User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Cranbrook Kingswood School

I see Tawker has replied to you on your IP page (User talk:167.176.6.8), just thought I'd also add a comment. If the person in question has an article on wikipedia, and is a valid alumni, then I would't see a problem with adding them (unless the alumni list was very long) Whether the person is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia is a separate issue (WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC are some guidelines) (Personally, I think Suai_Kee is iffy, (signed, but no album), if it was brought to WP:AFD is might be deleted, it might not.)

In general, though, every dispute that isn't vandalism is a content dispute, and the first thing to do is discuss it, either on user talk pages, or on the article talk pages. Then, discuss it again :) Remember to assume good faith, if people explain their reasoning to each other it's a lot easier to work out a result than in/out, hokey-cokey edits :):) Regards, MartinRe 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand generally what you're saying. It does seem sort of circular, though - they're sufficiently notable alumni if they have a Wikipedia entry, but it's not clear that they're notable enough to warrant the entry in the first place. Beyond that, my beef, such as it is, is that the other 'notables' are well-known, accomplished, mid-to-late career kinds of folks. A singer with a record contract who hasn't even released an album yet - well . . . JohnInDC 00:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not circular, let me explain more clearly:

There are two questions:

1. Is Suai Kee notable enough for a wiki article?
2. Should there be a link to Suai Kee from the school article?

The first question should be answered on its own merits WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc. The second question does depends on the answer from the first, if she's deemed to be notable enough, she probably deserves a link, but the first question doesn't depend on the second. Circular logic would, arguging that she's notable because she'd linked from the school. (More extreme circular logic would suggest that she's notable because someone created an article, so she requires an article because she's notable, but that's refuted ever time I've seen it used)

If you feel the article in question isn't notable enough for a wiki entry, based on WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC as a rough guide, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion, either using {{subst:prod|reason}}, if you feel it will be uncontested, or for discussion on WP:AFD otherwise. (It has enough of a claim for notability not to be a speedy to me) Wikipedia:Guide to deletion has information on this. Regards, MartinRe 09:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Call it "semi-circular" then. Or "unhelpfully self-referential": It is evidently appropriate, under some interpretation of Wikipedia rules or culture, to include her on the 'notable alumni' because she has a Wikipedia entry. But under Wikipedia rules, that entry itself is of doubtful validity. This is wholly unpersuasive on the issue of whether she deserves inclusion on the first list.

I don't care whether Suai Kee is sufficiently notable to deserve a Wikipedia page, and especially not enough to go to the trouble of challenging the entry. What I *do* care about is not cluttering up a list of 'notable alumni' with people who've never actually *done* anything. (If every alum that had ever signed a book or record contract were included on it, it would string on for pages.) And it's a mystery to me why any decision about inclusion on the list (which plainly represents some higher degree of accomplishment than "maybe something someday later") depends on as random a fact as whether someone has bothered to construct an entry for her elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I find this very frustrating, but I do appreciate that you continue to discuss it. JohnInDC 14:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Whats the criteria for Notable? A recording contract with and internationally known Label? A nationally known company? A candidate for a national public office? --Elatanatari 23:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Cranbrook_Schools JohnInDC 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Holy rood.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Holy rood.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Graduation

What year did u graduate in?

1972 - which makes me, well, almost ancient I guess

JohnInDC 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wolverine

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wiki so I didn't know how to link videos and citations. I could post them here, and you could help me a bit?

I know that that particular concept is cliche, but although new, I hope you're confident that your efforts will be directed in a just manner.

Wolverine fighting wolf pack among others on left tab: [1]

Some polar bears sharing a kill with a wolverine: [2]

I can't seem to find any resources relatable to my addition in respect to wolverines being able to ambush moose from a tree, but I have seen it once on a documentary at home. It might have been a deer however, so I don't think it should be added in relation to the moose.

As for my addition in respect to the wolverine's enemies being weary because of potential eye gouging, I think after you watch the video I sent you, (fighting 1) you'll agree with me.63.135.9.214/Internethero 14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm no good at links myself. I did take a look at those videos - the one of the wolverine fighting wolves off its kill was certainly interesting. The other one, with the polar bears - well, I had trouble seeing a wolverine there at all! And as far as eye-gouging and the like - I think it's probably sufficient to say in the article that wolverines are very fierce and intimidating (whatever the thing already says) and able to take on much larger animals. And, you know, eye-gouging is a problem but so is nose-slashing and ear-ripping. It's hard to say which of these might be of the greatest concern to a competing predator! JohnInDC 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put the one where he's fighting 2 wolves instead for a video representation. I don't think it would hurt this article. Also, I am absolutely sure that wolverines hide on tree branches waiting in ambush. I've completed about 3 school projects on wolverines and have read about 10 books of varying levels. I have actually seen it on a documentary.

For instance, on little cranny of knowledge that most people don't know is that the beaver is most adept to fighting a wolverine besides a grizzly or black bear near a rock.

Check out this little mink though.[3]

Do you think it was the eyes or nose?

       The way you said it was more clear. I have a tendency of saying my words like 
       robot. ie., respect to/in relation to (very cold), lol. good job!

Glad you liked it. I think it fits in very nicely now. Thanks for that video link. JohnInDC 04:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cranbrook Schools

Hello, thanks for the note, I forgot about that other picture when I used the infobox template. It was further down in the article and off the screen. Out of sight, out of mind. :) I put it back, but just floating in the text, instead of inside that box. Take a look at this edit to see the syntax, and if there is a better location, be WP:BOLD and move it. WP:IMAGE also has information about how to wikicode pictures. Thanks. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Chevy Chase, Maryland

Hi. If you read the discussion section of Chevy Chase, Maryland you will see that other people are relating the actor. You deleted my revision about this, and I hope you will tell me why. Pleaser add the comment back. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calypsos (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I reverted it because, as I said in my edit summary, I don't think many people in fact confuse an early 20th century subdivision with a late 20th century comedian with the same name. If they are confused then the entry for Chevy Chase the comedian clears it up in the very first paragraph: "born Cornelius Crane Chase" into a "prominent New York family". He's not from Maryland and real name isn't Chevy. Conversely there is nothing on the Chevy Chase, Maryland page that would suggest such a connection.

The discussion on the Chevy Chase talk page reflects a single question entered two years ago. The lack of any connection is well enough known that the more frequent problem is people *adding* the connection by way of facetious entries. If there is confusion on this issue it is not widespread, and the page doesn't need to be cluttered up with spurious disclaimers. JohnInDC 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

THanks for replying! I'm new here, I hope I am replying to your response correctly in this way. Anyway, I always believed that Chevy Chase, Maryland, is related to the actor. And I don't think I'm abnormal, so I would assume that many other people also relate the actor with the place. After all, remember the film Funny Farm? It's in that area. So, if you don't want to add my commment then that's fine. Have a cool day.

InterContinental Chicago

hey there,

as someone whos cleaned up this article earlier, Im happy that this less viewed page is also getting some attention ;) ... nice work with the cleanup! :)

xC | ☎ 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! It's just the kind of thing one does when lodged for a few days in a city away from home, you know? And it is particularly easy to do when you're sitting at a desk inside the building that's the subject of the article! JohnInDC 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

EverQuest

The link is unofficial and there are no other fan sites on the list, only the official Sony site. This really isn't the place for unofficial forum links. -Mike Payne (talk - contribs) 23:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not, if this "fan site" is the only resource on the entire internet to which EQ Mac players can turn for support? JohnInDC 23:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Best EQ soloers

We can agree on Druid and Necro, probably Beastlord too. Is it not categorically true that these three are head and shoulders better soloers by level 50? Maybe add Mage too? SK is no good, Enchanter no good, Cleric no good, Wizard probably no good, Shaman might be good, not sure how efficient though.... Vranak 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that the druid and necro are probably better than the others. But every time you try to say something definitive like that you get someone else who says, "I have a shammy. . ." or "I have a chanter and I solo'd him all the way up to [whatever]". I just figure, if you make an unequivocal claim in passing like that, it'll just get edited and revised forever; so, better to fudge it a bit and then maybe people will leave it alone. That's all. I don't feel too strongly about it otherwise. JohnInDC 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I don't feel that strongly either so we'll leave it as is. Vranak 21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Michiganite

A quick search of the web returned many articles with the "Michiganite" usage. Obviously some people use it. It should remain as a viable option to refer to someone from Michigan. Asher196 19:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

From the "Michigan" article in Wikipedia:

An individual from Michigan is called a "Michigander" or "Michiganian".[35] Also at times, but rarely, a "Michiganite".

"Michiganite" is listed in the online resources I checked as being an alternative to Michiganian and Michigander. Being that the Wiki article states that it is a rare usage I think it should stay. No need to get into a war over this. Asher196 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick search of the web returned many articles with the "Michiganite" usage. Obviously some people use it. It should remain as a viable option to refer to someone from Michigan.

Asher196 19:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I also found "Michigainian", "Michiganderite" and "Michigoner" (this last one albeit facetiously). I bet I could even find a few mistaken references to Hoosiers or Buckeyes. I think Wikipedia is a better resource if it's not cluttered up with obscure, idiosyncratic or even straight-up incorrect references, and "Michiganite" is sufficiently uncommon that it's better left off. But I agree that it's not worth a war. JohnInDC 19:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I think it should remain is that it is listed in several dictionaries. I just looked in my trusty Random House College Dictionary from 1980 and found it. I agree that the usage is rare though. Asher196 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User page deletion.

Technically I don't think I can propose your user page for deletion. You have to do it. To do so, place {{Db-userreq}} on the page and save it. An admin will come along and delete it at some point. Cheers and happy editing, Into The Fray ^T/C 01:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy Rood Cemetery

A Proposed Deletion template has been added to the article Holy Rood Cemetery, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Karanacs 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some independent sources about the cemetery? If you can find two reliable sources and incorporate them into the article, that would meet the notability criteria. For now, though, it doesn't appear to meet the wikipedia guidelines. Karanacs 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Karanacs 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Franco Niell

Hi, I'm sure you know more about it than me but isn't this a reliable source for the transfer? King of the NorthEast 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your position seems reasonable, but I think the difference between this loan deal and the Veron situation is that the Argentine media were largely sceptical about Veron to DC since Veron is a lifelong Estudiantes fan, playing for the club his father helped to make great in the 1960s. The Franco Niell transfer seems to have been confirmed by Argentinos Juniors, but I'll leave it up to you when to make the changes to the article if you think its premature. Regards, King of the NorthEast 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

BYU-Utah rivalry

lost logos because they were use as decoration they do need to be that way or you will lose them. wiki rules ae that logos are not decoarative but to be informative to qualify as fair use.12.41.183.194 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Brawl of the Wild here is another with image deleted12.41.183.194 (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the egs. I confess though that I am not entirely persuaded. The BetaCommand bot came through [[Michigan-Ohio State rivalry] in June, just like it did the pages you note, and someone (might even have been me) tweaked the fair use rationales on the logos and that was that; here they remain. From what I can tell, the logos you note were deleted because someone simply failed to do take that extra step. Was there specific discussion on those other pages about the need for a descriptive tag underneath the logos? JohnInDC (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, you may be right. In fact, I HOPE you are. However, maybe you knew a secret. I would prefer those things without the infoboxes . . . if there is a way to do it, fine, a " tweal" perhaps, however, I would still rather have them in boxes versu not having them at all. Also, I wish there would be a rivalry project so one could click through and have them all consitent. . . without the thumbs. I prefer it your way, I just laost a lot of images and never knew why, other than betacommand Nazis commingthrough and rolling over those of us who worked at those things.12.41.183.194 (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I may not be persuaded but I appreciate your honest concern and if this minor (silly) fix is what it takes, then so be it. Thanks for the exchange! JohnInDC (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Concerning to the reverts you have made on Michigan-Ohio State rivalry: Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors, especially if more than one person undue your revert. нмŵוτнτ 15:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: I revert an edit that had been discussed previously on the Talk page and then not made, then revert it again when another editor, ignoring this prior discussion, adds it back in - and after two (not three) of these reversions, and having taken the issue back again to the article's Talk page - I'm being warned? That's ridiculous. JohnInDC (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. You did only have two reverts. However, you still shouldn't keep reverting changes that more than one editor makes. The previous discussion never reached consensus. I did think that you made 3 reverts when I left that notice, but it's still not a good thing to keep reverting edits by multiple editors. It's not a matter of opinion (the issue), it's a verifiable fact. Whether or not you say it is not an issue. Whether or not any editor of Wikipedia says is is not an issue. It's the fact that's it said, by some people, sometimes. For that reason, it belongs. Let me know if you have any further questions. нмŵוτнτ 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. =) I do apologize, though, since I could have been a little more polite in my responses to you. The frustration got to me. нмŵוτнτ 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit to fix the saying. It's true that not everyone in the country call the game this, obviously, & your wording makes it more correct. Thanks! нмŵוτнτ 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Transfers

[edited to consolidate whole exchange here] JohnInDC (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you shed a little more light on the recent WP:FOOTY consensus regarding the deletion of off-season transfers on club pages? You referenced it generally and in passing in your edit summary on DC United and other pages following your deletions but I'm having trouble tracking down the precise policy or the consensus that led to it. I am probably not looking in the right places (though the "Club Manual of Style" and accompanying discussion would seem to be the logical residence). It'd be nice to see what the consensus was so that the editors of DC United and various other pages don't run afoul of it again. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed numerous times, and every time it comes up, the consensus is to delete them (but they are legitimate on season-by-season articles, e.g. Arsenal F.C. season 2007-08). The most recent discussion can be found here. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the link. I have to say, though, that the consensus did not seem altogether clear-cut regarding clubs that lack season-by-season pages, like DC United. The information on the DC United page was pretty useful (particularly given an off-season with a lot of activity, like they just had), and well-maintained to boot. DC United is not that big or important a club in the scheme of things, and as passionate as its fans are, that is largely by comparison to other MLS clubs. I doubt that anyone has the energy to create season-by-season pages with the transfer information, meaning that the information is really simply lost, and the page that much the weaker for it. (I would go on to add that, unlike Premiership clubs, MLS news is really not covered in great detail by the media, nor reliably consolidated in any particular place. For that reason a Wikipedia page a much more important source for that kind of information than it likely is for "real" football teams.) Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You can bring it up again on the WP:FOOTY talk page, but personally I will continue to delete such sections on sight until there is agreement to the contrary. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I decided to throw something onto the DC United discussion page to see if I'm the only one who really notices a difference. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

lists of notable people

[Consolidated from two user talk pages] JohnInDC (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice you are removing 'notable residents' lists from various individual community pages in the DC area and referring folks to the common list of 'famous people' from the area. In many (maybe all) cases, the "local" and "central" lists aren't the same and you are removing substance along with redundant material. It's good to streamline things but I think it'd be a good idea to take the extra step to conform the lists before deleting. JohnInDC (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The lists are largely bogus and highly prone to vandalism. It's far easier to manage having them all in one place than separate lists in individual articles, which is why I favor them linked via 'see also'. WP:CITIES also discourages having such lists directly in the article itself, mostly for reasons of notability. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't take issue particularly with your conclusion that they are better lodged in a single place (though I have to add that as to Chevy Chase at least, vandalism is infrequent and typically corrected within an hour or so). My objection is that you are removing the lists, and the information contained within them, without bothering to see if the information you are deleting is in fact present in the "master" list. Which it in fact isn't. It seems to me that if you are going to undertake the task of housecleaning and consolidation then you are obliged at the same time to ensure that you are not haphazardly removing presumably accurate information at the same time. JohnInDC (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've merged the list at Chevy Chase, Maryland into the separately linked list. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. An actual consolidation was all I was after.

As an aside, though - setting aside the merits or demerits of such lists generally, do you really think they are better managed centrally? I watch Chevy Chase, Maryland because I live there and am in a reasonable (if imperfect) position to track unsupportable edits or vandalism. Changes don't come through very often but when they do, they're fixed quickly by me or one of (probably very few) editors who track it. But I'm not going to bother watching an omnibus list of famous people in and around DC - it's too much, and what do I know about who lives in Springfield, Virginia, anyhow? I would be surprised if monitoring is actually *better* with a centralized list - JohnInDC (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that for large metropolitan areas, like Washington, D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, etc, it helps to put them all on one page since the overall population is a conglomeration of many smaller suburbs. People also tend to move around a bit within the area; someone might have been "born" in Chevy Chase, but moved to Alexandria, VA, for high school, and lives in Fairfax as an adult (not citing anyone in particular here, just an example). Such lists also need to be examined more closely for actual notable residents -- only including residents that were either born there, or lived there for a significant part of their lives. Some celebrities that own second homes in an area and spend maybe 1 or 2 months out of the year shouldn't exactly be included, since it's really just a vacation home for that person. The most applicable example here would be many of the Congressman; yes, most do have second homes in the area while they're in Congress; but most of them are not residents of the DC area, they're from their home state. Saying that they're "from DC" is really inaccurate. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

psychohistory

User:Ishmaelblues has once again reverted without adequate argument. What can be done with this sort of behavior?

—Cesar Tort 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope another editor intervenes - I don't know, really. Truth be told, the whole field of psychohistory seems so close to fringe already that you may not find a whole lot of sympathy for edits that try to take it on, as clumsy and unverifiable as they may be. (That is, anyhow, my take on it having no more exposure to the field than what I have seen on that page.) Give it a couple of days to see if anyone else takes an interest, and if the problem has continued in the meantime, ask the other editors directly for advice. JohnInDC (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a note in WP editors assistance but nobody responded. —Cesar Tort 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes a day or two for people to take interest. Give them that time and then ask again. JohnInDC (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks! (It's the first time that I ask for help about pov-pushing in an official WP page.) —Cesar Tort 21:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FSU Seminoles

thank you for your moderation--Nolephin (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Sometimes all it takes is someone without an apparent stake in the fight to suggest a middle ground. I hope it holds! JohnInDC (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The "middle ground" means blanking Sammy Seminole and all history of the use of the name and mascot other than the fact that it's accepted by the leaders of the tribe in Florida. Similarly, the NCAA controversy, which was all over the national news in 2005, has been blanked (along with many abusive and poorly spelled comments, some stating that the information was "out of date"). It's just not a middle ground because there's now no section of the article devoted to the name and mascot, something that is key to an understanding of this team. This is unencyclopedic and you haven't responded to any of these points at the discussion page, simply moving on and claiming that this is an acceptable "middle ground." At first, you seemed sympathetic to including a section to properly explain and contextualize the mascot issues, finding fault only with the footnote in my original text (which I admitted could be changed), then you went ahead and blanked all of the paragraph entirely. I ask you to take another look and not give in to editors whose love for the team means that any information they don't believe portrays the team in a flattering light (such as Sammy Seminole, the NCAA decision, or any other issue related to the team's use of Native American-derived mascots) is blanked, along with abusive language. No editor has disputed any of the sourced text I had added and I strongly disagree with your apparent caving in to their demands, which have no basis. Badagnani (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "giving in" to anyone. I'm suggesting what seem to me to be sensible edits, appropriate to a page that is about the various sports teams of a university in Florida. I simply don't think that this issue warrants anything more than a footnote on that page, a passing reference to an historical event that has been resolved for three years now, and every day recedes further into the past. The NCAA is happy, the Florida Seminoles are happy, the Oklahoma Seminoles are happy (or not so unhappy as to complain about it), and Florida State is happy - why aren't you?

Part of my problem with your edits, to be frank, is that they do not seem to be written so as simply to recount the history of the dispute. Instead, as I said in one of my talk page comments, you seem to be pressing to de-legitimize the consensual resolution by the various interested parties by, for instance, disparaging the distinction between "mascots" and "symbols" and emphasizing the dissenting Oklahoma voices despite the 18-2 vote by the Oklahoma tribes (90%!) not to contest FSU's continued use of the symbol (mascot). Your stated purpose of simply "being encyclopedic" is not the purpose that emerges from your edits, and I think this process would be much better served if you were a bit clearer about precisely what it is you are hoping to accomplish. You would gain more traction on the Talk pages and maybe, *maybe* could forge a workable compromise with the other editors. JohnInDC (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I think about it some more, I do agree that there is much useful history here to be recounted; but that if it is to be done it needs to be done in proper, complete, *encyclopedic* style - the history of these (and similar) offensive mascots, including a survey of the *many* sports teams (professional and collegiate) that have had, and abandoned (or have kept) the mascots over time. There is certainly useful information contained in, for example, the history of Sammy Seminole but it seems to me to be singling out FSU rather unfairly when one considers that in 1972 even progressive Stanford University was still known as the "Indians". There are probably scores of stories similar to FSU's - ones that did not end with an agreement with the putatively offended symbol sanctioning the arrangement - and I think a truly even-handed and encyclopedic entry would discuss many of them. What do you think about that? JohnInDC (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject American Soccer

Are you at all interested in helping develop a seperate WikiProject for American Soccer with myself, Roehl Sybing, and anyone else who would like to help out? Let either myself of Roehl know if you are interested. Thanks. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Football club infoboxes

I've created a draft new infobox for football clubs incorporating the features present in the MLS box at {{Infobox Football club2}} (see User:Number 57/Toronto FC for how it displays). Please give your thoughts on WT:FOOTY. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Native American mascot controversy

Find me a citation for anyone, other than a white, arguing for retention of Native American nicknames. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not my obligation, I don't think. But in any case I think the greater problem is that the phrase appears to be included not as an encyclopedic fact (which, if so plainly true, is unnecessary) but to disparage the argument. It shouldn't be there. JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I mean - try taking that little parenthetical ("typically by white people") and turning it into a declarative sentence that isn't POV. "This argument is advanced typically by white people and therefore is . . ." - what? Unsound? Self-interested? Unempathetic? If this factoid is going to be included, then I think it deserves its own sentence, where the appropriateness of its inclusion can be assessed properly. JohnInDC (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

...and therefore does not reflect what Native Americans themselves think about it. It's white people telling Native Americans how they should think. In the "support" section, there is a Native American citation that is alleged to be "support", when what it actually is, is a "we can live with it" statement. That's hardly "support". The article's attempt to say "this is OK with us, so it should be OK with them" is a typical racist POV-push. P.S. I'm a white guy and the issue of team names is not, in fact, a real hot-button issue with me. The hot-button issue is the patronizing attitude of people telling other people that they should be OK with this stuff. And that attitude is present in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the few exceptions to the patronizing attitude was shown by Florida State, which on more than one occasion has sought permission from the Seminoles to use their name. In Illinois, I heard the pro-Illiniwek arguments for years. None of those arguments were advanced by Indians. They were advanced by white people telling Indians why they should be OK with it. That's extremely offensive, and the article doesn't make any attempt to neutralize it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. You, or someone who cares about the issue, should fix the article to say these things rather than presenting making the case by innuendo, which is what that parenthetical does. JohnInDC (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(What offends me is when someone with a coherent point of view that can be succinctly and rationally stated, presents it in a shorthand way calculated not to persuade, but instead to play on emotions. "Typically by white people" reads to me about the same as, "typically by racists". That sloppy - and inflammatory - presentation is why I agree that the parenthetical shouldn't be there.) (PS - that isn't directed at you.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Yes, the parenthetical/shorthand is not the best approach, but it needs to be raised somehow, or neutralized in the article. Another way to do it would be to point out the race of every spokesman on the subject. That would be probably also be shot down for a similar reason. Its only chance of survival would be if the article stated the race of every commentator on the subject, white or otherwise. The trick is to find a valid source that actually speaks to this issue. I hear the Limbaugh types say, "You are too sensitive", to those who object to Indian nicknames... but just let any minority make a similar putdown of any white sacred cow, and it's a different story altogether. See what I mean? I wonder where the valid source is for that side of the issue? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

("Typically non-Native Americans") actually does a better job of making the point you made - namely, that whoever's saying it, it's not the group whose image is being used - and the non-specificity of the notation avoids the implicit fingerpointing too. JohnInDC (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I'll put it that way and see what happens. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I did that, as well as re-wording the one Indian statement to point out that his view is at best conditional support, not a blanket endorsement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. I still don't know if the assertion is *true*, but it seems like a logical thing to suppose, and given the way it's worked in now, the lack of sourcing is a lot less troublesome (to me anyhow). JohnInDC (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone altered it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My, that didn't take long - JohnInDC (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I put it back. If the IP address changes it again, I'll refer them to the talk page. May I move or copy this section to that talk page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure; I think this might prove useful to the discussion. Thanks for asking. JohnInDC (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Copying only. You can delete it from here if you want. One thing I am very respectful of is user page rules, i.e. of not messing with someone's user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph J. Romm

Thanks for your help, John.FellGleaming (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Let me try to explain why I think this is notable information. Perhaps you can think of a better way to express it in the article. The U. S. Department of Energy has two principal missions. The main one is basically the nuclear energy program, which is broken down into a lot of pieces and scattered around the agency, and the second is the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which is a smaller program and is run entirely out the DC office. When Romm was there, its budget was $1 billion per year, but now it is more. The office is run by one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Energy. In 1995, Romm was hired as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The Assistant Sectretary of this Office had only one Deputy, so Romm was the #2 guy of this Office, and he was the scientist, not the political appointee, so he had a very significant influence over the work that this Office was doing. When Assistant Secretary White left the department, Clinton appointed Romm as acting Assistant Secretary until the new appointee could be found, vetted and put in place. After the new Assistant Secretary was on the job, Romm resumed his position as Deputy. So, he was in charge of the program as Acting Asst. Sec'y, and even when he was Deputy A.S., he had a very important influence in our government's program to develop renewable energy and efficient energy technologies. Romm wasn't a politician, he was running operations of this Office. I think his description in his various web bios is simply an acknowledgement that he was not the officially appointed Assistant Secretary. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. What you're describing makes the point better than what the article says ("said", anyhow, prior to your last revision). The ins and outs of the position etc. are neither here nor there, really; instead I think what's important is that he was in the position as a scientist, and as such had substantial influence over DOE's billion-dollar program to promote energy efficiency, etc. Part of my objection - concern - about the description of the program is that it is kind of larded down with technical stuff (microturbines, PEM fuel cells, cogeneration etc.) that it is easy to lose sight of precisely what the program was supposed to do, or why it's important. The details kind of smother the larger point, you know? Indeed the article kind of suffers from that generally, reading more like a string of events converted into prose and then lumped together into paragraphs. Romm did this, then he did that, and here are some details about both. These articles don't need to be literature, but a bit of a narrative stream - a point - really helps, and this article lacks it. If you can bring yourself to do it, you might wind up with a better article by working with editors like FellGleaming, who seem willing to take the time to pare it down. Talk page discussions about what should stay in, or could come out, or be reworded, really can work! Good luck with it. JohnInDC (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, John. I am happy to collaborate with any editor who has serious suggestions for improving the article. In my experience, bio articles typically mention the subject's family and upbringing, to the extent that info is available. It is part of a biography. I think that consigning the mention of Romm's brother (actually, he has two brothers, the other is a rehabilitative medicine doctor) to a footnote is actually unusual, and it belongs in the text, but I won't quibble. As for the Dept. of Energy, Romm worked there for 5 years. It is an important part of his biography, and I hope I have clarified the issues that we discussed above, but I am interested in any further feedback. As you can see, I have been working hard to put the article into a more typical format for bio articles and to make it less resume-like. I am interested in your feedback on any part of the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am always learning things, particularly about how things are "usually" done in Wikipedia, and if family members are in the text then they should be in the text. I suppose my reaction was colored by a kind of gushiness throughout the article, about which I've already commented plenty, and you're working to fix. I'll take a look at the DOE thing (when I'm not at my *own* government job). Meanwhile keep up the good work. (Incorporating that criticism / controversy was deft and helps make clear that you're interested in making a good article rather than just a favorable one.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the article. It is hard to find really good bio articles of living persons on Wikipedia (partly because their story is not finished, and there are less likely to be full-blown biographies of them), but there are plenty of ones on dead people to use as a guide. One FA article that I worked on is W. S. Gilbert. In any case, I welcome any further comments you may have on improving the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I’m rather new at this process, so I’m learning as I go. Yes, the anonymous post is what I am referring to. I did not post it in any attempt to be anonymous, just unaware of the process at that point. I still think my point is valid concerning Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View. You are not comparing apples with apples. While the Media Research Center defines those who founded it as “conservative”, it describes itself as a “non profit research and education foundation.” You used the criteria to revert my post “on the grounds that on when an organization is the subject of a page, it's standard practice to hew to the organization's description of itself. Media Matters describes itself as a ‘progressive’ organization, rather than “liberal”. That standard is not applied consistently in the preceding examples. Concerning the term “liberal”. You state “inserting the word liberal” was a violation of Wikipedia NPOV. Since Media Matters for America does not describe itself specifically as “liberal” then my editing the article on Fox News Network was reverted. In fact, in the same article concerning MSNBC, you have allowed the term “liberal” to be applied to Media Matters for America. However, it disallowed for me when I edited the article on the Fox News Network. I believe I have proved my point that the reversion of my edition, justified on the basis that someone was simply enforcing of the NPOV by Wikipedia is enforced selectively. I use Wikipedia quite frequently, but am bothered by what I perceive to be a bias in certain articles. Nworb4591 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that your IP edits were somehow stealthy. "Anonymous IP" is just how they're commonly described.

Moving along - you need to understand that *I* didn't do anything to your edits, and I haven't said anything about them other than my single response to your post on the Request for Editor Assistance page in which you complained of a "liberal bias" on Wikipedia. Otherwise in response -- I thought I understood your complaint but I don't any more. Your edits on the Media Matters page were reverted because they reflected your personal characterization of Media Matters ("liberal") rather than their own ("progressive"). Similar characterizations of Media Research as "conservative" are left to stand because the organization proudly touts its conservative credentials and viewpoint. This seems straightforward to me. You are correct that Media Matters is described as "liberal" on the MSNBC page. Setting aside that the page is not that of Media Matters itself, and so colloquial usage might slip through more easily; and also that in context, it appears that the term "liberal" was employed simply to balance the (correctly applied) "conservative" characterization earlier on the same page of Media Research, you do have a point. Probably it would be better to amend the MSNBC page to say "progressive" too. Beyond that, I'm at a loss to understand how any of this even indicates - let alone "proves" - liberal bias.

(As for your comments re Fox edits - I can't figure out what you're describing there. Media Matters isn't even mentioned on the Fox News Channel page, and I don't see any recent edits that tried to add it.)

Really, the place to be taking this up in on the Talk pages of the articles you're trying, and failing, to revise. I don't know what they are or may have been, and so am really pretty much limited to generalities. JohnInDC (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Michigan pronunciation

Hi! I've been watching the phonetic pronunciation at the start of Michigan go back and forth for a while. While I agree that "again" is the wrong ending (a-gain being the problem), I also don't think that "uh-gun" is right -- I certainly don't pronounce it that way, nor most other Michiganders. It's that darn Midwestern vowel: Michigan becomes more like an i.

So here's my idea: why not stick with "Mich-again" and add "rhymes with tin" or something like that? That gives the correct pronunciation without ambiguity, as I don't think tin (or sin which would be an amusing comparison) varies much among dialects. Thoughts? -- dcclark (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm largely but not entirely with you - let's see though what we can sort out. I'm quite (!) familiar with the pronunciation that you're describing - a kind of clipped 'ih' sound. Mish'-i-gihn, like that. (Actually that is not altogether a bad representation.) The problems, to my thinking are two. First, that reflects a fairly pronounced Michigan accent, one which is not shared by all natives of the state. Myself among the exceptions. I've been gone a while but I still get buttonholed as a midwesterner so I don't think my speech has changed all that much, and I pronounce it with more of a -'gun' at the end. Nowadays when I hear "mish-i-gihn", it sounds almost like caricature, like "Chicawgo" coming from the mouth of a resident there. So I'm not sure how entirely representative that particular variation is. That leads me to the second issue, which is that I'm not sure whether the pronunciation by the natives - who concede an accent - is what should be reflected in a general-readership encyclopedia. If we could come up with a suitable representation of the sound I think we're both thinking of, and then put it up with -'gun', as alternatives? It's kind of cluttery (and at this point almost silly) but maybe that would do. Still better than that indecipherable IPA stuff! JohnInDC (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the accent. I'm a yooper, so I supposed I bring that with me! Curiously, I just heard a commentator on MSNBC say "Mish'-i-gihn". When I hear "Mish-uh-gun", that feels very contrived or awkward to say, so I don't think it's right either. The true vowel is somewhere in between. Maybe the 'e' sound in fen or Ben? -- dcclark (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A yooper! I'm surprised we've agreed on anything then! You know, a big part of this may be just that we hear what we expect to hear, making it very difficult for a pair of not-quite-synched ears to ever quite arrive at a consensus about what people are saying. Your last description is good, certainly close enough for me though - I wonder how to write it? Mish-i-gen? It's making that 'g' hard that's the challenge (which I'm sure is where 'again' came from). JohnInDC (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I'm not one of the Toivo and Eino yoopers, so you can still understand me when I talk! Perhaps we could specify that the g is soft (not hard, which would sound like the g in genuine or gentle, ironically). So, for example: "Mish-uh-gen, with a soft g". That should be unambiguous. -- dcclark (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the *soft* 'g'? Oh, God (or "Jod", as I now correctly pronounce it). I am afraid if you say 'soft g' you'll get complaints from armies of ignorant folks just like me complaining that that is precisely wrong. " 'Mish-ih-gen', with the 'g' as it 'get'"? (Do we like 'ih' better than 'uh', too?) (This is weirdly fun.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose that we only really should apply "hard" and "soft" to vowels, not consonants, but I would still call "genuine" a hard g, and "get" a soft g. But clearly that's not clear! I like "Mish-ih-gen, with the g as in get". It's like a puzzle played against the English language. -- dcclark (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make this edit but then wondered if we should take it to the Talk page. Trouble with that is that some persnickety busybody may gripe about the whole notion of a non-IPA key. What do you think? JohnInDC (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Talk page would be right. Do you want to add it in? For fun, you might want to look at Talk:Pasty too, where we've had a long slow debate about vowel pronunciation and non-IPA in the lead. There is a WP policy that "sounds like" and such are acceptable, because not everybody knows IPA. -- dcclark (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

I see no overlap whatsoever in the editing histories, so I'm guessing it was just collateral damage on a shared IP pool. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For adding your opinion. Maybe it is me but I don't see how most people will necessarily be looking for the oldest school. Do students in these schools themselves even know how old their school? I somehow doubt it. I agree with you that the most logical way is the alphabetized order. Billspilok (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the point she's trying to make but I'm not sure that 1) year of founding really tracks it at all or that 2) anyone really knows what year a school was founded. If there were only, you know, three Wesleyans and one was way better known than the other two, of course you'd put them in order of "most-to-least likely as a search item". But when you've got 16 of them it's a stretch to suppose that the list bears any relationship to anything once you're past Ohio Wesleyan. We'll see how it sorts out, I guess! JohnInDC (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did undo one of your edits for the reason in the edit summary. I do agree that if the schools are actually named only "Wesleyan" then they are more likely the subject of a user search than a school that simply has the term somewhere in its name. JohnInDC (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no school named just Wesleyan. Actually, there are some but they are grammar schools and not the object of our discussion. Just be consistent in applying whatever rule you decide to all lists. You can't have it one way for one list and another way for another list. That will be blatantly inconsistent. Also, look at how other controversial entries are done. There are guidelines on this. While going with your feeling on what seems reasonable might be important, it might be also important to consider what generally accepted guidelines on controversial pages dictate. Just two cents on this. Billspilok (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reg: User:Ninadhardikar

Thanks for letting me know. But is he justified in calling my messages as vandalism? From what seems to me he now just has to claim anyting to be vandalism and delete it from his talk page(or any other talk page). --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he shouldn't call your edits vandalism unless they are vandalism. See WP:Vandalism. What you were doing to his talk page was not vandalism but I can see how he might have come to think of it that way. Are there other examples of his calling your regular, good-faith edits "vandalism"? JohnInDC (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Only once so far, not about edits but about my edits to his talk page. But I believe he is now going to use the same excuse anytime and evertime somone tells him something he doesn't like. And now since he is sure that he is justified in deleteing messages on his talk page , he is refusing to even respond to my message on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Vandalism on personal talk page. When I sent him a reminder, he has promptly deleted it[4]!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The way it looks to me is that your repeated (15+ is a lot) edits to his own Talk page, in the face of a policy that lets him do it, looked a lot like vandalism to him. It wasn't, but it was not too far off the mark. I would wait to see if he accuses you of it in other contexts. JohnInDC (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Chevy Chase

I'm sorry but on the recent Chevy Chase page you edited, it didn't appear to have much logic to it. If you want to redo it and I misunderstood it, by all means go ahead. For the time being I undid your last revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeluxNate (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by illogical, and I don't see any reversion, so for the time being I'll wait to hear back from you. JohnInDC (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Chevy Chase.

While I realize citing one article may not be enough to state "restrictions in most deeds," there is no other reasonable option. I do have 320 deeds which include these covenants if you would like me to post all of those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.195.16.211 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source or sources that says "most", then by all means cite to it and make the change. Your 320 deeds are certainly a lot, but the inferences you draw from them constitute original research, which cannot form the basis for Wikipedia entries. It's also hard to say on that information alone whether it's more fairly described as "most" or merely "some". How many lots are there in Chevy Chase, do you suppose? JohnInDC (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

At the times of the covenants the population never exceeded more than around 650. These deeds are from 1906-1930. These are all deeds from Harry M. Martin, who was the main landowner from 1910-1930 in Chevy Chase. As the official landowner for the Village, he distributed all deeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.195.16.211 (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Still, the one source says "some", and your "many" amounts to original research. Please find a reliable source to support your phrasing! (I'm going to move this exchange to the Chevy Chase Talk page, where it more appropriately belongs.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Braves

You are probably right. I actually started there looking for what I can do regarding an overzealous editor who refused to discuss the situation or make any kind of compromise. I'm still wondering what can be done.MAL01159 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs is a good editor. Sometimes he is a little impatient or abrupt but by and large I have found I can work with him. The specific problem you've got right now is that you're trying to argue about what a "streak" is, when your interpretation (or Bugs's or any editor's) is just beside the point. In this case, a "streak" is what a reliable source calls a streak. SheffieldSteel has supplied a couple references - passing ones, but right on point - that say, "the streak is 14". You need to find and supply a reliable source that says, "the streak is 11 and 3". If you can't come up with something using just about those very words, then what Bugs says stands - no matter how arguable the point is. I understand your frustration, and I would probably have done the same thing in your shoes, if I didn't have my own experience with him to fall back on. My disinterested advice here is to see what sources you can come up with that establish the point *you're* trying to make, and then offer them up. I am pretty confident that if you do find something like that, you can weave it into the article -- maybe with something along the lines of, "the length of the streak is the subject of some disagreement", something like that. JohnInDC (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. I'm arguing that it's 14 not necessarily because I personally think it's 14, but because the authorative sources (so far as I know) say it's 14. In fact, MLB is the only authoritative source, because it's their business and they define what their records are, not us. So if MLB explicitly says "it's 14" or "it's 11", then that's what it is. The only words (not standings) that I've seen are from the Braves' portion of MLB.com where they say it's 14. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any references to confirm the streak is 14. The only one brought up was the verbiage on the Braves website that says it was 14, while the data on another part of their very own site shows it to be 11. No one has yet to offer anything beyond that and I am stunned to think that Wikipedia would rely on one sole entry that contradicts itself. I have irrefutable source data to prove my point. But for some reason I do not understand, it is not being taken seriously. I was also asking the change the wording of the article to something that can be satisfactory for all while still presenting the correct information. But no one seems interested in that, either. I even made suggestions but no one wants to work this out. Is there a higher authority to make a case to here?MAL01159 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now that verbiage is the best source for the information that we have. It's the official Braves site, and they call it "14". They do not call it "11". If they did, you would have your contradiction, but as of now you don't. Again, the argument is *not about the numbers* but about how they are characterized. The Braves *characterize* it as 14. They are a reliable source and that is their figure. If you come up with another reliable source that *characterizes it the way you are arguing*, please present it. Otherwise please stop - it's getting old! JohnInDC (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Braves

I won't waste much time on it today. It's an endless loop. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I keep waiting for him to ask me what megillah mean. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He says "we" discussed it last year. Who's "we"? He's been a registered user for 5 days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe editing from an IP? Who knows. This incarnation has only one interest, that's for sure! JohnInDC (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account. And engaged in trolling behavior, in my opinion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Flagship university / Atlanta Braves

Still watching flagship university like a hawk, huh? BTW, I noticed the discussion you were having above about the Atlanta Braves. (I put this down here so you would see it) I am an avid Braves fan. The streak was interrupted by the players strike (1996 I believe). They've had 11 strait division titles after that, 3 before, for a total of 14. That's were the difference in number is. Ndenison ^talk 13:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was 1994, and the streak was not interrupted, because there were no titles to be had in 1994. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Since you have experience of the discussion at Talk:Atlanta Braves involving this editor, you may wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MAL01159 and share your view. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I'm out of town and have only a mobile device to edit with but I managed to add my signature in a couple of places. JohnInDC (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I only added my name to the "endorse", as I would hardly be considered an "outside" party to this brouhaha. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Chevy Chase

I fail to see how two sentences provide undue weight to an article. The information posted was vital to understanding just how heavily race restrictions were used in Chevy Chase. I'm reposting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.195.16.211 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion needs to take place on the article's talk page, not here. And "I don't understand so I'm changing it back" does not amount to discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines men's basketball

I am writing you because you are the leader in edit count at Michigan Wolverines. Do you understand the code for infobox jerseys and know the details of the Michigan color schemes? I have just started Michigan Wolverines men's basketball.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the leader in edit count? I think I'm embarrassed! (How do you determine that?) The short answer is, no, I don't really understand infoboxes. Perhaps there is some useful guidance at Help:Infobox? One thing I *do* know is that the University has lots of different "official" colors - one set for the University, one set for the athletic department(s), and God knows what all else. Proceed with caution! And good luck with the new page! JohnInDC (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Marc Gilbert

Could you please explain why you keep deleting whithout explaining. This is not Ossetia. Try to get to the point an before that to read carrefully the article.Thanx. User: AlexLevyOne —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem has been explained on the talk page of the article as well as on your own Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

DC

Hey. Thanks for your help with this. I appreciate the backup. I have dealt with Corker1 and his/her edits before. Most of them have been linking every phrase on the page or adding unsourced material. As the subpages are not yet GA/FA, I've dealt with the changes in a rather cursory matter. But now that invalid references and unsourced material are being added to the FA page, I get a bit more defensive. It took a lot of work to get it up to FA status from being demoted all the way down to B class just a few months ago and am really trying to prevent it from happening again! Thanks again for your help. Best, epicAdam (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. You know, it's hard to deal with an editor who is fairly smart and knowledgeable and acting in good faith, but whose edits tend to degrade or clutter an article. Especially one who is as busy as Corker1. I don't know if it's pride of authorship or a misplaced sense of one's own abilities or what. What I do know is that if I made a bunch of edits to an article and then found people in there cleaning up after me, I'd slow down a bit. At the very least I'd start a conversation on a Talk page to try and figure out what the problem was. Ah well. Good faith does carry us a long way. I'm sure this will sort out okay eventually, even if it does make a bit of extra work (for you mostly) in the meantime. JohnInDC (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'd prefer to wait a bit before I mark the issue as resolved. Despite the fact that he conceded to the caption change, I noticed he still made edits earlier today, which basically inserted a manifesto about L'Enfant in the form of a reference; luckily another user had reverted the changes so I didn't have to. I'll wait to see if he tries to put in any more unneeded/unreferenced personal commentary! Thanks again for your help. Best, epicAdam (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You have had more experience with him and that's why I asked. I leave it to you! JohnInDC (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuttlefish

i have read original research now, sorry. but surely everyone knows that a little bird will eat cuttlefish skeletons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley10 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sure - but you need to weave it in a bit better, less colloquially. You've made several edits to articles that are facetious at best and you sorely need to try to write like you're writing for an encyclopedia, not a trivia contest. How about you slow down your editing and try to get a sense for the tone in which the articles are written? JohnInDC (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Former players / current players

Hey, thanks for dropping me a line. I hope I didn't come across as argumentative before, because that certainly wasn't my intent. The whole 'notable players' issue is becoming a bit thorny, to be honest, and I'm sort of sorry I got involved in the first place, but I do feel that between us (and the others who are trying to help) we can come up with some way of making sure these lists are referenced well enough to make the sticklers happy, while maintaining the integrity and usefulness of the lists as they initially appeared. I strongly feel that the lists should remain there - and that, ideally, they should include a better rationale than the one I quickly wrote - but it's going to take some time to perfect, and in the meantime we just need to make sure that all the MLS/USL articles with them are kept in check. We'll see how it goes! Thanks again for the note :) --JonBroxton (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC infoboxes (again)

Quiddity, JohnInDC, Lar (Joopercoopers has commented already): I have added a revised version of a proposed statement against hiding infoboxes at MoS (infoboxes). Please take a look and add your valued input there, as the previous discussion has been archived. Sswonk (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have archived the discussion at MoS. The experiment at Ponte Vecchio will continue and no further discussion about a blanket statement against hiding infoboxes appears necessary. The discourse bore fruit in that major concerns about functionality and innovation were aired and a cooperative atmosphere prevailed. Sswonk (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne

You're welcome. Maybe it's because I've been wandering farther afield in WP of late, but I've been seeing more and more of this sort of user. Deor (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MAL01159

Hello. Just to let you know that this RfC has been closed. You are welcome to read the conclusion established at the page. I am notifying you since you certified the basis for the dispute. Wizardman 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed

AlexLevyOne is now editing as NORD74 (talk · contribs). Since that account was created and began editing while ALO was serving a two-week block, I suppose it could technically be considered a block-evading sockpuppet; he seems, however, to have abandoned the ALO account and is editing exclusively from the new one, which is already amassing vandalism and speedy-deletion warnings on its talk page. I'm all wikidrama-ed out at the moment, so I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done about this. Deor (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, no - thanks for catching it. Have you or anyone posted anything to Editor Assistance Requests or ANI? (I'll put him on my watchlist and do my best to keep an eye on him too.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I just finished participating in a big kerfluffle on AN and have no desire to bring anything at all to a noticeboard for a while. I wouldn't have noticed this new ALO account myself if I hadn't been looking through the Newbies' Contribs page for something else this morning and happened to notice an edit to ALO's pet History of Jews in Alsace article. Deor (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WALL STREET

Yes, I had noticed this one. I probably won't get a chance to put together an SSP report until the weekend, but I'll try to do so then. I'm starting to doubt the value of this though; he just creates a new account whenever attention is drawn to an active one. Deor (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this wasn't much help; Enigmaman might at least have taken the trouble to block the "veteran socker." I'll try RFCU when I get home from work. By the way, WALL STREET is also editing on the French WP, where one of his former incarnations (Utilisateur:Albion) is formally banned. If I had an account there and my French wasn't so bad as to make me a laughingstock at that site, I'd file a report on him there as well. Deor (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. Deor (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

He is deliberately dodging the question when confronted, but does claim to have been creating pages for 3 years at his talk.

He has also added dodgy information (He is using a source that says her father was Jewish to say that she was originally a Jew) at Soeur Emmanuelle that I have removed, but he is reverting me, Assistance there would be welcome.Mayalld (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Economy sections of cities

You said: "Removing ANA reference - not clear why this fact would be particularly significant"

John, it is significant when a major company (in this case a Japanese airline) has an office in a city. With some larger cities I could mention this in neighborhood, building, or other articles. But DC does not have its own "Economy of Washington, DC" subarticle. It needs one. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless ANA is doing things very differently than other major airlines, the office it has in Washington DC is primarily a ticketing office. United, American, Aeroflot, Air France, Japan Airlines to name just a few all have similar facilities within a block or two of the ANA office. It doesn't make sense within the context of that article - to me anyhow - to highlight just one of several airlines with offices here; or, for that matter, to single out "airlines" given the number of other major entities (trade associations especially) with a presence in DC. Is there something about the ANA office that sets it apart from other airlines or other entities that have established a presence in Washington? JohnInDC (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry, and not AlexLevyOne

Recently… I reported an editor for suspected sock puppetry. I am contacting those editors who may have had some unfortunate dealings with this editor. In your case it deals with the article on the Michigan–Ohio State rivalry. I was going to include a comment you made on the talk page as an example how he has abused the system but have chosen not to.[5] The purpose of this message is only to make you aware of the case, particularly since I feel he is clearly attempting to unfairly sway the direction of the article. If you would like to review what I have written you can find it here.[6] Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Porkies

Good reference on the age of the Pocupine Mountains. However, I'm pretty sure that the DNR is in serious error here, because the rock formations that make up the Porcupine Mountains are Keweenawan in age, which is much younger than the 2 billion years claimed on the DNR web page. I won't change the article until (or unless) I can find a more authoritative source. Plazak (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh! If you can find a good source for that, then yeah, do change it. Indeed I would encourage it - there is something a bit squirrelly about leaving in a reference that may be wrong just because we have a source for it! Thanks for the info. Maybe I'll nose around a bit myself and see if I can find something better. JohnInDC (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)