User talk:John Nevard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tibetan articles

I saw that you recently had a run-in with my friend Littlebutterfly. I am glad that his racist and propagandist edits are getting more scrutiny from other editors; however I should warn you that he is extremely persistent and tangling with him led to my first and so far only 3RR block. If you have a problem with his changes, and you've reverted him twice, let me or one of the other editors know. Yunfeng (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] it is an opinion article, even reported by the globe and mail

I put the opinion to the place for opinions.--Jingandteller (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Profit

What is your take on the Piratebay and Digg.com links that Wogglelump (talk · contribs) added to the WP:EL section? I think that these links are inappropriate in this article and will hurt its quality-improvement status in the future, and I left a comment to that effect on this user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - The Digg.com link itself is just a link to that same Piratebay link. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Scientology text

Hi John. It looks like you're the author of the passage on Kaja Ballo's suicide on the Scientology page. Thanks for the contribution which i found very well written (except for a minor error which i corrected). Actually, I liked your text so well that I will put it on wikinews. I hope that it's okay with you. If not, don't hesitate to undo it. I will try to give you credit for it (don't know how wikinews works yet).

Regards, Pharaohmø (just haven't logged in :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.147.247 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't author the original text concerned, just checked out the source and copyedited and linked some stuff. John Nevard (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Civility

Please, no more of this. When Dking does this sort of thing, I let it pass, because I think he honestly cannot help himself. Anyone who goes so far as to correct his punctuation becomes a "LaRouche supporter" in his mind. But I think you ought to know better. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaand the synthesis was restored here. What a coincidence that the editors adding it to the article are what 'some would refer to as' LaRouche supporters, just as 'some would refer to' the LaRouche organisation as a fascist cult. Extrordinary, too, that this seems to be driven by cult publications.(warning- larouche link) John Nevard (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for voting Keep in my MfD poll. With your help, the debate ended with "no consensus" (although a large majority voted to "keep"). --GHcool (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hmmm

No I've never seen such a suggestion; if you look at the old wikipedia bio up on the internet archive.org (e.g. type "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt" in here, and pick, say, the August 2006 version), it contains sources on him going as far back as his college days, although their pretty marginal sometimes, so your ponderance seems doubtful. Besides, why would someone with the middle name "Leslie" change their last name? -- Kendrick7talk 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Criticism of Google

Are you sure that reference doesn't substantiate the claim it's attached to? John Nevard (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. My bad, I was on a different train of thought. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mayo clinic ref

My pleasure.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf.

Also, this is repeated 2x in the article after the Tor edits: "Correlational data

Substantiated cases of child sexual abuse in the US declined dramatically in number between 1992 and (at least) 1998.[23]. A substantial decline also appears to have occurred in Australia.[24] The United Kingdom Children's charity NCH have stated that demand for child pornography on the Internet has led to an increase in sex abuse cases,[25] however the Office for National Statistics's 2007 report on Child Protection Registers shows a decrease of approximately 27% in the number of sexually abused children between 2003 and 2007.[26]" (The second time it's repeated it includes the Finkelhor study.) I think East meant to protect the page, though--I'm not sure why that didn't show up/will let him know.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That article in particular has gone through so many changes lately I dunno how anyone keeps track of it. :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Porn Star
In regonition of your fine work watching over the CP article- PetraSchelm (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well..

Oh dear; you are expecting a lot from people who, according to you, are "just durn crazy". Best wishes, Huldra (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

By which I suppose said editor means he believes the time-wasting sockpuppet accusations by some naked short selling conspiracist troll repeated here. John Nevard (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh, Huldras are always she. Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your report at WP:COIN about Naked short selling

Hello John. You complained about Patrick Byrne's editing at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Naked short selling. I see that he's been working on a possible revision of the Naked short selling article in his user space, but it has no edits since April 6. He's also not edited the main article since May 4. Is there any further action you would like us to take? If not, the report may be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deserves an article

...thought you might like to know, he's now got one. WilliamH (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobson v. United States

I reverted your edit to that article not only because, as I said in the edit summary, I don't see how that's directly relevant, but also because of what Gabriel Chin, the Arizona law professor whose paper on the case I relied on heavily when researching and writing the article, says in his footnote that I cited as such (I didn't read the actual Stanley article since it's not online anywhere):

The Stanley article is a well-researched and scholarly argument for the idea that the problem of child pornography had been greatly exaggerated, and that the commercial market had long since dried up. Unfortunately, the credibility of that article has been profoundly impeached by an undisclosed conflict of interest: Mr. Stanley was himself deeply involved with sexual images of children, and actual children, giving rise to numerous scrapes with the law, including some convictions. See Stanley v United States, 932 F Supp 418 (SDNY 1996); Robert Stacy McCain, Porn Lawyer Arrested in Brazil, Charged with Child Exploitation, Wash Times, July 24, 2002.

Other people relied on it at the time. I did add some of this to the article on Stanley. Since that section of the article is relevant to a particular time period in U.S. government prosecution of child pornography, I considered that cite to be clean, as indeed Chin notes it was "well-researched and scholarly". And anyone verifying the source would find the same footnote. Certainly the rise of the Internet changed greatly the circumstances surrounding the creation of child porn, and I doubt that statement is operative anymore. I did, after considering your edit and the talk page section, reword "producer" to "marketer" regarding the US government and childporn.

If you think we should have something in the article regarding Stanley's subsequent history suggesting a conflict of interest (as Chin seems to have decided his paper should), I am amenable to putting it in the footnote. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)