User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Award 4 U

• 
  2015 Erasmus Prize
  awarded to the Wikipedia community collectively

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -JG (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Forte Tenors RfC

You are invited to comment if you so desire. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your report at ANI about that editor and the trollish behavior. I am also glad that you got your user page deleted so your name in your signature returns to being red. I always know that something has gone wrong when I see your name (or Betty Logan's) is blue. Thanks again for your vigilance and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 02:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That red signature is the only way I can pick out my own contributions in an edit history - I didn't realize anyone else had ever noticed it. Hah, thanks! You made my night - JohnInDC (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You are most welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 02:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can do that and still have a user page if you want. In preferences, check the Wiki markup box under the signature and include something like JohnInDC (or whatever color you want). —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That works for a signature but not for a listing in a history page. At least I don't think it does! JohnInDC (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Carry on. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeez, some people must really want you to have a user page. Twice in three days now. APK whisper in my ear 23:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone's aiming to unseat 2009 as the record year for creation of unwanted User pages here! JohnInDC (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done APK whisper in my ear 20:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I knew way back on New Year's that this year would be something special. JohnInDC (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That made me lol. APK whisper in my ear 23:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced, unschmourced

Look, I understand your'e unhappy that your city's murder rate increased but don't undo all my edits like that again i spent a long time writing those out. Stay safe in DC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunenmensch (talk • contribs) 22:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Indonesian fan pages

Hi, JohninDC! This too is probably something you've already thought of: I was struck by the edit history of Cita Citata, where material that Crow and I had removed was re-added with this edit (and then promptly removed again by Crow). Does this degree of overlap strike you as coincidental, or should the CCI perhaps be expanded? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And/or a possible SPI? Crow^Caw 17:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite likely a sock. I'll alert the blocking admin and see what they think. That was pretty quick work of theirs adding the text back to Haji Backpacker! Thanks for the head's-up. JohnInDC (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you guys. The new one is blocked. There'll surely be more - JohnInDC (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Aah, the memories that come flooding back at Christmastime

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne. A corresponding account exists on fr.wp, but it hasn't yet done anything to set off alarm bells. Deor (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sweet nostalgia. I thought he'd given up after he outed himself with his autobiography a few years ago, but perhaps things are slow at work. Nice catch! JohnInDC (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, thanks for your consideration, I actually added this 5 new articles on Gilbert Levy's new page that seemed ok to me but nobody's perfect of course. It's the 33rd anniversary of Gilbert Levy aka Marc Gilbert's suicide this year. That's maybe why these websites published notes about him. Merry Christmas to you, hope you'll have snow too.ETOUI2 (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the article from the French Ministery of Education ?ETOUI2 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you read french ? 82.224.195.211 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You know what we say in France, fighting terrorism starts by culture. I know Literrature talk shows have no existence in he USA, but these shows could make sometimes 2 or 3 millions viewers. Too bad nobody wants to talk about it here. This passion for war is so weird.82.224.195.211 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Listed on fr.wp (and soon blocked). Thanks for the information! Yours, (:Julien:) ✒ 08:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Collateral details"

What exactly is the problem? It's been reported by a reliable source. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A few things. First is that by reporting what isn't yet known, you are building in a necessary change at some point in the (likely near) future when it does become known - then the article is stale. In other words it's a time-limited statement of - well, a not very important fact. Our job as editors is not to simply parrot everything sources say but to work what they do say, in the best way, into the article. So I think it's better not to include stuff that is currently reported as kind of a half-story ("we don't know this and we don't know that, but we do know X"), or recite reported but thinly-sourced information from unnamed sources like, "DC United was unhappy with Comcast for these reasons". Indeed right now the thing sounds like a bit of a slam on Comcast - why not also include (sourced in the article) that "Aside from losing CSN’s reach, United will have to shift fans’ viewing habits away from the region’s top outlet for sports programming and to a lesser-known cable platform (NC8)."? For me, including this actual news (who will broadcast DC United games) is useful; but getting into what a few unnamed people in unknown positions have to say about how DC United felt about the Comcast deal is kind of beside the point. Even if Goff repeats what he learned.

I see you took that part out in your Undo - good. Please next time try to note when your Undo does more than just that. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas JIDC

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Cranbrook Academy of Art alumni and faculty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Potter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

MSU lead

Discussion moved to Talk:Michigan_State_University#Lead_section

Hi John. Thanks for the invite to Wikipedia. I recently updated MSU's lead and you seemed to have reverted my change because you believed the lead was too long and had a promotional tone. However, I entirely disagree and think that reverting all my heavily-cited changes (all very important, lead-worthy facts about the school) is unacceptable. Please provide me with a better explanation for your reversion. Comparatively, my lead had the same tone and length as most other bigger university's leads on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtenhistorian (talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I don't think I can offer up a better explanation, but perhaps I can provide a bit more detail to help you understand the problem. A lead is supposed to summarize the article. It should be succinct - as has been pointed out, it may be the only part of the article that a reader reads. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section for more. The original lead was 4 brief paragraphs, yet managed to describe the school, its founding, its top-10 programs, and its athletic accomplishments. Your edits nearly doubled the size of the intro, adding heavily-annotated detail that is not suited to the summary nature of the lead (e.g. "In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy selected Michigan State to design and establish the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, a $730 million research facility (set to be completed in 2022) to advance understanding of rare nuclear isotopes and the evolution of the cosmos. The university's sprawling, park-like campus also houses the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, the W.J. Beal Botanical Garden, the Abrams Planetarium, the Wharton Center for Performing Arts, the Broad Art Museum, and the largest residence hall system in the country"). In addition much of what you added was distinctly promotional in tone - and again excessively detailed, such as "The university has produced a notable record of students and scholars earning prestigious national and international scholarships including the Goldwater, Rhodes, Churchill, Truman, Marshall, and Fulbright. MSU is the only university in the United States with on-campus medical schools graduating allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) physicians, and veterinarians (DVMs)." Your edits, while not inaccurate, carry the tone more of a college brochure than the neutral introduction to an encyclopedia article; and as a matter of style, were by reason of their detail and length, a bit cumbersome and off-putting to someone looking for just a quick overview. As for other schools, well - just because something is poorly done in one place is not reason to do it poorly in another. But I contest the premise anyhow - the leads for other Big 10 schools such as University of Michigan, Ohio State University, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Purdue University and University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign are all quite short, in most cases even shorter than the MSU material before your edits. Even Yale University, which has as much to brag about as any school (not to mention history) is about the same length as the original MSU lead. Lastly, a lead should only summarize material that appears elsewhere in the article. I did not check your work against the existing text so I don't know if you were introducing stuff that isn't present later - if so then perhaps the way forward is for you to add some of these facts - in a neutral way - in the appropriate spot in the body of the article. I hope this is helpful. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. Those items you noted above as heavily-annotated, not suitable to the summary nature of the lead, distinctly promotional in tone, and excessively detailed are important features of the school that should indeed be highlighted in the intro. They are neutral facts about the school that give people a proper and succinct introduction to the institution's past, present, and future. There was nothing like "apply today to one of the most amazing universities in the world," which is actually writing in a promotional tone. I believe we should be able to find some middle ground here rather than you simply reverting every factual change to an outdated and unorganized lead. I do agree that we can chop down my proposed intro a bit, so let's work together to improve this lead. Would you like me to draft another, slimmer lead here or just edit the page? Is there a way to move this talk to the MSU page so others can see this discussion and our future discussions? I will look at the other universities' leads listed above and propose any necessary revisions to them as well. Thanks again. Bigtenhistorian (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC) You're welcome. I have a couple more comments though. First is that much, if not all, of the material you would like to add is better suited to the body of the text. A broad overview of the school is not the place to note that, e.g., the HANS device or a particular anti-cancer drug were invented there - in the scheme of the school, and its history, those are small cheese. Likewise two (quite recent) proclamations by CBS News concerning the (current) state of the school's athletic achievement is not suitable for four or so paragraphs that must capture the essence of the school from 1855 to the present day. Also while you did not, literally, describe the school as the most amazing university in the world, describing the "notable" records of its students and itemizing six and "prestigious" scholarships they've earned, the gratuitous description of "the university's sprawling, park-like campus" and the "multiple" national championships won by the its sports teams have the distinct ring of the marketing or recruitment departments about them. I did like your sentence about its original name, and have added it back in; also I flipped a couple of paragraphs to make them chronological. Now the lead neatly and neutrally summarizes the school's founding, its relation to the Morrill Act, its progression from an ag school to one boasting several world-class graduate programs, and it athletic successes over the years. Again I suggest you review the Manual of Style link above concerning lead sections - in particular how they are intended to provide a high-level review of the subject, recapitulating or summarizing material already in the body of the text, and (as a general matter) without the clutter of citations and references which likewise should be found in the main body. Finally a lead has to be accessible and direct. I don't mean to be harsh, but much of what you added was just too dense and tedious, lists of stuff rather than prose. I guess the last thing I'd add is that the article is a "featured article", meaning that has been reviewed and evaluated as one of Wikipedia's best. Changes to the lead, which seem to (at least one experienced editor!) not to conform to how leads should look, is reason to proceed cautiously. I agree that continuation of this discussion is better suited to the article Talk page and so I'll undertake to move it bodily over. That way other editors can comment as well. Thanks for the dialogue BTW, and look for this material at MSU momentarily. JohnInDC (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Contoocook Railroad Depot

Hello! I wanted to thank you for all your hard work with editing this article. It had been created many moons ago and I appreciate you taking the time to rework and reword the article, as it did include a lot of information directly taken from the NPS. I have learned a lot over the past couple of years and look forward to learning more as time continues. Best, Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks - I was hoping you wouldn't take offense at my edits but this is even better than that! It looks like a nice building! JohnInDC (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In prior years, I might have, but not anymore. I can understand all points the more time I spend working on articles and such. In regards to political article for myself, I did at first feel "threatened", if you will, but I can understand the tag as well. I do not blame you for doing what is right and making Wikipedia better for all. I just wish there were more ways to enhance notability in some cases. Regardless, I appreciate everything you are doing, on all counts. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! That's - very nice of you to say. I look forward to working with you going forward! JohnInDC (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Dorothy T. Grunes M.D.

Thanks for getting in touch with me regarding the Dorothy Grunes article. I was wondering if you might be able to offer any further guidance on what kinds of citations or other content would help it meet the notability criteria.

Thanks CordellAve64 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You should take a look at WP:BIO and WP:GNG for a general sense of what establishes notability. So far what I see is a practitioner who has written a book or two with her father, which has been reviewed in a couple of specialized publications - little or nothing about her qua her. The point is that articles here should reflect substantial, third-party attention that has already been bestowed on the subject, not to create attention which doesn't yet exist. It's not a directory or publicity service. Anyhow based on a quick look I didn't see much about her beyond routine listings, the 2-3reviews, and some publisher promo. You want articles about her, her career, her work. Helpful? JohnInDC (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to the questions on the Dorothy Grunes article. Are the two articles from Psychiatric News okay as far as third-part material? Should I try to include more stuff like that?

Thanks

CordellAve64 (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Those appear to be good, solid, reliable independent sources. Although only one of the two seems to be really about her. I have looked around a bit and not found anything else that seems to fit, but you certainly will have better luck than me. Again - the point is that (broadly), Wikipedia articles are for people who have already risen to a certain level of public notice. "Notability" is kind of, sort of, like "visibility" - has the subject been singled out for attention by independent sources? JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the guidance on the Grunes page. I'll try to find more stuff like those Psych News pieces.

How about the third article in the "Articles about" section? Does that seem objective enough as well?

Thanks

CordellAve64 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but it depends on what the article's about. If about the book (and not her), then not so much. JohnInDC (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can come up with. Appreciate the help.

CordellAve64 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi JohnInDC I added a source that includes praise for Grunes' work from established academics and artists. Her work counts as a major contribution to the field of psychoanalysis in its relationship to literary theory.Chicago708 (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi JohnInDC I was wondering why the disclaimer at the top of the page has not been taken down yet. It seems like enough information has been added to satisfy the notability requirements. If not please let me know. I'm new to Wikipedia and I've been reading up and so am not sure why this doesn't count as notable, particularly after comparing it with other biographies. The work that Grunes has done particularly in her latest book is groundbreaking and is invaluable to psychoanalysts, literary theorists, and particularly to the lay reader. This has been attested by the various sources cited. It was also mentioned in a review that I posted which was taken down. I remember reading in one of your comments that she seems like a "run of the mill" psychoanalyst, whereas in fact there are very few , if any , MD psychoanalysts who have bridged the gap between the medical profession and the literary world in a single monograph. I would very much appreciate any guidance on the issue Thank you very much for all your help Chicago708 (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I come away with the sense that this is kind of old ground really - starting with Freud himself, psychoanalysts have been reinterpreting literature through the prism of their understanding of the subconscious. I mean, it wasn't Freud who came up with the name "Oedipus" to describe a boy who wishes to sleep with his mother and kill his father - the story was already out there, nicely told by Sophocles; Freud just co-opted it. Shakespeare's works too seem to have been a very popular subject of such discussion for a century now - look at the article on Ernest Jones for another example, Hamlet. For this article, what I see is a smattering of reviews, and abstracts that don't even name her; and none of which characterize, as you do, the work as groundbreaking and invaluable. To my eyes, she wrote / co-wrote a monograph or two which received some favorable reviews from other psychoanalysts. I don't see much more than that. But anyhow - I nominated the article for deletion, and what happens after that is that editors look at the article and its sources and decide whether the thing meets the criteria or not. You should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy T. Grunes M.D. and comment there. JohnInDC (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Chicago708

Hi JohnInDC. Thank you for your message. This is my own personal account and is not operated by anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago708 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I hope you can understand my concern, though, given how your account and those of Tderbyshire and CordellAve64 were all created recently and within a couple of weeks of one another, and all have edited the brand-new article Dorothy T. Grunes M.D. and no others. It seems like a lot to lay off onto coincidence! JohnInDC (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The persistent deleter

How should we go about handling this? It's getting pretty ridiculous. Obviously they must have a good reason for wanting it deleted. And it doesn't look like anyone is gonna let it be, as the deletion has been reverted by six different people now. Lizard (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We can go the punitive or the helpful route - if they're really worried about stalking (color me skeptical) then I can appreciate their concern. I wonder if ANI is too much club for this - again, not to block them but to help them find the right avenue to make their case. At the moment I can't post something, so if you'd like to ... JohnInDC (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The next time it happens I'll manually put it back so they don't get the alert. Maybe they won't notice. Lizard (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Block Evasion

I just made a relatively insignificant in scale edit to the Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant and was wondering why it was changed due to block evasion. I've made edits to other battles of the War of 1812 and they were accepted, but as soon as I go near the end-of-war battle articles all edits are quickly removed. Why is this given my previous edits and proximity to becoming an auto confirmed user? Stateless editor (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You're a sock puppet of globally blocked User:UnbiasedVictory and your edits may be reverted on sight, regardless of substance. JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be very well put and make perfect sense If I had a connection to this user. I literally became auto confirmed today and looking at the revision history I didn't support the user's previous edits in any way, so the situation is a bit peculiar. Stateless editor (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. JohnInDC (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. So as there's no consensus against the changes, and I'm not actually tied to that user, I'm going to make them once more. But of course I'll await your reply before officially saving. Stateless editor (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If the sockpuppet report clears you then by all means, go ahead. Meantime how about you wait that out. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fair, and you're welcome no worries. Stateless editor (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, JohnInDC. It's been over 5 days since the investigation began. If you know, could you tell me how long these typically last, please? Stateless editor (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are sophisticated enough to know what kind of evidence is sufficient to support a block in an SSI matter, then you surely know how long they routinely take to resolve. JohnInDC (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was really helpful.. said no one ever. No, I don't know how long it takes. You could have just told me instead of sarcastically insulting me, regardless of your personal opinion of this situation. And they actually granted you administrator status? Ha. Stateless editor (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How about you just quit playing games with this endless succession of new accounts, accept the fact of your global block and find something better to do with your time than waste mine. JohnInDC (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You began this accusation/investigation, so spare me the lecture on time-consumption and the wasting thereof. I'm also still unblocked and auto-confirmed after a week of this investigation so you've obviously found no evidence to connect me to this user. It sounds more to me like you captured the wrong fish, would you mind taking the hook out of my mouth now? Stateless editor (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong fish my a**. I'm content to wait. JohnInDC (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Colorful. Content to wait on what? All I asked was how long this takes but you insist on making things more difficult than they have to be. A CU would have picked up on sockpuppetry by now. You need to come to terms with the fact that I have no connection to this user. People make mistakes and you obviously made a sizable one, but I'd really prefer to handle this like adults and with a quickness. Stateless editor (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Then just wait. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been doing nothing but wait for over a week now, I'd like to see these hard results directly linking me to this user please, because your link to the investigation doesn't. If you can't come up with any, and you won't, my SPI case should be closed for insufficient evidence. Stateless editor (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How is it that you know so much about sock puppet investigations? JohnInDC (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Because there are articles dedicated to information about sockpuppetry? If I'm going to be accused of something, I'm going to gain familiarity with my assusation. But thank you for essentially telling me your investigation found nothing. There is no connection between me and that user. Get over it. Stateless editor (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. As I said, we'll just wait and see how it all sorts out. JohnInDC (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Both you (the accuser) and a collage of checkusers have found no legitimate connection between me and the other user. Please enlighten me, what is it we're waiting on to be sorted out? Stateless editor (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's all laid out at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. JohnInDC (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm Amazing. I had no doubt either, but he'll show up in again in a week or two with the same song and dance routine. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

RE: Module colors – Michigan colors

This problem has been fixed. Sorry it took so long! ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 17:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw that - well done, and thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Michigan wasn't the only school that had this problem... I kept running into this problem with several other schools! If you see this problem again, just head on over to Module:College color/data and add order="31" or whatever the order it needs to be to the team it belongs. The example is found here. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 17:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Assume good faith!!!

I think you need to take a look at WP:AGF. ALL of my contributions here have been constructive and your edit summaries at Wolverine are very worrying from an experienced editor. Further, the Rollback button should only be used to revert vandalism, which not of my edits here have been. Finally, your accusations of promotion based on two edits you personally disagree with is just plain daft. 2.218.253.200 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. The article Wolverine has however been larded down in the past by the extensive addition of sports teams and other entities the claim the "wolverine" as a mascot - the problem became sufficiently troublesome that comment text was added to the markup expressly stating, "Please do not add mascots here. These are not notable and the mention will be removed." (I was not the one to add that caution BTW.) If passing mention of the Canadian National Rugby League team is added to the article on the strength of its (recently adopted) nickname, then why not also the Wolverines of Potomac High School (Oxon Hill, Maryland), Harvard-Westlake School, Crivitz School District, Lincoln-West High School, or Western School of Technology and Environmental Science - to name five for starters? Those kinds of entries are the very reason that comment language was put into place and there's no principled reason to include the Canadian Rugby team and exclude them as well. I'm sorry you took offense at my comments re possible promotion; but the underlying rugby page does, in fact, take a very little material and stretch it quite far and, to my eyes, looks like it's more about boosting the team than fairly condensing and reflecting what the third party sources have said about it. The inclusion of the team here, twice and n the face of an admonition against it, seems like more of the same. If that's not the case then I apologize but surely you can appreciate my concern. Finally, I did not use the rollback button to revert your changes. Rollback does not provide an edit summary (which I did provide, twice) and that's why use of the rollback button is disfavored. I hope these explanations help. JohnInDC (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply/explanation. Appreciated! 2.218.253.200 (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks to you too, and again I apologize for any hard feelings, even if only passing. JohnInDC (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Michigan

Just a heads up....The IPv6 vandal you just reverted on the top level Michigan article has been active for about 6 weeks on various IP'S, usually but not always IPv6 addresses. He changes demographic figures, usually population but sometimes median income, by one digit - sometimes more than one value in a single edit. I have reverted him on Detroit, Metro Detroit, Oakland County, Detroit - Windsor, Bloomfield and Bloomfield Hills. He's constantly switching IPs, so I doubt a range block would be effective. Please keep your eye open for it and maybe spread the word. Whack -a- mole is better played with many players. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are tough vandals to track, pretty much relying on vigilant editors who happen to have the pages watch listed. As a general matter those kinds of changes - when I see them - are just incorrect and I revert them on sight; but I'll keep an even better eye out going forward. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

UnbiasedVictory

The latest IP edits to Capture of HMS Penguin and Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant are obviously the work of UnbiasedVictory (talk). The edits practically quack by themselves. It took about six hours from page protection being lifted for the vandalism to start again. I have requested protection for these pages to be reinstated. HLGallon (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Those were my thoughts too. Handy that he has now used that IP, so that we can more easily track later edits. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Michigan

NOTHING whatsoever in the Michigan paragraph in question is sourced. Why are you censoring the French history out of Michigan?

Jlaforest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlaforest (talk • contribs) 01:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "censoring" anything, but rather insisting that if you are going to introduce very detailed information about French immigration to Michigan - down to particular counties - you have to have a source. Please don't add the material again without one. In any case the material you seek to add re historical (French-only) immigration patterns is not suited to that paragraph, which describes current demographics, and, does not go nearly into the level of detail as the material you seek to introduce. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Further, it's hardly like the French are given short shrift in the article - their role in the founding of the state, and presence there, is well described in the 17th & 18th Century sections. JohnInDC (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. And Frankly you're showing your ignorance of French Canadian culture in Michigan. Stop censoring my contribs. You've got your sources now leave my work alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlaforest (talk • contribs) 01:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I also notice that the quebec flag has been removed from the sidebar with all of the ethnicities, suggesting instead that they are all "Canadian" which is absurd, and yet another obvious francophobic quebec-bashing edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlaforest (talk • contribs) 02:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If you have further concerns about the content of the article, you should introduce them at Talk:Michigan to see if your concerns, once described, are shared by other editors. You will fare better if you make your case dispassionately and clearly, and don't imply (or, well, state outright) that you think the article has been infected by a Francophobic, anti-Quebec bias. JohnInDC (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

FDIC article

Hi JohnInDC, Thank you for your edits at the FDIC article. Your edit at [1] helped to clean up the sentence and in fact that was how I had originally wanted to phase it, however, without any intervening prose between the date and the quantity of institutions, the numbers run together and look like one big number (at least that is how it looks on my browser):

As of August 27, 2014, 6,638...

I rewrote it again to break up those numbers and put it back into the active voice, while avoiding the ambiguity of the original version. Please feel free to improve it further if you feel it needs it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 16:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree re the run-on of numbers - I saw it at the time but it seemed an improvement over what was there; yours is better still. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for trying to help me out lately. USA 00:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think BTW that your request on your Talk page was a good idea. I am sure you'll get some ideas of how to help out. Good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Nielsen adventures

I've userfied the content and G7'd the move redirect. Please read the comment I left at AFD too. USA 01:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16