User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Addition to piece on John Prendergast

Hi,

I would like to include this : http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/11/south-sudan-midwives-special-report-idINDEE86A0BI20120711 - The Wonks Who Sold Washington on South Sudan and wonder if you would please help me with placement.

Thanks so much!Pazleila (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I will say that I've only briefly scanned it but I am not sure what new point in the article it would be included to support. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to serve as compendia of a subject's media mentions, and the existing article is already abundantly sourced, so this new cite really needs to be there in support of some new thing in the article, a meaningful thing too that isn't just embellishment. It's not enough to be just another article that talks about Prendergast. JohnInDC (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

i think that being in support of and working for years towards establishing a new nation is important to include. the supporters include five others. maybe i am wrong.Pazleila (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well - what is the sentence or two you'd use this in support of? Where would it fit in the chronology? The problem with that article in the past has been a tendency toward hagiography, a kind of "look how great this man is" tone rather than something a bit more neutral and descriptive. "Supporting and working for years to establish a new nation" strikes me as a bit, I don't know, fawning. So maybe there's a better way to recite it, more factual. I dunno. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to Talk:John_Prendergast_(activist); let's continue it there. JohnInDC (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Monica Sone

Dear John,

I got these info directly from author Monica Sone before she passed away.

These interviews are very interesting because Monica Sone describes in detail the friendship with author Betty MacDonald.

Thank you,

Stella — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellamosley (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Stella - you really need to spend a bit of time reading up on how Wikipedia works and what sort of information is appropriately included in the articles. It's not just a collection of stuff that people happen to know, but rather an edited compendium of information that other, reliable sources have already reported on. What you personally know is almost entirely beside the point. For something to find its way into an article, it has to have been reported by reliable, verifiable, independent sources. By these measures, the Wolfgang Hampel interviews are not right for inclusion. Go back to your Talk page and the Welcome message I left there. There are all kinds of links you can peruse to gain a better sense of Wikpedia's policies and practices. Please do this. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

University of Michigan Law School "in popular culture" section

john, please stop deleting the michigan law updates. you do not seem to present a solid basis for their deletion, apart from your own compunctions about it being there. given the democratic nature of this wikipedia experiment, it seems reasonable to err on the side of including more information rather than less, if it is at least arguably within the realm of appropriateness, does not obscure useful information, and is accurate. i think many readers would find it useful/interesting/relevant. i will say, though, that i find the majority of your contributions quite helpful and i appreciate your service to the wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulsand (talk • contribs) 03:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Those kinds of passing, trivial references are precisely the kinds of things that should not be included in Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Here is the pertinent passage, in case you miss it: "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject.". Elsewhere, "[P]assing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference." Your persistent additions fail both these tests, and I've reverted them again. I've now provided you with a solid basis explaining why your trivia section is inappropriate; if you add it back again you'll be edit-warring. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(Ahem)...

Anyway, as I said before User:NawlinWiki unnecessarily hid my words, I'm retiring from the whole sock puppetry thing. You guys have done well in catching my unconstructive edits, and I salute you. Rectal Wrecker (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As I said once before, time will tell, eh? JohnInDC (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey

The user repeatedly taking the COI tag off the article regardless of warnings was disruptive IMO, and has been blocked for a short duration. I however have to question whether you are engaged in an edit war over the "controversial" label in the lead. The editor made some strong arguments and such sensational statements need some Strong sources. Take it to the edit warring noticeboard, DRN, or even the BLPN next time. Kindly Calmer Waters 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Really I'm just trying to find a decent NPOV formulation of this fellow's accomplishments (and commentary about them) in the face of unrelenting POV / COI editing by his interns and colleagues. (While at the same time holding off the efforts of one or two IP editors who seem to have their own axes to grind, in the opposite direction.) I've tried to come up with good, supportable, neutral language that captures what's reflect in the various sources, laying all my thinking out on the Talk page; and after a long series of reversions on a variety of topics, I just stopped trusting the complaints and stated reasoning of the COI editors. I'd love a bit of 3d party input. Is there any particular reason to wait? I'm confident this is not the last of it. At the moment I'm inclined toward DRN, or maybe BLPN, seeing as what's not vandalism in these edits is essentially a content dispute. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Active political BLPs can be quite the minefield, and just don't want you to walk into a 3RR the next time someone challenges some portion of the article, whether its a throwaway, SPA, or LTC. Appearing from the article and talk history, it's not likely resolved and dropping a note at one of those could help to get some type of rough consensus on the contentious portions, as the talk page seems to need a few more eyes and opinions. Would also allow the quick stopping and blocking of disruptive SPAs :). Kindly Calmer Waters 20:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Anakronik

Hi John--would you mind leaving a note on their talk page explaining your reverts? It's a lot of them, and I can sort of guess why but I'm not really sure--an explanation now may save time later on. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, sure. I should have done that - given the 500 or so reverts! I'll add a sockpuppet template that'll explain it both to the editor (unnecessarily, hah) and anyone else who wanders by. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. JohnInDC (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoa. Mass-rollback seems to exist, but I haven't been able to set it up yet. Hey, I saw we have a common friend--Yummyanaljuices or whatever he goes by. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, God, yes. He's created two accounts already today! Creating a report right now -JohnInDC (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw. What's the other? Drmies (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/GPBSO - someone already caught it. JohnInDC (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. JohnInDC (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2008 Manhattan construction crane collapse

I've nominated the related articles separately as it wasn't clear whether a consensus had been reached for these: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Crane & Equipment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favelle Favco Group. You may want to clarify whether your comment also applied to these articles. Peter James (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I should read more carefully! Thanks; I'll go and comment now. JohnInDC (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

rollback of huggybear's edits on Monsanto page

hi i've been working on the monsanto page a lot. i noticed that "huggy patch" came through and corrected a bunch of spacing, and you followed right after and reverted. Seems like huggy patch improved the page and you gave you no reason for your reversion. what's up? thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Huggy Patch is perhaps the 150th puppet of a notorious puppet master and banned user - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne - and it would be fantastically time-consuming to review each and every one of his thousands of edits to see which are good and which aren't, so I just revert in bulk. Please feel free to restore his work if he actually did something useful! JohnInDC (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I see so the changes and reversion were a drive-by. Now I know what the guy crossing the street feels like when there is a cops n robbers car chase. I am completely unfamiliar with the world of "puppet masters" on Wikipedia. Funny.Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my! Well - I'm sorry that this has been confusing. (The gist, if you didn't look it up, is that someone creates a new account to maybe pretend to be a second, different person; or to avoid a block - as this person has been doing. Sockpuppets are generally blocked on sight, again as this guy is - again and again and again.) Anyhow thanks for your patience and understanding and I hope that the next time our paths cross it's for a better reason! JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ditto! Thanks for explaining! :) And thanks to you and your comrades for keeping wikipedia safe from these strange users! so much work!Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Mario

Maybe Mario is set in New York but he is still an Italian Davebrayfb (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. His creator says, "let's put him in NY and he can be Italian". He's in New York. It's not really a stretch to conclude from this that he's a "Fictional American Person of Italian Descent", which category you keep removing him from. If he were in Tokyo or Paris or Naples then I would see your point - why call him American? - but he is set in NY City. More to the point, you kept removing him after an editor reverted you, twice, and then directed you to the source where the creator discusses this. If you want to talk about whether that makes Mario an American of Italian descent, or just "Italian" (maybe he's going back soon?), do it on Talk. Don't just keep inserting your edit. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Yummyanaljuices and his socks

this guy should really do his laundry, because his socks are stinking up the site! Found another few today and made a report at AIV. Am working with Ohio State's IT people to determine the real-life identity of the vandal; if this is done perhaps we can restrict his access to school computers. 140.254.21.177 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Award to Digital Globe, Enough...for work with SSP

Hi,

I think this can be included under Awards for SSP.

"We're honored to receive this award with the Satellite Sentinel Project..."Pazleila (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But - the award wasn't made to SSP. It was made to someone who does work with them. That's just a stray quote. Isn't there something better to show that the people making the award made it to SSP? JohnInDC (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have looked - will continue to... My understanding is that award also made to Enough Project and Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.69.37.220.142 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see now - my misunderstanding.69.37.220.142 (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Le Million

Hi,
Nope, i didn't forgot to block him: I can't block him on my own since I'm not an admin, so there's a pending checkuser request, and he will be blocked after the request is completed. A bit of a red tape but so it goes. Yours, (:Julien:) ✒ 11:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake - I'd always assumed you were an admin. I'll await the result then. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Slow Down

It's counterproductive to get into an edit war (Fifi and the Flowertots) regardless of the fact you're correct. Let it be wrong transiently, start using the article talking page and get help from WP:DR. The admin corps will generally not sort out right from wrong in article content but will either block one or both editors or full page protect the article from editing. Nobody Ent 11:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please. Take a look at my entries to his Talk page. Take a look at my prior ANI postings. I've been letting him edit is way into a hole; I'm being anything but hasty. JohnInDC (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason

...is because of a recent reminder here. You might try asking there for a response from checkusers to further clarify. Just doing my job...:)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Professors

I think all of the people I have written articles on are fully notable. They may not be figures of great celebrity, but each meets (and in the case of, for example, Katz) far exceeds the notability threshold. Lawnaut (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - I don't see where any of them meet any of the criteria of WP:Academic or the general notability criteria. I'll begin WP:AFD discussions. JohnInDC (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

Most of the articles where you reverted me contain a lede which is also trivia already covered in the infobox i.e. population stats or geogrphical size in miles, population growth. If you oppose trivia you hould be consistent with other trivia too, especially in cases which are repetitively repeating whts in the infobox.. Pass a Method talk 14:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't seriously contend that a city's location and population are "trivial". JohnInDC (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You missed my point about its repetitiveness. It is alsready covered in the infobox. Pass a Method talk 14:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no trouble repeating essential, non-trivial facts in both summary and prose form. And, even if that were a problem it would not justify including really trivial facts, having no discernible impact on the city, in the lede just because the event happens to have been uniquely gruesome. JohnInDC (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise i have moved the Chicago line to the body. Cool? Pass a Method talk 14:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I just commented on your Talk page. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it safe to say we're all happy now? Pass a Method talk 14:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Well - about this, yes. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback - gwickwire

Hello, JohnInDC. You have new messages at Gwickwire's talk page.
Message added 18:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

gwickwire | Leave a message 18:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines series records

Yeah... I just finished it. - S

Great! JohnInDC (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Was "was", is "is"

No problem -- there are more guidelines out there than a person can reasonably ever hope to read about much less memorize. That said, if the IP is a sock of a banned or blocked editor then it is a good rule to revert their edits even when they are constructive. If someone is blocked/banned then they should not be editing at all and allowing good edits completely undermines the fact that they were blocked/banned in the first place. If that is the case here then reverting them was correct (but for a different reason). SQGibbon (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had enough experience with blocked / banned editors to know to revert on sight and usually I do, but sometimes it kills me to make the encyclopedia worse in service of the policy and I find myself, you know, thinking about it. Ah well. This guy will crop up again, so if you see more peremptory edits out of me on kids' TV pages, that's the reason - JohnInDC (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Boohbah reversion

Hey again! It was only after I reverted your edit that I noticed your name (I promise, I'm not following you around, I just have a lot of TV shows on my watchlist) and thought it might have something to do with the sockpuppet issue above. I was just about to leave you a message about this when I got your message. Feel free to do what you want with my reversion. According to WP:TVLEAD it's OK to mention the country of origin in that manner but as discussed above we do not want to encourage sockpuppetry. And it's not like it's a critical piece of information that just has to be in the lede. SQGibbon (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I figured you've got a lot of these watchlisted. As for the edit / reversion - I am content to leave it as is. I don't see anything really wrong with it, and now - well, it's your edit, not his! Otherwise -- heretofore with this fellow I've tried to parse his edits and keep what's good, but he's demonstrated such persistence in created socks now that, going forward, I think I'm going to simply undo him on sight, and (with luck) deprive him of even residual editorial satisfaction. Thanks for the note. JohnInDC (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I see you've opened up a sockpuppet report on the editor so that's good. Feel free to leave me a note whenever you suspect the editor is at it again and I'll help out however I can. On a side note, I used to just do recent changes patrol but my watchlist has gotten so big that it's basically the same thing. Oh well. SQGibbon (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You may well notice him before I do! Thanks though - I hope not, but you may be seeing more of my counter-puppet efforts in the future - JohnInDC (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

You recently revised a article I edited and removed "the names of the installers and manufacturers" from the page. I am some what new the wiki game and I am trying to understand why it was taken down. I read a lot of articles and try building my edits off what others have been allowed to post. If you can help me understand why a installers/manufactures name was allowed in this post below vs what i wrote it would help me out with any future contributions to wiki.

thank you

Referenced from American_Airlines_Center

On the south side of the arena AT&T Plaza (also called Victory Plaza) serves as the principal entrance into the facility, designed by artist Athena Tacha in 2000. The plaza provides an open space with fountains flanked by retail and office buildings. With several high-definition video displays from Daktronics mounted on the side of the arena and office buildings, the plaza is often used for outdoor events and movie showings.

Thanks for responding. First I'd say, take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It says, in essence (and in part) that, just because you can find a bad example elsewhere doesn't mean it should be repeated again. Promotional material is bad, particularly when it is shoehorned into an article and reads as a non-sequitur. Second, that aside, I see two differences right away in the example you've offered up. One is that both the artist and the video screen manufacturer have their own Wikipedia articles; the second is that the references are passing ones, offering up just a mention of the creator & manufacturer. Indeed identifying the manufacturer adds but a single word to the article. By contrast the material you added to Michigan Stadium and Crisler Center described the electronic upgrades in greater detail, which verges on tech-spec gobbledegook. Indeed, a sentence like, "Updated content delivery was also installed by Click Effects in partnership with TS Sports" is not only promotional, but almost meaningless to the average reader. The upshot is that the particular brand of scoreboard or controller is not of particular interest or import to the average, generalist reader of these articles, and when awkwardly inserted into an article by someone with an (apparent) connection to one such brand, the material comes across as plainly promotional, and as such, has no place here.

Is that at all helpful? JohnInDC (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That was very helpful Thank you, your input helps me get an idea of how this site flows. I can see what you mean by it sounding promotional and to be honest I want my contributions to wiki to be unbiased and factual and your input helps direct me to that goal. This gives me an idea on how I should be presenting the information that is being flagged as gobbledegook and making into something solid. Would it be wise taking this to another level by creating a unbiased page for LED Content delivery systems (which is a computer which helps run the LED boards) I am not trying to seem promotional but there is a market for this information so would this be a good step in the right direction thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericenergy (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Still looking for a answer if it would be wise taking this to another level by creating a unbiased page for LED Content delivery systems (which is a computer which runs the LED content onto the boards) We are not trying to put our name on it but I think it would be a valuable piece of info. Looking to make this page but I would love a confirmation that this would be a step in the right direction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericenergy (talk • contribs) 15:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Additions and descriptions.

John,

Thanks for the note. I try to keep the description terse/parsimonious, but that is not always easy for multi-accomplishment or multi-talented people. I'm sensitive to your request and will endeavor to comply. Feel free to chop down to a more telegraphic form if you care to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.132.11 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr Jamal Lasri‎

Thanks for notifying me, I've blocked the sock indef and warned the master account. Bjelleklang - talk 14:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. JohnInDC (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

ALO > 2012-12-28

Special:Contributions/Demandaplan : single edit on wp-EN, but hundreds on wp-FR since 2012-12-23 — fr:Special:Contributions/Demandaplan — with no need of any checkuser investigation, because the duck test gives clear and convencing evidence. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 19:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Die Hard pages

Hi JohnInDC, I noticed that you were a very accomplished Wikipedia writer and I had a question for you. There is a Wiki writer named BattleshipMan who keeps editing all the Die Hard pages and not letting anyone add things to it. It appears he may be working for 20th Century Fox. I was hoping to add one line to the latest Die Hard movie article "A Good Day to Die Hard" that mentions some of the original characters come from the source material, Roderick Thorp's novel, Nothing Lasts Forever. The other Die Hard articles pay respect to the source material in the actual article and not just the side bar, but when I add one sentence about it to "A Good Day to Die Hard" Battleship always deletes it. I think it is important to show that the film, especially the Bruce Willis' character is based on another work. Could you please advise on how to facilitate this? I appreciate your time. Thanks! Tahiti Blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by TahitiBlue (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the first thing to do is to raise the issue on the Talk page of the article in question - just make the points that you made here, and ask if there is a reason that the material can't be included; or, whether there is a formulation of the material that the other editor would find suitable. Talking about things is usually the best way to sort things out! JohnInDC (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink08: ANI discussion regarding requested range blocks

John, Cuchullain and I have filed ANI reports regarding Drago's continued disruptive editing and sock-puppetry. I have also requested appropriate range blocks for the University of South Florida IP addresses that have provided him with an escape hatch for three years. Your input is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

140.104.8.93

I want to let it go. As long as this user gets off my case! This user just persists that the user's edits are right and factual and "sourced by reality". Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)