User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 5
 | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Re: MLS/DCU/TFC
Hey JohnInDC,
My apologies. Just felt it was necessary since when searching "MLS" online, Major League Soccer achieves the most hits. However, should both Major League Soccer and Multiple Listing Service be boldfaced; since they appear to be the most commonly used organizations of the acroynm?
Regards, TWW Twwalter (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I dunno. In my head they are the most common but that may not be the case for others. I'm also not sure what the protocol is on DAB pages like that. I personally wouldn't object to the edit but I'm not sure I'd make it myself! JohnInDC (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not do any manipulation, if you had taken time to look at the site Franco-Americans, you would have realized that it encompasses both French and French Canadian descent together. I grew up in New England, and when the survey came, many of those of French Canadian descent checked off French descent. What's the difference! What would you know living in DC.--Chnou (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- The source - the US Census - describes people of "French" and "French Canadian" ancestry. Not "Franco-American". Stick to the sources, please. Don't infer information that is not present in the source. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for changing it, but I was still not trying any manipulation.--Chnou (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Portal:Franco-American
I already did stop, you are a few days late. I guess you are looking for trouble and have nothing better to do.--Chnou (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- When I work on the French language wikipedia, people are courteous and always trying to help. On the English side, people are rude, think they know it all, and are closed minded to new ideas. Destroying the essence of Wikipedia. There are many more portals on the French side, no one makes a big deal out of them. Obviously two cultures; one killing people in Iraq, the other sending Médecins sans frontières (Doctors without borders) to save the sick and the injured.--Chnou (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's so harsh! And so - well, disappointingly direct. I had always thought that Francophones were more creative and amusing in expressing their contempt for English speakers. "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries", that sort of thing. Ah well. Back to the war -- JohnInDC (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- More seriously, and I hope constructively - if no one has complained about your wholesale unsourced addition of portal links to (seemingly random) city and town articles at :fr, it is probably because no one has noticed them. The policies on both sites - the essence of Wikipedia, as you put it - are the same, and one of the principal ones is that you can't add information that is merely within your personal knowledge. Go see WP:OR, WP:Verify and WP:reliable. If these towns have a peculiar and notable connection to Franco-American culture then the portal link may be appropriate - but in any case it is up to you to explain the connection, and supply a proper source for it. Good luck in editing here and at :fr. And do try to temper your comments when someone properly challenges your edits. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- You've been watching to many episodes of Inspector Clouseau, and have a biased view of Francophones. As for what you call unsourced additions of portals, they were sourced to know that the majority are of French and French Canadian descent. I lived in Lewiston, Maine, which is one of these cities, as well as Manchester and Berlin, N.H., Lowell, MA., Winooski, VT., and the northern cities and towns in Maine, where the majority of the people still speak French, since the border was only drawn up in 1842 by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. As for the French side of wikipedia, they more than notice, since they actual help and collaborate to grow it. Once again, you speak without knowing. As for the statement, Back to War, seems that is what you do best. When 5 million Vietnamese (4 million civilians) are killed in a war which should not have taken place, I call that murder! Dropping bombs and agent Orange from the sky, is not bravery!--Chnou (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- It appears that one thing we do agree on is that sweeping statements about people of a particular nationality or ethnicity reflect an especially pernicious sort of ignorance. Otherwise, again, good luck with your editing. And do look into the policies on personal knowledge and original research. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Merci Beaucoup!--Chnou (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- It appears that one thing we do agree on is that sweeping statements about people of a particular nationality or ethnicity reflect an especially pernicious sort of ignorance. Otherwise, again, good luck with your editing. And do look into the policies on personal knowledge and original research. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- You've been watching to many episodes of Inspector Clouseau, and have a biased view of Francophones. As for what you call unsourced additions of portals, they were sourced to know that the majority are of French and French Canadian descent. I lived in Lewiston, Maine, which is one of these cities, as well as Manchester and Berlin, N.H., Lowell, MA., Winooski, VT., and the northern cities and towns in Maine, where the majority of the people still speak French, since the border was only drawn up in 1842 by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. As for the French side of wikipedia, they more than notice, since they actual help and collaborate to grow it. Once again, you speak without knowing. As for the statement, Back to War, seems that is what you do best. When 5 million Vietnamese (4 million civilians) are killed in a war which should not have taken place, I call that murder! Dropping bombs and agent Orange from the sky, is not bravery!--Chnou (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- More seriously, and I hope constructively - if no one has complained about your wholesale unsourced addition of portal links to (seemingly random) city and town articles at :fr, it is probably because no one has noticed them. The policies on both sites - the essence of Wikipedia, as you put it - are the same, and one of the principal ones is that you can't add information that is merely within your personal knowledge. Go see WP:OR, WP:Verify and WP:reliable. If these towns have a peculiar and notable connection to Franco-American culture then the portal link may be appropriate - but in any case it is up to you to explain the connection, and supply a proper source for it. Good luck in editing here and at :fr. And do try to temper your comments when someone properly challenges your edits. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's so harsh! And so - well, disappointingly direct. I had always thought that Francophones were more creative and amusing in expressing their contempt for English speakers. "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries", that sort of thing. Ah well. Back to the war -- JohnInDC (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Cap Breton (fuller, original discussion at User talk:Chnou)
You've just moved another series of articles for Nova Scotia municipalities, from "xxxx, Nova Scotia" to "xxxx, Cap Breton", stating in the edit summary that the move reflects the "proper spelling on maps". These moves are unsourced, and appear to be inconsistent with WP:CANSTYLE, as were your prior article moves. "Nova Scotia" is a province; "Cap Breton" is not. (Also, renaming articles can't be considered a "minor" edit, as you marked them; see WP:Minor.) I'm inclined to undo each of the changes for the foregoing reasons, but before I do, can you describe your sources and explain why they're consistent with the MOS? Perhaps I've overlooked something. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you did not undo what I did this time to begin with. When it occurred last time, it was because I redid the towns and villages on Isle Madame in Cap Breton, which I had all translated into french. On the french section, we do not specify the province or island or territory if the name is unique. For example, Mont-Joli, Quebec. In french, you only find Mont-Joli or Montmagny because there is no where else in the world with this name. The advantage is that when you are writing an article, you do not have to hyphen and place the name of the province as well. It gets more complicated when you just want the name, if you know what I mean. So, on that occasion, since Isle Madame had existed before the annexation by the province of Nova-Scotia, I placed Isle Madame after the names of these places so that people would know where they were located. This time around, I did not do that. I only changed three names because the name itself or the spelling was wrong. Example, St. Mary's is in Nova Scotia, but Sainte Marie is an Acadian village on Isle Madame in Cap Breton. So instead of having St. Mary's, Richmond, Nova Scotia, which is the wrong name anyways, I changed it to it's rightful name, Sainte Marie, but instead of placing Isle Madame, I did put Cap Breton to distinguish it from St. Mary's in Nova Scotia. You see, Cap Breton was a distinct province until it was merged with Nova Scotia, and everyone knows where Cap Breton is. The second spelling mistake was Cap LeMoine, which should be Cap Le Moine. Another Acadian fishing village in Cap Breton, and since I was changing the name, I made it more specific with Cap Breton. You see once again, you would not have to add that in french. The last change was Belle Côte. Not everyone has accents on their computers, so I added the accent on the o and added Cap Breton. So you see John, it's like adding DC on Washington or on your name to distinguish it. Furthermore, Cap Breton has an older and richer history than Nova Scotia, and they are Acadian place names, not Scottish ones. They were onced deported to the four corners of the earth by the Nova Scotia government, so in all due respect to them and their people, I chose to place Cap Breton instead of Nova Scotia with the right wording and the right spelling.--Chnou (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- From what I understand by the following: 1.Cities can be moved if they (a) have a unique place name, or (b) are the most important use of their name. A city's relative international fame, or lack thereof, may have some bearing on criterion (b), but it is irrelevant if the city qualifies under criterion (a) — if there's no other Flin Flon anywhere in the world, then it's not valid to cite Flin Flon's lack of international fame as a reason to keep the article at "Flin Flon, Manitoba". Cap Le Moine and Belle Côte would not need any hyphen and specification after them because they are unique, just like in the french section. Only Sainte Maire would because there are a lot of Sainte Maries and St. Marys in the world. So the french section is right, by not adding the province or state after a unique name, which is very often the case.--Chnou (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I understand about the spelling. That's trivial - and probably, properly marked minor. I doubt you'd even need a source for it, if it's standard French. Dropping the province name in favor of what appears to be the French spelling of a regionally understood reference, however, seems to contradict WP:CANSTYLE. I don't find a Wikipedia entry for "Cap Breton" separately so I'm not sure I agree with the statement that "everyone" knows where it is; and even if they did, I don't see how these names are consistent with the general naming convention requirement. I'm going to raise the issue at the WP:CANSTYLE discussion page, where people are better informed than me about the nuances of these style points. I'm also going to copy the discussion back to your talk page - I haven't edited the articles at all and anyone else who might wonder about the edits would not think to look here for any discussion. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- First John, I did not move several names, but only three. Second, Cap Breton is the english name of the island, not french. Third, from the information you gave me, the name Nova Scotia or Cap Breton after the town name should not be there for two of the names, because as I mentioned, they are unique and found no where in the world.--Chnou (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I never said Sainte Marie was unique, I said Belle Côte and Cap Le Moine were. Your right about Cape Breton, it has an e in english and not in french, but in french it has a hyphen, Cap-Breton.--Chnou (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- First John, I did not move several names, but only three. Second, Cap Breton is the english name of the island, not french. Third, from the information you gave me, the name Nova Scotia or Cap Breton after the town name should not be there for two of the names, because as I mentioned, they are unique and found no where in the world.--Chnou (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I understand about the spelling. That's trivial - and probably, properly marked minor. I doubt you'd even need a source for it, if it's standard French. Dropping the province name in favor of what appears to be the French spelling of a regionally understood reference, however, seems to contradict WP:CANSTYLE. I don't find a Wikipedia entry for "Cap Breton" separately so I'm not sure I agree with the statement that "everyone" knows where it is; and even if they did, I don't see how these names are consistent with the general naming convention requirement. I'm going to raise the issue at the WP:CANSTYLE discussion page, where people are better informed than me about the nuances of these style points. I'm also going to copy the discussion back to your talk page - I haven't edited the articles at all and anyone else who might wonder about the edits would not think to look here for any discussion. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- From what I understand by the following: 1.Cities can be moved if they (a) have a unique place name, or (b) are the most important use of their name. A city's relative international fame, or lack thereof, may have some bearing on criterion (b), but it is irrelevant if the city qualifies under criterion (a) — if there's no other Flin Flon anywhere in the world, then it's not valid to cite Flin Flon's lack of international fame as a reason to keep the article at "Flin Flon, Manitoba". Cap Le Moine and Belle Côte would not need any hyphen and specification after them because they are unique, just like in the french section. Only Sainte Maire would because there are a lot of Sainte Maries and St. Marys in the world. So the french section is right, by not adding the province or state after a unique name, which is very often the case.--Chnou (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The case was declined by a CheckUser. There's nothing else we could do about it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP on behavioural match, and because the IP matches networks with IPs that I have previously associated with G.-M. Cupertino. SPI is mainly about behaviour, and nothing about a decline from a checkuser prevents an admin from blocking.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Checkusers have wide latitude in deciding whether they will grant a checkuser on an IP, and trying to predict when they will reject is usually fruitless. They are permitted to connect an IP with disruptive users, but they are discouraged from doing so. In this case, there really was nothing for a checkuser to do, anyway: all previous checkuser data is stale, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive contains a history of near-matching IPs that is all anyone could have gone on anyway.
In general, the times when it makes sense to request a checkuser on an IP is when it falls out of pattern. G.-M Cupertino is Portuguese, for example, but edited from a German IP for a while. My checkuser on that IP was granted, primarily because I could show that while we had a good behavioural match, some of the checkuser data could strengthen the case. Show that you really need the checkuser data and that the disruption is significant, and you can get it.
Let me know if you need help dealing with GMC in the future.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will - I really only stumbled upon him by accident, encountering this IP making *tons* of edits and adding snarky comments about "vandals" removing things that (seemingly) unrelated editors had added in the first place. A little lightbulb went off and I tossed in the SSI report figuring it had to be him - JohnInDC (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Message added 18:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re: Roster
Roster was correct. 72.219.227.230 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not after you got done with it - changing a player's number to the wrong one, and adding back in a player they've traded away! Go to the team's website to double-check your work before you hit "save page". Here's the link: DC United roster page JohnInDC (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Premature?
Dear sir,
There was, in fact, nothing premature about it. I was actually modeling them after the format that appears on the Jerry Brown infobox. I though it a more elegant, precise, and informative heading, and think they all would benefit from such craft. But apparently that went unheeded...In the meantime, you messed up all the other glorious edits I had made to these woebegotten pages.
As you see, I have been editing here for quite some time, and so clearly was not trying to be just another douche.
Cordially yours, Sinisterminister (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly apologize for any abruptness in the reversions. I didn't mean to be insulting. You are I suppose unfairly the victim of my patience that has been worn thin by anonymous semi-vandal editors at various Michigan-related pages who've been jumping the gun on the upcoming gubernatorial change in that state. Again I apologize for the haste and overbreadth. (That being said, I'm not altogether sure that "XXth Governor-elect" or however it was phrased is actually clearer (where that was the main edit) - it's a little ambiguous, I think. They're *going* to be the XXth governor, when they take office; are they also the XXth governor-elect?) Thanks for the (temperate) reminder to me not to let frustrations spill over. JohnInDC (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
gentle with new user Verygentle1969?
VG69 has been editing for all of four days. Any chance of rvting the template on his/her talkpage for the time being, while we see if he responds? Alan just opened the talk section at Chicago, and we just addressed him for the first time on his talkpage an hour or so ago. Thanks for thinking about it. While absolutely correct, it might be a slightly BITE-y template. Jd2718 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Thanks for suggesting it, and thanks for asking! JohnInDC (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
hubert cornfield
Your entry on Hubert Confield has created a mystery which has created a conversation among a number of film scholars and critics, Roger Ebert, David Bordwell, Scott Foundas, FX Feeney, David Ehrenstein, myself (Paul Schrader) and others. We are not so much interested in changing the entry as hoping to discover why it was put in. The entire entry reads: "Hubert Cornfield (February 9, 1929 — June 18, 2006) was a film director in Hollywood. He was born in Istanbul, Turkey and died in Los Angeles, California. Billy Wilder, William Wyler and Joseph L. Mankiewicz all signed his Directors Guild of America (DGA) application. However, the application was rejected following considerable opposition from Robert Sneddon, a high ranking member of the guild, who took issue with Cornfield on moral grounds." David Kehr of the NY Times contacted the DGA. According to Directors Guild record Cornfield was a member from 1955 to 1980. There is no record of a Robert Sneddon ever being a DGA member. A search has revealed no prominent member of the film industry at that time with that name. Hubert Cornfield, however, had a considerable reputation as a ladies man. He was particularly adapt at seducing other men's wives. In the end this is what made him unemployable. So our question is: who is Robert Sneddon, who placed the entry using his name and why? Any light you might shine on this entry would be welcome by a community of film scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joforrest (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I forget to put my email address. Anyone have information about this mystery please send to schraderproductions@gmail.com. Paul Schrader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.18.153 (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I deleted some unsourced information from Hubert Cornfield but otherwise contributed no content. I have no idea of the answer. If it seems incorrect to you then you can fix it. JohnInDC (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want to fix it. I want to unravel a mystery. Who entered Robert Sneddon's name and why. Is there any way to go through previous editors and speak to that contributor? Paul S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joforrest (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- By clicking on the View History tab in the upper right, you can see who made each edit to the article and when. This article has few edits, so I was able to ascertain quickly that the information in question was added by an anonymous IP editor in August 2010. Here's the edit: [1]. JohnInDC (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: MLS Cup and Shield
Thanks John in D.C.,
I added a discussion thread explaining why I was saying the MLS Cup determines the winner of the Playoffs. Feel free to discuss it here. 72.219.227.230 (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks John
Thanks for the message John, and no worries. Having an article about DC United and Philadelphia Unions rivalry (at this point of time) might be the equivalent to myself making an article about a company softball team.
But in reference to the Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps; the Whitecaps, I originally put as a club's 36th season, because it is the organization of owners that carried over from the USL team. Likewise when the 'Caps went from USL to CSL and CSL from NASL. However, the way they are currently worded seems adequate. Thanks for taking the time to inform me of MLS structures.
Twwalter (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
UMich campus map img
All you managed to do was remove one "vague" map w/ another "vague" map. If you wish to remove the idea of a map completely, go right ahead. Just bear in mind that there was another, older, less cleaned-up version that was there for years prior (which you managed to put back up with the removal of my img). Levdr1 (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, I was too hasty. Thanks for fixing the map. I can't really believe it's been allowed to sit there for so long (it really isn't very helpful) but I suppose tenure has some benefits. I'll leave it up, and I apologize. JohnInDC (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- No prob. And Go Blue. Or Go whatever else (as long as it's not that school down south). Levdr1 (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
re: mich law
hmm I didn't think it was not neutral - it's all pretty universally established (plus, other top law schools have similarly strongly worded value judgments on their wiki page so I only thought it was fair) I got all of my info from http://www.top-law-schools.com/michigan-law-school.html
Dancerdancer108 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure that's a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, and I'd immediately discount the writeup in any case, being offered by a 2x Michigan grad. The Law School page as it is written pretty well lays out that it's a selective school, with lots of grads going on to better things. The existing section on rankings pretty well describes how highly regarded it is - and without the inherent opinion contained in phrases like "prestigious", "ultra-competitive" and "top notch legal education". If others law schools' pages have similar marketing-type language on them, then it should be taken out - not added here! JohnInDC (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
MLS Standings
Hey JIDC, apologies for the late response on your comment regarding the MLS Standings template. I decided to leave the header the way it is for now, and I'll change it once MLS announces how they will keep records for the 2011 season. Twwalter (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Betty MacDonald's cancer
Good morning! I have added to the Betty MacDonald page that she died of uterine cancer. Here is the link: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/vashon/vib/news/17099101.html?period=W
I am not very good at footnoting on Wikipedia yet. Perhaps you can inspect my work and make any necessary changes. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindDeeds (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for providing that. JohnInDC (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
A Serious Man
Thanks for the assistance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Thanks for trying to find a point of agreement. I think your last edits capture the thing pretty well. JohnInDC (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
74.101.76.166 blocked for 1 week
OK, I've blocked 74.101.76.166 for 1 week - maybe this should go to WP:SPI for consideration for a rangeblock, given that the disruptive edits move from IP to IP in what looks like a bunch of similar IPs. Regards Tonywalton Talk 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Mich Law
not quite sure what "peacock" language is. But I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with what I added - there is no bias or anything - to say it is "regarded as one of the most presitigous" is a patent fact - as you yourself have recognized. the reason I added that is because the law school suffers from a serious lack of lay prestige. also, why have there been no edits to the language in : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Law_School or in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown_University_Law_Center? and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University_School_of_Law (regarding the mention of the T14) and why would you delete my statement that UMich has always been in the T10 and is therefore in the T14??? What is wrong with that on any level? That is a patent fact. I think you are being extremely, extremely unfair to UMich and that you are in fact the one who is harboring biases.
Honestly, this time around what I added was beyond tame, and much tamer than the language on other law school pages - the reason other law school pages have not been edited, is because there is nothing wrong or misleading or biased about what is being said! If a school is regarded as prestigious, why not go ahead and give it its due respect? Again though, in terms of you deleting the fact that it is in the T10 and T14...that just blows my mind. I added 0 value judgements to that and it has clearly been published in the US World News Report, etc.
Seriously though, what I said this time is not only a fact (note: I didn't even say it was "one of the most prestigious" - i said it was "REGARDED as one of the most prestigious" and therefore am not committing wikipedia to any opinion...even though tons of other law school pages state that with NO edits being made), but it was also SO tame. I am especially at a loss as to why you would delete the T10 and T14 fact - I think you are wielding your editing abilities way way way too stringently and unfairly, especially to me and to UMich Law for whatever reason. it really is not fair that every other institution of higher learning has loads of fanciful language, and I can't even add something about it belonging to a ranking group! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancerdancer108 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've copied this material to Talk:University of Michigan Law School to continue any discussion there. JohnInDC (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Re: your question regarding my editing of 'Ro Hancock-Child'
I am an independent music academic, representative of a community of professional musicians, and we are worried about the recent editing of an article about a well-known British pianist and composer. Ro Hancock-Child is a high-profile musician with a proven track-record of long achievement which is in the public domain. People in British music are watching the activity on this article with growing concern. There seems to be some personal agenda going on here, and more and more items are being removed from the article by Wiki editors (apparently not professional musicians) without need or justification.
I do not know why this particular article has been targeted in this way, it seems unfortunate and unfair.
If you reserve the right to remove correct information from this article, I reserve the right to replace it. Koch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterkoch (talk • contribs) 07:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, the apparent disdain for Wikipedia does not extend to blanking the blatant advertisement on this user page. By the way, this was the second attempt at creating the article. [2]. The first version was created by this user, the day after that user page was created. I have no idea what the first version looked like or why they requested {{db-author}}, but I'm pretty sure it was starting to get tagged all over the place for the same problems as this one. Frankly, I'd just let the AfD run its course. It needs to be recorded that the page was not speedied by the author's request but deleted for non-notability, and in any case too many people who are not connected to the subject have substantially edited it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's right. I'd noticed both the User page and the article history but it didn't occur to me to let the thing run so that we have a record of the discussion if / when this thing appears again. I also agree about the wide editing on the document. Most of it was, like yours, attempted salvage work, but they should have their say.
- I have been meaning to compliment you, by the way, on the hard work you've put into the cleanup - and to the wrap-up as well. JohnInDC (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I always try to give these arts autobiographies their best shot before they're (almost inevitably) put up for deletion. Marco Lazzara is my favourite rescue. Actually, the current brouhaha is nothing compared to this slugfest when even "Himself" intervened and took his red pencil to the article. The autobiographer ended up being banned for sockpuppetry and legal threats. The article stayed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Team Starkid
Hello John,
If you could please take a look at my Team Starkid article again. Also, venture to the page statistics and references and then maybe you could explain to me why there is still a tag asking for it to be more reputable.
Thank you, Liz
puffery claim for umich law
hi! thanks for the concern. but I don't see what is wrong with my edit saying it has long been regarded as one of the most prestigious - i'm not saying it IS the most pretigious, just that it has long been regarded as such which is pure fact. moreover, I would direct your attention to every single T14 law school's wikipedia page. Each one, without fail, describes (in a rather unbridled fashion) their school as being one of the "most elite" or one of the "most prestigious" or "one of the most selective" in those explicit words - i.e. berkeley, UVA law, duke, georgetown, just to name a few (that are even ranked below UMich) etc. so there really isn't anything wrong with a quick recognition of a top school's prestige. What's more, it becomes pretty unfair if every other law school's wiki page recognizes that school's prestige, but umich's is barred from recognizing its own. i think my statement was pretty benign - i wasn't saying "it is without a doubt hands down the best law school ever known to man!" thanks again, it would actually really mean a lot to me if you could reconsider your decision to remove it. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktkt115 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- This has come up before. Take a look at the article's Talk page, here. The assertion, in the lead, is puffery (and probably shouldn't be in those other articles either). The school's sterling reputation is well-established in the very next section. Take a look at the discussion there and see if it helps! JohnInDC (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! but to be honest, I really don't understand what is wrong with the way I worded the statement or even the substance of it. Also, I am just curious as to why much stronger language has been able to persist on every other of those law school pages, but any mention of prestige is conspicuously absent from Michigan Law's page. In terms of a source for what I said: http://www.lawschoolsranking.com/top-20/reviews/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor.html. this is an objective website providing descriptions of the top 20 schools (and contains my statement almost verbatim). with a source, could we include my statement now? thanks a lot, i appreciate it.
- If it's not clear what's wrong with it you should go read some of the pages I linked in the Talk page discussion, like WP:Puffery and WP:Weasel. You should also read up on reliable sources to determine whether that web site (who's "about" link leads to a dead page) qualifies. Another helpful page is WP:Other Stuff Exists. And again I would note that Michigan's ranking as a law school is well covered in the *very next section* of the article. There's no reason to put it into the lead; it's just advertising. Or boasting. JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to move this whole discussion to the law school's talk page so that if others are interested they will notice it and weigh in. Let's continue at this link - Talk:University_of_Michigan_Law_School JohnInDC (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Louis B Mayer
Hi JohnlnDC
(my)Logic of my entry: I always veer on the side of fact backed by sourced opinion. Relevance should always be decided by the reader. If there was a perceived lack of Balance or undue weight then it should/could have been counterbalanced by increasing the counter evidence or facts of the opposite opinion. This is how constructive and professional articles grow and flourish. This is why I did not delete the Editor's well balanced alternative and sourced view of Mayer as a father figure. That was good editing on their part.
Another deciding factor I use(outside of wiki) is independent 3rd parties. So If you believe this article should not be reverted then I will not revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.119.43 (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- The "monster" quote is still there; all that's out is the discussion of Taylor's relation to MGM, which the other actor's descriptions likewise lacked. It made her sound somehow more qualified to opine on Mayer than the others - which may or may not be true, but couldn't be gleaned from the text. I agree that the reader can assign relevance but the reader is handicapped if left without complete context. As Ylee seemed to say, if someone wants to expand the paragraph to give fuller context, that'd be fine too - the problem was, emphasizing Taylor's relation to MGM without explaining the others' as well. See the point? (Thanks for discussing, BTW.) JohnInDC (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
User talk page blanking
Hey, just letting you know that you shouldn't restore comments that another user has removed from their own talk page unless they are block notices that are in effect or if you're bringing back an archived conversation, per WP:TBLANK. I noticed that you restored a warning removed by the IP from their talkpage in the linked edit. According to WP:TBLANK, blanking is taken as a sign the user has read the message. I know, it's weird (and I don't really agree with it either), but it's policy (or maybe guideline. Not sure on that one.. ) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, you're right. I shouldn't have just up and undone the blanking. The user was just so deliberately, and quickly, covering his own tracks that it seemed almost necessary to do just to ensure that other editors had the proper context for their own warnings. I am more comfortable with restoring my own lvl 2 warning, to give context to a subsequent lvl 3, but I suppose that's equally verboten. Thanks in any case for the friendly note. JohnInDC (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- No prob! What I've done in the past is added a hidden comment after each warning, saying "user has removed [#] warnings from page, see history", that way, a blocking admin will see that and check the history to confirm. I agree, it can get really annoying not being able to reinstate removed warnings, especially from IPs and users who are obviously covering their tracks. But it appears that consensus on this one isn't gonna change — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
List of largest scoreboards in NCAA college football
I am a newer Wikipedia user but it seems to me that the Michigan scoreboard shouldn't be removed from the list since the project is already underway and is scheduled to be completed in less than 4 months. I thought if I used the 'not yet completed' symbol that I was doing the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jongent (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize if I seemed too abrupt. One problem is that, things happen. Weather delays the project, there's a change in the specs. Stuff happens, as they say. (Well, as they say in family-oriented Talk pages.) By and large the Wikipedia policy is not to record matters until they're done. On top of which, until the project is actually completed, and up and running, well - until then, Michigan's *isn't* one of the biggest scoreboards in college football, and it shouldn't be on the list. I think under WP:Crystal you could mention it at the UM Stadium website, but I have to say that the kind and size of scoreboard - especially one that's not yet in place and will be only 10th or so largest when it is - is pretty low on the list of stadium attributes. And the stuff about the contractor, etc., seems to be there more to highlight the contractor than anything else, and hence inappropriate. Is that helpful? JohnInDC (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Mel Gussow
I think my last remark dropped off the AIV board before you had a chance to read it, so I am copying it here (and added some more thoughts). This case is a little more subtle than most because the edits are not obviously vandalism; that is why I didn't get it at first. Sorry about the boomerang remark. No hard feelings I hope. :)
Another thing you can try is laying personalised messages on their Talk instead of templates. Let them know a real person is watching and will continue to watch. I can't guarantee they will ever stop but I have had several successes for sure. On John Cornwall (South Australian politician) I had the subject of the article, members of his family, and someone I am pretty sure was his lawyer trying to polish the article and remove unflattering things. And then one day they just stopped. Rabbi Pinto, Saints Cyril and Methodius, and one of my earliest ones, Marina Orlova. All of these are now under control. So hang in there. It takes however long it takes. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 02:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I did not see that - despite having looked through the history - so, thanks. I think that's a good suggestion about the templates - I've typically dropped in a note or two in addition to the template to underscore that, yes, I understand their frustration but this is contentious information and there's no source for it and in Wikipedia you need sources - but it hasn't made much difference. The editors (all IPs up until this last one) never bother to respond, but just persist until they're blocked. I'm not really too unhappy about having to keep fixing the page (the semi-protection helped a lot, and MaterialScientist was keeping a very close eye on the page for a while); I just don't like to the headache of having to battle (hastily formed) admin hostility toward my efforts on top of it all. But I can't think of any way to draw admin attention, and admin remedies, to the problem with*out* making a bit of a show of it each time. It's frustrating to have to demonstrate my own bona fides after what's been an undistinguished, but pretty consistently clean and responsible, Wikipedia career! If this is the only choice then, well, I'll muddle through it. But I keep thinking there has to be a better, cleaner way of getting these editors blocked than this. Thanks again for the dialogue. JohnInDC (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I will do some clean-up and watch-list the page. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for being willing to calmly discuss a frustrating situation!
VQuakr (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Your willingness to discuss a frustrating situation is outstanding, regards! VQuakr (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hah, thanks. We're all of us (most of us anyhow) all trying to accomplish the same thing. It's easy to be calm when you know you're talking to someone else who's trying just as hard - JohnInDC (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Friend of ours
FYI, first comment here, also this. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- And still assuming the names of dead Armenian Marines. I wonder if Dervishian invited this tribute as well? Interesting character. Nice catch - JohnInDC (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
University of Michigan Project
As one of the leading editors of University_of_Michigan, take a look at Talk:University_of_Michigan#Should_University_of_Michigan_have_a_project--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I will (though I have to say, it's pretty embarrassing to be fingered as a "leading editor" when probably 75% of my edits on the page have simply been taking out "GO BUCKEYES!"). Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning Arman Manookian, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
thanks John
I appreciate your advice JohnInDc, and when I clicked on your name that you signed off on, it is in red, so there is no user page on it...so here I am, thank you for posting it. I know you spent alot of time working on these things for the article, and I do appreciate your time. However, alot of what you deleted I have fixed on the reference links, and you may look at them and see this if you so desire to spend time on it, that is up to you, I have changed alot about the article in question whether ResidentAnthropologist keeps the article in question is up to him, It was so messed up, I just decided to work with what I had been working on. Some references, you may have to actually scroll down a bit to see what it is referring to so it may not appear to be a valid reference to some editors that just go and look at the page. The people who work for Almine told me they are revamping the websites right now, so I may be removing alot of the further reading links and info on there as they will become invalid links, so I am waiting on this and of course the photo link for wikipedia. I also asked them for a valid reference link to the Woman of the year award and for any of the philanthropy information. This BLP was a project someone else had started but didn't research and posted prematurely as you know...I also had to do alot of revamping on the 'naked links', and was thrown into an edit dispute for trying to fix the article which made some invalid edits on mine and other editors part. I learned a big lesson and have read the manual, which is very extensive and noted that some edits were done without the understanding of major policies of wikipedia so, it is my hope to get this article posted with reliable resource links, undisputed and for it to be a reputable article. Thank you for your explanation and interests in the help you have given so far. Theonelife (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad you're still interested in the article and are fixing a lot of those link and ref issues. You might benefit also by looking through some of the pages on reliable sources, general notability, biographies of living persons, and other pages to learn what sorts of material is, and isn't, appropriate in Wikipedia articles. Here are those links: WP:reliable, WP:Bio, WP:BLP. Also WP:not, which describes some things that *shouldn't* go into Wikipedia articles. I encourage your efforts but at the same time think you should understand how the encyclopedia works, so that if / when your article goes live, you don't become disappointed or frustrated when other editors, acting in accordance with Wikipedia principals, begin to edit it in ways you may not always like! JohnInDC (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Photo of George Clooney
I agree - --Jespah (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
stop messing with UM Football
this is an effort to include NCAA violations, Big Ten violations, etc. in wake of the Ohio State 'tattoogate'. Including these into Wiki is important in telling the history of compliance with schools, namely to show the excellent history of the Big Ten schools in avoiding the highest breaks of NCAA and Conference honor codes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fw190bvi (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you're trying to push an agenda, Wikipedia articles are not the place to do it. JohnInDC (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- On top of which, *I'm* not the one "messing with" the article - I think you have me confused with the IP editor, who is. JohnInDC (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
? on editing of John Prendergast profile
Thank you for your help! I would like to expand on the initiatives Mr. Prendergast has founded and the fact that he is, globally, a highly-respected peace activist. Would appreciate your thoughts? Thank you. --Jespah (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, as various editors have explained, the point of Wikipedia articles is not to contribute to or expand upon the reputations of the subjects of its articles. If he is well-respected and well-known within his field, then that will become apparent from the descriptions, citations and the like already showing there. It's not for Wikipedia to describe reputations as such, unless the reputation *itself* is somehow itself noteworthy. (E.g. a small liberal midwestern arts college becomes the pre-eminent school for research into non-Newtonian liquids, or some such.) So I would just leave that point alone. Second, his initiatives do all seem to be a bit of a type and, rather than say more about them in the Prendergast article I would be inclined to say less, but with wikilinks leading to appropriate Wikipedia articles (provided that the organizations are themselves noteworthy and can support an article). Maybe if started a chain of frozen dairy dessert stores.
- I really can't say it too many times - Wikipedia is not the place for "getting the message out", but instead to describe people, places and things in a way as to give a basic understanding of them. The Predergast article is pretty good on that score and I think that few, if any, additions to it are necessary. JohnInDC (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would add that, you are pretty much stepping into a POV sinkhole any time you construct (or add to) an article using material from an organization's website whether or not you have proper permission to do so. Such entries are by their nature non-neutral (particularly political entities) and will invariably prove unsuitable for the encyclopedia. Not to mention a lot of wasted energy as other editors try to sort through the apparent copyright violation issues. It is far better to write down what you know, in your own works, and work with that edit. JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! What additions, if any, would you recommend? If only I could write in my own words. --Jespah (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think any. I think the subject is well covered here. Moreover as you can see, your additional efforts (e.g., Sudan Now) are running up against the same policy concerns. As JohnCD has pointed out, it's not altogether clear that all of the pages you have created would survive a nomination for deletion, and rather than draw more editor attention to your efforts, you might quit while you're ahead! JohnInDC (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. So dizzy from this thought you and JohnCD were one in the same until a moment ago. Thank you!--Jespah (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think any. I think the subject is well covered here. Moreover as you can see, your additional efforts (e.g., Sudan Now) are running up against the same policy concerns. As JohnCD has pointed out, it's not altogether clear that all of the pages you have created would survive a nomination for deletion, and rather than draw more editor attention to your efforts, you might quit while you're ahead! JohnInDC (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! What additions, if any, would you recommend? If only I could write in my own words. --Jespah (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would add that, you are pretty much stepping into a POV sinkhole any time you construct (or add to) an article using material from an organization's website whether or not you have proper permission to do so. Such entries are by their nature non-neutral (particularly political entities) and will invariably prove unsuitable for the encyclopedia. Not to mention a lot of wasted energy as other editors try to sort through the apparent copyright violation issues. It is far better to write down what you know, in your own works, and work with that edit. JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Your advice please on acceptable content
Hi, I must apologize to you for having such a block about this.
Regarding a book summary for Unlikely Brothers, would it meet Wikipedia criteria to use content from the following page Enough Project? The Enough Project has permission from Random House to use and permissions forms are being sent out.
Or, is it best to write up a summary from scratch?
Thank you! --Jespah (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would write it from scratch. Random House created that copy to sell books. In so doing it tries to make the story sound interesting, or compelling, or - well, something that will persuade a customer to part with money. By its very nature it is not suitable for a Wikipedia article, which exists simply to describe. You could probably summarize the book in two sentences, maybe three. "Prendergast, a peace activist who spent much of his time in Africa, decided at age whatever to become Big Brother to MIchael, a seven-year-old living in a crime-ridden neighborhood in Washington, DC. The book, co-authored by both, describes their different perspectives on the relationship they shared over a period of more than 10 years." Something like that. It doesn't have to be, shouldn't be, heart-rending or full of promise to reader, or anything. Just a kind of bland recitation about what the book is about. JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- As always, thank you! --Jespah (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
? about adding a link to John Prendergast page
Hi, Would it be acceptable to allow this link to The Diane Rehm Show?
Thank you! --Jespah (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think. The problem with YouTube is that it's generally deemed unreliable (as anyone can upload anything) and a big copyright problem (or potential), for the same reason. External links to YouTube, unless they're to a subject's official site, usually come down instantly. Not a problem with links directly into Diane Rehm. The issue there would be, after a while you don't want external links to every appearance someone has made - it gets too cluttery and messy - but there's nothing inherently wrong with that link, I don't think. JohnInDC (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
pls. see discussion page for John Prendergast article and your last undo.
. --Jespah (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
D.C. United task force
Hey JohnInDC: I'm starting a new D.C. United task force under the scope of WikiProject Football, and was curious to know if you would like to be part of the task force to help improve the quality of D.C. United articles? Quidster4040 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry it took so long to respond but that just reflects the reason I'll pass on this -- too much stuff going on elsewhere to be a consistently attentive Wikipedia editor. Thanks for the offer though, and I'll try to help out with an eyeball or two from time to time! JohnInDC (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No worries! And anytime, thanks for the honesty. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Adam Hollioake
Hey - as a recent contributer to the Adam Hollioake article I'm letting you know that I've requested comments regarding some of the issues surrounding the subject at WP:BLPN. Cheers Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool
Um I definetly posted on Michigan hockey and the Great Lakes Invitational, that are indeed FACTS. No vandalism there, just from Michigan's media guide. And anyone who knows enough to look up Michigan Football, knows that Nebraska is Michigan's new rival from the Big 12, so I don't get why you change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGoBlueHockey (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Also
You could have just deleted the Nebraska (it's a natural rivalry anyway), but I put Notre Dame above State because most Michigan fans consider ND a bigger rival than State. Maybe in hockey and basketball State is our first rival, but in football that's not so. So I'd appreciate if you'd let me keep my changes on that page with ND above State. And the JFK thing was a joke, sorry. (MGoBlueHockey (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC))
- I think you'd find a lot of other Michigan fans who'd disagree - ND is a big rival, but the rivalry has gone for several years without being played; if you can find a source or two for that, then okay but otherwise it's just opinion and not really a basis for an edit! JohnInDC (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Rivalry tabs?
Touché. But could you maybe assist me with adding a rivalry tab for Michigan men's basketball and Michigan Baseball? I've been trying to set it up but the "Rivals:" part won't show up in the team information box located on the right side of the page when you're on it. (MGoBlueHockey (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC))
- Oh, gosh, I'm not really very technically proficient with this stuff. I meant it when I said I'd be willing to help but I didn't realize you'd stump me right at the beginning! (You should test out different code on a sub page of your user page, rather than the live page, so that other editors don't take issue with your experimentation.) JohnInDC (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Gregoire Akcelrod's page
why do you delete all my informations ? for filmography , the IMDB link is already there . could you respect people works ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurdelys 10 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Two of the films are not released and none are notable. These are trivial facts and just clutter up what should be a very brief article. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- On top of which, IMDB is only a marginally suitable source, quite easily subject to abuse. Better that this sort of material be left off. JohnInDC (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
None of this movies are notable ?? that's very interesting ! Mon pire cauchemar is one of the biggest movie in france this year with Benoit poolvoerde and Isabelle Huppert who just won a César in Cannes for best actress !!! but maybe for you, that's nothing ! what is wrong for you about Gregoire Akcelrod ?? he can't be actor ? he can't play soccer ?? tell me Fleurdelys 10 (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
| 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |