User talk:John

Welcome to my talk page! I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here. When leaving messages, please remember these easy steps: • Use a ==descriptive heading== • Use [[wikilinks]] when mentioning users and pages • Sign your post with four tildes ~~~~ Click here to leave me a message

• /Archive 1: January 2006 – June 2006
• /Archive 2: July 2006
• /Archive 3: 1 August - 9 August
• /Archive 4: Rest of August 2006
• /Archive 5: September 2006
• /Archive 6: October 2006
• /Archive 7: November 2006
• /Archive 8: December 2006
• /Archive 9: January 2007
• /Archive 10: Messages from during Guinnog's break
• /Archive 11: March - early April 2007
• /Archive 12: Rest of April 2007
• /Archive 13: May 2007
• /Archive 14: June 2007
• /Archive 15: July 2007
• /Archive 16: August 2007
• /Archive 17: September 2007
• /Archive 18: October 2007
• /Archive 19: November 2007
• /Archive 20: December 2007
• /Archive 21: January 2008

Settembreluna

I have a little problem, my band page has been deleted. I am a solo artist and I am finding it very unfair that just because I am not a big artist or haven't won an award that my page is deleted. I have however came 3rd in an Eisteddfod and have a link with composing music for the UK Eurovision.

I thought that on Wikipedia it's about being fair, so why am I not being given a chance? I have around 400 fans worldwide and am a very young, talented musician.

If you could help me I'd very much appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Settembreluna (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ugly Truth

Variety reported the information I have included. What more verification do I need?

Hi

Hi John. Sorry to keep bothering you. But I just thought Id let you know that I recently started coaching a user here. I won't force you as I know how hard admin coaching is but if you are interested, and I don't mind if you refuse, you can add your name to the page. Thanks very much. :) Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I added myself. --John (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John. Ill try not to make it too much trouble for you. I would also like to award you this:

Wow! Thanks a lot, I'll put it on my awards page. --John (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates

A date issue may be of interest, if you hadn't seen it already.[1] Tyrenius (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I agree with you and will keep an eye on it. The user has already been warned by me previously for something else. --John (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:Coaching

Hi John,

Thanks for coaching me!

Don't worry, i'm not in a hurry. And, I was in a small dispute a couple of weeks ago, so would like that to die down first!

See you on the coaching page!

BG7 13:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you endorse the block?

And the reason wasn't true. Why would anyone think these edits were point of view, personal workspace, inappropriate or without reliable sources? An elementary school kid telling me they are doesn't prove it to me. I took writing in college and I don't believe they were. Has anyone really read them? 02:19, 22 January 2008 claimed “personal point of view” See: [2] 21:15, 21 January 2008 claimed “for figuring out who to vote for” to be "inappropriate" See: [3] 22:48, 20 January 2008 claimed "inappropriate" See: [4] 21:36, 18 January 2008 claimed original research, no reliable source See: [5] 17 January 2008 claimed Original research, no reliable source See: [6] I think they just glanced at the Diff and didn't read them or read their cited sources. --Chuck Marean 22:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I answered this on your talk. I know you are trying to help, but you need to remember this is a collaborative venture and remarks like the above are not likely to produce a collegial editing environment. Therefore, any repetition of such remarks is likely to lead to a longer block. Move on from your annoyance at being blocked, and do something helpful, would be my advice. Let me know if you need any help or guidance. --John (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks as always, John: [7]. Gwernol 04:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, G. It is great to see you back and working so hard. I wouldn't want some seedy anon to put you off your stride just when things are getting interesting! Best wishes, --John (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres

86.157.197.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) might be time for semi-protection please? Hopping around on dynamic BT IPs, not many other options I don't think..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and I've done that. Thanks. --John (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection bars unregistered and new editors. User:Mohummy appeared just yesterday for the purpose of warring on this article. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And a bit of Islamophobia thrown in for good measure. Check out his page. Sarah777 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fancy trying your hand at keeping this article from turning into an edit war for a while? If you manage 48hrs I'll give you a barnstar! Rockpocket 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I accept. 48 hours eh, that's original... --John (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Banning reverts is cheating though! But not before time really.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangepith (talk · contribs)

Hi John. FYI, Orangepith (talk · contribs) was reblocked by Thatcher, based on his checkuser findings of abusive sockpuppetry, so I suppose our earlier discussion is moot. Or we could take it to ArbCom - zOMG WHEEL WAR! MastCell ^Talk 07:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, I saw that. I am inclined to trust Thatcher in this instance, though I think both of us deserve kudos for trying to give a second chance. Per Richard Holloway I see forgiveness as being a great virtue; see here for a beaut. Best wishes, --John (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not joking, sorry

Dear John,

I was not joking, I was absolutely serious. It is a fact that the name of Chaco province comes from Checo = Czech. Pronounced in Spanish you can almost feel it. I know it for fact because I grew up in Argentina (I am originally Czech) and I was visiting Chaco together with my father in 1980. I still have a newspaper with my father on the front page (I can scan it for you if you wish) - the purpose of the visit was to "baptize" the new school of Jan Amos Komensky in Roque Sáenz Peña, Chaco, Argentina. As you - for sure - know, Jan Amos Komensky is concerned to be "the teacher of nations", the inventor of modern teaching methods and he is of a Czech origin. In Chaco, there is still a big Czech community, they still have Sokol (used to be before the WWII. and now it is again a Czech tradition in physical education) and other Czechoslovakian unions. See http://www.czechembassy.org/wwwo/default.asp?id=21180&ido=2828&idj=1&amb=23&ParentIDO= (in Czech and Spanish only, sorry). As of right now the Czech community is counted around 30.000,- - 40.000,-(www.mzv.cz/servis/soubor.asp?id=29504) statistics of Czech Minitstry of Foreign Affairs (if you are interested, I also found a page in English but I have it stored at work, not home). Hovewer in the beginnign of 20th century the total number of immigrants was around 60.000,-

Sorry, I found extremely offending that you did not mention the Czech community in Argentina - so I had to edit he post to make it right and to bring some adequate picture for the readers. I know that you deliberately changed my editing but could you please post my comments back ? - because it was accurate and based on true experience and evidence. Next time, please, do not not cut me short by vague saying "However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing." because I AM NOT MAKING JOKES, I AM ALWAYS SERIOUS. I think Wikipedia wants to be serious - your delibarate attitude of deleting my editing without further investigation was very ackward and unprofesional, sorry.

Also: I do not know about the other nations (Polish etc.) but the Czech nation it is extremely sensitive if we are ranked to the "Eastern Europe" countries. Simply because we belong to Central Europe (as you for sure know, Prague is almost at the geographical centre of Europe). So, please, either rank us to Central Europe (where we belong) or to the Western part of Europe. We have nothing in common with the Eastern Europe countries, trust me. This is an insult to us (if you look up our history, you will understand).

I beg you for one simple thing: to my honest belief, I never edit any post or any comment unless I am 100% convinced I am right. This again comes from my Czech nature, we simply are like that. If I am not sure, I do not argue; if I am convinced I am right, I will fight till my last breath.

I know, I am new here, but I belileve that once in awhile I will be able to contribute Wikipedia a bit. I have no side intentions; all I have is the will to be accurate, to provide the correct information and give some added value for readers. And I hate people who delete my posts without any further knowledge like you did. Please, next time be more careful.

My Best Regards,

Dana Warkentin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannaew (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you are serious, then please provide a serious source for what you say, otherwise it will be deleted again. --John (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits?

Just to say, my edits were nIot intentionally disruptive, the students I placed on the page do go to Warwick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksurrah (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more of your edits to Cattle and to Category:Fictional hares and rabbits. My warning still stands. --John (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Muppets

In the context that I used it muppets was not a comment about anyone editor or group of editiors. It is a comment about hypothetical actions by hypothetical editors and as such is not uncivil to anyone. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is best to avoid using such language and to focus on the real here and now, rather than to use epithets to describe the hypothetical actions of hypothetical editors. My warning still stands. Best wishes, --John (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your threats (re)

What the **** are you on about? I stated clearly why I made the edit. Sarah777 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I answered in your talk. Be under no illusion; this is not a threat but a promise. If you do anything like that again I shall block you. --John (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? What agreement on the talk page? And cut out the threats - they have zero affect. Sarah777 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The agreement at Talk:List of massacres#Protection (2) which you were editing about 24 hours ago. Please don't pretend to be stupid Sarah, as I know you are not. Once again, I am not making a threat, I am reiterating that if you cannot abide by the condition I set to help solve the problems in the article then I will block you. --John (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read Talk:List of massacres#Protection (2) - knew nothing at all about - check my edit record since I logged on; I was working through my watch-list. OK? - I'm far from stupid - just didn't see it. I click on "diff" on my watchlist; view the edit; ignore or revert or go into the article as seems appropriate. A check of my edits tonight will confirm that pattern. But I can see what you thought you saw so maybe I over-reacted a wee bit. Hope your cold is better. Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

O that semi-protection. S**t. Forgot all about it. Gawd I really did over-react. What can I say? Grovel grovel grovel??? Sarah777 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I note though that you edited the section (which at the time was called Protection; I had not noticed there was an identically titled section there already) here, here and here, which is why I thought you were being disingenuous when you claimed not to have heard of it. Never mind, onwards and upwards. My cold is much better thank you and I am not English but Scottish, for what it's worth. --John (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, can someone actually answer my still unanswered question about how information is currently to be added? The edit Sarah777 reverted did look like a "major change" to me. If you're going to ban reverting, ideally you've got to ban people adding stuff without discussion first surely? Also I assume that any future edits from sockpuppets of banned editors can be reverted? Thanls. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) ONIH, I saw you ask the question and have no easy answer for you or else I would have given it already. I'll lay my cards out here; the article clearly has serious and long-term problems. My personal priority is to prevent the edit warring from established editors (and get the Barnstar Rockpocket promised me), and I think I have achieved it. I have no authority to prevent others editing it, other than going to full protection which I would rather avoid. I left a note for the editor who made the last change, but I also assumed good faith on their part and had decided to let the edit stand while we discuss. If we can continue to discuss without another edit war breaking out I will regard that as a victory and a way forward for the article. If we solve the problem of the criteria for inclusion (and we are making progress towards that), a lot of the problems will solve themselves. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm more than aware of the problems, and if we're going to include every incident where someone (regardless of how biased they may be) has used the word massacre it's a bit pointless as it's totally indiscriminate. I was just concerned that by banning reverts you're in effect giving the upper hand to anyone who comes along and wants to add something that's disputed or not suitably sourced. But other than full protection there isn't one I suppose. I've just made an uncontroversial addition anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just left you a message about that. If we can nail down some criteria that all will abide by, not only will the article be more stable but it will probably look very different too. Please let's solve the underlying problems before tinkering with the article. I appreciate your understanding. --John (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If at any point you'd said "It'd be best to discuss all additions" (as I didn't consider that to be anywhere near the edit we're talking about above) I'd not have done it :( One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken; as I say there is no problem with what you added, I am just keen to avoid opening up new fronts in the conflict. --John (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Now John, I think I may have finally overcome my earlier embarrassment and so can comment again. Are you saying that IPs, unknown newbies and Sockpuppets can add items here - but established editors who perversely use their own identity can not?? Shurly shome mishtake?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I made an agreement with the main editors who have been in dispute not to revert or to make major additions to the article while the discussion is under way. I cannot, as I say, enforce that on people who were not party to the initial agreement other than by protecting the article, which I am ready to do if it is necessary. So far I don't think it is; do you disagree? --John (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My embarrassment levels haven't yet receded sufficiently for me to energetically disagree with you! Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ach, don't worry about it, we all make mistakes. Sorry I was so snappy with you. --John (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)