User talk:John/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Barnstar 2 Mailbox 3 Sources 4 Greenland pic 5 Page move 6 Dates 7 Sweep my links 8 Gibraltar Currency 9 Gibnews 10 The Beatles 11 Copy edit? 12 Piped links in dates 13 Padraig3uk 14 Titanic 15 Article writing 16 Dealing with POV articles 17 Gibnews 2 18 Second opinion needed 19 Sources 20 Murder of the Rock 21 The Gibnews Diff 22 vandal block 23 Hey there 24 Edit war at Template:Northern Ireland cities 25 My RFA 26 Thanks 27 Gripen crashes 28 Someone's Moving your page 29 Your user page 30 Image query 31 War 32 Irish Nationalism 33 Re:holmes.sherlock 34 Re:deletion 35 The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007 36 Volunteer 37 Mairéad Farrell POW category 38 POW category 39 State terrorism by the United States 40 Edits to the titanic article 41 Vandalism 42 Categories 43 User:Ottawaman 44 Tom Williams (Irish Republican) 45 Neutral POV - an Oxymoron 46 Just little old me 47 Flag of Northern Ireland 48 Dominik Diamond 49 Mainstream newspapers not valid? 50 As a conscientious editor ... 51 F-104 52 RMS Titanic 53 Brixton 54 U 2 55 Patience of Job barnstar 56 WP:PS again 57 English, chap, do you speak it? 58 brixton 59 Flag icons 60 Edits 61 Pictures Help 62 User talk:128.186.159.219 63 Thanks for the welcome 64 Spot the difference 65 I can delete a post of my own if no one has responded to it. 66 factory farming 67 Reply 68 FF 69 Why#d you undo my edit? 70 BB 71 New York City 72 Making you aware 73 3 revert rule 74 RfA formatting 75 Re: Upcoming Iain M. Banks Culture Novel, "Matter" 76 Thank you... by the way: 77 LUU 78 Aaron Laffey created for the fourth time 79 RE: greeland mountains comment

[edit] Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I give this barnstar to John because of his good humor and replying or responing my questions everytime, keep up the great work, John.

Sherlock Holmes 23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mailbox

I cc'd an email to you and it bounced back - your email box is full. I'll watch this page. Tyrenius 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

You shall be surprised to learn that sources are equally valid regardless of the language they are written in. Also that some people consider removal of sourced information vandalism. Nikola 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are so worried about this reference, why don't you ask me to explain you what it is and translate it so that you could see what it says? If you don't trust me, you could ask someone else who speaks Serbian to verify my translation. Nikola 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greenland pic

I'm curious what part of Greenland Image:Greenlandmountains.jpg shows, and when this photo was taken? -- Beland 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It was taken in November 2006 from the window of a Boeing 747 on a transatlantic flight. The moving map display showed we were over Greenland at the time. I'm afraid I could not be more precise than that about the location. --John 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice picture. Sunset, I presume? -- ChrisO 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I suspect that at that latitude in November sunrise and sunset must be virtually one event. I'd love to see it from the ground some day, the furthest north I've ever been so far was Orkney. --John 17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. Well I'm glad you snapped the photo, even if we don't know exactly where you were. 8) -- Beland 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Hi. As you can see from the talk page of State Terrorism of the US, we have a problem with the title move that needs an admin to fix. I was trying to restore it but did it wrongly, and now it needs an admin to correct. Thanks.Giovanni33 05:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's sorted now though. Let me know if you need any other help. --John 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, actually the title is stuck at State-sponsored terrorism by the United States which was a stop gap measure (since it could not simply be moved back to State terrorism by the United States) which most people really do not like. It might be moved away from there again, but I think we should go back to that title while the discussion continues. I think this requires an admin to make the move because of a bunch of messy redirects though I could be wrong. Any chance you can move it back to State terrorism by the United States with a note that this is just correcting the bad move to "State-sponsored" and obviously future moves can be considered? I know you've already weighed in as wanting to keep the current title (someone removed your vote for some odd reason, but I put it back) so if you feel it would be inappropriate for you to make a move given that you have expressed a viewpoint I would understand (though personally I don't see it as a problem). Anyhow I think it would be good if someone could do this. Thanks!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have raised it at AN/I as I don't think it would be proper for me to use my admin tools in a conflict I've been involved in. Thanks for letting me know. --John 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I agree that's probably the best way to proceed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Hi John, I just read over WP:DATE; I think it is about time I get the linking correct! Chris Buttigieg 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris, no problem. Very well done for all your good work; it was a pleasure to copyedit two such interesting articles. --John 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweep my links

Hello

I'm French . I don't understand why you recently swept the links I put on the page of Auxerre .

I think it brings precise and new informations about the club of Auxerre .

It looks like this page was entirely yours and that you don't support others coming

in your little privacy . I thing it's not conform to the spirit of Wikipedia .

It's strange but I think every page in Wikipedia is the property of a little dictator .

You have now the power of censure ! Congratulations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.189.242 (talk • contribs)

Salut et bienvenue!

Je suis desolé que vous êtes derangé.

Il faut lire WP:EL pour voir la raison.

Au revoir!

--John 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar Currency

The Act which establishes the right to issue notes is ongoing, and it is legally wrong to refer to it in the past tense, or so my lawyer says.

As regards what the currency is, the GoG London website says its pounds sterling, which is the notes say, how banks keeps accounts, and good enough for both me and Wikipedia. That is what the reference cited says, nothing more. The GIP as a seperate currency may exist in theory, but in practice you cannot buy one or hold a bank account denominated in it.

Wording that refers to 'Gibraltar Pounds' was taken from a time when there were notes in circulation saying that, Barclays Bank charged .25% to convert money in local accounts to pay UK bills. They were forced to stop the practice and the notes had to be withdrawn.

--Gibnews 00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and I don't disbelieve any of it. However, on Wikipedia we have to be guided by what is verifiable, not what is true. Please bear this in mind. --John 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibnews

Hi. I just tried to improve the wording on the GIP so that it did not take either side of the contradictory references on the same GoG website, but Gibnews is now reverting my edits within seconds of me making them. I don't think this is fair, my edit should at least be allowed to stand for a while to see what others think, no? Am I being unreasonable? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are being as unreasonable as anyone. However the current version does not assert that the currency in circulation is 'Gibraltar Pounds' which your previous revisions did. Its now simply a matter of the GoG updating the contradictory material on their websites. I believe John has got the point about the provisions of the Act being ongoing, so there is no need to carry on the discussion here --Gibnews 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles

I have just reverted some unnoticed vandalism by another IP. I didn't mean to say that your edits were vandalism. 74.36.25.236 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --John 16:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. So long as we're all fair and square. It was just something I couldn't help. However, I will try to make more constructive edits, or rather use the talk page before editing. 74.36.25.236 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit?

John, since you watch over RMS Titanic, I thought you might be interested in another interesting White Star ship...I just did a piece on the SS Suevic, and if you have time, it could use a copyedit. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piped links in dates

Hello John, can you tell me if the piped links in dates issue is settled? I've tried removing some, but User:Piotr Mikołajski has been reverting them and telling me to look at some discussion page which is all over the place. Thanks in advance. M Van Houten 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

See my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Readability. I don't think there is either a consensus or a policy-based case for keeping these links at present, but I would like some more input to that discussion before we make any changes to articles. --John 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Padraig3uk

Can you have a look at Padraig3uk's edits to Northern Ireland flags issue, List of Northern Irish flags and Northern Ireland? He is reverting edits without leaving an edit summary, as well as reinserting images not allowed under fair use. Is it just going to be the case that no one can edit these articles other than him? If so, then compromise will never be reached on this flags issue. Thanks Astrotrain 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain you have been trying to remove the Assembley logo for months, its use in that article is to represent the Northern `Ireland Assembly and its government, as for me not leaving an edit summary, I sometimes don't when dealing with you as you refuse to discuss changes in the talk pages and ignore the ongoing discussions there.--padraig3uk 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic

I was adding inline citationss, in case your unaware its being considered for de-listing, so i was stocking up on references, and the unsurpassed luxury section reeks of POV, so it needs editing.

[edit] Article writing

Seeing as you're currently opposing me because of my lack of article writing, I would appreciate if you looked at this. I hope you don't mind me posting this on your talk page, but I know some people probably don't watchlist everything they ever edit. Thanks, R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with POV articles

Hello John.

I'm quite new to wikipedia and so far have not done anything much more complicated than making minor changes to articles. I came across Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) I thought it was fairly obviously rather one-sided in its content. I added some sort of POV template to the article and make a post in the talk page, as per wiki's guidelines. Most of the references in the article are POV in nature, and some of the barely related to what they are used to support.

How do I go about improving the article please?

Thank you Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that an unencyclopaedic article is allowed to remain, unidentified as being such, just because I'm too daft to be able to change it myself? Thanks. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibnews 2

Gunniog, can you have a look at this. User:Gibnews referred to myself and other editors of the Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) article as "rabid and others their running dogs". I consider that a direct personal attack, however, as its the "new me" and I am trying to avoid getting drawn into this type of conflict I asked him first withdraw it and apologise and I would forget about it. He deleted my messege, so now I am coming to have a word with you about it as you, Rock and Ty formally warned Gibnews here last week about it which he immediately then archieved.--Vintagekits 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As VK's mentor, I am aware of this, and other then the fact I'm his mentor and thus somewhat biased, Gibnews was told that if he made another attack like the one he did previously, then he would be blocked. That is beyond the pale, and deserving of at least a short term block, correct? SirFozzie 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Gibnews has been helping me, my opinion is probably biased too. But I don't think that his comment was actually aimed specifically at Vintagekits.

I have, however, noticed that Vintagekits has suddenly taken to editing a lot of my contributions to articles. Nothing wrong with that per se, of course, but I must question his motive. He's probably taken offense at me attempting neutralise his article. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I am not going to comment on who the attack was directed at as I will let others work that out. 2. I am not sure what your point is, I havent edited anything across you at all and I have only edited pages which are already on my watchlist.--Vintagekits 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See here for the edit you were looking for.--Vintagekits 01:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion needed

Hi John, I could use a second opinion on something, if you have time. In the article Fetus in fetu, Una Smith has been repeatedly removing sourced material and/or the sources themselves. He seems to believe that for medical and scientific subjects, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines of preferring non-trivial secondary sources doesn't apply, and that we should rely on primary sources. I have repeately explained to him our policies and guidelines, provided him with links to the appropriate places, but he either just doesn't get it or simply doesn't want to accept it. This is more than a content dispute, in my view, because instead of disputing the content, he's trying to discredit it by questioning and/or removing the sources, without providing sources of his own. This has come to the point that it is, in my opinion, blatant degradation of the article, tantamount to vandalism.

After yet another round of removing sources and sourced information, I left a stern warning on his talk page that removal of sourced information is not acceptable, and that if he continued, a block could be forthcoming. In response, he then dropped a complaint over at AN/I, where I've responded as well.

I guess what I need is two-fold...first, a quick review of my AN/I response to make sure I'm not overstepping any bounds. Secondly, if he continues to persist in the removal of sources, my opinion is that a block is warranted, but it would be inappropriate for me to issue it, as it would appear to be COI, so as my hands are a bit tied, I could use some help in defending the article's integrity here.

The irony is that this isn't even an article that I'm really passionate about. I resurrected it from a redirect as a place to merge some material from an AfD, and to bring a couple other stubs to. It just really bothers me that this editor is so willing to blatantly ignore sourcing policy and remove perfectly legitimate secondary sources, so I really see this as a case of trying to stick up for Wikipedia's sourcing policies rather than trying to defend and article, or content that I'm attached to.

I haven't dropped a bunch of diffs into this request, because I didn't know if you'd want to take an unprompted look at things. Diffs are great, but I don't want it to appear that I'm trying to sway the picture by how I present the diffs. On the other hand, if they'd be helpful to you, let me know and I'll provide some examples of what I'm talking about. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to you on User talk:Una Smith. Regards, Una Smith 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

As you seem to know alot about citing sources here on Wikipedia, I wonder what you think about a source on Siege of Dubrovnik article. The information came from a documentary which seems to be unavailable for viewing. If care to take a look at it im referring to the second reference. It doesnt seem to be a "non-free format" as you put it. Paulcicero 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --John 01:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of the Rock

I gotta say I am very unhappy with this edit. The term Volunteer should be the only term used as it is the most encyclopedic, however the current agreement is to refer member first and then Volunteer, in the manner I have just done - please revert this. Additional each Volunteer was unarmed and as the SAS claimed they were planning a remote controlled bomb the it is important to also state that they were also not carrying this technology either.--Vintagekits 22:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I know they were unarmed at the time. Member/Volunteer looks poor; where was this consensus reached? One or the other is fine. We don't need to report a negative, that they were not found with a trigger for the bomb they were engaged in planting. We just report the facts, neutrally, and let the reader make their own opinion of them. --John 22:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons (not the only reason) that the Member/Volunteer form looks unencyclopedic to me is that in reality on Wikipedia neither term would be capitalised here; both of them being, and that slash.... looks naff. Sorry. --John 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion that "it looks naff" simply doesnt cut it - his rank in the IRA was Volunteer - hence it is capitalised as per norm.--Vintagekits 23:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia, I think. --John 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

They were unarmed and there was no remote control for the bomb that had not been planted at the time they were shot, however nobody knew that until afterwards and the ECHR report makes it clear that a radio device was anticipated. The verdict of the Gibraltar court was lawful killing and that remains, so to say they were 'murdered' is pushing a POV which is not factually correct. Claiming ranks for terrorists in plain clothes is a debate I'd rather not get into. --Gibnews 23:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that clearly shows your POV, John may agree with you also, however that is immaterial - we deal in facts not POV. They were unarmed and had no bomb when they were murdered without warning and without opportunity to surrender (as backed up by indepenent witnesses) so remind me who you consider the terrorists are! Anyway it matter not that you consider them unworthy of rank, the fact is they did hold it.--Vintagekits 23:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider them unworthy of rank, I would be happy for us to call them volunteers. Murder is a legal term whose use is not justified here. --John 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can ytou please explain why you are uncapitalising the term Volunteer.--Vintagekits 15:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) dictates this. Just as George Bush is the U.S. president (although we can call him President Bush), volunteer does not get a capital in an instance like this. --John 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Other issues with your last edit include the following mistakes. 1. It was a fundraising mission - why remove that? 2. The "poiginant" section is taken directly from the TPC book, he uses that exact phrase so I dont see why removed removed referenced material. 3. the last obsequies and a funeral are two different things - again why the change when the references doesnt stated that he precided over the funeral? 4. The references did not state that his death "caused controversy in medical circles" its stated that it "caused controversy in English medical circles" - why remove referenced material. If you are going to start editing these articles please take more time and effort in doing so and I dont want to have to do this with every edit you make.--Vintagekits 15:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1) A bank robbery was a fundraising mission? Seems too obvious to need saying. 2) If it is a quote it needs to be in quotation marks, with a proper attribution. It also needs to be spelled properly. 3) my mistake, I didn't know that, I thought it was just a fancy way of saying funeral 4) Again, a quote should be in quotation marks and be referenced so the reader can check it themselves. Your advice is likely well-intentioned so I do not take offence at it and I'll resist the temptation to give you any in return, for now. --John 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I find your suggestion a little nonsensical - the terms coming from a book - they are not quotes as if the guy is talking himself, its not a novel, its text from a book - are suggesting that every piece information taken from from every source it attibuted mid line and put in qoutes? The information is referenced from a reliable source and that is enough. As fer spelin mistooks - I'm not bodered about them as me spelin is sit. --Vintagekits 16:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Nonsensical or not, that is how we work here. If it's a quote, it should be shown as such.--John 16:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just said its not a quote - its text in the book.--Vintagekits 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if it is a quote from a book it should be accurately quoted, it should be made clear where it is quoted from, and the source should allow the reader to confirm for himself the accuracy of the quote. --John 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well its not word for word so its not a direct quote - the information is referenced so if you have issue with that then I suggest you either get a copy of the book to confirm it or get another source to contradict it!--Vintagekits 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the onus is on you to reference correctly and accurately any information you want to remain in the article. Otherwise it will be removed. --John 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to wind me up for some reason?? The bloody article is referenced - I've told you its referenced and I've even provided the pages. The book is freely available - if you dont believe the information I have taken from the book then get a copy. This is my last comment here on this as I am becoming annoyed.--Vintagekits 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to wind you up, no. It certainly isn't worth getting annoyed over. --John 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Gibnews Diff

[1] (oops, signing) SirFozzie 01:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have given him a last warning for that; it is quite unacceptable. --John 01:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked: User_talk:Gibnews#Block. He's already had the final warning. It will help all editors concerned here to know that personal attacks on others are unacceptable. Tyrenius 02:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise I was superceding your post to him (and apologise for this), but I'd already said another abusive post would result in a block, after he'd been heavily warned. I also noted your statement of involvement (quite properly made), and wasn't in that position. Tyrenius 03:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine, I think we both did the right thing. --John 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandal block

Be my guest :).. I hadn't had a chance to see if he had any good edits SirFozzie 05:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Hi John! I think I might just be a bit daft, but I'm wondering about this edit, where it seems as if some comments got removed. I'm just wondering if it may have been a formatting thing, as I know I've made similar mistakes when trying to comment on an RfA. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I I wonder how that happened? Thanks for letting me know. --John 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war at Template:Northern Ireland cities

Another usual edit war regarding the Ulster banner atthe above template. Thankfully it has been pretty quiet on the template from over a month as can be seen here from the edit history. However user:Setanta747 just added the UB. Its a relatively antagonistic thing to do and was always going to instigate a reaction especially as he was requested not to do that here and given a warning for edit warring here only three days ago. I removed the UB - he reinsterted it, Barry removed it, I then tried a compromise of adding the NI map and contacting him to discuss. However it continued and now I've been asked by him to stay off his talk page here. Can you please havea word as its not only imo distracting and disruptive. --Vintagekits 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Same again here.--Vintagekits 23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

I replied to your oppose vote. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. --Caltas ^(talk) 17:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. --John 17:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gripen crashes

Hi, John. My reason for having the date tags as headings is that with only linebreaks to increase readability, the text will appear as a massive "chunk". Don't you agree? After all this a listing with a given structure: the course of events leading to the crash, and the explanation (if any). Now it seems that all crashes are one single event. And what is your point in naming the pilot? I know who it was, too (although it's spelt Rådeström). LarRan 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want to know about a specific crash, having the dates as headings will directly lead you right. LarRan 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone's Moving your page

Hey John, someone called user:jorby ma has just moved your page to a page called user:ohbaby, I had helped you undo it and warn him never do it again. ✬holmes.sherlock✬ ^{(talk) (contribs)} Holmes.sherlock 03:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

Astrotrain and myself had reverted that comment by a earlier vandal but User:Holmes.sherlock reverted my edit and then proceeded to mess about with your page, I then noticed he restored the page but left that comment in, I think you should querie him as to why he reverted my edit and what he was trying to do.--padraig3uk 07:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did. --John 14:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image query

I'm not sure of the right place to mention this, but you were on the Michael Gaughan page and I see you're an administrator.

This image is claimed to be released into the public domain by an editor. However I don't think he took it. The actual site (www.ross.navy.mil) seems to be down at the moment, but you can see the picture here (second one along) which is the exact same size as also. A cached version of the site makes it clear it's a US Navy site. With my limited knowledge of copyrights that may mean the actual image is public domain, but until the site is working it's impossible to verify the status and I very much doubt it belongs to the editor who uploaded it. Please advise, thanks. Scalpfarmer 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've dropped them a note. I know the editor already. --John 14:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it as it wasn't being used anyway. --John 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the remaining ones he uploaded. This is a re-scaled version of this. Where's the best place to report any future problems with images please? Scalpfarmer 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted it. Wikipedia:Copyright problems would be the place in future. --John 03:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'll go there in future. But to avoid red tape on this occasion, his last two "public domain" images can be seen here, so will need deleting as well I assume? Scalpfarmer 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) No, thank you for yours. I'll just delete them. Shame, I was holding out for the hope that he/she would have contributed even one genuine picture... --John 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War

Who are you to say what is and what isnt a war?--Vintagekits 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vintagekits, nice to see you. War is a legal term. If you can find a reliable source that calls the NI troubles a war and calls IRA prisoners POWs I'll gladly revert that one. Until then... --John 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Glady - maybe you should discuss these thing instead of your usual tactic. regards.--Vintagekits 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] - more if you want!! Slainte!--Vintagekits 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see in the BBC link (the only one I looked at) any mention of POWs. "Your usual tactic" seems rather uncivil. --John 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are trying to bait me into being uncivil you are doing a good job - I suggest you read more than one link in future.--Vintagekits 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just doing my job of trying to keep Wikipedia NPOV. There was no mention of POWs in the RTE or the BBC stories; I'm not now clear why you sent them. --John 00:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The links prove that there was a war, they were imprisioned by the enemy during that war, therefore POW's.--Vintagekits 01:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I see. That just isn't how we work here though. See WP:NOR. --John 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No OR used, I've provided the links.--Vintagekits 01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The links show that some considered the Troubles to be a war. There is nothing there that says IRA prisoners were POWs. That's OR at that point. --John 01:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want a we read of the Third Geneva Convention if you think what I have said is OR.--Vintagekits 01:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Nationalism

My user page has been rewritten as you requested.YourPTR! 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:holmes.sherlock

Well, I wanted to go to your talk page and leave you a message, then I saw your name changed to Ohbaby instead of John! I then saw the history, and knew it was user:jorby ma. So, I helped you undo it and warned Jorby Ma not to do it again or I will ask and admin to block him. Thanks for your really kind attention.Holmes.sherlock 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:deletion

Well, sorry, John, I thought I put it in Ohbaby's page. Sorry.Holmes.sherlock 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007

The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volunteer

I noticed you changing the capital V’s in Volunteer and would like to know why? I would suggest you read The Volunteer uniforms, weapons and history of the Irish Republican Army 1913-1997, by James Durney. Volunteer is always spelt with a capital V. It is also abbreviated to Vol. Regards --Domer48 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Lower case "v" should be used for the time being." (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage) and "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)). See also User talk:Vintagekits. --John 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mairéad Farrell POW category

user:Domer48 keeps re-adding the POW category and I believe has also broken the 3RR on the article Mairéad Farrell.

Thank you. Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've warned the editor about edit-warring. --John 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look this then [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell&diff=143927505&oldid=143913617 this edit] he made please? Firstly, dead reference links shouldn't be removed. Secondly, that is not neutral editing. After removing the dead reference, a "fact" tag has been placed on the part about them being unarmed and trying to surrender. However the parts about, for example, the Semtex being found in a car Farrell has keys for hasn't had an "fact" tag added. Surely if he's going to remove references everything that was references needs a "fact" tag adding, not just picking and choosing parts? That is not neutral and fair editing in my opinion.

And John since you are involved on the article, is there a more neutral opinion we could call upon? --Domer48 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. --John 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith. Nothing I do on wikipedia is designed to mislead people or push a POV. I removed a dead reference and replaced it with a citation thingy. I could've just removed the whole lot, but chose not to. Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bicker with you, I actually try and avoid new editors like you because so many turn out to be socks of RMS and its a total waste of time and energy. Anyway why did you only ask for a citation for them being murdered while unarmed, but no other piece of information which is not sourced by a reference?--Vintagekits 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you should bicker about it, especially not on my talk page. Please take well-considered arguments framed civilly in terms of our core policies to article talk and try to improve these articles. Thanks. --John 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please try to work productively with each other rather than bickering about fact tags. --John 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again --John, is this [9] just a wind up or are they serious. If it is the former, it’s in bad taste, if the latter its pure provocation. Rather than respond I felt it only right to get your opinion first. --Domer48 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Leave it with me Domer. --John 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Domer's just added a warning about my "vandalism" of the article on my talk page. Obviously I have deleted it. Unlike him I've broken no wikipedia rules in remove the POW category from the article, have I? Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in removing the category, and not in itself in removing the messages. However your edit summary "silly comment, removed. I don't take comments from hypocrites seriously" is a serious breach of WP:CIVIL. Please don't. --John 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello John, I left this message [10] on Biofoundationsoflanguage’s talk page and then this one[11]. Both of which were removed, with the following edit summary [12] . Now is this to be tolerated, or should I just react to this provocation.? --Domer48 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with removing the category, and your use of a boilerplate vandalism warning with an established user was unwise. More to the point that was definitely not vandalism. Neither of you has behaved well. It would be better to try to listen to one another's points of view and try to compromise. --John 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John it is you who dose not seem to understand. Your tone and manner for one, as administrator. “I will ensure that you receive a break from editing.” That’s sound just about reasonable! Now I suggest you report me to an admin, if you have a problem with my attitude. I consider this particular disscussion closed, as no reasonable conclusion will be reached. --Domer48 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POW category

John, I have been looking at this dispute and remain somewhat unclear about the POW category. Certainly from looking at the contents, it seems a bit of a dolly mixture of cases. Is there any Wiki policy you can refer me to on this? The more I look into this the more unclear I am as to why MF is not allowed be included.(Regards (Sarah777 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Not a policy, no. But see Talk:Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)#POW status where User:Rockpocket makes the seemingly reasonable suggestion that we use Category:People convicted on terrorism charges instead.--John 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather a dramatic difference between being described as a POW or as being "convicted of terrorism" I would have thought! Anyway; surely being "convicted of terrorism" has no bearing on becoming subsequently a POW? So BOTH categories fit the MF case. There is no need for an either/or here. (Sarah777 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

However, being convicted on terrorism charges is verifiable and neutral, unlike the contentious criminals and POW categories, which is why I prefer it. --John 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how buying into a Government construct (they abolished a pre-existing political prisoner category) in a time of rebellion can be characterised as neutral. There is enough evidence that the British establishment regarded it as a "war" (especially when seeking to justify extra-legal killings); so clearly, enemy operatives captured and imprisoned by them were "POW" by their own logic? (Sarah777 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

That's an arguable point of view, but it is not a neutral point of view. If we could find reliable sources indicating that anyone outside the republican movement regrded them as POWs, I think this argument would have more of a leg to stand on. --John 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are taking this "no synthesis" notion beyond common sense or it's original intention. If the Govt regards itself as "at war"; takes prisoners from the enemy and incarcerates them - they are POWs; no synthesis or references required (and I'm not saying there aren't any). To exclusively us British Government terminology, even when it contradicts the logic of their own position, is simply pushing British State POV, and is not neutral. Also, is there anyone outside the British Establishment on record as saying they were not POWs? Their release after the GFA en-mass coperfastens the case that they were POWs. (Sarah777 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

(deindent)But the British state never did acknowledge it was at war with the IRA, instead treating them as terrorists. To make an analogy, Andreas Baader would doubtless have regarded himself and the other RAF personnel as prisoners of war. The group had after all declared war on the German state. Nevertheless in the absence of reliable sources recognising the existence of such a state of war, and in the interests of the NPOV policy, we do not call him a POW. --John 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The British state has frequently acknowledged that there was a war on! They can't have it both ways like Bush and Guantanamo; the fighting in Afghanistan was a "War on Terror" but the enemy captives are not prisoners of war!! This isn't WP:NPOV, it is an absurdity!

Would we deny that Vietnam, Gulf One, Yugoslavia, Iraq were wars, just because the Western Governments involved never declared? (Sarah777 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Believe me, I thoroughly sympathise with this point of view and I agree with you about Guantanamo. Unfortunately perhaps, governments do have a tendency to "have it both ways". I repeat, in the real world, the IRA prisoners were not given POW status, and so we cannot call them POWs. Whether they ought to have been granted it is another and quite interesting discussion, but not one which I feel will advance the discussion about the use of the category. Best wishes, --John 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To reply to the second comment, the Falklands War is an interesting case in point. War was never declared by either side. I would say that as both sides treated the captured enemy as POWs we would be correct in calling them POWs. Pragmatic, real-world considerations have to drive our usage here, not our wishes for a better and fairer world, however commendable these wishes may be. --John 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry John. Black is not white until some Western Government decides to concede the point. They are to be categorised as POW's based on the facts of their imprisonment; not on the grounds of what the British Government "granted". It is irrelevant what one of the warring parties called their prisoners if the facts all clearly support the definition "prisoner of war". So, to use your terminology; in the real world, the IRA prisoners were POWs, and so we must call them POWs. Whether the British Government ought to have granted such status officially is another and quite interesting discussion. Slán agus beannacht. (Sarah777 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Then should the category also be placed on Baader's page (my example above) because some regarded him as a POW? Best wishes to you too. --John 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In June 1971 Reginald Maudling, the Conservative British Home Secretary, announced that the British government was now "at war with the IRA". Any similar announcements by the German Govt. re Baader Meinhof? (Sarah777 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Not that I know of. I wonder if people (Tommy Chong for example) imprisoned in the War on Drugs would be entitled to call themselves POWs too then? --John 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John - you gonna keep firing these balls at me till you find one I can't hit out of the park!! If Bush says he is "at war" with Mr Chung then I certainly think the situation needs further exploration. For example; against FARC in Columbia it definitely is a war (or the Narco-Warlords in Afghanistan). But would Mr Chung reckon he was engaged in a "war"; or just in the drug business? (Sarah777 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

It's a knotty issue, you're right. All the more reason that the language we use remains scrupulously NPOV and conforms with neutral reliable sources. Chong, incidentally wasn't in the drugs business; he was convicted of selling drugs paraphernalia, not drugs. --John 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I guess we both believe in the same rules of the game - "you can't enter a camel in a horse race". It's just that so many camels look like horses to you -:)(Sarah777 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Well, indeed. I don't think the talk discussion is going anywhere; it's just about time we called in outside help. Let's see what some others think. --John 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State terrorism by the United States

Hi John, you just reverted my recent move even though there is no opposition to it. Please reply on my talk page. east.718 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:State terrorism by the United States#Title—There's ten editors for and none against. east.718 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! east.718 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to the titanic article

I'm not sure if you're aware but the titanic article was recently stripped of its featured article status. I edited out some sections of the article because they're, well, worthless. The lead is far too long, so i condensed it, the titanics turning ability and lifeboat sections are far too detailed; what does the change of name of the third sister ship have to do with anything; also i wasn't aware that the legend of the titanic's band was a "long term" effect of the sinking. Im sorry but i thnk that the article could be condensed, also the sinking is practically a stub, it should be more detailed instead of having a main article tab; after all thats what made the ship infamous. Don't you agree? --Hadseys 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. However I think the changes need to be discussed in talk first. --John 21:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would second John on that (the need to talk about it, first). For instance, the renaming of Gigantic was a direct result of the negative publicity of the Titanic sinking, so it is relevant. Also, you need to consider that some of this was talked about in length, for instance, the reason the sinking section is a stub is that it used to be extremely long, making the article too long, so after much discussion it was split off. Yes, things need to be fixed, but as I've stated on the article's talk page, discuss changes before making them, and if the change is drastic, draw up a draft in a sandbox first and solicit input. You'll find that things will go much better that way. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• So, we getting it featured again? As for the renaming of britannic the article doesnt explain why the negative publicity affected the name of theother ship. And the disaster section has turned from super lengthy to almost a stub; given that that is what made the titanic notorious, i'd say that was unacceptable --Hadseys 11:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi there; thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. This is one of the penalties of being an admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Mine is locked at the moment for just that reason. Best wishes, --John 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

protection is an obvious option. I tend to feel that leaving the page up attracts the vandals, whom we can than indefblock. Certainly I feel that I attract more vandals than most admins do. But that,s ok; It's a bit like flypaper. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at your userpage. I knew you by your previous username. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I got fed up with people making jokes about the beer, and when I saw this one was available I grabbed it via the usurpation process. --John 01:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hi John, regarding the reason for my block, I have started a conversation at WT:IWNB#Misleading category changes. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 18:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ottawaman

I noticed your activity here [13]. I think this guy is back at Michael Ignatieff. See the recent edit history before the protection. Is a range block in order again?--Strothra 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Williams (Irish Republican)

You just can not help yourself pushing your POV can you [14]. There is an ongoing discussion and this is how you behave. --Domer48 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Williams was a member of PIRA? What planet are you on by the way? --Domer48 14:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Planet Earth. That was a rubbish edit you made. Please do not post on my user talk page again. The problems which you and other POV-pushers have created and perpetuated will be solved by people who care about Wikipedia more than pushing a sectarian POV. Thank you. --John 16:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

John, Tom Williams died in 1942, he was a member of the IRA the provisionals didn't exist then.--padraig3uk 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good, thank you for the correction. I would be even happier if you would take issue with Domer and his like for edits such as this one. As you can see he has reintroduced spelling and formatting errors into the article in the name of pushing his POV. Do you think this is ok? --John 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I have with his edit is the inclusion of the category:Irish Roman Catholics, Volunteer is a rank and should be capitalised. What do you see wrong with it.--padraig3uk

It contravenes both the Manual of Style and the result of a MedCab case. --John 17:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not similar with this MedCab case do you have a link.--padraig3uk 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Lower case "v" should be used for the time being." (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage) and "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)). See also User talk:Vintagekits. --John 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral POV - an Oxymoron

John, (without your permission) I have lifted this from the Irish Wikipedians talkpage:

I can't believe we've wasted so much time on this. IRA prisoners were not POWs. However much a bunch of Irish nationalist editors think they ought to have been. We work with facts here; in the absence of any neutral reliable source we cannot call any of them POWs. Opinion, indeed, is worthless. Facts. --John 00:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is breaching WP:CIVIL and (to me) implies a very limited understanding of the "real world". I am concerned that British Administrators are unable to leave their conditioning/"legalistic" bias behind (as the Irish Admins do).

In a spirit of friendship, and in the light of these remarks, I must ask whether you should continue to involve yourself in issues pertaining to Ireland. Sadly yours (Sarah777 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your message. I don't believe it is an oxymoron; more a journey. --John 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Insightful observation. But what a very tough and hazardous journey. (Sarah777 11:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

I don't see any problem with John being involved in these discussions, as his opinion is as valid as anyone elses, therefore there is no problem as long as he is not abusing his admin powers to uphold a particular POV.--padraig3uk 11:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree in the case of John; my remarks were a somewhat intemperate reaction to the "bunch of Irish nationalist editors" comment, for which I apologise. Rocket is of more concern as he appears to be threatening to block Vk and appears to want to dictate how, and where this debate will be conducted. (Sarah777 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

And y'know, if its left to an admin, that mightn't be such a bad thing. That way it might actually have been happening in the right place, (i.e., CfD) rather than a single wikiproject discussing something of interest and relvance to several. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Large Oaks out of little acorns grow. (Sarah777 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Just little old me

I've redacted everything I said here. I apologise for letting down my guard; I let a passionate and problematic editor whose POV I disagree with me needle me such that I was unnecessarily nasty. The style issue and the issue of editors' behaviour in Northern Ireland-related articles are both being taken care of through other conversations, as they both should have been ages ago. I've left what was said as an invisible comment if anyone wants to read it. I meant it when I said it but in retrospect it does not advance the cause of working together to build an encyclopedia. Sorry. --John 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Northern Ireland

Can you have a look at this, editors are removing referenced material and the reference as well, this is vandalism. They are using the excuse of removing the Tricolour as an excuse for these edits, yet the referenced material and reference has nothing to do with that issue.--padraig3uk 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I weighed in on the article's discussion page. I confess I am becoming thoroughly sick of the POV-wars on NI-related articles (see item above, for example). I think we all need to step back and reassess the true importance of some of these things being argued about. It so happens I disagree with some of the things you say on the content issue but I give kudos for at least discussing it and trying to form a consensus. Best wishes, --John 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I have no problem on wether the Tricolour is included on the Flag of Northern Ireland article or not, my problem is with them removing the reference and text refering to that, which I would regard as vandalism, I left a message on Jonto talk page to ask his to restore the reference and he didn't do so.--padraig3uk 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominik Diamond

Are we not using flag icons in articles anymore? --SteelersFan UK06 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in this way, no. See WP:FLAGCRUFT. --John 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream newspapers not valid?

I put these comments on the previous talk page we were using last week, I am assuming you did not see it, which is a shame, since you once again removed my changes I would have hoped that you would have had a look. Maybe I did not put them in the right place, for which I apologise. I have now included them in the main discussio page, and also here, below. Please do me the courtesy of replying:

I was busy previously but I feel that I should have responded to this point last year, and now have time to do so.

The critiscisms here of my tone are quite valid, my original submissions were highly emotive and I appologise for that. However you repeatedly claim that the references are unverifiable. However I feel that articles in two national newspapers constitute "Verifiability". You say:

"My issue with the reference (once I had tracked it down; you could have made it easier by giving me a url) is that it is present on a paid-for site."

Wikipedia says:

""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.""

It does not say that only online sources are valid. There are other sources for these articles, you know. In fact, "...Published by a reliable source...." Tends to imply print-press rather than electronic, according to the common definition of the verb, To Publish. Are you seriously suggesting that mainstream national newspapers are not a valid source in any circumstances unless a FREE on-line source is also available? THis is NOT mentioned in The definition of Verifiability provided by Wikipedia (which you yourself claim is the basis for your decision) so I find this decision strange, to say the least. The internet has been around for 15-20 years or so in it's popular form, newspapers for around 200 years. I am sure that there are many references in other articles which do not also existing on-line. I think that the general public consider a citation of a national newspaper to be 'Verifiable', this being all that existed until the present generation.

In fact, in the Wikipedia policy about living people you have mentioned above, it states: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."

Once again, I apologise for the tone of my previous article. But it is a fact that the school was being investigated by the police for allegations of abuse, this is actually more than a critiscism so surely warrants inclusion? If "The Sunday Mail" and "The Mail on Sunday" feel that it deserves two full articles then surely I have a right to ask that this information be included.

So please, someone tell me how I can get these allegations included, as I feel not to do so is falling way short of Wikipedia's goal of fair and balanced information.

Am I allowed to quote these articles?

There must be a way to include this. These are not obscure references.

Tom Prescott 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for responding to my concerns of September 2006. However there are better reasons than verifiability why you cannot put things like this in an encyclopedia article. One is WP:BLP; if these living people choose to sue over your allegations, Wikipedia would be in an unenviable position. The second is that the article as it is has remained stable in an NPOV version for quite a while; including your lurid claims unbalances the article. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper and does not operate like one. Tell me, what exactly is your motivation for arguing for the inclusion of his material? --John 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As a conscientious editor ...

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-104

Copyedit from my "talk" page: "You replaced the following text which I had removed from the article: "A commonplace joke in Germany was that the cheapest way of obtaining a Starfighter was to buy a small patch of land and simply wait." Do you honestly think this is a worthwhile thing to have in the article? Even if it can be referenced? --John 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)" Hi John, thanks for writing. The issue was not necessarily the context of the passage but the means in which large amounts of text were deleted without consulting either a discussion page or looking for a consensus which I contend is the usual pattern for major changes to an article. As to the actual statement, I think a case can be made for it to be considered in the "popular culture" vein. I did a cursory Internet search and found countless references to the phrasiology of "buy an acre of land and wait" that was traced to the uncomfortable "black" humour of the German Air Force pilots who were characterizing the so-called "accident-prone" F-104G. I suggested an interim device in that if the issue was a lack of referencing, then you place a "citation" tag or "fact" tag and give a sufficient time for other editors to respond. FWIW Bzuk 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Hi John, see my comments on the discussion page of the F-104 article. FWIW Bzuk 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I saw and replied. --John 22:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RMS Titanic

Sorry about all of the capitalizations. I'm somewhat new to editing Wikipedia, and I learned that you should only capitalize the first word, so I won't do it anymore. Thank you!

RPlunk2853 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brixton

I did not vandalize i was proving a point everytime i deleted a paragraph was for a vlid reason which i left but it kept getting restored. so if that information can be put there without no sources,verification or facts then i decided i can do the same. so why do you warn me and not the others who restored?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.87.242 (talk • contribs)

Well it worked did it not.

It got the attention it deserved.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.87.242 (talk • contribs)

[edit] U 2

Thank you too for the revert on my userpage :) --Oxymoron⁸³ 18:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patience of Job barnstar

I, Major Bonkers, hereby award you the 'Patience of Job' barnstar.

(I have - dare I say it? - noticed a slight tone of peevishness creeping in to some of your recent edits, so this is also to remind you to keep on the straight and narrow!)

The 'Patience of Job' barnstar is a new invention of mine, to reward those who display extraordinary equanimity on Wikipedia. This is the first award of the barnstar. Unfortunately, I'm no graphic artist, so you'll have to put up with this picture until something better comes along.--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Peevish? What the fuck do you mean by that? Joke :) --John 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you know damn well what he means!!! :) ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I do, and as I said in my (real) reply, any advice is always welcome. Is it just me, or are there a lot more trolls around than usual? --John 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Lar is a well-respected admin! (NB: JOKE!). Tyrenius 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had it up to here with the likes of you, Tyrenius. You making a joke to me in the context of Hibs having another shit season is like someone saying "Have a nice day". RfC here we come? (NB: JOKE!) --John 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How dare you mention the unmentionable insult "have a nice day". (WP:NBJ!) Tyrenius 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've redacted the peevish remarks and made a comment. There is far too much incivility here and I was wrong to contribute further to it, whatever the provocation. Thanks, friends, for gently pointing out that I had erred. Bah, you'll probably all want barnstars or something now... --John 04:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have got one. Many thanks, but I think it's me that's getting old... Tyrenius 05:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Who said you could give me a barnstar! I suppose now I should thank you... As if! BTW have you seen Akradecki's talk page lately, a veritable beehive of adminish activity. We did well with that one (basically standing back and taking the credit for a candidate that was way ready already, but I digress) ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Yes, I told him how proud I was of him. --John 13:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go:

Image	Name	Description
	The Patience of Job Barnstar	I, Major Bonkers, hereby award you the Patience of Job Barnstar for your display of extraordinary equanimity on Wikipedia.

Bollocks - I can't copy it to the requisite section of your User pages. Tyrenius is very good at this sort of thing! (It's not much better, but it is better.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thank you very much. --John 20:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PS again

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English, chap, do you speak it?

What's enwiki's policy on american vs. british english usage in articles? --NEMT 22:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. --John 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] brixton

It was already amrked as unreferenced but for too long

[edit] Flag icons

Thanks for the heads up. I looked at WP:FLAG but it's still allowing for more use of the damn icons than I like.  :) Corvus cornix 18:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

But these are facts. I can't prove it becoz there found from Magazines, programs etc.

[edit] Pictures Help

Hi John, you said I could come to you for Image Help.

Well, I have a question. I work a lot on the World Trade Center article. It was lacking pictures so I added a few of mine and some nice ones from the Commons. They where all removed, so I undid that edit by DLand. But of course, he did it again. Apparantly, there where too many pictures. So, I accepted that and added 3. These werent for decorations but for the actual sub-articles. Again, they where removed, by MONGO.

My basic question is, If one guy wants the pictures, and the other dosnt. Who gets their way? We just cant keep undoing the other's edits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pag293 (talk • contribs)

[edit] User talk:128.186.159.219

Give this elroy a page block, wouldja? All the shouting is bugging the neighbors. HalfShadow 20:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll just ignore him for now. If it continues to be a nuisance I'll semi-protect. --John 20:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

Just to say thanks for the welcome, and to Wiki. I am very new to all this, and still learning. But, I hope this is just the start.

All the best (Johnoasis321 23:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Spot the difference

Ok; I'm not Sherlock Holmes, but I have been reading through the Irish Famine Talk page this evening and I noticed a startling similarity in User pages from two editors who have posted on that article's Talk page; here are their diffs: (posted on July 20) [15] and (posted on July 21) [16]

The two User pages in question are: Pappin76 and BigDunc. As Private Eye has it: Could they by any chance be related? (I think we should be told.)

I presume that you are aware that SirFozzie has locked the article, and I wasn't sure whether to post on his Talk page or yours, or how one should proceed.--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be WP:RFCU. --John 20:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've added it here. Please could you check it out (and edit as necessary)? I'm off to bed. Many thanks.--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I can delete a post of my own if no one has responded to it.

I have the right to delete my own posting if nobody has responded to it yet. Why has User:Gaimhreadhan twice reinserted my own comment, which I deleted, on Tyrenius' Talk page? Bus stop 22:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] factory farming

Hi there. If you're going to revert my change to the factory farming article, which I made per extensive talk page discussion, would you at least explain your reasoning in some fashion? Jav43 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought it necessary to explain, and your edit summary didn't mention the talk page discussion. I'll have a look there before responding further.--John 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do. We've been discussing -- for over six months now -- whether the image of sows in gestation crates should lead the article. As you'll shortly see, all users except SlimVirgin, Crum, and Localzuk have agreed that the image in question is improper, as it is uncharacteristic, improperly sourced, is being proposed merely to further an opinionated agenda, and was copied from an anti-farming propaganda website. Jav43 00:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I do not understand your reasoning for reinstating this image, however. Would you please provide it? Jav43 00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. If you were edit-warring over which of two images to include, I could understand it. Edit-warring to remove an image and not replacing it, on grounds which sound (to me) very spurious and opinionated, is bad. Your assumption of bad faith is noted. Thanks for at least explaining why you did it; it still isn't ok though. With five removals of the image in the last couple of days, you are in imminent risk of a block. I'll pop over to your own user talk to warn you properly. --John 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to notice that I have provided a total of more than five alternate images. Each one, when placed in the lead, has been reverted. I have given up on attempting to place a good image in the lead and simply have limited my efforts to removing the present misleading image.

I note that you have failed to provide your reason for reverting me - why you believe this image is so proper. Please do so. Jav43 01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not notice. So you are now removing what seems an appropriate image that illustrates the article just to make a point? --John 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please actually read the talk page, as you said you would. Then you will notice.

To answer your question, "No". Now I have to repeat myself. The image is not appropriate and does not illustrate the article. It is improper and misleading. I am removing it in order to make the article reflect fact rather than reflecting propaganda from various anti-farming activist organizations.

You again failed to explain why you reverted me in the first place - why you believe this image is so proper. Jav43 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had explained. I find it to be appropriate, certainly more so than having no picture at all. I note that several other editors are also of this opinion. Interesting though the content discussion is, it is a separate matter from continaully removing a picture because you do not like it. Edit warring is disruptive. Please don't do it. --John 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of not liking an image. This is a matter of attempting to remove an image that is misleading and inflammatory. Such an image should not lead the article.

Why do you find this image to be appropriate? You still haven't explained why you reverted me - why you believe this image is so proper. If you explain why you find this image to be appropriate -- preferably with citations explaining how it relates a condition typical for factory farming, exclusively -- then I will be much better able to understand where you're coming from. Jav43 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have already explained, there are two issues here. The content issue can best be discussed at Talk:Factory farming, and I am encouraged that you have made some interesting arguments there. The issue I warned you over was the edit-warring, which is never appropriate and will lead to a block if it ever recurs. You may consider yourself fortunate that I did not (through an oversight) examine your block log and see that you have quite recently been blocked for a 3RR violation. If I had seen that, I might have blocked you directly rather than warning you. I hope that clarifies things for you. --John 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong target here John. This isn't just jav43 being disruptive or trying to remove images without reason. See: here, here for other sets of users that agree. Consistently there are 3 editors (with animal lib beliefs) who resist any attempt to change the image (uploaded from an activist-anti-factory farming site) via reverting and the flimsy argument along the lines of "we need to show the most shocking/controversial aspects" (which reeks of POV). Anyhow, I posted up a few more concrete reasons, so check my response and perhaps you can give your views on that. The trouble is that tag team reverting of anything that hasn't made the article more animal lib view of farming-like is tag team reverted and minimal discussion attempts made. Jav hasn't done this just out of the blue. An earlier struggle was simply to avoid a bunch of agricultural terms being squashed into "factory farming" because of an overly simplistic view of agriculture (e.g. anything to do with farming animals is evil). We really don't know whether those images are anything but temporary holding pens.. For instance: how do those animals get food, water etc from those pens? I really think the source of the image is not to be trusted. That SV/crum/localzuk are happy to keep tag team reverting, with stated animal lib bias and with no real attempt to justify is more of an issue I think.. NathanLee 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss the question of the image with you in article talk. I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is that there is never any excuse for edit warring. That's why 3RR is virtually our only absolute rule. Now, I do understand that there are always reasons why it happens, and I understand your frustration if you feel the image is inappropriate. However, edit-warring is unacceptable; it actually increases the annoyance and frustration among editors. Don't do it. There is always a better way. --John 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining.

What course of action would you suggest I pursue in order to achieve this "better way"? Jav43 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If I was in your position I would try to (calmly) pursue a compromise in talk, or else walk away and accept I had lost the argument. I promise I will try to come up with some more specific advice for you. I've been following the disputes on that page for quite a while without intervening. Best wishes, --John 18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I have attempted to pursue a compromise for about six months now. The three editors in question (SlimVirgin, Crum, and Localzuk) refuse to even consider compromise. For the last month, they have refused to even engage in discussion on the topic. Walking away is not an option as it would leave this article corrupt, spreading misinformation to the countless users of Wikipedia. I look forward to your specific advice -- it is sorely needed. Jav43 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree entirely: reverting is a nasty way of "contributing". If I had my way reverting would be 1RR allowed.. Because (and I've tried to point this out to editors who use revert as the primary tool) that it is against the policy on dispute avoidance. Fair enough for vandalism, but as a substitute for discussion it's terrible. To be honest I don't think walking away is a good option John because it means that people who are reverting rather than contributing or discussing are "winning" when it shouldn't be a competition to see who can bully or tag team revert the most.. NathanLee 18:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Bit it needs in-line citation. Statements look like challengeable. Please provide the references (in-line citation). Otherwise I'll re-tagged it again.Thanks--NAHID 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you think it looks somehow odd in introduction section (with too many citattion tag), there's nothing to do with it. But editors *must* provide references. Without varifiable sources it hard to recognaze as a good and neutral article.Thanks--NAHID 19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why not (Since the contents are challengable)? our articles are meant to be neutral. We don't want to just be a billboard for showcasing the very best / bad things about an article. References are helpful in this case.And that's why those policy pages were created.Thanks--NAHID 19:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FF

John, anything you can do to broker a compromise would be much appreciated. I am myself currently looking around for a suitable replacement for the image. The problem lies in finding something that is clearly a factory farm. The best way to find these images with free licences are on what NathanLee and Jav43 call "activist sites," which they reject the validity of. Therefore, I'm trying to find one on a non-activist site. I've come across a farmers' website that displays similar images: also "activist" in the sense of opposed to factory farming, but they're from within the industry and aren't animal welfare/rights sites, so I'm hoping they will be more acceptable. I'm currently corresponding with them to request a free licence.

However, the image is only one of a number of issues that we need to sort out. The big one is the number of articles. WAS 4.250 has created several POV forks in order to lose most of the factory farming criticism e.g. Industrial agriculture (animals) and Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture. NathanLee and WAS 4.250 have turned down two RfMs, so it's hard to know how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to let you know: Jav43 has been removing the image for about 18 months. He has made 110 edits to the article, and almost all of them have been to remove that image. He has either provided no alternative, or on a few occasions added a picture of contented looking cows on a family farm in New York. We had the name of the farm, and it describes itself as a family farm. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching the edit-warring for quite a while without feeling I had much that was helpful to contribute. Jav43's last edit summaries finally alerted me to what was happening. As I said to him/her, it was lucky I didn't see their block log first or it would have been an enforced wikibreak rather than a friendly warning they got. --John 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been a bad situation all round. Incessant reverting by Jav43; filibustering on talk by NathanLee to the point where it became hard to contribute (he posted 55,000 words to talk in just a few days at one point); content forking by WAS 4.250 and refusal to respond to queries; a refusal to engage in mediation (except for Jav43 who did agree); and personal attacks and sarcasm throughout the discussion from all three.

For background, here are links to the rejected RfMs. The first was agreed to by seven editors, [17] and the second by nine. [18] But if a few editors hold out, then it can't go ahead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, this demonstrates your bias. "Family farm" and "factory farm" are not mutually exclusive. A "factory farm" does not by nature have discontented cows. (In fact, I dare you to visit *any* dairy farm with more than 200 cows and find that cows aren't generally "contented". Content, happy cows give more milk, and more than anyone else, so-called "factory farms" want to maximize milk production.) You also misconstrue my actions - after you rejected the first three different proposed images I used, I proposed a total of at least five others -- all of which you also rejected. Basically, SlimVirgin... I have attemped to compromise by proposing a variety of images. You have not. You have proposed *1* image, have failed to demonstrate that it is in any way typical or meaningful, and you proceed to hinder any attempt to reach an equitable solution.

As for edit warring? Considering that I wind up "edit warring" with either you or Crum every time, I don't see how you're so clean in that regard.

I'm sorry this wound up on John's talk page, but I cannot let SlimVirgin's absurd statements stand unchallenged. Jav43 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there's no need at all to apologise about discussing your dispute here. Secondly, I think it would be a good idea (or actually an essential step in solving the dispute) to back off from this for a few days, maybe even a week. As you've been back-and-forthing for months already, another week can't possibly hurt. You'll find that walking away and editing some articles unconnected with farming or with animal welfare will help put this whole hill of beans into its true perspective. It will give us time to find other, better (or at least more widely acceptable) images to use. After I am ready I will start a new section in article talk where we can take this matter forward and arrive at a solution we can all live with. How does that sound? --John 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have taken time off during the last six months - one week thrice and two weeks once. I am certainly tempted to do so again. Jav43 23:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to the unjustified outrageous personal attacks here. WAS 4.250 02:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Where? Do you mean SV's characterisation of the multiple articles as content-forking? I have some qualms about that myself. It certainly isn't a personal attack, in my opinion. --John 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. WAS 4.250 02:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, WAS 4.250, I am determined to sort this mess out. I understand that tempers are frayed on all sides. I let several people vent about each other on my user talk page as you can see. I don't see anything anyone wrote as violating the policy I linked you to. If you disagree, please say so. --John 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with you letting people vent. I vented too. Thanks for helping to sort this mess out. We all appreciate it. Really. WAS 4.250 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

John, an observation. To be seen as neutral, it would be helpful to cast comments on poor behaviour, even here, as recognising there are always two sides to the edit wars. Suggesting to a single person to walk away could be misconstrued (well, clearly they have been) that they are the only person acting inappropriately, there are others, including myself, to which that comment equally applies. Saying here that one person deserved a block when there has been a long running edit war involving consistent reverting by lots of people again can readily be misconstrued. I am more than happy with your bold approach to good behaviour under a fresh start, and think a draconian approach will be interesting and constructive but to be consistent with the fresh start, either forget history entirely or ensure you are seen to maintain a balanced position. Everyone has Wikiache and will be hyper-sensitive. Cheers Spenny 11:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I am keen to take this forwards on a content- and policy-driven basis, and to put all the squabbles behind us. I will therefore be trying both to move on entirely from history, and to maintain a balanced position. Your help will be greatly appreciated by me. Best wishes, --John 15:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why#d you undo my edit?

Hello there.

I was wondering why you undid my edit in the RMS Titanic article?

The result of a debate came to the conclusion that the contents of the Provisioning of the RMS Titanic article should bee fused into the Titanic article.

I was just doing the merging.

It wasn't an attempted vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looneyman (talk • contribs)

As I said in my edit summary, the long list you added was way over-detailed for the main article, and was completely unreferenced. I never said it was vandalism but it certainly wasn't a good addition to the article, in my opinion. --John 21:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. If I provide you the information, would you be able to adjusted it suitably? I can copy the resources from the Provisioning article.

Looneyman 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Only if it is properly referenced. --John 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's the info...

(snip)

And here's the sources given on the page...

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/

http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_provisions.shtml

I'm awfully sorry, but those sources aren't very good. See http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5663/92362.html?1099550735 for an interesting discussion on why these data are essentially unsourced, although I know they are widely quoted. --John 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BB

The line The runway was continually used by Argentine C-130's until the end of the war. didnt give you a doubt how long could take to repair the damage ? --Jor70 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Show me a source which states what you want the article to say; that is how we work here. --John 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Its very funny to see how Argentine vision is always requested to be sourced, but here you have: And what was achieved? A crater in the runway that was filled in within twenty-four hours, and possibly a 30-mm gun radar knocked out (Sharkey Ward: Sea Harrier over the Falklands, 1992, Cassell Military Paperbacks, ISBN 0-304-35542-9) --Jor70 16:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad (?) you find it funny. Well done for finding a source. This is how we improve the encyclopedia. --John 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York City

I put a reason why I put in my images, so your saying, my pictures can be replaced without reason, but I cant put them in. That dosnt seem fair at all. Why you undo my edit, its like every time I put in an image, someone undo's it because they dont like it. Well what if other people like it? Huh? No point in undoing their edit, because it seems I dont get any power. "Anyone can Edit" yeah right, more like, "Anyone can edit, but really its no use since someone else will just replace your edit you probably spent an hour on then an adminstrator tells you to discuss it when no one will read it and you'll never get your way but the others do." Pag293 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, believe me. However this is the downside of working collaboratively on a project like this. The existing pictures were there as a result of consensus and it is actually kind of rude just to go in and replace them all with your own photos. All you need to do is learn how to use article talk and a lot of the frustration you are currently suffering from will disappear. Best wishes, --John 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making you aware

That I have blocked MarkThomas for 24 hours for his comments, sprinkled all over the past few days, such as [19] [20], [21], [22]. I have also signaled my desire to quit this whole series of articles, because I'm, quite frankly, tired of dealing with the constant wars. I have made comments on my talk page that could be considered uncivil by those who think I have a bias in this issue, so I invite a neutral admin to look over my block, and my comments, and to determine if I have violated WP rules. SirFozzie 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I endorse your block of MarkThomas. I sympathise very much with your fatigue in this whole area of Wikipedia. I don't see anywhere you have breached policy at all. Were it me I might have asked another admin to make the block, to avoid (as far as that is ever possible in this fraught area) allegations of bias. Nevertheless, Mark's taunting of Domer is beyond the pale and (in my opinion) merits an immediate block, especially given the user's record. Best wishes, --John 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 revert rule

• 1st revert: 18:34, July 24, 2007 (version reverted to 18:02)
• 2nd revert: 18:39, July 24, 2007 (same)
• 3rd revert: 20:18, July 24, 2007 (version reverted to 20:13)
• 4th revert: 23:18, July 24, 2007 (version reverted to 23:14

Here are some more reverts for you to overview. It is clear Levine2112 broke the 3RR. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It is two instances of 2rr, and technically that does break the rule. The block can stand. --John 02:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

background of dispute A quality sentence that is carefully written from a neurtal point of view. > The magazine Spiked-online named Barrett in a survey of 134^[1] "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."^[2][3]

According to Tim: The "quackbusters," we know, were originally organized, and funded, by the pharmaceutical industry. Insinuating there is a collaboration with Pfizer and Barrett has been used to advance an agenda and thus a BLP violation and weasel wording. For example, when referring to The New Yorker magazine we do not mention the sponsors because it would be weasel wording. This is also synthesizing a controversy. I believe in accordance with policy this edit should be reverted. Pfizer has no relevance to SB. There is problems with the wording of the sentence currently in the article. We have policies we should comply with. Right? This is another endless ongoing debate to include against policy material. This is a very serious matter. When in doubt leave it out. BLP says do no harm! The current POV sentence in the article violates policy after policy. Articles must be written from a neutral view point. We have policies for all us to adhere to. See: WP:WEASEL WP:BLP WP:SYN Please remove the BLP violation from the article or unprotect the article. The problem goes much deeper. There is a small group of editors who do not fully understand policy yet. I am trying my best to inform them. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  02:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy of policy: Any of these actions may still be controversial; thus, it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance. I am asking for administrative assistance regarding the BLP violation. I want to be granted permission to revert in accordance with the exception to the 3RR. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA formatting

Thanks for sorting it out. I reckon I know how it'll turn out, now, but I felt your comment invited a response. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Upcoming Iain M. Banks Culture Novel, "Matter"

John, thanks for the welcome. I am brand new to editing here at Wikipedia, and didn't think to leave references to the information that I provided, which came from the Amazon.co.uk page about the new publication.

Since my add to the Banks Wiki page, they have added a blurb: "Synopsis There was nobody of her own kind within several thousand light years of where Djan Seriy Anaplian sat. However, news from her home world of Sursamen would still reach her. Djan Seriy Anaplian is, after all, a member of Special Circumstances - a troubleshooter for the Culture, intervening when necessary to ensure that order and balance is maintained throughout the galaxy; and Special Circumstances get to hear about most things. The news itself, unfortunately, is not good. Her father has died. Her brother too, it seems. Both in the latest war against a neighbouring kingdom. Anaplian must journey home, but while she does so, another will seek her out. For someone on Sursamen believes her to be their last hope. What neither of them know is that she might also be the last hope for the entire world."

I hope that this helps.

--Christofono 22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you... by the way:

As I have just recently noticed, thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage here. As I am currently on holiday, and currently without internet at my current place of stay, I did not notice until now. Either way, thanks again! --HAL2008talk 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --John 23:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LUU

Sorry i overdid an undo in the fight against davey pascoe

Barry Carlyon 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Laffey created for the fourth time

The following article has been re-created for the fourth time: Aaron Laffey (please see: [23]). I am notifying you because you are one of the three Wikipedians that have once deleted the article. Just letting you know that it's back and that Laffey is still nn. Thanks. 98.198.100.202 03:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gone now, and salted to boot. If/when this guy gets called up and becomes notable, he can be pulled from WP:PT. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan, for taking care of that. --John 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: greeland mountains comment

Well I've never seen Greenland myself, so I'll take your word for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgonz82 (talk • contribs)