User talk:JBFrenchhorn

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! – PeaceNT 09:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Reverting vandalism
Hi. You may want to read WP:REVERT about doing it yourself. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 04:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Iriwin: MOONWALKER
I added the information you requested. The earliest signs of heart problems was after the TEI on Apollo 15. He was suffering pre-heart attack symptons and was being monitored by NASA flight surgeon Dr. Charles Berry. His first Earth-bound heart attack occurred in late 1971. He had several heart attacks before the 1991 one that killed him.Abebenjoe 08:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
helpme

In the article Atlantic Brass Quintet, one of the members is listed as John Manning. When his name is clicked, it is redirected to an article on John Lawrence Manning, a governor. What is the best way to keep this redirect from happening. There is currently no article on John Manning and I don't know a middle name that could be used.

JBFrenchhorn 08:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This link has been taken out and the best way to differentiate pages is to make a disambiguation page. Miranda 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Right im on this, The one that it is being redirected to will be remamed, and we should create a new one e.g John Manning (musician)and a disambiguation page made, hope this is all clear to you Blacksmith2talk 08:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks! JBFrenchhorn 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea
To remove a category based on almost no reliable evidence in the face of huge amounts of evidence to the contrary, and then to place a tag on the article based on almost no evidence. Not good. --Filll (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about possible COI of editors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008#Possible_COI_of_two_editors  --70.11.142.4 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello, There is a problem on Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008. An unregistered user keeps changing the order of the candidates in the list of candidates who are in the debates. For a while he was deleting one of the candidates; but he has stopped doing that. I have put messages to him in hidden text in the article. But he will not say anything to explain why he keeps changing the order. He just won't speak. We have been having an edit war, though I have never exceeded three reverts per day. At least once another editor has helped by reverting his edits before I got to them. I would love to discuss the issue with him, but he doesn't say anything, so I can't. I think the order should be alphabetical, as I and another editor have mentioned in a section on that articles talk page. The unregistered user's IP changes occasionally, by the way. For his latest action (change of order and deletion of my hidden comments) see. I reverted this, too.

Please tell me what I should do about this. Thanks!

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well first thing, if you beleive that it is vandalism you should warn him on his talkpage after you revert and then if he still continues after the last warning you report them to WP:AIV. If you beleive you have to talk to them, do it on their talkpage. Hope this helps, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talkpage.--Sunny910910 (talk 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If an IP or user has received a final warning (such as uw-vand4) and continues to make vandalism edits, you can report them to WP:AIV for blocking. In the event of sockpuppet use, you may submit a report at WP:SSP. Arbitrarily re-ordering potentially controversial information such as this against established consensus is vandalism, however in this case you are correct to continue to abide by the 3RR. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OMGWTFBBQ?!
I was reverting your reverts? Truly sorry, sir....  Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Semiprotection! We need semiprotection! I shall file an RPP later today.  Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact
thanks, just a little over-sight as the years were pretty close, just if he was born earlier it'd raise some questions. Rodrigue (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Thank you for making a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn against, and report vandalism. Your report was not a case of obvious vandalism, and as a result, the user has not been blocked and the request may have been removed from the page. Next time please use Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for reporting a complex abuse or refer to Resolving disputes if you have a dispute with the user. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 09:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Edits
In the future, please be more careful regarding your edits to intelligent design articles. Your edits violated the NPOV policy and have been reverted. Thank you. Baegis (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how my edits to those two articles violated NPOV. I clearly explained my reasons in the edit summaries. Please go into a little detail about the reverts. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for butting in, but as a scientist I would point out that the previous/current wording of "a majority" is itself a fudge. I would challenge you to find a single scientific organization that thinks evolution is a "theory in crisis", or that there is any controversy of the sort that the intelligent design people think of (i.e., that evolution may not have taken place in the manner that mainstream science thinks it did).  I doubt you can, but if so then I'll grant that the "majority" wording is justifiable (as it probably should stand in case there is one or two out there).  I'll give you a few hints: the Discovery Institute is not a scientific organization, having members who are scientists does not make an organization scientific, and having a science degree does not make one a scientist. KarlM (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So what does make one a scientist? Believing in the theory of evolution? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yours is a question of many answers. But with regards to ID, there are no relevant groups of scientists that actually believe there is anything close to a controversy in evolution.  Also, as mentioned by WLU and I will second this thought, I have yet to see any peer-reviewed journals discussing this crisis.  ID and creationist journals aside, of course.  As mentioned by KarlM, we could easily say none exist, but that would be hard to prove.  Baegis (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed those two articles to better fit the sources. If you want it to say something else, find sources and put them in. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also based on common sense but we can't force editors to use it. The has all been addressed before and I would suggest you read through the archives before making such changes, especially all relevant FAQ's.  And please do not double post this on my page.  I am perfectly capable of going to your page and reading your responses.  Baegis (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are so sure that things are as you say they are, just find a relevant source and add it. My objection is that the sentence states something that isn't stated in the sources. Rather than trying to empirically prove that what it says is true or that every intelligent person or real scientist must believe it, just find a source--if you can. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense trumps any source. Period, full stop.  Baegis (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's such a common sense issue, it shouldn't be hard to find a source. As official Wikipedia policy states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. So please add a source. If this were a black and white, common sense issue, we wouldn't disagree on it. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies with you for wanting to change portions of a long standing article. But, since you appear to be here for one reason, I will no longer feed you.  Baegis (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the policy excerpt above? It states that the burden lies with the one who wants to add or restore the material (which you have done). Therefore, it is your job to find a source to prove that a majority of scientific organizations say the Discovery Institute has manufactured the controversy. The statement is affirmative. It is not my job to prove that the statement is not true, especially given the fact that it specifically states what a large number of groups have supposedly said. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A scientist in the sense that I'm talking about is someone who holds an advanced degree in a scientific discipline from a recognized institution, and actively conducts scientific research that is published in peer-reviewed journals. You will find that nearly everyone who claims to be a scientist and believes that evolution did not occur is not an active researcher, which often means that they don't follow the progress in their field.  For example, Michael Behe has not published an original paper in over 12 years.  In that relatively short time, his centerpiece of "irreducible complexity", the bacterial flagellum, has been completely dissected and shown to be not irreducible at all, yet he (and other ID proponents) continue to tout it.  No, of course it's not completely understood yet, but the fact that we now know much more about it than we did a few years ago means that it is not forever out of our grasp as Behe predicted.


 * As for sources, off the top of my head I can think of the NAS, the AAAS, and the NSCE that I know have issued statements to the effect that there is no scientific controversy over evolution, and I'm sure there are far more than that. However, since you're the one wanting to change the wording, I'm not going to waste my time looking up specific references for them unless you can come up with at least one scientific organization saying that there is.  Moreover, references are much more important for statements that are unusual than those that would be expected from common sense, and a scientific organization supporting "teach the controversy" would certainly be unusual.  KarlM (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Categories on Creation-evolution controversy
Please stop adding categories to articles that are not needed. Continuing to do this, against consensus, is disruptive. Baegis (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, please note that the one category that I added had just been removed by someone else. Also note that my edit was not yet against consensus when I added it. The category had only been added by one user and removed by another user (with a brief comment in the edit summary) prior to being re-added by me. The category had not even been mentioned on the talk page until I brought it up just prior to making my edit. There was no general consensus against having the category. Thank you for understanding. I await your reply. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On further analysis of the history page for that article, I see that you must have meant to post your comment on the talk page of a different editor, who re-added the category after it had been discussed on the talk page, and who has since stopped re-adding it. Is this so? I apologize for my rather harsh reply. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the edit was against consensus when you made it. It was based on fallacious reasoning and was wholly unsupported by the statements within the article.  The reasoning for the removal by Hrafn was clearly valid but you chose to revert his edit to restore the category, which amounts to adding an unneeded category.  I posted the warning on both pages because you are both equally guilty.  Baegis (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I did not know at the time that it was against consensus. Now I understand that it is, although I don't see how exactly my reasoning was fallacious. I do understand that it contradicted statements in the article. But could you please explain how my reasoning was fallacious? Really, I want to know if I am using illogical reasoning tactics. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, JBFrenchhorn, for these kind comments. NCdave (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Autumn Forrester and Mayor Coffee Bean
Autumn Forrester was the false identity that one of my friends from school came up with. He used it as his user name until he decided that the name was rather silly. He then switched to his current user name of Mayor Coffee Bean. Autumn Forrester is an inactive account and is only metioned in my intro because I haven't changed it and I have more cooperation history with the Autumn Forrester acount. If you follow the link to Autumn's page it explains the name change. Does that clear every thing up? So the answer is: no, I am not either of them and one of them is inactive. Saksjn (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. 522 huh. I've never actually checked my edit counts. Well, good luck with future editing. Saksjn (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Username
Thanks JBFrenchhorn. PS- I like your username too. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard
Hi JB, just so you know, WR is a pretty controversial site around here for a number of reasons. I wouldn't go as far as some, but I definitely agree it's not good evidence in a situation like this. As long as you're relatively new to disputes, my best thought is that it's probably best to stick to the narrower issues, such as here whether NCdave might be unblocked. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't prohibited to link to Wikipedia Review, the rule is that you can't link to any website for the purpose of conducting a personal attack on another editor. This applies to any website.  I don't think you were trying to attack Raul, you were just trying to provide evidence for the discussion.  Others might interpret it differently, so we have to be careful when we link.  But links to WR, in and of themselves, are not prohibited. Cla68 (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My essay has more background on the controversy over linking to "BADSITES". *Dan T.* (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NCdave
I know he can be a problem and has done a few things that deserve getting short blocks, but the two edits he was blocked for IN NO WAY deserved a block. Especially a week long block. Could you help me try to give him a little backup here. We need to stand up to intentional silencing of dissenters. Saksjn (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been warned =0
Looks like Raul has picked his next victim: me. I wouldn't mind a little help. Thanks! Saksjn (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Midwest Christian Outreach
From: Kevinkor2

To: JBFrenchhorn

Cc: Smee

FYI, JBFrenchhorn,

Your discussion in Talk:Bill Gothard mentioned Midwest Christian Outreach (MCOI). I have listed the article on MCOI for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Midwest Christian Outreach. Thank you.

P.S.: There are no real editors for the MCOI article, so I am contacting one or two outside people who might be interested based on links to MCOI.

Kevinkor2 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
{| class="plainlinks"
 * colspan="3" valign="left" style="width: 100%; background:Navy; padding: 10px;" |

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...

 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 20%; " |[[Image:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg|200px]]
 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 20%; " |[[Image:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg|200px]]


 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 60%; " | Hello JBFrenchhorn,

Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief.

Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying.

Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier   Bot    (talk)   21:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government.

You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace.

Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier. Help us get the project off the ground and flying.
 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 60%; " |[[Image:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg|200px]]


 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

Proposed New Wikiproject
Hello, I am trying to generate interest in a proposed new wikiproject entitled "Left-wing bias Watch". If you're interested, please visit the proposal page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals (near the bottom of the page) Also, feel free to leave any comments on my user talk page. Thank you. Aletheon (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

List of horn techniques
This article is in backlog of articles needing expert attention. I am not sure if you are an expert, but I though maybe you could try and resolve the issues and remove the tag. Thanks. -- Birgitte SB  19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing to look into it. You can go ahead and remove the tag whenever the article meets your satisfaction.-- Birgitte  SB  18:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Roy Ashburn
Your removal of an internal link was undone by another editor, as it did not make any sense. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Amusement Park WikiProject
Hello. Recently, the Amusement Parks WikiProject was reformatted and revived. As part of this process other related WikiProjects (such as Disneyland, Herschend Family Entertainment, Universal Parks & Resorts and Walt Disney World) were also revived and have now become part of the Amusement Park WikiProject as task forces. If you would like to remain listed as a member on these WikiProjects please re-add your name to the appropriate lists at the participants page. All names currently on the list have been cleared. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Thank you for your cooperation, Themeparkgc   Talk  08:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Disney Role Call
-- Groovy Sandwich  00:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)