User talk:John Reaves/Archive3

This is a Wikipedia user page.

If you were looking for the football player named John Reaves, you want this article: John Reaves.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Reaves/Archive3.

Wikimedia Foundation

This is an archive of past discussions about User:John Reaves. 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.

Created: 07:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Updated: 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Mullins site

Please don't delete the Patrick Mullins II site, he is currently working on a book, has been mentioned by Men's Health Magazine for his successful weight loss. This page is beneficial to dieters also, especially those in ketosis. Patrick has been able to lose 140 pound over the past two years on the diet.

Thank you

Curt Wright, Richmond Virginia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BandNobleRichVA (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

I have to admire your civic-mindedness in slapping me for vandalising my own talk page :-)

But while I appreciate the information, for the record, I am well aware of the edit summary box, and I understand its many uses and how beneficial it can be. I do make edit summaries for major edits, and for significant minor edits, but for small stylistic changes, such as shifting a link in a page, any edit summary would often be a larger job than the edit itself, and so I usually ignore it. Perhaps I'm wrong to do so, but it seems pedantic to spend more time explaining what you did than actually doing it. Serendipodous 09:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat: Fictional English people

I don't know where to propose this idea so I decide to talk to you. I have recently found this category in every character's article related to Harry Potter series and I see it such pointless information. Categories supply us the most remarkable characteristics, not a paragraph describing every minor detail about the character, and the "Fictional English people" one looks very crazy and sweeping. Thus I think we should remove this cat from all articles because it's really unnecessary. _AbelinC A usesobad 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows

Would you mind expounding on your decision to remove my edit because of 'unreliable source'. While the exact release date *is* in question, the paragraph intrinsically lends to the speculative nature of the release. Readers will automatically assume that there is some doubt about the exact date, but is informative nevertheless.

Amazon.com is very reliable (thought not infallible) source for the release dates of books. Obviously the edit will be obsolete when an official announcement is made, but then again, most of the article will be too. Just leave it there until that day arrives, yes?

Why will you not answer to your changes, or discuss them? Is that not the WikiWay?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whartman (talk • contribs)04:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stay off my talkpage

I have no desire for advice from you or conversation. Thanks. Ronbo76 07:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned WP:AIV entry from Phaedrus86

Thank you for letting me know I failed to sign my post to WP:AIV. Abject apologies - I was trying so hard to make sure I got all the evidence in to get the subject vandal blocked that I went and forgot to sign... which is a reason but not an excuse, I should know better! Phaedrus86 08:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Creation of page

Hello,

I do not understand what kind of pages fall into the speedy deletion category. I created a page about a brand of ration packs supplied to Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon etc. There are similar pages in Wikipedia such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployable_rapid_assembly_shelter

How should I write so that this can stay in Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedric1979 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Speedy deletion when I was still editing

i was still writing a page and you just came along and slapped that speedy deletion. Pretty desperate to delete aren't you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nitr021 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Try writing it yourself if you are soooooooo gooooooooooooooooood

try writing it yourself this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_%28cavity_wall%29. I tried to look on wikipedia to learn some new things about wall but it didn't have enough information about wall ties so I thought, 'why not contribute' even though I am not a god at writing like you. I tried to contribute some information that would be relevant to wall ties. But as you think a couple of lines giving enough information about something that wikipedia doesn't have, u just slap a speedy deletion. ffs try rewrite the whole thing then, and it better make sense as it seems that I cannot write enough for ~~anything~~ you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nitr021 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

You writing the page yet???

you writing the page yet??? WDF is wrong with you --Nitr021 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Untitled2

Hi, thanks for your reply. I have written another article in a fashion similar to the article you commented as decent, let me know if this is acceptable? I would appreciate pointers if you feel strongly to any section. Thank you very much. Tedric1979 09:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and find it. John Reaves 09:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you and have a good day John.

A Series of Dumb Comments, Enjoy

Brought to you by: TrentJones

I did not leave Whitney Houston's page blank. I noticed that their was a problem with the information on the page, as in when you look at the page it was half the length it was last week, but when you try to edit it you will notice that the original information is all on the edit page. All I did was try to include the information by cutting and pasting the information in an attempt to fix the page. That did not work however as the short version of the page was unable to be changed. Maybe you can help by fixing it. Next time please check the DISCUSSION page and see what was going on before messaging me, it is an alot more intellegent approach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrentJones (talk • contribs) 18:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

There are to ways to spell that word as was taught to me in school. I am from Trinidad and Tobago and the ENGLSIH way to spell INTELLEGENT is with an E not an I. So kiss my black ass you stupid cunthole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrentJones (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC). <--Please note that this user has been warned about perosnal attacks John Reaves-->

Wow as if Wikipedia is my life...Please dude go and get some girls and have some fun instead of living by that PC screen

Hello let me tell you something. I spend about..i dunno...1 hour a week in total on this site when i come to do some reading in work or when i make a bet based on some information and i want to make some quick cash. I have a girlfriend (which u obviously don't and need badly) meaning that i spend more time having sex than i spend on the PC (i bet that you are still a virgin). I only edit stuff if i know for a fact its false and i have nothing more exciting to do like, i dunno, go outside (u shud try it, trust me, the voices that told u bother me won't hurt u). You need to leave me alone dude. And don't bother threatening me with being blocked, because i don't really care. If i get blocked i will have less reason to be online and even more reason to go and, i dunno, live. Trust me dude, i ain't a nerd like the rest of the freaks online who never saw a vagina. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrentJones (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I thought i said Don't talk to me? U like boys or sumting? Buy a dildo, i don't play dat.

JJohnReaves

I have blocked this account for its username violation and trolling. You might want to request a checkuser to see if it is the same person as TrentJones (talk · contribs). -- Merope 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

...and while it is generally not a good idea to remove posts from your talk page, I think you could safely remove everything from JJohnReaves & TrentJones as obvious trolling and/or personal attacks if you so choose to.--Isotope23 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Isotope23 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry

OK, then, sorry; was unaware of the relist. I suppose it will take care of itself, then. Thanks. Dooms Day349 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tag removal?

Was it your intent to remove the speedy tag from Harvest South Bay? Generally, these should only be removed by an administrator who decides that speedy deletion is unwarranted. Speedy is a more efficient process to address your prod concern-a group with no assertion of notability may be speedied under A7. Seraphimblade 04:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Buildings I'm not sure about, but A7 specifically covers organizations (churches, companies, etc.), if they don't assert notability. I've flagged plenty of such with no notability assertion and they went poof. If the article really was about a building (a skyscraper or something) I'd imagine it wouldn't be covered, but I've never run across that anyway. Seraphimblade 04:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't u improve it?

improve it rather then saying it has little content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noob with sword (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

then why did u remove the offical link i put

i add the link so other people can get info from there and add it here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noob with sword (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Aster (cable)

Please see my comment on the talk page. Thanks. --Dweller 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I know this is somewhat belated, but I wanted to thank you for your help re: comments on Ronbo76's page. I think he misunderstood what I was trying to ask him, so I'm glad someone else knew what they were talking about. I can also offer my condolences on the misunderstandings he seemed to make about you, too. Anyway, keep up the good work, and thanks again for your help! —Keakealani·?·!·@ 22:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Untitled 3

What a clear method. Go there & read.

(You could be confused because US Navy doesn't operate this kind of ship anymore.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette

Radcliffe

The last revert was reverting blatant vandalism unrelated to anything else. Otherwise, I reverted three times and wasn't planning on reverting again. Mad Jack 01:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, anything but discussion. I've always believed the only thing we need are sources, not discussion. Anyway, no one reverted the vandalism after 5 minutes so I did - it was blatant enough. Mad Jack 01:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

John

John what is going on with the zoft article I made. Fan1967 is just declining anything I try to do on Wikipedia even if it is just fixing a typo. I do not understand? -Shannon

Not really that difficult to understand. I spend hours yesterday dealing with a spammer creating multiple articles to advertise Zoft and an associated website. He goes away, and less than a day later a brand-new, totally innocent, user just happens to register an account for the one and only purpose of creating a quite similar article on the same site. No, I'm not suspicious at all of such a remarkable coincidence, but the company still does not remotely meet the standards at WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 04:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Next time, actually take a look at what has been changed. The cardinal mistake of the fool who made the original 'streamlining' was to spell 'defence' as 'defense'. Next time, actually look what has been changed. Michaelsanders 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to leave messages in the right place. And in what way did was I being a bigot? Michaelsanders 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. I was pointing out that if you hadn't noticed the wrongful American spelling of 'defence', then you were obviously blind (which was rude of me; too lazy to take the time to run an edit summary, but not blind), and an idiot (which I stick by, since you produced that little mess-up there). And, obviously, American, since you were either incapable of spotting it, or actively promoting it. Michaelsanders 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why. You confused the user Han, either deliberately or through your own negligence. You could have removed the spelling 'defense' yourself, either by 'comparing selected versions' (do you need help working out how to do that?) or by simply spotting it in the text. You produced an almighty mess up, simply because you were too lazy to observe the changes made. That qualifies as idiocy in my book. As for blindness: as I have said, that was rude of me, and I apologise for that. 'unobservant' seems more appropriate, as does lazy. If you are going to complain about my not using edit summaries, you might 1) read mine when I do write them and 2)take the trouble to observe changes made.

Oh, and did you not read the part where I said, "this is the last remark I'll address to you here?" Again, laziness from you.And now, I really don't want to talk to you any more. Michaelsanders 02:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This from the guy who is too lazy to type an edit summary. John Reaves 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories for redirect pages

I see you reverted my edit to Caractacus Burke. Well, I removed the cats for reasons of consistency, as the other characters in the Minor Harry Potter characters article don't have their places in Category:Harry Potter characters. Also, please note that the page Minor Harry Potter characters itself already belongs to that category. I hope you understand. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 07:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Though I understand, the problem still remains: inconsistency among minor characters. As far as I am concerned, the HP character category currently holds only the main characters who have their own articles (well except for Caractacus Burke since you're so determined to keep the cats). Many other minor characters Amy Benson, Stubby Boardman, Crospin Conk, Herbert Chorley, etc do not have their names in the category, they are listed by the the article that they stay in. It's much easier to list only the articles of the main characters instead of adding the cat. HP character to countless other redirect pages. What is your opinion on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeaceNT (talk • contribs) 09:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

John Reaves. You have now made made four reverts to the Caractacus Burke redirect page in less than 24 hours, exceeding the 3-revert rule. Please be more careful in future. You wouldn't want to be forced to stop making those witty remarks about me and my history, would you?

And as I have repeatedly said, Caractacus Burke is, if not the only categorised HP redirect, then one of a very few. It is also unnecessary. You can categorise the article it redirects to. It also creates confusion: would you categorise Tom Riddle Sr.? What about Tom Riddle Sr? Tom Riddle?

"nothing wrong with cats, helps compile list of characters" - the last time I looked, that was what List of characters in the Harry Potter books was for. An inconsistent catalogue isn't necessary.

If you really feel strongly about this issue, I suggest you either categorise all of the redirects, or none of them. Alternately, you could bring it up on the project discussion page - if you secure agreement there, we will all be required to either actively assist or at least tolerate such categorising. If you are not willing to either discuss the issue, or apply consistency, however, I am afraid that Caractacus Burke will have to remain uncategorised.

Thank you. Michaelsanders 10:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"You have no reason to revert this except to start controversy." To be honest, I rather object to that suggestion. I was merely browsing your contributions, and found the phrase rv cats are fine odd enough to take a look at. My reasoning for reverting was that, having taken a quick look through the Harry Potter characters catalogue, I couldn't find a listing of s redirect (nor could I at a more careful search a little while ago - although I did find an in need of merging wizard of the month). As, indeed, PeaceNT pointed out on this very page. To put it bluntly: there may or may not be one or two redirects, in addition to Caractacus Burke, which have been categorised. Most haven't; and, so far as I am aware, the general wikipedia policy is to not categorise redirects, but rather the articles they redirect to. If you want to change this in the HP project, where I know this to be the case de facto, if not necessarily de jure (I don't know of the issue ever being addressed), bring it up there; and then categorise all the HP redirects (and come up with a system for doing so). Until then, it's hard to see how you can justify keeping the redirect categorised. Michaelsanders 11:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you think, then take the matter up on the talk page. Until then, refrain from unnecessary categorising (especially when it's in the wrong place - Tom Riddle Sr. is not correct). Michaelsanders 12:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And please don't categorise redirects until you have some sort of consensus - or at least, lack of objection - for doing so. Whatever the policy says, the point remains that it is not employed. Courtesy, if nothing else, would demand that you at least announce your intention of doing so on the project page. And it is important that you don't mislead others by insidiously categorising before you announce it - if you do that, you risk making editors believe your view is a practice already partially employed and improved of - which it is not. Michaelsanders 12:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You are paranoid, and what I have said on the project discussion page still holds true. Michaelsanders 13:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that latest message: another brick in the suicide's tower...accusing me of existing in the project only to cause trouble and cause arguments - I know you look at my contribution log, so how you have the audacity to claim that is beyond me; you, on the other hand, seem to consist chiefly of questioning details rather than referring to the sources, and telling people off - I mean, "refute other editors and start disputes" - which one of us was so rude to another editor as to get him vandalising your talk page only this week? And, as I say, I have only once been as generally rude and unpleasant as you: you have already surpassed me in quantity. I'm not even going to bother to refute the dictionary accusation - presumably I simply have a better vocabulary than you. I suggest you try not to feel threatened by it.

Now, then, is there any point in continuing this little discussion, or have you finished venting your rage? Michaelsanders 14:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidently not, since it is making you unable to understand simple statements. I repeat: I know you look at my contribution log; so you will know that I make numerous constructive additions to wikipedia - many of which seem a great deal more worthwhile than yours - so how you can claim I 'don't make constructive edits' is incomprehensible to me (i.e. 'it is beyond my understanding', or 'beyond me' how you can suggest it - it's a common British idiom).And how you dare to claim that I only make sure "the HP articles didn't change against your liking", when your temper tantrum today has been about you not wanting an article changed against your liking, is also 'beyond me'. And I am not consistently rude: as you would know if you spent any time outside Harry Potter.

You're not threatened by me? Well, that's good, since I'm not trying to threaten you. Just a friendly heads up, though: I've given you plenty of warnings and chances today, and enough is enough. Curb the offensive tones, or I WILL report you. Michaelsanders 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's better. And in answer to your question, it's always better to refer directly to the sources, rather than to depend on faulty recollections by others. Michaelsanders 14:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of magical beasts, and I didn't remember the tebo. That's rather different to not checking the source to find out details, and questioning others based upon your faulty recollection. Michaelsanders 15:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's good, because I don't really want a discussion with you - as I pointed out, you were the one that kicked it all off again. Put quite simply, I have not accused you of anything that is not true. Your behaviour today has proved that. And you have absolutely no right to criticise me for failings that you have, or to trivialise the work I do for wikipedia - I contribute more of substance than you do or ever have, and a simple look in our contribution logs is enough to prove that. You don't like the way I edit? That's fine, but complaining about them whilst simultaneously committing worse offences is not a particularly pacific way of sorting things out. Just restrain yourself in future. Michaelsanders 15:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that last comment didn't make any sense, either by itself, or in context. Your comments today have been, "I want to keep the category there, will shout at anyone who contests that, but don't care if it's consistent or not", followed by a torrent of abuse. I think most people would find the purpose of such comments - unless they were simply self-destruction - 'beyond them'. As for our respective contribution, I think that they can speak for themselves. But, by all means, continue to pour out the hate. Michaelsanders 15:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And no. I would not like an archive. And if I did, I would either do it myself, or ask another editor for assistance. Michaelsanders 15:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reported you under the 3RR rules [1]. Your final rude remarks, and your lack of penitance or remorse for your persistent rudeness, left me no choice. Michaelsanders 15:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the rules, I should have reported you immediately. I held off because I know what it's like to be reported; but with your ridiculous and offensive behaviour today, I simply couldn't justify not reporting you to myself. And you still don't accept or apologise for your offensive remarks and behaviour - so I'm not exactly flush with remorse right now. Michaelsanders 16:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really? Would you ask your mother to 'stop bitching'? Your father? And, "You're quite full of yourself aren't you? Never wrong, won't back down, blow anything out of proportion to get you way or be entertained. 3RR and uncivilty seems to be a way of life for you..." was just one of the many gems you dispensed there. Michaelsanders 16:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I did apologise for that single remark. You haven't apologised for the numerous remarks you applied to me today. And the answer to your 'questions is above - I put an asterix next to it to make it clear. Michaelsanders 16:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, didn't I? Okay, I'm sorry for calling you a 'blind American idiot'.

Now apologise for the numerous insults you threw. Michaelsanders 16:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but 'bitching' is offensive. As I said: would you use it to your parents? 'Slanging match' is another British term - it's where the two participants hurl insults at each other. And, as I pointed out, it was you and your 'bitching' remark that set that off. Michaelsanders 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

I would appreciate it, next time you presume to 'warn' me, you tell me exactly where in policy files it says I cannot remove a speedy deletion tag that is horrifically and erroneously applied. I have done this several times with over-zealous new article patrollers in the past, and this is the exact same sort of case. If anyone should be warned, I think it would be the person applying such templates without appropriate reasoning or research. Tuviya 15:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

California Assn for the Gifted

Hello John. I will rework the article so that it matches guidelines. Thanks for your time.

Lance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghlance (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Blocked, 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Solomen

Yeah, this guy is a friend of mine who signed in at the exact same time as me using the school internet connection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filefire (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC).