User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Alexandre

Hi,
thanks for your message. I knew Alexandre was active (so to speak) on en: but i never figured out that, yes, it could be helpful to cross en: and fr: data. He uses quite the same nicks on fr and en. From 3 random nicks, 1 was first created on en, and 2 on fr. I had a look at District Nein but we don't have such nick on fr.

I tried to have a discussion with him once but he answered something quite confused, some parts seem to mean he doesn't like the constraint of being only one person/avatar and that he tries to end identity by deconstructing himself. Wheeee.

I'll have a look at whether he's simultaneously active on both wikipedias or switches back and forth. I'll keep you posted on the next sock (i doubt smn will block him because i say so here). I also wonder why you don't block the whole ip range he's in, i heard it was pretty well defined and narrow. There is probably not that much en: users on that range. Yours, (:Julien:) ✒ 14:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

2 new socks : French Messiah and Messie Français. (:Julien:) ✒ 13:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, which reminds me that I owe you a response here! At some point in our long history with this sockmaster, one of the editors here had the bright idea to check fr:, which was very fruitful. Periodically since then I have been looking in to see what names he has been using. His edits are so characteristic that we have little trouble obtaining blocks of his socks here, but it is always helpful to be able to point to the identical names on fr:. It is even more helpful to hear about his socks before I notice them! About 8 months ago an entire range of IPs was blocked on en: - see here - but I am not sure it made a difference. Ah well. He may be reinventing his name every few days but he can't seem to reinvent his interests, and he is easy enough to spot whenever he reappears. Thanks for the help. I will endeavor to do the same for you. JohnInDC (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you're on top of the situation, John. He's been a busy little bugger lately, hasn't he? Deor (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

He has! I think he needs to take up model shipbuilding, or another offline hobby - JohnInDC (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome keepup with the good work - User:Prince of France (talk) 14:36, 5 october 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Canal Moins (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked on fr:, one contribution on en:. (:Julien:) ✒ 18:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And a new one : Bruno Grauber (talk · contribs). (:Julien:) ✒ 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mystical pentagram-like object

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For behind-the-scenes diligence in monitoring unwelcome visitors from Remulak France. Deor (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Last Word (2010 film)

Hello JohnInDC, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Last Word (2010 film) has been removed. It was removed by Big Bird with the following edit summary '(de-prod. the film has begun principal photography and has significant coverage in multiple WP:RS publications, thus satisfying WP:NFF and WP:N.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Big Bird before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Romm

He was elected as a Fellow of the AAAS, writes, lectures and testifies before Congress on scientific subjects, and he describes himself as a scientist. I can't understand why these editors are working so hard to discredit him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Keith Haring

If you learned that he is an 'artist in residence', why not just add that fact instead of deleting all mention of him? I think all students are called 'artists-in-residence', but I'm not sure; the great thing about Wikipedia is that we can collaborate -- if you know something I don't, you can add it and visa-versa. My understanding is that the general guideline is that if we see an error, we should improve it rather than delete the content altogether. 66.92.53.49 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Doh! I read about the meaning artist-in-residence in the Wikipedia article itself: The school continues to be known for its apprenticeship method of teaching, in which a small group of students, usually only 10 to 16 per class (150 students for the total of ten departments), study under a single artist-in-residence for the duration of their curriculum. I suppose that makes him faculty? I'll leave it to you to do whatever works best with Keith Haring. Certainly a notable alum/faculty/associate/whatever! 66.92.53.49 (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It's not my job to take more-or-less random facts inserted by anonymous editors and weave them sensibly into articles. If you are going to edit Wikipedia, then you should make the effort yourself to incorporate properly sourced material into articles in a coherent fashion, rather than dropping in incorrect facts and then complaining when other editors don't fix your mistakes. Keith Haring is certainly well-known, and if his stint as "artist in residence" was more than just a passing thing (I don't claim to know) then it would seem worthy of addition - perhaps in a new, separate section about "notable artists in residence" or something, so that the Haring fact doesn't come across as just a happy trivia item (which, standing alone, it does). If you want to undertake something like that, actually improving the article rather than throwing facts at it, then I'd be happy to help. But when you add something that is 1) wrong, 2) unsourced and then 3) complain in self-righteous fashion about the edit while citing to sources that undermine your very point - well, it's not really a spur to collaboration.

To be clear, I'll reiterate. If you're serious about improving the article then I would be happy to work with you. (In that regard, you should create an account. Really. When you edit from an IP you carry with you all the baggage and nonsense of other editors from that IP. If your edit had come from an established account with a track record of generally sensible work, I probably would have treated it differently.) So what do you say? JohnInDC (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

To expand on the foregoing, having seen your comment. (Thanks for the followup, by the way.) I don't know either. What do you think? It's closer to "faculty" than alumni, that's for sure. Can you nose around a bit and find out what he actually did? And - please - make an account! JohnInDC (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to warning

i did not do anything nonconstructive to the page. i fixed something on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mttcmbs (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Desire, new sockpuppet for AlexLevyOne

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne/Archive + fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Albion

I have blocked this account on French Wikipedia, after having seen one edit in fr:Micaela Cousiño Quinone de Leon, already edited by Melvil and Neytiri (sockpuppets of Albion) and, here on EN, by an edit in René Blum (ballet) (edited by לוי). Little clues, but... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, John, I'll keep an eye on him. Deor (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI report filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne. Deor (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Plymouth Prowler

(Moving from my User page): I do not understand why the information regarding the Prowler 10th Anniversary Celebration is not considered integral to the history of the Prowler. Chrysler put on this celebration in conjunction with our club. Please tell me how I can edit it to be appropriate to be included. Thank you.

I received your message and I appreciate the input. I changed the text to reflect the 10th anniversary event that Chrysler did for our organization which was a joint celebration. I hope that it is acceptable. I thought it would be okay since other clubs are mentioned in that same anniversary topic. Please let me know if my changes are acceptable. Thank you.

JeanCollins —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanCollins (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and glad that you find my edit acceptable. Prowler owners are extremely passionate about the car. Just some interesting info for you.... unfortunately, Chrysler was not going to build the car more than five years. The concept Prowler was so well received by the public they decided to bring it to production. It was brought to production for around 1 million dollars which is pretty cheap, actually and within a very short time. The frame, body and engine are all aluminum and it was an experiment in building an aluminum car. Lightweight and they wanted to see how rust resistant an aluminum car would be. To Chrysler, and the owners, the 10th anniversary was an important part of the history of the car which is why they decided to hold the celebration. Team Prowler (the people who created, built and brought the car to production) was very excited about the celebration, because it was a confirmation of the creativity and work it took to build such a cool car. So, to them.....and us.......it is an important part of the Prowler history. I guess you might have to work for a car company to really understand how building cars like this....and the Viper (they were both hand built in the same plant) were so important to those who worked on the platform (project). lol! The week before the last car was built, our club held a tribute at the Prowler plant to thank all the people who worked on the Prowler platform to thank them for building the car that the Prowler owners love. It was very moving for them and it was very much appreciated.

Anyway, I thank you for approving the revised test and I meant no harm....just proud of Chrysler, the car and the owners.

CJ

Sorry, John......I signed my last entry to you with my nickname....instead of Jean Collins...sorry, habit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanCollins (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again, just saw your ps about signing with the 4 tildes....I'm new to this!

Jean Collins JeanCollins (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be a quick learner! Why not see where else you can contribute to Wikipedia? JohnInDC (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne's new sockpuppet

Special:Contributions/אל = fr:Special:Contributions/אל (blocked on FR). Hégésippe | ±Θ± 16:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

my edits

Im sorry about my edits, i thought the wolverine was from the Southern Hemisphere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seridius (talk • contribs) 14:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Though in the future you might want to avoid changing established content unless you have a reliable source that indicates that the article is in fact wrong. Good luck in Wikipedia! JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

ALO : Holy Vessel

Just one edit, at that time, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galerie Chappe. On FR, former article fr:Galerie Chappe was created by IP 83.204.133.141 and immediately edited by Albion. The article was deleted 5 times... Other edits of fr:Special:Contributions/Holy Vessel show evidence for a new sockpuppetry of Albion/AlexLevyOne . Hégésippe | ±Θ± 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Report filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne. Deor (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

New Page For Actor Nicoye Banks

received a message with the following text, Please advise:

"The article Nicoye Banks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Subject fails to meet notability requirements set forth at Wikipedia:Bio#Entertainers

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {dated prod} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {dated prod} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)"

Nicoye Banks has roles in several major motion pictures ("G" "Pride and Glory" "Invincible"), and two more ("Green Zone," "Brooklyn's Finest") are upcoming. According to my understanding of your notability requirement, the page on Mr. Banks certainly qualifies. As for copyrighted material, I can't find any violations in the information I posted. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymbala‎ (talk • contribs)

The source material for the copyright violation is found here: http://www.prleap.com/pr/62920/ . Here is a sample paragraph from that page, followed by the corresponding paragraph from your contribution to the article:

Source

The Crescent City was the backdrop when the curtain was first raised on this up-and-coming star’s career. NICOYE was first bit by the “acting bug” while being cast in his first film… “Heart of Stone”, where alongside noteworthy actor Clifton Davis (Amen), he portrayed a wayward teenager sent to a boys home as an alternative to jail, in order to make a positive life change. Shortly thereafter, NICOYE’S performance, in “The Colored Museum”, at Southern University of New Orleans afforded him the opportunity to display his range by playing a number of diverse characters. From there, it didn’t take long for NICOYE’S talents to be recognized by Tommye Myrick (director of theatre at Southern University of New Orleans), who subsequently encouraged NICOYE to relocate to New York so that he could further his training in theatre under the direction of Myrick’s mentor, Gene Frankel.

Article

The Crescent City was the backdrop when the curtain was first raised on this up-and-coming star’s career. NICOYE was first bit by the “acting bug” while being cast in his first film. . .Heart of Stone, where alongside noteworthy actor Clifton Davis (Amen), he portrayed a wayward teenager sent to a boys home as an alternative to jail, in order to make a positive life change. Shortly thereafter, NICOYE’S performance, in The Colored Museum, at Southern University of New Orleans afforded him the opportunity to display his range by playing a number of diverse characters. From there, it didn’t take long for NICOYE’S talents to be recognized by Tommye Myrick (director of theatre at Southern University of New Orleans), who subsequently encouraged NICOYE to relocate to New York so that he could further his training in theatre under the direction of Myrick’s mentor, Gene Frankel.

That's nearly word-for-word, indeed nearly letter-for-letter, and that's not the only example. You shouldn't cut and paste material from other sources to put into Wikipedia. As for notability, the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Bio#Entertainers indicates that an actor may be deemed 'notable' when the actor

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

I don't see "significant" roles in "multiple notable films" etc. but instead a series of minor or bit parts. Is that incorrect? JohnInDC (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I am the management representative for Nicoye Banks.

2. I own the copyright to the language you quoted because I drafted the copy as part of Mr. Banks' standard Biography, which is delivered to the press through one of his publicists (Ra-Fael Blanco at 2Rs Entertainment & Media), and often times used when writing articles about Mr. Banks. As a result there is no copyright violation. I can't violate my own copyright. However, I can understand how you made that mistake.

3. As a trained lawyer, who specializes in intellectual property, I would NEVER infringe on another copyright. As a matter of fact, I make a living from suing others who infringe my client's interests (see http://www.partypeeps2000.com/news/5478/1/Game_Over_Lil_Flip_Found_Guilty_of_Copyright_Infringement.aspx)

4. Prior to my posting the article on Nicoye, I read the criteria set out at Wikipedia source link you provided, which states, in part, that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." It goes on to state that an actor may be deemed 'notable' when the actor

"1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."

Mr. Banks has had "significant" roles in films, television shows and stage performances. As for bit parts. . . without going into unnecessary detail, I will state NO to your question. You, yourself, quoted an article about his re-occurring role on "One Life to Live," which is a "television show."

My objection to the scheduled deletion still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymbala (talk • contribs) 04:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a lawyer. Good. Then I can simply refer you to a few pertinent Wikipedia policies and procedures for you to review (not to mention researching related ones) so you can proceed appropriately. First please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest concerning your relationship to Mr. Banks and what it means for creating or editing articles about him. The most pertinent subsection is probably here. You may also find helpful information in that regard at WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPA. As to the copyright issues, you should review Wikipedia:Copyright and WP:Copyvio generally, and WP:IOWN for the way in which to deal with your own copyrighted material that you'd like to reproduce here. As you surely appreciate, Wikipedia is very sensitive about copyright issues, and when copyrighted material is presented here without attribution or any indication that it is here properly, bells go off. (I should also note that your PR prose is not really suitable for a Wikipedia article in any case, and that copyright issues aside, it would have to be edited down substantially anyhow, as I did even before I realized it had been copied from another source.) As to the deletion. I disagree, of course, with your assessment of the significance of your client's work. For now, if you object to the deletion of the article, you can simply remove the proposed deletion template from the article. (This is spelled out in the template that I added to the article, as well as in the warning I posted on your talk page.) If you do that, then if I still think the article should be deleted, I will have to put it up for community comment, and you will be able to make your arguments there. Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong, and Mr. Banks's roles are more significant than they appear to me. In the meantime I do recommend that you review the pages I set forth above, particularly as they relate to your conflict of interest and the promotion here of your client. JohnInDC (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

ALO, 2009-12-11

Special:Contributions/Whole in wall + fr:Special:Contributions/Whole in wall (blocked). Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

ALO, 2009-12-13

Special:Contributions/Loumia Hiridjee + fr:Special:Contributions/Loumia Hiridjee (blocked). Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again, as usual! JohnInDC (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

ALO, 2009-12-16

Hello, one more sockpuppet : Special:Contributions/Grace Augustine [1]. Moyg (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - got it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ALO, 2009-12-28

Special:Contributions/Leonopteryx + fr:Special:Contributions/Leonopteryx (blocked). Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ALO, 2010-02-03

Special:Contributions/Numéro1Mondial + fr:Special:Contributions/Numéro1Mondial (blocked). Hégésippe | ±Θ± 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not completely sure either about Wastiko. I'll check back his contribs tomorrow. Cheers. (:Julien:) ✒ 00:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi JohnInDC.
As I see you do a lot of AV work, would you like me to put a request in for you to get rollback? As I can tell you from experience, it's way faster than undo. Just give me a shout if you want me to. Thanks! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What do I need from you? What exactly do you mean? Anyways, I added a request. Good luck! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good luck using Rollback! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done. I've granted you rollback. For information on how to use rollback please see here. Thanks and keep up the great work. Valley2city^‽ 04:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

External links

Thanks for your messages.

I think in some cases the text should be removed, but I don't think that is the case for what I've been working on today. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not that the site isn't credible. It's that the user has been adding the same style of entry to so many articles in a spammy fashion. It seems like the motivation isn't in Wikipedia's best interest. It's likely to generate traffic to their website. That's why I haven't been removing the text that's associated with the link; just the link itself. Dawnseeker2000 22:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's more about the manual of style and spam than it is not being a reliable source. There really isn't much consequence if the material the link is supposed to be supporting is wrong. Right? :) So my edits are reverting what appears to be a spam mission and to align the articles to the manual of style. Dawnseeker2000 22:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I need a bit of help with the MOS then. Can you point me to the provision you're implementing? In this case the link had been in place for 2+ years, and to my eyes anyhow seems like a perfectly appropriate source. Now we're left with unsupported text in the article. I understand cleaning up linkspam but this particular example (Cranbrook Educational Community doesn't seem to qualify as such. JohnInDC (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. Here's the link to the linksearch on this particular site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.di.net

I will only be removing the six or eight more links to the main di.net website. This is because they were specifically introduced to the main page and not any particular item on that website. The remaining links to di.net are to specific articles or other items; I'll leave those as they appear to be OK. Dawnseeker2000 22:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Adèle BS

A CU was successful yesterday, and the account was blocked on FR. Former accounts: fr:Special:Contributions/Patmosis (doesn't exist on EN), + fr:Special:Contributions/Patmo6: see Special:Contributions/Patmo6. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 06:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fadila Farouk

For me, it's enough, without CU, because of the subject of the English article (the future queen of Egypt), and of the French username (name of the former queen of Egypt + name of the former king). Hégésippe | ±Θ± 16:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly hard to imagine a new and innocent user who, merely by coincidence, possesses this same collection of traits! JohnInDC (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary

This was unnecessary. I removed the white space at the same time as replacing the redirect with the template.174.3.123.220 (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I thought the original change pointless and confusing. Then I was surprised to learn that you've making the identical change to literally hundreds of pages. Evidently I'm not the only one who's reverted them. Perhaps you should ease up a bit. JohnInDC (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed your aggressive and *extremely* prolific changes have ruffled more than a few feathers - e.g. here - trivial secondary edits (removing spaces) notwithstanding. Please stop. JohnInDC (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the space and changed the template at the same time. You have NO grounds for reverting me.174.3.123.220 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. Spare me the outrage. If you're going to make hundreds - maybe thousands now - of unexplained and pointless template changes, you're going to have a few reverted. Even if you dress up the meaningless and mystifying template change with a "substantive" one like removing an invisible space. JohnInDC (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Invisible or visible? You obviously can see it.174.3.123.220 (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Trainon

Yes, you are right to those conclusions talk page. I would not say that it is only a shading difference. I am happy for the sentences to be changed, however they are, but those templates should be left up there so other editors can more readily see a problem with the articles.174.3.123.220 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In the future please fix simple problems yourself rather than throwing up unexplained templates and forcing other editors to take the time to figure out what you're talking about and then fix the trivial problem. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tila Tequila

Thanks for the hard work. There is so much to do around here, and too little time. All the best. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sure - that's one of those projects where, if you have another editor's implicit support (such as yours), it'll be easier to hold out against the fans & others who might want to lard the thing up with all kinds of nonsense. I'll take another whack at it another time. JohnInDC (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Famous

No, famous is not better because famous is subjective.[2].174.3.123.220 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No more than the general use of the term "notable". If you intend the specific Wikipedia use of notable then use that term. Otherwise please stop making that arbitrary, and incorrect, substitution. JohnInDC (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that IS why. Notable means "to be special for a specific reason", where as famous means "notable because a group of people consider the thing culturally special", which would require a citation. Do you have a survey to back it up?174.3.123.220 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. What I have are pages and pages describing what it means to be "notable" here on Wikipedia, which may or may not include people or things that are "famous". Again I am simply asking you to be precise. If you really mean "notable" in the Wikipedia sense - if the article requires that the people or things described therein should be and are "notable" rather than simply "famous", then by all means please use that word. But don't go arbitrarily substituting that specific term for the commonplace and well-understood term "famous" just because you like the sound of one better (or, worse, as a contrived "substantive" change in support of your resuscitated project to replace the "otheruses4" template with "about").

I also take issue with your definition of "famous". It means simply, "well-known". There's no cultural or evaluative component to it. (Indeed the way you have defined "famous" it might as well be "notable" - it is hard to conceive of a person or thing that's well-known and culturally significant that *isn't* also "notable".) To help you appreciate these distinctions, you should go have a look at WP:Notable, which goes on at some length to distinguish recognizable or well-known people (through, e.g., self-promotion, relationships to someone notable) from those who meet the notability requirement. JohnInDC (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a Encyclopedia, and NPOV is tantamount. Being culturally significant without explanation is wp:or.

You are hounding, with your reverts with out explanation. I suggest you stop.174.3.123.220 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not hounding you. I am repairing various of your unsound edits because, in my experience, you make a lot of them. You seem particularly fond of rejiggering captions in ways that subtly change meaning, and degrade utility. The awkward and mannered "miscellanea" for "other". Removing the word "in" from headings such as "in culture" or "in religion", leaving vaguer and less helpful headings like "culture" or "religion". Or the aforementioned "notable" for "famous", when "notable" is simply wrong. If you want me to stop correcting your bad edits, then I suggest you stop making bad edits - again *particularly* capricious ones in support of your personal template cleanup project. JohnInDC (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would add, further, that if I were "hounding" you I would be reverting all or most of your edits rather than (laboriously) reviewing them to ascertain whether they make the article better, worse, or are merely neutral. You are barking up the wrong tree there. As it were. JohnInDC (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wagon Wheels

[3]

You either keep notable, or take out famous.174.3.123.220 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A fair point. Famous is out. JohnInDC (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Titles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Head#Article_titles.5BR.5D "Titles should be nouns or noun phrases (nominal groups)"] E.g: "Effects of the wild, not About the effects of the wild."

This does not include prepositional phrases, which include "In culture", "In England", "In France", "In religion", "Miscellaneous" etc..

"miscellaneous" is an adjective, not a noun. It doesn't matter how "more common" the adjective is, it is just wrong.

I am fine with replacing ==In religion== with ==Religiosity== and ==In culture== with ==Anthropology==.174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - where does it say "no prepositional phrases"? I think we need some other editors' viewpoints on this, don't you? JohnInDC (talk)

It doesn't say that you can't use them, but it says to use noun phrases: "Titles should be nouns or noun phrases (nominal groups)". Bring this up on the MOS if you want.174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So if there's no prohibition, how about you allow them to be used where it makes sense to use them rather than changing them to something awkward and vague? (I am assuming BTW that you are being facetious about "religiosity" and "anthropology", as those words mean quite different things that what you are proposing to replace.) JohnInDC (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No actually, no. And no, if you are going to use prepositional phrases, they are not more clear. I will replace prepositional phrases with words that are more clear, where applicable, which I have been doing.174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would find this strict adherence to wp:head more convincing if you were following one of the few express injunctions, namely, to make such changes with care. You seem to be rather cavalier about these changes! JohnInDC (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

wp:captions

Familiarize yourself with the policy. If the captions of pictures are sentence fragments, do not use periods.174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - you've lost me with this one. Are we disagreeing about captions too? I really don't know what you're referring to. JohnInDC (talk)

Look at bayou. You reverted when I removed the periods.174.3.123.220 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, that was inadvertent. I hope you repaired the damage. (I'm taking your word for this - next time please include a diff.) JohnInDC (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Complete and useful edit summaries, by the way, would help ensure that other editors don't (literally) overlook small and hard-to-discern changes like removing periods. Perfunctory entries like "wp:head, wp:caption" aren't that helpful, and a few extra words ("removing period per wp:caption; substituting prepositional phrase per my reading of wp:head") would go a long way. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Allusion

It is not the wrong word. Give me a better reason.174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An allusion is an indirect reference to a thing. You introduced the change, so it is incumbent upon you to explain why the word is right - and, for that matter, an improvement. JohnInDC (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not an indirect reference. See allusion.174.3.123.220 (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, then - an indirect or passing one. From that very article: allusions are "a brief reference, explicit or indirect, to a person, place or event, or to another literary work or passage". A book that is set in a place, such a bayou, does not "allude" to a bayou. The bayou is a central feature. Still the wrong word. *Please*, if you're going to mess with headings at random, contrary to the admonition in the very WP:Head that you offer up as support for the changes, be aware of the meaning and implication of the words you are using. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wolverine

This edit is uncalled for. Basically, your calling it vandalism, because there is not meritable reason for the revert. You can discuss this on articletalk.174.3.123.220 (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course see the Talk page there for my reasons why a culture or society's description of itself or others as possessing traits like that of a wolverine is not an "impact" occasioned or imposed upon society by the wolverine somehow (compare the "impact" of a meteor strike or an automobile crash) but instead a reflection "in culture" (as per the original caption) of the wolverine. Your word choice in these heading changes is sometimes quite suspect and I am only doing what I can to repair the degradation you introduce. Also - if I were calling it vandalism I would have put a warning template on your page. Overstating your case does not make it more persuasive! JohnInDC (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

UffieMusic

Possible sockpuppet of AlexLevyOne: I just asked for CU on FR, but the account is not blocked. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The pattern is quite characteristic and there is enough information here for me to file a report. JohnInDC (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  
• Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How are genuine Atheists going to win anything if we are defined out of the debate? How to enter a wiki biography?

The god word is merely an allegation regarding an non-sense concept. The god word is a title lazily capitalized as if it were a name. Jehovah is the common name for the alleged deity of the King James Bible, and to get technical, Jehovah is one way of adding vowels to the Hebrew word "yhwh." Yahweh is another way to join into the game of gibberish regarding alleged deities. No one names their dog Dog. Why allow losers of the debate on defining what an alleged deity a win out of the starting gate with a presumption that an alleged deity exists and we Atheists must disprove he claim of the believer? I have attempted to remedy this problem and I get messages from one Wiki person or another my name is illegal and I'm not supposed to de-capitalize the god word. As for other alleged deities, Allah, Beelzebub, Buddhah, Jesus, Krishna, Satan or Zeus, most people would dismiss them all but one blindly favored and un-analyised personal deity. I'm not picking on believers but I'd like Wiki not to force me into a losing position. And of course I'm a lifelong American Atheist and do demand the respect that all Atheists deserve, proper noun status. Surely Roman Catholics would take offense at being called catholics? Why allow the bullshit heaped on Atheists, especially from pseudo-intellectuals. Thank you in advance for your replies and I'd also like someone to give me some instruction so that I can enter my auto-biography here. I've been a news maker all my life. I'm about to be front page news again for the countless number of times. My litigations have led me to the US Sup Ct and will commence Monday in Charleston, SC. I am Iowa's Only Political Prisoner of Theocracy, now in exile for my 5th year in the lowcountry. Thank you again for any and all help. 843-926-1750... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Carter Center (talk • contribs) 10:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Larry - I can't answer the larger questions for you; or at least, I'm not inclined to explore them here. What I can do is explain the reasons that Wikipedia is not your battlefield. Yes, the rules here are stacked against insurgents and minority points of view. But that's the nature of Wikipedia. It's a mirror, not a canvas. Please, before you contribute here, read and understand the various links I posted on your Talk page. Understand the notion of reliable third party sourcing, the prohibitions on espousing particular points of view. Also now because you raise the possibility of an autobiography, you should also go have a look at the Wikipedia pages on notability, autobiography and conflicts of interest (particularly as they apply to autobiographies); and, to help you understand what you may be getting into, go see WP:PROUD, which explains the mixed blessing of one's own Wikipedia article. If after all of that you conclude that your notability can be established through reliable, third party sources and decide to undertake the task yourself, you are best off creating the page and working on it on a subset of one of your own pages and pasting it into an article after it's been refined - rather than creating the article right off and risking its deletion if it's not up to snuff. (Which can happen very quickly.) I don't know the mechanics of that though and you might best follow up at Editor Assistance for instructions. Good luck. JohnInDC (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tila Tequila ethnicity

I know for a fact that Tila is not "french-vietnamese". I am also Viet and used to live in Houston and my parents knew her parents. Both her parents are 100% Vietnamese. The thing about Asians (or any other minority in America) in the media is that they have to claim some "white" blood in order to "make it" in hollywood, even if it is not true. She modified her myspace page to say "asian" a while ago. There is no "proof" that her parents have ANY relation to France.

Do you know of a reliable source that establishes her ethnicity one way or the other? As you know, your personal knowledge isn't enough to support a fact on a Wikipedia page, particularly in the biography of a living person. This might also be better addressed at the Tila Tequila Talk page rather than here! JohnInDC (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal stuff

Hi John, and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to gripe at you, I mainly wanted to reply to the other guy, and was agreeing with Orange Mike who said (at first) he couldn't see what you meant about legal threats. My post was careless, and I apologize. I know you're a regular on the help boards, and you're doing great work. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your contributions on help pages, helping others. A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

DC Neighborhood: Mt Pleasant

Dear JohnInDC,

The MtP article likely needs a strong editorial hand from someone with no connection and no strong preferences on the many divergences of opinion ferociously contested locally.

To my taste, the current article is predominantly about the history, and not about the current people or on-going issues that make this neighborhood of interest. Since the Historic issues are tightly tied both to a very small fraction of the population and to their preferences, this appears to me to be a violation of NPOV.

The Historical aspects, I suggest, should be moved to a separate article called "The Mount Pleasant Historic District (Washington, D.C.)". Then current conditions and issues of interest to almost all outside the membership of the local historic society would be given immediately.

The Chair and several officers of the democratically elected DC government body, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1D, have observed that it appears that it would vote to pull out of the designation, and guess that a plebiscite would confirm that opinion.

This neighborhood is not one where the historic identity is widely shared. Indeed, that designation was bitterly fought, and the proponents were essentially all anglo house-owners, quite unrepresentative of the demographics both in the late 1980s and now.

151.200.20.128 (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds intriguing. I'd suggest though that you draft a revised article and post it on a user subpage for comment before going live with it. This could be a little contentious! Also have you considered creating your own user account? JohnInDC (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Having had a chance to think about this some more, I am not sure that what you suggest is a good idea. Whether or not the "current historic identity is widely shared" by all residents of Mt. Pleasant, its history is its history. Perhaps the article would benefit by appropriate inclusion of broadly discussed current issues (that is, stuff that is not "news") but it would need to be properly sourced, and appropriately weighted within the article. Bear in mind too that what may make Mt. Pleasant "of interest" is fairly well beside the point when it comes to inclusion in an article. If reliable third party sources discuss current issues in Mt. Pleasant in a way that makes it clear that the events are notable, then they may be included; and matters of parochial interest may or may not qualify. All that being said, I do stand by my earlier advice, which is if you intend to make significant changes, make them somewhere else first to see how other editors receive them. JohnInDC (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know...

174.3.123.220 previously 174.3.123.220[4] was blocked and is being discussed at ANI.[5] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. JohnInDC (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you

Thanks for the clean up you're doing. I tend to be an inclusionist for already existing articles, but there really isn't anything that could help those. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(Being clear that I mean "no, thank you instead", instead of "no, but thank you") Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert on my userpage. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Rabin

Why is Stanley Rabin not notable enough? This is like many other article pages about prominent CEOs of well known companies. It may be short. In this case, you can help to expand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoroastrama100 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand - it is incumbent upon you, as the author of the article, to establish the subject's notability in keeping with WP:BIO, using references to reliable 3d party sources. I tried to find something about him that would do the trick but couldn't find anything meaningful. It's not enough in and of itself that he runs a large company. JohnInDC (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Helmut Schulz is a prominent nuclear physicist. Just research him. He is a big part of many professional societies, academies, and scientific discoveries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoroastrama100 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, *you* are the one who needs to be doing that. I conducted a search on him and came up with little more than his obituary. If he is notable, then say why, and cite to reliable sources. Please! JohnInDC (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Puffery?

Hey, I know that you are watching my every move, and that is fine because I am still learning. You are a great guidance. However, I find it hard to understand that after telling you explicitly that I am mostly interested in Columbia University and likes to dedicate huge amount of time, as of now, to writing articles about its history in technology and business. Why does that make my articles puffery? Why can't a wikipedia editor create articles of his/her own interest? I will expand to other topics as my current interest wanes, but it seems that you want to coerce me to write on other topics right away. I feel that you do not have this kind of bad intent, but it certainly came across as such. If not, why do you comment badly on everything I write about Columbia?Zoroastrama100 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not all puffery, not at all. Your articles are very good. I'm just taking out occasional fluff words like "famous" or "noted" or "world-renowned". If all those are true then the article will speak for itself. I'm sorry if it comes across that way. You should write about what you know - keep up the good work! JohnInDC (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing it up for me, John. Zoroastrama100 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

DCU

I reverted the DCU page back to the reference to my edit b/c the team's name has very much to do with Washington, D.C. being the capital of the U.S. --JaMikePA (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that. Please discuss it on the Talk there rather than simply making the edit again. JohnInDC (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Beth Hayes

Since the notable alumni on the Seaholm High School were removed to the discussion page pending proof that they had graduated from Seaholm, I provided proof for Beth Hayes by citing her obituary. You removed that reference and called it a "redundant edit". Could you explain please? Tobydavid (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobydavid (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't understand what you were trying to do. It appeared as though you were just adding more information to the "Beth Hayes" entry that was already on the Talk page (where I'd moved it before). Why not consolidate the two entries and put the properly sourced reference onto the main page, beginning a new (and for this entry, properly sourced) "Notable Alumni" section? JohnInDC (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do that. Tobydavid (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne

Special:Contributions/Dajjâl. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

198.161.203.6

FYI, this IP that has been reverting you is another sock of indef blocked 100110100 (talk · contribs). I'm working on cleaning up behind him now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering when he'd reemerge - JohnInDC (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne 8th July 2010

Special:Contributions/Mill3r. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 15:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne 10th July 2010

Special:Contributions/NINJA T, see: fr:Special:Contributions/NINJA T. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)