User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JohnInDC. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Robert Paulele

John,

Why are you attempting to erase my clients Wikipedia.? He is a notable coach and player that has worked with many Superbowl Champions. Troy Polamalu, Earl Christy, Tom Herter, & Bob Sanders are his high profile players he has either played or coached. Do your homework next time you attempt to delete somebody pedigree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.lane.smww (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did a good bit of work. I took what I could find about the subject (which is not much) and laid it up against the notability requirements of WP:BIO and found it wanting. He had an undistinguished college career, no meaningful professional career, and since then has held a variety of coaching positions. This all falls well short of the kind of specific attention that is required. (The notability of people with whom he has worked, or along side of, is beside the point. Notability doesn't rub off.) I also checked every single external link in the article and removed the ones that were dead ends.

Since you note that he is a client of yours, you probably should look into the page on conflicts of interest. Broadly speaking, it's a bad idea to edit articles about subject with which you have a personal or financial connection. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I gave User:99.112.212.119 an edit warring warning regarding the edits being made to Clathrate gun hypothesis. Thought you should know in case they continue to try to force the changes. demize (t · c) 06:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. He's a serial sockpuppet / vandal - it's been going on for years - and that account is blocked by now. Take a look at User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list for an idea of the scope of the problem. I don't think this fellow holds down a day job, that's for sure! JohnInDC (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Re User_talk:Technicalitycatcher

I'll be editing and eagle-eyeing your contributions and errors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technicalitycatcher (talk • contribs) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll read that as a good-humored, if slightly clumsy jibe and not as a statement of your intention to begin hounding me. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested . . . .

John, I'd like to get your opinion on the revised college football player infobox: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Reminder ping. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Brooklyn

How on EARTH does the November 2005 picture of the Brooklyn Bridge make a better representation of Brooklyn, then a December 2014 aerial picture of the Brooklyn itself?talk→ WPPilot 23:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't hard. The Brooklyn Bridge is an iconic symbol of the borough, instantly recognizable to many people. The prior photo was also very nicely composed and colorful. The aerial photo that you took is, in the size it's presented, nearly featureless; not to mention being sort of brown and colorless, and skewed. The Brooklyn Bridge photo was plainly a superior photo, and on the whole a better representation than the poorly scaled photo you substituted. I've looked at several of your photo contributions and many of them are pretty nice shots, but you might do well to think in each case whether your photo is in fact an improvement over the one that was there. JohnInDC (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue at the article Talk page. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There are several articles, like Central Park, Empire State Building (original image restored), White House (different image now displayed), Washington Monument (which has a Featured Picture I've restored), etc., which have had lead images replaced with ones that are not as good. It's nothing personal, WPPilot. It's just some of your images are not as good as the ones that you're replacing. We should display the best we have to offer, especially on such highly-viewed articles. The reasoning that photos are a couple of years old doesn't matter, IMO. APK whisper in my ear 02:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Even when the photos are no longer accurate and are aged as much as 10 years? You opinion does not take into account the fact that the photos your restoring, no longer represent the subject, i.e. the White House, Central Park, Washington Monument The pic you "like" just like the picture of a bridge, is 10 years old and as such no longer accurate. talk→ WPPilot 03:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If you think a photo has become inaccurate - particularly a photo that has been in place for a long time, and particularly when the photo is a Featured Picture - then raise the issue on the article Talk page to see if you can gain a consensus to change or update it. Also, particularly if your preferred photo is one that you yourself took. Taking these steps will ensure that Wikipedia continues to display the best possible photos available, and will probably reduce the number of times your new photos are quickly swapped back out for the prior version. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Most the time, I do. I have a number of current featured photos myself and am aware of protocol here. With regard to the photo of a bridge representing a city, as the bridge is iconic with the city is not really a valid argument. Wikipedia is not a art display that uses iconic images as the lead image to represent a city, that is really a bad argument, ot that "it has been here a long time so ask first", all due respect but the site evolves with updates, fresh updates at that, not lethargy for pretty icons that to some people provide "symbolism", is that correct.... talk→ WPPilot 03:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably the discussion about the better photograph for Brooklyn should be continued at that Talk page. Meanwhile I do think that Talk discussions before you make these edits, rather than after, is the better course for both you and the encyclopedia. JohnInDC (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln Memorial

Look, you win, I think I am going to retire from the site. I am tired of dealing with idiots. It is no longer worth my time. talk→ WPPilot 02:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time you're being warned about no personal attacks. Keep it up and you'll find yourself blocked. APK whisper in my ear 02:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WPP, when a succession of experienced and respected editors quickly and consistently reverts your (persistent) addition of your own photos, it suggests that perhaps you're the one out of step. But you know better than any of us whether you're capable of doing things differently, so if retirement seems like the only option, I won't try to talk you out of it. JohnInDC (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

BYK has done this to me before. The site has developed a gang type of mentality that is out of control. The conversation was with regard to lead photos. People hold grudges and apply those in a manner that is not justified, and as with the bridge photo, there is no logic whatsoever to a picture of a bridge representing a city as it is ICONIC. I have been belittled enough, and had a slurry of rude comments, as well as a day of my life consumed with BS, and a total lack of reasoning or even a willingness to communicate, everything is done by the sword now, and what your saying is "deal with it". Your unaware of my prior history with the random power logic of BMK, now I have whisper in my ear as a stalker, what's the point, if these two nice fellows are going to dominate the site, why don't you just give it to them? talk→ WPPilot 03:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, when you find yourself in near constant conflict with a series of experienced and - ahem - disinterested editors, it should be a clue. And of course it's hardly just Ken and APK who regard many of your recent edits as poorly-considered. The truth - from where I stand - is that you seem to be more interested in populating the site with your own photos than you are in improving the encyclopedia. As long as that's your approach, you're going to encounter friction and frustration; and if you can't get past that mindset, then retirement is indeed the most appropriate decision for you. JohnInDC (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

My photos are a partial contribution, but as far as the aerial ones I know of no other user that contributes as much valuable aerial stock, as I do. Any one is welcome to review my editorial contributions, and or visit one of the many pages here that I have authored. With a 30 year legal background my insight and composure is most of the time well within the limitations of any well rounded contributor. Photographs tell a million words. Not one of my critics has the type of historic contributions, in photography that I do, so it is hard to take lip from a amateur photographer that has a 200 dollar point and shoot. It cost me more then that for the plane today for a hour, but that is not the point. Contributions and ALL of them should be vetted in some way. The editors mentioned here are well know on both Wiki (EN) and wiki commons s abrasive and each tend to dominate topics and rally others to quickly gain a 30 minute consensus then execute the summary judgment, and take the knife to the victim right on the spot. In law that is referred to as a kangaroo court and I see it all too often here, but what is funny is that the same users do it over and over again. Yes I am a photographer. I am not a clinical research specialist or a student with time on his hands. Every time I have replaced a photo, I have taken the time to research the page, and its contents, as well as the dated, the file size, image quality and the originality of what I am going to contribute, and weigh each of those factors in before I place a photo on a page. As for years I have participated in the Featured Photo Program, it has been helpful to try to learn the "drift" of the editors that contribute as the users seem to come and go, and a few of the photographers that do contribute has a great deal of talent, yet those persons are never involved in these mini wars, that the above mentioned users like to use to dominate pages here. There is a flaw in this site that could be a fatal flaw, if the users keep vanishing and others are continued to be dissuaded from contributing as it requires steel skin and a willingness to take on people whom are known to be abusive. talk→ WPPilot 04:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, throw me in with the dilettantes then. In my untutored opinion, your credentials and careful selection notwithstanding, many of your recent substitutions have been markedly inferior to the photos they replaced, degrading rather than improving the article at hand; and your reasons for including them often are no better than makeweights (most frequently, that your photo is "more up to date"). Indeed in that regard it is telling that no other editor ever seems to weigh in in your favor in these contested edits. As I said above, it looks to me like you (often) prefer your photos simply because they're yours; in several cases I can't see any other explanation. JohnInDC (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes when a censuses is reached with 2 people over a hour, it is hard to get others to weigh in, as the consideration is over before it really starts. In the real world a valid censuses takes some time, and the witch hunt that took place over the last few days was done at such a frantic pace that defending or even posting my perspective was fruitless, as the kangaroo court was already in full swing and a hour later, the end result was posted. That is a mockery, not a equitable court of censuses that the real world works from, that is in fact a Kangaroo court. These same user's run in packs. I have seen this before here, and I know, unconditionally that it is the main cause for the loss of contributors the site has seen over the last few years. Keep up the good work! talk→ WPPilot 04:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That is only a problem because you insist on editing first and Talking later. If you were to propose a new photo, along with sound reasons for inclusion, you would have days for consensus to develop. Instant and reflexive opposition by one or two editors wouldn't matter a fig. JohnInDC (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to add that, the claims you make on behalf of your own photos would go down a lot easier - at least with me - if your private commercial web site didn't link straight back to your Wikipedia user page like some kind of adjunct CV. Ego and pride are one thing; (apparently) leveraging your Wikipedia contributions to enhance your business is another. JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? You are so incorrect. Most the time, before I edit any page or consider contributing to it, I put a notice, on the talk page in the hopes that someone will respond. I, on the white house page noted that I was going to replace the photo in the security section, and when a witch hunt is underway, there is no way I can even contribute to the site, as everything that I place, regardless of what it is now is removed, at once by BMK within seconds. Regarding the Wiki logo on the old photo site from 2008, I, about 3 days ago, in the effort to direct my 74 year old mother I placed the Wikipedia logo, on my photography site as she had a link in her computer favorites to the page. It is gone now. I have not made a penny from photography in years, do not need to. It is now, something that is a part of my video production services, just a small part really, but it is a hobby that I have undertaken for my photography efforts anymore. I do get royalty checks from Getty but other then that, I am semi retired. Your comment "you would have days for consensus to develop" how, BMK & APK are hard pressed to make sure I have no ability to contribute to the site. I tried yesterday and BMK par for his game, reverted my controls within a minute or two. A consensus is never allowed to develop BMK goes in, dominates the topic laces it with comments that taint the viewers vote and closes the consensus in about a hour or less, then posts his winner. It happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Each time that I rent a airplane, and take photographs, it is costly. FYI I have NEVER sold a aerial photograph, for a penny. I spend good money to create visual images that are unique and compelling for viewers, at my own expense for Wikipedia. Aerial photography is PUBLIC DOMAIN by virtue of Law. (the space above you is considered public space as such photos are public domain. I have never asked or offered to be paid for my aerial photos or anything that I contributed here. No self promotion, if you only really knew. That site you found (https://web.archive.org/web/20130110132304/http://don.logan.com/) was from 2008 when I worked for Getty Images. As you see in the wayback, the Wiki logo was not on it just 2 days ago, nor is it on the page, now...Use the way back and you will see the site has not changed for 8 years. talk→ WPPilot 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If you propose an edit on Talk before you make the edit, then there is nothing to revert before consensus is reached. So if your common experience is that your edits are being reverted following only a brief discussion on the Talk page, you are leading with the edits. Indeed your edit history belies the claim that you go to Talk first, ”most of the time”. In each recent case below, you changed the lead or infobox photo, and engaged on the Talk page (if at all) only after your changes were undone by other editors:

Staten Island Ferry Whitehall Terminal

Manhattan

Jersey City, New Jersey

You are having pretty consistent run-ins with a variety of other editors about your edits and edit style – not just Ken and APK, of whom you have been recently complaining, but Epicgenius, NeilN, Castncoot to name three more from just the past 2 weeks; plus, I guess, me. I have said it before but it doesn’t seem to be sinking in: If you have so much trouble with so many editors – and so few coming to your defense - then you should consider that perhaps you are the one going about things the wrong way, and not them. Food for thought, eh?

(Incidentally, the Wikipedia logo and link are still on the “About”, aka “Resumé” page of your web site.) JohnInDC (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

http://don.logan.com/aboutus.htm

Nope your incorrect, it must have been in your browser, as the time stamps on the html file show it was removed a while ago. I was replying to your comment and, thanks to the nice users you mention: Ken and APK, Epicgenius, NeilN, Castncoot, I will not be donating photos to the site in the future, so this is no longer an issue, is it. You can all be proud of yourselves, as you have done a great job improving Wikipedia. Thank you! talk→ WPPilot 04:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You have said several different things on that score in the past 36 or so hours so it will be interesting to see what you finally wind up doing. JohnInDC (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

2 weeks of interactions summarizes my 5 years of contributions. Interesting. I do not like thugs. BMK and APK are just that, in the style of editing that each chooses to use. Both are keen on the rules, as long as the rule at that moment applies to them, I.E. Be Bold allows BMK to change any photo he wants and allows him, to craft in moments a consensus, with his posse behind him. What I found amusing about that user is his ref to WP:DIVA, yet when you read DIVA, it really sounds a lot like how he handles himself here. His POV is the ONLY POV that matters and his passive aggressive POV pushing, dominates the topics he edits, and the user refuses to obtain unbiased comments from others as was noted in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJersey_City%2C_New_Jersey&diff=641043036&oldid=641042701 Beyond My Ken, pretends to want others to offer insight as long as he can posture his POV by dissuading from voting on anything I contribute, and talking himself into thinking that other support his POV, 5 minutes later then just executing the edit. That is not a consensus, that is a dictator and abusive way to control and dominate anything he decides to Dominate. Epicgenius, NeilN, Castncoot, are followers for the most part. I think it is really funny that Epicgenius was the one that selected the Manhattan photo for the lead on that page, then goes back and tells me "do not replace lead photos anymore", but I guess it is still ok for them to do so, without any substantiation of the contributions. I do not think that "Epicgenius" knows what he is doing here yet, and his talk page somewhat supports that assertion. Castncoot like a picture of a bridge for the lead photo of a city, as that bridge is "Iconic" in spite of the fact that icons are not cities, my contribution was to create a page that was about the topic city, not leading with the bridge that gets you there. The photo I changed out was actually the real city, not the bridge going to it. After over 5 years, I have had only a few run ins with other editors. I have hundreds of lead photos and a number of Featured ones too. I have been bold in my editing, as BMK claims that allows him to dominate topics, and 99% of my photos are NEVER removed or replaced until someone decides to go off the deep end, as BMK and APK did here. lastly aerial photography is highly valued and extremely difficult, as the collective combination of skills required is overwhelming at times. No other editor on this site has contributed the type of content that I used to submit. Now that BMK has made it clear that he will stalk my edits and revert any photographic contribution I make, what is the point of continuing other then to just edit stories here, as I have for years and perhaps Wikipedia can one day find another aerial photographer that is willing to donate to the site. We will see. talk→ WPPilot 14:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I only went back two weeks because the pattern was clear and I didn't need a ninth example to make my point. I have no reason to suppose these recent edits are not representative, and in that regard would be interested to see, say, 5 instances where you raised the question of a new photo on the Talk page before making the edit, and BMK and / or APK - or anyone for that matter - forced a fast consensus and prevented the change from taking place. As for your interactions with other editors, there too I only went back a couple of weeks. Looking back further I see a variety of other squabbles like, your filing a meritless COI report, a 3RR report that didn't involve 3 reverts; and a clash with Hijiri 88; and then there is this BLP matter raised concerning your conduct where you denied any conflict of interest despite having already sworn an affidavit on behalf of one of the proposed intervenors in the subject case. As far as I can tell you never acknowledged that COI, and continued to edit the article. Also in the course of this slightly deeper dig I found Santa Ana Mountains, an example from nearly a year ago where you changed the lead photo first, and went to Talk only after BMK (and yet another editor, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, whom you wrongly accused of sockpuppetry) had undone your edit. I know it's not the very best use of my time to dig through page histories like this but I think if we're going to have a productive discussion it helps to be clear on the facts. JohnInDC (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Civil cases

From what I recall the site has a policy that requires more then simple allegations from a civil suit. Anyone can file a civil suit and try to use it to substantiate a claim. IMHO it is irresponsible to quote a "questionable publication" that is willing to go on a persons website, steal a photo of them from that persons website and then use it in the lead of a story that is not that flattering, to me professionally speaking does little to persuade me that publication is a quality publication. Theft of a photo is just that. Taking that into consideration and looking for other sources we do fine this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2902212/Pictured-Mother-three-centre-Prince-Andrew-underage-sex-storm-accused-liar-claiming-slept-royal-American-lawyer.html a story from at least a more reputable publication in the UK that seems to have at least the willingness to provide a lawful copyright notice, in its photos rather then take then and write disparaging comments based upon statements of what looks to me to be rather questionable claims from a Mother of three, in Colorado. As for factually speaking it is also irresponsible to post the claims here, as this person has filed the lawsuit for one reason, "financial gain" prematurely including it as fact here would be irresponsible & potentially labial's to Wiki Org.. It would be a shame for Wikipedia to get dragged into that mess! talk→ WPPilot 04:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source and the allegations described in the article specifically name the subject. The article you substituted doesn't even mention her (at least so far as I could see in a quick perusal). Perhaps I'm wrong but these claims seem to be specific, and reliably sourced, and should remain in the article. I've restored the original cite, as well as the text as it largely existed. We should continue this on the article Talk page if you still disagree. JohnInDC (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue here. JohnInDC (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My issue is that this is really disparaging, in the context that you seem dead set on using it. As a photographer I do not have any respect for publications that simply steal things from people, and that IMHO really demotes the claims. On the other hand I have a lot of respect for my fellow pilots, and she is one of them. Removing the other link, one the provides a dramatic contrast to the story that the guardian is publishing, is irresponsible and biased, as that story had the opposing facts that have caused this to evolve. I am willing to bet you, that if you leave that on her page, she obtains legal assistance and files a defamation suit on Wikipedia. If you really think that it is important to trash her, based upon that story then I guess the site will have to deal with the repercussions. I lived in Boca when this went down and remember it well, no paper in the US ever was foolish enough to accuse her of a crime, as you have here. That is civil slander, in the United States. talk→ WPPilot 14:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea how they came into possession of that photo. Even if they did reprint it without permission, it has nothing to do with the story being reported, and The Guardian remains a reliable source. As far as the claim that no paper published any of this at the time, there were in fact quite a few sources - I listed ABC news at the BLP as one source that named her under her original name, as one of the more reliable ones. It seems to me that the 2006-08 events are pretty clear, and the only question is whether the person described then is this person today. In any case you should take all this up at the BLP link I provided - that's where these issues get hashed out. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So then in spite of the other editors comment that it should not be included, your going to do so anyhow. Irresponsible to a extreme. I am willing to bet you that you get Wikipedia sued. How about one dollar. I bet, one dollar that your contributions get the site sued for liable. Care to take the bet? talk→ WPPilot 15:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. And I'm really not worried about a lawsuit. The information is well and multiply sourced, and published in a country where it's very easy to be sued for libel. Plus of course the libel has to be untrue. What about the statements in the article is untrue? JohnInDC (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

While I do not know how the publication obtained the photo, there is a copyright on it, and it is the main photo on her webpage. Do you really think the Guardian contacted her and said Hi, we are running a story about you, can we use your photo? If that were the case a clear copyright or mark would be on the page, ok but it credits the guardian as the owner of the photo. Do you think that it had a "stock photo" of this girl in a airplane cockpit? That is as ridiculous of a assertion as I have ever heard. I am as was suggested on the BLP board and you have decided to ignore, again remove the disparaging remarks until this story vet's out some, but I will notice the foundation that I think your contribution here cold have a very negative effect on this person, as a whole as well as the site. I have already posted this to the BLP section, and I will e mail them now. The US has some serious laws about defamation, as is noted in the top of the BLP board, I do not think this is proper here at this time. The police report HERE makes no mention of this person at all, and the association is once again unsure, as you mention above, we are not even sure this is the same person. The Smoking Gun is not a reliable source, and if you really want to trash this person with these allegation's, in spite of the BLP's only other comment and ruin her carrier as a pilot without any real justification, you go right ahead, if that is what makes you feel better about yourself. talk→ WPPilot 15:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The actual filed police report, maintained by ABC News, does mention a woman under the first name - see link, and pp 13-14 at least (fax nos.). JohnInDC (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So she is the only Nadia on earth? "potential co-conspirators" is what it says, right. That means that EVEN THE POLICE are not sure. The word "potential" provides enough ambiguity to make this site err on the side of caution. "potential" + "never charged" tell me that there was not enough evidence to support the claim, by the police, yet here on Wikipedia that does not matter, and its ok to convict her, if you find assertions of these things in places and the name is close enough so what the heck, lets ruin her. WOW talk→ WPPilot 15:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell what you're arguing - that this first person was involved in some fashion, that she was identified as a potential co-conspirator, and pleaded the Fifth in her testimony; or that she is not the same person as the second? You should pick one and go with it, because the odds that both things are made up out of whole cloth are pretty remote. Plus too, if #2 isn't #1, then who cares about what #1 might've ever done? JohnInDC (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, from a personal perspective, it does not matter what my number I pick. You made the comment that we can not be sure this is even the same person. That is a fact. When police use terms like "potential co-conspirators" it is often to "shake them down" or in fact try to get more info from them. Here we have a case of a young lady, that is a pilot and was once connected to a legal matter via a comment that she might be a "potential co-conspirators". She was never charged. She was never named in any civil actions that were made public. She was a "potential co-conspirators", according to everything you read. She was not charged, in any way, with anything, at all, and your not even sure that she pleaded the fifth. What is the source for that? It does not say that in the original police report. "potential co-conspirators" means the police were not sure, are YOU sure? talk→ WPPilot 15:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The police report describes her - pretty extensive - personal involvement in the events at issue. A reliable source reports that she was identified as a potential co-conspirator. Another source (or two or three, I've lost count) reports that she pleaded the 5th and was not charged. We can leave out "potential co-conspirator" as inflammatory and vague, but what of these other things? Please go read each of the several sources I linked to at BLP. A couple of them at least refer to 5th Amendment testimony. Heck the original Guardian article that started all this mentions that. JohnInDC (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have read most of them, I saw Alan yesterday on some TV show and I did review the stories. Like I said, remembering that we are dealing with a young lady that has not in any way been charged with ANYTHING. I have a COI, as she and I are both pilots and I am well aware of what something like this assertion could do to her. No one has charged her with a crime, no agency has filed any type of Federal case, (other then Gulfstream, I just checked Pacer) and we are left with a ton a rather sketchy claims about someone with a name close to hers, and that person was also never charged with anything. I did see the comments regarding 5th Amendment testimony, but I do not see, in any court records, that any testimony was ever made public. www.pacer.gov if you have a account you can search both names and you get nothing, (other then as mentioned before Gulfstream) talk→ WPPilot 16:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Her 5th Amendment plea was well reported in reliable sources and if not libelous or the subject of undue weight, is properly included in the article about her (if she is the same person, which is also reliably sourced to several places). It doesn't matter whether it was "made public" or not. JohnInDC (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you asserting that a invocation of the 5th, implies inverse reference here, on Wikipedia, and in spite of the lack of standing, with regard to ANY civil or criminal charges and the fact that it can not be used upon her, in court, but it is worth of inclusion on a Encyclopedia page, about her? Would that not incriminate any person that ever used the fifth in anything and was never charged, but its worthy of inclusion in a encyclopedia? Historically Encyclopedic knowledge is vetted. Here, we have yet to formally establish that we are talking about the same person. Assuming it is, and the media is correct 100%, she was "connected" to someone that was convicted. It also states clearly that she was not charged and was simply a person of interest. That is not worthy of inclusion unless she is/was charged with something, or anything, before editors go reusing inflammatory claims, in a Bio of a Living Person. talk→ WPPilot 17:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't use invocation of the 5th Amendment against a person in a criminal case, but it's a different matter in federal civil cases. There, if you take the Fifth you risk an assumption that you did the thing you elected not to testify to. Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Refusal_to_testify_in_a_civil_case. Wikipedia is not a civil court, but I am not troubled by the common sense notion that, if someone declines to answer a question on the grounds that the answer may incriminate them, the odds go up that they did the thing they declined to respond to. I think it can be a tricky business, because you can only assume an adverse answer to the question that was actually asked (and I don't have these particular questions in front of me here). Furthermore in this case it's more than just being "connected" to someone. In point of fact, the plea agreement by that someone specifically provided that this person, by name, not be prosecuted if the convicted person fulfilled the terms of the agreement. This isn't just some casual connection, with some loose and careless charges thrown about by prosecutors. See Sun-Sentinel, Sept. 2009. JohnInDC (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My comment was more toward the vetting of the info. I can agree to not pursue litigation for something in a civil case and that does not mean that I had evidence that the claim would have prevailed. The point here is that we are talking about a living person that was not ever charged, in a civil or criminal matter and you have already agreed that using "potential co-conspirators" only means a connection, and not a conviction. I think what we need to be careful of is that Wikipedia is looked at as a quality source for quality information. "potential co-conspirators" does not imply a conviction, nor does her being named by a convicted criminal in a plea deal provide a foundation for using words as our IPv6 editor had inserted, and that you reverted. "This isn't just some casual connection, with some loose and careless charges thrown about by prosecutors." How do we know that? A prosecutors can use all kinds of routes to get people to give them information that may or may not be relative, its the jury that decides right from wrong, and the jury here, never convened.

IMNL but IMHO just as you have noted in your edit summary, we really need to be careful on this, it is salacious to say the least, but if this new accuser is proven to have created this firestorm of media attention for money and for money alone, it is simply not proper to have collateral damage effect this young lady. I think its clear that we both agree that we should keep an eye on this. talk→ WPPilot 21:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The original events and subsequent third party prosecution, including the deal that exempted her, by name, from prosecution, were reported at the time by several sources in several locations (including the original police report) all of which predate this latest suit and thus render its motivations irrelevant. There is also an agreed statement in still another case, here, that sets out more history. There really can't be much dispute about the basic facts. Whether or not it was criminal, as to her, is another matter still. Because this material is so salacious, and is not receiving much current coverage (as to her specifically), I understand why Wikipedia would want to play it fairly close to the vest and not go into detail on the current page with what is, largely (and so far, still), old news. But those are the reasons. Not that the underlying facts are really in doubt. JohnInDC (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not a "agreed statement" (PAGE 1 "EXHIBIT 3")as it has no ruling from that court, those are one sides attorney I a case that Epstein filed and IMHO was written to persuade the court of something, yet without the balance of this pleading, there is no way shape or form that this "civil exhibit" is in fact accurate and without a final ruling, from the court, It is another exhibit in something that also mentions Donald Trump, Bill Clinton David Copperfield Bill Richardson Governor of New Mexico, & Alan Dershowitz and it even eludes to the notion that the person here, Nadia, may have at the onset of Epstein's escapade's, a minor at the onset of involvement. That would in fact make this into something that is even more delicate then we might have imagined and one would have to question her ability to be a accomplice in there is a chance that she may have actually been a early victim? With that taken into consideration are you sure this belongs here at all? IMHO she is collateral damage for something that should have gone away already. talk→ WPPilot 20:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right; it's not a stipulated statement but a proposal, albeit pretty consistent with all the other stuff that was reported in various reliable sources. It does not add much to them, I agree. (I don't see any allusion BTW to her having been a minor, and if it does say that it would be the only place I've seen where it has come up.) I don't know how much more there is to be gained with further discussion of this in any event. Even though I've come up with, what, a dozen reliable sources - half a dozen of them contemporaneous or close to the original events - I have no axe to grind and think that where things stand now, with the limited attention the matter is currently drawing, is a fair split between suppression of unfavorable information and the unnecessary dredging up of unsavory past events. JohnInDC (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Alma Mater

The use of the term 'alma mater' in reference to a school (The University of Music, Theatre & Dance) seems to me just as valid as referring to the university (The University of Michigan). Is there a particular reason why the former is technically incorrect? My reasoning for listing SMTD as an individuals alma mater, rather than UofM in general, is to create the sense of an alumni network for graduates and students of SMTD, as well as to recognize the school in particular for its accomplishments and the accomplishments of its alumni. It is important therefor to list SMTD as the alma mater rather than just UofM. Is this not a legitimate reasoning? Please advise.

Furthermore I apologize if you took my undo of your edit as a slight, it was not intended as such. I would like to point out that the distinction between art music (classical and jazz) and pop music is not an arbitrary one to classical musicians. Furthermore the edit, once again, served to highlight the particular accomplishments of SMTD alums in particular. I will leave your edit though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montgwes (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The University of Michigan is the relevant institution. The School of Music, Theater and Dance is a college or school within the larger university. Someone who got their degree in dance has the same alma mater, Michigan, as someone who got their degree in engineering, or physics, or nursing, or French, or architecture. They didn't all matriculate from different places. There is, for example, no such alma mater as "University of Michigan - Residential College". As for musical categories, I think subdividing them is, first, confusing to those who are not classical musicians (I can think of a lot of jazz that scarcely qualifies as "art music"); and second, creates an unnecessary issue of categorization for musicians whose work straddles one or another line. Thanks for understanding. More broadly, I appreciate your pride in the university, and the school, but please bear in mind throughout your editing that our job as editors is not to highlight or emphasize anything, but rather to create an encyclopedia that is neutral in view and objective in tone. Things that are distinctive or distinguished really don't need the help of editors to set them apart - eventually that happens of its own accord. Does that make sense? JohnInDC (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Bill Adler

Don't understand your deletion of my edit. Each of the artists I added is notable. Each has his own page on Wikipedia. You call it unnecessary. I call it thorough. Illbadler (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Let a disinterested editor add it. If it's that important, one will. If not, not. JohnInDC (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More directly, a Wikipedia article is not a prose CV; and even if it were, a laundry list of artists is poor prose. It's cluttery, boring, and has little if any incremental value. The article is fine as it stands. JohnInDC (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for being on the lookout. —Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

MSU and "Public Ivy"

You are obfuscating the facts. There are only two major credible sources for "Public Ivy" institutions. The first being Moll's Public Ivies: A Guide to America's best public undergraduate colleges and universities (1985), which you refer to as "the original one." And the second being the Greenes' The Public Ivies: America's Flagship Public Universities (2001), which is an updated list demonstrating the enhanced quality of public education in the U.S. since Moll's 1985 list.

Michigan State University is considered/recognized/labeled/described as a "Public Ivy" institution not only in the most updated major credible list of Public Ivy insitutions, but also in public discourse, as public higher education throughout the United States has improved dramatically since Moll's original 1985 list.

Consequently, I feel the following language is a reasonable compromise: It is described as a Public Ivy university and recognized as one of the top public research universities in the United States.

Looking forward to continuing the conversation if necessary. Thank you! Nycspartan (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am okay with your language for Public Ivy, since, as you note, there are only two sources for it (though I think the second one is a bit more a stretch than the original - 30 public schools each on a par with the Ivies?). I think you need to do better for "recognized as one of the top public research universities..." in light of the multiple sources for that "recognition" and the source you've offered. It's a lot of weight for that one source to carry - especially in the lead. JohnInDC (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sock

Well, I think it's pretty clear who this is. Personally, I'm inclined to let this one slide as long as the account doesn't go on to engage in the sorts of silly editing that characterized other Alex Levy accounts. I haven't even deleted this one bit of COI editing, even though both the cited sources were written by "Alexandre Gilbert"; perhaps if we let him have this, he'll stay away. (Several Albion socks have been blocked on fr.wp over the past year, but I can't see that any of them have edited here.) What do you think? Is this worth making a fuss about? Perhaps I'm getting soft in my old age. Deor (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Many times in the past I would just let an obvious sock edit until he stepped over the line, then report him - if he's doing no harm at least we know where he is. Thanks for the head's up - I'll watch him! JohnInDC (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Color graphics for Infobox college football player

John, here's a sneak peel at how the revamped infobox is going: Template:Infobox college football player/testcases#Joe Cool (typical example). What do you think of the colors, graphics, and layout and design? In particular, how do you like the "college varsity stripe" graphics? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Cute. Those look pretty good though I wonder about other color combinations (some colleges display questionable taste). Also the colors remind me dimly of the kinds of striped candy that my grandmother used to keep around the house and I wonder if that's a bit too frivolous - but, I don't feel strongly about it, and it's a fresh look. JohnInDC (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the idea behind the varsity stripe is to (a) effectively use both team colors in a tasteful manner, and (b) do it in a manner that the college teams do so themselves. The varsity stripe is the typical helmet and/or side-of-uniform stripe historically used by most college teams. It also tracks the graphics we presently use for our college team and coach navboxes, and that's not an accident. It would be nice to continue the move toward a more refined use of colors graphics for the college sports projects, and this is a second step after the creating the standardized coach and team navboxes several years ago. I hope the varsity stripe graphics grow on you.

We're going to have a mini-RfC on the template talk page to make final decisions on which new parameters and links to add to the template, and which old ones to remove, sometime in the next couple of weeks. I'll ping you when it starts. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I haven't seen those striped candies in years -- at least since my parents were still in charge of the family Christmas! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Forte Tenors

I see you've worked on this article; I've recently "completed" (since there is no such thing at Wikipedia ) a near-complete revamp. Anything stand out to your eyes? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)