User talk:John Broughton/Archive 3 December 2006

Dimensional Insight

Could you please take another look at --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Dimensional Insight? I found references and added them to the article, and I feel the references adequately demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:FuzzyRedGuy

I see you blocked this account, indef; you might consider another account, User talk:FuzzyBlueGuy92, as well, since they seem to be a tag team. John Broughton | Talk 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Le Webb

Regarding your note on Hong, I think she merits her own page due to her growing popularity among bloggers and her role as the first Vietnamese-American first lady of a state senator. As for starting off the entry with something more than a one-liner, you're absolutely correct and I'll remedy that by posting something substancial.

Many thanks Craig Houghton 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Johnson Page Move Proposal

I believe you may have misplaced your page move response. Please click on the discuss button and place it on the correct talk page. TonyTheTiger 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts in responding. I only question whether you understand whether the issue is whether he remains the more commonly sought than the sum of all other articles. TonyTheTiger 22:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP Study

Well feel free to make some of the changes yourself - you clearly have a 'vision' for this and per WP:OWN you should feel free to improve format at the drop of a hat.

To respond to a few of your points:

Regarding 'new' users - its relatively simple to check. I'll be honest and admit that I've not gone through every single registered edit history BUT i checked all vandalising new users and all users with 'red' names; now scientifically you could critcise that and I'd like feedback on that approach - but it seemed a weakness that the study ignored the contributions of new users.

I'm wondering whether the first three/four days should be considered as trial of the methodology anyway, rather than a full part of the survey...

To be honest it wasn't that bad - it took about 20 minutes to do what I did. I imagine on a day of heavy editing it would be more like 30 but its still not too long. However, I do appreciate your other concerns, so its probably a good idea to break it up (and who knows, it might tell us some other intersting things about when we want to put on semi-protection

The other thing I considered counting was the % (or number) of registered edits that go into reverting vandalism - I was wondering what you thought about that? --Robdurbar 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your outside view

After reading your comment I made a modification to my response. Initially I decided not to repond to the charges because I deemed them without merit and disingeneous considering that I have been involved in continuous disputes with the accuser BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for months. In my view, the the RFC is not drawn out of the blue, it is only the latest line of attack user:Bhaisaab has resorted to in what amounts to a daily onslaught over the past half a year.--CltFn 17:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Index

No probs - I'm pleased that it is useful. SP-KP 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Iraq Study Group Report

You may be right on the issue on Use of talk pages, but from your user page I see that you are from the United States, one of the parties in this conflict. I therefore assume, that your edits may have been motivated not only by your concern for the quality of conversation, but also by your personal/national points of view. Attempts at censorship would be more wellcome, if they came from parties or countries generally seen as neural.

Anyway, you did a good job at paraphrasing my comments. I will let them stay. -- Petri Krohn 05:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypermarket

Thanks for your interventions. Would you recommend that I disengage for a while? I did not feel that my interventions warranted Tuxide's banner and comment. Perhaps I am wrong. I admit that I became fed up with the unexplained serial reverts of my edit. Sprotch 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Sprotch 15:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As is the will of WP:RETAIL, I too want to see a well-verified article for Hypermarket; however rambling on and on about a particular member of it is highly unproductive. I have nothing personal against Sprotch; however without such intervention, the talk page would've only gotten bigger and bigger. In response to your message, I am referring to Sprotch's original posting on WP:WQA (the "twelve year old Caldorwards4" one), as well as all of his mention of Caldorwards4 on Talk:Hypermarket. By the tone of Sprotch's postings, it is obvious that his messages are personal. I'm not contesting whether his comments were negative; however, in this case Sprotch's conversation should've been in the user talk namespace, not in Talk:Hypermarket. Least there is this edit, although it doesn't sound very inviting to me. Within good faith, I believe Sprotch was trying to get Caldorwards4's attention, although it is in the wrong place. Caldorwards4 is not MascotGuy; he does communicate with other editors. I am considering least refactoring that mess--as was done with his comment on WP:WQA--for leaving it there in its original form would encourage edit/flame war. Regards, Tuxide 06:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The matter seems closed now, as the latest edit by Caldorwards4 seems (at first glance) compatible with the sources discussed on the talk page. Thanks so much for your interventions, John. Sprotch 09:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but your intervention may be beneficial again. I'm affraid the matter may not be as closed as one could hope. I think most problems stem from Caldowards4's absence from the talk page. That translates in removal of information and edits that do not seem to be adequately sourced. Sprotch 12:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libellous > libelous

Regarding your change of the spelling of libellous, may I note that the British spelling is libellous, the American one tends to be libelous. So any google search will throw up libelous as being the more common. As WP deprecates unnecessary changes between UK and US English, it's one of those cases where a google search doesn't help. I'm sure this was all unintentional on your behalf, but I thought it would be useful to point it out for your future reference. jguk 18:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

complex vandalism

indef blocked those two - nice catch, I was following the edit history of extrasolar planet and noticing the same thing, trying to figure out if it was accidental. Kaisershatner 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"ThrottleMetal → Throttle (band)" and archiving your talk page

I went to the history log of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 December 9, and you deliberately deleted a closed debate. To save history, I added back this deleted debate with an addition to {{rfd top}} and {{rfd bottom}} with a closed debate inbetween. To officially close a debate, use these templates instead of removing this debate because a reader would know the history in the future. I can't find a guideline for you, but that's all I learned.

Also, I think you better do something with all messages you received in the past because it's getting large. Go to Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for more information instead of removing all content above. --Gh87 06:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John was fine in what he did. He originally listed it as a RFD, but then changed it to a speedy delete. Speedy deletes do not need to be listed at RFD. -- JLaTondre 14:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was best to be active in my nomination to answer concerns addressed, especially those that seemed incorrect. Apologies if I did seem a little bit too involved in proceedings. :) Wikiwoohoo 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Steve Platt

Although I do appreciate your information and advice, I'm sure it was quite obvious to you that I knew and know nothing about Wikipedia. For that reason, I'm thankful for your help. For that very same reason, I would simply ask that you be a bit more cordial and less rude. You were harsh and perhaps that's just part of the job. I wish you the best and have a Happy Holiday season. 17:42, 14 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.23.138 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection

Talk has resumed about what to do with this policy. Thought I would let you know as it has kinda went into a standstill (nobody really saying much) over the last few days. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 09:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo page

On the deletion log page, you wrote:

Delete. He's a 22-year old who has organized ONE conference/festival/whatever so far, per this, with a second scheduled for 2007 (per an external link in the article). All of the other external links in the article are to work he did as a member of an organization (Connect UK), some back as far as 2001 - when he was 15 and (I think this is obvious) not in charge of anything at all. With less than 300 google hits, I think it's safe to kill this article. Perhaps an administrator could salt it so that it's impossible to recreate without subsequent administrator approval?

.......;;You are VERY wrong! Please get your facts right. He has directed a great number of festivals all over the world and they are all renowned featuring eminent world-class personalities. and Connect UK is the UK's south pacific cultural diplomacy body which he founded and directed at the age of 17. not in charge of anything at all? Remember - ignorance is not an excuse? 00:35, 17 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeouspom (talk • contribs)

In response to your message

Thanks for the correction! Sr13 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a little help

Hey John, You were able to point me in the right direction on an earlier wikipedia policy (the 3R warning) and I was hoping you could help me once again. There's a page I saw pop up- Keith Ellison in the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session. When I first saw it, it read like an ad for a candidate, so I nominated it for deletion. The editor deleted the warning saying he needed to add more, so I let it be. I still don't think the article is a valid one because of the sheer depth of a moment in a politicians career, but I still think I'm too new to make that kind of call. Is this the kind of thing that should be Nfd, or is it best left alone? Thanks StayinAnon 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, Sorry I am late in readdressing this. I appriciate your getting involved in this, as I still think I am too new to wikipedia to get that in depth. I like how this article is sourced and well written, but I agree that it may set a bad precident. I hope that a concensus is reached, and if it does go Afd, then I'll say that I think it sets a bad precident for future articles. Anyways, the article is much cleaner than when I originally saw it, so I am reluctant to do anything more. Also, on your other message, I'll look into it a bit more for better tips, but I like the idea of an editor's index. Thanks again for your help, let me know if there's anything more I can do. Cheers StayinAnon 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

umm can i post an article here which you can edit?

thanks

great. let me know how to proceed. thanks.

Pablo

Hello. I have fulfilled your request at DRV. I am willing to give you one chance to see if you can prove notability as per your discussion here. This article has been deleted 8 times already. Do get in touch with me when you come to a conclusion about the article. Keep up the good work. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he follows your advice. Here's something for you :) - Aksi_great (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, Aksi_great, award John Broughton this barnstar for going out of your way to help other users. Aksi_great (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo

i have done some work on this. let me know what you think. Zeouspom 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed your comments before

I'm sorry I missed your comments about the Keith Ellison article before I'll respond on my talk-page as per your request. --Wowaconia 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response is now posted on my talk-page as per your request, thanks for you patience.Wowaconia 21:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leave me alone

i dont know who you think you are that you needed to come 'involve' yourself in a dispute between me and craigtolbert. but it was really not appreciated. you are not our 'mommy' and i am well aware of the 'principles of wikipedia' -- in fact every time i try to apply them equally to someone who has a bit of power, i get a nice lesson in how unfair and biased wikipedia is. im not talking about the stuff in my 'history',, i have posted from many ips. this current stuff is mostly nonsense i did because i got so sick of my other edits being deleted/modified for no @#$@#$ reason and me having basically no recourse whatsoever because i am not in the 'inner cricle' of wikipriests. 20:53, 20 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.250.195 (talk • contribs)

finalising the page

i think the page now looks fine. i have tweaked it a little bit and made a couple of changes. Zeouspom 16:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Spam 'links

Thank you for your note. Somebody (using various single purpose accounts) has posted perhaps hundreds of links in wikipedia to these pages. My findings are that 85% of the links are irrelevant to the pages they are posted on e.g. don't even contain a word from the page's title. They are link spam in the sense that they're using wikipedia to raise the sites' rankings in search engine results. Your new link on Jouette Shouse is an improvement in that the page actually mentions Shouse. If other editors of the pages think I've been too drastic, I'm happy to discuss each one. Nunquam Dormio 22:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All three

Or is the problem limited to links being either to the wrong page, or there being no page at potsdam.edu that in fact is relevant?

I would expect a page linked from a wiki topic to say something about that topic. A link to a page that's part of a site that might or might not somewhere mention a topic doesn't really cut the mustard or else every wiki page would have a link to www.bbc.co.uk. But, to take an example, a Google search on Carl Stuart Hamblen shows there is nothing on that site about him.

Is Hanson's authority on the subject of alcoholism questioned? (That is, is there some reason to believe that the material fails WP:RS?)

Hanson is a sociologist, not a medical doctor. The quality of this self-published site varies enormously from one page to another. They range from entirely sensible, through the selective and partisan to the frankly eccentric. (See his conspiracy theory about the Journal of the American Medical Association and Monica Lewinsky.) Each page needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis. Nunquam Dormio 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does Wikipedia make a troublemaking vandal like John Broughton an Editor?

I remember you from past unauthorized edits and vandalism which you have done to some of my Wikipedia contributions. Since when does Wikipedia make someone of your ilk an Editor? Don't they know that you are a troublemaker and a vandal? To be honest, it's because of people like you that I try to avoid making contributions to Wikipedia. Therefore, I'd like to ask you to leave me alone and mind your own business. Is that too much to ask, Johnny boy? 172.161.39.45 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShakingBot

Thanks very much for your feedback on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ShakingBot; just to let you know I've replied ^_^ ShakingSpirit ^talk 08:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]