User talk:John/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your opinion please

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

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

[edit] Sigh

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamaica&diff=prev&oldid=181333178

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamaica&diff=181400790&oldid=181400664

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

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

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



[edit] User Fila3466757

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

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

[edit] spam

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

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

[edit] thanks

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

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

[edit] My admin recall policy

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

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

[edit] The Republic of Ireland

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

[edit] Robbie Williams

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

I completely respect that Wikipedia has a responsibility to keep each article as fair and accurate as possible, and must do it's best to stop vandalism and protect itself from legal action etc, but at what point does truth become false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.244.134 (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Easter Rising

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

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

[edit] Mull Historical Society

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

This is not the case according to
  • http://www.colinmacintyre.com/colinmacintyre.com/WELCOME.html "Colin MacIntyre, aka Mull Historical Society, the songwriter, multi-instrumentalist and producer, has released 3 albums under the ‘Mull Historical Society’ pseudonym..."
  • http://wm05.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll "Scotland's Mull Historical Society is singer, songwriter and multi-instrumentalist Colin MacIntyre. He arrived onto the British music scene in 2000. Although the name is confusing MHS has always been a pseudo name for the solo artist MacIntyre..."
As you know we operate according to reliable sources; what are yours? --John (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Either way, it's not as clear cut as "Mull Historical Society is Colin MacIntyre". I suspect what happened was an unamiable break-up and probably some sort of royalties dispute rather than Colin MacIntyre one day deciding to change the name of his quite-famous band for no real reason. I do feel quite strongly that they should have separate pages, but you are an admin after all and I guess you know best. Atoms4peace (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That is interesting. I suggest we take this to Talk:Mull Historical Society. --John (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)



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

[edit] HI

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


[edit] Invitation

Hello there

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

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

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

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

[edit] Concern over User:Strandwolf

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] M-1 Carbine Revert War

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

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

[edit] Motleycruehitsquad Link

Alot of history behind this link and it should be added to the motley crue mix...This is not advertising its giving credit where credit is due..Now quit being a Dick and leave the links alone....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.150.114 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] www.motleycruehitsquad.com

If You look in the past History it will show that the HitSquad link has always been in the links section...It Obvious you know nothing about the HitSquad site or Motley Crue because if you Did you will see that www.motleycruehitsquad.com Belongs in the links section alongside Chronological Crue....Do some History checks before you play Wikipedia GOD and remove something you know nothing about.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.168.36 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

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


[edit] delete Siu

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

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

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

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

New featured articles:

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

New A-Class articles:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[edit] Hello

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Quick note

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

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

[edit] Adding linkspam to the shadowbot blacklist

I noticed you removed some spammy links from the Sweet article earlier. It is an ongoing task. An editor from the 91.1.X range is continually removing the official band site link and adding a link to a fansite forum. ( http://sweet4ever-forum.de.tc/ ) Is it possible to have this link added to the shadowbot blacklist so the rv's can be automated? Come to think of it... I haven't noticed a shadowbot edit in a while... is it still functioning? Perhaps my question is moot?? 156.34.210.254 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's done now, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. --John (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks John. Sorry for being a pest... but there is another fanspam link that is being edit war'd into a few Iron Maiden related articles. http://maso.laiskiainen.org/Discography/ is a fansite whose owner (under many guises and uncountable IPs) has been trying to push for a very long time. It died down for a awhile after I had Wiki alf speak to him. But now his tactic is to try and use the link as a poor ref for what is essentially a WP:NN/WP:TRIVIA blurb. The WP:CON, of course, has been to rm the fluff but since the user has a floating IP he repeatedly adds it back in and ignores the consensus. Is it possible to get that one added to the blacklist too? Thanks for your help. Have a nice day. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 13:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shayne Ward‎

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

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

[edit] It's happening again...

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

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

[edit] Panetics

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

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

[edit] Depeche Mode - yet another sock

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

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

[edit] Wow...

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

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

[edit] Wally Hedrick

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



[edit] WP:NPA

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


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

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

[edit] Oasis (band)

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

[edit] Heinrich Hertz

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

[edit] Politics Templates

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

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

[edit] Trenton Ontario Page

The page is simply incorrect. However Blotto adrift believes he has an monopoly over it. When several different users correct it he complains to an admin and you block IP address'. Please if you are going to block someone in the future please look into BOTH sides. The trenton ontario page is incorrect and it will stay that way until you stop siding with Blotto Adrift. This is not the only page users have complained about Blotto adrift changing. I am here to help wikipedia by correcting mistakes. This will only improve this sites poor view. However if admins do not look into the actions of all users this site will only go down hill. Blocking based on providing correct information is sad. I hope that you will follow what you say. "everyone can edit" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.65.118 (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] RfC/ArbCom

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

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

[edit] Food channel

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

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

[edit] Franz Ferdinand

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

[edit] Our little friend

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

[edit] FIFA 1990 World Cup

What I wrote was true. look it up. look up the wikipedia page for the referee i commented on and it backs what i wrote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.25.19 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Apologies

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

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

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

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

[edit] Red flagging a "flagger"

Could you explain the woes of flagcrufting to Mr. HentaimanXT (talk · contribs). He is a busy editor and is flagging more articles then I dare count. Is there such a thing as a "flag-be-gone-BOT"? And if there isn;t can someone create one :D . 156.34.217.120 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, on further count I gues I can count them. I was picking his edits at random and finding "birth" flags. The more I check the more I find that he is inconsistent about them. Not so bad but a reminder would still help. 156.34.217.120 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a look and couldn't see anything wrong with their edits. Was there a specific one? --John (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] external yazoo link

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

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

[edit] Air Botswana

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

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

[edit] Why did you remove my links?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Deletion

[edit] AfD nomination of Average surface temperature

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

[edit] Hybridxdawn

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

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

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

[edit] Slipknot (band) edit

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

[edit] population of glasgow

in reply to

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

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

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

The .pdf file is below.

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E3BE21DA-4D84-4CC4-9C02-2E526FDD9169/0/populationaug07.pdf

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

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

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

I hope this email finds you well.

Yours sincerely

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

[edit] thanks for you help.

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

i have takenthis issue up with another admin member anyway.

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

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

[edit] [3]

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

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

[edit] 3rr

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

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

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

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

[edit] ice 9

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

[edit] Cornelia Funke article

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

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

[edit] Glasgae population

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

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

[edit] ice 9 =

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

i dont get it, it is exactly the same size that the chemical part... its what you ask for,i have also many things to do,if you enjoy erase i enjoy repost, be civiized and cut, basically the same size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Coldplay

Thanks for your concern. I don not know how to cite sources. But the things I changed are more concerned with the way we want thae article to be rather than something else. The band in its website said that they are a band since 1998. But it is ok to put Formation years since 1996 because that is when they started the idea you know? And the 4 album should say 2006 so as to be the same as X&Y that says 2004-2006. The album was released in 2005. But they started working in 2004 and the tour for it finalized in 2006. Hope you understand what I say. (190.17.68.133 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC))


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

Could you please look into this edit. An anonymous user 128.176.229.57 repeatedly adds false info. Garik 11 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Comment or Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Logos

Hey John. Just wondering if you could speak to User:Cyrus XIII. He's having a struggle with the whole "free-use plain text wins out over fair-use logos" thing. Makes for hard progress towards a free encyclpedia. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank, I agree with you and have left a note. --John (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. In order for the whole "text only" thing to have some concrete the Template:Infobox Musical artist#Name instructions need to be expanded to clarify as clearly and directly as possible that it is a text only field. The suggestion on the talk page is: "The name of the group or artist ("the act") in plain text.(no logos) This field is mandatory." That was actually my suggestion expanding on a previous one. It would help to get it all set in stone that way I can edit summary the guideline page instead of the talk page. Or adds the option to edit summary link to both. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
PPS, the reason I suggested my version in place of the one that was proposed first on the talk page.... because mine has balls :D . Some Wikipedia instructions are severely lacking in that nad department. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with this issue in the My Chemical Romance article. I've been butting heads with Timmeh and Asenine over this for a while, most recently at User:Asenine/Logodebate...kind of a weird place to be having the discussion, but I think the consensus on this issue is fairly clear. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant and massive edit-warring by IP

John, could you put an indefinite block on User:86.158.67.84 for breaching the 3RR - he as done five at latest count, see Revision history of Provisional Irish Republican Army. Thanks Sarah777 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. (cur) (last) 20:01, 19 January 2008 GiollaUidir (Talk | contribs) (80,122 bytes) (undo, it's already in a subcategory. You obviously don't understand cats matey. Go read up on them first!) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 19:54, 19 January 2008 86.158.67.84 (Talk) (80,146 bytes) (use this one then Category:Terrorism) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 19:25, 19 January 2008 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (80,122 bytes) (You have had it explained on your talk page, please read previous discussions) (undo)
  4. (cur) (last) 18:41, 19 January 2008 86.158.67.84 (Talk) (80,221 bytes) (add back cats, they are not duplicates) (undo)
  5. (cur) (last) 18:40, 19 January 2008 Padraig (Talk | contribs) (80,122 bytes) (removing duplicate cats, also see discussion in talk page) (undo)
  6. (cur) (last) 18:26, 19 January 2008 86.158.67.84 (Talk) (80,221 bytes) (add back cats, the provos are designated terrorism in the UK, and are part of the UK terrorist history) (undo)
  7. (cur) (last) 18:13, 19 January 2008 Padraig (Talk | contribs) (80,122 bytes) (rv Category:Proscribed paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland is a sub-category of category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom the other is dealt with in the talk page) (undo)
  8. (cur) (last) 18:05, 19 January 2008 Escorial82 (Talk | contribs) (80,221 bytes) (Those categories are a status, not the personal definition of anyone (their designation and description of their actions)) (undo)
  9. (cur) (last) 17:50, 19 January 2008 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (80,122 bytes) (rv POV) (undo)
  10. (cur) (last) 17:49, 19 January 2008 86.158.67.84 (Talk) (80,221 bytes) (Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom) (undo)
  11. (cur) (last) 17:48, 19 January 2008 86.158.67.84 (Talk) (80,177 bytes) (→External links - add appropiate terrorist cats) (undo)

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

[edit] Admin coaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Stalking

Doing a little logo cleaning but User:Óðinn is stalking behind me and reverting. I hate stalkers :D . 156.34.215.223 (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalkers everywhere??? Now User:Managerpants is stalking my flag cleaning and replacing them??? No encyclopedias being built today I guess? 156.34.221.194 (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments over at ANI John. I was disappointed with the turn of events this morning. Not just with the "non-acceptance of consensus" but also learning that wiki-friend/admin User:KnowledgeofSelf had quit Wikipedia. It was disheartening to see User:Odin(sp.) get lectured by Wiki alf as to what consensus is... only to have Carcharoth seemingly contradict Alf's comments which could have been interpreted as an invitation to our "Viking" editor to start a war over the issue. I discussed this with Alf earlier this morning. The discussion on the template talk page took a strange turn when both IP 86.159.X and LemonLemonLemons tried to add a new consensus lean on the discussion when, based on 'Lemon's' edit history, he is the sock editor coming from the 86.X range. (see this edit) Two voices from a single throat doesn't help the discussions at all. I have also been having a chat with another user about the potential that 'Odin' may be a sock account for a different editor who was extremely busy and loud over the whole logo issue but has been, quite surprisingly, mute on the new discussions. He has been caught using sockpuppet accounts before and we feel he may be keeping his main account quiet in case some of the others get "nabbed". Time will tell. Again, thanks for your intercession. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now there's another one!?!?! (sigh). 156.34.142.110 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic Builder

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

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

[edit] Adult-child sex

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

[edit] Unexplained reversions on your talk page

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

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

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

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

[edit] UniComs article

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

[edit] Supercooling Editing

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

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

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

[edit]  ???

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

[edit] May I?

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

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

[edit] Your thoughts

With the name=text only issue finally going away the discussion, as you know, has turned to the "verifiability", "notability", "authenticity" of the graphics that have been uploaded as "official" logos for many artists... mostly falling under heavy metal and its sub-genres. Most of these images have been uploaded with the fair-use rationale that they are, in fact, "official" logos. I want to draw your attention to a situation as it is directly related to the current discussion of "official". Check the recent edits of Navnløs (talk · contribs). He is a busy logo-loader and has been active trying to move as many logos as possible into article mainspace. The situation is.... several days ago I removed a graphic from the Black Sabbath article that was being used as the bands official logo. The image was, in fact, simply the stylised text from the band's third album. Black Sabbath have never had a logo in their entire 38 year career. I tagged the image for speedy delete as it was being used for false pretences and it was speedied rather quickly(justifiably so). In Navnløs' logo haste today he grabbed the image link from my rm edit and re-added it into the article with the following text "The official logo of Black Sabbath that has graced all of their releases." - which is a bold face lie. He has used this same text on quite a number of his edits from earlier today. Many, like the Black Sabbath edit, are blatantly dishonest claims or, at the very least, highly dubious. In keeping with the current discussion about whether many of these logos are official logos (or have historic/repeated use)... Navnløs' edits are jeopardising the WP:V in several articles by presenting information that is not only false.. but was added into the article with previous knowledge that it WAS false. Just for the sake of getting the flashcruft graphics back in there. I know some of the logos that were re-added are likely valid. But I certainly don't have the time to check every single edit. Or look for references to back up the images fair-use claims. Does this require the drastic measure of an admin-rollback of all of the users edits? Should all the logos be tagged for citation/verification and dated deletion? "The logo that has graced all of their releases." is suddenly 'gracing' dozens of Wikipedia articles. And it doesn't do us any grace having them there. 156.34.220.164 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Ummm???? The place to register a report about Navlos' purposely adding false information is in the ANI thread his friend Odin started to vent whiney crybaby complaints and false accuations about me???? Are you sure you're handing out the right link? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ...

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

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

[edit] NPA

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

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

[edit] Porcupine Tree logo

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

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

[edit] Hi John!

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

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

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

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

[edit] Troubles enforcement request page

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

[edit] My Rfa

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

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

[edit] Troubles ArbCom enforcement

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

[edit] Flag in band info boxes

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

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

[edit] So about the flag icons

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

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

[edit] Re: Hi

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

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

[edit] west hams page

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

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

[edit] smith

what i wrote was true, and i am about to cite it. thanks for your concern.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.148.153 (talk • contribs)

[edit] ?

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

[edit] Glasgowfinder's unconstructive edits

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

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

[edit] Continental Airlines Plane Crash

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The captain returned to the cockpit through the left cockpit window and again tried unsuccessfully to shut off the engines. He then opened the cockpit door and assisted one of the forward flight attendants from under the coat closet and directed the other out the right cockpit window. He left the aircraft and discussed the engine problems with firemen, who had responded to the crash alarm. The captain once again returned to the cockpit but could not shut off the engines. The firemen then injected fire extinguishing foam and water into the engines and they stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.88.242 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A user having a bit of a struggle

User:Rockk3r is having a bit of a struggle with logos and flags. I added a clear edit summary to his favourite article. (which may also have some serious WP:COI issues but that's getting off topic) He has been continually reverting any attempt to properly format the article infobox. Could you assist? 156.34.217.154 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)