User talk:JohnFlaherty

<> Who ? &iquest; ? 4 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

BCE is generally the used terms on Jewish-oriented pages, and the general understanding is not to mess with existing pages. If you have been following the history of the Chanuka page, you'll see that the BCE style has been generally adopted. The Wikipedia approach is either style is acceptable. In addition, you left the page in an incomplete state, some in BC and some in BCE, which seems wrong Mjchonoles 08:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And a good holiday to you and yours Mjchonoles 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

BCBCEADCE
Hi, John. My personal opinion is that articles about Jesus Christ should use BC/AD. I have found, however, that there are a lot of people that feel it should be BCE/CE. I don't pretend to understand it, but calm and rational (yet unrelenting) discussion seems to work best. Please stop by Eras. There's a good discussion going on right now. Just be advised that it's not a vote. It's more of a discussion with the goal of a consensus. Noble, but probably futile, in my opinion.

BTW, if you type ~ after yor messages, it will automatically insert a link to you page (with your user name). --Elliskev 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your message to Will Beback
Hi, if you want to send a message to someone, please use that person's talk page, not his or her user page. You can find the talk page by going to the user page and then clicking "discussion" a the top. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 11:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

stalin death toll
We need to post the correct total, not an average of numbers that can't be explained.--Woogie10w 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Ann Applebaum’s book ‘Gulag’ has an informative appendix on the death toll--Woogie10w 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC) The official Soviet data lists 2.5 million Stalin era dead. But this does not include summary executions, deportations or collectivization deaths. Ann Applebaum’s book ‘Gulag’ has brief but informative appendix on this topic. We need to tell the facts without any weasel words and BS. Explain that 2.5 million is the official total but that Ann Applebaum who won the Pulitzer prize for her book on the Gulag does not accept it as being credible.--Woogie10w 01:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to tell the facts without any weasel words and BS means we list the facts and clearly cite the sources. Example 1- " Official Soviet sources list 2.7 million repression deaths" and cite Ann Applebaums book Gulag Page 583. Example 2- The official statistics are not accepted as the final word on the subject because the following deaths are excluded: A. Summary Executions, B. Deportation deaths, C. Deaths in transit to the Gulag, D. Persons released from the Gulag on the verge of death due to the harsh conditions E. Famine deaths in 1933. Cite the Pulitzer Prize winning author Ann Applebaum's book Gulag pages 578-586, her book is highly acclaimed and easy to obtain. Example 3 - Mention the controversy regarding the statistics and have a link to the the atricles which is now Nr 10 in the Stalin article. The current Death Toll section is a blast of nonsense and doubletalk, in other words weasel words and BS.


 * I would like to see the details of the number Gato wants to post and if he can back it up.--Woogie10w 12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The data that can be confirmed is as follows 800,000 executions, 1.9 million Gulag-prison deaths and 7 million excess deaths in 1933 during the famine. Erlikman gives an estimate of additional deaths that are: Summary Executions 700,000; Deportations 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; deaths in Gulag from 1922-29 700,000: additional deaths in Gulag not counted in official statistics 2.4 million, deaths of POWs and Germnan civilians 1 million, add the 2 million dead in the Revolution and you come up to 18 million which is darned close to the 20 million cited in the Black Book of Communism.--Woogie10w 14:41, 11 June 2006

(UTC)

John, send me an E mail on Yahoo and I will send the Excel spreadsheet tonight when I get home, it has over 1,000 rows and about 12 columns--Woogie10w 12:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

==== I saw your comments on Paul Robeson and although you are not threatening to initiate legal action, calling another user's comments "libel" and mentioning a campaign against them borders very closely and would not be looked upon kindly. I must emphasize that I agree with you totally about his comments and I simply do not wish to see you go over the top and be blocked for any such thing - which edit/POV warriors often rely upon to rid them of enemies. Please read WP:LEGAL. Thanks. --TJive 04:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From the policy:


 * Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action.... [Emphasis mine.]


 * Though I believe the article is referring to articles, as opposed to users in this instance, accusations of racism, though I agree they are false, harmful, intemperate, unjustifiable, and unproductive in this instance, fall under this description. What you should be citing is WP:NPA, which his comment clearly violates.  Accusations of libel can be starting grounds for pulling out WP:LEGAL, so I am simply advising you to be cautious.  --TJive 04:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am saying that labeling people "racist" and such are what are here referred to as "personal attacks", which violate policy - again, see WP:NPA. It is not good to even use language such as "libel" in reference to another user's behavior as comments which can be construed as legal threats are often used to cite WP:LEGAL and get the user in question blocked on those grounds.  I am not saying you have violated a policy, but you are close to giving the impression of a comment which could get you in trouble, so I'd advise you watch your language.  Welcome to Wikispeak.  --TJive 04:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just be aware that how you object matters, no matter how bad the problem is. --TJive 04:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wars and disasters page
I've posted a quick reply to you on the wars and disasters page, should you care to read it. I can probably produce references to support my arguments should you require them. Gatoclass 10:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm the one who's prompted the move to get the page unprotected. You could be right in predicting mayhem on the page. However, what I'm aiming to do is downgrade the unverified entries to reduce the POV and some of the blatant fiction. I know I won't succeed, but the result will certainly be better than the current fiasco. I wish both parties good luck and good grace in sorting out the Stalin/Hitler stuff. --Dweller 00:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where
Did you disappear to? --TJive 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Was asking because I intend to do some work on Stalin and previously helpful and existing observers are needed. --TJive 13:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?
Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
 * A1. Benjamin Cardozo
 * A2. Learned Hand
 * B1. John Marshall Harlan
 * B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman Featured article review
I have nominated William Tecumseh Sherman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)