User talk:John254/Archive 16

Articles for deletion/Anya Kamenetz
Hi John. You closed out an AfD on Anya Kamenetz i started where only two people had written in and less than five days had passed. i do not think we had consensus yet and i had also hoped to receive suggestions in light of a revised proposal i had offered. was it premature to close this AfD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiselfpromotion (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The closure of this AFD discussion was proper, as two established users supported the retention of this article, and no users besides yourself supported its deletion. Furthermore, the citations provided by Captain-tucker provided compelling evidence that one of Anya Kamenetz's books has been the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of its notability (and, by extension, the notability of Anya Kamenetz herself) pursuant to our general notability guideline.  The timing of the closure was correct, as the AFD discussion was initiated on June 4, 2008, and closed on June 9, 2008, approximately five days later.  The exact hour at which the discussion was closed today would almost certainly not have affected the outcome.  Moreover, I strongly disagree with your recent edit to : the tenor of the reviews described in Wikipedia articles is not determined by giving "equal time" to favorable and unfavorable treatments, but rather by describing all available reviews, or, where this would prove excessively long-winded, giving space to critical reactions in accordance with the percentage of qualified experts who endorse them (please see Neutral point of view).  If a book has received generally favorable reviews, we may properly describe more positive than negative reviews.  Additionally, it is permissible to include a few external links to websites maintained by Anya Kamenetz, in our biography of her.  Your unilateral reopening of an AFD nomination with which no one but yourself agrees is inappropriate -- if you disagree with this AFD closure, please raise the matter at deletion review. John254 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry, i did not know deletion review was an option for articles closed prematurely as keep. i will list for deletion review. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous army stores
Just a friendly note on Articles for deletion/Famous army stores. While you closed the discussion itself, you did not finish the closure by removing the AfD template from the article and adding the correct template to the article's talk page. If you're going to close AfD's, please remember to do all the steps -- new editors can be seriously confused if they see an AfD template on an article and think they should be commenting on a closed discussion. Thanks!-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Move
Hi John,

On the page move, the only problem is that it basically comes in under the Paranormal ArbCom. We renamed a lot of categories, for instance and, because of that ArbCom. Look at and see where you get. I know it's slightly different, but I think it applies.

Here is the section, and there are other places in that ArbCom which might be relevant. What I'm saying is that Psychic abilities are cultural artefacts. Calling them such doesn't make a statement of whether they are real or not. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. I will move the article back to its original location. John254 23:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow- cool (: (—— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass Tours
Hi there. I notice that the discussion at Articles for deletion/Compass Tours was closed as keep, yet the article still doesn't make any mention of why it is a notable organisation. Could I ask you for your comment on this? Cheers, -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The references provided in the AFD discussion indicated that Compass Tours has been the subject of sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. Furthermore, there was a clear consensus for the retention of the article. John254 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin
Hi. I've closed this as speedy close; simply put, MFD cannot overrule the Arbcom, and so cannot take binding action. Additionally, we don't know what's what (yet), and so it's a premature request anyway. If it turns out to be shenanigans, I expect it'll be deleted anyway, so no worries there. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin AfD close?
Please reopen and relist Articles for deletion/Coconut (project) for further discussion. I feel that my argument was not refuted. Thanks, Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right -- while a cursory inspection of the discussion appears to favor a unanimous keep result, republished press releases don't provide evidence of notability. Therefore, I am relisting the discussion. John254 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagging of Vintagekit's userpage
John254, perhaps you were unaware that there is currently an extensive discussion ongoing at WP:Arbitration Enforcement as of this time to determine exactly how long Vintagekit's block will be, and what variations in editing restrictions shall be made. I have reverted your tagging of his page at this time because of this ongoing discussion; I assume that your tagging is based on some routine housekeeping activities and was not intended as a commentary specific to this editor. Risker (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

re User:CarolSpears
The discussion at WP:ANI has concluded that the above editor is indefinitely blocked, not banned. Therefore the template is incorrect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Girl Play
Hi there.

You closed the Articles for deletion/Girl Play discussion with a keep verdict. I maintain that the film does not pass WP:MOVIE and is still completely unreferenced. -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * References sufficient to indicate that the film passes WP:MOVIE were provided in the AFD discussion. We're not going to delete the article solely because it doesn't currently contain the references provided at AFD, since this is obviously a problem that can be remedied editorially.  Of course, if you disagree with this conclusion, you are welcome to raise the matter at deletion review. John254 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Moonrise (Snowfall Trilogy)
Please reopen Articles for deletion/Moonrise (Snowfall Trilogy). While there are four "keeps," one notes it should be kept and renamed/reworked into an article on the series and a second one hints towards the same direction, and one keep is very week. Additionally, another keep really only provides evidence of notability of the series as a whole, and the author, not of any individual books. None of ht If you decline to reopen, please at least properly note that it is a non-admin closure, which should always be included when you do a close so people can be clear it was an an administratively decided close. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, no. The editing of the article to describe the series as a whole, and moving the article to an appropriate page title for that purpose, could be accomplished quite easily without the complete deletion of the article and the entire page history.  I find that there is no support for the deletion of this article by any editors other than yourself, and that the editors supporting retention persuasively argued that it would be far more efficient to rework this article than to delete it and start over.  As my AFD closure stands on its own merits, it does not require that a "non-administrative closure" disclaimer be attached to  it.  Naturally, if you disagree with this outcome, you are welcome to raise the matter at deletion review. John254 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden photo
Are you sure the photo of Rachel Marsden has her eyes closed? To me, it appears that she is glancing down and delivering a speech from a prepared text without the benefit of a teleprompter. It may not be the best choice of photos if there are others, but I don't see it as an attack. Alansohn (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Marsden might indeed be reading a speech, rather than having her eyes entirely closed due to momentary blinking -- we can't determine the matter conclusively due to the angle at which the photograph was taken. In any event, it is readily apparent that this photograph was taken at a highly unfavorable moment, and that it's not the sort of portrait that should be used to illustrate a biography of a living person. John254 03:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Y Lolfa
Hi John 254. On 15 July I nominated the article Y Lolfa for deletion. Three users participated in the debate and argued to keep the article. On 21 July you finalised the debate, writing The result was keep. You gave no further information about the decision.

Y Lolfa was only my second nomination for deletion and I was keen to observe the process in action, and learn from it. I have no problem with the decision but I was disappointed that no information was provided to explain the decision. I, and other Users, have no idea whether the decision was based on voting (one in favour of deletion; and three in favour of keeping) or some criterion related to articles about companies, or the toss of a coin, or something else. Are you willing to explain the background to the decision?

Wikipedia has an excellent system for debating the case for deleting an article. I notice that many of these debates result in the Administrator leaving a succinct explanation of the final decision. Your comment The result was keep was not compatible with the facility in place for transparent debates about deletion of articles. In future, please give an appropriate explanation as to how the final decision was reached. Happy editing. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I often close AFD discussions without explanation for reasons of expediency where I believe that the reasons for the AFD result are obvious (which means, in practice, that rationale for the AFD closure would be obvious to users having extensive experience with the deletion process, not necessarily all users.) I will, however, provide an explanation for the tenor of AFD closures upon any good-faith request.  In the case of Articles for deletion/Y Lolfa, I noted that, at the time I closed the discussion, the article contained references to significant coverage of the company in multiple reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline (even though such references were not present at the time you nominated the article for deletion.)  Furthermore, I gave significant weight to the fact that two established users supported the retention of the article (Rhydypennau is not an established user), persuasively arguing that the references present in the article provided evidence of the company's notability, and that only the nominator supported the deletion of the article.  Moreover, the fact that you offered no response to the arguments advanced for the retention of the article weighed in favor of my decision to the close the discussion as "keep". John254 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your explanation. I will use the information if I nominate articles for deletion in the future. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Terrol
Hey, check back on that guy's talk page. Some of the edits made to Roy L. Dennis were good faith additions of content supported by the only source for the article (the obit). Might want to dial down the warning in that case (As he might have been frustrated that good faith additions were being reverted). The first reversion was probably my fault. I didn't double check the source and didn't follow the rule of "if you have doubts, don't". Just a heads up. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I issued a test4 warning to Terrol on the basis of this edit, and your prior warning to the user, without further investigation. John254 14:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh. For some reason I thought the warning was for text placed in the Roy L. Dennis article after I incorrectly reverted a good faith edit.  Thanks for explaining it. Protonk (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting my userpage! Apparition11 (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Douglas AfD
While I respect your authority to keep the Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Dutton_Douglas_(2nd_nomination) article, I disagree with your decision or justification to do so. I feel that you failed to take into consideration the blatant external advertising targeting politically liberal editors on a popular news aggregate site (reddit.com top page) that led to a (slight) keep consensus (not including the first/only editors). This was, clearly a case of WP:Canvassing as was warned about on the AfD template. Not to mention that (perhaps jokingly?) the editor who presented the justification to keep that everyone else said keep per that person's argument essentially changed his/her position. Anyway, I have no intention of nominating the article for deletion (nor was I the original nominator), but I felt compelled to express my disagreement with this decision. Anyway, have a great day! Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The AFD discussion had no support for the administrative deletion of the article by anyone apart from the nominator. Since, per GFDL concerns, we can't merge then administratively delete the article (as the page history is required for the attribution of the original authors), I construed comments favoring the merger of the article as supportive of the retention of the page history.  This leaves us with a nearly unanimous consensus against administrative deletion, and, therefore, a nominal outcome of "keep", since the AFD process is primarily intended to determine whether articles should be administratively deleted.  While we certainly can resolve merger issues at AFD, where there is a clear consensus for, or against, a merger, the primary purpose of the AFD process suggests that the question of a merger be deferred to the conventional editorial process of talk page discussion where there is any doubt as to the outcome, as there clearly was here.  An AFD closure need not involve detailed analysis of the extent to which canvassing affected support or opposition to a merger with respect to which there was no immediately apparent consensus for or against.  While the AFD outcome should not be construed as prejudicial against a merger (since there was some support for this outcome, and not simply an overwhelming keep result), editors merging content to Laura Bush should bear in mind that WP:BLP concerns prohibit us from providing an excessively long description of the incident in the first lady's biography.  Furthermore, I hardly see how "politically liberal" canvassing would have favored the retention of the article, since the primary argument against the merger was that the information in the article would give undue weight to the events if pasted in our biography of Laura Bush, in violation of our biographies of living persons policy. John254 20:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Laura Bush article? This incident is already sufficiently covered in her article.  It would not cause her article to become too large or unwieldy per WP:BLP (it's in there ANYWAY). As for how politically liberal canvassing would have favored the retention the title of the article link on reddit.com was as follows "Bush Apologists trying to delete wikipedia page of the dead boyfriend Laura Bush killed" filed under "WTF" which made it to the front page of reddit.com. This is CLEARLY canvassing for liberal contributions and editors to keep the information in an entirely different article (so as to created additional weight to the situation).Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, in essence, you claim that users who favored the merger of the article did not actually support having any content merged, but merely having the article blanked and redirected to Laura Bush, whereas editors who supported the retention of the article did so because they knew that, despite a number of editors favoring a merger, nothing would actually be merged (so keeping a separate article was the best way to give undue weight to the situation)? In that case, we have a very messy AFD discussion, with no actionable outcome.  AFD closures are predicated upon the assumption that editors clearly express their preferences -- that they don't say, for example, "*Merge to Laura Bush. A young future First Lady ran into an ex-boyfriend and killed him. The deceased and the accident were certainly not notable at the time. It deserves merger into the Laura Bush article and not just deletion or a redirect..."when they actually mean "blank and redirect, don't merge anything". John254 21:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the original nominator of this article, and I still believe the article comes under WP:BLP, though I probably did not make this clear enough in my nomination. Regardless of the article's title, it is in fact a biographical article about Laura Bush; if you read through it you see that it contains hardly any biographical information about the subject that is not related to the first lady. As such it serves simply as a WP:POVFORK for the Laura Bush article, and by POV I am not talking about the content or style, but that it is a WP:COATRACK that gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to one aspect of her biography, something you yourself say must be avoided, with reference to the main Laura Bush article. I chose to put it up for deletion rather than a merge, but if there is information or sources in the article that can be merged into the main article, then fine. However, the Laura Bush article (a GA) seems to already have this well covered. If this means that WP:RS-compliant material must be scrapped, then so be it, as WP:BLP overrides all of those concerns. Lampman (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles which describe events occurring in the lives of living persons are not, ipso facto, biographies of the people in question (though any information that they contain concerning living people is, of course, subject to the requirements of our biographies of living persons policy). It is quite possible to have descriptions of controversies relating to living people consistent with our biographies of living persons policy, provided that the events are notable, and the articles are well-sourced and written in a fair and balanced manner.  Indeed, our article concerning a controversy in the life of a political figure on the opposite end of the liberal/conservative spectrum, John Edwards extramarital affair, was recently retained at AFD.  If you still have concerns regarding this AFD closure, please raise the matter at deletion review. John254 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello John254.

I would like to thank you for helping out. I should notify you of 203.10.121.81—that IP has a terrible history of vandalism.

He/she recently used the IP talk page abusively, so if you see something that looks fishy, don't take any chances. Thanks again! ~ Troy (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hi there. Thanks for giving User:Tomcat4680 a warning about his personal attack against me on my talk page. I have, however, reinstated the actual attack on my page, as I believe that it will help to make an example of him, and the comment will eventually be archived. – PeeJay 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

i lol'd
This made tea shoot out my nose. Thanks! :-) --Stormie (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you
, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse  for nominating me and  Wizardman  for co-nominating me. &mdash;  JGHowes talk  -  19 August 2008

New Great Game AfD
I think you should know one of the editors who argued so vigorously against the New Cold War article is now trying to do the same thing the New Great Game on AfD--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sonny Moore AfD
Someone tampered with this AfD, removing my !vote. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  12:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restored your comment. However, I maintain the tenor of my AFD closure, as there was clearly no consensus for redirection, an action which is primarily editorial in character, and is performed as a result of an AFD discussion only where there is an obvious consensus for such a result. John254 14:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Articles for deletion/C9orf3
You closed this AfD very early with no explanation other than 'keep'. Given there was hardly consensus (one delete / two keep votes if you include my nomination) this, at least at first glance, seems an entirely out of process closure especially as IMO no good reason for keeping was given. One arguement was just 'notable gene' with no reason given at all while the other basically said it was a human gene cited in peer reviewed literature so was notable. If that's the case are we to eventually have articles on all 20,000 human genes and I've no idea how many other genes from other species. Wikipedia is not a directory and to me this sort of information would be better staying in the specialist databases with only those genes which are notable in a wider sense having articles on wikipedia. Hence the reason I took this to AfD. If there was some precedent for your closure than could you please point me in that direction and can I suggest that in future you put such precedent in your close statement so people understand why your closing. If there is no applicable precedent then I will take this to deletion review. Can I also suggest you look at WP:DPR which says suggests non-admins state as much when closing AfDs. Personally I also think that closing a discussion after less than a day with only two keep votes falls into the "controversial decisions category" and so should be left to an administrator, although I accpet this is open to interpretation. Dpmuk (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The explanation for the speedy closure of the AFD discussion is that your claim that the gene was non-notable because you "Could find no references outside scientific literature" is directly contrary to our general notability guideline, which expressly provides that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."Reliable_sources clearly states that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science..."Thus, your argument that subjects which have received no coverage "outside [of] scientific literature" are non-notable is directly contrary to policy, which provides that significant coverage in scientific literature establishes a presumption of notability. Your argument is also unsupported by practice on Wikipedia -- claims that subjects which meet the general notability guideline still aren't "notable in a wider sense" are almost never levied against math, natural science, engineering, and social science articles.  Given the serious deficiencies in your AFD nomination, speedy closure is in no sense "controversial", but merely amounts to the removal of a highly inappropriate AFD listing.  You are strongly advised to refrain from further AFD nominations of this nature, as such nominations may be considered disruptive, and may result in your account being blocked. John254 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that the sources were unreliable - they're very clearly reliable. I just don't think they justify notability.  The general notability guideline you quote also states that sources should be secondary.  WP:PRIMARY states that "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" are primary sources and as the references in the article appear all of this sort I do not think it is as clear-cut as you make out.  Further unless there has been a prior discussion of including such a gene at an AfD I also think at least AfD needs to run it's course to ensure that this is not an exception to the general notability guideline - especially given the number of articles this will create.  I can only take you word for it that caims that articles aren't '"notable in a wider sense" are almost never levied against math, natural science, engineering, and social science articles' but a) almost isn't always and b) this would seem to be a case where it may be given how unnotable many of these genes will be to even many of those working in the field.  I also think threatening me with a ban is very uncivil given that I just asked why you'd closed the AfD early, gave my reasons why I thought this was inappropiate (which I still do) and suggested how you could've have avoided me having to ask the question. Dpmuk (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Studies published in peer-reviewed scientific literature are quite clearly secondary sources, as defined by No_original_research, since they include not only the raw experimental data sets, but also interpretation, and conclusions, which constitute "analytic or synthetic claims". "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" means just what it says -- it refers to material self-published by researchers, not research published in peer-reviewed journals. Since you have obviously read the relevant policy, the fact that you have described studies published in peer-reviewed journals as primary sources strongly suggests that you have not actually read the studies cited in the article, or that you are deliberately misrepresenting the policy. It is quite disruptive to bring an article to AFD on poor sourcing grounds without reading the sources, or on the basis of a gross misrepresentation of policy.  I stand by my claim that you will be banned if you continue to disrupt the AFD process. John254 04:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also inappropriate to bring articles to AFD on the basis of subjective assertions of their unimportance, even where they clearly meet the requirements of our notability guideline. That's just my opinion, of course.  In the case of science articles, though, its actually practice.  Some editors abhor current events, but we don't hate science.  This claim cannot be proven through AFD outcomes, but rather their absence: nominations such as yours seeking to remove notable scientific content are almost unheard of. You could further verify this claim by means of a breaching experiment, namely, by nomination of articles many such as Technicolor (physics) for deletion on the grounds of having received no coverage "outside [of] scientific literature", and noting how quickly your account is blocked (which I would regard as a felicitous outcome). John254 04:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for C9orf3
An editor has asked for a deletion review of C9orf3. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dpmuk (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please consider
Please consider removing or refactoring your comment on today's DRV regarding Epistemic theory of miracles, as it is not related to the discussion at hand. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully decline, since you first raised the issue. My comment is necessary to provide context for your statement. John254 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept your decision. I appreciate that we have differences of opinion, but comments like this aren't helpful either. Please consider removing that comment, noting Stormie's reply.
 * Thank you for this. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be a bit more civil
I accept we obviously have a major difference of opinion on the notability of human genes and it looks like you are going to be correct in your conjecture that wikipedians will think they're notable - I am willing to withdraw my nomination if keeps continue to acculmulate after the statement I made as I feel a consensus will have been reached. I also accept that you have a right to make comments and have no problem with this. I do however have a problem with some parts of your comments that come close to attacking me personally rather than just saying why you disagree. Comments I'm particularly unhappy with are:

From your talk page: From the DRV: From the AfD:
 * "You are strongly advised to refrain from further AFD nominations of this nature, as such nominations may be considered disruptive, and may result in your account being blocked." I'd expalined why I listed it and I accept that you did not agree with the rationalle.  However there was no need need to threaten me with a block.  The fact that it was re-opened at DRV after your early closure strongly suggests that you were also hasty in calling it "disruptive" as if others had believed this was the case a 'speedy close' woudl have been entirely appropiate.
 * "I stand by my claim that you will be banned if you continue to disrupt the AFD process." Threatening me again purely because you disagree with my reasoning.
 * "and noting how quickly your account is blocked (which I would regard as a felicitous outcome)". And again.
 * "or that he has deliberately misrepresented the policy." This is distinctly not assuming good faith.  I may have intpretted the policy differently to you, I may have even mis-interpetted it based on common consensus but this is no reason to accuse me of delibrately misrepresnting a policy.
 * "It is quite disruptive to bring an article to AFD on poor sourcing grounds without reading the sources, or on the basis of a gross misrepresentation of policy." Again not assuming good faith.  I had read the sources and I wasn't bringing at on the basis of "a gross misrepresentation of policy."  I accept that in my original nomination I made a mistake not to state that I thought that genes should possibly be an exception to the rule but there was no need to continue making this accusation after I had expalined my reasoning on your talk page simply because you disagreed with my reasoning.
 * "(though, of course, we shouldn't decimate well-referenced, informative coverage of this subject simply because the nominator deems the articles to be unimportant, or fears that we might have too many of them". I never said it should be deleted just because of my views and I knew this would only hapen after consensus.  This line was unneccessarily sarcastic.
 * "because the nominator fails to appreciate their importance isn't common sense -- it's common nonsense". Up to this point I was pleasently surprised by your comment as it was a well argued comment that did not atatck me.  However this comment, accusing me of "writing common nonsense" was an unneccessary attack, you'd made your point perfectly well without this.

Many of your arguements are good and well thought out and although I disagree with some of them I accept your points and think it's a useful contribution to the discussion. However you ruin this be making comments like the above which IMO are uncivil. From your talk page comments it would appear that I'm not the only person who has concerns about how you say things (although rarely with the arguements themselves) so I'd ask in future that you consider more carefully what you write so as not unneccessarily alienate other users. I'd also appreciate an apology for the above. Dpmuk (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If warning users that their accounts may be blocked if they continue to engage in policy violations is uncivil, then you have been quintuply uncivil    . Since these "block threats" were effectuated by the highly impersonal means of template warnings, they surely outweigh anything I said in response to your AFD nomination.  If you want users to assume good faith towards your contributions, then you shouldn't bring nominations like this to AFD again. To quote the last user who participated in the AFD discussion,"I find it hard to understand how someone could even consider nominating for deletion a page about a gene which has multiple references in the scientific literature and codes for a protein with a defined and important function in the body!"John254 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Damh the bard
An article that you have been involved in editing, Damh the bard, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Damh the bard. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? 72.75.98.105 (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Eabhai
It's wonderful you've decided to keep them, but traditionally one is supposed to remove all the deletion notices off the articles. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. John254 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Community Living Ontario
An article that you have been involved in editing, Community Living Ontario, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Community Living Ontario (2nd nomination). Thank you. Eastmain (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please come back
We miss your tireless reversion of vandalism, the insightful research reflected in Use of biotechnology in pharmaceutical manufacturing, the deep understanding of cosmology shown in your edits to Sean M. Carroll, and your scrupulously fair AFD and FPC closures. Wikipedia would do well to attract more such highly skilled and dedicated editors :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It should come as no surprise that I have high praise for your contributions as well, particularly to Experimental cancer treatment .  Knowing that there may soon be a treatment of considerably greater efficacy and safety than the highly toxic chemicals of chemotherapy should bring hope to the lives of many cancer patients.  I also see that you're helping to ensure that we aren't giving excessive weight to fringe theories like Covert incest that would be laughed out of any credible peer-reviewed journal.  Don't worry, here comes the cavalry. John254 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for rescuing me from Krimpet's block. You're a kind, sweet man :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've long opposed blocking users on the basis of secret evidence and wild accusations, as seen in the User:!! debacle  .  Please don't leave like User:!! did, however -- we have many more articles that would benefit from your delicate touch. John254 00:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting that evil vandalism on my talk page so...



Wikisaver62 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks again. Wikisaver62 (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That was satire
Read 1984 (book) 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the allusion. However, making joke edits, not attributed as your own comments, but presented as summaries of actual news reporting or other sources, is considered to be vandalism.  This isn't Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica. John254 03:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tripping over each other
Seems like we were tripping over each other at Ojibwa. You've figured it out first where it needed to be reverted to. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration workshop
Saw your reply to Bastique. Your comments look as if you might be unaware of the full context, so dropping by to inform you that Bastique = Cary Bass = Volunteer Coordinator of the Wikimedia Foundation. He oversees OTRS. Respectfully, Durova Charge! 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Afd-mergeto
Hello! I included the wording in question when I created the template, and I'm also the one who speedily closed Ipatrol's previous deletion nomination of Maja Einstein as premature.

Any article tagged with the template has been nominated for deletion and failed to achieve consensus that it should remain a separate article, so if it sticks around for a while, it's likely to be re-nominated for whatever reason it was nominated in the first place. The wording is intended to serve as a warning of that, not as a deletion rationale in and of itself. In the three years that the template has existed, I don't recall anyone other than Ipatrol arriving at the latter (mis)interpretation. I've left a note on his/her talk page. Had I realized at the time that the previous deletion nomination was based purely on the lack of a prompt merger (and not on the belief that the article should be deleted), I would have done so back then. Cheers! —David Levy 06:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tab
When I try to use the speedy delete tab, I'm getting a "404 not found" error :( Could you fix my javascript? Thanks :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. John254 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I hope there are no hard feelings about our disagreement on Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop. I appreciate the courage you've shown in enforcing WP:BLP, and that your enthusiasm in this regard might lead you to propose a remedy far more severe than most editors would regard as correct :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * None at all. Even if I disagreed with one of your proposals, your commentary was thoughtful and inspiring.  We need more editors who have your understanding of what is at stake in enforcing the biographies of living persons policy. John254 23:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of edit to external carotid artery
I am sorry for my edit which you classed as vandalism, but I would like to take this opportunity point out that the edit I made was not done with malicious intent and was made in good faith. I wrote a mnemonic for remembering the various branches of the external carotid artery in ascending order, I felt this was more accurate than the old mnemonic already listed and would be of use to the users of Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to read this. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.207.165 (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not reading the edit more carefully, since the addition of profanity to apparently unrelated science articles is almost always vandalism. I have reversed the rollback of your edit. John254 01:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You John 254 for reinstating my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.207.165 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Norberto Araujo
Hi I notice that you reverted an edit which removed content from the Norberto Araujo article. What you restored included "which means shemale in ecaudorian due to his bisexuality" which is absolutelu untrue. I think this is what the IP editor took offence to in the first place. King of the North   East  21:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have read the edit more carefully. However, blanking large portions of acceptable content, and replacing it with vandalism, wasn't exactly the best way to remove the offending content from the article. John254 22:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning to stop harassment and outing of editors in any capacity
Per which was smartly blanked by Durova, and at her sole discretion being in her userspace:

I already have in the past mailed Oversight and Oversighters to get offensive material about other editors removed; I know what side of things I stand on now contrary to what any small group of people still may or may not think (which doesn't matter to me, anyway).

It's the persistent efforts to get Cirt's histories undeleted, which the Arbs have now four times shot down is the problem, and the behavior. I hate to accuse anyone of anything so terrible, I really do, and I will not say it again if you agree to drop it. But I just want you to know that if you go again to try to get his histories undeleted, when arbs have--again--four times shut it down, I will ask that you be barred from doing anything with Cirt till that RFAR closes.

The Arbs have now four times said no to that, so to continue it anymore as an argument is at the very least unhelpful, in the median harassment, and at the long end encouragement of outing. Knock it off, or I stand by my comment that I will post a motion (if you do it again) to have you stopped. I don't want to do that; I want nothing to do with that vile bullying case anymore, but I won't let a good content contributor get driven off with harassment. You didn't even have any involvement with Cirt that I can see, so your behavior to be honest is head scratching, as you arrived seemingly out of thin air like a scourge on this editor.

Please stop hounding Cirt about their deleted history, which has been endorsed by the Arbitration Committee, before the decision to stop doing so is no longer your own to make. rootology ( C )( T ) 04:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your threats seriously underestimate my editorial courage. John254 04:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It's no threat, it's a promise to do by what I believe is the right thing to do. Giving your diligent research on Cirt, I'd assume you've done the same with me, and know for a fact I'll post that motion if you go after Cirt's histories again via some other process. Please just stop. My last word on this topic, on this page. If you want to roll the dice, I can't stop you, but think about the other human beings involved. Wikipedia isn't some game to win. Give up the ego. rootology ( C )( T ) 04:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When an editor creates a user subpage to present evidence to the Arbitration Committee, surely they should not be able to censor commentary on their own evidence by exercise of the "userspace privilege", especially if they allow other users' comments to stand. Since Cirt has conceded the identity of his prior accounts in Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop, any discussion thereof hardly constitutes "outing".  As Durova's contentions regarding the talk page histories of Cirt's prior accounts are the subject of legitimate commentary, and since she and you assert the "userspace privilege" against the posting of any critique on the talk page for her evidence, I have reposted the comment on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. You are, of course, welcome to request that I be blocked for daring to discuss the matter. John254 04:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

John, you are entitled to your opinion about Cirt. But this poking around the margins of his privacy is inappropriate. Please do not edit war. Several of the arbitrators have spoken, all with one voice. Durova Charge! 04:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's absurd to believe that the proposed user talk restorations were "poking around the margins of his privacy", but that neither you nor Cirt were actually willing to expressly state "these userpages must remain deleted for privacy/security reasons", perhaps because it quite simply isn't true. In that case, please stop making insinuations to the same effect. John254 05:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * John, when I cited WP:POINT you called it a threat. An arbitrator later repeated the same policy as descriptive of your behavior.  You have made it very clear that you are unhappy with the decisions, but other people determine how appropriate those decisions are.  And neither I nor Cirt answer to you.  Durova Charge! 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is surely not an appropriate forum in which to misrepresent my comments. My comment was"If these talk pages needed to remain deleted due to privacy concerns, you would presumably be willing to state as much explicitly, and take full responsibility for the statement if it proved to be false. Of course, that's not what's going on here. These are the community's user talk pages; as the Arbitration Committee has not ordered that they remain deleted, the community may decide to restore them for the purpose of preserving a record of communications. Your threat which states: 'Please withdraw the nomination; I wouldn't want a formal complaint to result.' does not alter this situation."made in response to this.  My characterization of your comment as a "threat" was clearly made in reference to your exhortation "Please withdraw the nomination; I wouldn't want a formal complaint to result.", and not with respect to your citation of WP:POINT.  Furthermore, just as surely as "neither... [you] nor Cirt answer" to me, I don't answer to you. John254 05:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you answer to the Arbitration Committee? They've told you FOUR times to stop.
 * What is your stake here? Disclose if you have any dealings with Cirt on another or previous username, or if someone has canvassed you to do this? It simply makes no sense that someone with no involvement suddenly arrives like a knight on a horse to try repeatedly to impale Cirt with some lance. In any event, if you drop it, I will drop. And so one misconstrues my thread title:
 * I officially warned you about harassment and outing of Cirt. rootology ( C )( T ) 06:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

John, you may blank other people's posts from your talk page but it is inappropriate to alter them. People have been blocked for changing section headers started by other editors, and shifting a valid warning by a triple crown recipient into an advertisement of his old block log is not a good move. Things have been heated this evening, so let's shake hands and agree to disagree. Durova Charge! 06:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Referred for neutral administrator review
John254, sorry--I've referred this over to ANI here, because I think this is getting out of hand, and I'm concerned you're starting to cross some policy boundaries. Sorry, man. rootology ( C )( T ) 06:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

John254, outing is not allowed, ever. What you think has gone by in a user's contrib history has no sway at all on this. Moreover, it's clear that at least half a dozen editors/admins/arbitrators don't agree with you. Your behaviour has strayed into harassment and edit warring, for which you could be blocked. Please stop. If you have a content dispute, the only way to meaningfully get through that is to talk about reliable sources on the article talk page (and even then you might not get your way, but it's the only way you'll be able to nudge the content). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To review, the term "outing" on Wikipedia refers to "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct)... unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves." (from Harassment). Nothing of that nature occurred here.  Since the matter was expressly opened to discussion in Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop, mentioning Cirt's prior accounts cannot even conceivably constitute "outing".  Moreover, since neither Durova nor Cirt were willing to expressly state that "the user talk page of Cirt's prior accounts must remain deleted for privacy/security reasons", it would take a great stretch of the policy to nonetheless conclude that this is actually the case, and that, therefore, a request to restore the user talk pages constitutes a request for "outing".  In this context, Rootology's repeated accusations of "outing"    serve as nothing but personal attacks, of which he has a significant history. Your comment "If you have a content dispute, the only way to meaningfully get through that is to talk about reliable sources on the article talk page..." suggests a lack of thorough investigation of this matter, since there is no specific article in dispute. John254 15:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It's time to drop your effort to have Cirt's old userpages undeleted. Mr. Darcy talk 13:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The pages in question here are not user pages, but rather user talk pages, which are generally not deleted upon request, since they serve as a record of communications. If we did ordinarily grant such requests, I could, for instance, have the plethora of "warnings" on my talk page concerning this matter removed from the page history, which I doubt that the editors issuing the "warnings" actually want. It's unfortunate that the removal of the talk pages of Cirt's prior accounts has been supported entirely through insinuation and innuendo, thereby avoiding any expressly claims along the lines of "the user talk page of Cirt's prior accounts must remain deleted for privacy/security reasons", for which the editors making them could actually be sanctioned if they proved untruthful. John254 15:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Retract your personal attack that I have "significant history" of personal attacks, which is an outright lie. Two blocks two years ago is not a "significant history" and stop harassing one of our best feature writers. Did you ever stop to consider that their personal history on those talk pages is deleted explicitly for reasons that the AC may not be in a position to disclose, possibly including Oversight? You need to drop it before you are made to stop. rootology ( C )( T ) 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When a user is blocked indefinitely for personal attacks, and remains in this state for nearly two years, this surely constitutes a "significant history". Further details of your behavior with sockpuppet accounts subsequent to being blocked indefinitely is provided at Special:Undelete/User:Rootology.  If the relevant user talk pages were "deleted explicitly for reasons that the AC may not be in a position to disclose", then the Arbitration Committee would have issued an order forbidding their restoration, being one of the few entities on Wikipedia privileged to act on the basis of secret evidence. I'm sure that if I somehow managed to have this absurd discussion of "outing" removed from my talk page on the basis of insinuations, you would be the first editor to list my talk page at deletion review. John254 15:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I was blocked for not-two years because I simply never chose to ask to be unblocked, because the moon, the sun, and the stars do not revolve around Wikipedia and I have actual interests, activities, and a social life beyond the Internets. When I saw that things were finally changing for the better, and I asked for an unblock. You can conflate my own history however, you like, provided you do not exaggerate or lie, both of which are violations. As for Cirt, just leave the poor guy alone. You have NO involvement in this and are just kicking now to prove some nascent point that frankly no one cares about. Why do this? What do YOU have to gain? As for your page on DRV, I could care less if it were deleted. rootology ( C )( T ) 15:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

last warning
This is your last warning John254. If you don't stop this harassment, whether you agree or not that what you're doing strays from WP:Outing and WP:Disruption, I'll block you for two weeks. Please stop, since I don't want to do this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see our informative article about the logical fallacy of appeal to force. John254 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * John254, I'm not a prelate hovering about with a coercive threat to drown your life in dogma. On en:wikipedia I'm little more than a janitor, ready to wield my mop, which is nothing more than a technical permissions bit on a website. If you carry on with this harassment, I'll stop the harassment by blocking you from editing on this website. Meanwhile Rootology's user history has aught to do with anything (linked with your behaviour). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute the contention that I engaged in any harassment. However, treating any substantive response to the accusation as harassment itself essentially silences one side of the discussion.  Matters would certainly appear more favorable to my position if I were permitted to defend it. John254 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, whether you agree or not, you've been warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)