User talk:John5Russell3Finley/Archive SWT
A tag has been placed on Edward Bishop (of Salem MA in 1692), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Finngall 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about other editors here, but I have yet to acquire psychic abilities. I can only judge an article based on what's there, not on what's going to be there. Place a {{hangon}} tag on the article for now, and add content as appropriate. In the future, I suggest creating a subpage of your userpage, creating the article there, and moving the finished result over to the actual article page. Finngall 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've deleted the speedy delete tag. Seems to me like the title could be tightened up, but that can be handled by a copy and a redirect. Thank you for your time. Finngall 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Taskforce
[edit]
|
You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem Witch Trials. Join us! |
Psdubow 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Possibly blocked
[edit]Hi John. From reviewing your talk page there may be other users on your network who are causing problems. If this happens again please copy the unblock details here, or if you prefer you can email me this information. My address is listed on my user page. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Bishop Edits
[edit]Thanks for all the cleanup edits on the Bishops, the Salem project is shaping up quite nicely. Hopefully people will be able to read these articles and be informed of more of the truth of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Bishop (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
SWTTF Newsletter
[edit]
 Volume I, September 2007 | |
|
This is are first newsletter, and because of me its a day late. This first issue was not very well announced (which is probably also my fault :D), but for the next issue we encourage everyone to help write it. Also for the first time I delivered the newsletter personally, but for the future Grafikbot or betacommandbot hopefully will be doing this automatically. So please place your self in the right place here. And last but not least please be bold in your editing. Happy Editing! Yamaka122 ...:) 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 10 – November 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! |
|
Articles Needing Attention
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
| |
| |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. -- At this point we seem to have got some sourness occurring[edit]Salem Witch Trials Task Force banner[edit]You should note that the Christianity banner includes material permitting assessment for the Witch Trials Task force, and even in the banner itself I think an indication that the task force is related. It is generally quite common to remove banners of projects or groups which have demonstrated little if any recent activity, and the Witch Trials Task Force has shown very little activity of late, which even calls into question whether there actually are any people who are actively addressing that content. One person does not make a project. And, of course, the articles are also relevant to the subject of Christianity, so it makes sense that the content be assessed for that subject as well. If both groups can be accomodated by one banner, then I think the consensus opinion is that the one banner capable of doing that should be used, to reduce the amount of talk page clutter from banners. Particularly considering that group has demonstrated little if any recent activity, consolidation of banners made sense. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Hello, I have removed your edits to WP:AIV[1] because your report is not within that scope of the noticeboard. Please consider making your report at WP:AN/I. —DoRD (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Earth Day 2010[edit]It is fitting that on this the 40th Anniversary of our Newest Neopagan Holiday that we here remember those whose deaths to such a great degree resulted in The United States of America not having a State Religion: Bridget Bishop · George Burroughs · Martha Carrier · Martha Corey · Mary Eastey · Sarah Good · Elizabeth Howe · George Jacobs, Sr. · Susannah Martin · Rebecca Nurse · Alice Parker · Mary Parker · John Proctor · Ann Pudeator · Wilmot Redd · Margaret Scott · Samuel Wardwell · Sarah Wildes · John Willard· Giles Corey Perhaps few of them would be happy at having a pentagram attached to their biography. My thought was that the Pentagram was more a sign of a greatful group showing its appreciation for their sacrifice, than any sort of coopting of them as founders as has so often seemed the case in much of the modern media especially on TV. My own personal feeling is that the cross and a designation of this as a feature of Calvinist religion just didn't fit the facts enough to be more than a foot note somewhere, and that perhaps including them in the Christianity group was even insulting to these matryrs-albeit unwilling ones "to religious freedom". John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Discuss the contributions and not the contributors[edit]
Betty Parris[edit]Appearances in fiction
In the play The Crucible, the character of Betty has very few lines in the play, and most are in the first act. In the book Gallows Hill by Lois Duncan, the main character, Sarah Zoltanne, realizes that she was Betty Parris in a former life after having several dreams and visions, viewed from Betty's perspective. The preceding is part of the text of the Wikipedia Article Betty Parris. My thoughts here are really very few: 1) Her name is Elizabeth, why not use that name ? Bettee is an actual New England First Name from that time period. Her name was Elizabeth, why not use it and avoid the confusion ? 2) My understanding is that if you link a copy of the text on the web that it is a fully adequate means of providing a citation. I.e. it provides adequate reference to the fact that the text exists in real life and it is not neccessary to find a source stating that the thing exists and provide a cite for it. 3) The term original research is kind of a flexible thing, and I find it's invocation in the instant case to be highly suspect. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a prime example of what happens when you put people in charge who are less familiar with print media than they are with programming. I would suggest that if we are actually writing an encyclopedia here that some folks who know about how to structure a bibliography should replace people who prefer to citicise, and argue. Placement of tags should not supplant the actual work of writing an encyclopedia. I asked for a bit of time and space to edit the article and this was denied me by N2e who simply kept attacking. The status quo is the reason we have lost so many capable editors and contributors. You do not encourage people to write and edit articles when all you do is zip around placing citicism tags, and error messages, and ignoring the people who are actually doing the real work when they ask you to back off. BE ADVISED !: if you were part of this little trouble, and you have placed a watch on this page then do not expect that you are not inclined to continue fighting about this. I have not placed a watch on anyone's discussion page, and am simply stating the facts here for the use of anyone else who may actually be watching. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
"Asking for trouble"?[edit]I have no idea what you mean by this. People may come to the link WP:SWT trying to find the guideline about the use of the acronym on Wikipedia (usually to point other new editors to), and the hatnote helps them find it. Removing it just makes everyone's lives more difficult. cab (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Assume good faith[edit]
Your "job" here?[edit]Hi. You just left a message for me saying you reverted my edits on the Salem Witchcraft Trials page, saying: "I am not opposed to anyone improving the instant article, it is my job here to facilitate that..." This message has me confused. Are you in some way in charge of this page? Do all changes need to be approved by you, rather than be simply made by any other Wiki editor? What do you mean by "it is my job?" Are you a paid Wiki editor? I don't understand. Please clarify. Thank you. TEHodson 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEHodson (talk • contribs)
Edward Bishop (Salem)[edit]Edward Bishop (Salem) has been tagged for cleanup since 2007. As part of cleanup (which I did not feel reached a point sufficient to remove the cleanup tag) I merged some very short paragraphs, expanded the abbreviation MA, changed a vertical list to a comma-ed list and added a link. We may need to separate some of the paragraphs again if I combined paragraphs on different subjects but my policy remaisn to avoid paragraphs of just one sentence. I will likely look at it again eventually if it remains tagged for cleanup but I don't anticipate making any major changes to that article in the near future. RJFJR (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Quot of your comment copied from my talk page: Re: your comment, how's about if YOU finnish editing the article up to the point where YOU can remove the cleanup tag all by yourself, failing that I will treat your actions as vandalism and take the apropriate action John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC) My response: Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you need to expect others will edit articles you are working on. While you may disagree, discuss or even change what I have edited, I stand by the opinion that my edits can be viewed as an improvement to the article. I fully expect that others, including you, will make edits changing what I have done. Wikipedia has a very specific meaning for the word vandalism and you should restrict your use of the word on wikipedia to that meaning. You should also remember the principle of AGF. RJFJR (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Salem witch trials reassessment[edit]Salem witch trials, an article to which you have significantly contributed, is being reassessed. You can see the review here. PrincessofLlyr royal court 21:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Salem Witch Trials Task Force[edit]Sir, your comments here and elsewhere make it very clear to me that there is a very real chance that you have such a pronounced opinion on this subject that you may well qualify as having a conflict of interests as per WP:COI about it. Once again, you arrogantly assumed the worst about others, in clear violation of WP:AGF. If you had bothered to look further, you would have noticed I had not only checked on the recent history of all listed members, and tagged the talk pages of those who have been recently inactive, which is a permissable standard courtesy, to determine if they were or were not recently active, but I also left messages on the talk pages of those editors who have had recent edits that the Salem Witch Trials article is under GA review. Nor is there anything in any policies or guidelines which states as you do that only listed members are permitted to edit pages. You appear to have almost paranoid ideation regarding this topic, as per your comments in various places, and I have to say that they are a very serious cause for concern regarding your ability to edit related articles in an acceptable manner. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC) October 2010[edit]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)
|
|
