User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Jamal Lasri

Thanks for spotting that one. I deleted his userpage and blocked him indef as a sockpuppet. Bjelleklang - talk 19:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

D.C. United third kit

I tell you, what happens on page D.C. United, I thought we were not going to use the third uniform is red, for the 2013 season. regards. Sebastián Alfaro 16 (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Te digo , lo que pasa en la página D.C. United, yo pensaba que no iban a utilizar el tercer uniforme que es rojo, para la temporada 2013. Saludos

Copyright

I'm sorry, You can add Canadian writers from IMDb. GeorgeOfThePurpleBananas (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, not quite. You really shouldn't rely on IMDb for much of anything, as it is all user-written, and we have no idea who the users are or if they know anything. Sometimes - as in the case of this person - they write it themselves. (And so it's no wonder that it's written in glowing terms.) And that is if you can believe what they say about themselves on IMDb. Anyhow it's not deemed a "reliable" source on Wikipedia and should be avoided. Second, no matter what the source, you can't just copy the text over and paste it here. You have to write things in your own words, or - as you can see - the material will be quickly deleted. So keep these things in mind as you continue to edit! Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Port Talbot

Dear John,

Please can you refrain from deleting my additions to the Port Talbot Town Page, I myself am from Port Talbot, which I believe you are not and Peter Bush is a credible person within the town.

Peter Bush is a well known community indivdual, is Chief Executive of a local charity, which I did reference with the last post. Please find below: Sources of Peter's credability

http://goldcross.webs.com/who-we-are

http://www.southwalespoliceauthority.org.uk/en/content/cms/getting_involved/community_safety/2012_winners/2012_winners.aspx - Go to Neath Port Talbot in this article

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Tories-pick-candidate/story-14018671-detail/story.html

http://www.lnpt.org/2011/10/11/i-couldnt-believe-it/

http://www.nptcvs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/VolVoiceDraft10.pdf Go to page 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ittfellow (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I will continue to remove the information. It does not matter where a Wikipedia editor is from or what they may know - information included on Wikipedia pages has to follow the policies about sourcing, found here; and lists of "notable people" from an area in fact need to be notable, as described here. Please take the time to review those links and until Peter Bush has an established article, refrain from adding him again. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Having read the policies on notability, which do not in fact apply, I am not trying to write a new article merely adding a name to the notable people of Port Talbot article, so if you re-read these yourself you will see that this policy DOES NOT apply, this policy is for making new articles.

Having given you enough sources of reliable non biased information, I feel that he should be added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ittfellow (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Bush is 23 years old and has received a couple of lesser local awards. He also seems to be a candidate for something. My advice is, write up an article about Peter Bush, fully referenced, then run it through WP:AFC to see if other editors agree with your assessment of notability. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have sourced the information well, they are from the policy you provided on sourcing reliable sources, council for voluntary sources, newspapers, the police force website. How can you get more reliable than the police force??

If I knew how to begin to even think about writing an article I would, but I do not which is why I opted to just add his name to the list of notable people, as he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ittfellow (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Go to WP:AFC. There's an Article Wizard there. It will help you. I dispute that Peter Bush is notable, and neither of us can predict whether in a year or two year's time he will remain important to Port Talbot. Or - how about this. I will raise the issue at WP:EAR and we will see what others think. How about that? JohnInDC (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter is 24 years of age.

I feel as many would in Port Talbot totally offended by your terms 'lesser local awards. He also seems to be a candidate for something'

This shows you have no idea - Peter was in 2 National UK Awards (The Cateys, and The UK First Aid Awards both on a National Level, 2 South Wales Police Commendations both on a regional level, he has been awarded various local awards, but also received awards from The High Sheriff and Lord Lieutenant which are never lesser local awards.

He is a well known charity Chief Executive, and how you can describe an Honorary Doctorate, Licentiateship from the City and Guilds Institute as a lesser award is beyond me.

He was a candidate for the post of Council Councillor, but unfortunately had to stand down as many local people know because of a bereavement in his immediate family in the run up to elections.

Peter has also published work, in many International Journals on Emergency Aid, Hospitality and Hotel Management, and is a Fellow of The Institute of Travel and Tourism. He is a leading figure within Port Talbot, as well as being Chair of The Community Health Council, a public appointment by the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ittfellow (talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• You make a good reason for inclusion. I've added the person back, since your edit was reverted with no reason given. You were even warned for vandalism, which was unwarranted, in my opinion. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've raised the matter for discussion here. JohnInDC (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Many Thanks Lugia2453, I am happy with the way the page looks. And if it stays like that then it is fine, I know I am sure the points I have raised prove how notable he is within the town, as it is the town page. I am not saying he is notable across the whole world, but within this town he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ittfellow (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the discussion, and it is not discussing what we are hoping to achieve a simple answer to Is Peter Bush notable enough to be included in a local town page Port Talbot, where I have proved by non biased and excellent sources that he is. The discussion is going down the route of honorary degrees, I am new to Wiki and I made a mistake, I accept it didnt belong in that article, but I 100% believe it belongs in this article.Ittfellow (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you weighed in at least. You would aid your cause a bit more, and probably get some friendlier help, if you were able to reassure the other editors (truthfully!) that you are not Peter Bush but rather just a Port Talbot local who knows of Peter and thinks he's worth mentioning. In the same way other editors react viscerally to edit wars (thanks for your forebearance), they do likewise to people who are just puffing themselves up. JohnInDC (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, As I said I am new to Wiki, and didnt understand the full procedures (as you are well aware) the policies here seem to be quite extensive, so I am perfectly happy and understand why most of my comments were deleted, although I still feel that my inclusion in the noteable people section in Port Talbot is correct, I am not Peter Bush, I am just someone who lives in Port Talbot and am a volunteer in The Gold Cross (where Peter is the Chief Executive). I fully believe he is in deed worth mentioning. Ittfellow (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I know this has been kind of a rough introduction to Wikipedia, my own welcome included, and I apologize for that. Please don't let it put you off the place, even if your current undertaking doesn't turn out quite as you hope. If you make it clear that you're willing to learn the ropes (and - not just promoting yourself, which you're not) then people will be much more approachable and helpful. I'll note over at the Editor Assistance Page that you aren't Peter Bush and that may smooth things over a bit. JohnInDC (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, I think after reading what was posted in the other discussion, Peter does indeed deserve inclusion on the notable list of the Port Talbot page, I have also changed part of the sea rescue on that page, can you please check I have done everything right in this change? Ittfellow (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine. It's always useful to throw in a reference to some kind of source - maybe a local newspaper or magazine, or the website of the organization itself - as a reference to show that what you're entering is real. Don't do it as an in-line web link but rather as a reference. Refs are really easy to do in at least primitive fashion (which is better than no ref at all) and you can find a good primer at Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners. JohnInDC (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, I hope I have now done the reference correct, do you think after the discussion you started, I believe it has been allowed I can add Peter Bush to the notable people column on the Port Talbot Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ittfellow (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The ref is good - well done! There are ways to clean it up to make it look less like a web link and to include more easily-comprehended information about where it came from, who wrote it, etc. but the single most important thing is to get it into the article. Thanks. As for Peter Bush - I disagree with your interpretation of the discussion at WP:EAR. If you go back and take a look at it (use this link if you want), you'll see that only one other editor supported inclusion, and he stopped pressing the issue when others disagreed. In addition to that discussion, on the Port Talbot page itself, three separate editors (including me) have removed Bush at one point or another. Rather than arguing for inclusion, that evidence seems to me to demonstrate a pretty broad consensus that Peter Bush doesn't belong on the page. I am going to leave it for now, not because I agree with you, but because you may find his removal more persuasive if it's undertaken by a different editor. (In light of the foregoing I've just described - which seems pretty clear to me - don't be surprised if the removal is accompanied by a little bit of testiness.) JohnInDC (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Stating it another way - the discussion seemed to conclude that, people on a list of "notable people" need to be "notable". If a person has a Wikipedia article, they are presumed notable. If they don't have an article then there need to be sources that to establish notability. That "notability" is the same thing that it would take to support an article, all set out here and here, among other places. I don't think - even in light of what you've offered - that an article on Peter Bush would survive a deletion challenge based on notability, and so I don't think he belongs in the article. No one at WP:EAR agreed that Bush is in fact notable; the most they said is that maybe he is. But - as I said, I'll leave it. I don't want this to seem like it's something personal between us, you know? JohnInDC (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, No problems, I just hope that the sources I have provided within the article will allow it to remain, but we will soon see, thanks for all your help and support. I think I am slightly a bit better prepared now for citing sources and references before changing anything. Ittfellow (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Refusal to place references in article text

"Perhaps - but it appears to have taken you several reverts to bother locating any source at all, and still you did not include the ref anywhere but unhelpfully in your edit summary. You need to provide sources for your edits, and you need to learn how to include the material properly in articles. JohnInDC"

1) I didn't really notice the reverts as a "theme" because they happened, from my recollection, over a period to time;
2) the user who posted the reverts did not, initially to my recollection, post a reason for the reverts;
3) the link I provided in the summary is plenty helpful, if one chose to add it;
4) one of the reasons why I didn't initially add my cites was because you are pretty destructive in your edits and I felt like adding the citations was wasted time because of my take that you were pretty high-handed in both your tone and your editing; yet I included the citations in the edit summary to facilitate completion of the entry, but apparently you feel that cooperation is a petty virtue not to be countenanced;
5)not everybody on Wiki is going to become an expert yet somehow articles still get built with user help, and plenty of it, and when you wholesale delete you are pretty much pissing all over the other user and playing God in an unwarranted fashion...especially since many of the edits that you revert are pure judgement and taste (e.g., notability in particular) and your interpretation of those factors is not transcendental;
6)again, to my recollection, the edits in question took place before your message to me about adding cites, and your inclusion of the page reference, so with reference to the crossing over of the two time lines, your "tone" is unwarranted; also, I'm curious as to why it seems (<== emphasis added because I don't claim certainty in this regard) that you are posting/editing under two different names;
7)I'm also curious as to why, when there is an upper and lower bound to the contribution to the school's image/reputation impounded in an edit, you always,almost uniformly, chose the lower bound;
8) I made many hundreds of edits to this article before you came on the scene, and somehow this article is still highly rated; you may have a much better grasp of the technical nuances, but I don't see you as a positive social contribution to this article (you don't play well with others), nor do I see you adding much value to content, beyond playing Ms. Grundy;
9) when we've corresponded in the past, I've indicated a willingness to converge on style/approach, but I find you more than a bit fascistic;
10)Yes, you may add some polish to the product, but that means little without content. 207.237.138.219 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I take a high-handed tone with you because, in spite of your extensive Wikipedia experience across many IPs - and, yes, many useful contributions - it seems that you simply can't be bothered to learn simple, basic editing skills or to take care with your edits, with the result that someone has to follow you around and clean up. All the time. Let's look at just the last few edits you've made. Here is one, changing a ranking for the University of Michigan but 1) substituting a different ranking without noticing (or noting) it and 2) not bothering to work the reference into the text, as you've been asked to do - what - half a dozen or more times and indeed been blocked for. Here's another, where you add Michigan as an alma mater to an article that lacked a source for it, without bothering to track one down and add it. Is it true or not? You are taking the trouble to edit all these articles, *you* could check - but you don't. You just edit in whatever way is easiest. (And on the infrequent occasions when you do bother to find a source, you put it in an inconvenient, almost useless, place.) Three. I don't know why you didn't connect up the Ram Shriram reversions inasmuch as lack of a reference was pointed out quite clearly on the Talk page of one of your former IPs, here, and was specifically noted on the article Talk page. And I haven't even mentioned your failure over months and months to include edit summaries in but a fraction of your edits. So, yes. You sometimes add value but often as not you subtract it instead, and you make it very difficult for other editors to tell which is which unless they actually do a diff and see what you've done. You don't take care, and despite a block for editing that other editors without reservation characterize as disruptive, you just keep right on going. Lastly. "Cooperation" doesn't mean doing a half-baked job, *knowing* it's a half-baked job, and hoping someone else will finish it for you. You aren't doing the encyclopedia any favors by making "improvements" that just multiply work for others. JohnInDC (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, please elaborate on your speculation that I am engaged in sock puppetry. It's a pretty serious charge to level, even - or perhaps particularly - in passing. JohnInDC (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey JohnInDC; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact in college and university articles

I saw your edit to University of Michigan and subsequent note left for the editor whose edit you reverted. Did you happen to notice that other editors were making very similar edits to other articles, too? Strange. I wonder if this is a class project or something.

Quite honestly, I'm a bit more suspicious as this seems similar to what happened several years ago when several editors added "Sustainability" sections to many college and university articles. Maybe I'm too pessimistic or untrusting but a suspicious mind might see a concerted effort to paint a rosy picture of many U.S. colleges and universities. I haven't done enough background work to figure out if there are any obvious connections between the institutions but I wonder if maybe they're all part of the same group... ElKevbo (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And in the time it took me to write that message another one popped up by yet a different editor. ElKevbo (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh my. No, I had not seen that. (I don't watchlist too many university pages.) I agree with your take on this - it sure seemed coordinated in some fashion! JohnInDC (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Jeff and I work with the Energy Action Coalition. We've heard from a number of students from across the country who are interested in adding Environmental Record sections to their college/university pages. We think this information is highly relevant to people looking for information about a university, so we're working with these students to navigate the guidelines and process for editing Wikipedia articles — relevant content, NPOV, citing sources, correct formatting, etc. I'm by no means an expert in this process either though, so if you have suggestions for how we can give better guidance to these students, it would be greatly appreciated! JeffM2001 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question, Jeff, and I don't have an immediate answer. The information that has been added seems to be good information that is well-sourced but it makes me uneasy that it seems to be linked to an advocacy group. Maybe John will have a better answer. ElKevbo (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I have a whole lot more to add myself, except perhaps to state my reservations in a bit more detail. Personally I think the material that I've seen so far is far too data-intensive, too detailed and too long, as written (though I agree it's well sourced). Like ElKevbo, I am nervous about the potential for point-of-view pushing lurking here - I have to be honest and say that when someone from an advocacy group shows up and says something like, "we've seen a lot of interest in X", and "we think this is important to see in Wikipedia articles", it sounds like PR gobbledygook and leaves me highly skeptical about who's doing the pushing and who's doing the pulling to make sure this important information is seen. And the fact that several very similar paragraphs sprang up within the space of a few hours on several different university articles, all by brand-new Wikipedia editors, suggests that there's more going on than just a bunch of students who have, over time, offered up that maybe this kind of information would be helpful to them.

But you asked for advice too. So, in terms of formatting and citations, what I've seen so far is fine. I think the material is too long and too detailed - really, a couple of sentences would do. For example, I am not at all conviced by any claim that the average reader of one of these articles needs or wants to know how many pounds of carbon a university's operations poured into the atmosphere last year. Most importantly, you need to remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a marketing tool - it's not a means for you to get your message out, no matter how important you may think that the message is. And as I've said above, it looks to me like you're skating very close to that line. And, in case this seems like a negative response, I would say that I (we) appreciate your coming right out and offering to discuss the matter. It gives you a bit of extra credibility to start. One place you might re-post your question, along with links to a few of the additions, would be at editor assistance requests. You'd at least get a few more editors thinking about it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John and ElKevbo. I think it's totally fair to be skeptical of an organization participating in this way. I will say though, that we have no message or agenda here, other than thinking that information on our schools' environmental records (be they good, bad, or otherwise) is useful for presenting a full picture of the school, and that our main role is supporting students who want to contribute to do so in a factual and NPOV way. Basically, what we've provided people is basic instructions on the mechanics of editing, some guidelines on what is/isn't acceptable for a Wikipedia article, and some suggestions on places to do research. I agree completely, that some of the additions I've seen so far are too long and detailed for the articles they are in. Do you have any suggestions on how to make them shorter, without introducing bias and viewpoint? Really appreciate your help, and will definitely take your suggestion of posting on the editor assistance requests page (probably not until later today though because I have other work to do). JeffM2001 (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It might be helpful to ask the question here where some of the editors who have a focused interest in college and university articles hang out. But in general I would advise you and your friends to take a step back and ask "What is essential that a reader know about this college/university? What would they easily understand and want to know?" Like John, I don't think it's helpful to know about carbon output because most people don't even know how to gauge those figures because they're so far removed from our experience and daily lives. It might also be helpful to ask if there is something unusual or out of the ordinary about the environmental efforts of the particular college or university because if the answer is "no" then it probably isn't very helpful for readers.

And well done to both of you - this has been a very cordial and civil dialogue that could have easily gone off the tracks given the sensitivity of the subject. A little bit of politeness and transparency has gotten this conversation going in the right direction! ElKevbo (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:EAR#Personal Attack: What to do?

You wrote elsewhere (original timestamp):

An accusation of sockpuppetry out of the blue does seem a bit, I don't know, churlish. I suppose too it might even qualify as a personal attack (never mind the conceptual issues in "personally" attacking a deliberately anonymous editor who might be at a different IP in an hour). I did have some sympathy for the IP even if the original dispute seemed trivial, and his reaction thin skinned. I Now that I see the context, however, Ken's reaction and comment make perfect sense to me. It would have been a lot easier for the IP simply to respond, "I know it's tempting to conclude that I'm that other person, but I'm not him, and I welcome an SPI report and a CU to clear it up." IP 91, if you didn't know about this prior history, I'm sorry that Ken's comment to you seemed personal and mean-spirited. By now I hope you understand why he reacted that way. I suggest you now give it a rest - nothing more is going to come of it here. If you did know about that history, and still brought your complaint here - well, shame on you. JohnInDC (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your comment, but I would like to. There are two things:

1. We seem to read the "context" differently. That in itself is not surprising, but in this case I don't see anything that would "make perfect sense" out of BMK's behaviour, at least not in the way you seem to say: That the "context" excuses his behaviour. I would honestly like to understand this better, to avoid or mitigate situations like this, should they ever come up again, so please elaborate.
2. What difference does my knowledge of his history make, in terms of shame to be put on me? Do you think I orchestrated the whole thing? Why, and maybe more important, how?

Thanks for any constructive feedback you can give! --79.223.24.169 (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You came to EAR and reported that a user had accused you of sockpuppetry, just - out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever. You wanted to know what other editors would advise to do about this unwarranted and surprising personal attack. The history of the dispute, of which you omitted any hint, is valuable information for other editors trying to offer advice. If you weren't aware of it then it's not surprising you didn't mention it. If you were aware of it, then I can't think of any reason to withhold it other than to steer the conversation in a direction favorable to you. Which is shameful. JohnInDC (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand your line of thinking now.

However, there is another reason to avoid backstory. First of all, I knew only a little part of the history. My report was not some kind of con, I was completely honest in my question. (And still am, incidentally, since I still don't know the best way to approach these things.) I left out as much as possible to focus on the issue at hand, what happened this week could very well stand on its own merits. Much less drama, if it would have worked out.

Honestly, anything I left out could only have been in his favor. His sock block. The lost block log of his old user name, by all accounts far from empty. His consistent bogus sock allegations. His frequent "activity" on ANI and similar pages. Notorious disregard for community rules. Heck, look at his talk page in these last few days; there are at least two serious, ongoing, unrelated quarrels right there.

Why do I mention these? To convince you that, had I known all this, it would have only made the case stronger. He his a serial offender in both issues I mention: False allegations and disregard of WP guidelines. There was nothing to gain for me to suppress this.

And yes, his accusation came out of the blue insofar as his evidence can be summed up as "They agree with each other!".

Anyway, thanks for your response. What about the first question? --79.223.24.169 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrol

I tripped across William W. Cook in the list of new pages that need patrolling. From what I've seen, you're more than capable of creating articles that don't need patrolling from others. It's obviously your call but I think you should ask an admin for autopatroller status. You might be like me though. A person who creates so few articles that spending the time to get that right has never been worth it. Just thought I'd stop by and say that I think you'd deserve it. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I create so few really that it never occurred to me to ask. But now that you mention it, I spend enough time getting the ones I do create, right, that there's no point in someone else having to do the work too! Thanks for the suggestion; I'll look into it. JohnInDC (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit revert

Why did you revert my edit to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests [1]? And with absolutly no explanation as well. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to make it clear in the edit summary of my immediate self-undo. I was viewing my watchlist on an iPad and accidentally hit 'rollback'. It happens sometimes! My apologies. JohnInDC (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I can see how a touchscreen and rollback might not work well together sometimes. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

John, I have a similar problem when using my Kindle Fire HD! A confirm option of rollbacks would be nice, evein if it was applicable on my laptop too. - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar to you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For uncovering the "Giovanni Strassini" hoax. I'm glad Wikipedia has diligent authors like you. Keep up the good work! bender235 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Kuyi123w

Ha, I found one on my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done!

Funny how some people just don't want to get the message, isn't it? JohnInDC (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JohnInDC. You have new messages at Emmette Hernandez Coleman's talk page.
Message added 22:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Office of Complex Financial Institutions

Great addition! If you are following the June news I found interesting testimony by the exiting chief [[2]]. Especially in light of the chief risk officer at JPM recent comment [[3]] Rick (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't really take credit for the addition - I was just providing a landing place for a redirect from an article that another editor had created, which I thought should be rolled into the main FDIC article. But it is helpful, yes! Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JohnInDC. You have new messages at Emmette Hernandez Coleman's talk page.
Message added 04:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop changing

Twat, stop reverting edits which claim no source! I have already lodged a complaint against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.131.222 (talk)

I've explained my reasons on the Talk page and have repeatedly invited you to discuss the matter there. I welcome the inquiry that will result from your complaint. Finally please read WP:No Personal Attacks. "Twat" is not an appropriate address on these pages. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have undone your previous edit. If you had bothered reading my notes, then you will realise I have done this within reason! You are continually allowing information to appear on this page without reliable anbd working source (this includes a workable link). Citing a source from a dead link is not classified as reliable sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.131.222 (talk)

Edit summaries are not Talk page discussions. The material you are removing is routine information, completely uncontroverted and was reliably sourced until the original reliable source vanished from the web. I have provided another reliable source for her death date, which you have not commented on, and am looking for a source for her date of birth. The information can remain for a while until then. Please take all this up at Talk:Laxmi Chhaya, as I have repeatedly asked that you do. And, please sign your comments. I'm tired of doing it for you. JohnInDC (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Trust for Public Land ParkScores

Hello there! I see you have been reverting Tpogrady's contributions regarding ParkScore rankings. On the Chicago article, you identified it as link spam. His edits could be worded a little better, but I don't think they fully qualify as spam. E.g. as described in WP:REFSPAM, he is not removing content in favour of his source. The Trust for Public Land is notable, hence their data may have some encyclopedic value. I agree the repetition of similar edits and the wording suggests he may be associated with this organization, but perhaps in some lesser parlance it would be better fit for these articles. What are your thoughts? Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. At first I didn't think much of the link additions one way or the other - in some cases, the factoid is maybe, sort of, interesting (though I wonder about the value of noting the essentially trivial fact that, e.g, Mesa Arizona ranks 46 out of 50) but after a bit more examination I concluded that the editor was adding the links not because they're valuable or noteworthy but because they relate to an organization he's affiliated with. And when I took a look at the history of Trust for Public Land, it seemed that many (most?) edits can be traced back to persons who appear to be affiliated with it, which left me questioning that article too. Indeed few if any of the references provided in that article are to reliable 3d party sources evidencing the sort of coverage that confers notability - the Landau book for example is a publication of the organization itself. (Link.) Maybe it's notable, maybe it's not, but I think it's at least overblown. Anyhow the upshot for me is that this all appears to be part of a long, slow, low-grade effort to burnish the image of the organization, not to improve Wikipedia. That's not to say it's malevolent or mercenary in particular, but rather that this editor is adding material for reasons that, if they intersect with the interests of the encyclopedia, it's only by chance. Perhaps I have been a bit too indiscriminate in my removal of the links but in cases like this it is really hard to draw lines between worthless and marginally useful material. I figure if a disinterested editor likes the stuff, they'll add it back. Which BTW you're free to do - if, after all this, you think they're really useful!

I take your point, more or less, about this not being exactly link spam, but - the editor does appear to have a COI, he's adding the links indiscriminately, and adding these links appears to be the only editing he (she) is doing. Taking all that together I felt justified in undoing them. Those are my thoughts - back to you! JohnInDC (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I guess I'd like to add, that I don't know what these ParkScores are supposed to be really or why readers would much care about them. It's not like - I dunno - the Audubon Society or the National Environmental Defense Fund is ranking these cities. (I mention those particular organizations only because they're pretty widely known, in contrast to the fairly obscure Trust for Public Land.) What is the methodology for these rankings, are they widely reported, has anyone noticed them at all? I guess if I had a little more confidence what these rankings were, or how reliable they are (their data comes from "surveys"), or who other might actually be relying on them - I'd be a bit more forgiving of the bulk linkage. JohnInDC (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well put! I'll admit I didn't dive too much into checking references on the Trust for Public Land article (maybe I should help with that), but their data is often referenced, such as in the New York Times. At least with this example, we could simply reference the NY Times instead of TPL so as to show the information is noteworthy. As for credibility, their data does appear to come from self-conducted surveys, and this does sound a little like an advertisement (claiming to be the authoritative source), but people (and the Times) seem to take it to heart. I guess on a higher level, this ParkScore is more about lending "bragging rights" to a given city, thus I can't see how being number 46 would be worth mentioning. But for Chicago, or the other top 15 for that matter, I did find it rather interesting.

The behavior of the editor in question is indeed a bit questionable, and I'll leave that up to you. I'm impressed that you went as far as to determine that most of the contributors to Trust for Public Land show some COI, and I'll believe you on that. Must be a fun place to work at. Anyways, as part of WP:CITIES I'll volunteer to examine whether some of these ParkScores are any bit fitting for the article. Some cities have dedicated articles to parks, such as Parks and recreation in New York City, which I'd argue is where we would put this ParkScore, and keep the main article concise. Meanwhile maybe you could try to reason with this editor as I think he's aiming to do add ParkScores to all 50 cities – a little over the top. Thanks for your hard work. Cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

But for the record, I think these two discussions are convincing evidence of good faith. I think this guy just really likes parks. Me too! — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think where there's an existing Parks section, adding in the ranking may make sense. Why not? If the park system is extensive or famous enough to warrant commentary then it's interesting to know where it ranks in the greater scheme. I remain pretty skeptical of the TPL's figures as authoritative in any sense, but they have numbers, and they're pertinent, and no one else's numbers are in the article. Good counterpoint. But where there's nothing already in place, or nothing that can be consolidated to make such a section, then this information just strikes me as gratuitous - even trivial. There are a thousand ways in which cities can be / are ranked (bike friendliness, obesity, trees per capita, potholes, potato chip consumption) but they're not all in just because someone did in fact create a ranking. (Otherwise - it is probably overstatement that "most" of the contributors to that article have a COI, but, one editor had the name of the organization itself, two at least appear to be employees, and several edits came from IPs in San Francisco, one of which is also responsible along with tpogrady for adding this sort of ranking information to articles. As for the 19 references to that article - there are literally just two or three that aren't from the TPL itself.) Thanks for your thoughts. I may try to chat with the editor a bit and see if he'll engage! JohnInDC (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Huey Johnson

Hi John, I have declined the speedy deletion of Huey Johnson because the article is significantly different from the previously deleted article (about twice as long and with more references). Also previously it was speedy deleted shortly after the AfD discussion began, further making it ineligible for deletion under {{db-repost}}. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. This is a (minor) downside to not being able to see deleted articles! JohnInDC (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

ParkScore

Hi John,

I thought my additions were very neutral, as I simply stated a ranking. If the problem is that I'm using TPL links to cite a TPL statistic, then I can gladly link to newspaper articles and municipal press releases.

Perhaps it would make more sense to add the statistic for the top 10-15 ranked cities to highlight the USA's best urban park systems? Let me know your opinion.Tpogrady (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It sounds like you read the exchange a couple of entries above here - if not, go have a look and you can see my concerns. To sum it up, I see a pretty big risk that you're adding this (oftentimes stray) material to a whole bunch of articles not because it's particularly useful or enlightening or helpful to an existing point, but because you think that TPL's rankings should be featured in a lot of places. This is clear from - among other things - the pretty indiscriminate way you add the material (any and every place) - plus adding these links is all you do!

I don't mean this to come across as an accusation - I don't mean for you to take it personally, like you're doing something wrong - but rather just as an observation in the context of Wikipedia. Conflicts of interest cloud editors' judgment. But all that said, I agree that there is (at least some) value in the TPL rankings. The trick is figuring out what and where. I think you could make it fit in NYC, where the city's parks etc. are already being discussed. Maybe too where a city is really high on the list - even though another part of me thinks, so what, lots of cities are ranked for lots of reasons by lots of entities but they don't all get to be added. I'm not being facetious when I ask, why the TPL park ranking (which, let's be honest, is not really front-page news) and not any of those many, many other rankings too?

Then too as I think about it, if the point is to highlight the best urban park systems in the country, a city-by-city approach makes less sense than just adding the top 10-15 to the TPL article so people can see it right there. Not all 50 - Wikipedia's not a reprint service - but maybe 10? 15? Just a thought. JohnInDC (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi JohnInDC,

Good idea about including the top 10-15 list on the TPL wiki article.

I wanted to point out that Walk Score rankings are on many city pages as well, with outdated information from 2011 and using references that link to Walk Score sources. I wasn't sure how this information was different than what I was adding...

Furthermore, I tried to give the Parks and Recreation section on the New York City page a better introduction. I also threw in the ParkScore ranking (#2) and linked it to a NYT article. I added a one sentence sentence explaining the methodology of ParkScore to make it a more meaningful ranking. Hopefully this editing does not violate any of the concerns you previously raised.Tpogrady (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think if you concentrate on edits that expand existing sections, or draw attention to something particularly interesting about the ranking (I'd go top 5 or 10 rather than 15), you'll be in better shape.) As I said, one of the things that troubled me was what appeared to be a kind of reflexive addition of links. Demonstrating that you're exercising some judgment in the process will help other editors to understand your efforts as good faith, and in the interest of the encyclopedia rather than your (?) employer. Oh yeah - it wouldn't hurt to disclose an association as well, whatever it might be. People will I think be more accepting of the edits if it doesn't look surreptitious somehow. Helpful? (Thanks for talking.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good work

Thanks to your ANI post, I looked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#"Giovanni_Strassini". Excellent catch, and certainly a lot more interesting than chasing Alex Levy socks around. Deor (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been - interesting, but still I'd be happy if he displays a little less perseverance than ALO! Someone should teach the guy the first rule of holes - JohnInDC (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Holy Rood Cemetery

Hi JohninDC

The reference sources in "Holy Rood Cemetery" have been updated since they were originally cited, and have new addresses.

Could you look into it, and if it makes sense to you, make the appropriate addition/correction?

http://gloverparkhistory.com/category/cemeteries/holy-rood-cemetery/ (including material that originally appeared in Newsletter of the Catholic Historical Society of Washington, Volume X, Number 3, July-September 2002)

Holy Rood Cemetery Gravestones transcribed by David J. O’Connor: http://www.uscemeteryproj.com/washingtondc/holyrood/holyrood.htm

DCcarlo (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Language" source

If you click on the "Return to Data Center" on the upper left side, it will take you back to the main link: http://www.mla.org/map_data. From there, if you click on the State tab, it defaults to 2010 & you select a state of your choice from the dropdown, & voila. So I can put the generic main webpage & correct the minor mistake "California" on the web source with the appropriate state. (I placed the source link as "http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?map_data_results" because that was the closest it got since the most accurate page from the aforementioned.) (OxyMoronMinusOxy (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC))

Yeah, I understand what you mean. I ended up editing the source to the main link to make it easier (http://www.mla.org/map_data). I'm going to do the same for the few other states' sources. Thanks. (OxyMoronMinusOxy (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC))

AlexLevyOne or not?

Frenchmedia1 (talk · contribs). Deor (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. And you know? I think this might be him. JohnInDC (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that certainly seems to be him. Deor (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne. Observations welcome. JohnInDC (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the PM, I think you said the bottom line yourself: "french edits where abandonned in 2012". Seems that his last activities on US WP look pretty harmless. Make no mistake, i'm not defending that S** of a G**.193.248.171.96 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Stealing Mary

Hello John. I am quite upset because all of a sudden the editors have decided to delete Stealing Mary, I am losing faith in Wikipedia and its editors. There is something called as General notability guideline under which it qualifies. Please do not discourage me. Marcelrios (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to get a better handle on the essential elements of general notability, and the nature of the sources that can establish it. What you have provided so far is not sufficient. Also you are not doing yourself any favors by advocating so stridently on behalf of articles with which you are affiliated, or by creating sockpuppets as accounts are blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexandre Gilbert (France)

FYI. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

M. Gilbert certainly has been frisky lately, n'est-ce pas? Deor (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's surprising how much free time an enterprising art gallery owner actually has! JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Chevy Chase, DC

Yep, my bad on that one, it looked way too promote-y and wasn't really necessary. Thanks for the revert, ha before you know it we'd have a directory of the entire neighborhood. Nomader (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious note. I like the articles BTW, as well as both establishments - JohnInDC (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ILSA

Hello John Can we leave this section as is, at least until the bill is signed into law? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjrngn12 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Kjrngn12 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's too long an entry for something that, finally, comes out to zero. And the tone was not encyclopedic. I left in the part about him pioneering this, and how the door appears to be closing. That's about all it requires in this article, about a lawyer. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The cases that Bailey won and lost are relevant to the pending legislative change. I have added them back in but I agree that the previous incarnation was too long and I have trimmed the unnecessary verbiage. Thanks. Kjrngn12 (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the pending legislative changes are barely pertinent to the article, which is about Bailey and his notable cases. As you know, there is an entirely separate article about ILSA to which the legislation is quite pertinent. Otherwise, if the law passes amending ILSA then Bailey's cases become really kind of a footnote, a blip in the law, with only the SkyParc one amounting to anything at all. JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Footnote or exegesis, I can live with this for now, and I will revisit if and when the bill passes. Thanks again. 65.36.66.166 (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15