User talk:Johnjoecavanagh

Your petition

Although I agree with your online petition, and have signed it, I think that you should bring the matter up elsewhere, such as at The Village Pump where the policy change will get much more attention.--Mrtombullen 22:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its up there at the bottom of the page! Johnjoecavanagh 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, sorry, my mistake! I've added to that dicussion. I found your petition from Lumber Jack second account talk page, which I found from SchuminWeb's talk page.--Mrtombullen 22:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redboy

A tag has been placed on Redboy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Redboy

Hi. If you can find any reliable sources for this, which assert notability, I guess it can stay. However, the article as it stands is not encyclopedic, and I don't think a local urban myth is going to pass notability guidelines. If you think you can get it up to standard, however, feel free to try and improve it. (though other people might come along and insist on speedy deletion). Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your manners

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to me like a person, not a bloody bearaucrat. Johnjoecavanagh 11:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User Talk:SchuminWeb. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you have issues with how SchuminWeb or anyone else goes about things (and I've had my own), there are ways to resolve them, and personal attacks aren't it. --Clubjuggle 14:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redboy

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Redboy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Brianga 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is going to make that article notable. Unless there is a source out there and I see none. If you continue to readd the article, you will be blocked as a vandal. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have just been blocked indefinitely. Trolls are not welcome here. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Why? Just because you said so isn't a valid reason. Johnjoecavanagh 10:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't be blocked, I'm not a troll or vandal

To request unblocking: IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:137.191.228.131 Blocking admin: Woohookitty Block reason: troll/vandal Block originally applied to: Johnjoecavanagh Your account name (if you have one): An explanation of why your block is unfair: I created an article called redboy, but was deleted by somebody despite us explaining we were in the process of improving it and it wasn't a hoax. I also put a hoax template on the Empress of India page because it didn't provide enough sources, and one of the people who deleted the redboy page was responsible for it. I was highlighting damning hypocrysy, and I was deleted because of it. Hardly fair, is it? Johnjoecavanagh 10:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT. --Clubjuggle 11:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough POINT, but how am I expected to be up to date on all the buraucracy in this place? Seriously, its enough to give any good man a headache! Can I be unblocked please, I've learnt my lesson. Johnjoecavanagh 11:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will unblock you. But any signs of troll or vandal activity (and that would include removing legitimate tags) and you will be reblocked. And btw, the hoax tag is not the tag to use if you feel that there inaccuracies in the article. This is the tag to use. And btw, the admin who deleted the redboy page wasn't "responsible for it"> In fact, he removed copyright infringing material. You can see that by using the history link on the Empress of Scotland page. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politely asking questions, then carefully reading and trying to learn from the answers, is probably a good start. Assume good faith and most people will return the favor. Rather than questioning the motivations of your fellow editors, instead seek to learn and understand. I find that most disputes are easily resolved when I approach them with the assumption that I am more than likely the one in the wrong. When I am, I learn something new and become a better contributor. When I'm not, the other person is more likely to admit that when they don't feel like they're being attacked. --Clubjuggle 16:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Redboy story is known very well in most parts of Monaghan. There are plenty of sources confirming this - Wikipedia is supposed to welcome such trivia. This is absolutely ridiculous. Johnjoecavanagh 12:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things. Firstly, one of my many jobs as an administrator is to apply the rules of Wikipedia. And we have very strong notability guidelines. Not every subject deserves an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If it was, the encyclopedia would become very unwieldly and hard to manage. Honestly, it is already hard to manage as it is. Secondly, trivia is most certainly not welcomed. We have several policies regarding trivia. Trivia is not banned or anything like that. But again, we can't include everything. And to me, if this is a real urban legend, it's a very local one. Well known in a city of 5,000 people doesn't really translate to worldwide notability.

And this isn't just me. A different admin deleted the article the first time. Also, both User:Onorem and User:Ursasapien both reverted you. This isn't a crusade of mine or something. And what you said is definitely a threat. I'd suggest toning things down if you want to make any headway here. Coming in with guns blazing isn't going to persuade many people. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oodles of Noodles

On Talk:Oodles of Noodles you said "Now this is exactly what I'm talking about. This article needs some gentle weaning, not deletion." If Oodles of Noodles were the first instant ramen noodle product sold in the United States, it might have been notable, but it wasn't. Oodles of Noodles ramen were introduced in 1976 Nissin Foods - Our History. Top Ramen were introduced six years earlier in 1970. The Oodles of Noodles name did not last, it was merged back into Top Ramen in 2000. I don't see any particular notability here. Any discussion really belongs under a Nissin Foods article. --Bejnar 16:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjar, I don't know about where you're from, but over here (Florida), everyone calls them oodles of noodles. They still print "oodles of noodles" on the label, right by Top Ramen, and it's a hell of a lot more fun to say. Top Ramen and Oodles of Noodles are essentially the same thing. I looked up "Ramen noodles" but the description was far from what I (and most Americans) associate with Ramen noodles, so I decided to make a section on what we all think of when "Ramen" enters our minds. --RockerGrrrl 18:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance

Please stop trolling. Because that's exactly what you are doing. Making all of your contributions on talk pages and using them to promote a point of view...and dropping these petition posts on user's talk pages defines trolling. There has to be a balance between that kind of stuff and contributing to the project itself. Right now, your only contributions are an article about an urban legend that is only really well known in a small town. There has to be more than that for you to be considered a contributor and not just an internet troll. I have no problem with the petition. We always have to be open to change. But you have to at least attempt to add to the project in some way. I like people who stir the pot. But you gotta add some seasoning to it as well. :) Just stirring it isn't real helpful for anyone. As someone mentioned, you have the makings of a very good contributor. We need all of the passionate people that we can get. But it's gotta be more than just complaining or else it's just trolling for your point of view and that generally isn't something we want. You need a balance of the two. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two WP:ANI discussions involving you...

Here and here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely

And this time, I am not going to overturn the block. I and others gave you many chances. But doing what you are doing defines troll. You've shown little interest in actually improving the site. Almost all of your edits are canvassing in one form or another. As I said up above, wanting change is never a bad thing. But you gotta go about it while still adding to what we have here. Bad actors aren't not ok here. For any admin that goes past this page, here is the reasoning behind the block. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Known

You said:

Surely it our duty to make things known, so long as there is some sort of interest in it? You may personally not know about something, which doesn't mean to say that others don't. In fact, the intense amount of knowledge a single person will never know is beyond comprehension, so notability is a moot point to begin with Johnjoecavanagh 22:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have hit the metaphysical nail on the head. When one talks about a body of knowledge one does not normally mean the knowledge about a subject kept in a single head, one means the "generally accepted" body of knowledge by those conversant in the field. People publish articles and books about the things they find out about the areas that they are interested in. That provides a first-level filtering mechanism. A second level of filtering is provided by others by their criticism or acceptance (or combination) of the information originally produced. An encyclopedia is a third level mechanism which is intended to share the "generally accepted" body of knowledge by those conversant in the field. This means that it is not a mechanism for changing the unknown into the known, that is called original research. That is why, as a third level resource, Wikipedia emphasizes: verifiability, accuracy, and neutral point of view.

The only sense that an encyclopedia is a mechanism for changing the unknown into the known, is in the head of an individual who is not conversant in the field. --Bejnar 14:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory, nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects.

I've been blocked

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Some of the people who 'contribute' (IE, constantly delete other peoples work) to this place are completely devoid of a social life. They sort of remind me of that fat guy in that South Park Episode which parodies the World of Warcraft. Really, I pity them. Johnjoecavanagh 20:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your pity, but actually, we don't need it. A lot of us do have social lives, and obligations that come with them. For me, Wikipedia is more of something to do when I want to relax or am bored. As for the "pathetic" bit, please read WP:TROLL. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you like destroying work as a hobby? well thats left me impressed. Johnjoecavanagh 08:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I did seen what you wrote 'woohookitty' (Which is another aspect of the whole geeky culture I don't like) and I genuinly do care. But unlike you I realise Wikipedia has reached its limits in terms of academic records. Almost 2 million articles is a testament to that. I would 'contribute', as you had advised, but I'm afraid of becoming a silly petty little man like all of you in terms of deleting articles to get my kicks. I don't have that certain passive aggressiveness you revel in - I'm upfront about my grievances. If thats considered 'trolling' so be it, but what I'm more worried about is all of your inability to see anothers Point of View without seeing it as a danger to the community - This stifling of dissent has a major historical parallel - Stalinist Russia. A massive and increasingly large buracracy with an unbelievably stupid number of policies rather than relying on common sense is running the place into the ground. All it takes is one imbecile with no life, (Like SchuminWeb) to show no restraint and then you get yourself a flawed policy system. The impetus should instead be on common sense, not on a 'one size fits all policy'.

I have numerous other opinions I'd love to share with you, but as is becoming increasingly clear you are a heartless buraucrat, and you wouldn't care. Consider me a troll if it makes you all feel better, but you know that I'm not, but its the easiest way to get rid of me, isn't it? The fact is that several other members of the community are pissed off with the constant lack of restraint shown by overzealous editors, and they declared this in the petition. If I was a troll, others would not agree with me, I would widely be considered to be an imbecile, but I'm not, and that eats you up inside. Johnjoecavanagh 10:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please no personal attacks. DNFTTHellinaBucket (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]