User talk:Jkp212/Archive 1

What now?

You told me that "Larry Sinclair" is not a notable and a bio. Could you please tell me what I should do to make this comply, rather than simply mark for deletion? Should it be renamed "Larry Sinclair Video" to make it less about him, and more about his video incident? Matteblack (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

One often shudders when one logs onto wikipedia and sees "You have new messages". Imagine my delight, then, to read yours. You started my crummy Friday with a smile. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note.

Johns talk page does show that he has a tendency to make personal attacks. He needs to calm down or he could be blocked indefinitely. I am a secular Jew,but I do not see how Antisemitism is relevant to the the Peter Yarrow article. Perhaps I have missed something ? I do not mind white washing the whole sexual conduct issue but I also do not mind telling the whole story in vivid detail as long as we can balance it with other material. My own view is that having sex with a minor is illegal but not necessarily immoral. I also think that you may be taking that article way too seriously.

Albion moonlight (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank LaGrotta

I see that there are several people already commenting on the Frank LaGrotta page, all of them supporting the keeping, so I'll not add my piece there. I'll just say this: this policy page notes that "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Frank LaGrotta - BLP urgent?

Please see my recent analysis of the situation here. I think this may be an urgent matter in the context of WP:BLP "Do No Harm". riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I've left a note on the WP:Pennsylvania talk page, asking for someone to expand the article's coverage of him in materials unrelated to the current controversy. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yarrow protection

No one has reverted since I asked people to stop. If the reverts start up again then protection may be necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I told you I'd protect if the article was reverted again. Rather than fighting over details I recommend you move forward with mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that other administrators have reviewed this matter both before and after I did and declined to remove the categories over the page protection, I feel inclined to let the discussion/mediation process proceed as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Yarrow mediation

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

Mediation is not binding but.....

..... It can possibly cause the arbitration committee to intervene. Either way it is the correct way to go about resolving disputes. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. For the Mediation Committee, WjB scribe 08:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Sklar's update

It reads:

The New York Post is reporting a smaller number (300,000) though that number is unsourced and seems to have been taken directly off the Amie Street website (scroll down) and is different than the number of downloads, which the Amie Street execs have refused to confirm to the press. Also, the NY Post erroneously reports that the price of the song is $0.68; it's actually $0.98.

So yes, she reports that the NY Post is reporting a smaller number but she also is skeptical of it so your revision is inaccurate. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are also incorrect when you say Sklar says the $1.4 million is the total pulled in rather than Dupre's cut. What she said was: "which means that she's pulled in approximately $1.4 million in two days off her two songs." She refers to Dupre, not amie street. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion from the Yarrow talk page

Taking it here, because it's not so much about the article as about your conduct. I don't have strong opinions either way about whether or not that should be in the article. But marking your edit as minor, using the edit summary "modifying format", and referring to your edit on the talk page by saying "a slight modification, which includes the incident, but puts it in more proper context to his life," looks an awful lot like an attempt to delete content you don't like without scrutiny. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't much care whether or not that part is there, I just think that it's important that we edit that article in as open and transparent a fashion as possible, under the circumstances. I accept your explanation, though, and apologize if my tone was unduly accusatory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yarrow mediation

Hey Jkp212 - in case you're not watching the page carefully, a mediator's finally been assigned to our case at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. Now we all have to agree to the selection of mediator, so the sooner you could head over there and have a look the better. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation open

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

Vandalism

Don't unilaterally delete hundreds of pages from a category, many of which have been placed there for years, to make a point on another article. It is disruptive and vandalism-and will be reverted. John celona (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is far from unilateral. In case you haven't noticed you are the one acting unilaterally. Try taking a closer look. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Billy Cannon

Perhaps the criminal issue should be brought to discussion. Sf46 (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma Governor David Hall

I noticed on my WatchList that User:John celona has re-added David Hall to Category:American criminals despite your revert, and I wanted to seek your opinion on the best way to resolve this mattter in a manner consistent with applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --TommyBoy (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: my comment

Well, I really don't know what to do with this situation. The only thing I can come up with is to leave the category as-is (i.e. remove any recent additions by John celona) and wait for the Request for Comment to proceed. I am not sure if we should report John to ANI again for not waiting for the RFC. If you wait a few minutes I will try to see if I can find out what the proper way to deal with this is. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that he had broken the 3RR. The last time I reported him, I found no examples of that. I will gather evidence and file a report to WP:AN3. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the 3RR notice to his talk page. I was about to, and then I saw you had. I do not think I can file a report on AN3 unless John reverts again after having received the notice. I will contact an admin and ask if I should go back and undo all of John's 3RR violations, and if I can file a report even though the user was warned after breaking the rule. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now I am gathering evidence to post on an admin's page, and I just wanted to make sure that you don't revert John, as most of John's violations involve him reverting me once, and you twice, so if you reverted him again, you would be violating the 3RR. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

David Hall Follow Up

I appreciate your reply regarding the David Hall (Oklahoma governor) article, however I would respectfully ask you not to engage in an argument with User:John celona on my UserTalk page regarding the Billy Cannon article, which I have no connection to. --TommyBoy (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR

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

Have left a warning on User:John Celona's talk page about edit-warring, but the same applies to you. I'm trying desperately hard not to take sides here, and I advise you both stop reverting until the RFC is complete, and then abide by the consensus. There is little or no harm in an article being "wrong" until that process is complete. Another Admin may not be so lenient. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I reported John celona for edit-warring at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Shameful behavior, IMO. However, that does not excuse you. Next time you come across an edit-warrior, just revert once and then leave the article be. These situations have a way of resolving themselves even without your (the general "you") involvement. Enigma ^message Review 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

nothing more I can do in this case. I was met with a very rude reaction and was insulted by the admin patrolling AN3. You might want to try wp:an or wp:ani. Enigma ^message Review 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I have filed the following ANI: [1]. Please chime in, as appropriate.

The diffs you are asking for are in plain sight

I intend to wait until this goes to arbitration before I present my case. I am encouraging others to to do there own investigation. i am assuming good faith and concluding that you are convinced that your behavior is justifiable. From my perspective it isn't. One of the first things you guys did when John came on the scene back in December was to investigate his past edits and try to convince me that he was a Holocaust denier. Do you remember that. ?? Albion moonlight (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that when another user suspected (with good reason) that Celona was a sock of rastishka (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_celona&diff=195596873&oldid=135135655), I pointed out that both had made holocaust-denial statements, something that in itself is worthy of a ban. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice which you are free to take or disregard

I also find Celona's spurious allegations of sock-puppetry to be bothersome. However, I think they only actually become a problem if people allow them to be a problem. Accordingly, I would suggest that you ignore everything he says except for substantive points, and continue working in good faith to try to resolve the content disputes. Although we're not far in to the process, I'm of the view that his conduct in mediation has been fine, and that we should therefore focus our efforts on mediation. If mediation succeeds, wonderful. If it fails, and Celona's clearly the cause of that failure, then he's become a real problem. If it fails for other reasons, well, we're at least no worse off than we are now. In summary: if you feel you're being baited, don't take the bait. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me NANCY!} 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jkp212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

no violation of 3 rv

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring , not violation of 3RR, and this looks like a edit war to me. — Tiptoety ^talk 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jkp212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the blocking template on my talk page says i was blocked for a 3 rv violation, and the admin was responding to query on the 3rv noticeboard

Decline reason:

The reason the block was issued was for edit warring, as the block log clearly states. — Tiptoety ^talk 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--Jkp212 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• From WP:3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Whatever it's called, it's not acceptable behavior, and it was ground for the block. — C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jkp

I will do as you have requested but I needed to try and stir the others back into action and it worked. Thanks for your participation. :Albion moonlight (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately, everyone noticed the patterns too late as any request for checkuser would comeback as stale. He is quite a disruptive user and I intend to go forward with the RfC if he doesn't curtail his behavior. Sarcasticidealist filed an RfCU about John and *ahem* "someone" where he stated that celona basically pretends BLP doesn't exist which is a huge problem for me. IMO, its the most important policy we have, and its high time that he followed it. Ani Mate 23:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Calm down please..

I will continue to do as I see fit. I have made no accusations against either you or David. Perhaps you should just quit holding us up at the Yarrow article...... 00:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You still need to calm down Jkp

I have as much right to do what I am doing as you do to what you are doing. Have a nice day. Albion moonlight (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)