User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
your recent deletions
being promotional material does not make the reviews less authentic.
they have been on the page since May, and I would prefer that they be allowed.
--Jespah (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- They're provided (and probably solicited ) by the publisher, consist of fragmentary quotes, and entirely lack context. They don't describe or summarize the book or its message but instead just talk about how great it is. Indeed they could have been written without having read the book at all. It is marketing material, promotional fluff. If I had noticed it soon I'd have taken it out sooner. By now you should understand that Wikipedia articles exist to inform, not to promote. The material I removed is a good example of material that falls on the wrong side of the line.
- I'm going to move this exchange to the article's Talk page, where it more properly belongs. JohnInDC (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop
Don't mess with my talk page this content is allowed Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism is a REAL thing --27.3.18.100 (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually if you'll read that page you'll see that it's just an essay, not policy, and may represent a minority viewpoint (as it most certainly does). I've reported your actions at WP:AIV and we'll see if it results in a block. JohnInDC (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Template name request
Hello. What's the name of the template you used to warn Christanandjericho for disruption? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Template:uw-disruptive3. A nice collection can be found at WP:UTM. JohnInDC (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
CGS Inc.
I've given the user of that name a spamusername block, but I've tried earnestly to make an actual article out of CGS Inc. the draft article. Could you take a look? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- The external link needed a slight tweak, which I fixed; the article looks okay (i.e. not spammy) as far as it goes, but I have real concerns about whether it meets the notability requirement. I couldn't find much on it in Google News other than the company's own press releases. If I came across it cold I'd probably seek speedy deletion. Am I missing something? JohnInDC (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- 3000 employees is a lot, if it's true. I declined a speedy and prodded the article instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. Shows what I know, hah! JohnInDC (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- 3000 employees is a lot, if it's true. I declined a speedy and prodded the article instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Recent edits
If you wish to discuss the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry article, please do so on that article's talk page. Thank you. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am, friend, and at great length. You are ignoring my comments and simply restoring your questionably sourced edits. It's not enough to simply say you disagree and then do what you did the first time around! JohnInDC (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- How is an online contributor for ESPN.com a questionable source? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- The question is, "How will the NCAA treat these vacated victories?" He cites no NCAA source - or any one, for that matter - in support of his opinion. His *opinion*. He's not qualified on the question you're citing him for, and you're ignoring a much more direct reference that I've supplied. You're really pushing it. JohnInDC (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- How is his report "opinion"? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- How is it *fact*? What does he cite to support his claim? He's just talking! JohnInDC (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't some amateur blog. The man is a sports journalist-- a profesional. He doesn't have to cite anything. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Journalists don't have to cite sources, they can just say what they want and it is true? Grant Wahl - also a sports journalist, called a source to find out what he wanted to know, and then reported it. As journalists do. Low wrote opinion. Wahl reported. JohnInDC (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, journalists cannot say whatever they want. However, they are not obligated to cite every fact they report on. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, I'm done. Chris Low is a moderately well known sports journalist writing a blog. He offered up some information without indicating where he got it or why he supposes it to be true. Grant Wahl called up the NCAA, who explained exactly what the NCAA would do in the case of basketball in 2002. Do you *really* think the NCAA in 2011 is going to do something different in football? As they say, "it's a distinction without a difference". Forgive me, but you're not arguing sense any more. JohnInDC (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- How well Low is or is not known is irrelevant. He is a sports journalist who has covered the subject of college football. That means he's qualified. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no. You need to go read up on WP:Sources. He's a blogger who may or may not be subject to the editorial control of ESPN.com (I don't know). Otherwise I assume that because you aren't addressing my other points (the conflict with Wahl, the idea that football in 2011 will be subject to different rules than basketball in 2002, the fact that *neither* of these articles address the current situation) means you aren't in a position to refute them. JohnInDC (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- How well Low is or is not known is irrelevant. He is a sports journalist who has covered the subject of college football. That means he's qualified. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, I'm done. Chris Low is a moderately well known sports journalist writing a blog. He offered up some information without indicating where he got it or why he supposes it to be true. Grant Wahl called up the NCAA, who explained exactly what the NCAA would do in the case of basketball in 2002. Do you *really* think the NCAA in 2011 is going to do something different in football? As they say, "it's a distinction without a difference". Forgive me, but you're not arguing sense any more. JohnInDC (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, journalists cannot say whatever they want. However, they are not obligated to cite every fact they report on. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Journalists don't have to cite sources, they can just say what they want and it is true? Grant Wahl - also a sports journalist, called a source to find out what he wanted to know, and then reported it. As journalists do. Low wrote opinion. Wahl reported. JohnInDC (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't some amateur blog. The man is a sports journalist-- a profesional. He doesn't have to cite anything. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- How is it *fact*? What does he cite to support his claim? He's just talking! JohnInDC (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- How is his report "opinion"? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- The question is, "How will the NCAA treat these vacated victories?" He cites no NCAA source - or any one, for that matter - in support of his opinion. His *opinion*. He's not qualified on the question you're citing him for, and you're ignoring a much more direct reference that I've supplied. You're really pushing it. JohnInDC (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- How is an online contributor for ESPN.com a questionable source? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed your points, however you continually fail to address one of mine. Does Wahl state anything in regards to series records following vacated win(s)? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- No. So we're both operating from inference, aren't we? Go have a look at WP:OR. Your insistence on conforming the UM-OSU to your personal sense of which columnist is the more qualified is improper. JohnInDC (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not doing any original research. Wahl does not say what a vacated win means with respect to a series record. Low does. It's not a matter of which is more qualified. One addresses the issue, the other does not. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wahl quotes an NCAA official to say that a vacated win does not remove the other team's loss. Low says that as between two teams, it's as if the game had never been played - i.e., the loss and the win are both removed. These are inconsistent. You've chosen one over the other and *added it to the article* for no reason other than your own determination that, despite this plain contradiction, the article that cites no sources trumps the one that does. That reads like OR to me. JohnInDC (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't inconsistent. It's just confusing. From the perspective of the losing team, the loss is retained. From the perspective of the series overall, it's as if the game never occured. So in the case of UM-OSU, Michigan's own record against Ohio State is 57 (michigan wins)-44 (michigan losses) - 6 (ties). However, the overall record is 57 (michigan wins) - 43 (ohio state wins) - 6 (ties). The 43 does not refer to the number of Michigan losses, but rather the number of Ohio State wins. I know it's confusing, but it is consistent. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can't report a series record in the abstract, at least not in the form W-L-T. It has to be reported from the point of view of one or the other of the teams. You can say in prose that Michigan has 57 wins, OSU has 43 wins (one being vacated), and they've tied 6 times. You don't discuss the loss. But that's not the same as 57-44-6 (UM's point of view) or 43-57-6 (OSU's point of view). If Low is right then those should be the same, not different as you assert. (It is as if the game was never played - so wins and losses should match, right?) If Wahl is right then the records are different, which is confusing, but seems to be what the NCAA intends. It's sure hard to know today how this will all sort out! So it's pretty risky to put it all in the UM-OSU article as if Low has the answer - JohnInDC (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- The introduction of
vacated lossesvacated wins has changed the nature of a series record. Beforevacated lossesvacated wins, a series record's 3 numbers represented 1. the leading opponents wins/trailing teams losses; 2. the trailing teams wins/the leading teams losses; 3. ties.Vacated lossesVacated wins complicate that. Enter Low, who reports thatvacated gamesgames w/ vacated wins are removed entirely from series records (presumably for the very complication noted here). Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)- You left off the source for that - what is it? JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Source for what? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, any luck finding another source which comments on the impact a vacated loss has on a series record? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Source for what? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- You left off the source for that - what is it? JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- The introduction of
- You can't report a series record in the abstract, at least not in the form W-L-T. It has to be reported from the point of view of one or the other of the teams. You can say in prose that Michigan has 57 wins, OSU has 43 wins (one being vacated), and they've tied 6 times. You don't discuss the loss. But that's not the same as 57-44-6 (UM's point of view) or 43-57-6 (OSU's point of view). If Low is right then those should be the same, not different as you assert. (It is as if the game was never played - so wins and losses should match, right?) If Wahl is right then the records are different, which is confusing, but seems to be what the NCAA intends. It's sure hard to know today how this will all sort out! So it's pretty risky to put it all in the UM-OSU article as if Low has the answer - JohnInDC (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't inconsistent. It's just confusing. From the perspective of the losing team, the loss is retained. From the perspective of the series overall, it's as if the game never occured. So in the case of UM-OSU, Michigan's own record against Ohio State is 57 (michigan wins)-44 (michigan losses) - 6 (ties). However, the overall record is 57 (michigan wins) - 43 (ohio state wins) - 6 (ties). The 43 does not refer to the number of Michigan losses, but rather the number of Ohio State wins. I know it's confusing, but it is consistent. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wahl quotes an NCAA official to say that a vacated win does not remove the other team's loss. Low says that as between two teams, it's as if the game had never been played - i.e., the loss and the win are both removed. These are inconsistent. You've chosen one over the other and *added it to the article* for no reason other than your own determination that, despite this plain contradiction, the article that cites no sources trumps the one that does. That reads like OR to me. JohnInDC (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not doing any original research. Wahl does not say what a vacated win means with respect to a series record. Low does. It's not a matter of which is more qualified. One addresses the issue, the other does not. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Current streak
I have changed this field in the infobox-type box. Let's compromise. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, sure. The streak is a particularly muddled mess and I have no idea what the right thing to do is. What you've done very nicely captures the muddle and until someone points out a reason it's no good, I'm quite content to leave it that way pending some "official" say-so about how it should be treated. (I hate these "vacations"!) JohnInDC (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
NCAA source from 2009 confirms Chris Low ESPN.com post
We checked with a person in the know at the NCAA, and it was confirmed that, while Alabama does indeed lose their win against Hawaii — provided the sanctions are upheld on appeal — Hawaii will not get to pick that win up. Additionally, the game does not count in any type of series record between the two teams.
posted by John Taylor, NBCSports.com College Football Talk (CFT), July 4, 2009
Now we have an NCAA source (from 2009), speaking on the subject of college football, that confirms what Chris Low posted (also in 2009). From the perspective of the winning team, the vacated win is removed from the winning team's own series record (though JohnInDC you rightly points point out that an asterisk should be added to note the change). From the perspective of the losing team, nothing changes-- the loss is retained in the losing team's own series record. From the perspective of both teams, the game does not count in the series record between the two teams (again, an asterisk should be added noting the change). I'm okay with leaving infobox-type box as is for now; it's best to wait until the NCAA has ruled. However, when the NCAA does rule, the series record ought to reflect what John Taylor has reported. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is no need to "hash it out". After the NCAA rules, and after any appeal from Ohio State has been ruled, the game no longer counts in the series record between both teams. Michigan still retains the loss in its own record. Ohio State loses the win it is own record. The series record for both, however, does not include the game at all. I'll remind you that this is from an NCAA source. I'll also point out that this does not contradict the information you provided from the NCAA website as that itself said nothing about a series record between both teams. This is not my "personal interpretation"; please disregard whatever I said earlier about a Win-Win-Tie vs Win-Loss-tie as that distinction is not longer necessary given this report. If we don't count the game, the losing team's losses equal the winning team's wins; simple and straightforward. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
TimesFreePress.com Sports writer confirms 2009 ESPN.com Chris Low post
A forfeit takes a win away and awards it to the losing team both in the single-season and series records. Ole Miss went from a losing season to a winning year in '93 after the NCAA forfeited Bama's 19-14 win over the Rebels. Vacated games can get more confusing. While Alabama will not be credited for 21 wins, neither will the 21 victims in their season records. So while the Tide will be 0-2 in 2005, Tennessee still will have to accept its 5-6 record. The Volunteers will get a break, however, in their series record against Alabama because the '05 game in Tuscaloosa no longer will count.
David Paschall, TimesFreePress.com Sports, June 16, 2009
Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to confine my responses to the two (!) other parallel discussions on this subject - JohnInDC (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Let's keep our talk pages out of it. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to confine my responses to the two (!) other parallel discussions on this subject - JohnInDC (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
For you
|
The College football Barnstar | |
| Woke up this morning, came online, and found an almost fully developed essay. While I'm using that as the official excuse to give you this, I really appreciate all you work during the discussions. Thank you! Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC) |
- Hah, thanks. I think that essay needs a good bit more tweaking to cover all the bases and make it flow, but already it does - remarkably enough - contain some serviceable information. I would not have gotten round ever to seeding the page, and credit lies fully with you for that, so thanks run in both directions - JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wow... Now I feel like giving you another. :) Great work - I guess we now know who's really a writer and who's not. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 20:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! (I pretty much do it for a living and today I'm sort of bored with what I do for a living. Wikipedia's gain I guess.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Geez...it would have taken me weeks to get that level of writing and you did it in a morning and a half! Well, very glad to have you here, I guess. :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- All that back and forth on the project talk page and at UM-OSU kind of crystallized my thinking on this. Once I know what needs to be said I can usually get it down on paper pretty quickly. My problem is more typically the time it takes me to figure stuff out! Thanks again and let's see if I keep making progress on it. JohnInDC (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Geez...it would have taken me weeks to get that level of writing and you did it in a morning and a half! Well, very glad to have you here, I guess. :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! (I pretty much do it for a living and today I'm sort of bored with what I do for a living. Wikipedia's gain I guess.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wow... Now I feel like giving you another. :) Great work - I guess we now know who's really a writer and who's not. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 20:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- (Archived here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Disruptive_actions_by_JohnInDC). JohnInDC (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
User:DragoLink08
Less than two days after his week-long block was lifted, he was up to his old tricks. I'm not quite sure I've ever seen the balls on an editor like DragoLink before.
JohnInDC, I hate to impose on you, but I've never done a RfC/U before, and more importantly, there's no way I'm capable of presenting my case neutrally because of my pure disdain for DragoLink. Would you mind opening a case against him? I'd jump in and support it voraciously, I'm just afraid that I wouldn't be taken as seriously if I started it because I'd be so obviously biased. Additionally, I'd have no problems alerting everyone who's ever written on DragoLink's talk page concerning his editing to comment. As Killervogel5 once said to me (I forget where), it would be best to use the navbox colors as a tool to for the discussion, but the primary topic/concern should be DragoLink's outright refusal to engage in any sort of dialogue with anyone, ever, about any of his editing. What are your thoughts? (you clearly know mine) Jrcla2 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- My, look at him go! Well - I've never written an RFC before either; and to tell the truth I am not exactly sure how I'd frame it. Is that the right place or should we go to ANI? I don't know. Wherever we go, I do think his persistence and complete unwillingness to engage are going to win him a good long block. I'm not saying no, but I want to make sure we start off down the right path. Your thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, right, now I see (and remember) the history here. An admin told you to start the RfC, and you've done an ANI already. Well - okay. Still I want to think about it. It's not just a case of a few instances where he's overstepped a line, or there's a disagreement. He is just editing as he sees fit, ignoring concerns of others and not engaging at all. It sounds closer to pure disruptive editing to me, and a proper subject for ANI and direct admin action. But the truth is I rarely venture to those areas and have no real idea. So - now that I remember how we got here, what do you think? JohnInDC (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm an East Coast guy, so I won't be on much longer tonight (nearly midnight as I write this), but I'd be willing to concede a second ANI rather than RfC/U. There's so much evidence against him that it's almost hard to narrow down what specifically should be said. The fact that half a dozen-ish other editors have tried engaging him about his editing, he's been blocked twice, and that it would be his second ANI notice, none of which he's ever responded to, should make this an open-and-closed ANI case, IMO. I'd push very strongly for a 6-month block at minimum unless he decides to play nicely with others and actually talk. If I have time tomorrow I'll open another ANI, but unfortunately this weekend through Sunday I'll be doing a lot of traveling and won't have time to get into it. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm east coast too (JohnInDC!). I'm writing up a quick request for advice at WP:EAR, which usually yields a good answer, and on rare occasions, direct action. I'll link to it when it's done (in about 5 minutes, very Q&D). JohnInDC (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm an East Coast guy, so I won't be on much longer tonight (nearly midnight as I write this), but I'd be willing to concede a second ANI rather than RfC/U. There's so much evidence against him that it's almost hard to narrow down what specifically should be said. The fact that half a dozen-ish other editors have tried engaging him about his editing, he's been blocked twice, and that it would be his second ANI notice, none of which he's ever responded to, should make this an open-and-closed ANI case, IMO. I'd push very strongly for a 6-month block at minimum unless he decides to play nicely with others and actually talk. If I have time tomorrow I'll open another ANI, but unfortunately this weekend through Sunday I'll be doing a lot of traveling and won't have time to get into it. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, right, now I see (and remember) the history here. An admin told you to start the RfC, and you've done an ANI already. Well - okay. Still I want to think about it. It's not just a case of a few instances where he's overstepped a line, or there's a disagreement. He is just editing as he sees fit, ignoring concerns of others and not engaging at all. It sounds closer to pure disruptive editing to me, and a proper subject for ANI and direct admin action. But the truth is I rarely venture to those areas and have no real idea. So - now that I remember how we got here, what do you think? JohnInDC (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check it out and comment when I get a chance. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Took him to AIV and he was subsequently blocked indefinitely. It will be interesting to see what sock puppets come out of this, but the best case scenario just happened. I think we can breathe a sigh of relief, even if for just the time being. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that. Well done. Funny how after all that handwringing the thing that worked was the straightest-forward! JohnInDC (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Jrcla2 likes this. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that. Well done. Funny how after all that handwringing the thing that worked was the straightest-forward! JohnInDC (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Whack-a-mole time
75.74.52.222 – looks like Drago is back! Do you have time to compile a sockpuppet investigation against this IP? My next 3+ days are totally shot. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DragoLink08. JohnInDC (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks! And less than an hour after posting on your talk page, I realized that I may have random time blocks to edit for the next few days and was about to open the SPI myself when I saw you had already done it. With any luck this IP will be blocked within a day. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- We are lucky - I'm on vacation, and using a laptop for the first time in days. Also I have gotten pretty good at dead-obvious sock puppet reports and can crank them out quickly. Let's see what happens. JohnInDC (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks! And less than an hour after posting on your talk page, I realized that I may have random time blocks to edit for the next few days and was about to open the SPI myself when I saw you had already done it. With any luck this IP will be blocked within a day. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The Bander Leader
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Name coining
Thanks for helping to resolve our disagreement. What in your opinion would constitute a valid proof that someone coined a name, besides being the first one to use it anywhere, including a patent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.70 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, a report by a reliable, third party source that said something like, "the term STT-RAM was coined by so-and-so at Grandis". Find an independent source - a trade publication or something - that writes about these issues that notes the key role claimed for Grandis in the development and / or naming of the technology. Go see WP:reliable for the sorts of sources that would qualify. Short of that, all such claims are just personal knowledge (or, quite possibly, untrue!) and really have no place in the article. JohnInDC (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt reply. What you said sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, it's not often that a reliable, third party source can be found to point out the coiner of every new name. I just know for sure in this case that Grandis invented the name because I talked to their principals at that time. They were debating among different names: Spin-RAM, ST-RAM, SP-RAM, etc. and finally picked STT-RAM. They were the first company dedicated to STT-RAM and the first financially successful one in the space. (Your comment about Grandis's "successful exit" is answered in the reference. Please read it; it's not very long.) My feeling is that Grandis has done more than anyone else in taking STT-RAM mainstream and they therefore should be mentioned in the article together with their founder. All this information is highly interesting to myself and others in the STT-RAM space and should not be eliminated arbitrarily by outsiders who may not have the proper knowledge to appreciate it.
- Your comment on Grandis having a separate page makes sense. However, since the STT-RAM field is (still) quite small, would it be better if we keep it together in one page, at least until it grows big enough to warrant multiple pages? As for your comment on Grandis and related materials being tangential, it's not at all tangential for someone (technical or business) in the field. (In all fairness, are you sure you are qualified to declare something tangential in a field you know next to nothing about? Applications of STT-RAM and financial benefits may not be interesting to technical people but they are interesting to business people. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be for business and finance people also?) There's so little info out there about STT-RAM space. We need to add more, not less, on the subject. To reduce Grandis's prominence, perhaps we should also mention other smaller, less successful players in the space, not removing the mention all together! I can do this addition when I have more time to make this page more informative for our readers, both technical and business.
- By the way, I don't mean to challenge you but can you please clarify your role in Wikipedia? Are you specifically authorized to settle disputes or are you just another editor like us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.70 (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm just an editor like everyone else. People seem to develop specialties and sub-specialties and sometimes I weigh in to try to sort things out but it's pretty random. Only administrators have any "authority" but even with them, authority is just something that comes with experience and a track record of good judgment. Anyhow. Here's the deal with Wikipedia. The gist is, if a fact (particularly, a non-obvious one) hasn't got a source it can't be here. Wikipedia is not a place for experts or otherwise knowledgeable people to write what they know in the hope of instructing the uninformed, but rather it's an edited compendium of already established knowledge that's just woven together in useful form. It is - must be - frustrating to people like yourself, with an actual working knowledge of something that's not yet well reported, to see your contributions undone or removed - but it's how the encyclopedia works. With really, pretty few exceptions, anyone with a working knowledge of English should be able to edit a page on just about any subject and not have to be an expert. To be sure, some pages do require expert attention, and in some arenas, a sound personal understanding of an area will make it easier for an editor to write or edit an article in a way that can be understood by the layman -- but by and large, because Wikipedia ultimately just collects stuff that's already been dissected, understood and explained by other people, most anyone can contribute meaningfully (in the Wikipedia sense) to almost any article. I think this is where you and the other editor were bumping up against one another. Go take a look at WP:OR (covering "original research", which means pretty much anything you may know or think but which isn't sourced) and WP:ISNOT, which negatively defines a lot of the things that Wikipedia isn't, or isn't intended to be - then let me know if that advances the ball any. Finally - what you really should do (if you want) is create an account so that you can keep track of your own edits, and so people can talk to you easily. Your IP address hops around a lot! JohnInDC (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, John, for your explanation on how Wikipedia works. I understand a bit better now. However, I still have 2 issues left:
- 1) You and A13ean keep suggesting that business and finance info are of no interest (tangential) to the Wikipedia's readers. I must disagree strongly here. Many of my colleagues and I often read entries on Wikipedia to obtain business and financial info, including investors, entrepreneurs and founders info. Where specifically in Wikipedia do they mention that we must exclude business/financial/investors/founders/merger and acquisitioins/sales info?
- 2) What do you think of my suggestion to add other companies to reduce the (unintended) prominence of the leader Grandis in the space? If you like, I can spend some time to add them in the near future.
- Again, thanks for being patient with my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. I did take the liberty to revert the webpage to its previous edition but if you'd like to modify from there after taking into account my suggestions, please feel free to do so. Since I don't have much more time to devote to this, I will no longer object but please change ONLY if you feel very strongly about your opinions (tangential info, etc.). We're here not to prove each other wrong, but to make Wikipedia a better place for people, technical or business, to obtain information useful and of interest to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.70 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, another editor has reverted it back, which suggests that my sentiments are shared. I probably would have changed it back too, albeit with a good deal less vehemence than prior to our discussion. The problem with the business and financial info you're putting in - or at least some of the problem - is not just that it's weakly sourced but that it's really sort of beside the point on an article about the particular technology. It's not entirely inappropriate, and if it were well sourced then it would probably warrant a sentence or two. But the emphasis on one company's contributions, without any neutral basis for the assertions, gives the appearance of an agenda or a bias in favor of that company. (I'm not accusing; just observing.) People often come to Wikipedia to promote products, or puff up their own enterprises or interests, and there's a real sensitivity among experienced editors for material that smacks of promotion, advertising or puffery. Anyhow. Thanks for the dialogue. I think you could really contribute to the encyclopedia once you learn a few of the conventions of the place, and I do encourage you to create your own user account. It does make a lot of things easier! JohnInDC (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm just an editor like everyone else. People seem to develop specialties and sub-specialties and sometimes I weigh in to try to sort things out but it's pretty random. Only administrators have any "authority" but even with them, authority is just something that comes with experience and a track record of good judgment. Anyhow. Here's the deal with Wikipedia. The gist is, if a fact (particularly, a non-obvious one) hasn't got a source it can't be here. Wikipedia is not a place for experts or otherwise knowledgeable people to write what they know in the hope of instructing the uninformed, but rather it's an edited compendium of already established knowledge that's just woven together in useful form. It is - must be - frustrating to people like yourself, with an actual working knowledge of something that's not yet well reported, to see your contributions undone or removed - but it's how the encyclopedia works. With really, pretty few exceptions, anyone with a working knowledge of English should be able to edit a page on just about any subject and not have to be an expert. To be sure, some pages do require expert attention, and in some arenas, a sound personal understanding of an area will make it easier for an editor to write or edit an article in a way that can be understood by the layman -- but by and large, because Wikipedia ultimately just collects stuff that's already been dissected, understood and explained by other people, most anyone can contribute meaningfully (in the Wikipedia sense) to almost any article. I think this is where you and the other editor were bumping up against one another. Go take a look at WP:OR (covering "original research", which means pretty much anything you may know or think but which isn't sourced) and WP:ISNOT, which negatively defines a lot of the things that Wikipedia isn't, or isn't intended to be - then let me know if that advances the ball any. Finally - what you really should do (if you want) is create an account so that you can keep track of your own edits, and so people can talk to you easily. Your IP address hops around a lot! JohnInDC (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, I don't mean to challenge you but can you please clarify your role in Wikipedia? Are you specifically authorized to settle disputes or are you just another editor like us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.70 (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're probably right; other companies should have been mentioned to avoid the appearance of favoritism. I just didn't have the time to do them all so I just focused on the leading company which I knew well. To tell the truth, I was somewhat annoyed by the previous editor for keeping removing materials for not very clearly stated reasons. But I do appreciate vigilant people like you and him who spend lots of valuable time to keep Wikipedia clean and useful. When the STT-RAM space gets bigger, probably there should be more than one webpage dedicated to it. For now, we just have to be content with just one webpage containing all of the new and significant developments, technical and business/finance, in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.70 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Reverts to my edits
Thanks for your message on my talk page, however I've seen that you have reverted my edits removing the country, I'll re-add keeping the state included. Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
DragoLink08
John, Jrcla2 and I think DragoLink08 is back here: Special:Contributions/131.247.38.231. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DragoLink08. JohnInDC (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting that going. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
JohninDC,
Not sure if you are the person who deleted my contributions to the Monica Sone page, but I spent hours correcting the style and verifying all references and those in Critical Studies. Please do not undo.
I also corrected proper noun usage such as Nissei and Issei. I am related to Monica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsq (talk • contribs) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't - I took out the sentence about her "realizing how American she was", because there was no source provided for this episode of self-insight, and, the tone was narrative rather than encyclopedic. Now that I am looking at your edits, however, a couple others seem problematic too and I'll be raising the issues on the Talk page. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I cleaned up a few problems that you introduced with your edits and described them at both your Talk page and Talk:Monica Sone. We should continue any discussion there - better, I think, at the latter. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
8 Mile Pop Culture Reference on Cranbrook Schols
That particular youtube video does not apply to WP:YT. This is a quote from the userpage of the youtube user who posted the clip "We clip the best scenes from the greatest movies and bring them to youtube in a legal way for the world to enjoy" therefore there is no copywright infringement on the video. Do not remove the source again.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright was only one of the potential problems. It's a three-minute clip for a two second quote that doesn't come until 2/3 of the way in, and with no clue to the viewer where that spot is. It's too much extraneous video for the small reference buried within it. In its place I've restored the NYT link that you removed as dead (it comes up fine), that original ref being s fully sufficient to establish the cited fact, and more convenient to the reader. I'm also moving this discussion to the article Talk page, where you indicated you'd be discussing it. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it is more convenient, but the problem I had with what you did, is you removed a source all together, and as every wikipedia user knows, unsourced information will be removed. A source should not be removed unless you replace it, with a different one. And the only reason why I replaced it, is because it was marked as a dead link. It might of been an error or the page was moved. But the situation is resolved no so no worries.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, you and I both made a mistake by not checking that NYT link first. Thanks for talking about this. Cheers! JohnInDC (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it is more convenient, but the problem I had with what you did, is you removed a source all together, and as every wikipedia user knows, unsourced information will be removed. A source should not be removed unless you replace it, with a different one. And the only reason why I replaced it, is because it was marked as a dead link. It might of been an error or the page was moved. But the situation is resolved no so no worries.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Paul Spiring
Yep - what makes it complex is that as far as I can tell MX publishing does a mixture of vanity and 'proper' publishing, so it's unclear if he and his chums simply paid for the books to be published. I suspect we will find their links in all sorts of articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly - not very happy with that article being cleaned up - there are multiple IP addresses but it's likely the same person. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was my thought, too, whoever it is. They do seem to have a certain proprietary interest in a, well, comprehensive and laudatory article. JohnInDC (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Another ALO sock?
Louis de la Fontaine (talk · contribs)
You're better at spotting the guy than I am, but this looks like one to me. I can't make sense of what's going on at fr.wikipedia: Although his account there appears to have been renamed to Fille des vents, LdlF's edits seem to mostly postdate Fille des vents's. Neither is blocked; but of the articles Fille des vents claims to have created on his user page, all that I checked were started by Albion or by names that have been blocked as his socks. Deor (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's him. Lately what I've done is just watch the puppet and wait until he does something disruptive, then seek a block. It's easier than flagging it right when he shows up, and then vanishes to God-knows-where. I'm going out of town for a few days so I won't be doing anything about him in any case. But you have certainly tagged the right guy. JohnInDC (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'll keep an eye on him. Being lazy myself, my usual impulse is not to let such accounts rack up too many edits, to avoid my having to go through a great number, looking for what needs to be reverted. Deor (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it appears he's already being a pill so I filed a report. Thanks for the head's-up! JohnInDC (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'll keep an eye on him. Being lazy myself, my usual impulse is not to let such accounts rack up too many edits, to avoid my having to go through a great number, looking for what needs to be reverted. Deor (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Administrator's Noticeboard case involving Jespah
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban of Jespah". Thank you. OlYellerTalktome 17:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Barnstar
|
The Citation Barnstar | |
| For finding reliable references for Gurley Novelty under fire. Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
- Hah, thanks! There aren't many of them, that's for sure - and I think we're stretching what we've got to the limit. Still it seems like an article worth keeping, even if it may at some point have to be whittled down a bit. JohnInDC (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- It does seem notable, although I agree that some of the text needs reducing a bit! Keep up the great work! - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Robert Breedlove Deletion
John, archived article showing Robert Breedlove as founder.
If you are unable to access, here is the article (below). Please understand that starting an internet cafe in Alaska during this time was a major achievement for the city & tourism. Not to mention the extreme cost to Mr Breedlove. Could we let this one go please?
Anchorage Daily News (AK){PUBLICATION2} August 2, 1996 Section: Weekend Edition: Final Page: H3
THE CYBER-EDITOR 8 AT LARGE Kim Severson Staff
So far, e-mail is my favorite part of the information age. Don't get me wrong. The World Wide Web is fascinating. I especially love all those sites that let you check the temperature inside some Minnesotan's beer cooler or read about the top-10 burger outlets, according to Susan and Chet Brinker of Kansas City, Mo. Really good stuff. Useful stuff. But e-mail is the breakthrough. My buddy from high school is going to come visit me because of e-mail. Neither one of us would put pen to paper, but when we both got e-mail addresses, it was like we were back in Detroit trying to figure how to secure fake IDs. I get copy for 8 by e-mail. I talk to other journalists. I set up softball practice. I learn what's new in the wired world and I get great, silly stuff sent to me by both friends and perfect strangers. You know the stuff I'm talking about -- a recipe from a friend who adores wild mushrooms, a series of Spam haikus, the complete collection of David Letterman Top Ten lists. The other day, someone I don't know sent me a list titled You Might Be a Republican If ... (OK, OK, I'll pass a few on, being the political season and all.) You Might Be a Republican If ... You think proletariat is a type of cheese. You once broke loose at a party and removed your neck tie. You've ever referred to the moral fiber of something. You've ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch lives in a trash can because he is lazy and doesn't want to contribute to society. You confuse Lenin with Lennon. Enough already. But my point is that e-mail -- and even the Web -- is a good place to be. Of course, only about 15 percent of Americans have modems and used an Internet connection in the past six months (got that stat from the Sunday paper). But that won't last long. The gap between the techno and techno-nots is shrinking. My parents, for example, still use rotary phones. A recent survey of San Jose, Calif., elementary-school students showed that dial was not a part of their vocabularly. And all in my lifetime. Go figure. Which brings me to this week's cover story. Cheryl Kirk, who writes about computers and other technology for the Daily News' Monday Your Business section, introduces us to Surf City, the city's giant step into the world of cyber-cafes. It's a place you can dip your toe in the information revolution without committing to anything. For balance, we asked young columnist Julia O'Malley to write about her recent experiences in a cyber-cafe in London. (It wasn't fun.) The stories begin on Page 23. That's it for this week. Thanks for staying out of the tar pits.
Read more: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F793304CEDAEC40&p_docnum=1&s_trackval=&s_subexpires=12/31/2015%2023:59%20PM&s_dlid=DL0111102014322013783&s_accountid=AC0111102014313613709&s_referrer=&s_siteloc=&s_orderid=NB0111102014321813775&s_docsleft=0&s_docstart=1&s_docsbal=docs%20remaining:%200&s_subterm=Subscription%20until:%20&s_ecproduct=DOC&s_docsread=1&s_ecprodtype=TEST&s_upgradeable=no&s_username=RobertBreedlove#ixzz1bKh25u35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amienutter (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that he founded the cafe. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he, personally, is notable under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I think the answer is no. Others may view it differently. That is why I opened the subject for debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Breedlove. You should comment there! Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks for noticing :) Alexandria (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: UM Stadium
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Message added 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Closed the AfD debate
Hi JohnInDC, I closed the deletion debate that you started and then withdrew at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark N Greene. Just so you know, you don't have to be an admin to close an AfD: I've done it a few times and I'm not an admin. You just have to learn how to do it: see WP:AFD/AI and WP:NAC. Don't worry if you don't want to or can't be bothered to: someone will come and sort it out eventually. 
—Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
ANI discussion regarding 74.64.126.212
Regarding your ANI post; I've watchlisted the IP's talk page and will keep an eye on their edits when they start up again, but if I miss anything please feel free to ping me on my talk page and I will follow-up. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's funny how something that's 75% right can be worse than nothing, but this seems like a good example - JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's certainly the 25% that's worrisome, along with the complete lack of communication. Hopefully they will read your message and understand why their edits are so problematic. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Mount Pleasant Heritage Trail
In regards to the Mount Pleasant Heritage Trail page (new page) - the only sentence that was taken from their site was the description of who the Heritage Trail Working group was - "The Mount Pleasant Heritage Trail Working Group is an ad-hoc, diverse coalition of neighborhood residents, business owners, activists, scholars, and others organized to develop the Mount Pleasant Heritage Trail in cooperation with Cultural Tourism DC." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsachdev (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I saw at least two other instances of both direct copying and too-close paraphrasing, to wit:
- Your entry: "The trail's 17 poster-sized street signs combine storytelling with historic photographs and maps."
- Original: "The trail's 17 poster-sized street signs combine storytelling with historic photographs and maps."
- Your entry: "The trail begins at 16th and Harvard streets, NW, three blocks from the Columbia Heights station on Metro’s Green line. The tour is a 90-minute, self-guided tour loops through the Mount Pleasant Historic District and ends at Mount Pleasant and Kenyon streets, NW."
- Original: "Find the first sign at 16th and Harvard streets, NW, three blocks from the Columbia Heights station on Metro’s Green line. The 90-minute, self-guided tour loops through the Mount Pleasant Historic District and ends at Mount Pleasant and Kenyon streets, NW."
- The original material above is from this link: http://www.culturaltourismdc.org/things-do-see/trails-tours/neighborhood-heritage-trails/village-city-mount-pleasant-heritage-trail
- You can't copy material from other places and include it here - at all. And the problem isn't solved by slightly reworking the subject sentences. These are just two examples I found. Please read the material at the various pages linked to in the material I placed on your Talk page to get an idea of how to ensure that your Wikipedia entries don't run afoul of the copyright policies. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Stop stalking
Please stop stalking me. I can report you to the authorities. 76.190.196.103 (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am not stalking - I am encountering inappropriate edits (which you make in great volume) and repairing them. Now please stop. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- My edits are not inappropriate. You are the one that needs to stop. 76.190.196.103 (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm serious. Stalking is a serious crime. You could end up in jail. 76.190.196.103 (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- You should read up on legal threats on Wikipedia before you say more. JohnInDC (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have commented further on your Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- You should read up on legal threats on Wikipedia before you say more. JohnInDC (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Adding sources
I am now adding sources to my edits. Please withdraw the case. LastOneInLine (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are. I agree. But this tendency to abandon accounts when you encounter resistance is pretty disturbing. If you are serious about following WP policies then I will speak up on your behalf but I don't think the SSI report is inappropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am serious. LastOneInLine (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Go and defend yourself at the SSI page. I put in a note in your favor. JohnInDC (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Made the note. LastOneInLine (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now when all the dust settles I'll be happy to help you navigate the thicket of WP policies and procedures. It can be very confusing. Your latest edits are BTW a big improvement. JohnInDC (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure you can't withdraw the case? LastOneInLine (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now when all the dust settles I'll be happy to help you navigate the thicket of WP policies and procedures. It can be very confusing. Your latest edits are BTW a big improvement. JohnInDC (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Made the note. LastOneInLine (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Go and defend yourself at the SSI page. I put in a note in your favor. JohnInDC (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
FDIC example insurance coverage image
Good morning (afternoon for you), JohninDC. I disagree that the image I created was original research. It was a screen print that the FDIC's EDIE (Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator) produced (https://www.fdic.gov/edie/index.html). So it is verifiable. I suppose I should source it or cite it better. Let me know how I can correct it. But I believe, the image should be able to stand. I believe it is quite useful for someone reading about FDIC insurance to see how it might work for a real world scenario.
Thank you, Chriscd2 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, fascinating! I have to be honest now - you've stumped me on that one. If I understand right, you used the FDIC's estimator to produce a table that you put on your blog and also copied here? I am going to assume, without being positive, that because it's generated using a gov't website there's no copyright issue; and because it's the gov't program that creates it, it is as you say verifiable. It seems fine to me - but I do think, as you suggest, its provenance needs to be documented better. Maybe you can just change the information in the image file you created to explain it better. I admit to being not terribly familiar with the whole image thing. Perhaps you can raise the issue at Editor Assistance Requests and see if anyone has useful advice there. Thanks for getting back to me and I'm sorry I can't be of greater help! JohnInDC (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
HATAM
HATAM is a notable member of the Mt. Pleasant Community, his mixtape is dropping next year. What do you want me to do upload a picture of him in the hood? Leave HATAM on the page, if you do not HATAM will be forced to diss you in his next single. Thankyou
HATAM-SQUAD OUT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.33.194 (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a promotional venue for artists who have yet to achieve notability. If and when HATAM drops his mixtape, and if and when it receives sufficient attention that he or it qualify as "notable", and if and when you can source his residence - then by all means, add him. In the meantime I'll take the risk of the diss. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Jrcla2 likes this. Hey HATAM-SQUAD, put me in the single too! Jrcla2 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Holy Rood Cemetery
Hello John
I am the author of research cited on the Wikipedia page for Holy Rood Cemetery, and have a few suggestions.
1) "Said to be", regarding African American burials, suggests doubt: actually, the burials are documented, only the upper number is uncertain.
2) It has been documented that Georgetown University had an initiative to develop Holy Rood in 1984; while a thinking person might make a shrewd guess that the issue will surely arise again, that is only a guess.
3) The website uploaded in 2009 has been discontinued; the new site is:
http://gloverparkhistory.com/institutions/holy-rood-cemetery/holy-rood-cemetery-2/
These things are all easy to clear up, and would be easier if I were more familiar with Wikipedia, or if we were simply talking. Could you contact me by email?
Many thanks,
Carlton Fletcher fletcher.carlton@gmail.com 66.44.42.235 (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again John
- Seeing the Wikipedia article on Holy Rood has caused me to go pa=back and improve my own site. The best location for users to access my research and sources on the cemetery is:
- Carlton Fletcher
- fletcher.carlton@gmail.com
- 66.44.42.235 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Carlton, and thanks. I'll take a look at the article, and the sources, and clean some stuff up when I get a chance! JohnInDC (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Holy Rood Cemetery
Hi John I'm glad to see your reply; I am a latecomer to Wikipedia, and clearly need to learn more. At the moment, even finding this talk page two days in a row is a challenge. Can you recommend how I should get started?
Carlton 66.44.42.235 (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
ALO 2011/12/04
Sleeping sockpuppet found on wp-FR: fr:Spécial:Contributions/GoalMan&Sachs, active on wp-EN: Special:Contributions/GoalMan&Sachs. See: fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/décembre 2011#Demande concernant Oakman et Albion - 3 décembre. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
ALO 2011/12/07
Possible sockpuppet: Special:Contributions/HORFE. See:
- fr:Spécial:Contributions/HORFE,
- same French User page as former sockpuppets,
- French CU request (waiting for an answer).
Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for this, and the one before it. JohnInDC (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Ohio State Michigan rivalry
Then why are the unsourced Ohio State NCAA violations acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.145 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I added a source for the way in which the OSU problems unfolded. You added material re Rodriguez's violations - which did happen - but connected them up to his firing, which wasn't in those sources. This is, in any event, material for the Rodriguez page, or perhaps the Michigan Wolverines page - not this one. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Yeah, definitely not me, and FYI, there has been a whole lot of vandalism on a few Ohio/Cleveland related articles that has been coming from IP addresses registered to Chase. How and what can I do about them using that name?Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe this? - Wikipedia:Username_policy#Usernames_for_Administrator_Attention_guidelines JohnInDC (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I put the username on the list, and a bot registered it on another list. Guess we'll see what happens next...Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
ALO 2011/12/09
Sleeping sockpuppet on wp-EN: Special:Contributions/Johnny Mallory, found on wp-FR by fr:User:(:Julien:): fr:Spécial:Contributions/Johnny Mallory, where he is active. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |