User talk:John254/Archive 3

OK
OK, you're probably right, so I deleted it. Yeah on consideration I guess it would be too encouraging to him to let any material by him stay. Herostratus 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

RPG Maker
Just wanted to let you know I didnt add that POV statement in RPG Maker. I had reverted to remove it, but I didnt revert far enough back. You would have realized this if you viewed the history. its the vandalism that I stated I was attempting to remove in that edit.

DrChatterjee
Thanks for notifying me about the checkuser case. However, I don't think that diminishes the arguments, and in a sense, I think it actually strengthens them. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 21:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in engaging in speculation as to the user's intentions in placing CVU on MfD. As I said before, I do think that the arguments he has made are persuasive. That persuasion has not relied on any credibility I attributed to the user. I think it is clear that CVU with its present name, style, and branding is acting as a vandal magnet and inflicting significant collateral damage. The claims that it provides an important resource over and above VAND and CUV have not persuaded me. I doubt I will have anything further to add to the MfD discussion. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverting banned edits
The problem with this is that it totally guts conversations. In effect, it is somewhat like deleting the whole conversation, including comments by users who were not banned; they are responding to no one. Banning policy says that edits may be reverted, not that they must be. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you continuing to remove these edits without discussing this totally reasonable objection to it? The reason I reverted your removals is because it is often difficult to do a proper revert after subsequent edits have been made to this page (in retrospect, this would not have been necessary for the closed MfD). Do not continue to make edits for which there is an objection and no established consensus in favor. I know Banning policy quite well and it is nonsensical, and frankly uncivil, of you to imply that I am editing at the direction of a banned user as a proxy, when I am simply reverting edits for the reason I have given above. Do not continue to remove these comments without further discussion. Do not make wild accusations. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

n.b. To quote from Banning_policy "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.  Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." Since User:Dr Chatterjee's policy-related comments were made in a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by weakening its defenses against vandalism, removing them is not only consistent with policy, it's the right thing to do. John254 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have put an archived debate notices where appropriate and archived the CVU talk page, which should alleviate the concerns you had of people continuing to debate dead issues, and also archives several others of the comments that were intermingled throughout the page which had never been removed. I also removed various freestanding sections initiated by the sock that had no substantial comments by other users. You are of course free to remove such free standing comments that aren't associated with any other user's comments, but generally it is not a productive use of time. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues with Category:Articles with unsourced statements
How dare you close a debate prematurely and deprive me of my right to vote? Category:Articles with unsourced statements was deleted by a large majority, but a clique restored it. You obviuosly think that people who disagree with you have less right to an opinion than you have yourself. Casper Claiborne 11:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * n.b. Please my posting to the administrator's noticeboard about this issue. John254 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Richardson
Hey John254 -- thanks for quickly reverting the recent vandalism on the Richardson, Texas page. Much appreciated... --nathanbeach  22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry about past remarks about you and Politician818 and seeing that he got blocked for all the things he said I hope you accept my apology. --The Sess 19:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Process is Important
You added: ''However, some editors give a narrow construction to Ignore all rules, and claim that process should be adhered to unless there is a compelling justification for ignoring all rules. It is said that the repeated deletion and undeletion of this essay which began with a speedy deletion demonstrates the need to follow appropriate processes in most cases.''

This doesn't make sense to me. Speedy deletion is performed hundreds of times every day. --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

proposed
That was two and a half years ago. The wiki evolves, and we strongly recommend against voting on any proposal these days.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, no. The issue is one of educating new users that they should use consensual discussion as a strong preference over voting. The reason why this is important, is that it comes up exceedingly often, and novice editors tend to jump to the wrong conclusion. WP:NOT a bureaucracy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems you're jumping to some wrong conclusions here. WP:DENY is not a good example (note how I am addressing the objections on its talk page, and how this cools down the war; voting would only polarize it further, and you'd get discussions on how long the vote would last, what suffrage is, and which % is required to accept, and more bureaucratic overhead). We have hundreds of proposals all over the wiki. I'd recommend you to read through some of the things in CAT:PRO and CAT:REJ to see how Wikipedia works and does not work with proposals. Some more recommended reading material includes WP:3P, WP:POL and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Polling is a part of wikipedia, please don't let Radient convince you otherwise. It is a tool, and it should be used properly - in a way that doesn't polarize arguments. But as a tool, its very useful and is a prime way to gauge consensus - without it, one would have to be deeply apart of the discussion to even get an inkling of what consensus might be. Fresheneesz 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
VIE has absolutely nothing to do with the CVU. Neither MFD nor DRV are, nor have ever been, a vote, and for the overriding principle of the closing admin to delete CVU you'd have to ask him, but it had nothing to do with VIE. Kindly stop panic mongering, you are making a mountain out of the proverbial mole hill. Radiant! 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a perhaps more serious warning on the same subject. Please stop aggressive campaigning on this.  Leave Wikipedia's normal consensus-building mechanisms to work.  --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is an accepted and common practice to post information about ongoing discussions on project pages in boldface type -- for example, see, as well as the many other postings about ongoing AFD discussions accessible from the page history of WikiProject Inclusion. It does not appear that administrators have removed these postings, or that members of WikiProject Inclusion have been warned to refrain from such postings -- despite the fact that WikiProject Inclusion is explicitly partisan as to the preferred outcome of AFD discussions. John254 04:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi. I'd like to thank you for reverting vandalism on my userpage. (It's kinda my thing to thank somone any time they do that =D ) You shouldn't get too interested in it, as the Taracka thing is pretty lame, and User:Deskana already has it under control. Thanks again!-- Koji Dude  (viva la BAM!) 19:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

>>>Same here. Thanks for protecting my user page.Plasticbadge 00:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

>>> Same here. Thanks for reverting the nasty POV stuff in the Deism article. StephenFerg 23:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW
Just so you know, the warning you gave to 88.108.41.5 ,that wasn't vandalism, because It was me, I just forgot to login in. Oliver202 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, John254! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk  15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a bureaucracy
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and does not have a strictly formalized system for creating guidelines, or indeed most other things. As such, kindly stop opposing progress (or documenting current affairs) for purely formalistic reasons. If you have an opinion, it will be heard; if your only argument is that process isn't followed, you're not really contributing to the conversation (see also WP:CCC, WP:POL and WP:PPP; please do read up, because you appear to be misinformed about how several parts of Wikipedia function).

Please note that several guidelines document the status quo; if some people don't like that status quo, they are free to make a counterproposal, but that doesn't make the guideline any less of a guideline or any less consensual (until and unless the proposal manages to actually change the status quo). Thus, you are free to make a proposal for a more formalized way of doing things (in fact, the French Wikipedia has one, which includes actual voting) but until such a proposal passes, bureaucracy does not prevail.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm sure that if we discuss a bit more we can make the children's privacy issue a workable guideline.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

sampson nanton controversy
in the sampson nanton, i saw that you removed the controversy section. this information is accurate, although negative, and is the subject of an immense uproar in my country.Crushtheturtle 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The information may well be accurate, but it cannot be added to a Wikipedia article without a credible source. Actually, all information in Wikipedia articles should be referenced, as described in Verifiability.  However, unreferenced negative biographical information about living people is heavily disfavored by Verifiability:"Biographies of living people need special care because biographies containing unsourced material might negatively affect someone's life and could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism, and do not move it to the talk page." John254 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * so if it is reported, and i can provide a link to the source for reference, then can it be posted? i just want to be clear. Crushtheturtle 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. John254 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)