User talk:John/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Settembreluna

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

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

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

[edit] The Ugly Truth

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

[edit] Hi

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

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

[edit] Dates

A date issue may be of interest, if you hadn't seen it already.[1] Tyrenius (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] RE:Coaching

Hi John,

Thanks for coaching me!

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

See you on the coaching page!

BG7 13:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you endorse the block?

And the reason wasn't true. Why would anyone think these edits were point of view, personal workspace, inappropriate or without reliable sources? An elementary school kid telling me they are doesn't prove it to me. I took writing in college and I don't believe they were. Has anyone really read them? 02:19, 22 January 2008 claimed “personal point of view” See: [2] 21:15, 21 January 2008 claimed “for figuring out who to vote for” to be "inappropriate" See: [3] 22:48, 20 January 2008 claimed "inappropriate" See: [4] 21:36, 18 January 2008 claimed original research, no reliable source See: [5] 17 January 2008 claimed Original research, no reliable source See: [6] I think they just glanced at the Diff and didn't read them or read their cited sources. --Chuck Marean 22:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks as always, John: [7]. Gwernol 04:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] List of massacres

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

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

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

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

[edit] Orangepith (talk · contribs)

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

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

[edit] I was not joking, sorry

Dear John,

I was not joking, I was absolutely serious. It is a fact that the name of Chaco province comes from Checo = Czech. Pronounced in Spanish you can almost feel it. I know it for fact because I grew up in Argentina (I am originally Czech) and I was visiting Chaco together with my father in 1980. I still have a newspaper with my father on the front page (I can scan it for you if you wish) - the purpose of the visit was to "baptize" the new school of Jan Amos Komensky in Roque Sáenz Peña, Chaco, Argentina. As you - for sure - know, Jan Amos Komensky is concerned to be "the teacher of nations", the inventor of modern teaching methods and he is of a Czech origin. In Chaco, there is still a big Czech community, they still have Sokol (used to be before the WWII. and now it is again a Czech tradition in physical education) and other Czechoslovakian unions. See http://www.czechembassy.org/wwwo/default.asp?id=21180&ido=2828&idj=1&amb=23&ParentIDO= (in Czech and Spanish only, sorry). As of right now the Czech community is counted around 30.000,- - 40.000,-(www.mzv.cz/servis/soubor.asp?id=29504) statistics of Czech Minitstry of Foreign Affairs (if you are interested, I also found a page in English but I have it stored at work, not home). Hovewer in the beginnign of 20th century the total number of immigrants was around 60.000,-

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

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

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

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

My Best Regards,

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

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

[edit] Disruptive Edits?

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

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

[edit] Muppets

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

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

[edit] Your threats (re)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

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

[edit] {{flagicon}}

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

[edit] Built To Spill

What gives with deleting three links to good sources of information about the band? You deleted the link to their Myspace page? bts.23.com has been a unique and authoritative repository of historical information for nearly ten years, is backed up by recordings, and has the blessing of both the band and their label. The etree page likewise. Kill the flag if it makes you happy, but you're a bit hair-trigger with the link deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.148.177 (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EL. --John (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In the case of bts.23.com, I see at least two items (3 and 4) under 'What Should Be Linked', and nothing relevant under 'Links Normally To Be Avoided.' bts.23.com is a historical archive, contains nothing but factual information and firsthand accounts, cites sources, and has always been scrupulously non-commercial. Can you point out to me what guidelines from WP:EL prompted you to delete the link? Would you delete links to similar resources on the Wikipedia pages for Sonic Youth or Nirvana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.148.177 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed the links I removed and I stand by the removal. bts.23.com describes itself as "...an incomplete list of concerts played by Built to Spill, compiled by fans worldwide." If it is compiled by fans, it fails points 1, 2, 11, 12 and 13 of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. It also fails WP:RS. In general, Wikipedia does not use links to external sites which anyone can edit as the information on them may not be true. It also does not link to itself for similar reasons. If you see similar links in other band articles, by all means remove them, and (as I did) leave an informative edit summary to say what you are doing. The most important principle is that, apart from one link to the "official" website of a group, we should avoid linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". I hope that makes the reasoning behind my actions clearer to you. Don't hesitate to get back if you need any other help. --John (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I'm the sole editor of the site. I've reviewed and verified every entry. Its content comes from audio recordings and notes taken at concerts. The contents are factual, and there's no precedent for information at that level of detail being contained within a Wikipedia article. Summarizations I've seen, but you can't seriously suggest that a detailed historical record of over 700 concerts should be in an article rather than a link to a comprehensive external site. There are many such sites, and many such links within Wikipedia, but there are no such detailed musical performance history articles, nor should there be. I disagree with you on every one of the five points you cite for deleting the link: it *is* a unique resource, the information it presents can be verified in recordings that are publicly available, and it is neither a forum, a blog or a wiki. It's a matter of public record that the site is trusted and widely used; traders of live recordings (sanctioned by Built To Spill) routinely cite it... see db.etree.org and www.dimeadozen.org for examples. I'm not arguing with you to stroke my ego... I have worked hard to keep the site objective and factual for many years, and feel it would be a shame for Wikipedia users to have a harder time finding it because of one stubborn editor. If you really feel you're in the right, you'd better head over to the Nirvana page and delete that link, now that you're aware of it; I predict you'll meet more resistance there than I care to offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.148.177 (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to get a second opinion, but I think my statements above are in line with policy. Whaich of the external links on Nirvana (band) are you complaining about? You might also want to review our policy on conflicts of interest. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
By mentioning links to similar sites in other articles, I was hoping to make the point that chronicling musical performance is historical scholarship, if done properly, and a link from a Wikipedia article to such a resource is valid. I don't believe you will delete links to similar sites in articles on Sonic Youth, Nirvana, the Pixies, the Butthole Surfers, etc. I don't believe that obscuring access to such information is in the spirit of the guidelines you're referencing. Since you bring up conflict of interest, I won't bug you about this issue anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.148.177 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest raising this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians and see if you can get a project consensus for it there. Good luck. --John (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addionne

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

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

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

[edit] Overzealous

Your edits are overzealous and inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.6.204 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] As Promised

(moved to awards page)

[edit] gwernol

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

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

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

[edit] Nomi image deleted

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

[edit] MusicBrainz

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

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

[edit] When is a consensus a consensus?

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

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

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

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Geraghty

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

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

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

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

[edit] Ping

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

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

[edit] Solway Junction Railway

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

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

[edit] False positive

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

[edit] Solway Junction Railway (again)

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

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

[edit] Thewalt08

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

[edit] List of Massacres

John, request you reblock List of Massacres. In the last two days we've had a dozen edits to the article and about two trying to fix the problems. An Afd, RfD, or whatever is probably called for. The whole article/situation is IMNSHO a complete turkey.67.161.166.20 (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] What's wrong with a fanzine?

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

[edit] WP:ANI#Block_of_User:Equazcion

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Could you really have helped?

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

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

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

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

[edit] User:Fila943

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

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

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

[edit] The MP5 and the Red Army Faction

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

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

[edit] List of Massacres

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

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

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

[edit] Veganadam

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

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

[edit] MP5 / RAF logo

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

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

[edit] Discussion you may be interested in

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

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

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

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

[edit] No consensus

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

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

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

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

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

1. Massacre in the name

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Hello

Hello John - this is probably more your thing than mine. I found this article, Divine Mafa, after following the link from Matabele#Notable Ndebele. The (first) article has been largely written by Googlememphis (talk • contribs • logs), who seems to be a new editor - and, NB, no welcome mat on his Talk page. Perhaps one claim for notability is that Mr. Mafa attended the University of Cambridge in East London [8]. Trust you are well - good luck! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Edits

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

[edit] Domer48

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] A quick bit of IAR needed possibly?

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

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

[edit] Charlie Don't Surf (song)

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

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

[edit] Further abuse of Admin powers

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

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

[edit] Apology

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

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

[edit] how to add reference?

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

[edit] Assemble, testify, certify, preserve

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

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


[edit] Sandinista!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Depeche Mode

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

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


[edit] Thanks

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

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

[edit] Honourary

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

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

[edit] heads-up

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777

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

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

[edit] Admin coaching

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

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

[edit] Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

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

[edit] Bobby Farrell

Hi, just wanted to point your attention to [9]. Probably best if you coordinate with fellow admin Jj137 on a clear policy regarding this page and the "gay for pay" nonsense this anon keeps adding. Thanks a lot, Jvhertum (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post

I presume your post[10] was to BHG, but it reads as if it could be in reponse to mine just above. Tyrenius (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Request

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

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

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