User talk:John celona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings...

Hello, John celona, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.
I hope you like it here and decide to stay!
Sincerely, The Transhumanist   17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. John celona 17:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Where are the photos? FMF|contact 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The link has gone dead. Thanks for your attention. John celona 12:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] unsubstantiated gossip

Do not put unsubstantiated rumour and gossip on talk pages. SchmuckyTheCat 23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Do NOT remove my links to verifiable sources.John celona 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

John, please don't post links to any more gossip sites, particularly not if they're discussing that murder case. It's fine to discuss what reliable sources have published about it, but it's way too serious to be gossiped about in a casual way using poor sources. Please read our policy on posts about living persons. It applies to every page on the website, including talk pages. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

Hi John. If you could please return here and just edit your comment to change "moron" to "person", that would be super-swell. Have a great day. Wjhonson 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please stop your persistent trolling on deletion review. These two edits are completely unacceptable[1] [2]. Further more, this personal attack on a well respected admin will not be tolerated, any further behaviour like this will result in you being blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections to Read

John, you really need to read Wikipedia's sections on personal attacks, verifiability and reliable sources. It'll help you out 'round these parts.Jodyw1 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Despite my previous warning, you have continued to make attacks, and continued to troll - so I have blocked you for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Exactly how am I trolling. I put up a single article for deletion which contains the name, birthdate and photo of a child rape victim per Newyorkbrad. John celona 23:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I request another administator remove this block. John celona 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If you hadn't previously commented on Newyorkbrad, it may not be an issue, but this is a disruptive AfD request after your previous attacks. If you wish to appeal the block to another administrator, you can do so using {{unblock|reason why the block is unfair}} ~~~~ Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I did not attack Newyorkbrad by name. I made only general refernces to my own views on censorship. I now accept and support the deletion by Newyorkbrad. I am sure he will support the Elizabeth Smart deletion especially since the child victim is not only named but has her birthdate listed and a photo posted, neither of which was present on the Hornbeck or Ownby articles. John celona 00:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I specifically did not ask for this user to be blocked and would have no objection to unblocking, although I do not claim at this point to be able to judge the matter impartially. For what it is worth, the post that raised grave concerns in my mind about your editing had nothing to do with your calling for me to be desysopped because you disagreed with me about potential deletions; I found your comments unnecessarily strident, but that sort of thing goes with the territory of being my a high-profile contributor and an administrator. What gave me by far the greater cause for concern was this edit, which not only overlooks the ethical concerns surrounding the types of topics and articles involved in the Ownby, Hornbeck, and Smart cases, and was written in what I, at least, found to be a shockingly crass and insensitive manner.

Much of the Wikipedia community as a whole is introspecting and agonizing over how best to deal with these issues. They are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop), various policy pages, and a series of deletion debates. Have you actually read the words on the Ownby/Hornbeck articles last night that took me a couple of hours to write? Did you notice that I responded to each and every argument that was presented both for and against deletion and tried to balance the competing considerations? Is this of the slightest interest to you? This is a matter that affects the live of real people. It is of imperative public importance that we handle these situations well. I respect the views of anyone who has taken the time to think through the issues presented. I am heartbroken that there are also those who would trivialize these concerns.

If you want a previously uninvolved administrator to review this block, please see WP:BLOCK and post an unblock template stating the reasons you believe the block should be overturned. Newyorkbrad 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your nomination has been closed as a disruption to make a point. Further behavior of this sort is likely to lead to longer blocks. I don't necessarily agree with everything that's currently being done under the mantle of WP:BLP either, but this is not the way to go about doing anything. If you have an opinion, you're welcome to join in the discussion about the matter, there are an ample number of places available where you can express your thoughts without causing a disruption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If I understand your point Newyorkbrad's unilateral deletion of an article which had already been considered (and rejected) for deletion results in his keeping his powers of an administrator but my nominating an article for deletion, without my changing a thing in the article results in my blocking and threats of further blocking based on some vague and arbitrary "disruption" standard. Is this about right?

I still want an answer to the question "Are minor sex victims to be named on Wikipedia where there are tens of thousands of available online sources". Is the answer "yes", "no" or "Any administrator will make an arbitrary decision based on whatever they like the article Elizabeth Smart or don't Shawn Hornbeck"?John celona 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart is unquestionably a public figure, or at least was for quite some time. (She may not want to be, but some people become public figures through no action of their own. See also Richard Jewell, for an example of that.) As I said, I don't even agree with all the recent actions that have been taken, but nominating that article was needless disruption. You could have very easily simply gone to NYBrad's talk page, or to WT:BLP, and asked if that rationale would apply to that article, and if not, why not. I would strongly suggest you take such an option in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I did that, on the Hornbeck deletion discussion and got no response.John celona 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Please do not add unreferenced controversial information to Wikipedia articles on living persons, as you did to Talk: Roman Heart (porn star). Thank you. This policy also applies to talk pages. Ace of Swords 19:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Roman Heart (porn star). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You must have a reliable source per WP:SOURCE for this information. Otherwise, it does not belong. Ace of Swords 19:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You surely aren't saying that an actors real name's inclusion in an article is "controversial". I suggest you put such a novel theory on the modrerator's blog before you threaten someone or you may find that you are the one blocked-for vandalism. John celona 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It is when they are a porn star. A blog or forum post is not a suitably reliable source. The only time we should be publishing a porn star's real name is if they revealed it personally of if it appears in mass media. --Golbez 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
How is anyone to know for sure that that the name you provided was Roman Heart's real name, since you provided no reliable source to back up your claim? For all we know, you might be attempting to defame someone who has nothing to do with pornographic acting. As could sources giving that name that Wikipedia policy regards as unreliable, such as blogs or forum posts. --Ace of Swords 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit on Holocaust

John, you may not insert your own personal opinions and materials, that many editors find offensive, into a talk page. If you have reliable sources, please provide them. Otherwise, if you persist inserting unsourced offensive material, you will be blocked. Thanks, Crum375 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) There are no personal opinions there-only the truth.

Holocaust denial is uncivil and offensive. Take this as a warning. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it as a threat. Go to hell. The final solution is a hoax.John celona 13:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You just violated No personal attacks and WP:CIVILITY. This brings us to the 2nd warning. Continue and you will be blocked. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You have proof of that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a sardonic comment in response to another users threats, as the context of that discussion would reveal.John celona (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anticommunist remarks and a request for source

I don't think even an articles talk pages are the proper forum for anticommunist remarks, as in Talk:Fred Halstead. Especially seeing as how he was a socialist.

"The Socialist Workers Party, or SWP, is a communist political party" Socialist Workers Party (United States)John celona (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, could you show me the source for the politician Fred Halstead becoming a gay porn star? I realize there is a Fred Halstead that worked in gay porn, but couldn't it just be 2 people with the same names? (this is out of my personal curiosity I ask, I realize you don't need to cite sources on talk pages)

Blahmicho (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been told they are the same person. There is no online source I have available which is why I will not put it in the article.John celona (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

These are two different Freds. The porn star was born in 1941 and committed suicide in 1989 after the death of his lover; also spelled Halsted. See IMDb. The Socialist candidate for president Fred was born in 1927 and died in 1988.

Right, plus Halstead the socialist leader was a 300 pound garment worker, not someone who would have much of a career as a porno star.Tom Cod 01:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Peter Yarrow

I sympathize with your point, as you will see on the Yarrow talk page. But the language on Yarrow's crime, conviction and clemency were worked out painstakingly for several days, just a couple of days before you re-edited it. A lot of people had to compromise to get as much info in there as we could. Please read all of the debate and please don't upset this particular applecart.

For instance, we got "groupie" out of the encyclopedic description and into Yarrow's mouth. For some reason, his defenders think that "groupie" lessens Yarrow's culpability. Personally, I think it shows he still doesn't get the nature of his offense, but if its o.k. with the enablers, it's o.k. with me.

Also, I share your confusion about how a President could grant Yarrow clemency on what seems like a state crime. But I've looked all over the internet, including in a number of law school journal articles and legal websites and they uniformly confirm the extension of clemency to Yarrow by Carter. Even sites obviously opposed to Yarrow's take on the story, like The Awareness Center agree Carter gave him clemency. Go figure.

I'll bet it's some goofy jurisdictional thing (like the hotel where he accosted the child was on federal park land or something). I'll keep looking for an explanation, because I agree, it seems anomalous. But it's referenced in literally hundreds of reliable sources.David in DC (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The incident in the hotel took place in Washington, D.C. in 1969, so the case was charged federally and brought in the U.S. District Court, thus placing it within the presidential pardon/clemency jurisdiction. Most criminal cases in the District of Columbia were brought in federal court until a local court reorganization that took effect in 1971. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that's a good explanation. I was just getting ready to post the exact language from the Constitution. Somebody should add that information in a short sentence because anyone who has taken a Con Law class will spot that discrepency.

The "served short sentence" must go. It is pathetic. It could refer to a one day probation sentence. The reality is that the man had sex with a 14 year old girl and spent 3 months in (apparently federal) prison. That isn't to say the man is evil or hasn't done many good things before and after. This says more about the insane, draconian way American's look at consensual relationships with teenagers than it does with Yarrow's character. The reality is that in America, if you have sex with a teenager and go to jail for it you are a pedophile. I also doubt that if the 14 year old, fan or not, had been a BOY, that he would be called or even quoted as a "groupie". I think that should go, although I won't do it anytime soon, out of respect for the article. John celona (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we take this discussion to Talk:Peter Yarrow, please? Aleta (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"although I won't do it anytime soon, out of respect for the article". john, you got a funny definition of soon. David in DC (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not touched the word "groupie".John celona (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have led me to request page protectionDavid in DC (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia : Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia : Consensus

I think you may benefit from reading the two highlighted articles headlined above. I say this because you seem to think that this is mostly about politics. Wikipedia is a social experiment. We are supposed to try and transcend our own opinions and seek a neutral position. This can be very difficult and frustrating at times. My own view on the Yarrow article is that it should be expanded to the point where we can justify creating a misconduct section within the article that Forks off into an article about the incident with the perceived groupie.

This will never happen unless the article is expanded upon by finding out more about his life through books and magazines. I may never get around to searching for or reading said books or magazine articles but that does not mean it will never happen.
Anyway please try and seek the big picture here at Wikipedia and know for a fact that behavior('s) that others find to be disruptive can lead to being blocked from editing wiki altogether and or indefinitely. I do not want to see this happen to you even though our politics are worlds apart. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Instead, assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "Vandalism"

Please do not use the terms "vandal" or "vandalism" about editors making good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, even when their approach differs from yours. "Vandalism", on Wikipedia, is defined narrowly to mean just those edits intended to harm the project. See WP:VANDAL for a better explanation. Using terms like that makes for an uncivilediting environment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD notice

Please be careful when notifying users to vote keep on an afd discussion. This is called canvassing and most users do not like to see such things when one needs to determine consensus on certain issues (ie: RFA, AFD, etc.) As a side note, most users also hate the word vote when referring to consensus building. Voting implies a democracy were something with a majority wins, right or wrong. Users like to discuss such issues so that the thing that is best for the wiki emerges. Best of luck and happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. John celona (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of canvassing goes on at Wiki. Icestorm is correct about it being a frowned upon but I think it m happens via wikimail on a regular basis because emails are much more private. My wikimail is enabled almost all the time. I think most peoples are. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank LaGrotta

Which part or parts of "Please do not modify it." and "No further edits should be made to this page" did you not understand when you chose to make this edit?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI

I think you should carefully consider the conflict of interest implications when you post about incarcerated politicians or Rhode Island politics. WP:COI implications are present if you are who your handle says you are. Even if not, by choosing that handle, you raise the spectre of potential COI every time you edit such a page. David in DC (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The "John Celona" you make reference to is safely ensconsed in a federal prison and presumably unable to post here.John celona (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are not "the 'John Celona' you make reference to", then I must respectfully question the taste of your choice of username, especially under the circumstance you describe (see Operation Dollar Bill). Would you consider changing it per Wikipedia:Username and Wikipedia:Changing username? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless I am reading the rule incorrectly, which may be, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username#Real_names, provides that :

"You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not" I believe I am making and have made it very clear I am NOT the Democratic politician incarcerated currently pursuant to Operation Dollar Bill. John celona (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification John. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if you are a different person of the name that is understandable and fine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
But it's not cool if his real name is not John Celona. If it is, cool. But if it's not, and he's not the crook in jail in R.I., posting using that name violates the rule. He asserts above that he's not the crook. But he doesn't assert that his name IS REALLY John Celona. What Woodward/Bernstein called a "non-denial denial".David in DC (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Yarrow mediation

Hello - I have filed a request for mediation over the dispute on the Peter Yarrow article, and I have named you as an involved party. I would very much appreciate it if you would visit the request page and consent to mediation in the appropriate section. Thank you, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

John, I strongly urge you to participate in mediation. If you think that some parties are too unreasonable for mediation to succeed then let others be the unreasonable ones, not you. If it succeeds then that's great, and if it fails then the community will have a better idea of where the problem is. Either way it's a benefit. The alternatives to mediation aren't as good, and may have negative effects on everyone involved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

John, mediation binds me as well as you. Up until now, you've seemed uneasy letting anyone else have the last word, but please see how a mediator's last word could be helpful to your point of view. David in DC (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So can I take from your silence that you're still thinking about whether or not to participate in mediation? Frankly, I don't see what you have to lose by it, and by refusing to take part, you're coming across as the bad guy (when in fact there are several bad guys, in my view). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
John, please agree to the mediation so that the questions of how to handle this article can be settled. Let's see what a neutral mediator - someone with no vested interest in the topic one way or the other - has to say. Aleta (Sing) 00:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If you could sign on sooner than Wednesday, that would be ideal (Wednesday would technically put us beyond the deadline for accpetance of mediation by all parties though, in light of your comments, I've requested an extension). It will probably take a few days beyond that for the ball to get rolling anyway. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I will put my agreement up on Tuesday night to avoid playing with the Wednesday deadline. You understand the immediate flurry of false material which is going to emanate from "you know who" immediately upon mediation opening and I am really not able to deal with that for the next couple of days. John celona (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice you've added to the list of issues. Since you are currently participating in the process, could you go ahead and sign your official agreement to it? :) Aleta Sing 20:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           American sex offenders category before anticipated vandalism

Peter Braunstein C Marc Collins-Rector John Couey Henry Cowell D Jeffrey Dahmer Joseph E. Duncan III F Galen Fox G Joshua Gardner Richard Steve Goldberg

H

Charles Ray Hatcher Byron Houston J Warren Jeffs Jeffrey Jones L Debra Lafave George P. Lee M Vincent Margera P Kenneth Parnell Ruben Patterson Kendall (Tiny) Pinder

P cont.

James Porter (priest) R Lakireddy Bali Reddy Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. S Rafael Septien William Chandler Shrubsall Toby Studebaker T Pamela Rogers Turner W Dwight Whorley Gabriel Williams John celona (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Category:American convicted child molesters From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Pages in category "American convicted child molesters" There are 15 pages in this section of this category.

B Nathaniel Bar-Jonah Barry Ryan (Catholic priest) Arthur Gary Bishop C Destiny Norton disappearance D Westley Allan Dodd

G

Richard Steve Goldberg L Baruch Lanner John Dallas Lockhart M Larry Don McQuay P Artimus Pyle R Neil Havens Rodreick John celona (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(A) I don't think this accomplishes what you mean to accomplish, and

(B) "American sex offenders category before anticipated vandalism". Awesome assumption of good faith, big guy. :) David in DC (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You 2 have earned every bit of it. John celona (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The next time you revert something on my talk page I will report you as a petty vandal. Please do not do it again. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Yarrow mediation

Hey John - in case you're not watching the page carefully, a mediator's finally been assigned to our case at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. Now we all have to agree to the selection of mediator, so the sooner you could head over there and have a look the better. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, could you please indicate if you agree to the proposed mediator? Thanks, Aleta Sing 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation open

I'd like to announce that the Peter Yarrow mediation is open at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Peter_Yarrow#Opening_the_Mediation. Please visit that page to read the issues and make your opening statement. Thanks MBisanz talk 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the first part of the mediation, on category assignment in the Peter Yarrow article is open at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Use of categories. MBisanz talk 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American criminals

To be included in this category, the subject must be notable only because of his or her crimes. Most of the people you have added this category to are notable outside of their crimes. J.delanoygabsadds 14:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No. If you like at the HUNDREDS of people already in this category you will find many if not most of them were already famous as sports, political or entertainment figures BEFORE their convictions. John celona (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I browsed a few (~25) articles in the category, and I could not find any errors. If you know of any right off hand, please let me know so I can remove them. Inclusion in the category means that most people thinking of the subject would think of their crimes. The pages you added the category to are not solely notable because of their crimes. I wrote you the first time so that you could undo your own edits. If you don't remove those pages from the category, I will. They do not belong there. J.delanoygabsadds 14:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't start an edit war. Many, if not most, of the names ALREADY in that category are those who were and are already notable BEFORE their criminal conviction. For example see Hugh Addonozio, Bill Allen, Frank Ballance, Sandy Berger, Mario Biaggi, James Black, Ray Blanton, George Bowdon, Frank Brasco, James H. Jim Brown, Joseph Burton, Albert Bustamente, Reagan Butcher and Joey Buttafuoco. That's just the A's and B's. If you have an issue with this please bring it up on an RFC or other Wikipedia procedures. Please do not start an edit war unless you question the veracity of the sources regarding their conviction. Otherwise, I will revert any censorship you attempt. John celona (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I will not remove them, but I do think you should consider what you are doing before you go off and add that many pages to a category. J.delanoygabsadds 15:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive: American Criminals

   * Frank Abagnale
   * Jack Abramoff
   * Hugh Joseph Addonizio
   * Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi
   * Bill Allen (corporate CEO)
   * Jane Alpert
   * Judy Amar
   * Lowell Amos
   * Billy Dean Anderson
   * Alfred Anglin
   * Clarence Anglin
   * John Anglin
   * Clyde Apperson
   * Martin A. Armstrong
   * Marie Dean Arrington
   * Nicolas Atwood
   * Sherman Austin

B

   * Peter Bacanovic
   * Frank Ballance
   * Edward Barberra
   * Bernard Barker
   * James P. Barker
   * Gerald Barnbaum
   * Leroy Barnes
   * Robert Bauman
   * Herman K. Beebe
   * Morton Berger
   * Sandy Berger
   * Chuck Berry
   * Robert Henry Best
   * Tim Beverly
   * Mario Biaggi
   * James B. Black
   * Loyd Blankenship
   * Ray Blanton
   * Zachariah Blanton
   * Stephen Blumberg
   * Ronald Bodenheimer
   * Bonnie and Clyde
   * Diane Borchardt
   * W. George Bowdon, Jr.
   * Samuel Bowers
   * Bryant Bowles
   * Harry Joseph Bowman
   * Jake Brahm
   * David Brame
   * Christian Brando
   * Frank J. Brasco
   * Arthur Bremer
   * James Brown
   * Julia Brown
   * Joseph R. Burton
   * Albert Bustamante
   * Raegan Butcher
   * Joey Buttafuoco
   * Preston Bynum

C

   * Bill Campbell (mayor)
   * Billy Cannon
   * Jeffrey Carney
   * Jared Carpenter
   * Gerardo Catena
   * Dominick Cersani


C cont.

   * Chad Castagana
   * Jamiel Chagra
   * Robert Chambers (killer)
   * Vivian Chase
   * Roger Chiang
   * Jeffrey Chodorow
   * Raymond Kwok Chow
   * Buddy Cianci
   * Henry Cianfrani
   * Maurice Clarett
   * Jim Clark (sheriff)
   * Robert Clarkson
   * Duane Clarridge
   * Eldridge Cleaver
   * Thomas G. Clines
   * Lona Cohen
   * Ron Cole
   * Theodore Cole
   * Charles Colson
   * Theodore Edward Coneys
   * John Connolly (FBI)
   * D. B. Cooper
   * Joseph Corbett, Jr.
   * Rod Coronado
   * Damien M. Corsetti
   * Larry Craig
   * Casey Cutler
   * Duke Cunningham
   * James Michael Curley
   * Izola Curry

D

   * Blag Dahlia
   * Leon David
   * Javal Davis
   * Tino De Angelis
   * Deborah Gore Dean
   * John Dean
   * Dennis Dechaine
   * Michael P. Decker
   * Tom Dennison (political boss)
   * Joe Dermody
   * Freddy DiCongilio
   * Charles Diggs
   * George Washington Dixon
   * Arthur Doe, Jr.
   * Chester Doles
   * Don Black (white nationalist)
   * Tim Donaghy
   * Phoebe Doty
   * John Dowdy
   * Jack Dragna
   * Melissa Drexler
   * Darleen Druyun
   * Francisco Martin Duran

E

   * Richard Eberling
   * Shawn Eckardt
   * Edward Bodkin
   * Edwin Edwards
   * Joshua Eilberg
   * Paul Eischeid
   * Tripp Eisen
   * Jimmy Elliott
   * Angelo Errichetti
   * Con Errico


E cont.

   * Christopher Evans (outlaw)

F

   * Dean Faiello
   * Albert B. Fall
   * Andrew Fastow
   * Thomas Finneran
   * Amy Fisher
   * Heidi Fleiss
   * Stephen Flemmi
   * Jimmy Flynn
   * Warren Leslie Forrest
   * H. M. Fowler
   * Jerry Fowler
   * Foxy Brown (rapper)
   * Kelly Allen Frank
   * Martin Frankel
   * Larry Franklin
   * Louis Fratto
   * Ivan Frederick
   * Mark Fuhrman

G

   * John Peter Galanis
   * Adam Blue Galli
   * Joshua Gardner
   * Lane Garrison
   * Chelsea Dawn Gerlach
   * Robert "Bobby" Germaine
   * Jody "Babydol" Gibson
   * Jeff Gillooly
   * Harry Gold
   * Richard Steve Goldberg
   * Virgilio González
   * Sandra Good
   * Omar Gooding
   * Jim Gordon (musician)
   * Red Shirt Gordon
   * Charles Graner
   * Michael and Sharen Gravelle
   * Pincus Green
   * Milton Greengas
   * Jack P.F. Gremillion
   * Ronald Griesacker
   * Nelson G. Gross
   * Lizzie Grubman

H

   * H. R. Haldeman
   * Matthew F. Hale
   * David Hall (Oklahoma governor)
   * John Hicklin Hall
   * Eugene Hanley
   * Robert Hanssen
   * Tonya Harding
   * Sabrina Harman
   * Eugene Hasenfus
   * Brandon Hein
   * Luke Helder
   * Shauntay Henderson
   * Thomas "Hollywood" Henderson
   * Rick Hendrick
   * Chris Henry (wide receiver)
   * Virginia Hill
   * James Hogue
   * Wanda Holloway
   * John Holmes (actor)

H

   * Michael Howard (Hair Bandit)
   * Howe and Hummel
   * Norman Hsu
   * John Huang
   * Mary Sue Hubbard
   * David Huckabee
   * The Hughes Brothers
   * E. Howard Hunt
   * Nelson Bunker Hunt

I

   * Ronald Isley
   * Italia Federici

J

   * Kendra James
   * Rick James
   * Sharpe James
   * Paul Jaworski
   * Stephen Jaworski
   * Jeremy Jaynes
   * Warren Jeffs
   * Ken Jenne
   * John Jenrette
   * V. J. Jerome
   * Jimmy Hoffa
   * Joe "Pegleg" Morgan
   * Thomas Francis Johnson
   * Jon Hinson
   * Canada Bill Jones
   * Marion Jones
   * Jordan Belfort
   * Stephen Jordi
   * Louis Jourdain
   * Cody Judy
   * George Jung
   * Thomas Junta

K

   * Herbert W. Kalmbach
   * Ron Karenga
   * Ed Karst
   * Patrick Kearney
   * Charles Keating
   * Alex Kelly (rapist)
   * Richard Kelly (politician)
   * John V. Kenny
   * Michael H. Kenyon
   * Otto Kerner, Jr.
   * Tom Ketchum
   * Jack Kevorkian
   * Adam Kidan
   * Morley Vernon King
   * Patrick Knight (police officer)
   * Suge Knight
   * Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel
   * Joseph Konopka
   * Dennis Kozlowski
   * William Krar
   * Gary Steven Krist
   * Egil Krogh
   * Charles Kushner

L

   * Frank LaGrotta
   * Debra Lafave
   * Benjamin LaGuer
   * Robert Lamb
   * Adrian Lamo
   * Rita Lavelle
   * Lead Belly
   * Richard W. Leche
   * Raymond F. Lederer
   * Gordon Lee (comic store owner)


L cont.

   * Jimmy Lerner
   * Kurt Lessenthien
   * Dennis Levine
   * James Paul Lewis, Jr.
   * James W. Lewis
   * Lewis Libby
   * G. Gordon Liddy
   * John Dallas Lockhart
   * Byron Looper
   * Betty Loren-Maltese
   * Buz Lukens
   * John A. Lynch, Jr.

M

   * Peter MacDonald (Navajo leader)
   * Darren Mack
   * Chi Mak
   * Lee Boyd Malvo
   * Pat Marcy
   * Martin Snyder
   * Kelvin Martin
   * Eugenio Martínez
   * Howard Mason
   * Nicholas Mavroules
   * Andrew J. May
   * James W. McCord, Jr.
   * Richard McCoy, Jr.
   * Eric McDavid
   * Ken McElroy
   * Charles McGee
   * Gary McGivern
   * Kenneth McGriff
   * Denny McLain
   * Gerald McCann
   * Sam Melville
   * Edward Mezvinsky
   * Michael Riccardi
   * Nicholas Mikel
   * Michael Milken
   * Adeline Miller
   * Paul Miller (North Carolina politician)
   * Richard Miller (agent)
   * Bill Miner
   * Mitchell brothers
   * John N. Mitchell
   * Sara Jane Moore
   * Joseph P. Moran
   * Samuel Loring Morison
   * Frank Morris
   * Mercury Morris
   * Richard Dale Morrison
   * John Allen Muhammad
   * Jack Roland Murphy
   * Michael Myers (politician)

N

   * William Nesbit
   * Bob Ney
   * Lorenzo Nichols
   * Terry Nichols
   * Thomas Noe
   * Pat Nolan
   * Blane Nordahl

O

   * O. G. Mack
   * Leroy Orange

P

   * Chris Paciello
   * José Padilla (prisoner)
   * Anthony Papa
   * Gail Collins Pappalardi
   * Elaine Parent
   * John Parsons (criminal)


P cont.

   * Ted Patrick
   * Sabuj Pattanayek
   * Pat “Gravy” Patterson
   * Clarke Paulus
   * Donn Pearce
   * Tracy E. Perkins
   * William Perl
   * Michael "Popa Dop" Perry
   * Peter B. Sweeny
   * Craig Peyer
   * Ralph "Bucky" Phillips
   * Meg Scott Phipps
   * Gary Pittman
   * Earl Edwin Pitts
   * Bertram L. Podell
   * Henry Pollack
   * Jonathan Pollard
   * Stephen Poludniak
   * Herbert Porter
   * Emigdio Preciado, Jr.
   * Billy Preston

R

   * Daniel Ramos
   * Allen Raymond
   * Jose Luis Razo, Jr.
   * Lakireddy Bali Reddy
   * Brian Patrick Regan
   * Marco Reginelli
   * Charles Reiser
   * William Remington
   * James Riady
   * Wallace Rice (gangster)
   * Fred Richmond
   * Stanley Mark Rifkin
   * Edguardo Rigaud
   * Oscar Rivera
   * Robert Huggard
   * Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr.
   * Sherron Rolax
   * Casey Rosado
   * Pete Rose
   * Ethel Rosenberg
   * Julius Rosenberg
   * Ricky Ross (drug trafficker)
   * John G. Rowland
   * Morris Rudensky
   * Steven Jay Russell
   * Anthony Russo (politician)
   * George Ryan

S

   * David Safavian
   * Brian Salcedo
   * Selena M. Salcedo
   * Robert Sawyer (murderer)
   * Michael Scanlon
   * Irwin Schiff
   * Art Schlichter
   * Richard J. Schmidt
   * Eugene Schmitz
   * John Paul Scott
   * Richard M. Scrushy
   * Arthur Seale
   * James Ford Seale
   * Richard Secord
   * Donald Segretti
   * Audrey Seiler
   * Sanyika Shakur

S

   * Shelley Shannon
   * Harry Shapiro (criminal)
   * Frank Sharp
   * Michael Lee Shaver, Jr.
   * Don Siegelman
   * Harry F. Sinclair
   * Jeremy Sivits
   * Edgar Smith
   * Soapy Smith
   * Trevis Smith
   * William Joseph Snelling
   * Valerie Solanas
   * Jorge Solano Moreta
   * Sara Jane Olson
   * Elmer Edward Solly
   * Richard Spears
   * James Stacy
   * Sally Stanford
   * Shane Stant
   * Reginald Stephey
   * Lynne Stewart
   * Martha Stewart
   * Gene Stipe
   * Jeremy Strohmeyer
   * Kevin Alfred Strom
   * Frank Sturgis
   * Susan Stern
   * Pat Swindall

T

   * Bob Taft
   * William Tager


T cont.

   * Heather Tallchief
   * Richard Tassiello
   * A. Alfred Taubman
   * Josephine Terranova
   * The Ozone Park Boys
   * Thomas Bernard Brigham
   * J. Parnell Thomas
   * Oliver Thomas
   * Frank Thompson
   * William Thompson (confidence man)
   * James Tobin (political operative)
   * Madelyn Toogood
   * James Traficant
   * Tray Deee
   * Charlie Trie
   * Bianca Trump
   * Jim Guy Tucker
   * Walter R. Tucker III
   * Pamela Rogers Turner
   * William M. Tweed
   * Tyler Bingham

V

   * Juan Vasquez (drug lord)
   * Michael Vick
   * Carlos Vignali

W

   * Sol Wachtler
   * Mark Wahlberg
   * Charles Walker (Georgia politician)
   * Charles Walker (checkers player)
   * John Anthony Walker
   * Glendale C. Walls
   * Yvonne Wanrow


W cont.

   * Leo Wanta
   * Raymond Washington
   * William Wasz
   * James G. Watt
   * Randy Weaver
   * William L. Webster
   * Elizabeth Eagleton Weigand
   * Seymour Weiss
   * Shalom Weiss
   * George Russell Weller
   * Lewis E. Welshofer Jr.
   * Allen West (would-be escapist from Alcatraz prison)
   * Michael Brian Wheeler
   * Thomas J. Whelan
   * Bill White (neo-Nazi)
   * Dan White
   * Richard Whitney (financier)
   * Jim Whittington
   * Cathlyn Platt Wilkerson
   * Harrison A. Williams
   * Jerry Dewayne Williams
   * Nushawn Williams
   * Stanley Williams
   * Mary Winkler
   * Howie Winter
   * Shirley Winters
   * John Wojtowicz
   * Michael Woodbury

Y

   * Young Brothers Massacre

Z John celona (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   * The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll

[edit] aggressive editing

Please gain consensus on the talk page before making sweeping changes of category inclusion as you have done. It appears that a majority of editors oppose those changes. Please be mindful of that. Additionally, you are quite factually wrong to call my edits unilateral. A closer look would demonstrate that it is your current agenda which is unilateral. Please discuss first before making changes to the articles themselves. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI notice

John, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:john_celona discussing your edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: post on my talk page

You may do as you please, none of your actions will change the fact that you are wrong. I will continue as I have, and if you revert me, I will report you to WP:AN3. J.delanoygabsadds 19:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I will not violate WP AN#. I will report you for vandalising hundreds of editors work-many from years ago. John celona (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why you added that comment to my talk page and ANI? Also, why did you remove my comment on ANI? J.delanoygabsadds 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

John, I attacked you without justification, and I edit-warred with you, and I just realized I also threatened you. I am truly sorry for my actions and I will wait for the RFC to proceed before taking any further actions. I have publicly apologized on ANI, and if you want, I will remove or strike any attacks I made here or on ANI. J.delanoygabsadds 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Thank you. John celona (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Cannon

Perhaps the criminal issue should be brought to discussion. Sf46 (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you just hit the 3RR on the Billy Cannon article too. You seem to be really begging for an administrator to put a block on you. Sf46 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RV Rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war{{#if:Article| according to the reverts you have made on various articles, including Billy Preston. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please be aware that you are breaking policy by reverting in such a manner. You have reverted the Billy Preston article 6 times in the last 2 days. You will be blocked if you continue. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your RFC, you did revert a page 3 times within 24 hrs, which is breaking the 3RR. There is one exception to this rule: Blatant and obvious vandalism. The edits you reverted were not blatant and obvious vandalism; they weren't vandalism at all according to the official definition.
I wasn't going to bring this up, but since you keep talking about your RFC, I will say now that the note you added under your RFC was hardly neutral, which is a requirement for any dispute resolution process. In addition, you were the one who started this battle when you added many articles to the category with no discussion. There was a consensus which you apparently did not agree with, so you were bold and made your edits. When an editor is bold and he is called out for it, the burden of proof always falls on the plaintiff i.e. you must provide a compelling reason to change the status quo, not the other way around. J.delanoygabsadds 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not added a single article to the category while the RFC has been pending. Please stop listening to the incessant canvassing of Jpk212 to do the "dirty work" he is afraid to do, given his months long history of stalking me and making wild and repeated false accusations; ALL of which were shot down.John celona (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Holy crap, I'm confused. Either way, I was wrong about the exceptions (there are more than one). Ok, let's see if I can figure this out for myself. I will look at everything objectively. J.delanoygabsadds 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
celona, he fact that the community has given you the benefit of the doubt, and given you good faith (including me) does not mean that those who have reported you have been "shot down." Are you not noticing that you are acting unilaterally, and others have asked you to stop. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma Governor David Hall

I saw the note you posted on my Talk page and I would like to clarify that the concerns I have raised relate to the article on Oklahoma Governor David Hall, not the Billy Cannon article. By the way, I would respectfully ask that you not use my UserTalk page to engage in arguments with other users. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RV

You said that you have not violated the 3RV rule. How is it that you have not violated that rule despite making 6 reversions within a 48 hour period to the Billy Preston article ? --Jkp212 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You know very well I have not violated the rule. If I had you would have had me blocked in a heartbeat! John celona (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how those 6 reversions are not a violation. I look forward to the explanation. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Hall (Oklahoma governor). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Enigma message Review 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary for Billy Cannon states "no edit warring pending RFC". This includes you, and I note not only the warning immediately above but your recent editing in general. That fact that others may be at fault does not exonerate you, nor does it prevent an admin deciding that your editing is disruptive. I'll say this only once: it does no harm to leave an article in the "wrong" state pending outcome of the RFC, and any disruptions are likely to have consequences you may not appreciate. Last warning: leave the articles alone, and concentrate on the principle. Once the principle is decided, abide by the community's decision. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You told him to stop edit-warring and then continued the edit war? That's irresponsible behavior. Enigma message Review 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Whether or not you make multiple reverts on the same page on any given day, your behaviour on articles about American criminals, or alleged criminals, constitutes edit warring and is liable to get you blocked if you resume it. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Your message to me is factually incorrect. I did not report you and Deacon did not criticise me in the slightest. I think I've warned you before about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and I'm doing it again. Making false accusations against other editors will not be tolerated by any Admin. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User Enigma filed the false complaint and was severly chastised on that board. John celona (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Then please address comments to his talk page, not mine. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's because Deacon didn't want to fully review your contributions. You are edit warring. See WP:edit war. Enigma message 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for edit warring across numerous articles (especially David Hall (Oklahoma governor)). Please use discussion to achieve progress. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support this block. You had plenty of warning. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blog post

Hello John. I was just wondering if you could confirm that you are responsible for these posts [3][4]? Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I can "confirm" that I've never posted on any blog. If you want to read mainstream media and blog articles on molester Yarrow you can look here [[5]] or [[6]]. Articles include leftist sources like NY Times, Daily Kos and Milwaukee Sentinel. John celona (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
John, the origin of his question is this thread: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow#outside wikipedia activity related to yarrow. Are you watching the mediation pages? Aleta Sing 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

I have posted this ANI: [7] David in DC (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry accusations

You have accused User:David in DC and User:Jpk212 of being sockpuppet and sockmaster. Such accusations are taken seriously, and I advise you to file a report at WP:SSP within 24 hours. Failing this, I may decide that this conduct of yours constitutes harrassment and merits a block to prevent recurrence. Should this arise, I will take into account your biased terminology. --Rodhullandemu 23:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I will file tommorow morning. A couple of hundred same page edits almost always reflecting the same views on edit wars and censoring well-sourced information from articles. It would be nice if the repeated false sockpuppetry accusations and harassment this user/s has made about me were treated so seriously. See- [[8]]John celona (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this one of the areas you are referring to? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angelo_Errichetti&diff=prev&oldid=207975007 --Jkp212 (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The exception that proves the rule. A faux "dispute" which quickly dissolves. The only time the 2 accounts have disagreed and it arises only as sockpuppetry suspicions are being raised. John celona (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That was one month ago, there have been numerous disagreements. Please explain which sockpuppetry suspicions were raised one month ago? You go on though, have your fun. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Please look objectively at this exchange: [9]. Do you really believe we are the same editor? David in DC (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
As you are WELL aware the two? of you have REPEATEDLY harrased me by filing provably false sockpuppet claims against me. All I am asking for is an IP check, which will tell it's own tale. John celona (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Spoken like a true 'gambler''...Go on, have your fun. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's a case where you posted under an IP address instead of your account name, where Albion Moonlight first taught me about "checkuser". I can be accused of being a newby on this one, but not having made a false claim: [10]. And then here's a diff where I decline to accuse you of sock puppetry because I don't know it to be true: [11]. To what false accusation are you referring? David in DC (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
All I am asking for is an IP check on posts made by you and post made by the alleged seperate user Jpk212. If there are no matches so be it. You certainly aren't denying that the 2 accounts have been used in constant streams of ANI's against me ALWAYS with an identical position? Or that there have been literally hundreds of posts by the same 2 accounts all with the same agenda-censoring or minimizing the criminal convictions of leftist political/cultural figures no matter how well sourced? John celona (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
John, if you really want it checked, you have to file at WP:SSP. All this talk page discussion, and even at ANI, won't get it done. Aleta Sing 13:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am denying "the 2 accounts have been used in constant streams of ANI's against me ALWAYS with an identical position". Yes, I am denying "there have been literally hundreds of posts by the same 2 accounts all with the same agenda-censoring or minimizing the criminal convictions of leftist political/cultural figures no matter how well sourced". David in DC (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well there have been at least 2 accounts doing almost exaxtly the same thing that John is claiming but I do not think thta either one of them is necessarily a sockpuppet. Can we please just get on with the mediation process now. ?? : Albion moonlight (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. John celona (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Brame

Please read what we've done there. If we can agree on nothing else, I think we can agree that what we've accomplished there is pretty funny. We've invented the opposite of a revert war. David in DC (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that IS amusing. You know I really wish we could take a little time and work out a compromise on this issue. I don't really care about Yarrow per se so I would be willing to agree in advance that he would NOT be placed in any category if we can come to a compromise. Let me know if you want to work with me. As a small-l libertarian my concern is evenhandedness not political agenda and, though it may seem otherwise I take NO JOY at all in this tit-for tat nonesense. So let me know-I have a few ideas and will be more than willing to hear what ideas you may have or come up with. John celona (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Dechaine‎

John, I've been asked to offer a Third opinion as the first step in dispute resolution. Can you give me some rationale as to why inclusion of the victims name improves the article at WP. Frankly the practice at WP is not crystal clear and I would be swayed by weighing what is best for our readers against the harm to the family of the girl. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

John, thanks for responding. I copied your response to the article's talk page and left a question for you there. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Use of the word "censorship"

Please discontinue your erroneous use of the word "censor" when describing editorial decisions that are based on discretion. Not every piece of information (however well sourced) belongs. That is where discretion comes in, and its ok to have a discussion about it, but not to claim "censorship"...--Jkp212 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Censor" is defined as [[12]] "to remove objectionable content". This is what you are doing. John celona (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Editors remove objectionable content too. "Edit" does not carry the pejorative connotation that "censor" does. It is a more civil way of describing the work of another editor. David in DC (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retracting a lie

Are you ever going to go to all the pages you accused me of being a sock puppet on and retract the accusation with the apology I'm owed? Or do you still cling to the view that JkP and I are one person? If so, report us properly. Because your claim that you can't figure out how to make such a report strains credulity. David in DC (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just leave John alone. You guys accused him without even the hint of an apology and now once again you are baiting him. You need to stop this behavior and stop it now.And John please allow me to suggest that you should be the adult in this case and just ignore this latest outburst from David.

The more you ignore him the less likely you are to get in trouble for your unpopular views. So please take my advice and dummy up and do nothing. If David doesn't stop trying to bait and you repeatedly say nothing you will have a dandy case against him or anyone else who behaves as he does. So please ignore him John. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudo's

You made a very valid point that I had not thought of. Keep up the good work. : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. John celona (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We've stumbled onto a system

Between you sourcing Tookie Williams' miscreant son's conviction and me sourcing Seymour Weiss' presidential pardon, this business of your stalking my every American criminal category edit is starting to look like a pretty effective system. Talk about a silver lining to a dark cloud! Hooray for us. Both pages are better now.

Any chance you're convinced I'm uniquely me yet? David in DC (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yarrow

This isn't precisely helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If I were writing the article, that is how I would do it-and be fully supported by the sources. I think I have deviated a loooong way from the truth to accept this compromise. I am not the one holding out on this very imperfect compromise. You know- a Republican like Buz Lukens gets every detail of his prison term and offense for consensual sex with a 16 year old prostitute AND gets put in the Criminals category. If someone tried to change that they would be warned of indefinite blocking if they persisted. But when a fringe-leftist has been guitarist FORCIBLY molests an innocent child he has more advocates then even "the poor innocent Rosenbergs" (LOL) ever did. John celona (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You haven't looked at Lukens lately. As soon as the definition of the category was amended to include only Felonies, I took the American Criminals tag off of him. I also deleted some other unsourced derogatory information. You could look it up. Remember, I'm the guy whose personal website describes himself as a knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, liberal-progressive with a hyphenation problem. But there I go, taking the American Criminals tag off Lukens, not to mention Dewey Claridge, Tom Clines and poor old Gene Hasenfus. Not folks you'd expect me to be protecting from a political point of view. The "fringe left" and "Rosenbergs" stuff is getting old. Nobody else is editing articles with BLP problems from a political point of view. Have you ever read anything about the psychological phenomenon called "projection"?David in DC (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I gave someone time to put up a citation for the felony house banking scandal conviction. He never did. I've taken the American Criminals category off now. David in DC (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I have previously said-my argument is for equality. Either allow every political figure convicted to be placed in the category or none; which is why I want to propose a new "Incarcerated Americans" category. In any event I have agreed to the (imperfect) compromise. So your argument shouldn't be with me! John celona (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
How about an argument for editorial discretion. One for civility. One for assuming good faith. One for not outing the birth names of porn stars. One for an apology for an accusation of sock-puppetry when even you must have already concluded that JkP are different people. The only thing I don't have an agrument against any more is your stalking of my American Criminal edits. As I noted above, that adventure, which I must admit I resented quite a bit, has wound up improving articles. So keep that up. David in DC (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jkp was blocked for 24 hours. for edit warring.

Stay cool John . :Albion moonlight (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Criminals Category

At this point, the category still states that they are notable only for their crime. If there is a change to that wording (by consensus) then, at that point, it would be appropriate to add these names to the category. Until then, they should stay out... Btw, Interesting use of "censorship" on this talk page [[13]]-- what happened to "don't mess with talk pages"...--Jkp212 (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting the WP:POINTy removal of pornographic actors' legal names

The extremists on that subpage have the policy backwards. Our standards for all actors, authors, and other such persons is to list by pseudonym and briefly list their legal name. There is no privacy issue here, the subjects gave up that right when they entered those high-profile professions. As such, I will be tracking and reverting any attempts to scrub these names from our articles. Do not loose faith, while I am sure those editors' hearts are in the right place, their interpretation of policy is way off the mark. If you feel the same way, I encourage you to stand up to this vocal minority. Again, there is no assumption of privacy when you become a porn actor, since all legal names MUST are disclosed per COPPA. You may read my response on that subpage. If they whine about consensus, they should know that less than 10 editors does not a consensus make, especially on a lightly trafficked subpage. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are exactly right but it is tough to fight the battle alone against a handfull of dimwits whose only "contribution" to the project is to censor other people's well-sourced and accurate information. I am going to end up putting something on those article's talk pages noting that the real names are readily available but are being censored from the article.

I am not so sure that the "hearts are in the right places". I've been in a Kafkaesque battle with a real "bright bulb" for the last 6 months over his demanding that a 3 month prison sentence served by a convicted sex offender be censored because of "weight"! See-[[14]] John celona (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking

You don't quite seem to have a handle on this, so if I may offer you some unsolicited advice... When linking to a wikipedia article you should use two sets of brackets: [[ ]]. When linking to an external website you should only use one: [ ]. A wikilink to the article on google looks like this: [[Google]] and results in this: Google. Linking to the google website looks like this: [http://www.google.com/] and results in this: [15]. You have a tendency to link to external sites with an unnecessary set of brackets, so that your contributions often look like this [[http://www.google.com]] and result in this: [[16]]. See how the extra set of brackets that shouldn't be there are showing up? They can be a pain to remove. Just thought you should know. AniMate 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, new sections on noticeboards generally go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Finally, we have WP:YOUTUBE which might answer your question about linking there. AniMate 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have taken notice of that hint. John celona (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word Marxist in edit summaries

You might want to refrain from this practice. Do have any sources that specify that Yarrow was a "marxist", or is it just supposition? --Jkp212 (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They call themselves "progressives" now. but we know what that really means. For one commentary on Yarrow's fringe politics:

"And as long as we're on the subject of clueless liberals, Peter Yarrow (of Peter Paul and Mary, or as I like to call them, Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest) thinks we should help the poor Vietnamese. Fuck 'em! What about the poor Cambodians Pete? What about them, you liberal dipshit?" [17] John celona (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's the best you can do? AniMate 15:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)