User talk:John196920022001

Welcome!

Hello, John196920022001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sdedeo (talk • contribs).

MedCab case

Hi John196920022001. I'm currently mediating a case into which you're involved.

Please take a look of the case here.

For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments, including yours, of course ;-).

So, please voice your opinion on the case's talk page.

I'm at your disposal for every question.

Happy editing,

Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation

I have accepted the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Steven Alan Hassan involving Steven Hassan. I am contacting all involved parties. If there is someone else who has been involved in the disagreement, please let me know so I can invite them to participate. Please indicate if you accept my assistance on the case page. I also have posted a question about compromise. Cheers!! Vassyana 13:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this case has resolved itself. If this changes, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page so we can mediate to avoid dispute. Vassyana 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still feel there is a POV/NPOV dispute on the article? Do you feel mediation is still needed? Vassyana 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It seems like Tilman does not want certain information that is critical, and wants to insert things that weaken a criticism (in fact or in his mind) John196920022001 11:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened the case accordingly. ~~I've added BabyDweezil (talk · contribs) to the parties and invited them to join the mediation as well.~~ Vassyana 12:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BabyDweezil (talk · contribs) cannot currently participate in the discussion due to ban/arbirtration circumstances. So I have removed them from the mediation parties. If the mediation is still ongoing when their situation resolves, I will add them to the case and invite them to the discussion. Vassyana 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel Tilman has made personal attacks upon you, please reply with the diffs proving such an accusation. Please do not post these diffs to the mediation case page. Please do not continue making such accusations on the mediation case page. If your accusations are true, we can handle that, but I do not want the mediation case page itself to become bogged down in acrimony and accusations. You may reply here, as I will keep this talk page on my watchlist. Thank you for you cooperation and understanding. Vassyana 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK! Sorry about that. Would you like me to remove the comments?John196920022001 12:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, I decided to remove my adversarial posts as a show of good faith. I am going to get some sleep now, relax, and will fill you in soon. ThanksJohn196920022001 12:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your understanding most sincerely. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just would like the case page to stay solution orientated. After your provide the diffs here, we can handle it however is appropriate. I will make sure to provide a post on the medcab case page that you removed the comments as an act of good faith, to avoid any accusations. I hope you get some good rest! Thank you again for your understanding. Vassyana 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry! I can see you are trying to be fair, and I don't view what you did as censorship!John196920022001 01:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been working on your draft. Just let us know when you're finished working on it. No rush though, take your time to create your draft proposal. Vassyana

You have not edited your draft proposal at the mediation for 6 days. Does it currently reflect what you want to section to say? If so, please sign "Done" on the case page. If not, please leave me a message in reply (this page is on my watchlist) to let me know when you think you will be ready. Vassyana 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just forgot. Thanks for the reminderJohn196920022001 06:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject updates

Welcome to the WikiProject!

I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. What do you think? Smee 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 07:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- - One article is good, provided that we can work together peaceably. I only want to discuss content, not personalities.John196920022001 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman merge

You suggestion has merit and bears discussion so I restored it, added an argument for merge, and created the discussion area. Please be sure to create a discussion area in the future and state your reasoning when adding article tags, otherwise there is a tendency to not take such tags seriously. Thanks --Justanother 14:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict resolution proposals

The Village Pump is a place you'd probably want to check out. You can always check out WP:DR and use the talk page there or on any of the appropriate linked pages to discuss what you'd like to propose. You also use WP:BAN's talk page if it is related to the banning policy. Hope that helps. Be well! Vassyana 18:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about your username

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy.

I am concerned with the end of your user name, "196920022001". Wikipedia's username policy considers "Usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers or of extended repetition of a particular character" to be inappropriate.

I'd appreciate learning your own views. Would you consider requesting a new username? If you'd like we can list your username for discussion on WP:RFC/NAME. Feel free to discuss this here. Thanks! --24fan24 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, might as well leave it be. Thanks for getting back to me. --24fan24 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hello, you don't have to apologize for anything. What you did was the correct thing to do, going to an admin before things get out of hand. The only reason that I didn't respond was because I was really busy yesterday. From your last message it seems that you have the situation handled. But if you ever need help or advice do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 10:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption Request

Hi. I see you have requested adoption and I am seeking to adopt. Please take a look at my userpage and see if I am a good fit to be your mentor. If you agree to be adopted by me, then let me know on my talk page by clicking the "+" symbol at the top of the page and letting me know. If not, I would still be glad to answer any questions you have at any time. Welcome to Wikipedia! MECU≈talk 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've changed the userbox on your userpage and added mine. I'm not really sure what you meant by the newspaper format on my discussion page? I've got some WP:SIGNPOSTs on my talk page, is that what you meant? Anyways,please answer the following questions:

What you want to get out of adoption?
What you want to accomplish here at Wikipedia?
What you like to do here on Wikipedia?
What are your problems at Wikipedia?
If you have any specific problems or questions I can answer now.

Also, please contact me at anytime for any reason. You can't possible bug me enough. Even if you think it's minor and the 1000th time you've asked me the same question already on the same day, please ask if you are confused or need help. If I don't know the answer, I know people who will. I look forward to working with you. --MECU≈talk 15:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're having edit wars already, but it seems everyone goes through this at one point or another, especially if you stick around long enough. Wikipedia has an entire dispute resolution process setup to handle problems. But in general, the first thing you should do it remain calm, at all times. Even when they call your edits bad faith, remain cool. Next, try and talk with the editors on the article pages about the edits and explain to them why you did what you did. However, providing a (good) source is the king to end all arguments. If your edits are adding controversial material, sourcing them will help, as then it's not just your word, it's the source's word. Multiple sources are a bonus. While I don't want to jump into your problem to solve it (I want to help you solve it on your own), I would like to see the disputes going on. If you could please share with me where the problems are occurring, I'd appreciate it. --MECU≈talk 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it us occuring in the Tilman Hausherr article. It is kind of a spill over from another article. It seems two editors, Tilman and Smee, love to argue and accuse. That is basically all I have seem them do. If you need a link let me know. PS: are you in the USA? If so what state? Thanks John196920022001 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the MedCab case so I think I have the general gist. It seems like you referred the issue to admins/mediation which was the right move (as someone else here pointed out). To learn about me, see User:Mecu#Identity. I'd like to point out that while disputes happen quite often, most are able to be talked out between folks. Also, your comments such as "That is basically all I have seem them do." isn't very helpful during tense times and could further alienate the opposition, should they read that. Focus on the issues, and not the users. Following that rule will help you as well. --MECU≈talk 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to assume that other people on here are children (mentally or physically) until you have proof otherwise. People that don't think or read (or mis-read) or have flawed arguments are fairly common, and there are children around here that are allowed and there are people whose whole goal is to cause problems. Most are simple vandals, but there are others who prefer a high form of disruption. Fortunately, they are in the minority (all vandals) by a severe margin. I read just yesterday that 75-85% of IPs do good work. Apply that to the rest of the several thousands that are signed up and it makes it a lot easier to WP:AGF. Anyways, I don't think you should withdraw from the medcab case. Maybe take a day or two off (and state so). It's perfectly acceptable to take a short break from problems: It's even stated at WP:DR. If you are serious about withdrawing, you should first propose to go to Formal Mediation. --MECU≈talk 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal case

I'm not sure if there was anything specific that you wanted me to look at. The only comments I have are that there is some poor and confusing English going on at the end of that section and that you can't claim you talked to the article subject and push that into the article, that counts as original research. You could have the subject post on a website or blog that he maintains or even come here and post in the talk page perhaps, but, as right as you may be, there's nothing to support your claim. I have no reason to doubt you, but all items needs to be sourced. If there was something more specific you wanted me to comment about, please let me know. I also don't feel right having a discussion about this is any less private manner than this, except perhaps on IRC, so I apologize if you wanted a reply from me in a more private manner. I'm glad to see you sticking around and working with the issues though. Wikipedia and the world are better off for it. MECU≈talk 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the research citation should be the answer then. If it's something that could be considered both ways (despite your emails), you should present both ways in the article and the reader can then make up their mind. I agree with the wishy-washy, but without clear citations to state either way, as appears to not exist here, then this is the best I can think of. Keep looking for more evidence, and perhaps in 6 months or so you'll find it. The article will still be there. MECU≈talk 15:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

If your problems are that serious with the other editors, you may find it useful to collect the evidence of their incivility or other policy violations. You must be clear in what exactly they are doing wrong in plain concise language and provide diffs for proof of those actions. You could report them to the appropriate noticeboard with that evidence. If necessary, you could also file an RfC to review individual editor's behaviour. If you have any questions or further concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana 05:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ending mediation

Are you sure you wish to withdraw from the mediation case? Would any kind of truce or agreement between the participants help resolve your concerns? Vassyana 05:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A truce has been proposed to keep mediation going and on track. Please review the truce and comment, accept or reject as appropriate. Vassyana 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for signing on to the truce. I sincerely hope it will allow us to move forward and build good faith. Please review your draft proposal sandbox on the case page and update it if necessary. Vassyana 13:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copyright issues

Actually, it's the reverse: Those pages copied us! If you look at the bottom of those pages, you'll see something like "Information from Wikipedia, licensed under the GFDL license." Which is cool: They copy us because we're free, but give us the credit we deserve (and are legally required to do per the license). I ran into the same mistake, thinking we copied them, but that just isn't possible. These sites are well known to copy our stuff. However, I did find a site that copied an article I wrote verbatim, and we do have a procedure for that, if you ever encounter such an issue. Basically, I sent an "official" take-down notice to them to re-write the page or give us credit and comply with our license terms. 2 weeks later, they re-wrote their own article. MECU≈talk 12:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trip

Be safe on the road! Drop a line when you return. I hope you have a good time. Be well! Vassyana 08:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

smee

I'm a new wikipedian and also encountered smee's revert tactics. At the moment she has promised to stop reverting, however the more I read the more I find that she is involved in reverting and warring with quite a few people.

If you're still having problems with her, you might be interested in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Justanother/Smee_%28formerly_Smeelgova%29

Best of luck to you, Lsi john 13:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you are a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Occult

I saw that you are a member of Wikiproject Occult; would you like to participate in my new Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah? I would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Lighthead 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Lighthead 00:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deo Volente

Hi John196920022001, can you help me? You stated that you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Is the Nazi Videos still available or not? Because when I order this book, our branch office tell that this video isn't available. Thanks. JBÜ. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually not sure. It's been years since I ordered it. Sorry about that

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JW

Dear John I am writting an article for a personal Interfaith Publication of mine and I heard that you where once a Jehovah's Wittness, is this true? If so, I am writting an article on them called "Jehovah's Witnesses: An Insiders Story", and may I ask why you left the faith? I myself have studied with them for two years, but I am learning towards the United Church of God Thank you.--Greenwood1010 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your entry

From the talk page of Cult apologist:

I would like to thank whoever got that Wikipedia article me removed. Since I am apparently now under attack I am going to post my CV on my user page so members can verify some of the items that were called into question in that article. I suspect this is not the last time a member will attempt this.John196920022001 (talk)

I tagged it with a speedy delete since it was pretty clearly an attack page. I'm not sure what admin deleted it. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be deleted

HELP. This article to be deleted in id.wiki. Can you help me to SAY KEEP in its Talk page, in Indonesia Wikipedia. I don't know why they don't appreciate Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, and Assembly. Thanks for your support. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses project

I have started a discussion regarding the content wikipedia has regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Comments regarding template and project. Seeing that you are listed as a member of that project, I would appreciate any responses to the material there you would like to make. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Shining as Illuminators in the World

I have nominated Shining as Illuminators in the World, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shining as Illuminators in the World. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to participate in University of Washington survey on tool to quickly understand Wikipedians' reputations

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal was to gather feedback to help design a tool that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)

We are particularly interested in feedback from new editors! We want to make sure this tool meets your needs.

Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about our research or research group, please visit our user page. Commprac01 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Additional details about our research group are available here.