User talk:Johnbplett

March 2017

There have been two problems identified with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RickinBaltimore,

Please could I have my page content that you deleted.

You took my ability to edit and blocked my account so I could not fix whatever it is that I apparently did wrong?

I do not know how I violated the policy by having a page about my business as wikipedia is full of business accounts and pages about businesses that are run by those businesses. ^[1] ^[2]

Please could you unblock my account so that I can "fix" whatever you want me to.

Simply blocking a page fixes nothing!

Best regards,

Encore Services Maintenance Specialists (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Johnbplett (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

John Botes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

So I can fix whatever needs fixing on my account, and updat wikipedia on more subjects not related to my business. For example, there is only limited information about companies, company registration, the CIPC and many other regulatory bodies in South Africa to do with companies.

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please select an option from Wikipedia:Changing username and file a request as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Response to my emails

Hi John, I'm writing in response to the emails I received. If another admin wishes to unblock you, I will let them do so as I see you requested the name change. With regards to the first email you sent, we do highly discourage writing about a company you own or work for, as this is a direct conflict of interest. THe name you currently have is against our policy of corporate, or shared names, and this, along with the promotional article was the reason for the block. If your unblock is granted, I would suggest that you do not try to recreate the company article you were working on at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Johnbplett (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17774 was submitted on Mar 14, 2017 18:27:14. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Johnbplett/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 12:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Johnbplett, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 12:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Companies and Intellectual Property Commission has been accepted

Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

On Wikipedia we unambiguously specify when a practice is pseudoscience and adjust the weight of articles according to the mainstream and scientific views of relevant experts in the field, supported yb reliable sources.Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings (Theroadislong)

Reading this article in toto you will notice the phrase "theory of evolution" and "intelligent design" repeated throughout. This is an accurate statement made in multiple quotations in the article. However, in the opening paragraph, there is an emotional ambiguity made that promotes one theory over the other, by the addition of the words "scientific theory of evolution" and "Although intelligent design is a pseudoscientific religious idea". Neither of these statements is correct, nor are they in the public interest, and do not add value to this article.

The only other mention of "pseudoscientific" is by Michael Shermer founder of The Skeptics Society, clearly highlighting the origin and context of the words used.

Please feel free to read the definition of what a scientific theory is here: Scientific theory

Note that evolution under one blanket does not qualify, more precisely macroevolution does not qualify, in the same way, creation does not qualify, in that it cannot: "be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

Using the word pseudoscientific is then just as applicable to macroevolution as it is to intelligent design, and since this article does not differentiate one from the other but blankets all evolution as being one school of thought, it is highly irregular to make the opening paragraph containing dubious innuendo.

Please remove the dubious inuendoes to allow readers to get information and not opinion-based information, as this is a violation of the terms of use. When writing for an encyclopedia it is not appropriate to use deliberately intended inuendoes to promote or demote an idea based on opinion no matter how popular that opinion may be.

Best regards,

Johnbplett (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientific theory article you point me to, states that evolution is a well established foundational scientific theory and "Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology" [1].Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a contradiction? Then it is again more bigotry and not fact. Again blanketing all evolution under one name... The contradictions continue on despite there being very clear information. Microevolution is a science fact, visible in nature and provable by the scientific method. Macroevolution however by this same definition is a pseudoscience religious belief. The belief in millions of years as appose to the belief in a designer. Either way, belief is required.

According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

So which is it, natural selection or mutation? Did it happen over billions of years, in a few million years, or in a few hundred thousand years? Which prediction is accurate? Am I 36 years old or between 18 and 36? And if that is in millions how credible is my estimate, and when does an estimate become a scientific theory?

The contradiction is not in me sharing a link but in the information contained in the link. On the one hand, the definition I quoted is correct, on the other hand, someone adding evolution to this is the contradiction. Please share a link where macroevolution is a proven scientific theory? Johnbplett (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbplett I read the link you shared, a blog with zero facts just statements? Is that your credible source? If I wanted to hear someone state opinion as if it is fact I would just read Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion"

When I was a child I toured the kango caves in South Africa and was told they were between 15 and 30 million years old. I toured again as an adult and this time they were 200000 years old. Really interesting how the one arkeologist was so excited to add millions to the age while explaining evolution but the next one explained the tests that were run to get to 200000 years and no evolution in his tour...

I am simply asking for reasonableness. please remove the tow words that I removed but someone keeps reading. I had no intention of a debate, but someone was making an editing war with me when I remove 2 words? Johnbplett (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in debating with you any further, please take your concerns to the article talk page if you wish for further input. Theroadislong (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbplett I read the link you shared, a blog with zero facts just statements? Is that your credible source? If I wanted to hear someone state opinion as if it is fact I would just read Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion"

When I was a child I toured the kango caves in South Africa and was told they were between 15 and 30 million years old. I toured again as an adult and this time they were 200000 years old. Really interesting how the one arkeologist was so excited to add millions to the age while explaining evolution but the next one explained the tests that were run to get to 200000 years and no evolution in his tour...

I am simply asking for reasonableness. please remove the tow words that I removed but someone keeps reading. I had no intention of a debate, but someone was making an editing war with me when I remove 2 words? Johnbplett (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 21:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller There is no good faith in name-calling. To insist on calling the theory of intelligent design "pseudoscientific" while at the same time calling evolution "the scientific theory of" is not an unbiased statement.

What valid objection it there to removing the word "pseudoscientific" and stating just the fact "religious idea"? Again how is it an attack or in bad faith to remove "scientific" form the correct statement "theory of evolution"?

To insist that either one is correct is tantamount to forcing a belief on others. "assume good faith" To pretend that there is only one school of thought in the world is not factual. Many well-educated people look at the same scientific facts like the minor changes within a species and come to very different conclusions.

What assume good faith is being shown in this article when it is written as an attack on the greater half of mankind's beliefs? Macroevolution remains a theory, that is accepted by many, just like intelligent design remains a theory that is, and has been accepted by many.

This whole attack on my edit just amplifies what this movie was showing, a narrative is being forced on people whether or not it has been proven.

I deliberately separate microevolution and macroevolution because one is an undisputed fact, the other is a conclusion drawn by one school of people, but not by all. Just like intelligent design, belief is needed to reach the conclusion of macroevolution. There are no links in the fossil record connecting all species, no scientific experiment can reproduce macroevolution with measurable results, or accurate prediction because we don't live for "millions of years", So belief is required. You can either see it or you can't, just like the intelligent design theory!

Try showing the other half of mankind some respect and assume good faith when it comes to beliefs.

Johnbplett (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way we work, good faith applies to editors:

Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives.

The bottom line is that we are a mainstream encyclopedia and that's firm policy. Your misunderstanding of science (and the meaning of theory in science}, needs to be put aside if you hope to be a constructive editor here. We have Creationists of various hues who are able to edit here without problems. Just as we have Muslims who agree not to use PBUH in articles although they would normally use it. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ian.thomson (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Johnbplett

A tag has been placed on User:Johnbplett requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Paleo Neonate – 20:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_South_Africa

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_food_companies

[1]

[2]