This user is a member of the Wikimedia volunteer response team.

User talk:John Reaves

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

Sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end and use a section header .
Click here to leave a new message.


ArchivesLightning striking the Eiffel Tower - NOAA.jpg



Could you please revoke TP access, as they are impersonating you? Thanks, GABHello! 22:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Circuit City[edit]

John, Thank You for your concern but I think since it's a new company that it shouldn't be seen as defunct and bankrupt. It was never owned by Systemax. The brand was. If anything the Corp. should be kept and the regular circuit city should be changed to a brand. FoxNewsChannelFan (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice block![edit]

Thanks for catching User:PharmEditor. They appear to have a SOCK or MEAT account that edited right behind them on Zolpidem (see history) namely User:TheBestEditerEver. Please consider blocking them too. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for the heads up. -- John Reaves 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, may I know why you reverted my edits on the Ethan Bortnick page? I am assuming that I must have done something wrong. If that is the case, I would like to know why so that I can learn from my mistake so that I can be a better Wikipedia contributor. Statscat (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Attention: Potions in Harry Potter will be placed for AfD on June 4, 2016[edit]

(You are receiving this notice due to your having made some edits to the article discussed or its talk page sometime during its history)

In November of 2007 Potions in Harry Potter was deleted as a the result of a deletion discussion due to its failure of WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and other issues. On June 4, 2015 the article was recreated from content then currently existing on the Magical objects in Harry Potter article. A discussion followed regarding the appropriateness of the recreation. An attempt was made to return this article to a redirect, which was undone a day later. Some months later, a notice was placed on the article's talk page indicating the article would be placed for deletion. A few days ago, the article was placed for proposed deletion. This too was undone.

Throughout the history of the article, which spans more than a decade, it has never had any references. It has always been written in in-universe style. No outside universe perspective has ever been provided. As of June 2016, it will have been tagged for both of these problems for a year. I have asked, begged, and pleaded with people to rewrite this article to no avail. As the article stands (and has always stood), it continues to fail WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. There have been suggestions to merge the content back to Magical objects in Harry Potter, but this completely fails to address the failures noted. Where the content exists, either in its own article or as part of another, matters not. The issue is the content itself.

Barring a massive rewrite of the entire article into something that is encyclopedic in its treatment of the subject, I will be placing it for deletion on June 4, 2016. This notice is being sent as a last ditch attempt to find one or more people willing to do something to fix the serious problems extant in this content. Thank you for your attention, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete it. -- John Reaves 15:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
GREAT WORK MAN Tlhogstan (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, John Reaves. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)