User talk:John/Archive 2009

Image copyright problem with File:Beagle2ontheground.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Beagle2ontheground.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

AWB

Please stop using AWB to correct spelling. 'honourary' is the correct way to spell the word in the Commonwealth; the general rule is that, if the subject is associated with the Commonwealth, British/Canadian spelling should be used. I've just had to correct a series of these. Ironholds (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You would think that when you come across more than sixty spellings of a word like honourary it might have crossed your mind that it was probably not an error. You have now generated a vast amount of work for other editors changing your edits back again. I don't suppose you would be generous enough to do the work yourself? Please be careful with Anglo/American spelling differences. Many thanks 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected most of them, but left some Canadian ones (which can go either way). I must say I would have thought an admin, especially one correcting typos, would have been aware of policy in this area. Ironholds (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. Please check, you are wrong. Honorary is the correct spelling worldwide. --John (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Plutonium

I have edited the talk page (and the article) explaining what I did and why in some detail. I do not think it is terribly controversial. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

John, I too am surprised that you reverted the anonymous user's edits. Those edits look helpful, and are clearly explained in the edit summary (and now on the talk page as well). Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In John's defence, any removal like that of cited material (esp from an FA), should be "moved to talk" and not simply deleted. But in this case, I too agree that the end result is a better article. So John's gut reaction was correct, IMO. --mav (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mav. And great work on getting the article to FA status. --John (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people

FYI, I've reverted the article to an older version of the article, but am asking for input on whether or not that version should be kept.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I g4'd it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work. I support this outcome. --John (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me wishy washy

Ok, I was asked about deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people per G4 because the article up for nom was a somewhat different nom and the august 27th version I had reverted to was not the same article nominated on August 28th. I've reopened the debate and invite you to put in your two cents concerning the reverted to version. The version as of Jan 3 was a clear G10.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I notice

The interaction between yourself and ThuranX has prompted this AN/I discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and also for your support. --John (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone should have to tolerate that sort of behavior; it makes contributors flee the Project with the impression that polite discussion and compromise isn't to be found here, and thus Wikipedia begins the slow process of being marginalized. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point too. If this is part of a pattern as you (I think) said, I would expect to see a block. --John (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a short block. I think he should be blocked for longer but the community can determine that. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, don't let this sour you on working with others. I've seen your edit history, and it is full of pretty helpful stuff - you have something to be proud of. You didn't have to learn the hard way, as I have. Keep up the exceptionally good work; I'll edit alongside you any time. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I appreciate the support. I come from a culture where swearing, threats and even violence are pretty endemic. I always valued the civil aspect of Wikipedia. It would be sad if we lost that. --John (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For seekful peaceful resolution despite being greatly provoked. Gerardw (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, thank you. That was unexpected and very much appreciated. --John (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on page moves

I replied on my talk. --cremepuff222 (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 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) 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pinter article Mediation

Would welcome your input at Talk:harold Pinter#Mediation. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Delinking

A discussion at Lightmouse's house may be of interest to you. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oi

You said, "but please don't talk to anyone who edits here again." Are you serious?? hah. Listen John, I apologize for finally losing my cool with Noclador, but you should really review what he was doing to that article. This wasn't anything to do with naming, this was him removing valid references, and then adding political diatribes without any proper citation. Then he was adding in information about a "province of South Tyrol" which has never existed. His actions were not civil as well if you look into it, and I hope you gave him a warning as well. In general, it is not necessary for users on Wikipedia to make accounts, and anon. users should not be treated as second class. Good day to you, and I actually do appreciate you coming in and helping settle things down. I think the other user "Ma" will bring back the removed citations and a balance to the article. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah. I went to correct you and saw you were right. My mistake. What I meant to say was "but please don't talk to anyone who edits here like that again." Serves me right for not using preview. The warning stands, and I share your optimism that things can now move forwards. Best wishes, and apologies for my error. --John (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User 81.102.233.188 - repeated vandalism

John,

User 81.102.233.188 is at it again - you've warned him twice before regarding vandalism.You gave him a final warning on Jan 2nd after he vandalised the Bill Struth page and now he's at it again - so far in the last 24 hours he has made 20+ vandalising edits to biographical information in the "Steven Appiah" entry!

Both myself and another user have attempted to remove the erroneous information he has repeatedly posted but he re-vandalises the page as soon as someone corrects it (within five minutes!)

Reading through his discussion page it seems he only ever contributes to Wiki to vandalise pages and post false information passed off as fact - in light of this could you prevent him from editing?

Thanks, keep up the good work fella!

Ed Cohen, London, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.38.106 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Steinerner Steg

Hi John, I notice you are an Administrator and went to this page. For better or worse, I got involved in this recent "editing" of Steinerner Steg. I tried my best to go in and create a neutral article, and write it respecting all the citations. The last edit I saw just didn't look professionally written and seemed POV'ish. Now no matter what I do, I get critisized. I know it is good to have thick skin on Wikipedia, but constant reverts claiming "vandalism", or saying on the discussion page that I'm trying to discredit the mayor of Merano is really offensive. Could you assist on this, or help mediate? Or at least tell us how we should be doing things? I'm in awe (and not in a good way :) by these two editors Noclador and Gun Powder Ma. If I say the mayor "suggests", I'm bad. If I say "according to", I'm bad. @_@ That is how as an academic we reference others' work! thank you, Icsunonove (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother John: user:Icsunonove=192.45.72.26 - and he has increased his incivility level by a ton today: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26. --noclador (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely disgusting accusing me of Italianization, and fascism, you should be permanently banned. I went and have made only good faith edits, and I've always been at the forefront of pushing multilingual names for this region. I've been adding content, while others go and remove. Arrogant people such as you sicken me, and make Wikipedia the most unpleasant of places to edit. Icsunonove (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• John, I'm happy to take my own leave, editors like this make one not even want to work on Wikipedia anymore. Icsunonove (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not just about Gnevin

Gnevin is just an example of what's wrong with the guide.

You asked me to stop complaining about Gnevin. I have reported Gnevin. He just hid behind the guide and the consensus. He's mastered the art of acceptable rudeness and edit warring. Everyone else is giving him a pass because he's on their side. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:British Isles

Hi John

Sorry to trouble you, but you're advice would be welcome.

I find I'm steering towards potentially rough waters on the Talk:British Isles#Undue weight to this list page with regard to references for the Scots language term for "British Isles", namely "Breetish Isles". I see from your user page that you're interested in Scottish literature and wondered whether that interest stretched to the Scots language itself. If you care to spend 5 minutes trawling through the discussion you'll see that I've reached a point where a source which I consider to be valid is being challenged and information is being threatened with removal. Not canvassing your opinion as such but, given your experience on these pages, looking for guidance as to how to proceed.

Regards Endrick Shellycoat 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disregard - gone to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#'Scots Language Centre' & 'Dictionary of the Scots Language' Endrick Shellycoat 22:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Altered quote

Did you really intend to alter the text quoted here?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Thanks for picking that up. --John (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Need help...there seems to be a wikiproblem at some pages, for example Execution by firing squad page - picture edges overlap text...how to solve this problem, thanks Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

That article looks ok to me. What OS/browser/screen resolution are you using? --John (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User behavior on Eastern European articles

Hi John, I couldn't help but notice your discussion with Russavia about posts on the Vladimir Glebov article and I was wondering what you thought about posts like this and this? I've never met user:Colchicum or interacted with him according to my recollection and I'm puzzled by his hostility and his comments like "When you get banned..." and his claim that a banned user was in better standing then me. I tried to get some sort of reason from him about the hostility but he would not respond to my queries. I understand that I may have misread WP:BAN but in my opinion that shouldn't provoke such a reaction. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

BNP results - again

Thanks for your comments in the debate to overturn the BNP election results page. I recreated it and now find it has been nominated, on extremely spurious ground, for deletion again!! You might want to contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British National Party election results (2nd nomination). Emeraude (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you, John! Tony (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sophie Ellis-Bextor - Read My Lips (album)

Hi John. I recently removed the bio for Ross Newell from the Sophie Ellis-Bextor Read My Lips (album) article, and it has since been reinstated. I find Wikipedia politics really confusing, and would appreciate your opinion as to the relevancy/policy regarding placing a bio in an album article. Many thanks Memphisto (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted about this on Talk:Read My Lips (album). Ty 11:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In breach of policies and block threat

There is extensive discussion on Talk:Intelligent design, an article which has managed to survive two featured article reviews, and a number of discussions of issues specific to WP:NFCC. So please do have the courtesy of explaining which aspects of this edit are in breach of our policies before threatening to block based on them. Thank you, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC--John (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then feel free to bring the matter up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Edit-warring, or tag-teaming, to restore material which violates our policies, will not achieve anything but a block for you. --John (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, someone already did post to WP:NFCC, but the discussion was shunted to Talk:Intelligent design. This is a content dispute. Period. If you believe otherwise, then just go ahead and indefinitely block me, since I don't wish to offer anything more to a project that preys on its some of its most active volunteers. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have placed appropriate templates on my talk and user page, awaiting your block. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design

RE your note on my talk page which stated "Hi. Edits like this are in breach of our policies. If I see you make another edit like this I shall block you. Please let's not go there. Thank you. --John (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)" :

On what grounds? ... Kenosis (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NFCC. --John (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I responded at the ANI thread. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your threat on my talk page

Would you mind telling me which policy my one single edit violated enough to be blocked please? Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC--John (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits like these [1][2][3][4] appear to be in breach of our policies. For one, you shouldn't simply threaten without explanation of what policy you claim is being violated. Since you didn't warn the editor who was clearly edit-warring, it doesn't appear that you are referring to our policy on edit-warring. And you're obviously not referring to our image policy, since these images have clear fair-use rationales and a clear case has been made for their inclusion. On the other hand, no case has been made for their removal beyond "IDONTLIKEIT" which is, as I am sure you are aware, not a valid rationale.

Please don't make threats like these. This is an unacceptable use of your admin privileges. Please refrain from doing so. Guettarda (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not threats but promises. I always follow through on promises. Let's not go there, as I said. --John (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you are promising to block despite the fact that the inclusion of the images in the article meets our policy? So you are promising to abuse your admin privileges? Guettarda (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, why would I do that? I am promising to block because it breaches our policies. If you disagree, please feel free to build a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content that these images meet our criteria for inclusion. Good luck. --John (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain this to you. We have a policy that governs the use of "non-free" images. It requires that we meet a series of criteria.

1. No free equivalent. We meet that criterion
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. We're good there.
3. Minimal usage/Minimal extent of use. Not a problem.
4. Previous publication. Yep.
5. Content. Yep.
6. Media-specific policy. Looks good.
7. Significance. Case made. Nothing beyond IDONTLIKEIT has been offered to suggest why the case is flawed.
8. Restrictions on location. Not a problem.
9. Image description page. Got that.

No policy is being violated. The case was made for #8. Once that was done, the discussion petered out. No one pointed out any flaws in the rationale. Inclusion of the images in the article appears to be consistent with the NFCC policy. You can't threaten people with blocks for making edits that are consistent with the current state of the discussion. So DON'T DO IT. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain to you. I disagree with several of your points above, as do several other editors in good standing. Therefore, the burden is on you (or anyone else wishing to include the material) to demonstrate a consensus at a centralized venue in favor of their inclusion. Failing that, edit warring and violation of WP:POINT are still blockable offenses here. Be warned. --John (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You disagree. That's your right. But you can't threaten people with blocks based simply on your opinion. To begin with, the edits that you claimed to violate policy were in keeping with the state of the discussion on the article's talk page. No one could reasonably issue threats based on the state of the discussion. Either you were issuing threats in ignorance of the actual situation (which is unacceptable behaviour; admins are trusted to use their tools - or the threat of use of their tools - responsibly), or you made the threats in an attempt to impose your own POV, despite there being no consensus to support your position. This is a far more egregious abuse of your admin privileges. In either case, your actions are unacceptable and you need to retract your threats.

Secondly, edit warring and violation of WP:POINT are still blockable. Despite that, you have issued no warnings to the editor who actually went right up to the 3-revert limit. Again, this looks like use of admin tools to further the position you support. Again, this is unacceptable.

Thirdly, your Be warned comment sounds like a threat. You couldn't seriously be responding with a threat when an admin issues a warning about your behaviour, could you? Seriously, whatever it is that has you so on edge - lay off it. Go, take a walk, play with the dog...relax. It's just a website. When you get back, you really do need to apologise for those threats. And lay off the threats. Abusing your admin privileges is a bad thing. Seriously. Guettarda (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My warnings were made, not to enforce my POV, but to enforce the image use policy. Not my interpretation of it, but the community's, is that book covers and the like are not generally acceptable fair use on articles other than the article describing the book or whatever. You're right that I was on edge tonight, and I do apologize for the "be warned" comment to you, that was unnecessary. But I do also stand by my warnings. Edit warring, whether by an individual or by a group of individuals, is a terrible thing, which is why the article is protected now, also a bad thing. Edit warring to enforce a version of an article which contravenes our policies is indefensible and deserves a warning. Edit-warring to enforce policy and then referring the matter centrally is not, in my opinion, deserving of a warning, which is why I didn't warn that editor. The non-free image policy is one that protects us from legal exposure. It is up there with BLP and in all disputes we should err on the side of "if in doubt, don't use it". If a viable consensus can be reached at a central location that this use of these images is ok, I will comply with that consensus. Failing that, edit-warring to that version breaks so many of our core ideals that it would be well worth a block. It strikes me that rather than objecting to the way I am trying to enforce policy, you would perhaps do better to try to enforce the policy yourself. --John (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The image use policy lays out 10 criteria. Those criteria appear to be met. At the time the edits were made, the rationale had been explained, and no one had raised any concerns with the rationale. The issue of the use of the images in the article had also been discussed at FAC and FAR, and consensus supported their inclusion. Yes, concerns had been raised, but we don't give much weight to consensus building when people simply cast a vote without explanations. Consensus isn't voting. And the most substantial argument that I can recall was "no, it isn't significant". Honestly, that isn't good enough. Since discussion petered out without addressing the substantive issues, a reasonable person, acting in good faith, could easily have concluded that consensus hadn't changed. Nothing actionable had been raised. Thus, it is highly unreasonable to issue warnings to people, with no explanation of why they were warned.

Edit warring to enforce a version of an article which contravenes our policies is indefensible and deserves a warning. There's nothing here that contravenes our policy. Our policy on non-free content says that you have to meet these 10 criteria. The criteria are met.

Edit-warring to enforce policy and then referring the matter centrally is not, in my opinion, deserving of a warning, which is why I didn't warn that editor. To begin with, if you revert an article three times and then appeal for help, you're doing it wrong. You're doing Wikipedia wrong. If you approach something so self-righteously that you will revert a host of other editors without once stopping to consider whether you're doing something wrong, you're on a crusade. Damiens never even bothered to use the article's talk page. He never stopped to explain himself. That is a problem. Not to mention, he wasn't enforcing policy. Policy had been complied with. He was going beyond what the policy required.

The non-free image policy is one that protects us from legal exposure. It is up there with BLP and in all disputes we should err on the side of "if in doubt, don't use it". Actually the non-free image policy is not up there with BLP. It's clearly several steps down. As WP:NFCC says, our policy is considerably more restrictive than fair use law. That's because its basis is philosophical, not legal. Our use of content is educational and not-for-profit. That grants us wide latitude. "Free content" is philosophical, and it is linked to our commitment to re-users. And when it boils down to it, an image with a good fair use rationale is a lot freer than much of our content. No one asks pseudonymous editors to prove that they have the right to release the images that they upload. I've seen several images (including several by an image-use campaigner) which was labelled "self made", without an explanation of how the uploader ended up in the picture. Fair use rationales are verifiable, and have an established legal history, unlike the GFDL or CC.

If a viable consensus can be reached at a central location that this use of these images is ok, I will comply with that consensus. Consensus isn't voting. If one believes that the existing rationale (for which there was clear consensus) is inadequate, then the onus is on that person to make a case. You can't simply say "I disagree", refuse to address the issue, claim that consensus no longer exists, and then edit-war.

It strikes me that rather than objecting to the way I am trying to enforce policy, you would perhaps do better to try to enforce the policy yourself. I am. That's why I'm here. When someone acts in good faith, in what appears to be in keeping with consensus, issuing unexplained warnings and threatening blocks has a chilling effect on the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. Hence my posting here. Had you issued a warning about edit-warring, I wouldn't have thought it worth bringing up, even if I thought that you had issued warnings in an unbalanced fashion. But the issue isn't clear cut at all. The use of the images is consistent with policy, at least on a certain level. What's in dispute is whether the fair-use rationale is adequate. And that is a judgement call. Guettarda (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In the event of a dispute like this, edit-warring to retain images which have been challenged is very unwise. The concerns you raise about Damiens' behavior should better be raised directly with him. I might share some of your concerns now that you mention it. However, the person who raises their own actions at AN/I has already acknowledged that they may be controversial and therefore needs no warning per se. The people who revert to restore nonfree content which has been challenged risk a block and need to be warned so that they know to stop the problematic behavior. I obviously disagree with your interpretation of fair-use policy, and I think the community does too. Your arguments are understood by me, but I don't agree with them. The images are purely decorative and fundamentally fail our fair use criteria. What do they add to the article that couldn't be expressed in text? And what can be the justification for repeatedly restoring them when you know their compliance has been challenged? It seems to me you are picking the wrong side of this fight, in defending poor behavior, and castigating attempts to enforce our behavioral norms. --John (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your arrogance will not serve you well in future, I'm afraid. Guettarda has been an admin far longer than you and yet you are treating him like some idiotic troll. Sorry, but that is simply not acceptable. In addition, given your very strongly stated opinion, you are hardly the admin to be overseeing anything on that page. Your behaviour is simply shameful. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Why? Here's a tip for you; if you don't understand image use policy, stay well away from the area. Please be clear that my warning to you stands. If I see you again edit-warring or tag teaming to restore non-compliant images, I will block you. --John (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I clearly understand the image policies, you however seem to not realise that NFCC #8 is purely subjective and are hell bent on forcing your own subjective reading of a subjective policy down everyone's throats. If you see me "tag-teaming"? ROFL. You can "read" intent, I suppose?

BTW, how do you define edit-warring? 1 revert? Gee, then I'm guessing that 99.9% of WP can be blocked. Certainly would cut down on the workload, eh? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get all undergraduate about it, everything is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and you name it. However you will find that in these cases, as with image use policy, our community has established norms for what is and isn't acceptable. If you break these policies in spite of being warned, I will block you. With a heavy heart (I hate blocking long term contributors) but I'll do it all the same, for the good of our project. Like I say, if you aren't sure what you're doing, stay away from it. A better way to effect change would be (as I've said a few times now) to try to reach a new consensus that decorative use of book covers in articles is permitted. Let me know when you achieve that and we can talk again. Until then, --John (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

John, if you want to warn editors that you think they're going against a policy, make it explicit what policy your complaint refers to, and don't meke it a blunt threat. Your action in this case is clearly unacceptable, and from your statements on the article talk page this looks very much like misuse of admin tools in a content dispute where you've taken one side. For the good of the project, assume good faith and accept that there is a genuine dispute about how best to implement the subjective requirements of the image policy. . dave souza, talk 13:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. --John (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

John, that looks WP:POINTy. Please learn to phrase requests in a polite an non threatening way, and try to avoid being disruptive in future. . dave souza, talk 13:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it looks pointy to you. Please learn to abide by our policies and by consensus as these principles are how our project works. --John (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

John, I warned you about this sort of behaviour earlier. You cannot issue threats like that. It is unacceptable. To begin with, you are completely misrepresenting both the NFC policy and the policy on consensus. If you can't be bothered to inform yourself about policy, don't threaten to enforce it. But far more importantly, you cannot issue block threats out of the blue. You cannot issue threats without explaining what the heck you're talking about. It doesn't matter that Dave is about as old a hand as it gets in this place - you seem to be issuing these unexplained threats indiscriminately. Not only are you using your threats to further your POV, you are engaging in behaviour that has a seriously chilling effect. I can't image that you didn't see Aunt Entropy's response to your threat to her. I take it you are aware of WP:BITE? John, seriously, STOP. You are abusing your admin powers in a dispute. Issuing totally unexplained blocking threats is totally out of line.

Look - we don't have a "no fair use" policy. The NFCC policy requires that certain guidelines be met. They were met. A few people have said "not good enough". The one (few?) who bothered to explain their !votes said "need a source'. Dave supplied that source. Damien, who hasn't bothered to contribute to the discussion, resumed his sterile edit-warring and removed image, despite the fact that Dave had done as was requested. This isn't Calvinball. We don't make up rules as we go along. You can't issue threats based on Calvinball. STOP. Guettarda (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You issued a threat to Dave while engaging in edit warring?!! I'm sorry, but that is TOTALLY OUT OF LINE. John, you know very well that you cannot, under any circumstances, threaten to block someone while engaged in a content dispute with them. Seriously, get some perspective. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the actual message I left before you make any further erroneous claims. --John (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NFCC

Hi, seeing the discussion above, can you please explain to an editor how NFCC, and perhaps NPOV, works. We have an editor who is choosing the most grotesque images possible, obviously to go with his POV. Several editors have suggested a simple, neutral portrait for this particular article, but that has been and is being resisted. The same editor has inserted, into the lead, the image of a copyrighted book, and when I have removed it, stating it is not a free image, he has reverted stating this is my POV. I have posted a message on his talk page, alerting him to the fact it is a copyvio and does not comply with WP:NFCC, and I hope that this does not fall on deaf ears, but perhaps a message from an uninvolved admin may make him take notice. We aren't here to build "grotesque", or even glowing, articles, we are here to help build an encyclopaedia, written in an NPOV fashion, and such persistent obviously POV edits are not helpful to the project, even moreso when they do not comply with non-article content related issues. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you broaden your request by posting on Talk:NFCC. WP:3O might be helpful as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design covers

Edit warring has started up again, with vague reasoning and lack of reference to policy or even the direction the talk page discussion is going. See the page history- I believe Aunt Entropy was warned by you previously, Hrafn was not. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I warned Hrafn. --John (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design, continued

You are involved in an edit war on the article Intelligent design. When one feels strongly about one's views, it is easy to lose perspective. I offer the following advice:

• Please attempt to resolve the content dispute via discussion
• Please do not use or threaten to use your admin tools on an article where you are engaged in an active edit war

KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, which I am sure was well-intentioned. However, it is pretty clear that you do not understand the issue if you think it is about my "views"; in fact it is about the long-standing policy on images and the fact that a few editors think there is a special exemption to it; there is not. Please do feel free to post here again if you have anything useful to add. Please also feel free to post to one of the discussions with any helpful suggestions towards resolving the problems. Best wishes, --John (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The page has been protected again after additional edit warring. If you are still watching the page in the role of an uninvolved administrator, as you indicated previously [5], you may want to remove the non-free images until there is consensus to re-insert them.

You might also look into the edits from Aunt Entropy, who you warned about edit warring several days ago [6] and who reverted again today [7]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean the "edit" singular by Aunt Entropy. It would be a hoot to get blocked for two single edits days apart in a content dispute. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that the article is locked further blocks would be punitive not preventative. John is also an involved admin and so should not be making any blocks. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because he warned a user, he becomes involved? What, do uninvolved admins not warn any more? Just block? John is not involved in the disputes on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He's involved in the edit war, as I indicated. He's edit warring claiming clear policy violation where there is a dispute, not a policy violation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a clear policy violation, but I will not be the one to enforce it as I have edited the article. I suggest taking it back to AN/I to see who needs blocked, if anybody (I've been at work and have not had time to examine it in detail). Killer, you should remember that every vandal and POV-pusher thinks their edit is ok and argues that it's a dispute, not a policy violation. You should be in no doubt that this is a violation of NFCC. If anyone continues to insert these non-compliant images after a warning I believe they should be blocked. We cannot use others' intellectual property this way. --John (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You have recently edit-warred on this article, contradicting your claim to be an WP:UNINVOLVED administrator. What you have done seems to bear no relation to the opinions you expressed on my talk page. Please could you explain yourself? Mathsci (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a clear policy violation; you are in error, John. there is a dispute regarding these images and you are edit warring over them. Your repetition of the words "policy violation" does not make it so; nor does your trumpeting that I "should" agree with you make a persuasive argument. You are clearly too involved to make decisions about blocking; you are well over the line into involved and have been threatening to block those who do not agree with you. This is inappropriate behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, it seems that whenever editors who are familiar with the NFCC policy, via experience applying it to other articles, look at the ID article, they come to the conclusion that the images there are at odds with the way the NFCC policy is usually interpreted. Perhaps this is simply a coincidence.

In any case, if an uninvolved administrator who is familiar with the NFCC policy by experience comes to the conclusion that there is not consensus to use the images, it is perfectly acceptable for that admin to remove them. The remedy would be to establish a firm consensus to include the images. John appears to be simply the latest uninvolved person to review these images and come to the conclusion they do not pass NFCC muster. There will be more, I am certain. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just checking in quickly at the moment. Carl, the way it's usually interpreted is a matter for the guideline page, WP:NFC. Those who quoted guideline material as policy were mistaken. In Wikipedia we don't do guideline enforcement by fiat, that much I'm certain the community at-large agrees with-- to date at least. The only policy issues (#1 and #8) are discretionary and debatable, to be dealt with by consensus process, not by administrative dictate as with the CSD criteria. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

CBM has it right. I would strongly recommend that others read my post of 00:17 before making further statements here. Even better, how about studying, as CBM and I have, the wording and the implementation by consensus of our nonfree image policy and trying to apply it to the article in question? --John (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

John, based on your comment above, you obviously don't understand the policy. Based on the fact that I explained the issue to you before, I suspect that you aren't interested in understanding the policy. You have repeatedly violated the trust of the community here. You have, apparently, driven off at least one good contributor through your disregard for our way of doing things. And yet you persist with this ridiculous bluster. Yep, you have proven that you can drive off good editors and that you can bite newbies. Very impressive. Now why not try abiding by our guidelines and policies, and behaving like a member of a community. Guettarda (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for this kind of rhetoric. I don't think John is applying any different standards to this article than any other article, with respect to NFCC. And I don't see any evidence that he doesn't understand the NFCC policy. How many articles have you looked at regarding possible violations of the NFCC policy? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean Carl. John has driven away one good editor so far, and that hasn't even slowed down his threats and bluster. Despite being warned, he continued to make threats without bothering to inform people why he was making threats. Not only were his threats to block - without warning, without explanation - totally inappropriate, they also showed that he either did not understand policy, or was intentionally disregarding policy. If you read the NFCC policy, it says "these criteria must be met". They don't say "they must be met to John's satisfaction despite the fact that he has not bothered to express his opinion". The discussion at Talk:ID had petered out; few arguments stronger than IDONTLIKEIT had been made, a solid rationale had been provided, and the article had been stable for several days.

Despite this, despite what were almost certainly good faith edits, John threatened to block several editors - but not the one who engaged in the most egregious edit-warring (despite his long block log for edit-warring). Not only did he threaten to block, he refused to explain why he would block. One editor has quit, another, a relatively new editor, had her faith in Wikipedia shaken. And when I warned John about his threats, he threatened me. Regardless of what you think about the discussion, there's no "clear violation" of NFCC. There's a good faith disagreement. So no, John's block threats were clearly out of line. I explained that to him, and not only has he continued with them, he has also issued block threats while engaging in edit warring.

Disagreements are not settled by declarations "by fiat". It's obvious from his actions that John either does not understand Wikipedia policy (not just NFCC, but also the general rules for admin behaviour). If you don't see how threatening to block (sorry, no, promising to block) editors who, by all appearances were acting in the good-faith belief that they were acting according to consensus, isn't in keeping with policy, then maybe you need to familiarise yourself with the way we do things around here. Not to mention that John threatened Dave and Hrafn after he had chosen to openly edit-war...edit war to remove material that had been altered to meet the requirements asked by various editors, material that even J Milburn and Damiens.rf were eventually willing to leave in the article.

John's behaviour is clearly out of line. This sort of behaviour is very worrying. It is clearly unacceptable. Carl, you should know better than to defend and encourage this sort of misbehaviour. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that John approached the situation in a less than optimal manner. He could have simply protected the page once the images were removed, and left it at that. Instead he went with the alternate approach of asking the editors who were re-inserting the images to stop doing so until consensus could be formed to include them. I don't believe that it's possible at this point to make a good-faith claim that there is consensus for including the images in the article; they remain only by inertia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your partisan participation in an edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelligent design. 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.

I consider your templating of me for reverting on an article that you yourself were engaged in an edit war on to be inappropriate, particular as your edit history indicates that you are only templating those on 'the other side' and thus on a partisan basis. Given this comment on AN/I indicating that you are prepared to block to enforce your views, this gives the appearance of an attempt at intimidation.Using a template that threatens a block, on an issue in which you are both a partisan, and have threatened to block, borders on abuse of admin tools. I would note that the policy in question is subjective, and that conflicting interpretations of them have been voiced, with neither a consensus nor a binding resolution supporting your interpretation at this time. I would therefore request that you cease and desist templating editors on this issue, unless and until you explicitly retract your threat to block in regards to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P)

As I said above, if an uninvolved admin comes to an article and makes a determination that the images do not meet the NFCC requirements, the best rebuttal is to form a strong consensus that the images really do meet the policy. Lacking that, you have no real leg to stand on complaining at the previously uninvolved admin for enforcing the NFCC policy. "Upholding NFCC standards commonly applied to other articles" is not the same as "partisan". — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Carl. The pettiness and stupidity (as well as inaccuracy) of this guy's statement actually made me laugh out loud. So, in a way, thanks "Hrafn" too. --John (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

John, as a self-styled enforcer of policy, you must be aware of our policy on personal attacks. Please remove them. Guettarda (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But Carl, we're not talking about an "uninvolved admin". We're talking about someone who edit-warred to enforce his particular view of things. You lose the right to call yourself "uninvolved" when you engage in edit warring. Hrafn took John's templating him as an insult. Quite rightly, by the look of things. Yeah, it's less than admirable, but certainly nowhere near John's actions. And now he has stooped to personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There we go, done. You're right, we should criticize idiotic actions rather than assume we are dealing with an idiot, which we may not be. Speaking of such, Guettarda, you may wish to read upthread where I confirmed several hours ago that having edited the article to remove copyvio images, I no longer regard myself as uninvolved. I must say, I am less than impressed with your reading skills and knowledge of policy. I'm sure you're a great guy though. --John (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Guettarda, you are wrong. He ceased to be an "uninvolved admin" quite a while before that when he posted his intention to block to enforce one side in a content dispute (per dif above). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a "content dispute" – rather it's a question of whether the images meet the NFCC requirements. I have no opinions on the content of the ID article, only on its use of no-free images that don't pass NFCC.

Now, removing non-free images does not make one "involved" in the dispute, any more than removing libelous text from a BLP would make an admin "involved" in discussions about the text or make that admin "partisan". Removing non-free images until there is consensus to include them is a common activity that happens on numerous other articles all the time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Carl here. Per WP:UNINVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) ... is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them." However, I see John has recused himself anyway. If the inclusion of the image needs to be discussed, there is a forum at WP:NFCR. Ty 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ty: how can an admin who has (i) threatened to block to enforce one side in a dispute, and (ii) taken part in an ongoing WP:EDITWAR on that dispute, not be "involved" in that dispute? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you read posts that you reply to? "an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute..." Ty 20:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If an administrator who has not previously been involved approaches a situation in an administrative capacity, they are not "involved in the dispute" merely because they take an administrative action or warn users. It's unclear if John was attempting to join the edit war, or simply removing the images on the assumption they would not be re-inserted until the matter was settled. The latter would be perfectly acceptable as an admin action, just as removing copyvio text while its status is resolved, or removing unsourced info from a BLP until a source is found, would be acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

John became "involved" as both an admin, and as a participant, in this dispute when he threatened, on AN/I, to use admin tools to block editors to enforce one side in that dispute. To claim that his wholly partisan actions thereafter are covered under WP:UNINVOLVED is basically to nullify that policy -- as any admin, no matter how "involved" and how partisan, could claim that they were simply enforcing (their own viewpoint of) some policy (whose interpretation was most probably the basis of the dispute) and/or that their prior participation had been "in order to address a dispute" (which just happens to be the dispute they are "involved" in). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Hrafn, do me a favor and take this somewhere else. It's obvious to me that you don't understand WP:NFCC, WP:UNINVOLVED and a bunch of other things. Several admins whose views I respect infinitely more than yours (no offense) have now backed me up here, at AN/I, and on the article talk. Your plodding repetitions of your leaden misunderstanding of our core principles are especially unwelcome as you complained that I was "bullying" you when I tried to explain to you just where your misunderstandings lie on your talk page. I notice you have hastily "archived" my warning to you on your talk; that's fine. I'm going to let your "warning" to me for my single edit to the article stand for amusement value until it is archived on February 28, as that's how I do things. Maybe I saved you from a block with my warning for your edit-warring. Think about it, learn from it, but please don't post here unless you have something new to say to me. If you still wish to understand where I was coming from you can read this , or indeed some of these policies I've previously referred you to, though at this stage I am not holding my breath that you will be able to understand them. Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: your warning -- [8]. I'll leave you in peace. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Hrafn, I already saw your comment there and read it. Very good. I suggest devoting your energy to reading up on NFCC and to whether there is a demonstrable consensus over image use on the article that its provisions are being met. It seems obvious to me, with my experience of image use policy as it is implemented on Wikipedia, that these images are inappropriate. I'll look forward to seeing you in article talk tomorrow when I end my 24 hour break from commenting there. --John (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 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) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Break for a few days?

If the stress of the ID page is starting to get under your skin, it may be good to take a break from the page for a couple days, and come back refreshed. It's a situation that requires a great deal of patience. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. As I indicated here I will be walking away from this for 24 h or so. --John (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an area which requires the long haul. In the meantime. Ty 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ty, as always I appreciate your insight. --John (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your confusion

You left a note on my talk page [9] in which you stated you were confused about my request that you follow WP:TPG and keep discussions about content on the article talk page. I will be happy to explain the guideline to you, but I confess I cannot see how you could be confused. If you want to talk about article content, do it on the article talk page, and not on my talk page. I do not see how you are confused about that. Even if you want to talk to me about a content dispute, it is best to do so on the talk page of the article, unless you are asking me to read your comments and let you know if they are clear and understandable. Even then, if you are worried about your ability to communicate clearly, you should probably preface your comments on the article talk page with disclaimers and clarifications, and/or request someone else read your comments before you post them on the talk page of the article - someone you know irl, or someone on Wikipedia, possibly via email. I am sorry you are having trouble with this; please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My confusion arises from the fact that (as I said) the matter was not one of article content but of your accusation in article talk about my conduct. Such matters are indeed best discussed in user talk. Your edit summaries are highly uncivil, so I no longer regard you as a good faith editor on this matter and I will not respond further to you. Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Note

An ANI thread which may concern you has been started here. best, –xeno (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. --John (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NPA

Really, this snarky comment, very close to, if not actuaklly, incivility was uncalled for -- especially given that you're an admin. Let's try to refreain from the personal remarks, especially given your position re issuance of numerous warnings on the page. Of course, on the other hand, maybe you should continue as the respect factor for any blocks you might make on that page is declining. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Where did he come close to violating WP:NPA there? Sorry, I came here for a different purpose, but to say you've someone lost credibility in his eyes is not uncivil. Sorry for butting my nose in here, but really ... can you re-read and show me? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To me, the snarky tone and the comment itself are not the type of civility I would expect given the above reasons I've already stated. "You just lost even more credibility with me, something I wouldn't have thought possible" = "You had little or none to begin with". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on it: snarky? Maybe a little. Uncivil? No. Personal attack? Not even close. Jim, if even you only think it's "very close to, if not actuaklly, incivility", why post here with a heading "NPA"? --John (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point ... "Note" was already taken though, and I hate it when sections have the same title. Plus, it really should be AGF anyway if you take my equation above into account. Bottom line though, it just seems like a not too bright comment for you to make -- I know you're snarky (as am I at times), but I do sense that you're fairly intelligent, and the post would not have suffered without that barb. Oh, blame everything on J Milburn :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, that's a good response. You're right, it was probably an unnecessary thing to say and probably won't help to advance things. I've always had difficulty "suffering fools gladly" (there's no way of saying that without it sounding a little uncivil) and I have a serious problem with people mis-stating my position, as G has done. However, I will try to achieve a more measured tone in future. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, "admins are people too". Don't change a thing John. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If they weren't people too, we'd not vote for them (I hope)  ;)

I know the feeling John: reminds me of the first time I heard the suffer fools comment -- I was 12 and telling my mom about some really idiotic thing at school, and she responded "you don't suffer fools gladly, do you?". OK, I'll admit that I needed an explanation.  ;) And John, no matter how snarky I may get re this specific issue, it doesn't reflect on you per se, I'm just expressing my disagreement with the NFCC8 stuff. Well, this too shall pass -- everything on WP does -- although sometimes it's like passing a kidney stone. LOL. Best to you too. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Trying yet again

We seem to have gotten off with a complete and utter misunderstanding, which is growing rather than lessening. I would like to stem the tide of wrongness.

Allow me to clear up some misunderstandings you seem to have:

• I do not give a shit about the images in the ID article.

All of your other misunderstandings seem to stem from that.

You have NO idea what I'm thinking; you are wrong every time you've posted what you think I'm thinking. Please feel free to actually ASK me next time rather than leave snarky edit summaries where you presume you "know". KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding: if you wish to start afresh and try to actually start a discussion, I am more than willing. I will not post here again if you remove this; if you are completely closed to resolution I will respect that and leave you alone. It seems a great pity that you persist in wanting to be at odds with me, though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if it's important to you to resolve this, let's try. Edits like this suggest to me that you do have a view on the matter and are not completely without opinion on the matter of image use. Edits like this, this, this and this strongly suggest you are not capable of assuming good faith on my part at the moment. In this edit, you repeated an allegation about me that is incorrect and has been refuted by several editors, including me. Specifically, the error is that my four warnings where I threatened to block were made between 4:41 and 4:45 UTC on February 7. My first (and only) edit to the article was at 13:40 on February 9 2009. Your allegation that I "threatened to block three editors on the "other side" while engaged in the edit war" is thus not only incorrect but (as you have persisted in making it after several others have pointed out your error) appears to be made in bad faith. It therefore seems to me that you are not editing with a clear head on this issue at the moment, and thus might profitably back away from it rather than continuing to issue these allegations. Bottom line; it doesn't seem likely that your involvement is helping the encyclopedia at this point. I am completely fine with your removing your name from the summary list that I drew up in an effort to resolve the dispute; indeed the instructions on that page invite corrections such as the one you have made. I hope this makes sense and that you will now be able to consider the matter resolved. --John (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you posted block warnings[10][11][12] and as IIRC you'd just reverted the edits, yes that appears to be edit warring combined with block warnings. That you felt you were enforcing policy has been made abundantly clear. That you were in fact enforcing policy is a matter for debate. I didn't get that idea from other posts but from your edit history. That others disagree is fine; but I have yet to see anyone offer a persuasive rationale why I might be in error in my judgment. You see the difference? You say "others disagree" - and accuse me of bad faith for holding to my view! Can you see at all that it takes more than "you are wrong" to change my mind? Be pretty damn illogical and mush-minded of me to change my mind with no reason at all, wouldn't it? Yet apparently, from what you say here, you expect me to do just that, or else I'm "ABF". KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As I say, your error is in believing that I had reverted prior to issuing the warnings. I had not. For such serious allegations (I take the ethics involved in my community trust very seriously indeed), you really need to go way beyond "IIRC" and actually check. Will you please do this now, and then maybe we can put this matter behind us? --John (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• 13:40, 9 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Intelligent design ? (not fair use here, see talk) [13]
• 13:43, 9 February 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dave souza ? (?Intelligent design: new section) [14]

is a removal of content, followed immediately by a block warning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the actual diff. As you can see I did not threaten to block this user. ("If you continue to do this you are at risk of a block. " not "I will block you") Are you able to see the distinction? --John (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, quite right - although the other three warnings I linked to had the phrasing "If I see you make another edit like this I shall block you. Please let's not go there." So... you said you'd block at least three people if they restored the image again, then you reverted a restoration, and then warned "you may be blocked" - That is really splitting hairs to stand on that. Did you not think you were involved when you were making the threats at 04:44, 7 February and at 04:42, 7 February and 04:45, 7 February; but became involved on or before 13:40, 9 February? Did you feel you were completely uninvolved in spite of your talk page arguments, and hence could make such block threats, and only that one edit made you involved in the edit war? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Which talk page arguments? --John (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This was my first edit there, at 23:11 on 7 February 2009. Are you going to tell me you didn't actually check the diffs and contribs before embarking on your campaign against me? Wow, just wow, KC. --John (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, 7 Feb is before 9 Feb. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And 4:42-4:45 Feb 7 is before 23:11 Feb 7. This isn't, as they say, rocket science. --John (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you missed the time warp. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your friend KC

Thanks for the introduction. Any friend of yours is a friend of mine. He's making himself welcome on my Talk Page.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. I'm sorry for your trouble and I thank you for your support. --John (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry too. I was unaware his attacks and accusations were to be viewed in the specific tenor of "support" for John. That changes things. Perhaps you'd care to confirm or correct this? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirm or correct what? I don't think I've ever had more than casual contact with John. I think he voted in my RfA, but for the life of me (I'm not going to look), I can't remember whether he supported or opposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I supported, and I congratulated you here. We also had this conversation about your user name. As far as I can recall we haven't had any other interactions. --John (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, now I remember. Well, obviously I am displaying total favoritism towards you. Jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My comment had nothing to do with any of that. I was referring to above: "...I thank you for your support. --John (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC) " wherein John thanks Wehwalt for his/her support. My post, following directly, was referring to that. Why did you two feel the need to dig through old histories? Sheesh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Drop the whip and step away from the horse. Let it go to the glue factory in peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Chin up, John. It'll all go away soon. Daniel (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had no expectation going into an edit war over restoring non-free images with no obvious policy or even current consensus-based reason to keep them that my actions would attract such misplaced ire. Oh well. It'll all come out in the wash I expect. --John (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the toilets is one of the prerogatives of the mop, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And non-free image use is a veritable Augean stable, to continue the metaphor. Thanks again. --John (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

No worries. I didn't actually see how you'd previously been involved, hence I put it in scare quotes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good improvements

...to the Hainan incident article. Watch the passive voice though (Ex: "had landed" should just be "landed") — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That isn't the passive voice but I know what you mean. I've made some further tweaks to answer this point. Appreciate your trouble. --John (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you knew what I meant. Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollerxster

i hate yu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollerxster (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. I am only doing my job. --John (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis_Social_Club

There have been few contributors in developing and improving the subject, but you did. I have taken on the task as my 1st Wikipedia Project, and I would appreciate any help or suggestions you would like to offer. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. --John (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

What are you talking about "stop the disruptive editing"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.8.112 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at these edits. If you made these edits, please stop or you will be blocked. If you didn't and are on a dynamic IP, just ignore the message. --John (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bromley Banksy

Please see ref to Banksy from Bromley [[15]] now Ive sourced this ref and added the Bromley section, now the other editor removed it, im writting the truth, then it get removed so they are breaking the 3RR rule not me, it is even mention on the discussion page, you can sort thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.100.50 (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 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) 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fred West

I strongly advise you to seek a consensus one way or another as to this article. The Talk page does not disclose one. You have several options other than the Talk page; dispute resolution, for example, or request for comment. Meanwhile, unilateral removal citing a non-existent consensus is unacceptable, as is editing while logged out to give the impression of a false consensus. If you can't get your own way, I'd advise seeking wider input. As I've said previously, I am not bothered either way; but circumventing proper process is unacceptable. I am not going to use my Admin tools here, but it is your move, and meanwhile, I have content to create. --Rodhullandemu 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reverted good faith edits by John; No consensus. Find one, or start an WP:RFC, otherwise, stop editing while logged out, and stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.."

There is a consensus. You took part in it. It hasn't changed. I edited once while logged out by mistake. Your edit summary is there for ever. Please try to assume good faith of others. Please follow our rules on consensus. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Depeche Mode

John, I have invited discussion about whether Depeche Mode are post-punk or not on the talk page, and it has been ignored. I laid out a long and detailed argument as to why they are not post-punk. To me, it is clear that Depeche Mode are NOT a post-punk band by the definition of what a post-punk band is. To me, the fact that no one has opted to join the thread on the talk page to defend themselves as to why they think DM is post-punk indicates they have no defense. I consider the "post-punk" label erroneous and I have been removing it accordingly. I am not trying to engage in an edit war, but I am vigorously trying to remove a woefully mistaken description of DM from their article. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We work to reliable sources here. See if you can find some. --John (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Smile

Hello John, I love you John has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Teller-Ulam design to Teller–Ulam design

Could you move the page back to where it was? It needs an en-dash per WP:DASH. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Coaching

Hi; just listed myself for admin coaching, and noticed you were a coach; I'm not quite sure what you're 'capacity' bit means, so thought I'd chance my arm. A quick flick through your user page makes me think we'd be a good fit; let me know if you might consider it. Thanks for your time, --  Chzz  ►  00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am a bit busy at the moment to give much time to this. If you are willing to be very patient I may be able to help you a little at a time. If you're in a hurry you may be better asking someone else. --John (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Banksy

Im always badly written —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.100.50 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Badly written can be fixed, and unreferenced (or poorly referenced) can be fixed too. Unfortunately your contribution was both. Don't be discouraged. --John (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit(S)

[16]. I have to admit, I found it funny. But aren't we getting a little extreme here? Also, I looked through your edits, you seem to have a huge/abnormal focus on "Irish descent". It's ok if you don't answer, but why? Regards, Noisedoes1 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:BLP. Why did you find that edit "funny"? Regarding "abnormal", see also WP:CIVIL. Thanks. --John (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

New Musik

Hi John, If you have the chance please can you have a look at this article. User:MarKeyXL seems to have (in wikipedia speak) taken ownership, is reverting everything and ignoring verifiability. Thanks, Memphisto (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

referencing

Thanks. Its pretty easy to do, the standard layout I use is <ref>{{Citation | title = blah | url = blah | last = blah | first = blah | publisher = blah.co.uk | date = 2009-01-10 | accessdate = 2009-03-15}}</ref> It makes everything look very neat. For books I use the Harvnb template. I reckon with a bit of tweaking that article could see GAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I can give you a hand, have you been through the process before? Its fairly simple. I'm a bit tied up with The Dark Side of the Moon right now but can help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

All the instructions are at WP:GAC. Its best that you nominate it as you're more knowledgeable on the subject, but I'll watch the page and fulfill any requests I can. I would suggest nominating it in the History category. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look through and made some changes to the referencing and templates. There are still a few references that need formatting correctly using the Citation template, and reference 22 is a deadlink. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change Template:VG-Action

Thanks for participating in the discussion about this template. I have now made a proposal, looking to establish consensus to change it, and I'd be grateful if you could express your approval or disapproval, in WT:WikiProject_Video_games#Proposal.

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hainan

Hey, John. Did you ever decide whether you wanted to put the Hainan Incident article up for FA? It's as good as an FA's we have, better than many, in fact. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I am flattered. If you think it stands a chance definitely nominate it! Let me know what I can do. --John (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me look up the rules for nomming something (I forget these little Wikipedia things). Eh, so long as I remember which way to point the claymore, lol. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very apposite as I am Scottish and of course we invented the claymore. --John (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's both watchlist this [17]. A Scotsman who likes beer? Must be a disappointment to the clan.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thank you very much. Yes, most Scots prefer a cup of tea. Alcohol use is severely frowned upon[18]. --John (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I love tea, but the caffeine effects me rather quickly, so I don't often drink it. Thanks for the link, I was not aware that Scotland ranked higher than the antifreeze-drinking Russ. Eh, it's cool and damp in Scotland, and even though alcohol makes one colder, it makes one feel warmer. Have a drink, it's 10C outside! America only ranked lower because of the plethora of Fundies we have: the rest of us try to make up for it, but don't quite get there. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As a moderate drinker I like to think that when I moved to California from Scotland I raised the average alcohol consumption of both places very slightly. You can get decent beer here, in spite of what people in Europe tend to think there is (thankfully) far more to American beer than Anheuser-Busch. --John (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The only Anheuser-Busch product I like is Michelob, and the seasonal Michelob bock beer. I very much like Yuengling's Black and Tan, but two is sufficient. BTW, in California they've moved on to other drugs.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So I hear. Black and Tan has an unfortunate connotation where I come from and I don't think I have ever tried it. I do very much enjoy stouts, porters and lagers but tend to partake of them separately. --John (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, black and tan in the version you allude to is yet another feather in the cap of British imperialism. You might want to try mixing some porter with some bitter, it really is quite nice. Getting porter in Philly is a bit hard, unless you go to a specialty shop, but certainly worth it once you find it. Stout is usually served in the better pubs, and there are some good mircobrews at some of them. Ach, now I'm thirsty! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of software that could rotate the Shenyang J-8 81192 pic 180 degrees? It wouldbe nice if they were seen as "opposing" each other. Just a thought. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good idea. The serial number on the nose would look funny when reversed though. --John (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know -- I reversed it and it does look funny. I uploaded it, though here. Think most folks would notice? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah, great minds think alike. I reversed it and restored the serial. See what you think. --John (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I can't even tell that it was "doctored". What software did you use? Anyway, very nice job! Looks like it just might make it to FA status.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Just Photoshop. Hope so. --John (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, we use to have Photoshop, but it got deleted -- probably one of the kinder. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation, as I still happened to have had John's userpage on my watchlist since our little NFC brouhaha earlier on. I'm glad I didn't "unwatch" it. This is great photo work; and a very impressive result. My compliments. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I was pleased with it myself. Ironically in view of our previous interaction we just lost the lead image from that article as it isn't a free pic. We'd be into constructing a fair use rationale, which we may do if there's a consensus the article needs it. Good to see you in happier circumstances. --John (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, is that what the brouhaha was about? I'd forgotten what it was -- mostly because I realised it was just a matter of opinions, not of any of us being "pricks". Odd how "adversity" and/or "conflict" can actually proveto be beneficial in the long run. So endeth the sermon, lol.

Anyway, have you looked at [19]? Neat that the superstructure is so far aft. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting, thanks for showing me it. The island is way farther back; I suppose it is a trend that has been going on for a while in aircraft carriers. Compare this for example. Hopefully the ship will be regarded as being more effective than Ford was as a president; I was only a kid but the main things I recall about him was that he was never elected for either of his roles, and the infamous "can't walk and chew gum at the same time" jibe that was told about him; whether true or not, it doesn't speak of someone held in high regard. As regards conflict bringing about productive change; oh yes. The important things (I believe) are to pick your battles, and then to disagree well, ie to leave open the possibility of working together in the future with those you disagree with. I think we achieved that on the fair use question back in January/February. --John (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we did, and I, for one, am glad. Perhaps we both know that disagreement is how good decisions are made and good ideas come to fruition.  :)

Ford wasn't really a bad president; he was fairly intelligent (more so than people think) and understood and accepted his limitations. However, the period from 1974-1982 was rather horrid in the states re economics, military issues, very cold winters, etc. Essentially, both Ford and Carter were doomed,and Reaqgan would have been had he not been such a good spin-meister, and had Gorbachev not come to power.

Anyway, I liked the ship -- it looked "neat". Yeah, not a very critical assessment on my part, but ....

BTW, the Hainan article is looking even better. Certainly seems to b picking up steam for FA. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.

I'm sorry. I will try and remember this next time. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.38.99 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish-Scots

Hi. Is there any particular reason you chose to remove my edits of the Irish-Scots page? I don't imagine it should be a page solely for mawkish trivia and common sense comment. I see your list of main interests/activities does not include history, politics or sociology (specifically in relation to Scotland, Britain and Ireland), subjects which I am quite interested in and knowledgeable about (up to PhD level). At least provide a reason for any pointless editing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefyj (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your inquiry. You seem to be laboring under a number of misunderstandings about the nature of our project. One is your apparent belief that one needs to be an expert to edit here; one does not. After all, how could either of us prove we were experts in what is a virtual environment? We are all equal here, you who claim to be an expert in "history, politics or sociology" and I who do not. The other is that because you claim to be an expert in the field your assertions, opinions and commentary will automatically enhance an article. In fact we use verifiability from reliable sources and neutral point of view as the standards here, rather than opinion, however knowledgeable the holder of an opinion believes themselves to be. I notice that you have restored the comments I removed; rather than remove them I have requested that you provide reliable sources which support your statements. If you are unable to do this, the material will have to be removed again. Finally, remember to sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~, which will produce your signature and a datestamp, as follows: --John (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll

Hi John, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Regards, Ohconfucius (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 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) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Islands by Area

Hi John. I just noticed that you removed the graph I made for the List of islands by area article, showing the power-law distribution of island sizes (Image:Islands by area.png). You tagged it as "original research," which I don't understand, since I just plotted the values given by the list in OpenOffice. I didn't do any research at all, let alone anything original. I think the graph makes a very helpful point about physical geography, and I think it's a shame to see it disappear. If you're worried about sullying the list, perhaps there is another article where we could put it? Looking forward to hearing from you. Citynoise (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Citynoise. Sorry we disagree. Perhaps taking this to article talk will be more productive. I wouldn't use the term "sullying" but having reexamined the issue I do think it is original research on the article on which it was posted. --John (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Historian19

Would you care to block Moorish Lander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevvvv4444 again

Hi. User:Stevvvv4444 is back to categorising people by ethnicity again, unfortunately. I've posted a note at WP:AN/I about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Thanks. --John (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a bad block for an undecided content matter. I'll comment at AN/I. Wikidemon (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do, and please see the previous AN/I discussion and previous warnings at the user's talk page. --John (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I commented at AN/I so that may be the best place to discuss. I hope I'm not overstepping, as I am just questioning, not opposing. Where was the previous discussion? Wikidemon (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there. --John (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Will take a look shortly, John. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Half-educated

I agree that this is a trivial piece of formatting; but there are half-a-dozen editors who have made it, and related issues, into a Holy Cause, and have been so obnoxious that the matter has been brought to ArbCom, at WP:ARBDATE.

You are not, of course, one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

98.216.60.228

which article are you referring to? where does it say you have to leave a reason for editing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.60.228 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/98.216.60.228. If that wasn't you (it was a few weeks ago), then don't worry about it. --John (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Depeche Mode - English

Hi John

Any particular reason you have changed my precision on Depeche Mode as being "English" rather than British? I note US bands are almost entirely described as American, rather than being from a particular state. Is there a subtelty I am missing? Has Depeche Mode made particularly pro-England independance statements or something else that would make them "English" rather than British? Regards

Justin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jucjuc (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The subtlety you are missing is that the UK is not a federal state like the US and so we tend to specify England or Scotland etc on UK articles. Countries of the United Kingdom would be a good place to start if you wanted to read up on this. --John (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rakan.A.S.

Kiss omank inta! Wayid shayif nafsik! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakan.A.S. (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? --John (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Munich massacre edits

Questions:

1) Why did you change the date format? Nobody had a problem with it before.

2) Why did you change the word "murdered" to "killed"? If used properly, "murder" is hardly a POV word. As defined in Wikipedia itself, the word "murder" is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)". That certainly seems to define what the Palestinians did to the Israelis - unless you believe that the terrorists were justified in doing what they did. The Munich operation was planned very carefully - the murder of the Israelis was certainly not a last-minute decision, but was very much part of the plan if the terrorists didn't get what they wanted. The terrorists made this obvious by killing two of the Israelis who resisted as the terrorists were breaking in.

3) For heaven's sake, why did you change the size of the photograph of the Israeli team? You made it so small that identifying the athletes - the purpose of putting the picture in the article in the first place - is impossible.

Inquiring minds want to know...

BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MOS and WP:NPOV.--John (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, okay... and? What does this have to do with your edits? BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Munich Massacre#Cleanup undone. --John (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who exactly appointed you the style police? Are you an administrator? The article is VERY well referenced. I'm starting to think that you're a Palestinian sympathizer whose sole motive is to sabotage the article. "Killed" vs. "murdered" is a clear distortion of the facts of September 5 - 6, 1972. Tags will be removed, as you are the only person who seems to have a problem with the article in its current form. BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am an administrator. I strongly advise you not to remove the tags unless you address the disputes I raised in article talk. Up to you of course. --John (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Pandas and ppl.jpg

I have removed the deletion notice. Firstly, I think aiming for the deletion of the image is misguided, as one use is clearly justified, while the other is debatable. Secondly, and more importantly, this deletion is contested in good faith by two longstanding editors (myself, an administrator who deals with a lot of NFCC issues and normally falls on the conservative side, and Hrafn, who is very familiar with the articles in which the image is used) and so it is not really suitable for pseudo-speedy deletion. If you still believe the image should be deleted, I reccomend you take it to IfD. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. This was not a request for speedy deletion. This is an astounding misunderstanding for an admin to be laboring under; the tag I added queries the correctness of the fair use rationale, but only for its use on the ID article. I accept it is fair use on the article on the book. --John (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the tag is added to challenge the legitimacy of a fair use rationale, but it is added with a view to delete the image. If you wish to challenge the legitimacy of a specific use, the article talk page is the best venue, but there is also the rarely use non-free content review. In any case, even if used in the slightly odd context of "tag this image for 7 days so that an edit is made to another article" format, which it never is (and probably shouldn't be- the very idea is ludicrous- so much so I have just changed the template) it should still only be used for non-controversial cases (of course, that would mean it wasn't needed- the image could just be removed. Again, ludicrous.). In controversial cases, the issue needs to be discussed, rather than tagged and removed. Frankly, I think you were a little short sighted to believe that tagging an image for several days would mean that you could uncontroversially remove it when there have been pages and pages and months and months of discussion on the talk page of the article (where the discussion belongs). Though your motives are sound, your methods here are ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with my thoughts on the template, you're welcome to comment here. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and listed it at FFD. Maybe this is the way to move this forward. We can't violate our own copyright policies like this. --John (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  08:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Clash: Live At Shea Stadium

I think it should be renamed: The Clash: Live at Shea Stadium??? Thanks in advance for your attention and time. Best regards. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.--John (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

John, thank you! I was not sure of the procedure to follow. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Munich massacre

Murder (as defined by Merriam-Webster.com): 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. (a COMMON term, my friend, not a LEGAL term)

It is you who is failing to address issues. We all know that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered, but STILL nobody's been convicted for it - therefore your "show me a conviction" argument doesn't hold water. Answer the basic question: was what the terrorists did to the Israelis in any way lawful or justified? If not, then it's murder. Plain and simple. Almost anyone you speak to in the civilized world will say that the Israeli hostages were murdered - unless you can present me with some legal justification for what was done to them.

I think we need a third party involved. I will talk to another admin I know and see if maybe you can be convinced that the term "murder" as it pertains to the Munich massacre is not POV.BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to that happening. Meantime I think we need refs for the two statements I previously flagged so I have restored the tags. --John (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

VK

Dear John, I read your comment at ANI. Thanks for your input, John. AdjustShift (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets hear ya then!

Lets hear ya then!

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kittybrewster_editing_disruptively--Vintagekits (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am tempted to block both of you. An utterly silly and needless dispute. Instead I think I will see what Arbcomm makes of it as that seems likely where this will go. --John (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right - funny that you only piped up against one party though and not a word about either KB or BHG! You are what I always knew you are.--Vintagekits (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Home-made

I noticed you made the Home-Made barnstar. Is there a ribbon alternative for it? If not, would you be interested in making one? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is none at present. That's an interesting idea; let me think about it. --John (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Diesel Photo

Hi John,

I manage several musical artists in the United States. I had a discussion about a month ago with one of my bands, The Honey Brothers, regarding the environmental and mechanical benefits of the diesel engine. That conversation led the guitar player to the "diesel" page on wikipedia, where he discovered the photo you took of the diesel rainbow on pavement. He fell in love with the photo and recently suggested that we use it as cover art for our forthcoming EP. The band is very involved in environmental issues and something in the image -- perhaps the deceptive beauty of that particular form of pollution -- inspired them.

At any rate, this will be a digital-only release (avail on iTunes, Amazon, etc.) but we will still need to have digital cover art. Would you consider granting us the right to use the photo? We would happily credit you as the photographer wherever possible. Please feel free to contact me anytime -- my username is "hoess".

Best wishes -

Hoess (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Sean Hoess Velour Music Group

The Honey Brothers website: www.thehoneybrothers.com

PS. Sorry about posting this to another discussion - I need a bit of training in the Wikipedia universe.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 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) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion

John, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 20:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Date De-linking Injunction

Please, given your date de-linking, be advised of and take note of this de-linking injunction. See [20]. Many thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

See where it says mass delinking? Correcting them one or two at a time like this is still ok and not affected by the injunction. Thanks though. --John (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I believe that you "corrected" more than one or two at a time. Actually, the mass of all dates in the article. And reading the history above the injunction, the matter at hand appears to concern editors who also change all the dates in one or two articles.--Ethelh (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the injunction just as you misunderstood the date linking issue in the first place. Please show where you think it says that. --John (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please revert

...your moves of the Objectivism articles. The philosophy of Objectivism is almost always referred to in capitalised form, as the lower case form refers to an entirely distinct position. An online search for "ayn rand" "objectivism" will show this very clearly. Regards, Skomorokh 02:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. --John (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See article talk. --John (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will follow up there. Another editor has reverted your move of Libertarianism and Objectivism. Skomorokh 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Bear/Bull markets external links

John ... I added those links because they are particularly descriptive and answer the most common question about market trends, ie. what were the worst bear markets of the past century? Both the bull and bear market slideshows provide a summary of the business and economic conditions of the time, and they give statistical information, including the duration of the (bull and bear) market trend, the month in which unemployment peaked, the duration and start/end of the recession, etc. Please take a further look and reconsider your edit decision. Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portraitsketch (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It was actually the Space Shuttle link I removed. Please join the discussion at Talk:Space Shuttle#Slideshow? and we can try to resolve this amicably for the best interests of the encyclopedia we are trying to build. Best wishes, --John (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for your patience

Thanks for your patience John, SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain your removal of my entry -Rangers FC

John can u explain your removal of my entry on the page above.

All the content is factual backed up with citations from multiple sources and relevant to the article. I have no conflict of interests and am in no way connected to any of the organisations mentioned.

I feel some form of independent arbitration is required in this instance.

I have complied with all the rules to the best of my knowledge and have been courteous in my dealings with other editors, requiring only debate before changes are made to an article I spent much time on preparing and researching.

I hope we can work this out in good faith and the interests of truthful, balanced and informative article.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

"I would not have been able to support per these two diffs."

Specifically, why? In the first, I removed a tag that wasn't helpful in that it had no specifics. I checked the article over and didn't find anything, so I removed it. Tags like these are generally useless without some specifics to address. In the second, the image had an appropriate fair use within Wikipedia consistent with other books. Removing it because others were trying to use it inappropriately on other articles wasn't the way to go. Neither were reflections on you personally.

"Although I found you a fairly helpful editor on the Hainan Island incident article when I finally got to improving it, it would also have been great if you had been able to give a little more help during the failed WP:FA process."

I'm not sure what else could have been done in the FA process. You seemed to have handled everything before I got to it (and quite well too). There wasn't any significant opposition, but a lack of support outside the contributors. I think it could be renominated again with less co-nominators and I could simply voice support for it, thus giving a more positive appearance of support. On that note, I think it could be nominated again. as-is right now. A few minor tweaks per feedback and it should sail through the process.

"You might also tone down your signature a little."

I've thought about that, but it has just become a fixture in my Wikipedia "life" and, while I respect your opinion, I think I'm going to keep it. It's distinctive without being too obtrusive.

Thanks for the feedback! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Would like to publish a photo you posted

John, I am interested in using a photo you posted of a Liberty Ship in a small magazine I do layout for. can you contact me at toni dot milak at gmail dot come? I appreciate it!

Toni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.246.131 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Email me using the email this user function. You'll have to register an account but that is easy and free. --John (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am really crunched for time - I can't find the "email this user" button quickly (in fact I don't even really know what I'm doing here, I'm just hoping you'll see this) so I am hoping you will be merciful and just send me an email at the one I listed above. I really appreciate it! 24.14.246.131 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Toni

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision

Hello John. This is just a quick note to inform you that you have been mentioned in the above proposed decision so you might wish to take a look at it. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I have queried where on earth that came from. --John (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, a recent case of similar size had 280 edits after Kirill posted the initial proposals, and another had 310 edits. other arbitrators often add alternative proposals if they think the initial drafter missed the mark. e.g. this one by NYB was what was eventually passed.

In the date delinking case, Kirill has already added a number of alternatives; I am sure others will as well. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed regrettable that you, and a few others like you, have been caught in the drift net. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. --John (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

CHSRA article - Can we keep locked 'til resolution found?

John, you locked the California High Speed Rail article due to a conflict or edit war. Can you keep it locked until we have resolution. It expires in a couple hours. In fact, I would like to participate further in the discussion because I feel the forwarded material is closer to vandalism than it being relevant to the article. Unfortunately, I will be out of town Friday through Monday for Memorial Day. Can it be closed/locked through the holiday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Track Legs (talk • contribs) 05:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done that. I think we may need some other input as we obviously can't protect the article long term. --John (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

?

Why you leave me message? What I edit for you? Please link me. Thanks to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.251.241 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

W. H. Auden

This article on an English poet incorrectly used the term "Anglo American" in the description. The term describes an American of English descent - not an Englishman, who moved to the U.S in his 30's and later took U.S citizenship (see the talk page). One user changed the description from English to Anglo American and reverts any changes back (over a very long period of time) - despite the fact they never gave reference or gained consensus for the change. Where can a matter such as this be put up for discussion other than with the editor who is intent in keeping the description?

92.11.250.240 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

All those crosses...

...in the 1918 flu pandemic article were actually many little instances of Dagger (typography). Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. They were pretty redundant as far as not adding any information to the article, weren't they? I believe German Wikipedia uses daggers this way. We, thankfully, don't. --John (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Somersetjim

Somersetjim (talk · contribs) is a new account, whose first edits were with respect to Northern Ireland's flag for football. Does this warrant a checkuser to see if it is an established user's sockpuppet to evade 1RR on "Troubles"-related edits? Is this even a "Troubles"-related edit? I suppose technically it isn't, but I am leery of any flag-related edit with respect to Northern Ireland. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it lit up my radar screen as well. For now I propose to just keep an eye on them and see what happens. What do you say? --John (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the right approach for now. I don't have any "Troubles" articles on my watchlist (I could care less about them), but I do have some NI sport-related articles and templates on my watchlist, and I do a lot of work with flags, so I'll keep my eyes on those areas. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ulster Banner

Listen I'm sorry if my edit attempts to insult anyone...but. Northern Ireland does NOT have a flag to represent them.. The Ulster banner is not the flag for all..well is it. The proper flag for Northern Ireland is the union flag.

The official flag for Northern Ireland is the union flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somersetjim (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See section above. This has been a long term controversy which I think a compromise has been reached on. --John (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am against the use of the UB on a lot of articles but on this one as it is soccer related and the UB is used in context of soccer in NI, I would have to agree that it remains in the template. BigDunc^Talk 08:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandal Wingzy

No doubt you would notice this anyway, but I thought it might be quicker if I dropped you a note. You have placed a "last warning" for vandalism on Wingzy talk page. The user has made at least 4 further vandalistic edits since the time you posted it: would you like to carry out the ban? I have been them one by one, but it is a complete waste of my time. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Somebody else got there first. --John (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The block doesn't seem to have taken effect, because he blanked out the blocking notice on his talk page. That shouldn't happen, should it? CanolaOilman (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We normally allow blocked users to edit their talk pages in case they want to request an unblock. Blanking of messages is specifically permitted as blanking warnings implies the editor has read them. However in this case as the editor has been abusive towards the blocking admin I have protected the user talk page to prevent this. Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your essay...

Hi John. Regarding your essay on your "part" in the date-delinking debacle, you might be able to get useful background information here. However, I would advise you to do everything possible to protect your sanity in this issue. The quicker you can move on and leave the horror behind, the better it will be for you. If you do manage to escape, perhaps you could occasionally think of those less fortunate than yourself (i.e. fallen comrades who were not fortunate enough to extricate themselves from the mire). Good luck.  HWV258  08:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thoughts. I will move on from this when I feel I have received a full and fair hearing by reasonable and responsive people. I am beginning to wonder whether this is possible but we shall see. --John (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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) 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Inserting images into articles

You seem to be experienced with Wikipedia, so I'll ask you. How do you put images into articles? I need help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterdude64 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I will try the image tutorial. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterdude64 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deflag

Hi,

Noticed you deflagged the article on BBC Radio Scotland. Is flagging considered bad practice or something?

Regards

G —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamstewart (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Graham. Thanks for all your great contributions on Scottish radio. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) embodies a consensus that adding flags like this adds no information, oversimplifies and overemphasizes nationality, and encourages lame edit wars (for example, was James Clerk Maxwell from Scotland or the UK? Are U2 from Ireland, when two of them were born in England?) It all got a bit ridiculous and we collectively agreed that just having the name was better all round. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

United States

Yes, you are right John. 'Most' is not a weasel word. The reason I am writing is to let you know that there will be no more United States edits from me!!
Thanks for the entertainment, chum. I will now try to find something else to do. Have you any positive suggestions? B. Fairbairn  Talk  20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. There is lots to do here; but I am the wrong person to ask at the moment. I wish you well in your career here. --John (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So long, and thanks for everything

After over 70,000 edits and three and a half years, I have been criticized, and it seems inevitable that I will be sanctioned, for a handful of edits which were not seen as problematic at the time, in a retrospective redefinition of WP:EDITWAR by a majority of our own amateur detectives. As I do not wish to edit here while under even the threat of a restriction I believe to be unjust and punitive, I hereby recuse from all further mainspace edits. I reserve the right to pursue an appeal if and when the sanctions are enacted, and I may well comment occasionally if I see further abuses of the governance of this project. While I am moderately bitter about the way this process has been handled, I remain a supporter of and an enthusiast for the idea of a free content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

If someone else could get Hainan Island incident to featured article status, that would be great. It's a major regret that I never achieved this during my time here.

So long. --John (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits

This usually happens to those who use their powers as an admin as a weapon rather than a tool. I saw this happening a long time ago. So long and good luck with whatever you decide to do next.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A sad day indeed

As someone who has also experienced undeserved hounding (I prefer "wiki-stalking) for doing the right thing in dealing with difficult users, I understand your frustrations, and I'm sad to see you go. This just further's my view that WP is becomoming more and more susceptible to a form of office politics, and that it matters more who you know than what you do. I've seen too many good editors nad andmins leave in my nearly 3 years here, while the truly bad and/or stupid admins are allowed to remain to make things harder on everyone else3 whose primary focus is the product. Good luck, and thanks for all your help at various times. Good luck in whatever you choose to do (Hopefully somewhere along the line maybe you'll start a product-focused Wiki where anyone can register edit, but the product is paramount.) :) - BillCJ (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh no John! I was looking forward to that ANI! Rats! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I've got another chance! - BillCJ (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a sad day for the project, there seems to be too many of those these day. One can't help feeling there is something seriously wrong when editors who have contributed so much effort and value to this project, been subjected to so much unwarranted abuse and offered such little support, are treated in such a shoddy manner. But depressing as it is to see good admins, but far more importantly, great editors, leave, its important to remember we lose only their future contributions, not their past. Good influences persist, both in the content they provided and the indelible marks they leave on those other editors. Good luck, John, and know that we - the community - appreciate your efforts. Rockpocket 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes a sad day, and I speak as a user who doesn't remember ever agreeing with you in any discussion we've had. Sadly, I suspect your suspicion that NYB was the only user to have read the case is, as with my suspicions about the Macedonia case and many others, probably correct. I would say appeal in an amendment after a dignified period of time, but even that probably won't get most the arbs to actually read the diffs[21] and it's probably too much to expect most of the arbs who voted against you to admit they made a mistake. On the other hand, the list of users who have unjustly become victims of ArbCom's unlimited power is growing and because of that it isn't such a bad place to be as it would have been a while ago. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Real life is less fickle. Be well and happy. Kittybrewster ☎ 02:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I sorta remember seeing you often in some area of Wikipedia, about a year ago. Anways, it's always frustrating to see an editor retire unhappy. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It always is very frustrating to see a user retire, especially an experienced one. With the little actual evidence that I saw against you, I am hugely disappointed that it had to come to all of this. I would just like to echo Rockpock, I appreciated your efforts wherever I saw them, and I hope that one day you will return. NW (Talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the kind messages of support. I really appreciate them. --John (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this and whilst I haven't followed this issue I just thought I'd add that I'm another editor who no longer edits regularly because I was criticised by two admins for using a template warning someone who had made thousands of major edits marked as minors and who then purported not to understand the minor edit help page. One of the admins, who didn't understand the minor edit flag and didn't bother reading the help page, was shortly after, promoted to the oversight function after a relatively short period editing Wikipedia, having been seen helping out in all the usual places frequented by Wiki climbers. I've got better things to do with my life. My commiserations. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a sad day. Why not have a look back at WP towards the end of the year? This will all seem distant by then, and the various restrictions will all eventually be lifted. Anyhow, best wishes in your non-WP life. Cheers.  HWV258  23:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A defense

While flipping through some old edits I saw User:John was a redlink and my heart sank a bit. That may sound odd as you may at best only vaguely recognize my username, but as a young Wikipedian a couple of years ago I came across your work (really your comments to other editors) under your prior user name (I think it was prior - the one that started with a "g") and was extremely impressed by your thoughtfulness and the respect with which you communicated with others. It was through your user page that I was first introduced to this, and I was immediately taken by this way of thinking about conflict and internet communities (being at the time very much a newbie in the world of online community philosophizing). I particularly liked how you introduced that MeatballWiki page on your own user page: "This is amazing! It sums up how we can use conflicts to build our community instead of letting them tear us apart. I recommend that everyone read it." That always stuck in my head, and whenever I wanted to find that MeatballWiki link (not infrequently) I simply returned to your user page, since that's where I first encountered it.

After watching a few ArbCom cases unfold as I became a more experienced Wikipedian, I hit upon the idea of letting all those who felt at risk of being sanctioned by ArbCom getting help from a "Public Defender," so to speak—a fellow Wikipedian who would defend the user in question, no matter their situation, if said user wanted someone to unequivocally stand by their side during an ArbCom case. For better or for worse, I never proposed this idea anywhere, but your user page combined with your general style of communication with other editors was the only reason I thought of it, and I always had in mind that I would stop by your talk page and ask if you thought that a "Public Defender Committee" (or whatever one might call it) was a good idea before proposing such a thing, and also ask if you would want to be a part of it.

While that bit of history is now apparently all too apropos, it's also a roundabout way of saying that I deeply regret you stepping back from the project, even though you and I don't at all know one another (I think we've interacted directly once or twice, though it's been quite awhile since we've crossed paths). But it's also a way of belatedly—too belatedly—acknowledging a fellow-editor for whom I've great respect, which is something we perhaps fail to do as often as we should. Just over a month ago I was stealing (see the last paragraph if you want to cut to the chase) a link off your user page and assuming I'd be able to do so indefinitely, without bothering to ever thank you for influencing my approach to Wikipedia in the first place. Consider this an overdue thank you, which is much better and more important than one of those snazzy barnstars.

Finally, if you do (and I certainly take you at your word) "remain a supporter of and an enthusiast for the idea of a free content encyclopedia that anyone can edit," then in my view you are by definition still an important part of this project, regardless of the current brouhaha with ArbCom, or the fact that you are retired. This too shall pass, as they say. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

John, I'll be retiring in disgust myself soon, I'm merely procrastinating over leaving the articles I started in some presentable form. The Arbitrators – every one of them, from Matetsky and Lokshin all the way down to an entity named "Wizardman" – are a joke. Evil clowns, the lot of 'em. I'm only happy that I did not vote for any one of the sitting arbitrators. The one I voted for got more than 50 percent but that wasn't enough to put him over the line. Don't blame me, I voted for Duane Glasscock! (little inside joke for people who remember 1980's Boston here.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to respond to this. You should exempt NYB from your criticism as he alone showed signs of having read the case and reviewed my (and others') contributions in good faith. I share your contempt for the other arbs who voted in advance of evidence, and for the overall conduct of Arbcom, and I share your perception that they are doing more harm than good when they jointly act as they did in this case. There needs to be some sort of oversight to protect users from such abuses of absolute power. --John (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

John ~ The Best Man on WikipediA!!!
(WHAT A BEEP!!!)

I'm stopping by to say a BIG-BIG THANK YOU for all the great job you did on WikipediA. Today is a really sad day for everyone here on WikipediA, and this is really bad news for us all. You were the first person I meet here on WikipediA. Every time I had a problem I have always asked for your help, and I have always received the maximum of support with the maximum of courtesy and competence. You are a wonderful, kind, intelligent, beautiful, generous person, truly an example for the entire community, and a real "help" for us all. I can not believe it!!! WTF!!! My biggest and most sincere THANK YOU, JOHN, with the best wishes for your future, hoping to see you soon again!

&#147;[Twelve] months he lingered in prison misery
Till the people rose in fury, in [Wikipedia] and [sister projects],
[Troll] and all his [sock puppets] were shaken to the core,
The prison gates were opened, and John was free once more:&#148;

¤ ~~•~~•~~•~~ ¤ ~~•~~•~~•~~ ¤ ~~•~~•~~•~~ ¤

&#147;Hundreds of young men, scattered throughout the country, in the sister projects and Wikipedia, heard the message from John, were inspired by John and now continue the work that death and death alone could force him to lay aside.&#148;

–pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Best regards John. Words fail me, an unusual circumstance. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sad Day

It is a sad day to see that you have retired. While I do not edit as much as I used to, there are a handful of editors whom I respected a lot and shaped who I am today as a Wikipedian. You were one of those. I hope you do choose to come back at some point but if not good luck with your future endeavors. It always makes me incredibly sad to see when THIS PROJECT itself drives away some of its most valuable contributors. Some IDOTS, especially IDIOTS with power, here don't recognize what they doing and are incapable of seeing the value of anything other than an immediate victory or enforcement of fairly pointless style guideline and would rather spurn those who have put there hours and days and years into this project. Again, this is a sad day and everytime I see the editors i consider great get pushed away I have less and less faith in this project. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 01:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Inequity

If someone wishes to take up this case a little later, here are some interesting facts to do with this dark corner of the date delinking case:

• John (talk · contribs) made one revert-type edit. John has no entry in his block log.
• Tennis expert (talk · contribs) made at least 750 revert-type edits. TE's block log includes a date-related block for: "Edit warring: Mass reverts over countless pages".

Both John's "remedy" and TE's "remedy" turned out to be exactly the same: "...subject to an editing restriction for 12 months" and "...prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline".
 HWV258  03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Too bad certain groups of people have there heads stuffed into dark locations to make decisions like this. A sad reality though that no matter how open something, and a site that touts the fact that everybody can edit, puts restrictions on a long time editor who made 1 or 2 bad edits. Just drop a note and ask them to stop or what not, get over yourselves arbcom. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 04:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support everybody, I really appreciate it. Per User:John/ArbcomAppeal though, it was definitely more than one revert I was sanctioned for. There may be as many as a dozen articles (among ~5000) where I made the same MoS correction more than once, in most cases inadvertently, in some cases (probably, as we are talking about events of six months and more ago) knowingly. I can definitely see why in the light of the controversy that later erupted over the practice, this was retrospectively seen as unhelpful and worthy of criticism. I cannot see though (per NYB, and HWV258 above, as well as others) why this is now deemed worthy of an editing restriction which effectively makes my continued participation in the project difficult or impossible. And, yes, the message is bad. If I (in the days when I wore an admin's hat myself) had seen another editor behaving as I was doing, and I was fully aware of the bigger picture (as I was not in real life), I might think it worth leaving a polite note on the person's talk page asking them not to do it, and pointing out that hitting the same articles more than once (even over a several-month period as in many of the edits I've been criticized for) could be seen as a form of edit-warring. If, hypothetically, I was an arbitrator, I would never impose sanctions for something like this that happened a long time ago, was very minimal, and was not criticized (to my knowledge) by anyone at the time. It is unjust. It is also unjust, as HWV258 says, to apply the same sanction to me as to Tennis expert, that seems clear. The whole way Arbcom as a whole has behaved here is a disgusting way to treat good faith contributors. More kangaroo court than High Court for sure. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?--John (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just read this; it might have been useful if someone had pointed me to it while the case was open. I find:

Arbitration is not a court case - All actions and general conduct (not just the direct issue) may be taken into account; arbitration is not a legal process with fixed approaches to problems. A person's general manner is probably evidence of their likely behavior going forward, old incidents may not be actionable but can sometimes show a persistent history of problems, and insightful impressions by reasonable people may be valuable, even if just "impressions".

and

Arguing about flaws in the arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make arbitrators look dimly upon you. Take the time that you could spend arguing about the details of process and apply it to trying to gather useful evidence. Pettifoggery is likely to create prejudice for your cause; a person will probably only wikilawyer when they realize they have no actual case.

but I don't see any actual opt-out from the principles of natural justice or audi alteram partem. Perhaps this needs to be explicitly added to the guide to arbitration, if it is to be part of Arbcom practice. It would be great if, going forward, the "accused" could be granted access to some sort of Public Defender as Bigtimepeace suggests above, and sufficient time to defend themselves before votes are cast. For a complex case like this a month wouldn't be unreasonable. I have a busy life and there are hundreds of pages of stuff to read. I still haven't read it all. As a minimum, clerks should inform victims participants of their rights and how to proceed. Arbitrators should insure that the punishment fits the crime. Otherwise we are in the realm of this, where you can be (metaphorically, virtually) killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would hate to think Wikipedia had become that sort of place. --John (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick note

I've never been a fan of the "please come back!" note, but I did want to leave you a note here. I noticed, somewhere on my watchlist, that your userpage had turned into a redlink, which is never a good sign. I haven't followed the date-delinking case at all, and so I don't have an informed opinion about the fairness, or lack thereof, of its outcome. I do know that while our paths have not often crossed, you have always struck me as a thoughtful, patient, sensible, and insightful editor and admin. Wikipedia does not exactly have a surfeit of editors with those qualities, to put it mildly. Such people are not easily replaceable nor an infinitely renewable resource, though we tend to act as if they are. It would be a loss to the project if you left, and you will be missed, though I understand that you should do whatever seems right to you. Best wishes whatever you decide, and I hope our paths will cross again. MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add a note to similar effect. We haven't run into each other much at all but I have always admired your editing and your cool head and I hope this matter gets resolved soon. Hell, I've delinked more dates than you have. Orderinchaos 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

John, While I still have the opportunity I would like to thank you for your help in the past. Whatever the final outcome may be (I consider this to be a case of “Rough Justice”), I wish you all the best. Memphisto (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the same redlink myself, and I am very sorry to see it. You've been a great admin and a great editor, and the project is worse off for your absence. I've criticised the catch-all punishment the committee has been handing out lately, where the benefits of damning all comers are seen as outweighing the damages of unfairly damning innocent and valuable bystanders. The damage from the latter is piling up, in the empty talk pages and big black bars appearing on the pages of our more significant human assets. It's all very unfortunate, that we let these disputes get to the point where "execute the lot of 'em" is a rational solution and that we pay so little attention to the cost of such bumbling. Good luck, John, I hope you find a hobby where you can contribute as meaningfully and avoid all the agita. (Maybe if you come back as a newbie, under a new name, you could squeak by under the radar at least until someone offers to nom you for RfA?). Nathan ^T 20:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		This is for being thoughtful and considerate to an old sparring partner. Sarah777 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just saying hi

I don't know if you remember me but I was sad to see that you have left Wikipedia. I never got to the point where I felt I was ready for admin status, because real life stuff got in the way for a while and I got out of the editing habit. But like you I still believe wholeheartedly in the principle of Wikipedia, and I also understand the problems with bureaucracy here (and everywhere...) So I'm sad every time someone gets driven out of the project as a result of Wikipedia politics... Anyway, I hope you're doing well in other respects. It was good to edit with you. --Galaxiaad (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I remember you. I've quite enjoyed taking some time out. If I do come back, it will be as a wiser Wikipedian. Very best wishes to you. --John (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you return now that your restriction has been reduced to an admonishment. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to see you return, John. You are, I believe, now vindicated, and you can be proud of the dignified way you have conducted yourself during difficult times. At the very least, you can take heart from the many editors who demonstrated how much they valued you and your contributions. All the very best, --RexxS (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all, very, very much. --John (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1 adopted

It would appear no clerk ever came by to notify you (or else I missed it???) but see [22] ... Congratulations are in order, the motion Rlevse proposed 18 July vacating the original finding has finally passed, and the remedy affecting you now reads

"John is admonished for edit-warring to remove the linking of dates."

rather than

John is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. John is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

What a relief! Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 06:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a great relief! Thanks for all your support.--John (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Amendment passed

Your request to amend the date delinking case has passed 7-0-2 and the case accordingly modified. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

right on Sssoul (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good decision! (I noticed you were reactivated :) Sarah777 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, John! Glad to see that justice was done here. - BilCat (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Great to be back. Now, there is work to be done...--John (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The wheels of justice grind exceeding slow.Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ECWC

It would be good for the pages to be changed. Mr Hall of England (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, just make sure you update the links to these pages as it makes a lot of work for others otherwise. --John (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 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) 19:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, John. You have new messages at Simon Dodd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, John. You have new messages at Simon Dodd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WQA

Per WP:NOTIFY, please be aware of Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:John.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Kenny MacAskill

Wowsers, I'm amazed that article didn't need protection over the last several days. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be super helpful if you could remove the stuff restored by this edit: [23]. Perhaps if rejection was more bipartisan he'd take the hint.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's semi-protected until the 27th, which is for the best. I'd say for now let the IP vent on the talk page and don't respond. If it gets to be a problem, ie detracting from work to improve the article, then I'll gladly sprot the talk as well. --John (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for your whitewashed version. I have reverted, filed a request for full protection on the page, and propose that we file an RFC to see what the broader community thinks.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John. You have new messages at Amalthea's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amalthea 09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Links

I don't see you telling that to the people putting in links to pro-Megrahi websites. There should be no double standards. I took out the pro-Megrahi links, but if people insist on putting those back in, then the anti-Megrahi links such as "Boycott Scotland" website should be there as well. Equal Progress (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:POINT to realize just how close you are coming to getting a block for this behavior. --John (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cough

[24] "Yeats grew up as a member of the former Protestant Ascendancy at the time undergoing a crisis of identity", "Yeats' childhood and young adulthood were shadowed by the power shift away from the minority Protestant Ascendancy.", and "He memorably said of his fellow Irish Protestants," - That is in the article and shows that he was an Irish Anglican. Please undo your action. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I read that before I removed the category, but there are more types of Protestantism in Ireland than Anglicanism, and it also isn't verifiable. I'd like to see a source, always, before such ethnic and religious categories are applied to biographical articles. Let's take this to article talk. --John (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Protestant Ascendancy was purely Anglican. Regardless: [25] or [26], both should be more than enough to confirm that the Ascendancy was Anglican and referred to Yeats. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Note, he was an Anglican, but his beliefs were very mystic based. So, he wasn't a very "good" Anglican. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, of that last link - Harold Bloom is a Jew turned Gnostic, and he promotes the belief of mystic being exclusive from Christian (but he still uses the Anglican as a cultural label). Complex, but yeah, there are many more sources describing Yeats as Anglican that are more cut and dry. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Songs

Hey! I just wanted to know what the policy is on songs. Which ones get articles? Thanks! Master Frederique (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Charted singles only. --John (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Burns Cottage

Are you an administrator? Your moving Burns Cottage (Alloway, South Ayrshire, Scotland) to Burns Cottage appears to have destroyed a disambiguation page that I had developed there. Even if the Scottish one is in fact the primary usage for the term as your edit summary suggests, it is unhelpful for you to remove all disambiguation. Could you please restore the disambiguation page with its edit history, perhaps placing it at Burns Cottage (disambiguation), and include a hatnote referring to it at the top of the Burns Cottage article? doncram (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an administrator. I was returning the article to the status quo version before your unilateral move. There's no need for a hatnote; the Georgia replica is mentioned and linked from the article on the primary topic. If you're moving any other articles, please have regard for policy and seek consensus in any controversial cases to avoid making the same mistake again. --John (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, whether a move is controversial is a matter of opinion, and it is hard to know what will be seen that way by someone. You may think I should have known my move was controversial. But when I moved the Burns Cottage article, apparently on 21 April 2009, I had different information than anyone else, namely that there was at least one other notable Burns Cottage, the one in Atlanta, Georgia, and I made a judgment that moving and disambiguation was appropriate. I don't recall whether the disambiguation page had just the two entries or whether I had found and mentioned others, too. As an administrator, you have the advantage of access to the disambiguation page that I had created. Since then, also, someone else added the link from the Scotland Burns Cottage article. I think you should have at least notified me of your different opinion, rather than using your adminstrator status to proceed with your own unilateral action and avoid seeking consensus, yourself. If there was not any other entry on the deleted disambiguation page, though, and given the Scotland cottage article has been revised, I agree that the current articles are okay without more heavy-handed disambiguation like a hatnote. doncram (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There were only the two entries. It's like having a disambiguation page between a real city and a toytown replica of the city. The main topic gets the main entry and then the replica gets a mention in the article. No hatnote, no dab page. I think you should definitely seek further opinions before making any further page moves of this type, as I think any admin would have acted as I did. If you feel strongly about this I will be happy to get a third opinion, but I really think the best is for you to learn from this and move on. Your call. --John (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You can read what i said above, and acknowledge your own error, or not, too. Thanks for checking about what the disambiguation page said, though. doncram (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 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) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyberfox

Spot-on. I'm starting to lose my faith in humanity Wikipedians. Abusive socks wherever one goes. :(
Amalthea 21:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Entschuldigung dass ich so dumm bin, aber kannst Du erklären ein bisschen? --John (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Cyber Fox was just blocked for socking, and you seem to have seen that coming. And since there was WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Removal of administrative access only yesterday ...
Amalthea 06:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that makes sense. Yes, I got a very strong whiff of sock from that one... --John (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please comment on Zenfolio stub at my talk page. I appreciate very much. Thank you. ESCapade (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Salvador Allende

Hello: I saw that you deleted the Wikilink to his last Speech with an edit summary of "CE". What does that mean? I checked the article and I didn't see another wiki-link to the speech, so it's not a duplicate. Likeminas (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's summarized later in the article. --John (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure there's tiny fraction under the "death" section but no link to the entire speech. I believe it's appropiate to have in. By the way, what is 'ce'?Likeminas (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest raising it on article talk. "ce" means "copyedit". --John (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources used to impute Salvador Allende to have received payment by KGB to win the Chilean elections are very dubious. Those are severe accusations and should be subject of discussion. Now you and others are making those accusations to look as facts!! That is very destructive for the soul of Wikipedia!! Are you expert on Chilean history taking the right to make those criminal accusations?

Motorway stuff

Hiya John, hope ya don't mind as I've aligned your vote with the others. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --John (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way welcome back. If I'm correct, you had 'retired' for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I got mugged by a rogue 'arbitrator', and considered retiring. The reversal of the rogue arbitrator's sanction against me, and the wide support I received from the community, persuaded me to return. --John (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

John, I have moved the M2 motorway (English version) off the primary location as per standard practice. Someone (apparently with Admin powers) has revert my move without any explanation. Could you please ensure they don't do that again; or revert if they do? Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Request.

Hi John, I would like to make a request from you, and this would really restore my faith. Now that the motorways are at status quo again, and now subject to debate, can you do one thing that's uncontroversial just as you did for BritishWatcher. Move this N2_road_(Republic of Ireland) to this N2_road_(Ireland), as the road is an all island connective roadway. Thanks. Tfz 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tfz. I considered this request but, firstly, I consider your request to be based on a fallacy: the road in question is only within the RoI (it so happens that I know it well), and also because I think this should be discussed on article talk. Sorry. --John (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

However, I then looked at the history and saw the logic in your request to return to the stable version, so I moved it back. Hope that helps. --John (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John, much appreciated. Tfz 12:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Victor

I went in search of evidence of something I was convinced of, (I don't know why). I've always written it Handley-Page. Never mind, I've changed it all back(I think)Petebutt (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism

Greetings John

I am currently editing the article Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd. A certain editor designated [Severino] has persistently erased all the relevant additions to the article with no applicable explanation for the aforementioned actions. I kindly request your assistance in this matter. It would be most appreciated if you could verify that the increments comply with Wikipedia's terms & regulations. Thank You for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely Editor 77.54.19.7 (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please raise this at Talk:Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd. See also WP:NOTVAND. --John (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, these IPs are a link spammer trying to get his film linked. See [27] and [28]. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Aluminium

Thanks for the explanation. I assumed incorrectly that you were simply replacing the main contributor's preferred spelling with your own preferred spelling. Although I often consult WP:MOS, I'd never looked at the chemistry MOS. Interesting. "Caesium" I'd never seen before, only cesium. Finetooth (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You nearly had to explain to me as well. That makes at least three editors who have been reverting you. Please start putting a link to the guideline in your edit summaries rather than just "sp" which makes it look like you are going against ENGVAR. Not everyone is going to be familiar. SpinningSpark 06:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. --John (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

John, please note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry) only applies to chemistry articles. Wire and plastic are not chemistry articles, therefore "aluminium" is not used exclusively. Wizard191 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. How is plastic not a chemical article? It describes a class of chemicals! --John (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, John

You're as rude as they come among the editors (I thought I was bad). I won't share with you the membership directory, but I will keep my guard up against your vandalism, believe it and believe me. Thanks again!SLY111 (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)SLY111

See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:NOTVAND. Next time's going to be a block for you; it's no trouble for me, just one click of a button. I'd rather not of course, but you are awfully close to getting there. No more names unless they come with a source that I (or any editor) can check; no more snarky insults. Your call. --John (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Cool?

Quit deleting the Notable Member section with its reference on the W.H.S. entry. You're hot for this folly. Again, the membership directory is an impeccable source. Do you question that I own one? If not, quit deleting the section. I am incensed that it has been deleted again.SLY111 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)SLY111

I'm sorry you're incensed. No, I do not dispute that you own one. Nevertheless, unless these items can be verified to a third-party published source that anybody can check, we cannot use them. Sorry again. --John (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Societies

Although I don't agree with the way this was handled, I see that John has a point. SLY insists he has a copy of a membership roster. Perhaps he does. Who knows? These things get around. In any case, they're not online nor in the public library. So there's no way of assessing the veracity of membership lists, unless the information appears in news accounts or autobiographies – or is posted on a member's personal website (as has happened). So I agree that unless the membership can be confirmed by the reader with a valid source – just as the rest of wikipedia operates – the names should be dropped. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's just about verifiability. --John (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 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) 00:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi John. Can you continue our conversation at Talk:Arbeit macht frei? Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

H. F. Verwoerd

Why did you eliminate the content published on the article Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd? Aardwolf777 (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I didn't think your additions improved the article. Because I know a little of the background to this. --John (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: I blocked the two sockpuppet accounts and reset the page protection. Same spammer. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: No worries about the pun. =) I'm happy to take care of it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology please - Libelous Status Quo accusations

I think you need to be careful making such accusations willy nilly John. I can't do anything about my IP address automatically changing when I turn my router on and off can I and exactly what evidence are you using to call me a block evading sock puppet? I haven't tried to evade any blocks and haven't had any warnings to suggest anyone was thinking of blocking me - surely you should receive a written warning first before people like you make such scandolous accusations. Apology expected please - otherwise legal action will be taken. 79.72.254.229 (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.254.229 (talk)

John, I've placed a legal threat warning on the talkpage of this IP. - BilCat (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

John I apologise for making that Legal comment - it was said in the heat of the moment and I have no intention of progressing. However, I do think it is unfair to accuse me of sockpuppeting and IP hopping without the evidence to back up those claims. 79.72.254.229 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. So you are nothing to do with this then? --John (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't create the page the link directs me to - that looks like it was created by someone called daedelus. Anyway, as I said on the status quo page, there is no evidence to show that I had acted as a sockpuppet or an IP hopper on the subject of the Quo's repetitive music. It is for being accussed of acting as a sockpuppet and IP hopper on that subject that I would like an apology. 79.72.248.63 (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Evasive answer noted. Apology declined. --John (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear John. Clearly it is going to be impossible to have a reasonable disussion with you without it resulting in you unnecessarily blocking this page. If you look back on the comments in this section I was making positive suggestions towards improving this article - suggestions that I have already proved the vast majority of 'reliable' sources that you and your colleagues seem to doggedly stick by here would agree with. I only objected to being accused of something that you are yet to give any non-circumstantial evidence for. How do you know that I am not a completely different person to the him/her that is referred to in the record you keep directing me to? I think that the general rule applied in most countries is innocent until PROVEN guilty. (HA - answer that!) All i'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that someone with the position of a wikipedia editor takes it upon themselves to make outrageous accusations without any robust evidence to back their claims up with.

Next step is for you to protect this page (quo discussion) I suppose ....

Yours Sincerely

79.72.155.152 (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll protect the talk page if I have to. I'd rather not, in case there is any well-referenced material an unregistered editor wishes to add, though I do not see this from you so far. --John (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

W.H.S.

Thanks for the coaching, and the "lawn" edit.

I've "killed" mention of the former Third Society from almost all member bios entries. The "category" link remains, however, until I can find references, probably from the Skull and Bones book written by the Scroll and Key woman, and a few member bios. I'd link the bios to W.H.S. page for those with an appropriate reference.

I've read bios of Charles Ives, Stephen Vincent Benet, Paul Moore with mention of their membership. Benno Schmidt was quoted by the Yale Daily News that he wouldn't set foot in the Hall until W.H.S. tapped female undergraduates.

Books about Yale -- My Harvard, My Yale and Yale - A History, for example -- mention members and their membership, so the list will be shorten but return, with at least thirteen notable members: the above-mentioned, plus Malcolm Baldrige, Jr., Sam Chauncey, Alfred Whitney Griswold, Edward Harkness, Lewis Lehrman, Douglas MacArthur II, Rogers C.B. Morton, Thurston Ballard Morton, and Paul Moore, Sr..

The Elihu entry reads better with the edit of Notable Members; contrasted with the Manuscript or Book and Snake or Berzelius entries, the former is a better example of a worthy entry.

In the end, I offer that the Phelps Association membership directory was THE REFERENCE for the Wolf's Head Society NOTABLE MEMBERS section; however, gregarious preppy that I remain, I'll play by the rules as written. Before your edit, I'd never been challenged on the membership of a listed Notable Member, though I had noticed that the Skull and Bones and Scroll and Key entries had referenced notable members from a source other than the respective membership directories. Live and learn.

Thanks again, SLY111SLY111 (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You're totally welcome. I am sorry I had no choice but to block you. If you ever need any help with anything just say. --John (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WHS and like entries in Wikipedia

First, greetings from cyberspace. Second, I'm pissed that entries for undergraduate organizations similiar to W.H.S. -- Tiger Inn, Porcellian Club, Princeton Tower Club, Fox Club, Cap and Gown Club, University Cottage Club, and Ivy Club -- have unreferenced "Notable Members". My first inclination is to write you on this matter; my second inclination is to edit as soon as possible, of course with explanation in DISCUSSION, each entry mentioned above, and then to see if other Yale society entries and like groups at Cornell and Dartmouth are as well researched as my favorite entry. Help me here. With cheer, SLY111 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)SLY111

If they refer to living people they should be removed per WP:BLP (put that in the edit summary). If they are non-living people, a {{cn}} tag should be added per WP:V. If no reliable source is added in a reasonable time, say a week or two, you can remove it then. Any problems, let me know. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Another question

John, what is the "spam filter list"? I was hopeful of using info from "associated content" and the warning appeared. Be well.SLY111 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)SLY111

Stella Vine

Please could you have a look at this article and my attempts to 'clean it up'. I would really appreciate your opinion of my edits and the resulting reverts! Many thanks Memphisto (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at article talk. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response John. I will respect your opinion, although I don't understand why a larger consensus does not apply to this particular article. Memphisto (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have repliede to you on my talk page Cabbawoo (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Humourous > Humorous

Well done with your recent crusade against this misspelling! I have similar things going on with a couple of other frequently-misspelt words and was impressed by your thoroughness here. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. --John (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Aurora (astronomy)

Apostrophe abuse - nice one![29]. Cheers! HarryAlffa (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It is on my list of most-hated grammar errors so it leaps out of the article to me. --John (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I appreciate your message. Yes, if you would like to help, please do. It would be great to get Artis the Spoonman up to Good Article or even Featured Article status.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rough Diamond

Thanks for the invitation to create an account. I already have one, but don't bother logging in for minor changes like link disambiguation or syntax errors. Cheers 68.124.183.85 (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

CE of synthetic diamond

Many thanks for copyedit of diamond and synthetic diamond. Just a note on boron in a chamber - that does not mean a trivial fact that when boron is in a chamber, you can't grown pure diamond. It means that once boron was ever introduced into a chamber, it can not be used anymore for growth of pure diamond - cleanup is so difficult that in practice it is just abandoned. I can clarify this in the article but your help would be appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --John (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified; I can't access this which I assume contains the info you refer to. --John (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can email you "that", but that is 45 pages of reading :-) If you're interested in details, the chamber is originally clean (for high vacuum) "boron" is usually diborane gas, not a solid coating or something, but even those residues which inevitably stick to the walls do "ruin" the chamber. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to read it if you can be bothered sending it. Never worked with diborane but of course am familiar with it theoretically as it has highly unusual bonding. --John (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning IP vandals

quite agree. just as was done on your user page last week!

[30]

Leaky Caldron 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I hadn't noticed that. --John (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

NP

Leaky Caldron 17:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Metamaterial

Just to brief you: the entire metamaterials topic needs a good look, for English style and partly for physics. I promised to do, but got diverted. Its mostly not my field, but my gut feeling is it is of high importance (the inventors are potential Nobel candidates). If you find time for that - great, if not - never mind. Metamaterial started as a stub and now is an umbrella. Daughter articles are linked as "main article" in the individual sections. Materialscientist (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I came on all these articles when checking your contribs and they are excellent, just in some cases needing a copyedit, which is my thing. Thanks for your good work on them and for welcoming me so collegially. --John (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

John, thanks indeed, but Rfa has nothing to do with that. I'm not a native speaker - can copyedit, but can barely write - and the author of metamaterials umbrella is a beginner. If you don't mind to quickly brush articles it would be helpful. I have no idea what you like reading and naively though metamaterials are fun. Forgive me in advance for my annoying character. Didn't mean to bother you, you just start popping up in my watchlist too often :-). Materialscientist (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not in the least bit annoying. I just wanted to explain why I started editing these articles. Thanks again. --John (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Districts of Portugal

You asked whether I had consenus for moves. Maybe this also referred to the district moves. To comply with the request by one user I started: Talk:Districts of Portugal#RfC. TrueColour (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Heavy water

Hi, you labelled this[31] as a copy edit. I reverted as it seemed substantially more than this. Sorry if you had very good reason for this, just thought it would be better to have more info than less - although I make no claims to special knowledge. Maybe drop something on the talk page? Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the diff before editing it? If you did, which part did you disagree with? Cheers. --John (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I saw with it was that it was more than a copy-edit. You removed:

• Since this war, heavy water has played a part in a number of reactor designs, both in designs for power and for nuclear weapon-making.
• (although in a few tests, volunteers drinking large amounts of heavy water have reported dizziness, a possible effect of density changes in the fluid in the inner ear ). For example, a 70 kg human containing 50 kg of water and drinking 3 litres of pure heavy water per day, would take almost 5 days to reach 25% deuteration and about 11 days to approach 50% deuteration. Thus, it would take a week of drinking nothing but pure heavy water for a human to begin to feel ill, and 10 days to 2 weeks (depending on water intake) for severe poisoning and death. In the highly unlikely event that a human were to receive a toxic dose of heavy water, the treatment would involve the use of intravenous water replacement (due to possible intestinal dysfunction and problems with absorption of fluids). This would be done via 0.9% (normal physiologic) saline solution with other salts as needed, perhaps in conjunction with diuretics.

Which, discounting any view on veracity, is more than a copy-edit.

Some of this material I think is true, other parts I'm not so sure. I agreed with your actually copy-editing, but the removal of this info seemed a bit of a stretch to come under copy-edit. Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems we disagree then over what a copy-edit is. See also Talk:Heavy water. --John (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Football Hooliganism article

Hi john i was wondering if you could give me a hand with something, i undid an edit on the article in question by Dublindillitante on the Ireland section because it had little refs, was very pov and had inclusions that had nothing to do with hooliganism. I advised the said person to go to the discussion page to see if this was acceptable with other editors, he has refused and just undid the change. I am not wanting to get into another edit war with someone so i need some assistance with this. Thanks(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, I will take a look. --John (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please double-check the page of base (clothing)

Hi, John, yesterday you deleted a page Base (clothing)[[32]] for the reason of copyright infringement, but as a matter of fact, I had permission to use the content of shirtsmyway-the dress shirt base. I had written to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to explain the whole thing, and the author of the article Mr. Peter Crawfurd also wrote to prove that my use of his writing is not copyright violation, so I will be so glad if you could consider my page again. Thanks a lot! -- forrest(talk) 03:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy John's Day!

User:John has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as John's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear John! Peace, Rlevse 00:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--John (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You worked like magic, like you're a "vandal off" switch. Many thanks! :-) FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! --John (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slaughter Disc

I found seven reliable sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit summary

Re your message: Glad to hear that you noticed and it brightened your day. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Hi i was wondering if you could give me a hand with something? Contentious material is continualy being reinserted into the Scottish Football Association article without consensus, the editor has already been advised to go to the talk page before attempting to reinsert the text, this is creating an edit war which will eventualy come to the attention of admins which i would want to avoid.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Hmm. Let me take a look. --John (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 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) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

agents provocateur

...not agent provocateurs! My French is awful, thanks for the correction. Rockpocket 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Hang in there Rock, I think sanity will prevail, it did (eventually) for me. --John (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway killings

"Mr. Alphabet Soup"? giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate tendency of one particular editor in this discussion to lard absolutely every comment with multiple links to policies, diffs, and God-knows-what. Especially when dealing with experienced editors, it can come across as patronizing. I think there is an essay about it somewhere. --John (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Chunk o' text defense is the essay I was thinking of, but I was really thinking of a discussion I had with the essay's author on its talk page. --John (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

John, for Christ sake don't give "a certain user" ammunition or we'll end up back on the feckin' arbitration page for "personal attacks". (I thought it was funny though!) Jdorney (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to strike any part of my comment that anybody finds offensive. I am entitled within limits to express my frustration about other users though; I think it falls the right side of the WP:CIVIL line and certainly isn't a NPA issue. Glad you found it funny! --John (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, no matter how frustrated you are with him it's not as much as I am. Jdorney (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Boxers nicknames again

You were recently involved in a discussion with regards boxers nicknames. There is a continuation of that discussion with specific reference to Audley Harrison on the BLP page here. Please feel free to add your opinion there once more. Regards. Vintagekits (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will have another look. --John (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Awww, thank you! Homemade ones are the best. :) --Elonka 19:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits

I see you have joined the crowd trying to get Vk banned, on the grounds that he "is not a net benefit to the project". Could I point out that the ranks of the Administrators would be greatly reduced if that became a criteria for banning them? Sarah777 (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. You are welcome to hold any opinion you want about the quality of our volunteer administrators such as myself. I personally welcome criticism and review of my own actions. The reason Vintagekits (and perhaps also Domer) have, in my opinion, become "not a net benefit to the project" is because of the pernicious nationalism which infects almost their every action. I detest nationalism, regarding Irish nationalism, English nationalism, American nationalism and Scottish nationalism as all being equally bad, lazy, harmful beliefs, exactly akin to racism. I am absolutely certain that here on Wikipedia they do far, far more harm than good. Those unable to see this, even after multiple chances to reform, need to be shepherded away from this project I think, whatever the particular brand of nationalism they believe in. I hope this explains my !vote. PS thanks for saying I was "cute"; I relish compliments and barnstars in a way that is almost childish. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Bay city rollers bye bye baby cover.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bay city rollers bye bye baby cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Element pronunciations

I encourage you to read the respelling key (WP:RESPELL) before attempting to adjust the respelling pronunciations of any further chemical elements. "i", when used in respelling, is pronounced as the "i" in "bit" (with an "ih" sound), which is incorrect the the -ium suffixes of elements, hence why "ee" is used in accordance with the aforementioned key. Regards, --Cybercobra (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done. Did you seek consensus before adding these pronunciations? Do you have a source for these pronunciations? It strikes me we could take them down if they are going to be more trouble than they are worth. --John (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See here. --John (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Delink dates for AWB

[33] Use with caution and at your own risk. Rich Farmbrough, 07:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

Thank you. --John (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome unblock review

Thanks for looking at that. If he convinces you that he'll change his behavior going forward, no objection to an early unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --John (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Post

I removed a nasty little post,[34] but of course revert if you want to keep it. An anon posted and added a user's name. Ty 01:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Communications

Hi John. I saw your post on Malleus's page regarding a discussion he was having with GWH. If an admin is unwilling to discuss editor concerns and doesn't want posts from particular editors on their talk page, then I think it's only reasonable to expect that admin to avoid posts or involvement in said editors affairs. I don't think it's fair, reasonable, or appropriate for an admin to cause disruptions and to engage in antagonistic and disruptive behaviors and then to prohibit those affected from discussing the relevant issues on their talk page. That's exactly what talk pages are for, and it should be noted that GWH has never shown any hesitation in posting confrontational and antagonistic warnings on the talk pages of editors he doesn't care for. I don't see any personal attacks in the discussion where reasonable concerns over his behavior were being discussed. I would hope that he would reflect on the feedback he's getting. But at the very least, if you're going to ask editors not to post on his page then it's only fair to expect him to avoid involvement and posts being made on their pages, especially since he's the one with the tools and authority to sanction. Right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you back off from this conflict for now and decide if it is a priority you feel you need to pursue, or if it is something you could afford to let go of. If, after mature deliberation over a few days, you decide it is the former, you should probably initiate a user RfC or a RfArb. Let me know if you need any further help. --John (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I appreciate your input. And I certainly understand the expediency of choosing my battles. But when there are disruptive patterns of behavior that go unaddressed they don't seem to get better on their own. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Was there any good reason for imposing US spelling in this edit to Recent African origin of modern humans? I have skimmed through the article and can see no reason, on the basis of WP:ENGVAR, for overriding the default of retaining the existing version. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Vigourous" is not correct in any variant of English. Thanks for caring about spelling. --John (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realised my mistake, and tried to remove my above comment, but got an edit conflict as you were replying at the same time. Sorry. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's like "humourous" and "labourious"; they look like they might be British English variants, but they aren't really. --John (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Goins.jpg

File:Goins.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Goins.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Goins.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sopwith

On the whole I liked your edit - just wondered if we should really keep the separate "Sopwith" link BECAUSE it refers to the company rather than its specific product. Can see your point that it doesn't really add much. In fact one could say it is only there as a side effect of "elegant variation" in the text. I honestly don't think it makes a great deal of difference either way - by all means cut the link if you feel strongly it shouldn't be there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I know the edit I made was stupid, and you were right to remove it. I just find that woman offensive. If she were lying to blind people rather than the obese, there would be outcry. It will be the only childish edit I make. Thank you. Spiderclunge (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Please don't do it again. --John (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for reverting the text on the Cannock entry - I don't know whether you've read the discussion page but there was some long debate about what population count to use - seems like someone just swanned in edited and then deleted their entry. Thanks againAprhys (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom

Since you have contributed to List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom, this is to inform you of a discussion which I have started at Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom#Criteria for inclusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Maiden, Iron

No! Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 02:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Los Angeles Times

Please note the diff page for the above article. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry(2)

Re the Avantime Link. I presumed it was an OK link as it is the same as the other link that has been retained. It is not an advert (as the club is not for profit) and the website has a large public section with a lot of info on this model. We are (unlike the other link) approved by the manufacturer and hold documents for them on these models, we reply to enquiries from anyone, member or not. If this one in not allowed, then no link to any external page should be allowed. You link to Renault UK and that can hardly be called none advertising.

Orphaned non-free image File:BeckGoldenFeelings.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BeckGoldenFeelings.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

This edit to Music of Final Fantasy VIII raises a couple of very significant questions about your conduct as an administrator:

(1) Your initial intervention into an ongoing content debate involved an entirely unprovoked, very belligerent threat in edit summary ("only restore this if you are tired of being able to edit here..."). This sort of ugly expression would be highly objectionable from a newbie, let alone an administrator from whom we expect example-setting behavior.

(2) You appear to have an overinflated sense of your individual ability and right to identify supposed "copyright violations". The article's Talk page reveals a considered discussion of the status of the image in question and whether its inclusion in the article abides by our relevant policy and content guideline. Your summary deletion of the image was prima facie inappropriate in this context. This misbehavior was compounded by your disdain for the good faith, policy-mindful discussion taking place on the article's Talk page, a disdain demonstrated by your absolute lack of participation there or on any other relevant Talk page.

I look forward to reading your thoughtful apology for these actions, so obviously unworthy of a Wikipedian accorded the powers and responsibilities of an administrator.—DCGeist (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No apologies to make, old chap. Edit-war to restore material that has been identified as a copyvio, and you will be blocked. I meant what I said. No amount of good faith blethers on an individual article's talk page can overturn our mission, which is to serve free content. If you want to talk about "example-setting behavior", please adhere to our policies. Thanks. --John (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Any old random editor can "identify" an item of fair use media as a "copyvio". Most such identifications, as you know as an experienced contributor, are baseless and silly. Are you claiming that an authoritative determination, reached through appropriate analysis and discussion, that the use of File:EyesOnMeSmall.jpg on Wikipedia constitutes a copyright violation has been made? Amazing. I have been following the analysis and discussion of this image very closely, and I was not aware that such a determination had been made. Please direct me to the diff explicating that determination and I will swiftly inform all of the other concerned parties.

And, just to follow up on an earlier point: You made an unprovoked, very belligerent threat in edit summary, and—far from apologizing for that deeply uncivil, un-Wikipedian act—you're proud of that behavior? Is that correct?—DCGeist (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest staying away from this area if you find it hard to understand. It's actually rather easy to understand and apply our policies on non-free content. --John (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

depeche mode

hello, please do not remove information that references this as your conduct as a admonistrator is not convenient for the progress of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar.dm (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is English perhaps not your first language? No need to worry if so, but you have to accept that your writing is technically not very good. More importantly you always need to adhere to WP:V when adding material. Hope this helps. --John (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 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) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Accidental New Page

Thanks for reverting that change. I just clicked the New section tab in Beta and it for whatever reason created a new page. When I tried clicking Undo, the page took so long to load it crashed my computer. Anyway, just wanted to report this as a potential glitch. I only intended to use the New section tab for making a new section, not a new page. I used it the last time making a new section and it didn't do this. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I am having another issue. I'm trying to create the new section without using the New section tab, but while shown on the Table of Contents, it does not appear at the bottom of the page. I've never seen Wikipedia act like this. I tried using the link to refresh the cache and checking again, as well as making sure the section wasn't erroneously included in the hat tag at the bottom. Maybe I'm just making a newbie mistake, but am not sure what I am doing wrong, sorry. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out. It was multiple hat tags, one inside another, so the new section needed a show link within the other show link. Once I corrected the last user's mistake the new sections show up. Sorry about that. Am still not sure though why the last time using the New section link a new page was created though. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Robertrade#December 2009

I fully agree with you in that the links are inappropriate, but don't you think starting with uw-spam3 is a little extreme? I think just wafting the scent of "possible consequences" would be more effective then such a direct threat, especially on an entrepreneurial/business type like Robert. Warning him that things may escalate will make him reconsider his actions, telling him things have already escalated will just put him on the defensive, and for blokes like Robert the best defence is an offence. Most likely there'll be no problem with this, but there's never anything too bad about starting with warnings gently. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What gives?

You are depopulating[35][36] a very important category. Surely we can come to smoe sort of compromise...--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I took the category off two articles, yes. What is the encyclopedic value of the category, or are you joking as I suspect? --John (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I know what I said was slightly... topical and offensive, but I'm sure your aware of Irvine22's history, and I think it is evident with a lot of people that its wearing thin! I will continue to have a neutral stance in topics, this was just a one off! Happy new year!--NorthernCounties (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Epsilon Pi

Hi. I'm curious why you deleted the flags off of this article. Is having them against the MOS? I'm just asking because I really don't know.

In addition, there are 16 citations on this page. Rather than tagging the entire page as refs needed, wouldn't it make more sense to use {{fact}} tags where necessary?

Thanks. --Mblumber (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MOSICON which discourages the use of flags in this way. Or, just ask what the flags add to a reader's understanding. --John (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)