no consensus to include this material in the lede, and WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK concerns about including it. Undo would have been better than revert; my edit summary would have been "Per WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS". --John (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you there, but thanks for replying. Gigs (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange article[edit]

Recently you left a warning on my page concerning edit warring on the subject named page. I have to confess no little surprise. May I offer that you actually read the entire relevant discussion page section before you engage in such actions? The speed with which you reverted and issued, a mere two minutes, tells me your previous review may have been a bit premature. Hammersbach (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. Please don't edit-war. --John (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You’ll forgive me, I know we are supposed to assume good faith but I don’t believe you. Twice I reverted deletions of sourced material from the article with specific requests for explanations on the talk page, and none was provided. I then re-added the information to the lede in a manner in accordance with the discussion on the talk page, a discussion in which neither of the two previous editors chose to participate. It is deleted again and I reinstate with yet another invitation to join the discussion which is ignored. Now, this third different editor deleted not just what I wrote but edits which have been improved and worked upon by other editors per the talk page. This third editor then deletes it a second time, again without comment on the talk page, so I restore it. You then call me out for edit warring claiming a thorough review of the both the talk page and the article history. (Of note, your revert, sans the courtesy of an edit summary or comment on the talk page, was reverted, and then was deleted for a third time by that same third editor.) I’m not looking to pick a fight, but I believe you were a might quick on the trigger there, Tex. Hammersbach (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
See just above. --John (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You know, the funny thing is I did, and before I made my last comment. There are a few things on Wicklypedia that I strive very hard not to do; I don’t trash talk, don’t violate 3RR, don’t engage in POV (deliberately), etc.,… but sometimes it doesn’t mean anything. I tried in my last edit to show you that I really tried to engage other editors and get their involvement. That I wasn’t behaving in an arbitrary manner and was in fact trying to find a consensus. You ignored that. You acknowledged none of the points I made and the edit history. If you have an opinion on how the Julian Assange article should be handled that’s great. But to bring up any concerns you may have on just your own talk page while “warning” me after claiming an extensive review, is bewildering. Why didn’t you bring these issues up on the article’s talk page, and explain your opinion on why the edit violates them? That is what I have been asking for, and asking for that is edit warring? Hammersbach (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see consensus at article talk for the edits you wish to make. I do see you edit-warring. Please don't edit war. --John (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Then block me. Personally, I believe you won't admit you may have been hasty. Your short replies and failure to reply directly speak volumes, nicht wahr?Hammersbach (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I will, thanks. I suggest reading some of the links I posted at the article talk, and some of the other opinions there, to see why continually restoring material which others think is inappropriate, is counter to the way we work here. If a block is necessary it will probably be from someone other than me. It would be great if you could stop short of that point. --John (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I am quite sure you won’t be blocking me, as that would require you to defend that action. And I have read those comments, before, not after making my edits. Did you see the ones I made? I also will be more than happy to read the links provided, which I have probably read before anyway, but it always helps to revisit Wikipedia’s fluctuating policies. That’s why, as I am sure you noticed in your extensive and comprehensive review of my edits, that I like to ask editors who cite policy to explain exactly on the talk page how it does/does not comply when they delete edits and make broad and sweeping allusions to WP:POLICYASIWOULDLIKEITTOBE. But then, like I say, I am sure you noticed that in my edit history. Seriously though, in the future, spend just a wee bit more time on looking at the total picture, and chronologically, before reaching for your shooting iron. I’ve always stopped short of “that point”. I am sure that you understand that it just sucks to get plugged by an itchy trigger finger. Hammersbach (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're unable to assume good faith about my actions and motivations, and if you see Wikipedia in terms of trigger fingers, it might be best if you stayed away from here. If I see you edit-warring again, I will report you to another admin who may well block you. Your call. --John (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Ed Miliband[edit]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Ed Miliband was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 11:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and trust. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend[edit]

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles Whitman[edit]

A COI issue has raised its head again; can you take a look. Bzuk (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Nomination of Adam Crosland for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Adam Crosland, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Crosland until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Anneyh (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR potential on Ed Miliband[edit]

Hi John,

Just a friendly note to let you know that you've already reverted 3 times on Ed Miliband, so a further revert might get you blocked. I wanted to mention this because you might be under the mistaken impression that WP:BLP allows you to revert here; however, as has been quite clearly shown on the article's Talk: page, not only are your edits not supported by WP:BLP, but your reverts, in fact, violate WP:BLP. Excluding someone from a category/identity they themselves claim is as offensive to an individual as including them in one they do not claim. Please respect the Talk: page discussion, rather than edit-warring. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that a threat? --John (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh? That's a friendly note, as stated, because I'm worried your edit-warring might get you blocked. Talking is better than edit-warring; please use the article's Talk: page, so you can express your views, and become better informed about the issues and about policy. Jayjg (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I think we have been through that stage, and I am concerned that your editing against consensus and choosing this high-profile article to promote your extreme view on BLP is on the verge of becoming tendentious. --John (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
John, as others have pointed out, you've reverted three different editors on that page in under 12 hours. On the other hand, I haven't edited that page in almost a month, and have only made one edit to it ever, as far as I can tell. I am concerned that your editing against consensus and choosing this high-profile article to promote your extreme view on BLP has already become tendentious. That's why I've been trying to help you avoid getting blocked. However, I see that my comments aren't being accepted in the collegial manner I intend them. I don't wish to further inflame matters, so I'll withdraw from your Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine with me. Maybe you can spend the time you save coming to a proper understanding of WP:BLP. Having an admin who misunderstands the policy like this is a danger to the project. --John (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not been involved in this discussion and have no opinion, but I agree with Jayjg's comment above about edit-warring. The only reason I would not block under these circumstances is your honest belief that BLP requires what you're doing. With this strong consensus against you, it is unwise to run all the way up to the electric fence.--Chaser (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Which strong consensus would that be? --John (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens expressed it well here.--Chaser (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh. Well, I couldn't disagree with you more about the sort of consensus we need in a case like this, but there you go. --John (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


I think you meant to write Leader of the Opposition not Deputy Prime Minister. Mathsci (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops! You're right, I will correct the mistake. --John (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John. You have new messages at Yworo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your contribution to the Nortel article[edit]

Your continued contributions via reversion of bad edits, but mainly via additions of new and updated material, are appreciated. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Air France Flight 4590[edit]

Do you have a cite for you assertion that BA's Concordes turned a profit? Scotchmer is pretty definite. Perhaps BA showed a profit after the purchase and operating subsidies, but that's not the same thing.

Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I have added to the article. --John (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, my brain is in neutral today ;) --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your good work. --John (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

stalking, C. H.[edit]

Thanks.--Radh (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --John (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Radh calls me a "spoiled brat" if you had actually read the thread and he makes other nasty claims about me as well including my education. How did you miss it? As I post on here anonymously as of six months ago he went through my talk history and found me offline. So please don't take sides without looking closer. He's been a thrashing troll towards me and he has a sockpuppet warning.--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Just in case anyone cares: User:Doom was outraged at my and another user's editing of Beat Generation. Comrade C.H. obviously is not the only one to go around throwing accusations like confetti, (troll, racist, etc).--Radh (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs? --John (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
( - down the page; and C. H. ("spoiled child") is on my talk ( Robeson). Her "racist and mean person" remark was made on November 29 ( recent edits). I didn't really give a damn - and I had called Robson an "Uncle Tom" for Uncle Joe Stalin, but as she goes around spreading allegations about me...and on and on and on--Radh (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like you both need to knock it off before a block is necessary. In a way a little emphatic language does no harm and as you recognize there can be fault on both sides, but I dislike this as I think it discourages article improvement, which is what we are here for. --John (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed. I'll just ignore it now. Best wishes and thanks for your time.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Gunther Prien page[edit]

(Hello John - I posted this response back in the archive, but am not sure if you'd be able to find it so I started a new section here for it - sorry if it messes things up.)

Hello John,

I have made my own page in my U-Boat Site. I don't know if there is anything that you could add to this Wiki page (I am a complete idiot when it comes to editing the Wiki). I will be ordering some books and will go through them to see if I can find the documented (book) info. with regards to the San Francisco collision and anything else that may be of help in getting the facts straight. Here is my website: and in it is the info. I don't know if my personal website (the page/s on the subject) could be added at the bottom of the Wiki page or not (as there is the site linked there, which was also done with someone's personal research).


Prien KapitanPrien (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I remember you, User:KaptPrien. I will take a look at your site and get back to you in a day or so. How have you been? Why did you start a new account? --John (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


Ok. I've been quite busy - that's why I haven't been able to come back to this for quite a few months. Ok though otherwise, thanks for asking. I started a new account because my info. was lost with regards to my old one.


Prien KapitanPrien (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. --John (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


John, since you offered to supervise this editor, you may wish to step in at Domhnall mac Raghnaill where the editor has been editing quite tendentiously and isn't being very co-operative. See Talk:Domhnall_mac_Raghnaill#Addition_of_Flaith for discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look, thanks. --John (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Remember Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive636#xenophobic_postings? He's also causing problems at Talk:Lady Gaga, mouthing off at people. I'd have blocked him for this, but as you see he's edit-warring on an article I created, so I'm 'involved'. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to apologise for seemingly removing your warning when signing my name. :) I don't have a clue how that happened, I only saw when looking at the page history following DD's removal of the ANI notice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
John, it would be great if I could remove the warning now. Preventing me from doing so is unnecessary. I've responded to you. Mainly I have issues with people either pretending to have some authority they don't have or misusing what they do have. Legolas deserved some irritated reply but yes I did react too harshly. He has been hounding me. DinDraithou (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry[edit]

Bzuk (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --John (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas Bader/GA1[edit]

Douglas Bader is being reviewed for GA listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow issues such as prose, inline citing and detailed coverage to be addressed. SilkTork *YES! 16:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Leffe 900pxedit.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Leffe 900pxedit.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. --John (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Farhad Hakimzadeh for deletion[edit]

The article Farhad Hakimzadeh is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Hakimzadeh until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SilverserenC 06:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Commented. --John (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)