User talk:JohnSpecialK

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, JohnSpecialK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! œ^™ 22:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Immortal Beloved

Hello, JohnSpecialK, I've just made some suggestions on the talk page of the Immortal Beloved article addressing its neutrality issues. I know it's a subject you're well-versed in, so I'd welcome your input. Junggai (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Junggai, I submitted the article Immortal Beloved (Debate) as a "NPOV-complying" version of what - in my opinion - should be the content of Immortal Beloved. I think it is also more "encyclopedic" than, say, "journalistic" (= the all-too-common style on the Internet). John E Klapproth (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The article Immortal Beloved (Debate) is now marked for deletion; its content has meanwhile been integrated into Immortal Beloved. John E Klapproth (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rita Steblin

The "Correction Date of Birth" seems a bit rude and impolite, but I see that you also scholarly searching the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiqa072395 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Tiqa072395, what about some "Wikipedia-etquette"?:

• "rude and impolite": Well, The Truth Is The Truth (and, sadly, not everything made public in Wikip. qualifies for that). What if the person in question actually wishes to have her true DOB shown? Or is it that you can't stand being "corrected"? Or how could I put it in "polite" way instead?
• What about following the habit (bad enough that it is not mandatory) when making changes to a Wikip. Article, to provide a bit of explanation as well, so that the discerned reader may get an idea what it is about?
• I am not "scholarly searching the truth" (I presume the missing verb was "are"): In this case, I was already (luckily) in the possession of it: namely a comprehensive CV of the person in question. (More of it might be added to this article.)
• Though it is not mandatory (only recommended), one should sign one's comments with 4 of these "~". If your excuse is that you forgot it in the hurry, then this is just the point: One should never do things in a hurry, esp. not if it is about items that are (or could become) disputed (maybe even hotly).
• Having said all that (and annoyed you perhaps - I hope not!): I found it highly commendable to provide this article about a competent musicologist, whose diligent work certainly needs to be recognized. I wonder if you ever attempted to contact her about this? (FYI have look at *Beethoven's Only Beloved: Josephine!) John E Klapproth (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Wairarapa Times-Age - 20 Aug 2011 - Page -26.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Wairarapa Times-Age - 20 Aug 2011 - Page -26.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Klaproth disambiguation and COI

Hello-- I saw that you have added your own name to the Klaproth disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages generally do not list red links unless there is a corresponding red link existing on another article, or an already-created article on another language project. Generally speaking, adding yourself to a page like that is considered a conflict of interest. I wanted to let you know that I plan to remove it once I have discussed it with you. You have made some great contributions here, and your off-wiki work seems very cool, so I don't want this to upset you. Once there is a biography written about you sourced with newspaper articles and books, we can add your name back to the disambiguation page. I hope this is all clear. I can provide any additional information if you need it. Thanks for your contributions here! I look forward to hearing from you. Jokestress (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok with me. Though I do have a newspaper article to my name (the local paper where I'm living), and also an interview with Radio NZ (downloadable from the Internet - actually, I should add that Link [1]. And I am scheduled for a talk/lecture at the upcoming Beethoven Festival of the Beethoven Centre Vienna next May. But for the time being, I don't mind if you remove my name. John E Klapproth (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. As soon as we have a John Klapproth article, we can add it back to the disambiguation page. Please note that Wikiedia's definition of notability is different than my own threshold, and it is not a reflection on you in any way. The notability guideline helps make sure everything is verifiable by other editors, and profiles in national newspapers and books are a good indicator that someone is notable and the info is verifiable. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for the information about your book-- sounds interesting! Jokestress (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Hi. Thanks for that, John. Even if Julie was just plain Jane Julie, do you think she might finally achieve immortality in a dedicated en.wp article? The de.wp one doesn't seem to get off to a very good start. Now, that is a real title issue, IMO. But I don't speak German. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The long awaited Giulietta Guicciardi Article has now been created. It contains much of what is in the German WP, but worded in English. John E Klapproth (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Lokking good, imo. MistyMorn (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Giulietta Guicciardi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

The Article Immortal Beloved (Debate) should be removed: It is now redundant, as its content is incorporated in the Main Article Immortal Beloved. John E Klapproth (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Giulietta Guicciardi

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice: Userpage

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-u1}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you.

I've gone ahead and removed the self-promotional text from your userpage. Please see the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is not a personal website or web host, and is not to be used for self-promotion. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear "Softlavender", thanks for expressing your opinion that you don't like my Userpage, however, wholesale destruction of inconvenient opinions does not help to create a constructive solution. An editor war (like any war) can only have losers! John E Klapproth (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Herr Klapproth, Softlavender is correct: that version of the user page (now again trimmed by an editor, JJMC89) does not meet our guidelines. See also WP:NOTWEBHOST. I hope you won't reinstate it, since that will practically force me to simply delete it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oh, comments like this one cast a particular light on your contributions. Please do not use this beautiful project as a vehicle for self-promotion. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned

Your user page has been mentioned at User talk:Drmies#Admin assistance needed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• John, I do not think there is a conspiracy. Then again, you never know. Seriously: we are not a webhost. If you rewrite these books to argue the opposite and stick that up on your talk page, it will be removed for the same reasons. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You do not think there is a conspiracy? Then again, you never know. Seriously: How many people hiding behind (sometimes oh so funny) "Usernames" promote their own (or their buddies') publications, often in a way that can only be called thinly disguised vandalism (supposedly a No-no in "our" Wikipedia)? I am aware now that I made only one, indeed very serious mistake: I was honest. I did not conceal my identity. Of course, the views/opinions (results of serious and thorough scholarly research?) that I express in my books are what is opposed by those who zealously eradicate it. Even books that I translated (not in all aspects expressing my own opinion – as if this mattered) are now being removed.
The witch hunt is on!
PS. Some of the contributions at User talk:Drmies#Admin assistance needed show a disconcerting lack of maturity, paired with ignorance and arrogance. If Wikipedia continues to be disgraced by this kind of mental defecations, there is little hope. John E Klapproth (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Your edits here and on the German wiki appeared to be highly self-serving. If you think your mistake was to not conceal your identity, you are mistaken, I'm afraid--a more basic mistake is that self-published books are not reliable sources by our standards. I assume you are aware of WP:RS, our guideline regarding reliability. Adding one's own books that do not meet that standard, what are we mental shitters supposed to think of that? (saying "defecation" instead of "shit" doesn't make it cleaner.) And I'll add that I'm not aware of what it is that you argue in your books. One of them had an empty park bench under a tree on its cover. I am not opposed to park benches under trees, but I can't speak for other editors. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Your recent editing history at Josephine Brunsvik shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  v/r - TP 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked your account because it is being used primarily for self-promotion. Besides the extremely long self-promotion on your user page, you've also primarily edited articles to add citations to your own works to them such as here, here, etc. Others have tried to discuss this with you and you've retorted to claiming censorship, censorship again, a witch hunt, personal grudges, conspiracies, immaturity, ignorance, and arrogance. You've failed to respond constructively or civilly to the community's concerns about your self promotion and have resorted to attacks.--v/r - TP 22:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnSpecialK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

A renowned Beethoven and Schubert scholar told me recently:

• "Only naive people think that Wikipedia is about facts. It's not an encyclopedia, it's an online-battlefield of petty ignoramuses where the people win who have the most time on their hands. Nobody asked you to throw pearls before swine."

Because:

• "No self-respecting scholar even reads (let alone contributes to) Wikipedia, and it shows."

Until this censoring, witch hunt and final expulsion happened, I was under the illusion that this is not the case - i.e., that people who are recognized experts in a field, like myself, are welcomed as voluntary contributors.. Those who went on a rampage in a mania of wanton deletion, are, significantly, not particularly knowledgeable: one does not know the correct translation of "Unsterbliche Geliebte" (= "Immortal Beloved") and is even proud of it (drawing the wrong conclusions in the process); another one carefully deleted my own [!] translation of the Letter to the "Immortal Beloved" on the pretext "Copyright infringement" (after 200 years)! Even English translations of quoted German sources (incl. page numbes) were deleted because (aha!) the translator's name was mine. John E Klapproth (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

‘’’The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia.’’’

It is obvious that a conspiracy of a few Users was behind this. What happened was:

On 9 June 2016, User “Softlavender” deleted a reference to my book “The Immortal Beloved Compendium” (a recognized and definitely useful scholarly work that is an encyclopaedia on the topic of “Beethoven’s Immortal Beloved”), with the unjustified and unjust reason “rv spam and some other recent ill-conceived or unexplained changes”. This was a provocation and an insult. There was no attempt to constructively discuss the matter, on my User:Talk page. I added a comment on Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven:

POV or censorship?

On 9 June 2016, User:Softlavender removed "some other recent ill-conceived or unexplained changes", most notably a reference: Klapproth, John E (2016): The Immortal Beloved Compendium. Everything About the Only Woman Beethoven Ever Loved – And Many He Didn't. CreateSpace: North Charleston. This up-to-date book is without doubt the most comprehensive work about one of the most burning questions of Beethoven biography – as one reputed Beethoven scholar put it: "a book sorely needed".

Instead, I first learned about this developing conspiracy (I have not enough time to watch Wikipedia on a daily basis) by a notification on 22 July 2016: “Your user page has been mentioned at User talk:Drmies#Admin assistance needed”.

What I found then has meanwhile been deleted (!):

Admin assistance needed

"JohnSpecialK's userpage is a 32,000-byte advertisement for himself and his books.”, posted by User “Softlavender” on 21 July 2016. On my Userpage, I found this note: “I've gone ahead and removed the self-promotional text from your userpage.”

User “Softlavender” simply deleted my entire Userpage without warning, let alone “constructive” discussion. By the way: which Userpage does not contain “self-promotional text”? Is it even conceivable that there could be something else?

To which I replied:

Dear "Softlavender", thanks for expressing your opinion that you don't like my Userpage, however, wholesale destruction of inconvenient opinions does not help to create a constructive solution. An editor war (like any war) can only have losers!

Soon after, on Drmies (talk): JJMC89 to the rescue! They blanked, and let's let that suffice for now; if they restore again, we can delete it one way or another. Thanks, Drmies.

So, at this stage, Users "Softlavender", “Drmies” and “JJMC89” had ganged up to have a go at me.

They were immediately joined by User “TP” (“TParis”, semi-retired, no longer very active on Wikipedia):

I'm thinking a block may be necessary, they are indeed using the project to promote themselves. But, let's watch how this pans out.--v/r.

And within 1 minute, User "Softlavender" again:

The sad thing is, they are doing it equally as much on German-wiki, but we have no jurisdiction there. Plus German-wiki is so bizarrely set up in that you can't track user edits to an article and so forth.

So, these “WP-Nazis” (think of the “Soup-Nazi” in Seinfeld!) were even thinking of having me banned internationally!

The next entry:

OK thanks; if he reinstates it, one of us can tag it. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

More proof that the Conspiracy is tightening its noose around me. And almost instantly a warning:

I wish you hadn't said "one of us"--I won't get that song out of my head tonight. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A little later another fanatic joins the gang:

The author uses a pling in his book title ("Josephine !")- which reminded me of the house style of this particular magazine- TV Choice!. Published by a German company! Achtung Spitfeuer! For you the unerbittlicheselbstförderungkampagne is over! Xanthomelanoussprog

Then, the next step to undo my hard work I had invested in Wikipedia, the “free” Encyclopaedia:

Unfortunately, he has written more than 60% of the Immortal Beloved article [5]. I removed mentions of his books, but I don't know how to begin unraveling and removing the text he added. Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, there is no mention of the content that I wrote, whether it’s good or bad, correct or misleading, fulfilling scientific criteria of scholarship, etc. No, all that is to be done now: remove whatever I wrote by "unraveling and removing the text he added"!

Isn’t it time that at least this User – “Softlavender” – is restrsained, and possibly blocked? John E Klapproth (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You can make your unblock requests through WP:UTRS. There's no need for other editors to see you refer to them as Nazis and fanatics here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

JohnSpecialK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #16328 was submitted on Aug 13, 2016 07:40:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JohnSpecialK. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:JohnSpecialK.jpg

The file File:JohnSpecialK.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused personal photo. Out of scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 01:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)