User talk:John254/Archive 8

RFA thanks

Thank you, John254, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO Talk

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, John254, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy!

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Trampton 09:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

I have reopened this AfD, per this guideline. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Prodego ^talk 03:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay 4 wasn't a "speedy keep". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states that "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days"; given the length of time the AFD discussion had run, and the overwhelming consensus in favor of keeping the article, my closure was proper at the time it was effectuated. John254 03:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

They remain open 5 days, even if they aren't discussed that long. Anything short of that would be before usual (thus speedy). A few more days don't matter anyway, and it will allow any last minute arguments that may otherwise spark a whole new AfD. Prodego ^talk 03:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The relevant sentence from WP:AFD states that "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus." In this context, it is obvious that "up to five days" is the period of time after which AFD discussions are closed, not the period of time during which active discussion occurs. John254 13:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Puppet Tags for Superburgh, Truth in Comedy & 24.3.194.217

Hi there. Since you were involved in identifying ChrisGriswold's sock puppets, could you please lend a voice to users who have been attempting to blank out the sock puppet tags on Superburgh, Truth In Comedy & 24.3.194.217. The discussion on ANI about tagging his accounts was hinged the main 'puppet master' of the account, not the puppets. It was deemed that tagging ChrisGriswold's main account as a 'puppet master' was excessive and should not be done. But the other accounts are suspended and were used primarilly as tools by ChrisGriswold to deceive and abuse other Wikipedians. Those tags on those accounts should stay in place and not be removed. But less than a week later, people are popping up and removing them. Why? And what useful purpose is served by disabling puppet accounts without tagging them as such? —SpyMagician 23:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kate Ritchie

Thanks for fixing up the bit of vandalism that I missed in my edit.--Jeffro77 14:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khukri 2

Hey John, hope everythings OK! Is there any chance you could take your support away from the above RfA, Khukri hasn't accepted yet so it's best not to offer any support (It might harm Khukri by having supports before being transcluded). Cheers in advance, I'm sorry for asking, it's just a reason for some people to oppose. :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, don't worry about it, looks like he's ready to transclude! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Trader Joe's Edit

Regarding your deletion of the values section of Trader Joe's, why did you do it? Trader Joe's values are who they are and what they practiced. I posted the info in Trader Joe's Discussion page and asked if any one had any objection. No one objected in a week. Whole Foods has a Values section. If it is OK with one grocery chain, it should be good for another.WLee 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

John, since you did not respond, it is OK to add back what you edited out in Trader Joe's page. The content is not spam, but facts important to description of Trader Joe's. WLee 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

John, from the respond that you gave on my Talk page, you did not cite what is acceptable, only what is not. The talk was given by the CEO of Trader Joe's. Why is that not a good enough source? I can re-write the words so they are mine, but facts are facts, so they cannot be modified too much. What is promotional to you is facts to Trader Joe's. This is who they are and how they run their business. If Whole foods can have a Causes section, quoted directly from Who Foods website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Foods_Market, why can't Trader Joe's?WLee 03:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith Revisions

So again a threat for revising. You use the term "good faith" revisions. Please explain. I am quite curious as to how adding inaccurate material (aka "sneaky vandalism" by Wikipedia) and links used to discredit inventors is "Good Faith."

I removed these "sources" and replaced them with accurate, verifiable, legitimate sources such as MIT, the Smithsonian, and the Federal Highway Administration among others. Did you read the discussion on the G Morgan page at all? You threaten me because I erased unverifiable junk from www33.brinkster.com and replaced it with accurate information from the US, Canadian, and British Patent Offices, and you threaten to ban me!?!!

Am I in some strange alternate universe? This klan comes at those articles en masse to protect their racist ideology and delete accurate information in the name of 1 fictional website. And you are blaming me of vandalism? You seem to have a good grasp of Wikipedia, how then can you just jump on the new guy simply because I make noise about a group of individuals discrediting people of certain heritage.

If you don't believe me then search www33.brinkster.com in Wikipedia and note that EVERY reference is used to discredit those of African heritage. All the information reentered in those "reversions" are provided by this site and this site only. Or links to blank Wiki pages. I eliminated the false information that is provided and replace it with accurate.

So you want to ban me? Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 02:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Even if the information provided by the users who you are edit warring against is not accurate, I see no evidence that it is deliberately inaccurate. Only the intentional insertion of misinformation is "vandalism"; all other concerns over accuracy are content disputes. Rather than engaging in an edit war, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for an explanation of how such content disputes are handled. John254 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Garrett A Morgan

Please have another look at the talk and history pages for Garrett A. Morgan. It is others, not I, who have repeatedly deleted the article's content and links, specifically two sections which very clearly set out the readily verifiable facts that Morgan' "safety hood" and traffic signal, though certainly valid inventions, were far from the first of their kind. These sections are accurately referenced and verifiable, and had been part of the entry for many months before users -- firstly several anonymous IP users, and then two named users -- repeatedly cut these items out, claiming that their source was tainted. Have a look at the source yourself -- you will see that, whatever motives might be attributed to the "Brinkster" site, every single statement there is referenced in considerable depth in scholarly articles as well as with original newspaper clippings, photos, and more than seventy original US patents linked directly to their sources at the US Patent and Trademark Office. These prior patents are (or perhaps now, I should say, were) referenced by number and with details in the sections of the entry itself. The most recent edits, I imagine, were attempts at compromise, but again reasserted inaccurate and undocumented claims, such as that Morgan's gas mask was "revised" and that this revision "led to" the modern gas mask. I certainly would be happy to see others edit, improve, and extend the article, that's the wiki way! But these edits have simply led to the entry's re-assertion, without proper sources or documentation, of plainly false claims. I myself am a local historian with a long familiarity with Morgan's life and work; I have researched Morgan's personal papers (though I am also mindful of the policy against original research, and always abide by it, documenting claims exetrnally). These folks who aer chopping out this content seem to be led by a misguided sort of boosterism for African-American invetion, where plain facts must be suppressed to make a certain man's achievements more glorious; I am also a lifelong advocate for African-American achievements and history, but because of that commitment, do not wish to see positive falsely positive claims advanced any more than I would like to see falsely negative ones.

I believe that if you take a closer look at the article's Talk and History pages, you will see that I have attempted a reasoned discussion with everyone (most of them anonymous persons who do not sign their posts). I have offered tpo contact, and would still be very happy to have, an third-party mediator; if you yourself are an administrator (not clear from your pages), please forward my request for the same. I have spent many an anxious hour doing what I can to follow all the WP policies and to keep the entry accurate, NPOV, sourced, and documented, but this experience has been very sad and sobering, Clevelander96 08:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As being on the other side of this debate, I agreed wholeheartedly with Clevelander, except in his claim that there is no documentation. On the contrary, there are very reliable (MIT, Smithsonian, RIT, Federal Highway Authority, et al) sources used as contradictory claims are made by me and others. In fact, the Science Museum article is well documented. And like Clevelander, I left the others assertions alone so that readers could come to their own conclusions about the conflicting claims, especially since the sources cited are conflicting. However, KelleyCook reverted out my material right before the page was protected, deleting documented material. I believe I am documenting correctly because it appears correctly after my edits on my computer screen. PS I don't understand why Clevelander couldn't/ can't see the documentation.--BFritzen 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

John, thank you for your kind support of my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi John254, thanks for your support in my RfA, which passed unopposed. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

=)

Marc ^Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyad Ismail

Please take a look at the current version of Eyad Ismail based on improvements to the article since you nominated it for deletion, and comment in the AfD on whether you still believe the new version still ought to be deleted. If you find that your concerns have been addressed, you might consider withdrawing the nomination. Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Energy Literacy Advocates

I have contacted the founders of this organization and asked that they help me rewrite their Wiki article. Would you be available to help edit it, if it does not meet Wiki standards? Please respond on my talk page. Thank you. troycdunn 19:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

While it might be possible to write an acceptable article on Energy Literacy Advocates, any article would need to be written from a neutral point of view. The deleted article, which read like promotional matter for this organization, clearly did not conform to the neutral point of view policy. Additionally, I would recommend that any new article cite at least two reliable sources, independent of the organization itself, to establish verifiability and notability. Finally, per the conflict of interest guideline, any participation of "the founders of this organization" in writing an article concerning it would be strongly discouraged. John254 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for cleaning up the nastiness on my userpage —Gaff ταλκ 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

I looked at your edits and think that you would be an easy RfA and a good admin. If you are interested in nomination, let me know. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. I'm not an admin myself, but don't think that will be an issue. Its obvious that you have made a significant contribution, do a lot of work cleaning up vandalism, all the things that should make for a good admin. Unless there is some dark secret in your past that I missed (kidding). I'll write something reasonable intelligent for your RfA and wish you the best of luck! —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Okay...its done. You will need to answer the questions on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/John254. Then, once that is complete, either you or I will need to complete the last of the steps here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate. Let me know when its ready! —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Img003.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Img003.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn your request for adminship

I have closed your RFA because of the snowball clause - it has no chance to succeed. Since I am not an admin, you have the right to restore it, but I don't recommend it. I have also failed an RFA once, and I advise you to read the comments and use them as an opportunity to learn and improve. Best regards. YechielMan 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi John: I hope that you are not too discouraged by this RfA result. I stand by my opinion that you have made a very significant contribution to Wikipedia. I suspect that with time the conflicts that prevented this from succeeding will fade away and people will see the tremendous amount of work that you have done. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Username vios

Please use WP:UAA to report username violations. --soum ^talk 14:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal ahoy!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Coren 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to subvert your block

You may be interested in checking out Tecmobowl's discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tecmobowl. While you have blocked him, another user [1] is encouraging him to subvert your block. Saying, for example, "maybe you can take some time off and (if your IP changes periodically), you can attempt to come back under a different name." Is encouragement to violate Wiki rules itself a violation? And if so, are you the one to so inform the editor? Thanks. --Epeefleche 05:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User Page Editting

I noted that you left a message on my page regarding some editting to my user page. I was the one that made those changes, I just forgot to log into my account. Thanks for looking out for my page though! --SmokerKat

Strongly disappointed

I'm greatly disappointed in your harassment of me. Your claims of "abusive sock puppetry" are entirely without merit. Do you have any evidence of a case where I rigged a vote, edited an article using multiple accounts, engaged in an editing dispute, or worked around the 3RR policy?

No, you don't.

Why?

Because I am a responsible member of the Wikipedia community and respect its mores. Which include respecting fellow editors, and not throwing fits when you don't like someone else's contributions. Please cease making attacks on me which you cannot support. --The Cunctator 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, since it appears that the locus of this dispute is editing that might have appeared to be inappropriate sockpuppetry but was in fact simply an editor's inadvertently contributing whilst logged-in with the wrong name (a technical, clerical, rather than an intentional, malicious, or subversive, reason), and that, though there remain legitimate issues outstanding (the Grover Norquist editing and the MfD, about each of which each of you has a fine case), they are issues that can be resolved through discussion, especially when they involve two otherwise respected editors, I wonder whether you might do well to chalk the ANI/RfCu issues up to a misunderstanding and to continue with the constructive, civil editing of which each of you normally partakes (I realize that this is an exceedingly paternalistic and patronizing suggestion, but those, with cups of tea, sometimes work). :) Joe 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Long levi

This is a recently-created user who might be the banned User:Tecmobowl reincarnated. His topics of interest and his choice of words are similar, as well as obviously knowing his way around wikipedia very well. I don't know what the rules are in this regard. I had many clashes with Tecmobowl, and I don't want to cross swords with him again. So instead of hassling this new guy, I'm taking this question to the admin who posted the block notice. Thank you. :) Baseball Bugs 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that I complimented him for fixing some problems in the Hall of Fame links. That was good and needed work on his part. However, his zeroing in on and deleting references to the fangraphs site, which was a major point of dispute between Tecmobowl and other users, is suspicious. Also, the new user is highly interested in Hank Aaron and home runs, as the breaking of his career record nears. Tecmobowl was based in Atlanta. Baseball Bugs 17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not an administrator. Tecmobowl was blocked indefinitely by SirFozzie; I merely posted the block notice on Tecmobowl's user page. If you have concerns regarding a user who may be an abusive sockpuppet of Tecmobowl, I would recommend making a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. John254 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have taken it to the admin who blocked him. I'm guessing he'll advise the same as you did. But since Tecmo and I had such major clashes, I'm taking the semi-cautious approach before out-and-out accusing him on the Incidents page. Baseball Bugs 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)