User talk:John5Russell3Finley/Archive 1

John5Russell3Finley blocked from editing Bernat of Septimania

Hello, 1) Please state exact reason for me being blocked, the generic page answer to the question is completely useless to me. 2) You folks wanted Bernat cleaned up, well, I was cleaning him up, he is my ancestor, I don't know if he is your ancestor, but I take a certain interest in mine, and you folks wanted him cleaned up and I was doing that. It takes a while to, as some one else stated in the talk section the English was very bad in places. It takes a while to sort it out, especially if one is unsure what is being said. However I have a BA in History, and have spent some time studying this period, so I feel confident that the changes I was making made sense. 3)Unless you have a very good reason for blocking me I expect an appolgy John5Russell3Finley 03:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block you, although I did block User:Joe Finnes and User:George Walaby recently, and you may be a victim of autoblock. Do you have dynamic IP or maybe someone else used your computer? Please paste the block message. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 03:30Z

1) I do not know what dynamic IP is, so if it is important to this process please provide explanation of dynamic IP.

2) I am the only person who uses the computer that I used to make the post(I have several computers here, and this wasn't the one I used to make the post, this is another computer that I use for special purposes), other people use my email address, though I don't know of anyone using it other than me recently.

3)If relevant please provide explanation of Autoblock

John5Russell3Finley 04:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you paste the message you see when you try to edit? Why did you think I blocked you? Is there anyone at your location that may have used Wikipedia recently (even a different computer, but sharing the same internet service provider)? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 05:08Z

See Wikipedia:Autoblock for information about autoblocks. If you have dynamic IP, simply disconnecting and reconnecting to the Internet would move out of the autoblock. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 05:16Z

OK, I will give this a bit of time and space, as I only do this stuff every so often. This sounds like maybe there may be something going on that I don't grasp and for which you are not responsible. If it persists I will let you know (right now I'm on my graphics computer which I don't usually use for general surfing and research so I'm just a bit hesitant to risk much cut and paste). The way I got your ref was that when I was attempting to do a little cleanup on Bernat's biog I saved the changes (about 3 changes of words-from to of sort of stuff {I figure that what ever language Bernat's biog was written in that maybe the translator program may have some trouble with English ? especially translating articles ? I've successfully cleaned up several of these biogs before, though I'm unsure what language it was though I suspect-from what little skill I have with that particular language that it was spanish}, deleated perhaps 2 words and divided a paragraph into 2 paragraphs) then after I previewed it I tried to save it and got the MSG that I was blocked from changing anything due to vandalism etc listing you as the source of the block, with a link to a page of general definitions and explanations. One possible thing is that I may have tripped over a rule while editing one of my own talk entries (which I had several minutes previously editted to remove some excuses that I no longer thought relevant) and one thought I had in the back of my mind was that I may have tripped over one one of your rules, however it was me editing my own words and making them less offensive (even though the only insult would have been to me personally). The MSG said that it was a 24 hour block, so if I have more problems it will be (some time from now likely more than 24 hours) while I'm on my general use computer, and I'll go the full 9 yards with it, hope it's just a glitch. If you have any further insights I would like to hear them. One thing may be that I am on aol, and I have read that this ISP has troubles with Wikipedia. Happy 4th of July64.12.116.197 07:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John5Russell3Finley, okay, that definitely explains it then (that you use AOL - nothing to do with editing your own talk entries). The Wikipedia:Autoblock page explains why AOL has problems with Wikipedia - basically kids messing with pages that get blocked; the only way to identify them is by IP address; but AOL recycles IP addresses quickly. I have unblocked your IP 64.12.116.197 - it may have already changed since you were blocked the first time. I apologize for the collatoral damage - unfortunately it's possible you'll encounter something like this again via AOL. (The reason I was originally suspicious was the similarity between your username and that of one of the vandals I blocked.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 07:35Z

Welcome!

Hello, John5Russell3Finley/Archive 1, 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:Where to ask a question, 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! —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martine Croxall

Hi John5Russell3Finley ( is there a shorter name I could refer to you by? :) ). The problem I found with the article was that at certain points it began to lean from being a biography towards being a bit of a worshipping article instead. What I've learnt at the BBC is that impartiality is everything, and even in a biographical article about a newsreader, even one you find attractive as you seem to. I have come into contact with Martine Croxall myself many times working (almost) alongside her but I won't be mentioning the article so for the time being there is no need to worry.

With several comments I found you had entered into the article, these would be much better off on the article talk page since they refer to, for example, the lack of decent images available of Martine Croxall which can qualify for fair use on Wikipedia. The problem with fair use images is that they are not meant to be crystal clear in quality, but decent enough to allow for identification of the subject. Based on that criteria, the image I have uploaded for the article is more than adequate, though I will seek to update it as and when newer images become available via my website of choice for such images: TV Newsroom.

I hope you did not take offence as a result of my changes to the article and that we can work together to ensure more people hear about Martine Croxall, the "info babe" herself, as you wish. :)

Wikiwoohoo 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russ,

I saw your previous edits to my talk page so I'll answer those as well as the most recent.

You can call me Wikiwoohoo or Grant if you wish, however, can I make it clear that I'm not a celebrity, I'm a news journalist rather than news presenter so you will have never seen me on television, though I have the relevant qualifications to be well equipped to do so. Think of it as this way: I contribute to what you see between the countdowns and programme titles.

With Martine Croxall and Alastair Yates, both are relief presenters, they do not have their own defined time slot to present. As with that, there is a large pool of presenters, that can be picked as and when they are available, which is why you can go for so long without seeing certain presenters. Don't worry, he hasn't left us yet!

Karin Giannone is the correct spelling for her name, tough spelling, don't worry, you aren't alone in struggling with that one.

To be continued...

Current discussion v.a.v. BBC etc.

Personally in my case this discussion is done, if anything else is bothering anybody, "ghost posts" which though not per se a bad thing result in this case from my deciding that just maybe what I had said was not really all that useful, and that just maybe it ought not to be there.John5Russell3Finley 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts

You left a message on my talk page about a month ago. I apologize for not replying sooner, but I've not been around. (Boring real-life stuff.)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, no one, not even the BBC, has "control" of the articles here. If you're involved in an edit war I suggest you get some advice from some of the more veteran Wikipedians. I've not been around, so I don't have any names to throw out. Check out the information on resolving conflicts at [Wikipedia:Community_Portal#Departments], especially on getting help.

I hope that's helpful. I'm sorry I haven't been more active. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sorry not to be replying earlier, me too with the real world stuff, I guess that the "edit war" was a while ago, and well, I guess I like Martine Croxall and Wikipedia too much to have let the Wikiwoohoo edit stuff drag me and etc down into a conflict, I guess I've gotten over that kind of stuff, when I was doing genealogy I got into some stuff like that, and it doesn't help anybody at all, and it does kind of mar what you are working on which I guess can ruin the thing for the folks you are actually trying to reach. I guess that my posting was more of a heads up than anything else, like maybe this is something to be watching for in case it happens to other contributors. The BBC is not per se a bad thing, but if it gets repressive, well, maybe folks need to be watching for that sort of stuff. Thanks for the reply, John5Russell3Finley 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, how is everything? I just noticed that you mention something about an edit conflict with me over the Martine Croxall article and was wondering what this could have been about. If you could let me know that would be great. Cheers. Wikiwoohoo 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van Horne

Sir, the changes were in no way vandalism, and in fact were made to be much more consistent with other similar military biographical articles. You have the right to undo my edits, which I think were a significant improvement in style (and corrected some minor mistakes), but do not label my well intended changes as vandalism. I have edited hundreds and hundreds of military articles and resent the implication, sir. No vandalism intended, jusy one veteran military editor's opinion that this article needed some rework to make it better. I will stay with editing Civil War articles, where the style guide is well established and formally agreed to (WP:ACW). Regards! 8th Ohio Volunteers 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently someone has added a template to the discussion section of the article on Gen. Isaac Van Horne claiming that it is under the authority of certain folks. Having grown up with the stories of Gen. Van Horne, I think he is an Ohio Politician and am quite sure that he is a Pennsylvania Politician, and I edited the article to have it conform more closely to the format of the then existing articles about his Military experience Politician Ohio-NorthWestTerritory resident contemporaries. The War of 1812 is a thing in Ohio that has a distinct identity with its own people, and deserves its own grouping (if necessary you can group it with residents of Michigan etal. parts of the old NWT). The above individual (viz: 8th Ohio Volunteers) couldn't spell and his prose was barely readable, and I removed some (but not all) of his additions because of that, and because his phrasing begged questions that I couldn't just answer through adding more info. I couldn't just rewrite his rewrite and add the stuff he forced to have added and still have it make sense so I reverted it. The current formating allows additions without making too much trouble about it. Whereas prose with no headings if done badly can make adding more info more difficult. As a minimum: If you're gonna redo it please spell correctly, as too many of this fine man's other monuments have been mangled recently. John5Russell3Finley 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of History of West Eurasia

An article that you have been involved in editing, History of West Eurasia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of West Eurasia. Thank you.

Deleted Message

I've deleted my message to you about the hist WE vote because if I read things right it may be not okay for me to write to people voting. So can I please ask you not to check the history file until after the vote is closed. Sorry about that. Dejvid 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Neukom

Can you add some citations and a stub template to this article? It's liable to get deleted if you don't.--Dr who1975 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for my reply see the discussion page of Dr who1975 John5Russell3Finley 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion area before my initial post. You simply ask people to add "more". How does that change any of my comments which center around citing and securing the informationm you have already put there? You accused me of deleting the article but it has not been deleted and I was never threatening to do so. I will go ahead and add the stub template and citations for you. These are easy things to do that you can learn simply by looking at othe arrticles in wikipedia (or politely asking another wikipedian who leaves a constructive message about these things in your discussion area). I will let you know once i have done so so you can look at my changes so that, in the future, you can do these things too.--Dr who1975 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've wikified the stub... please take a moment to reveiw my changes as these are all elements you could've added to the article. If you feel there are any further improvements to be made to the article. Please feel free to be bold and do so.--Dr who1975 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It is good that you added this page. I hope our exchange here hasn't soured you on contributing to wikipedia. My goal here was to show some other things you're going to want to add when you create a new article.--Dr who1975 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the style tag to the article. User:W.marsh did. If you click the history and do a diff you can see who added what. I was trying to explain to you why I thought he added it and reassure you it wasn't a slight but I see no good deed goes unpunished.thanks.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relax.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comments about a presidential candidate

in or about sentance 3 of the specified section of the article it states: "he ties his maternal family history to possible Native American ancestors and distant relatives of Jefferson Davis, president of the southern Confederacy during the American Civil War"

OK, the article makes a claim about the subject's family. The claim deals with people who were living about or before the time frame in which the people I specified were living. Therefore the idea of antiquity as a reason for not including the information I suggest would seem to be silly, moot ?, or just plain invalid.

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successor account

John Russ Finley (talk · contribs · count), currently blocked for trolling. See [1].

See discussion here. [2] Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kohs, the puppetmaster responsible, has bragged on WR that he stole the name as a "cover" - I suspect he chose to impersonate this user given his prior activity at History of western Eurasia plus his inactivity, and I don't think John5Russell3Finley is responsible. krimpet ✽ 04:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Russ Finley ????

wow...I certainly did not expect that me taking a break during the BOB election silliness was gonna have this sort of result...not a clue here on my part...I think I do have a valid reason for not spending any time here while the election is having the impact it seems to be having here...not a chance that I can support somebody stealing my identity and forging a fake user page though... I will be patrolling here until this thing gets fixed, but the silliness with BOB has left me a bit less than happy, so don't expect me to have a lot of willingness to do much, but I will be around again for a while, at least until this thing gets cleared up, John5Russell3Finley (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's not your fault. :/ Greg Kohs is a notorious banned user who loves to disrupt like a 12-year-old, though he's really hit new lows this time by impersonating an innocent user. It's over and he's blocked again, and his actions will not be taken against you. :) krimpet ✽ 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio govs

I think I've done just that, let me know. --Golbez (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cats

It is because he is in two categories which are sub-cats of Category:Members of the Ohio General Assembly, in turn a sub category of the Ohio Politicians one. A general rule (but not always), having people in the more general categories is counter-productive - sein gthe wood for the trees. For example he could also be in "State legislators of the United States" "Legislators in the United States " "State political office-holders in the United States" "State legislatures of the United States" "Subnational legislators" "Political office-holders in the United States" "American politicians" "Politicians of North American nations" "American political people" "American people " etc....

Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Where is the list of American representatives to Chile? Or is it a category? Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

SWT

Re: the SWT controversey:

Attempts to erase this from your user history will be vigorously opposed. You will have to live with the reputation you earned, just like everyone else. --TEHodson 10:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The instant section has been archived. It was never removed from history. The above critic has had a usage long history of hostile posting and editing of my (and other people's)contributions. A group has formed with him whose edits have been of hostile effect, reguardless of their intent. All friendly aproaches on my part have been rebuffed with predjucice. Further postings to this talk page from TEHodson, John Carter, Princess of___, or any other members of the group who harassed my in my position as coordinator of Salem Witch Trials Task Force or other wikivenues may at my option be deamed wiki harassment and will be treated accordingly I will report this incident to any appropriate authority as they become willing and as I become able to do so John5Russell3Finley (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discusion

Please be advised a discussion regarding your conduct is now taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Salem Witch Trials Task Force, and feel free to make any reasonable comments there. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I believe I have a right to tell you explicitly that clearly incendiary comments as you have posted on my talk page are not welcome, and I explicitly request that you not post there again. If you have complaints about my conduct, or that of others, please feel free to post them at the appropriate noticeboard. Also, I find your clearly self-serving language on the Salem Witch Trials talk page very amusing. You state that you are not being allowed to do your work, but you have presented no evidence o how you are being kept from doing anything. Your list of recent contributions here does I believe, certainly not lead one to think that you have been devoting much recent time to that content. So far as I can see, no one has in any way kept you from developing content, except for the brief time you were blocked after making apparently unsupported allegations regarding the conduct of others. I have advised you before that you are as obligated as anyone else to follow WP:NPA, WP:TPG, and all the other conduct guidelines of editors of wikipedia. It seems that you may not have taken them seriously before, so I am once again advising you to both read and follow them. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you had already been t0old to stay off my userpage. You do not have the right to continue to post your irrational comments there. Please learn to abide by at least basic conduct guidelines, which can be found at WP:PG. And, once again, please refrain from further posting on my user talk page. Also, I am far from sure exactly where this "attack" you referred to took place. Also, whether you personally believe it or not, you are also obliged to abide by WP:POV, considering you have made numerous posts which make it quite clear that you are personally driven by a personal opinion regarding the matter of the Salem Witch Trials. If you wish to continue this conversation, please reply here, and, once again, not upon my user talk page. Thank you in advance for finally acting in accord with the wishes of others. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misfiled statement

Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse#help please were of a nature which indicated that they were more appropriate to WP:AN/I#Misfiled statement. On that basis, I have made a link on the latter page to the comments you made, and my reply, at the first location. Also, you probably should know that basic civility, and the ANI guidelines, indicate people who file such complaints should at least notify the subjects of such complaints. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#help_please

Regarding the above thread at WP:ANI, please read and take careful note of the comments there. I believe your editing in relation to the Salem Witch Trials task force and related articles is a cause for concern, perhaps as a result of your apparent misunderstanding of a number of Wikipedia content and user conduct policies.

Firstly, belonging to a task force or WikiProject gives you absolutely no authority over article content. It's merely a way to indicate your area of interest and perhaps find similarly interested editors for collaborative work. Suggesting otherwise to other editors, or displaying signs of article ownership, is strictly against site policy.

Secondly, viewing Wikipedia as a means of promoting an ideological agenda is also very much against site policy. Your personal views seem to have led you treat Wikipedia as a battleground on more than one occasion, to the extent that you've resisted perfectly good edits for no policy-based reason, mislabelled edits as "vandalism" (which has a very specific definition on Wikipedia), attacked other editors while being over-sensitive to their communications with you, and made it difficult for other editors to work in your chosen area. If you find yourself unable to take a detached view of a subject area you should probably not be editing in that area. This is particularly serious; if it's not something you can do voluntarily, eventually the decision will be taken out of your hands.

Finally, although you can always ask other editors not to post to your talk page, doing so largely because you object to the valid concerns they've raised is not acceptable. Complaining of harassment under those circumstances comes across as more like an attempt to evade scrutiny.

Please take the time to read and understand the various policies I've linked here and at ANI, and hopefully we can avoid a recurrence of any problems in future. Thank you, EyeSerene^talk 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response on my talk page. However I found it little confusing. You seem to be saying that you have your Wikipedia preferences set to notify you by email of updates to your talk page, but have given your mother's email address as the contact? While I have no wish to cause anyone upset, your preference settings are not something that I could be aware of or have any control over. If email notifications are causing you annoyance I can only suggest that you alter your preference settings. As the primary means we have of communicating with each other, using talk pages is not something that can be avoided.

Of more concern are your mentions of negligence and unspoken consequences should you or your mother be "bothered". This is not a road you should go down if you wish to remain active on Wikipedia. Although you're on thin ice you haven't crossed any lines yet, but making even veiled threats—especially if they can be perceived as legal threats—will result in your account being indefinitely blocked until they are withdrawn or any legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation or its editors is resolved.

I'm disappointed that you've not addressed any of the issues I raised in my earlier post. Those aren't going to go away, but I'm still hopeful that by making more effort to comply with site policy you can edit in a more collegial and collaborative manner in future. EyeSerene^talk 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi. I noticed that you deleted a post I had made to AN/I, without comment. I reverted it, and assume it was just an accident, but thought I would mention it here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]