User talk:John254/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, John254, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fra nkB
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Belated Welcome
I see you've made some good anti-vandism edits (e.g. Hugh Capet) and as a member of the Welcoming Committee (WP:WC), want to thank you for your efforts thus far, and offer a helping hand where it's needed. We are an online community, and certain ways of working together have been worked out that can seem daunting, so don't hesitate to ask for advice.

The convention that brought me here, by-the-way, was your 'NOT tagging a reverted vandalism' as such in the edit summary.
 * Simply add: 'RV (vandalism) by www.xxx.yyy.zzz to (prev) version by _________' along with what you've been doing. The words can be optionally (the shouted&mdash; all caps) 'VANDALISM' (so it stands out) and/or a 'date stamp', especially when the reversion goes back several versions.


 * Sometimes the vandalism is missed by others making a good faith edit, so your reversion will necessarily incorporate subsequent good changes, thus being in part an edit as well. In such cases, the 'RV vandalism by...' is still very important, as changed articles are watched and patroled by Admins, and such can give early warning or add to evidence against a habitual offender. Just annoting you rv'd an article w/o saying why doesn't give the same level of mutual assistance!

So thanks for the good work! Make sure to see the 'See Also' links in WP:WC, the last one is particularly useful! Also, my user page user:fabartus has several dozen useful resources, so feel free to steal! I've taken the liberty of doing a little housekeeping (TOC right, unsigned, etc.), while inserting this up above the business below. We normally 'bottom post', but this resource (template) is for your reference. Best wishes! // Fra nkB 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

over-the-top
Please don't insert undocumented medical advice into Wikipedia articles. Especially in such a dramatically over-the-top manner as you did at masturbation. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * n.b Although I admittedly erred in placing excessive emphasis on this issue by inserting a prominent health warning at the top of the article, the medical claim was properly referenced to two studies published in credible, peer reviewed journals: Brody 2006(presently in Masturbation), and Brody 2004 Please see the response to the following comment for further discussion of this issue. John254 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Brody Contributions to Masturbation
I looked up the Brody stuff you quoted, and the articles don't support the statements you actually put in there. In the first, the study does not suggest that masturbation has any deleterious effect, it's saying that masturbation doesn't provide as good a stress relief (in terms of blood pressure) as penile-vaginal intercourse -- but that doing nothing leaves people the worst off. And you mixed up cause and effect on the latter; the study isn't suggesting that masturbation makes you fat, it's suggesting that people with slimmer hips and waists have a higher frequency of penile-vaginal intercourse, while people with larger hips and waists masturbate more.

Listen, after taking a brief look at what you've contributed since you came onto Wikipedia, it's obvious you've got a very firm set of beliefs when it comes to your moral beliefs about sex. I'm not telling you that your beliefs are wrong; I personally believe an entirely different set of beliefs when it comes to those subject areas.

But the point is that as an online encyclopedia, what we add here must be properly referenced and written from a neutral point of view. You weren't writing that from a neutral point of view, although you tried to write it in that fashion. This is a place for pure, unadulterated, unabashed fact, and not religious belief -- as much as people would like to assert religious belief as fact, it cannot be objectively proven to everyone in the world (or else faith wouldn't be required).

I don't want this to come across as hostile to you, because I do want you to have a good time and make a contribution to those areas you know well on Wikipedia. If you've got other subject areas you're well-equipped to know about, by all means, contribute, but may I also ... very respectfully, and with no rancor ... suggest that you might enjoy making your contributions through the Christianity WikiProject?

In any case, welcome to Wikipedia. I don't think anyone's done that yet. And although we're coming across on different sides of the aisle on this one, still, feel free to drop me a line if I can answer any questions for you, and I'll do my best to assist you. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs &bull; replies) 04:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * n.b. Please see the discussion of this issue in the masturbation talk page. To briefly summarize the matter here,  my description of Brody 2006 was accurate, although one needs to read the full text of the study to verify this, and the reference to Brody 2006 was replaced in the article by WCityMike.  My statements about Brody 2004 were accurate as well; however, reference to this study is not currently in the article because it would appear that there is a consensus that Brody 2004 did not achieve sufficiently strong results to render it "notable enough to go in the article".  Naturally, if some users besides me were to speak in favor of the reinsertion, replacement of Brody 2004 in the article might be warranted in the future.  In any case, I particularly wish to emphasize that all of the statements about these studies that I have inserted into the article were found to be accurate. John254 22:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

87.228.165.252
I have already signed to wikipedia. please stop revert what i have edited

The above unsigned comment was added by KRBN, with his named account, admitting the use of 87.228.165.252 as a sockpuppet. John254 23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Attributing anonymous edits
The "traditional" way to do it on Wikipedia is to type. The date stamp is optional -- you can just type. The trick is that if you do do the time stamp, be sure you do it in UTC time, which is the "universal" time stamp Wikipedia comments are signed with.

For example, I'm not going to sign this, but I'm going to "sign" it using the unsigned template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WCityMike (talk • contribs) 04:39, 31 May 2006


 * Let me chime in here, that you can swipe the data for the unsigned template from the history page (Cut), and paste it below the paragraph needing signed. Insert the '', and you're done.

Even if everything is on seperate lines, the template usually works well, and it avoids transcription errors. Best regards // Fra nkB 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

IPVandal
Beat ya to it, brother! Good show, tho!

IP is BANNED!

BTW, it must be a static IP, since month after month, they're vandalising the same pages...

Roodog2k 23:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reversion of removal of advertising material by 86.139.211.36 from Advanced Media Network
Done.-- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OIC! Seems like info would be a plus
Hi! Got your message. You need to set up some notes (hint - Steal what you want from my user page, mine for links, etc.) whilst you traverse our many learning curves. OTOH, can be fun too, as most people are happy to help. For starters, as a welcome committee member I have a bar where you can hang out and learn from some others, grab some tips, and post lengthy weighty burdens. I left you a note in the corner booth. Don't be late! // Fra nkB 03:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Boy you sure do a lot of reverting of vandalism for a new guy in town! You must have a nose for it, or hang out in the wrong set of articles. Didn't see any answer on my page, and was checking to see if you'd been around. Apparently you really get around!  ttfn // Fra nkB 10:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thanks for helping keep my talk page clean... Cheers! +sj + 03:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Vandalism by 64.12.116.198
Hi, thanks for bringing that to my attention. However, the IPs you have given me are all AOL IPs, and since the last instance of vandalism from that address occured almost half an hour ago, I cannot block it. Remember that AOL switches IP addresses for users as often as 15 minutes, so this user is likely jumping IPs. Keep me posted though. Also try to utilize a on the vandal's talk page before posting to WP:AIV so the user has adequate warning. Thanks, Pilot|  guy  00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected
User page sprotected on request. Let me know when the vandalism cools down. Cheers -- Samir  ???? 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues with User:Clan_rHrN/Psycho_Bonus_Stage
-The unconstructive edits I made were to a page that, in and of itsself were in violation of Wikipedia's rule #1. Wikipedia is NOT a vanity publisher. The "personal attacks" I made were in response to personal attacks made on that page (and his user page). Funkstar and Shippinator Mandy are real people. Clan holds a grudge against them (and other people) on the Homestar Runner Wiki forum (which is part of the reason he got banned). He also posted "fanfics" which were little more than blatant rip-offs. I fail to see why "personal attacks" from me are any different from those he makes in his pages. --68.62.229.65 21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (I remembered to sign it this time)


 * Please note that you may not make personal attacks on Wikipedia. The fact that personal attacks may have been made against you does not justify making personal attacks yourself.  Please see Wikipedia's No personal attacks policy.  Furthermore, irrespective of whether a certain page conforms to Wikipedia's content policies, you may not make unconstructive edits to it.  Please see Wikipedia's vandalism policy.  If you notice personal attacks made against you, the proper procedure is to remove the personal attack completely if it is not aggregated with any legitimate content.  If legitimate content has been phrased as, or aggregated with, a personal attack, you may refactor the content so that it no longer contains personal attacks.  The person who made the personal attack can be warned using the appropriate templates from Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, and listed on Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard if they persist.  If you find pages that are comprised entirely of violations of Wikipedia's content policies, you can list the on Articles_for_deletion.  However, you may not insert unconstructive criticism into such pages, and you may not arbitrarily blank them except under extreme circumstances. John254 21:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. 2 wrongs ne 1 right. I won't argue that the "vandalism" was wrong, but I still maintain that the original page does not fit wikipedia standards, though. 68.62.229.65 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it turns out that requests to have pages in the user namespace, such as User:Clan_rHrN/Psycho_Bonus_Stage, deleted are listed on Miscellany for deletion. John254 01:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sayfol
If the pov of Sayfol is not neutral, I apologise, but this is the only pov anyone has of it. No other information is available, from any other source except eyewitnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.228.173.80 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 3 July 2006

Changes to VNN article
I changed the article because the current article stated nothing at all about the website but instead simply bashed its creator. Whether accurate or inaccurate, it should have been posted to an article titled "Alex Linder". Although that's a clear violation of Wiki's rules, it was my brief article that is considered "vandalism".

I admit I should have put more thought into it and constructed it better, but it is still a vast improvement on the article it replaced.

--Mark Richards12 15:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Mark Richards


 * Thank you for your comments. However, when I first reverted the edits by 69.108.13.67 to Vanguard News Network, I placed a Neutral Point of View notice on 69.108.13.67's page, not a vandalism warning.  Please understand that this version of the article is inconsistent with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.  It contains many statements that are not neutral because they take opinions promoted by Vanguard News Network, and phrase them as facts.  When writing Wikipedia articles, one needs to be careful to attribute opinions to those that hold them.  For example, instead of saying that "Vanguard News Network is trying to inform people of Y" -- which assumes the existence of Y and that convincing people of Y's existence is "informing" them --, it might be more appropriate to state that "Vanguard News Network claims that it is trying to inform people of its belief in the existence of Y" or perhaps "Vanguard News Network promotes its claims about the existence of Y".
 * After I first reverted the edit by 69.108.13.67, instead of discussing this issue or rewriting the edit to conform to the Neutral Point of View policy, 69.108.13.67 simply reinserted the disputed edit into the article. I treated this as vandalism because, according to Counter-Vandalism Unit, in the case of Neutral Point of View policy violations, "If the user persists in reverting to his preferred version of the article, however, that may be considered vandalism."  Furthermore, the subsequent use of various IP addresses to repeatedly reinsert the same edit tended to convey an impression of bad faith.  Please see Sock puppetry.  Making all of your contributions under the same named user account, and discussing issues such as my Neutral Point of View notice rather than simply reverting the disputed edits might tend to avoid conflicts with other Wikipedia editors.  If you wish to re-write your edit in scrupulous accordance with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, using your named user account, you may do so.  However, this this version of the article is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and it cannot remain in its current form.  John254 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, your version of the article gives excessive prominence to the views of Vanguard News Network, and does not treat the views of its opponents. It is essential to the Neutral Point of View policy that both sides of the issue should be presented. John254 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, John254, I am disappointed, but not really surprised. Mostly I am disapppointed at Wikipedia itself, for allowing its so-called watchdogs to ignore the specific things they're watching for as long as they support their own personal opinion.

You notice that I no longer replace the VNN article. At first I considered re-writing it after conforming to Wikipedia's rules, but what's the use? You are determined to allow only your personally fiction on the site, so I have no reason to believe you would tolerate any truthful article.

This whole thing started because the article that you continually re-post is so bad. If you were an honest man, and truly cared about the integrity of Wikipedia, you would replace it. Not with my article, mind you; I'm not suggesting that. But with something that fits the guidelines that you supposedly care so much about.

--Mark Richards12 16:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Mark

Yugoslavs
Please stop reverting - see TALK on that page. 68.212.177.48 03:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This user keeps vandalizing the page, I have to revert his edits every minute. Please either protect the page for unregistered users, or block this vandal, I'm getting tired. Thanks in advance, -- serbiana -  talk  03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)