This is an archive of past discussions about User:JohnInDC. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It was not my intention to make this personal. I considered your comment regarding what "Most of us manage" fell under the category: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". My first interaction with John from Indgeon was when he turned up at my talk page. In a subsequent exchange he told me "you should keep your damn mouth shut" ...and yet he is complaining so soon about another editors incivility? Tommy Pinball (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Whatever your intention, it was personal, and I resent the implicit comparison you drew between the highly uncivil editor under discussion and my conduct. As for John from Indegon, if you want to call him out on his hypocrisy, do it at his Talk page. If you think the observation will advance the discussion at ANI too,make the point and quit. Don't instead sabotage reasonable discussion among editors who are just trying to help, and with whom you have no history at all. JohnInDC (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a huge difference in pointing out to someone who comes into a help forum, blatantly gives someone advice that is about as wrong as it could be for the subject matter, then comes at you like you have done something wrong by pointing it out to him, "if you don't know the right answer, you should keep your damn mouth shut, or better yet, admit it and ask someone who does". Not exactly what he has painted for you here. And no comparison to you calling a vandal a vandal, or to the subject of the ANI calling another editor stupid.
He had advised a brand new editor at the Teahouse to move her article from AfC, implying that the AfC reviewers don't know what they are talking about, to mainspace by cut and paste. I had an admin clean it up by asking for assistance at AN, and I pointed out to him directly that was the wrong answer, why it was the wrong answer, and that he isn't helping anyone by giving wrong answers at a help forum. He tried to defend his advice and I responded with the exact policies involved and the quote above. It may not have been the best way to approach another editor, but it seemed right for this editor and he has confirmed that with his behavior at ANI.John from Idegon (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I know: With Michigan watchlisted, I noticed a reversion accompanied by an uncivil edit summary. I made an entry to that effect on the user's Talk page and watchlisted that too. By that means I became aware of the ANI discussion opened by John from Indegon, and there added my own observation that the subject editor does, in fact, appear to be uncivil. I don't care about the rest of this except insofar as it sheds light on Markwpalmer64's behavior and attitude - and I have yet to see that it does. JohnInDC (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
From Markwpowell64
John: Again this is the first msg of the sort I've sent in Wiki. If I knew how to "shut off" my talk page I would. If this silliness continues I will simply deny Wiki my legion factual corrections, leaving Wiki that much more the poorer and less credible. You people who seem to hate or at least disdain facts (the basis and font of journalistic and academic credibility) and subordinate them to *unsupported* egos -- and snarl at an editor who puts facts first and occasionally makes condign, overdue observations on the incompetence, negligence and/or other forms of decrepitude of other "editors" -- are not best advancing or, on many or most occasions, at all advancing Wiki.
The only thing in your note with which I agree is that size v. alpha order for those states is not a factual/correction issue, and should not be the point of a serious back-and-forth as would be necessary with, say, some lunatic "editor" insisting and continually re-posting that, say, John Glenn was first person rather than first American in orbit. (I don't pick that example randomly. An important governmental entity inside the D.C. Belt insists that lunatic notion [no Gagarin; no Titov] is actually true, and has long fanatically refused to correct it in a glass-enclosed public "educational" display. Such examples are massively legion [read, thousands] in my files, with "top" and "leading" academic and journalistic sources.)
I challenge you or anyone who knows how to follow such things to examine my complete record of Wiki factual corrections -- you can eliminate mere conceptual/organizational tiffs such as in "Michigan," and the uncounted mere typos, spelling errors, etc. corrected -- and factually challenge even one. Even. One. As with files across "top" sources, no one has. No one can. Facts are my things, I even say my domain of reign (at least compared to other people) -- and while I am most surely capable of error (and know of a very few made [two, I think, in published outlets, ever; both very minor and their full uses at least partly correct]), no one has ever caught me... and given the foam-mouthed hate my allegiance to facts inspires, you can bet someone would've were it possible, even with 99.99% of my mass-media/academic files still privately held. The uncounted hard corrections in Wiki alone provide a vast pot for some maniac to dig for that five-leaf clover, a Powell factual error. Good luck with that. And just one more proof of my superiority is that were one (or two or whatever) found, I would feel and do what all of us are supposed to feel and do when found wrong: feel pain, immediately acknowledge facts, correct own error to whatever extent possible or not already done; and, hardly least, learn and improve from the exercise. No one who thinks and
behaves differently should even be allowed near academic, journalistic and (e.g. Wiki) other educational material. Yet as my files show with tomes of hard examples, almost no one meets that most elementary set of criteria -- and the higher one goes in Establishment ranks, usually the more egregious the response behavior. Or, as I usually call it, "creature response behavior"; for that's what most people, especially most "experts" become when shown simply wrong and very often simply incompetent: creatures, in a sci-fi/horror sense.
As for Michigan, I no longer care in what order are the other states, as long as the list and sum are correct; and am not even bothering to look to see if you, the other guy or someone else changed it back again. I refuse to engage such childishness, at least on content not my own or in which I'm not more invested. Though size order is clearly the better concept, sadly, when people refuse help past a certain point, they "can't" and arguably shouldn't be helped (save perhaps when suffering some drastic mental handicap [e.g., say, Down] arguably supporting disposition as non-self-sufficient or -responsible; while some editors clearly have intellectual deficits, I have no evidence to support so drastic a diagnosis of any).
I have examined your complete Wiki record and rather than 179 brilliant and subtle factual corrections and refinements, I see a series of belittlements, personal attacks, petulance and gratuitous insults in your edit summaries. Go read WP:Civility and follow it. Otherwise you risk being blocked from editing, your manifest superiority notwithstanding. As to the rest - surely you have encountered the acronym, TLDR. Spare us the bloviating and learn to behave civilly. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, "redundant" is not the best word. Duplicative maybe, or "confusing" - as you had made it, Raphael is identified as an archangel in Islam, Judaism and Christianity. But then the very next sentence says that in Islam, Raphael is known as Israfil, with a link to a wholly separate article describing that character. The way I read it, Raphael is the Judeo-Christian character, and Israfil is the Islamic counterpart. Describing Raphael as found in all three religions, then linking to an article that discusses only the Islamic manifestation under a separate name, doesn't make sense. And too, now that I'm looking at the articles more closely, I see that Israfil seems to follow the original organization of Raphael (archangel), namely, to offer principal identification with reference to the tradition where he bears the article name, followed by a link to the corresponding character in the other the religion(s). JohnInDC (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, you read it wrongly. Raphael is not only a Judeo-Christian character. He's also a character in islam. Israfil is merely the way Raphael is transliterated. The same way that Jesus is spelled "Jezus" in Polish. Can you self-revert please? Pass a Methodtalk19:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do they have separate articles? Jezus redirects to Jesus. Israfil doesn't redirect to Raphael (archangel) but rather takes you to an article devoted to that person as he is portrayed, by that name, in Islam. Describing Raphael as the archangel of Islam, Judaism and Christianity (as you had it) might begin to make sense if we revised the lead at Israfil to say something like, "Israfil is the archangel of the trumpet in Judaism, Christianity and Islam"; after all, if they're the same person with different names, no reason not to make the introductions parallel - but that seems a little pedantic, and more confusing than helpful. Don't you agree? JohnInDC (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question directly, however, no - I don't intend to self-revert. Perhaps you should take up the proposed change at Talk:Raphael (archangel) and see if you can gain a consensus for it. Maybe the solution is to merge that article with Israfil. JohnInDC (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
IP User 65.60.161.68
Since you issued him the last warning, I'm notifying you that I have since reverted another of his edits on the Nicknames of cities in NY article. Cheers. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you explain me why did you undid information that Michigan Stadium is the biggiest in Americas? Whats wrong with that information? 217.76.1.22 (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Now that you've pointed it out, it doesn't belong in the black bear discussion either inasmuch as the weights of the respective animals weren't discussed there either. JohnInDC (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Answering and rebuking your persistent messages to me (Mark Powell) -- and nota bene, careful for what you wish or what you threaten
John:
Jeez, if I knew it's this easy to msg you, to answer your msgs, I'd have done so more before now, though it likely would've done little if any good and likely only hastened the sad result (for Wiki) I tonight impose.
1) First, I have no knowledge of your supposed or real authority to be addressing people (let alone ones who correct legion factual errors) as you address me. I'll assume some such exists only because I don't really care, at least not now. I don't study or partake of that aspect of Wikipedia, and answer it in some degree now only because of your persistent contacts -- and because I'm done with it. In fact I have almost wholly not bothered with corrections since my recent overhaul of "Mexico City," forgoing scores that I'd have made as recently as mid-November, just before this spate of upset from you, after only a few upset msgs from others in several years.
2) My (very many, and could and should be many more, if I bothered) edits do not "seem" sound; they are. Find one -- centering on hard fact(s) of history, geography, science, math, etc., rather than say the order of states in an overall-correct list that doesn't proclaim order -- that's not utterly correct and needed.
3) *My allegiance is to facts, not egos*; certainly not mine (which is based and can only be based on facts and demonstrable strength), and not the errant and arrant ones of those I universally call (at all outlets) (and this is too kind) "editors," in quotes. As wrote a former executive editor of Frontline (Lou Wiley) after my corrections of Frontline led him to study pieces of my old Washington Post files, "the worst thing about Mr. Powell is that he seems always to be right." I'm not *always,* but only I and one or maybe two other people anywhere know it, and they can only cite one error apiece, and even those can be if not defended well mitigated. Compared to "editors," at *any* outlet, I am effectively always right -- not because I am so good but because they are so bad. No one familiar with my files, no matter how much s/he hates me, seriously disputes that I'm far and away the best factual and general text-integrity editor in English in the West. That's some asset to throw away because you don't like his corrections' attached comments' tone. And that's what you've done, despite how easy it would be to dismiss you as the only persistent complainer in the midst of my uncounted factual corrections. I can just let Wiki keep being Wiki rather than standing alone atop a volcano trying to extinguish it with a garden hose. Wiki, though of use to me almost every day, for which I am grateful, can never be taken as credible on any point, absent extant sound-enough knowledge to recognize correctness. And it is no longer worth my time to correct, if it (due to such as you, asserting yourself as supposed authority/access-controller) requires *not* providing desperately needed reality-checks and professional-ethical leadership (yes, of nature you call insulting) in remarks, as would make any decent coach to a team that keeps losing by decrepitude and utterly avoidable, inexcusable errors. Or requires leaving only ones so gentle and supportive as were they for the truly developmentally disabled, rather than the merely incompetent and negligent). Wiki "editors" need Reality Check 101, a doctor to tell them they're covered in grapefruit-sized cancers while they're telling each other they might have a pimple somewhere on the ass.
4) *Get* this, if only now: *Almost every* page of any substantive factual grist that I see needs at least one substantive factual correction. That's indefensible, even considering all Wiki's informing concepts, vulnerabilities, operational realities. Where Wiki should be, with merely decent performance, badly shaming top traditional outlets by clear superiority to them in general factual integrity, its consistent and oft-extreme decrepitude only gives those outlets an enduring straw man to beat as example of how the Net age and top Net information source are no substitute for those traditional top outlets. Worse, as my remarks often touch, Wiki tops any source I study in any significant degree (and that's many), even the Columbia (Univ.) Encyclopedia which is a true dark "star" in this way, in fraction of errors being OBVIOUS to even ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE by SIMPLE NAKED CONTRADICTION. It's Wiki's signature atop signatures -- and it's a fatal flaw at least in this phase of its life.
5) We are not going to agree. Your remarks, seemingly so reasonable and warranted *per se,* are not so *in light of Wiki's realities* -- that you don't, won't, maybe can't squarely acknowledge. (And thus they're solid cases of deception and misleading of others, whether deliberate or in ignorance.) You think and write as you do because you don't, likely can't see factual (for starters) errors as I do. It takes knowledge, general and in at least some zones specialized, even just the knowledge anyone should have at graduation from a decent high school, and attention somewhere north of *total* brain-deadness to detail and consistency/contradiction. E.g., the ability to read a piece on, say, John Kennedy that claims he was the 3rd president and was killed in 1807 -- or maybe a five-headed alien from the Small Magellanic Cloud -- and know that THAT needs correction; and *not* have your top correction be, say, a typo in his name one of the 38 times it appears. I've seen "this" phenomenon consistently in what glimpses I've had of others' "corrections." As on comment pages of uncounted "top"-outlet news pieces with even Superhowling errors have hundreds, even thousands of comments -- all on irrelevancies or weightless things, missing the 9,000-lb. gorillas in the closet. Why *does,* say, CNN's piece on the Chelyabinsk meteor *still* (last I checked, months ago) err far beyond lunacy, actually by more than 100 million percent (!yup!) on the area of glass broken in Chelyabinsk? When by last June (I think four months after the meteor) there were c. 1,200 comments? Of course sometimes people do flag the gorillas, even given people's wretched condition and astonishing ability to not see gorillas while screeding about the color of wallpaper, but the outlets delete comments that *actually correct errors,* leaving up irrelevancies and dust-motes. I've documented it many times. Leaving a gorilla uncorrected, and deleting corrections? Because... it's somehow thought less embarrassing (the only calculus) than the unsurvivable horror of making or allowing a correction? That's not incompetence, negligence or stupidity. It's clinical insanity. And it's everywhere, esp. at "top" outlets e.g. Post, Times, Journal, PBS, Smithsonian, top Brit papers. And "everybody," i.e. folks such as you, don't/can't talk about that. Reality.
6) The only actually sound thing you've said, at least re/ me, is that Wiki needs me more than I need it. It's true like saying Hell is a bit warmer than Absolute Zero or the Small Magellanic Cloud is farther away than the corner store, but like those statements, 100% true. But you're unhappy with my remarks trying to call "editors" to adulthood, and won't stop telling me so, with your notes not only staining my Wiki user page (which I'd just delete if I knew how or cared enough***) but recently, likely due to your action as I've never seen the like before, landing in my *personal e-mail* inbox.
While I've made vast efforts, with almost universally terrible but highly illuminating results eventually to be published en masse along with my factual-error files, to document response behavior to notice (often specific, often not, as useful methodological variance) at "top" traditional outlets... Wiki doesn't rate that treatment, beyond what I'm doing here. I never wanted a Wiki user/editor page or to engage in community talk, my interest is in and time is spent on *factual content,* esp. of history, geography, science and math, not otiose babble. When Wiki is considered the credibility equal of the Post, Times, etc. -- write me when that happens -- I'll raise condign interest in its "staff"'s response behaviors. But I'm already familiar with them, thanks largely to you... though with so many corrections made and so few "editors" hitting me, I can't really say you're representative. I do consider that in, uh -- listening? -- banning Wiki from the valuable privilege of my corrections.
7) Yeah, I'll save you the trouble of further pathetic threats to ban me (a response, you may not be surprised to know, is the reflex of many "credible," "leading" and "top" outlets, print, broadcast and physical (e.g. museums) that are just freaked, enraged, panicked, totally deranged facing someone who actually, with what should be hideous ease, corrects substantive errors right, left, up, down and all around). Wiki? Not even worth letting it join the distinguished list. Henceforth, until/unless I think there's reason to change/back, I'm going to let Wiki be as incompetent, negligent, often sadly sheerly stupid as it wants to be. Indeed in recent weeks I've already moved that way, correcting a few low-level errors and leaving hooters untouched, thanks largely to you -- assuming, maybe wrongly, that you are in fact some kind of Wiki "authority" and speaking for the entity. Now I move decisively that way. I won't be a coach who tells a team that just gruesomely threw away a winnable or even "won" game, "Good game guys! Aren't we good! Let's celebrate our self-esteem!" Walk around with dirty TP on your pants as much as you want. I won't help you now, not even to say, Uh, dude, you've got dirty TP on your pants. The one thing more pathetic than one with dirty TP on his pants is one who can't be told of it -- just doesn't want to hear it, or even literally doesn't believe it and won't even look -- or attacks the perceived tone of the benefactor saying dude you've got dirty TP on your pants.
Thanks for responding, Mark. Again however you've missed the essential - and indeed the only - point I was making, which is that as good as your edits may be substantively, you shouldn't, can't, act like such a dick in making them. (Forgive my vulgar choice of words but the gentler concept of "civility" did not seem to be getting through.) All would be fine if you could overcome the urge to accompany your efforts with name-calling, snark and vituperation. But if in fact you regard simple politeness as a kind of capitulation or betrayal of principle, and are therefore not capable of it, then your retirement (ahead of a ban) is certainly the best outcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Louis Posner
According to the published Decision in OX v. Union Central, Posner was the attorney of record, not just co-counsel or some underling, and argued the case for the disabled woman. what'sup 20:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)20:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, nearly every place I see the case cited, it's in some or another PR or social networking site for Posner. Absent some significant coverage of the case, and of Posner's critical role as a lawyer in it, it seems like nothing more than resume material to me. JohnInDC (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a published decision in the federal courts, that was also published in Mealey's. Cases involving people with disabilities and large insurance companies trying to not pay insurance are important social policy considerations.what88 18:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
what88 17:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)== Louis Posner article ==
The Press Release is from a Forensic Accountant that was retained by Posner's criminal defense attorneys and approved by the Court. Kessler is not Posner's personal accountant. No reason for deleting the Press Release which provides the background and reasoning of the Appellate Division Decision. We need to have a balanced approach in this article.what88 18:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
By definition a press release puts forth a position. Kessler testified on Posner's behalf, and had a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. His press release setting forth his own position in a matter in which he had an interest is not a reliable source. As I said before, the balance in the article is manifested by the decision of the highest court in NY, which agreed with Posner. Posner's position was fully vindicated. Nothing more is needed, particularly commentary from interested parties. JohnInDC (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore. The Appellate Division decision speaks for itself. "Posner prevails, can use the funds." No "analysis" or "context" of such a straightforward holding is necessary. And if it were, it could come only from a disinterested, reliable source. Not from someone on one side of the discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The changes on the asset forfeiture section do not give a clear and accurate picture because: it simply claims that the seized finds are "criminal proceeds" whereas no determination of "criminal proceeds" was determined during the pendency of the criminal case; it fails to mention that the alleged "criminal proceeds" were simply revenues from the normal; operations of a strip club; that no money earned by the strip club was ever traced to any criminal action; that the reason that the Judge granted the use of the proceeds was because there is a 6th Amendment right to counsel of choice to pay for legal fees and expenses and that New York State allows for an even greater protection then federal law. Finally, while all parties have a right to appeal, the NYPD refused to make payment and then got a stay of payment and dragged out an appeal. Thus, it is relevant, and not just POV, that at the time that Posner made the plea, that his attorneys were not being paid. In fact, as some of the articles indicated, the prosecutor offered Posner a single misdemeanor for a plea. After Posner's attorneys were not paid and wanted to walk off the job, the plea deal was raised from a misdemeanor to a felony.
Also, the paragraph regarding forfeiture does not touch on the "policing for profits" aspect of forfeiture. Posner was subject to a civil forfeiture proceeding, and not criminal forfeiture. The NYPD has an incentive to go after businesses that are profitable, rather than prioritize law enforcement objectives. The asset forfeiture laws were designed to go after organized crime and drug dealers. Clearly, there is a major difference between revenues earned by a strip club from door admissions and money made by illegal means. Law enforcement has a financial incentive to call everything "criminal proceeds." This is not just a POV, but well documented in various articles and websites throughout the Internet.
Further, in developing a neutral viewpoint, you cannot only go by what is stated in the newspapers. The NYPD and the prosecutors have a strong advantage during the pendency of a criminal trial. The prosecutors call for a press conference and give their one-sided viewpoint of the case, and the newspapers print what they are told, even though under law a criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is little opportunity for a defendant and his attorneys to give their viewpoint.
There was also a well documented trial of 2 strippers from the Hot Lap Dance Club, Cassandra Malandri, a/k/a Alexia Moore, and Falynn Rodriguez. The prosecution claimed that the strippers offered threesome sex to an undercover police officer in exchange for $5,000. The introduction to the undercover officer was made by a bartender named John. The sex was to occur at a hotel off the premises from the strip club, and at another night. There was never any connection between the alleged offer of prostitution and Louis Posner. Even if true, the payment would have been made directly to the dancers without any knowledge or involvement by Posner. Following a one week bench trial in Manhattan, Rodriguez had her case dismissed and Alexia Moore was acquitted.
Aside from the various newspaper articles, there are a lot of documents filed in the various Court proceedings, including as mentioned before, the Appellate Brief of Jonathan Gould, Esq. which led to the Appellate Division decision directing payments. A number of these documents are available in the Scribd account of Jonathan Gould, Esq. at http://www.scribd.com/jsgouldlaw, including transcripts of the Alexia Moore trial and documents filed in the various civil rights cases seeking damages from the NYPD.what88 17:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, lots of documents, all of them advocating one point of view over another and as such unsuitable as reliable sources. Please stop trying to relitigate this case in Wikipedia. Stick with what's reported and stop adding matters from your own personal knowledge. JohnInDC (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Noted, that articles advocating a point of view are not suitable. No one is trying to relitigate the case in Wikipedia. All of this information is based on readily available documents (the Jonathan S. Gould, Esq. Scribd account has 35 legal documents), and are not based on any personal knowledge. User:What8806:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Louis Joseph Posner, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
reason: does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. User:What8811:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
VoterMarch
You engaged in a wholesale deletion of the pictures in the VoterMarch article. Some of these pictures are of famous people including best selling author Vincent Bugliosi and Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, both of whom were speakers at VoterMarch events. I would like an explanation as to the reason for removal of each and every photo, and not just some wholesale explanation that they are duplicative or low quality. Otherwise, the photos should be placed back.what88 21:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a platform for displaying the Voter March picture gallery. The photos are excessive and other than as an attempt to burnish the reputation of Voter March by association, have no obvious purpose. JohnInDC (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on VoterMarch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
reason: does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. 11:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)User:What88
Vincent Bugliosi Article
You removed a book review by Louis Posner of VoterMarch. Your characterization as "undue weight" given to this book review is subjective. Voter March organized book signing events for Bugliosi from New York City to California.
In Posner's book review of the The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President,[1] Louis Posner writes "With his powerful, brilliant, and courageous expose of crime by the highest court in the land Vincent Bugliosi takes his place in the pantheon of patriots who have stood up and spoken out against injustice."[2]
You are not the original author of the article on Vincent Bugliosi.
Did you ever read his book or attend one of his lectures, speeches or book signing events?
The Article seeks reliable secondary sources, yet you improperly removed two important citations.
These citations need to be placed back where they belong.
Also, object to your removal of a picture of Vincent Bugliosi being introduced as a speaker at a VoterMarch event.
There are no pictures of Vincent Bugliosi at all in this article, and a picture makes the article more appealing.
what88 04:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Object to your revert change.
The correct chronology is that the Club was taken down in July 2008.
Posner pleaded not guilty after his arrest.
Dancers Alexia Moore and Rodriguez were acquitted in January 2010.
Posner pleaded guilty in March 2010, AFTER the dancers were acquitted.
Accordingly, the better chronology would be to list the final plea after the paragraph about the dancers.RobinHood99 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not coincidence. It's homage to the many famous teams in the world that have "United" in their names, e.g. Manchester United, Leeds United, Newcastle United. None of which are in the "United" States - JohnInDC (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vincent Bugliosi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
which he later expanded into a book titled ''[[The Betrayal of America]]. ''During 2001 and 2002, [[VoterMarch] organized speaking tours in New York City and Voter West in California for Bugliosi.
It's your call buddy. I didn't use that account to touch any of the relevant areas of work (i.e. tables). Unless I get blocked again, it's likely I won't use it again. DMB112 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I filed it. I sort of wanted to overlook it but it was a pretty egregious and obvious violation - not much grey area here. I'm - sorry. JohnInDC (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Um -- did you note my edit on the VoterMarch article removing an SPS claim? I am not, AFAICT, a sock of anyone <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, goodness no, I wasn't reverting you at all. I just spotted something you missed and figured to go back before this IP got his hands onto the article rather than trying to root through and track it down by hand. I really appreciate your help on this and apologize for making it look like anything else! JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
John that i don't need to block you for edit warring. If you've reverted 3 times, you must stop now.I will start an RFC on the Louis posner thing. Have not looked at VoterMarch Dlohcierekim 15:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I had been proceeding based on my understanding that reverts of edits by banned editors are exempt from 3RR - see Wikipedia:3rr#3RR_exemptions - but I will stop. It doesn't help much, I suppose, to keep reverting anyhow when a sock is as persistent as he is. JohnInDC (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point and apologies. That's not how it looked at the time. He's gone away. For now. But relentlessly pressing the revert button will just wear out your finger and fray your nerves. Be more circumspect. Report the behavior and step back. Once he's dealt with, we can get on with constructive edits. Dlohcierekim 16:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, we are both right. I may have the right to revert those edits on sight and repeatedly, but doing so is not all that constructive. Thank you for the sound advice. JohnInDC (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I tagged it for notability. I can't see that an otherwise obscure Louis Posner, whose wife has created a couple of nice memorials for him, is himself notable (absent the usual GNG coverage). We'll see how our newly minted editor responds, if at all. JohnInDC (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I just suggested he be looked into at the SPI since he's obviously connected to the 170. IP, which itself is subject of the investigation. As to the Posner library, I'd actually mentioned it in the AfD as a possible redirect target if that's what the outcome was. That was one of the few false positives I hit upon when doing searches for Posner in academic literature, and presumably where our friend got the idea. To be honest though, the only thing I remember seeing was mentions of what book won the award in that particular year... so yeah, probably not notable as an article on the award either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
See our pal Tony's unblock request? That's why I just don't buy the Miami guy as our Lawline. It's like when someone from Tangier talks. If you've heard that accent before, you can tell just by listening. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
So get this... remember how Louis Joseph Posner got moved to Louis J. Posner because one of the SSP IPs (170') tried to do a cut-and-paste and then just requested it in reasonable terms? Early this morning Louis Joseph Posner (now a redirect) got blanked by the other SSP IP (108'), claiming no secondary source contains that name (pretty sure there is one that does). I think the proper term, rather than search term smokescreening, is something more like keyword sanitizing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I will hand it to this fellow. He has managed, through sheer disruption, to drag this out far longer than it needs to be. JohnInDC (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty funny too, because the briefest of Google searches turns up 1) the disbarment proceedings, when he's also named as "Louis Joseph"; and 2) links to "L. Joseph", which appears to be the name he's using in his new real estate endeavor (same photo as in the Louis J. article). But then, sourcing and facts have done little to deter this sock, so I won't be surprised if he returns to claim that all these Louis Posners are different people somehow. Thoiugh I will admit to being a bit concerned, with all the recent moves and merges of Louis Posner and Louis J. Posner - the sock puppet history of the former is entirely lost, and it now appears as though Tonywikido had made a variety of edits to Louis J., when as best I can tell, his efforts were only to follow up on the heels of the 170. IP. This whole thing is looks pretty cut-and-dried to me: Editor doesn't like coverage, gets blocked for blanking, etc., and then creates a succession of socks to accomplish the same thing and / or to throw up a huge smokescreen. They should all be blocked, and the pages allowed to stand, or direct to, whatever the sources indicate is appropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, blocks, reblocks, and reverts are cheap. They involve us doing work, it's no big deal, we've all got it watchlisted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
In recent weeks, somebody eliminated numerous references confirming all the facts in the bio that was constructed under your rules. I'm fixing this attack on my credibility by putting those references back in.
I've been stalked by another Mark Fritz on Facebook, Amazon, Goodreads and other sites. By allowing things like this:
None of the edits you are making appear to have anything to do with clarifying your relation to this other Mark Fritz, and apart from some entries back in 2008 (which were arguably made in good faith) I do not see any indication in the article history of the vandalism of which you're complaining. JohnInDC (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Alternatives?
What's to prevent someone from removing footnotes and references, calling into question such things as my hometown and the college I attended? Or posting a photo of somebody else? I respect your rules and will follow them, but this has been a chronic problem for me. Thanks and regards.
The article about you does not have the wrong picture and as far as I can tell, never has. The problem appears to be with Google, which matches up the article here with another photo it has grabbed from the internet. If you click "view history" on the article page, you can see the page in every one of its prior iterations, and my (admittedly non-exhaustive) review of those pages does not show wrong images or any serious effort to turn the page into that of the other Mark Fritz. As for other footnotes and references, some of them are improper even if they point to the right places, and as I indicated on your Talk page, I've been removing them. JohnInDC (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, I just Googled "Mark Fritz" and the results page did not bring up the wrong photo, as it had before. Perhaps the problem is resolving itself. JohnInDC (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Poking my head in since I remember this issue from an EAR thread last month. All it took to fix Google was clicking the "feedback" link in the box that came up and reporting the mismatch via that (they fixed it within hours). As to the rest, John's edits to the article about you are correct, The Real Mark Fritz. Especially about the commercial links. And it seems like some of this is about there being "citation needed" tags on things that lacked citations; that doesn't function to call things into question here. It means what it literally says: we don't have a citation, and need one for that statement. Those tags were legitimately there, and not vandalism. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice catch regarding DarkStone06, I was going to report but you beat me to it. I added a couple of diffs in the comments of the SPI you opened. GRUcrule (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if the LJP AfD is going in a direction with which I don't agree, that doesn't decrease the importance of the work you've done during this dispute. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
AirportExpert
Hi JohnlnDC,
While uploading image for Air Trust, I did not know I was doing anything wrong. Could you please explain to me the rules of uploading an image so I do not get in trouble, such as becoming blocked from editing? thank you. Sincerely, AirportExpert — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirportExpert (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am no expert in the field but I think I can give you some basics for starters. First off is, "copyright" is the right the law gives to the creator of some work - a writing, a drawing, a photo, that sort of thing - to decide when and where it will be used. It is, literally, a "copy right". When something, in this case photos, is subject to "copyright", it means that only the owner can decide how it is to be reproduced. If you reproduce something without the creator's permission, you are violating their copyright. Wikipedia takes these rules very seriously, because people who reproduce or display copyrighted information without permission (or without falling under one of the exceptions to the law) can be sued. That means, Wikipedia editors can't upload copyrighted material without 1) permission of the creator; 2) a license granted by the creator that lets people use their images; or 3) some exception. Pretty much every creative work by any person - an essay, a photo, a drawing, a design, is copyrighted the moment they create it. That means if you find something on the internet that someone else created, you may pretty well assume that it is subject to copyright. That means, you cannot upload photos you find on the internet to Wikipedia for use here unless the copyright holder - that is, the person who took the photo - has expressly said that anyone can use their photo, or non-commercial entities like Wikipedia can use their photo, without asking. That would violate their copyright. If they say in their license, "you have to ask first" then you can't just upload it. You have to ask, and get permission, and then prove it to Wikipedia first. This applies to photos, images, screen shots - nearly anything anyone else has created or distributed. Now - some materials are so old that they aren't subject to copyright any more. Those are said to be "in the public domain", and can be reproduced freely. Beethoven's Symphonies for example. Some other materials - like government publications - aren't subject to copyright at all. There are also limited circumstances about when you can use copyrighted materials despite the copyright, many of which are covered by the term "fair use". (It is too complicated for me to explain, even if I understood it, and anyhow it doesn't apply to the photos you've uploaded.) What all this means is that you cannot upload photos you find on the internet to Wikipedia. You can upload your own photos - i.e. you go to an airport and take a photo, but not those of someone else. I am pretty sure you can upload a logo, as you did, when it's small and used for illustrative purposes - that's why I didn't tag that one, but there too I don't pretend to understand it. My advice on these finer points is to follow a couple of the links that were in that warning message I posted, and begin to read up. Meanwhile stop adding third party photos and images!
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain to me the rules of uploading images to Wikipedia. I appreciate it very much! Sincerely, AirportExpert.
I apologize. I intended it as a general comment on the irony of the citation and had not even checked the identity of the editor who put it in. I'll tread more lightly in the future. JohnInDC (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:JohnInDC. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
^Taylor, Charles (4 July 2001). ""The Betrayal of America"". Salon. Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi accuses the Supreme Court's conservative majority of criminal conduct bordering on treason
Facepalm —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vincent Bugliosi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
