User talk:John Darrow

Welcome!

Hello, John Darrow, 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
• How to write a great article
• 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous warning

As discussed on my talk page, I agree that the warning left here was inappropriate and resulted from my misreading the change that you made. If you hadn't removed the warning, I would have. Please accept my sincere apologies for my error. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Employee Free Choice Act

RE this edit: Good point; nice catch, thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"de-redundantify"

If that isn't a word (from your edit summary in Magic satchel) then it should be! I don't have to pay you royalties when I use it in an edit summay, do I? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:BITE

Alright, will do. I'll be more careful in the future.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you

Im going to make an article on headshot when used in relation to gaming/firearms

take a look at it when its finished and tell me what you think

116.65.243.150 (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Incivility on talk pages and in edit summaries

I can tell that you're heavily emotionally invested in the articles you've edited here, and that means you need to step back for a bit and reread WP:CIVIL. Calling anyone a fascist, whether Perez Hilton (offensive and bigoted, maybe, but far from fascist) or an anonymous commenter making an off-the-cuff religiously bigoted remark, is far outside the bounds of civility. You're getting really close to violating WP:NPA, and doing so is likely to get you blocked. You've also violated WP:3RR in your talk page exchange, whether you thought you were justified or not. Calling people names, edit warring, and telling people their responses to you are irrelevant, are not ways to get people to see you as a reasonable contributor, let alone to bring them to agree with you on an issue.

You also need to realize that not every anonymous editor is a sockpuppet, nor does the length of time an editor's been here necessarily indicate how familiar that editor may be with policy, or whether they are following it correctly. John Darrow (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I do know one thing. Having the comments of Hilton be the focus of the Carrie Prejean article is biased and violates Neutrality. I have been editing on this thing longer than you have. You don't like my style. Fine. You are entitled your opinion but it does not rule my life. There is a determined effort to ruin Carrie Prejean's career and reputation and there are Wikipedia editors that are part of that effort. I am not going to sit around and let those editors use Wikipedia to assist in the coordinated effort to savage Carrie Prejean because that is NOT what Wikipedia is designed to do.--InaMaka (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on InaMaka's talk page. John Darrow (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First, please do not copy another user's comments, or especially entire conversations, wholesale around between different talk pages. This violates the WP:GFDL, the license under which the information is submitted to Wikipedia, as it does not properly preserve the history of the comments. If you wish for all of the conversation to take place in one location, please reply wherever the initial conversation took place, and use the relevant templates such as {{talkback}} to inform those you are replying to that the comment is there.

Second, as for "editing this thing longer", I see from our contribution histories that I have in fact been making WP edits for about a year longer than you. But, as I said above, length of time on WP is not a true indicator of one's familiarity with policy; only the content of one's edits can show that. Nor is specific time on Prejean's article a good indicator; I took the time to go through a large portion of the article and talk page histories, seeing what changes had been made and their accompanying reasons, before finding reason to make any changes there myself.

Third, your last response makes it clear that you have no intention of assuming good faith. You have accused other editors of being out to ruin Carrie Prejean's career. There is no evidence of that. They may, in fact, believe that by actually quoting Hilton, it shows all the more clearly how offensive and bigoted his comments were, and makes _him_ less credible, while showing the world how brave Prejean is to speak out in spite of the attacks on her.

Listen, you want to defend Carrie. Fine. I also don't personally believe that it's necessary to fully quote Hilton's offensive comments in Prejean's article, when simply stating that they were offensive would be sufficient. But to do that you need to work with other editors, discussing (on the talk page) what in fact is the best way for the Prejean article (among others) to mention the controversy (as it was notable) without it overwhelming the rest of the information there. It's not something you can do unilaterally. Continuing on the path you're currently on is more likely to get you blocked, and possibly even topic banned. This is not intented to be a threat - I'm not an admin, and wouldn't have the ability to do such a thing myself; nor do I believe you deserve such restrictions yet. I'm just letting you know that the WP community does not take kindly to the uncooperative attitude you've been showing. John Darrow (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel better that you have lectured me now??? You have made up your mind and it will not change. That is your choice. Having a conversation with you does not seem to be productive. You think that you are going to change me. That is not the role of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and as far as I can see you are using the process to make yourself feel by giving me lectures and the other editors are attempting to repeat Hilton's comments to damage Prejean's career and reputation, neither of these goals is what Wikipedia is about.--InaMaka (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Heroes

Clearly I disagree with your decision that my statement that something is "open to debate" is either original research or unencyclopedic, but since you and Ophois seem to agree on this, and two opinions outweigh one (my opinion, not wiki policy), I am willing to temporarily go with you on this, although I'd appreciate an explanation for your reasoning. Minaker (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary

I happen to agree about that part of the sentence, but Markus Poessel seems to think drawing a parallel between the two ideas is important. Your point about the standard for "arbitrariness" is valid, though; can you think of an alternative way of integrating the x,y,z component into sentence? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My original intention when I edited the sentence was simply to fix a wrong preposition: "as arbitrary of" -> "as arbitrary as". But the more I looked at it, the less certain I was as to what exactly the comparison was trying to say, and every thought I had about fixing it just got longer and more unwieldy. So I decided for the moment to just remove the offending clause.

Regarding an alternative way, I think that should be worked on at the article's talk page. John Darrow (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Major bug

Hey John, for some reason I can't account for I got logged into your account. This is User:Pharos.--John Darrow (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That was weird, I'll let you know if it happens again.--Pharos (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

J. Michael Straczynski

Hi John. May I suggest that you find a reliable source about JMS being an atheist and then add a bit in the article about it? If not, then the category may be removed - as you said, there is no mention in the article! I'm not positive that jmsnews could be used as a reliable source - although I would trust it personally, it's not a neutral commentator on JMS, is it! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Carrie_Prejean#Breast_Implants_.28again.29

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Carrie_Prejean#Breast_Implants_.28again.29. Thank you. Rico 03:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Yog(h)urt

You suck. :P (j/k) howcheng {chat} 03:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rational egoism

I have asked User:131.118.39.105 to discuss rather than edit war.--Buster7 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't quite know what you mean when you say a different IP address. It's not that unimaginable to conceive that others agree with me on Objectivism. Even so, Rand's use of rational egoism is relevant to Objectivism, not philosophy, which rational egoism is. The absence of Ayn Rand on the rational egoism article should dissuade people from thinking that she's important precisely because she is unimportant. Giving people the idea that she is important in the field of rational egoism is a disservice. There is an Objectivism article for a reason. She may have been influenced by rational egoism but she has had no influence upon rational egoism. As for the consensus issue, this is a matter of consensus versus credentials. I wonder which is more appropriate?

A source on Rand's irrelevance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Academia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Criticisms This is not including her absence from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy especially concerning egoism which is relevant in that it shows how little influence she has had on thought in egoism, and her solution to the is-ought problem being absent from that Wikipedia article. Good lord I'm beginning to think you have no idea about Objectivism's history at all, which would make this situation quite hilarious. 216.231.141.9216.231.141.9 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Salieri page

Thanks for the check and the fixes! Always glad when someone helps~Eric W. Cook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.218.217 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File talk:2004 US elections purple counties.png

Thanks for the pointer. I hadn't remembered that G8 excluded local talk pages for Commons images, and G8 was the only reason that I deleted it. I've restored. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with The International Space Station

Thanks for the copyediting, when I was reading back over it today, the comment 'repeat after me' gave me a laugh. I know, I'm terrible at spelling and grammar, and I don't think I'm going to improve at all, thanks for the much needed help. I hope to see you again.

Penyulap _talk 09:28, 14 June 2011 (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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, John Darrow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, John Darrow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)